February 2008 Archives

"What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?"

h/t Mark Hall

Update: It seems that the Obama campaign has made this video a private video for some reason. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of it. I'll do an update when/if I learn more.

Update 2: It wasn't on YouTube, but I found a copy. This is the first video from a provider other than YouTube that I'm embedding into my vodpod collection, which is kind of cool if you're a geek like me.

This ad reminds of me of something that James Carville used to say: speed kills.

If Obama responds to the Republicans as quickly and effectively as he responds to Clinton, we could win a landslide this fall.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller now with Obama.

Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Obama's position on the Iraq war in 2002 was partially behind his decision to support the Illinois senator.

This is a great response to Hillary's lame new scare-mongering ad about terrorism and national security:

Senator Clinton already had her red phone moment -- to decide whether to allow George Bush to invade Iraq.

Her ad really does seem like something to come out of the Republican fear machine. Then again, ripping off right-wing war propaganda is nothing new for Hillary Clinton.

Hilarious! Rep. Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, tried to smear Barack Obama for not wearing a flag lapel pin -- but he wasn't wearing one himself! MSNBC's Dan Abrams totally humiliated Kingston. It's an awesome sight to behold.

This is a sneak preview of what the campaign is going to be like this fall. I like our chances.

CNN poses a chilling question: if Americans elect Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, will the military's top officials let us end the Iraq war?

According to the report, generals say they are preparing to fight a withdrawal plan in 2009 just like they fought against allowing gays in the military in 1993.

One general warned of the political damage that battle inflicted on Bill Clinton during his first year in office. According to CNN, retired Lt. Gen. Daniel Christman put a stake in the ground:

The next president of the United States, if it is a Democrat, is going to have to sit down with the generals and work this out.

This is a reminder of what's at stake in this election -- and why we need a president with unquestioned consistency on the question of Iraq. We're going to have a tough battle in 2009, and we need a president who has never wavered in his opposition to the war.

It's going to take a lot of strength to challenge the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about forty-seven years ago. Barack Obama has that strength.

It's funny how self-centered most politicians and (and journalists) journalists are. For example:

"Could I just point out that, in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time?" Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, said at last night's debate in Cleveland. "And I don't mind. You know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious. And if anybody saw 'Saturday Night Live,' you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow. I just find it kind of curious that I keep getting the first question on all of these issues, but I'm happy to answer it."

According to Fact Check Desk Associate Fact Checker Melissa Ruiz's research...overall in the last three debates, Clinton has been asked the first question in 23 rounds, Obama in 18.

So a minor disparity does exist, but...likely of not much relevance to the lives of the voters of Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont.

I think one of the things people like about Obama's campaign is that his approach isn't nearly self-centered.

I'm going to post direct links to YouTube here, but you can also play the videos through our new vodpod video gallery at the top of the page.

The truth about Hillary Clinton's Iraq war vote
After Tuesday's debate, Hillary Clinton responds to herself.

The truth about Barack Obama and the Iraq war
Barack Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start.

Enjoy!

This is one of the stupidest arguments of all time:

I am watching, with great disappointment, people whom I respect in the Congress who endorsed Hillary Clinton — I assume because she was the leader they felt could best represent the party and lead the country — now switching to Barack Obama with the excuse that their constituents have spoken.

I may be a cynic, but I’m a fairly knowledgeable political cynic. If Mr. Obama wins the nomination, those members are undoubtedly concerned that they would be inviting a primary challenge in their next re-election campaign by failing to support his candidacy.

Fine -- politicians might be switching positions to win votes. That's the freakin' point of democracy! Let the people decide!

There's nothing nefarious about a politician listening to his or her constituents. Good lord!

What does Ferraro want? A benevolent dictator?

(h/t: JayGR)

The guy who collaborated with me on the "shame on you mashup" found this cool entry in FilmMaker Magazine's blog.

Hillary Clinton's "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" outburst at the weekend has not only become a popular video on YouTube but, inevitably, spawned a mashup. Because of YouTube, people are now empowered to express themselves politically in a forum where the most intelligent voices will be seen and heard worldwide by millions. Pushed forward by figures such as Rx (who I have posted about a few times before), the political mashup has increasingly become one of the most vital and persuasive forms of political commentary.

The Clinton campaign's silly allegations inspired this video. To be clear, by any reasonable standard Hillary Clinton is not a plagiarist -- except by her own new rules.

Drew Hansen, a friend and an early Obama supporter (from the very start) has a great op-ed in the Houston Chronicle debunking the silliness surrounding Hillary "I'll be fine" Clinton's charges of plagiarism:

Politicians are not professional academics, and the strict plagiarism rules that apply to professors do not make sense when they're applied to orators. By the standards employed by some campaigns and commentators, not only would Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton be guilty of plagiarism, but so would Martin Luther King, Jr.

Drew recognizes that public figures often borrower lines and ideas from others, but demonstrates the absurdity of calling that plagiarism. Indeed, plagiarism by public officials is not nearly as well defined as it is for academics, so Drew offers three simple rules to help test whether or not something is plagiarism:

1. If it's transformative, it's not plagiarism.
   
2. If it's from a speechwriter or adviser, it's not plagiarism.
   
3. If it's from a widely known source, such as the Bible or the founding documents of America, it's not plagiarism.
   

Drew analyzes these rules through the prism of Martin Luther King, Jr. It's a good read -- check it out.

Barack Obama now has an average lead of 4.8% in public polls over John McCain. I've updated charts here.

Update, April 6, 2008: The Clinton campaign today announced that Mark Penn would take a less visible role within the campaign. Also, last week Charlie Black resigned from Penn's firm to go work for McCain full-time.

Let's say that the Democratic nomination battle had been winnowed down to two candidates, and that one of those two candidates (let's call him Barack Obama) was a huge favorite to win. Meanwhile, the GOP nominee has been all but decided. (We'll call him John McCain.)

Now let's imagine that Obama's opponent (we'll call her Hillary Clinton) was desperately slinging every piece of mud she could at him without regard to whether or not her attacks would help John McCain.

Finally, imagine that you found out that Clinton's chief strategist was not only her campaign's leading advocate for these attacks -- but was also the CEO of a public affairs firm whose DC-based lobbying subsidiary was headed up by John McCain's top adviser.

Would you say this posed at least the appearance of a conflict of interest for the strategist in question?

What would you think if you found out that it's all true?

Here's a video response to Clinton's derisive commentary today in Rhode Island:

From the creators of john.he.is:

Lately, I've been doing almost all of my blogging at ObamaIsWinning.com. I'm working on a way to integrate The Jed Report and my single-issue blogs and hopefully within a week or two, maybe sooner, I'll have that solution live. For now, the best way to track what I'm up to is over there.

Don't blame me -- blame kid oakland.

Updated video. View the original here.

This reminds me of Hillary Clinton's Bob Johnson moment in January when just days after "finding her own voice" in New Hampshire, she had Bob Johnson attack Barack Obama for him in South Carolina with things she didn't want to say herself.

Most of what Clinton says in this video is just flat-out false. I'm working on a new version of the video to reflect that. This is an updated video -- you can view the original one which does not have any newspaper clippings, here.

(h/t: jvc)

The always hilarious Las Vegas Gleaner:

we suspect the story of McCan't's amorous adventures was in fact planted by the McCan't campaign itself in a desperate effort to convince voters of the 189-year-old's vitality and virility. Tip off: Unlike the typical Republican sex scandal coming out of Washington, this one involves a member of the opposite sex.

ABC:

Clinton Camp Pushes O-Bomber Links: Ignores Her Own Radical Ties

The Hillary Clinton campaign pushed to reporters today stories about Barack Obama and his ties to former members of a radical domestic terrorist group -- but did not note that as president, Clinton's husband pardoned more than a dozen convicted violent radicals, including a member of the same group mentioned in the Obama stories.

(h/t: SmileySam)

It seems that many folks, mainstream pundits and bloggers alike, took Hillary Clinton's closing argument during last night's debate to mean that she's giving up. For example:

NBC: Clinton ended the debate on a VERY conciliatory note | The Nation: It sounded like a concession. | Marc Ambinder: she is thinking, already, about life as a Senator from New York supporting Barack Obama | NYT: [left viewers] suspecting that Senator Hillary Clinton was conceding the race.

Don't be fooled. Hillary Clinton is not giving up. In her closing comment, she gave people a reason to be for her instead of against Obama. For that, she is to be saluted. But she isn't conceding. Indeed, she is doubling down.

Now is not a time for Obama supporters to relax. It ain't over -- not by a long shot.

Here's some reasons why:

1. Hillary Clinton is continuing her fight to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations seated based on the results of their unsanctioned primaries in which no candidates campaigned. In Michigan, only Clinton was on the ballot. There should be a way for Michigan and Florida to have a say in the process, but you just can't use the results of an election that went uncontested. That's like Politburo rules.
2. Last night, Clinton dodged a question about whether or not superdelegates should overturn the judgment of voters. Her campaign continues to make the case that they should on its Delegate Hub website.
3. Despite Clinton's graceful closing speech, she still slammed Obama with the crude "Xerox" one-liner. She backed off after being booed by the audience, but on two separate occasions declined to defend Obama's fitness to be commander in chief.
4. A small group of her supporters are donating at least $100,000 each for a $10 million pro-Clinton advertising campaign in Ohio that likely violates the law.
   
5. Hillary Clinton went on all three network morning shows today. She said that her closing speech in the debate was not a "valedictory" of any sort.
6. On ABC, Clinton backed away from her husband's suggesting that if she didn't win Ohio and Texas, she couldn't win the nomination -- implicitly embracing the idea that superdelegates could overturn the judgment of voters.
7. In the same interview, Clinton highlighted the 2,025 delegates it would take to win the nomination in a convention floor fight, indicating that she rejects the idea that the nomination should go to the candidate who wins the magic number of 1,627 pledged delegates -- a majority of democratically selected delegates.
8. Clinton's campaign spokesman said her closing speech "showed women and men why she is the best choice."
9. The Clinton campaign is continuing to make the argument that Barack Obama is not ready to be commander in chief -- the exact same argument advanced by John McCain's campaign. Yesterday, Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, and Charlie Black, John McCain's top adviser, discussed the strategy in the Wall Street Journal. The interesting thing? In addition to his work on the Clinton campaign, Mark Penn is CEO of a public affairs firm whose DC-based lobbying subsidiary is headed by Charlie Black. (More here.)

So what does all this mean?

It means you should tell your friends and family in the states left to vote that they need to get to the polls and support Barack Obama. It means now is a good time volunteer for the campaign, if you have the time. It means now is a good time to make a contribution to thecampaign, if you can afford it.

Barack Obama is still winning this campaign -- but he hasn't won it yet.

On ABC's Good Morning America, Hillary Clinton seemed to back away from her husband's suggestion that if she doesn't win Ohio and Texas, she can't win the nomination.

In the process, Clinton again implicitly embraced the idea of superdelegates overturning the popular vote. In the event that she does lose either state, that's the only way she could win.

She explicitly referred to the 2,025 delegates needed to win a convention floor fight, indicating that she rejects the idea that the candidate who hits the magic number of 1,627 pledged delegates -- a majority of democratically selected delegates -- should become the nominee.

Over at Daily Kos, JedReport offers thoughts on the similarities between the attacks on Barack Obama leveled by the Clinton and McCain campaigns.

Could it have anything to do with the fact that Hillary Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn is CEO of a public affairs firm whose DC-based lobbying subsidiary is headed by John McCain's top adviser Charlie Black?

It's sort of amusing to read Clinton donors ripping the Clinton campaign post-mortem-style -- while the campaign is still in full force.

Many people are interpreting Clinton's debate performance last night as a sort of concession speech, but it wasn't. More on that a bit later.

For now, schadenfreude: NYT: Clinton Donors Worried by Campaign’s Spending.

ABC has a dead heat in Texas (48-47, Clinton) and a very close race in Ohio (50-43, Clinton).

Since January 2007, survey after survey has revealed that Barack Obama would be a stronger candidate against John McCain than Hillary Clinton and in the last couple of months the data has become even more compelling.

In 2007, both Obama and Clinton enjoyed similar levels of support in public polls. Against McCain, Clinton averaged 45.3% and Obama averaged 44.8%. The reason why Obama performed better overall despite having slightly less support than Clinton was that he held McCain to a lower level of support than did Clinton. Against Clinton, McCain averaged 45.0%, while against Obama, he averaged just 42.5%.

Thus, in 2007, the difference between Obama and Clinton had more to do with Clinton's negatives than with Obama's positives.

In 2008, however, the more voters have learned about Barack Obama, the more they seem to like him. At the same time that Hillary Clinton's support is dropping, Obama's is increasing, and the data illustrating his superior electability is strengthening.

SurveyUSA: Obama halves Clinton's lead from seventeen points a week ago (56-39) to nine points (52-43) this week. The poll was taken before Wisconsin.

Is the finish line in sight?

New York Post (via Ben Smith):

MIKE CLAIMS VOTE 'FRAUD'

By DAVID SEIFMAN

February 20, 2008 -- Mayor Bloomberg charged yesterday that "fraud" was behind the unofficial results in the New York Democratic presidential primary that produced zero votes for Barack Obama in some districts.

"If you want to call it significant undercounting, I guess that's a euphemism for fraud," said the mayor.

Unofficial tallies on election night gave Obama no votes in 78 out of more than 6,000 election districts.

A friend writes in that Bay Buchanan said the following on CNN:

In fairness to Clinton, it's not just that she's losing -- Obama is winning.

Hillary Clinton is mocking Democratic voters

Hillary Clinton appears to be in the early stages of humiliating the Democratic Party.

Her campaign has established a new web site to defend the right of superdelegates to overturn the judgment of voters. I kid you not.

You can find it here.

The web site also proposes that the votes in Michigan in Florida -- neither of which were part of the nominating process -- should now be included as official primaries, even though Obama didn't campaign in either state and wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

In the view of the Clinton machine, merely winning is not enough.

Later today, we'll be posting analysis of the numbers in the wake of yesterday's primary in Wisconsin and caucus in Hawaii.

A few quick observations, though.

First, according to MSNBC's delegate projection, Barack Obama now has 1,156 pledged delegates to 1,014 for Hillary Clinton.

With 986 delegates left to be selected (and another 71 to be allocated from previous voting), Barack Obama is now 71% of the way towards the magic number of 1,627 -- the number of delegates needed to guarantee a majority of democratically selected pledged delegates.

Hillary Clinton is languishing at 62% of the way towards the goal.

To hit the magic number, Obama must win 44.5% of the delegates remaining to be selected and allocated.

Clinton must win 58% -- a threshold she has hit exactly once this campaign, in Arkansas.

Meanwhile, Obama hit 58% yesterday in Wisconsin and Hawaii.

Translation: it's very unlikely to happen.

Yesterday, Jake Tapper offered this observation on the prospects of a big loss by Clinton in Wisconsin:

If Clinton Loses Big in Wisconsin Tonight

February 19, 2008 10:03 PM

And that's an "if" as of now….

But if she does…

You do have to wonder…

9 in a row…(and likely 10 by Wednesday morning)

Largely by HUGE margins....

I mean, embarrassing margins, really...

All over the country...from Washington State to Maine to Wisconsin to Louisiana...

You can't explain this away as small states…or caucus states…or black states…or whatever the excuse du jour may be.

I mean, they can.

And they will.

But at some point it really might start to seem like...well...

Well, like this is a rejection by Democratic voters.

A rejection. Of Clinton and her politics.

And a full-fledged embrace of Obama.

Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

- jpt

From the Houston Chronicle:

Hardt, the Young Democrats leader, said the criticism of superdelegates is unfair. They are the activists who keep the party going, he said, and they deserve a say in choosing the nominee.

"I don't knock on doors in the 100-degree heat in the middle of a Texas summer for nothing," he said.

"When we're in the middle of a down time, and everybody thinks the party is dead in a state or in the nation, and we have no electeds, someone's got to keep that party together. It's usually people like us.

"So we have earned our right to sit at the table."

Obama wins.

Wisconsin.

Roger Simon:

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.

Update: Clinton press spokesman denies this charge.

Bill Richardson, quoted by the NYT:

If superdelegates decide this nomination, it’s going to look like big-shot politicians and fat-cats decided who should be president.

Or something like that.

Incompetence like this is not what we need after George W. Bush.

The Clinton campaign is just now realizing it may lose Texas, although bloggers have been on the case for some time now:

I'm a 23-year old grad student who is not even living in Texas right now. KT is younger than I am, and just moved back to Texas a few months ago. How is it that Senator Clinton's campaign was not prepared for Texas?

As ABC's Jake Tapper puts it: "Hillary: Ready On Day ... 57?"

According to a new New York Times/CBS News survey of superdelegates, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama by a margin of 547 superdelegates, 189.5 to 142.5.

Clinton's 547 superdelegate lead is almost half the size of her lead just last month, when she led by 105 superdelegates, 204 to 99.

Meanwhile, in the democratic part of the nomination process, according to MSNBC.com, Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton by 131 pledged delegates, 1,116 to 985.

The magic number to achieve a majority of these democratically selected pledged delegates is 1,627. Once a candidate reaches that threshold, the only way he or she could lose the nomination is if the superdelegates were to step in and overturn the judgment of voters.

With about one thousand delegates left to be chosen, Obama is significantly closer to the finish line than Hillary Clinton. At this point, she would have to win about 57% of the remaining delegates to win a majority of pledged delegates. Obama must only win 47%.

After tomorrow's primaries, seventy percent of pledged delegates will have been selected, and unless Hillary Clinton wins both Hawaii and Wisconsin by significant margins, the math will get even tougher.

So what should you do to influence how superdelegates vote?

If you want them to hear your voice, the Obama campaign has established a mechanism for you to do just that.

But more importantly, you can help Obama win big.

The harder the nomination is to steal, the less likely it is to be stolen.

So volunteer, donate, and tell your friends in states yet to decide that if they want to avoid a nasty battle over superdelegates, they need to get out and vote for Barack Obama.

That according to Jake Tapper, offering Monday's best liner in response to the new CNN poll showing Hillary at 50 and Obama at 48 in Texas.

More here, plus a rundown of the day's odds and ends here.

Has the Clinton campaign finally come to its senses?

"I told President Clinton that I thought it was really important that pledged delegates be the deciding factor. And he agreed with me."

- Oklahoma Rep. Dan Boren, a superdelegate, on his discussions with Bill Clinton

Alas, it turns out that Clinton won Oklahoma. So President Clinton was undoubtedly referring to Oklahoma's pledged delegates, not everybody else's.

The rules -- because they only matter when they work for you.

Clinton adviser: The race will be over in June

Posted: 05:22 PM ET

(CNN) — One of Hillary Clinton’s senior advisers said Saturday on a conference call with reporters that the New York senator would have the nomination “nail(ed) down” after primary season voting ends in June, when Puerto Rico weighs in.

“At or about, certainly shortly after, the seventh of June, Hillary’s going to nail down this nomination. She’s going to have a majority of the delegates,” Harold Ickes said, thanks to a combination of pledged delegates awarded through primary and caucus votes, and superdelegates – Democratic elected officials and party leaders who are free to choose any candidate they wish. Ickes is himself a superdelegate.

ABC News notes another up-is-down moment from Team Clinton:

Clinton's camp, meanwhile, contends that superdelegates should not be swayed by the voters of their districts but should support the person they think is best fit to be president.

"Automatic delegates are supposed to exercise their best judgment," Ickes said.

The Clinton campaign is also continuing to push for delegates from Florida and Michigan to be counted at the convention.

Ironically, last summer Ickes -- as a sitting member of the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Commission -- voted to strip those states of their delegates when the states moved up their primaries to dates before February 5. Those moves were seen as a threat to the traditional first states Iowa and New Hampshire and were therefore punished by the party.

"With respect to the stripping, I voted as a member of the Democratic National Committee. Those were our rules and I felt that we had an obligation to enforce them," Ickes said.

But now Ickes, as a member of Clinton's team, wants to change the rules.

Clinton camp: All the way to convention

From NBC/NJ’s Athena Jones and NBC's Domenico Montanaro

The Clinton campaign held a conference call, led by Harold Ickes, a top aide, to discuss the superdelegates issue and expectations for the upcoming contests.

(snip)

Ickes argued the "superdelegates" should be called "automatic delegates" instead, because the former makes it sound like they have “superpowers.” The DNC itself refers to them as “superdelegates” and as “unpledged” delegates.

(snip)

The effort to change the terms journalists use to refer to the superdelegates was particularly interesting as a political ploy. The word "automatic" has implications that would seem to fit well with the arguments the Clinton camp has been making, namely that superdelegates should exercise their independent judgment.

(It won't matter what they do if Obama wins either state -- so please help him out!)

Why is the media uncritically reporting McCain's attack on public financing for the general?

McCain has no credibility on this issue -- he's flip-flopped on public financing for the primary, perhaps illegally. He's also financed his campaign with loans of questionable legality.

McCain Backpedals on Public Financing for the Primary By Emily Cadei, CQ Staff

Republican presidential front-runner John McCain today formally announced his intention to withdraw from the public financing system for the primary campaign. When he was still struggling in the polls and with fundraising, the Arizona senator applied to the FEC for matching funds and was declared eligible to receive $5.8 million this spring. McCain is now the GOP’s presumptive nominee and is no longer hurting for cash, but the spending limits required by the public funding system would put him at a significant disadvantage as he prepares for the general election. He was the lead Republican author of the 2002 campaign finance overhaul, commonly referred to as the McCain-Feingold law.

Clinton camp reimburses; landlord to donate check to Obama campaign

PORTSMOUTH — Rochester doctor Terry Bennett has finally been paid by the Clinton campaign for rental of a Portsmouth building he owns. Now, he says he will donate the $500 check to Barack Obama’s campaign. ... Bennett went public last week, saying he rented a warehouse/office space to Clinton campaign workers for five days prior to the Jan. 8 presidential primary. He rented the space for $100 a day to be used as a campaign headquarters and dormitory.

Not only was he not paid, but Bennett said the campaign volunteers left the premises trashed. He said there were fast food containers all over the place and lots of campaign signs left behind.

Bennett said he’s giving the money to Obama because, besides Clinton, he is the only other Democratic candidate. But he said he also likes the man.

Chris Matthews seems to have gotten the "college educated" vs. "non-college educated" memo. He bloviated on Hardball about "down-scale Democrats", asking why aren't more non-grads showing up to vote? Susan Page agreed with him, saying they just aren't excited. Advantage Obama, they both concluded.

Problem is, I don't think they are right. Based on numbers I ran for exit polls from Iowa through Super Tuesday, 58% of voters in Democratic primaries and caucuses didn't have a college degree. In 2004, 58% of voters didn't have a college degree. By the way, 53% of those voters went with George W. Bush.

Today, the Washington Post's Jon Cohen offered a criminally misleading analysis of exit polls, imagining a racial conflict where non exists.

"Education has been a key divider among white voters in a contest marked by an evident racial divide," Cohen writes. His analysis presents numbers showing that Clinton does better with white non-college graduates than Obama and that Obama does better with white college graduates than Clinton.

Cohen concludes that racism may explain this gap. "Just a third of whites without college degrees were that sure the country is prepared for a black president," he says.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton's race and Barack Obama's race have little to do with these numbers.

To understand that, you have to look at some recent history: the 2000 primary in New Hampshire between Al Gore and Bill Bradley.

In that contest, Gore was seen as Bill Clinton's heir apparent -- much like Hillary Clinton is today. Bill Bradley was the outsider, non-establishment candidate, the brilliant Senator -- much like Barack Obama is today. Heck, they both even like basketball, though Bradley (the white guy) was evidently a better player.

In that primary, Bradley did 13 points worse than Gore among non-college grads, who made up 45% of the electorate. (Although this isn't broken out by race, New Hampshire's Democratic primary voters are 95%+ white, so there isn't much need to do so.)

Meanwhile, among college graduates, Bradley did 9 points better than Gore.

In 2008, in a 3-way race, Obama did 9 points worse than Clinton among non-college grads, who made up 46% of the electorate.

Meanwhile, Obama did 5 points better than Clinton among college graduates, who made up 54% of the electorate.

2000 and 2008 aren't entirely comparable; Clinton has an appeal to women that Gore did not, and Obama has an appeal to blacks that Bradley did not. A three-way race (in NH) is different than a two-way race.

Still, on balance, the remarkable similarity between the 2000 education gap and the 2008 education gap seriously undermines the claims advanced by the Post that today's numbers are indicative of racism or racial divison.

They are not. They indicate a preference gap, seemingly tied to education. And in elections, that happens. Most of the time.

It's a mixed bag in Texas, which is a good thing for Obama, because Hillary Clinton needs to win something like 110% of the delegates there to be competitive.

Also, Pollster.com reminds people that white men have been supporting Obama all along, ever since Iowa -- no matter what Andrea Mitchell says.

Mark Penn is Hillary Clinton's chief strategist. By any measure, he's not doing a very good job, and he continues to stick his foot in his mouth with statements like this:

"I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate."

One of the things that really makes people distrust Mark Penn is that he's not just Hillary's chief strategist, he's also CEO of Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's largest and most powerful public relations and lobbying firms.

Burson's clients include several sovereign wealth funds, which in plain English means his firm represents oil-rich foreign governments. Last August, for example, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (a sovereign wealth fund) hired Penn's firm. A few months later, ADIA purchased a 5% stake in Citigroup. Other clients include Dubai International Capital and Dubai Group.

But the most unusual Penn connection may be his ties to John McCain.

You see, Burson (that's Penn's company) owns another company called BKSH.

BKSH describes itself as "a premier bipartisan government relations and public affairs firm." In other words, it's a lobbying firm.

The head of BKSH is a man by the name of Charlie Black -- and he just happens to be one of John McCain's key advisers. In fact, after Super Tuesday, it was Black who coordinated McCain's message that he was the presumptive Republican nominee.

The thought of Hillary Clinton's chief strategist as the boss of one of John McCain's strategists is, well -- peculiar.

I'm sure that many wondered whether the professional relationship between Penn and Black played a role in the McCain campaign's decision on Wednesday to attack Barack Obama -- using the exact same message that Hillary Clinton was delivering on the exact same day.

Then again, maybe Penn had nothing to do with it. Perhaps McCain was just trying to pick his opponent.

After all, McCain leads Hillary in public polling -- but he trails Obama.

Also, Jake Tapper has the transcript of a recent interview with Gary Hart, who blames his 1984 loss on superdelegates.

Convenient Omission in Mark Penn’s Analysis (via Ben Smith)

AP's Ron Fournier runs through some of the factors superdelegates will consider when deciding whether to vote for Hillary Clinton at the convention in Denver. The good news he thinks superdelegates will abandon Clinton. Unfortunately, the motives are often petty, even ugly.

Some are senators who had to defend Clinton for lying to the country about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. ... Some are folks who owe the Clintons a favor but still feel betrayed or taken for granted. Could that be why Bill Richardson, a former U.N. secretary and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, refused to endorse her even after an angry call from the former president? "What," Bill Clinton reportedly asked Richardson, "isn't two Cabinet posts enough?"

Superdelegates ought to support the candidate who wins the most democratically selected delegates -- it's the right thing to do.

MILWAUKEE — Representative John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most prominent black supporters, said Thursday night that he planned to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama in hopes of preventing a fight at the Democratic convention.

...he said that as a superdelegate, he could not go against the wishes of the voters of his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama.

Clinton counts on superdelegates
By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say. (emphasis added)

This morning we have two superdelegates from different parts of the country landing headlines in their local papers saying they are fully prepared to ignore voters and trample democracy - as long as that lets them help Clinton potentially steal the Democratic nomination. [More]

The Democrats' nominee should be chosen by party faithful, not a small number of elite delegates.

Democrats have two worthy choices and do not need party bigwigs to decide for them. For the bulk of the superdelegates to commit now would be not only unnecessary, it would be undemocratic.

The New York Times has an interesting article on the delegate math. It begins with the obvious (emphasis added):

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama emerged from Tuesday’s primaries leading Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton by more than 100 delegates, a small but significant advantage that Democrats said would be difficult for Mrs. Clinton to make up in the remaining contests in the presidential nomination battle.

As a consequence:

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count.

According to Future Majority, there are 15 superdelegates under the age of 36. That's just 1.9% of superdelegates.

Politico.com's Ben Smith (emphasis added):

Politico delegate count

My colleagues Avi Zenilman and Josie Hearn have put together an exhaustive, easy-to-use chart of superdelegates and their alleagiances.

Their current count is Hillary 230, Obama 138.5.

One interesting point, which is visible in the chart: Clinton has a lead of three among senators, a lead of 13 among House members, and they're tied among governors. So her real margin comes from the relatively anonymous DNC members, among whom she leads 125 to 57.5.

(cross-posted at http://www.ObamaIsWinning.com)

Clinton campaign operatives continue to make the disturbing argument that the superdelegates should trump democracy.

After Barack Obama's broad and convincing wins in Tuesday's Potomac Primary, Howard Fineman reported that Hillary Clinton was doubling down on an undemocratic superdelegate strategy. Here's Fineman's account of his discussions with Clinton campaign officials:

The game for Hillary Clinton is to somehow keep her distance behind as minimal as possible...if it's a relatively small and manageable number...they will then argue that they are free to use the superdelegates to try to somehow wrest the nomination from Barack Obama, even though he led in pledged delegates.

Clinton campaign operatives continue to make the disturbing argument that the superdelegates should trump democracy.

After Barack Obama's broad and convincing wins in Tuesday's Potomac Primary, Howard Fineman reported that Hillary Clinton was doubling down on an undemocratic superdelegate strategy. Here's Fineman's account of his discussions with Clinton campaign officials:

The game for Hillary Clinton is to somehow keep her distance behind as minimal as possible...if it's a relatively small and manageable number...they will then argue that they are free to use the superdelegates to try to somehow wrest the nomination from Barack Obama, even though he led in pledged delegates.

Earlier on Tuesday, in an effort to win popular acceptance of undemocratic superdelegates, Clinton adviser Harold Ickes' took the Orwellian approach of renaming superdelegates, calling them "automatic" delegates.

Today, Clinton's media guru Howard Wolfson took a similar tack:

We are not making distinctions between certain kinds delegates. We don’t make distinctions between delegates that are chosen by millions of voters in a primary or tens of thousands of voters in a caucus. We don’t make a distinction between elected officials.

Meanwhile, just days earlier, Hillary Clinton suggested that ther would be nothing wrong with superdelegates overturning the will of the majority:

Superdelegates are, by design, supposed to exercise independent judgment.

The bottom-line is that nobody seems to be buying what the Clinton operatives are selling. As Politico.com's Ben Smith notes:

The news organizations counting and referring to the delegate count have started much more clearly breaking out the pledged delegates from the superdelegates, and referring to the pledged delegates as a key metric.

MSNBC's Mark Murray offers a similar observation:

For Clinton to overtake Obama for the pledged delegate lead -- which we think is the single most important statistic for the superdelegates to decide their vote -- she'll have to win 55% of the remaining delegates. Assuming next week goes Obama's way in Wisconsin and Hawaii, that percentage rises to 57%. Toss in likely Obama victories in Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, then Clinton's percentage need tops 60% of the remaining delegates available. And this is simply for her to regain the pledged delegate lead…

That's the kind of math Obama campaign manager David Plouffe is talking about when he says:

"The only way she could do it is by winning most of the rest of the contests by 25 to 30 points," he said. "Even the most creative math really does not get her, ever, back to even in terms of pledged delegates."

It seems that just about everybody is recognizing the strength of Obama's victories and his wire-to-wire lead for in the battle for democratically elected pledged delegates. Even Bill Clinton's former campaign chair is now endorsing Barack Obama. The finish line is in sight.

With every passing primary and caucus, Barack Obama gets closer and closer to the real magic number of 1,627 -- the number of pledged delegates needed to secure a democratic majority. If he wins 46% of the remaining delegates, he'll hit the magic number.

Meanwhile, Clinton must win 57% of the remaining delegates to hit the magic number. She's only won 57% or more in four contests: in her original home state of Arkansas, her current home state of New York, Massachusetts, and Oklahama. By contrast, Obama has done so in seventeen contests.

That's why it's so unlikely Hillary Clinton can win a democratic majority.

Unfortunately, Clinton campaign operatives continue to advance their undemocratic superdelegate strategy.

That can't happen. Not on our watch. And it won't happen. Not if enough people know the truth: Obama is winning.

If you can afford it, please make a contribution today.

Howard Fineman reported tonight on MSNBC that the Clinton campaign thinks it is very unlikely to finish with more pledged delegates than Barack Obama.

Clinton's campaign is right: they are not likely to hit the magic number of 1,627 pledged delegates. To achieve a democratic majority, Clinton would need to win at least 56% of the remaining delegates, a tough challenge given that Barack Obama has led the delegate battle from wire-to-wire, building his lead at every stage of the campaign.

To put this challenge in perspective, Clinton has hit the 56% mark or better only four times: in her original home state of Arkansas, her current home state of New York, Massachusetts, and Oklahama. Obama has done this seventeen times.

The long odds against Clinton hitting the magic number doesn't mean that she should quit the campaign -- she's got loyal supporters and if she and they want to continue the battle, they should.

At the same time, if they press ahead, they must understand that unless they can hit the magic number of 1,627, they cannot win a legitimate victory. Without hitting the magic number, the only way they can win is by subverting the democratic process. Unfortunately, according to Fineman, the Clinton campaign is planning a strategy around doing just that:

The game for Hillary Clinton is to somehow keep her distance behind as minimal as possible...if it's a relatively small and manageable number...they will then argue that they are free to use the superdelegates to try to somehow wrest the nomination from Barack Obama, even though he led in pledged delegates.

Keep in mind that Fineman is reporting what the Clinton campaign told him, not what he thinks they will do.

Superdelegates are political insiders free to vote for whomever they choose. They make up 20% of the Democratic nominating convention and include members of Clinton's campaign team.

The Clinton argument that superdelegates should trump democracy has been brewing below the radar for some time now. One of her top operatives has been urging key supporters to start calling superdelegates "automatic" delegates, apparently in an effort to make them sound more palatable.

The Clinton campaign needs to abandon this argument now.

It would be a disaster if the rightful winner of the primary campaign had the nomination stolen from his or her grasp. We cannot allow this to happen to the Democratic Party.

As far as most people are concerned, 1,627 is the real magic number of the Democratic presidential primary. 1,627 is fifty percent plus one of the 3,253 pledged delegates to the Democratic nominating convention, all of them democratically selected through primaries and caucuses.

Once a candidate has 1,627 pledged delegates, he or she will win the nomination -- unless the judgment of voters is overturned by the 796 superdelegates, a group of political insiders that includes several members of Hillary Clinton's campaign team.

After tonight, it is becoming increasingly clear that Hillary Clinton will not be able to achieve that magic number of 1,627. Here's why:

2,178 delegates have been selected through primaries and caucuses through February 12. John Edwards has won 26 of them, and using a very conservative estimate, Barack Obama has won 1,131 and Hillary Clinton has won 1,021. (This estimate assumes that they evenly split the unallocated delegates from MSNBC's tally of 1,078 to 969.)

With 2,178 delegates selected, there are only 1,075 left to be chosen. (Yes, we're already more than two-thirds of the way through the primary and caucus season!)

In order to hit the magic number of 1,627, Barack Obama need only win 497 of those 1,075 delegates -- 46%.

Hillary Clinton has a much tougher challenge. She must win 605 of those delegates -- 56%.

Keep in mind, these numbers are very conservative estimates from Obama's standpoint. In other words, after the dust settles it is likely his delegate total will be more than 1,131 and Clinton's lower than 1,021, making Clinton's true distance from the magic number even larger. In order to hit 1,627, she may have to win as much as 58% of the remaining delegates.

We're a little under ten minutes away from polls closing in Virginia. An hour later, polls in Maryland and DC will close. We'll be following the results here.

For some perspective, between Saturday and tonight, 353 delegates will be selected -- that's more than Texas and Ohio combined.

(cross-posted at www.ObamaIsWinning.com)

In 2008, 3,253 delegates will be chosen through caucuses and primaries to represent Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.

Once one of the candidates has won a majority of those democratically selected delegates (also known as pledged delegates), the only way his or her opponent could win the nomination is with the support of the 796 unelected, unaccountable superdelegates -- in the process overturning the judgment of the voters.

50% +1 of 3,253 is 1,627. Therefore, with 1,627 pledged delegates, a candidate will win the nomination -- unless the superdelegates step in and reverse the decision of the voters.

Greg Sargent (via Ben Smith) writes:

In a sign that the spin war over the significance of super-delegates is underway in earnest, Harold Ickes told assorted Hillary supporters on a private conference call yesterday that the campaign wants them to start referring to super-delegates as "automatic delegates," according to someone on the call.

The person I spoke to paraphrases Ickes, who is spearheading Hillary's super-delegate hunt, this way: "We're no longer using the phrase super delegates. It creates a wrong impression. They're called automatic delegates. Because that's what they are."

This is good news and bad news. The good news is that at least implicitly, Clinton's organization is recognizing they are wrong on the substance. The bad news is that they are trying to confuse the issue by changing vocabulary, a sign that they will be pressing ahead with an undemocratic, superdelegate-based victory strategy -- even though it's the wrong thing to do.

My buddy Justin and I worked on this site yesterday and put it up last evening. Already, over 10,000 people have visited and bloggers like Politico.com's Ben Smith and Andrew Sullivan are writing about it.

Pretty cool -- there must be a lot of people out there who want to know who is really winning this nomination contest.

In 2008, 3,253 delegates will be chosen through caucuses and primaries to represent Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.

Once one of the candidates has won a majority of those democratically selected delegates (also known as pledged delegates), the only way his or her opponent could win the nomination is with the support of the 796 unelected, unaccountable superdelegates -- in the process overturning the judgment of the voters.

50%+1 of 3,253 is 1,627. That's the real magic number.

Once a candidate has 1,627 pledged delegates, he or she will win the nomination -- unless the superdelegates step in and reverse the decision of the voters.

(Updated 2/12 at 7:05PM)

There seems to be a growing consensus that if the contests play out as expected, both Clinton and Obama will essentially be tied in pledged delegates at the end of the primary season – leaving it to super delegates to decide the race. -- CNN, Feb. 9 (emphasis added)

By now, it is clear that there is a very real possibility superdelegates will block the rightful winner of the primary process from becoming the next Democratic nominee for President.

The best way to prevent that from happening is to document who is actually winning, because the more knowledge people have about who really won, the harder it will be for superdelegates to exercise their power to usurp democracy. And the real numbers speak for themselves: Barack Obama is winning.

Today, I put up a new web site at www.ObamaIsWinning.com to help make sure the truth is heard.

“If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this.”
-- Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign manager and a super delegate

By now, you've probably heard of "superdelegates" -- the political insiders who could block the rightful winner of the primary process from becoming the next Democratic nominee for President.

The purpose of this blog is to document who is actually winning, because the more knowledge people have about who really won, the harder it will be for superdelegates to exercise their power to usurp democracy.

Tad Devine is one of Al Gore's top political advisers.

Superdelegates, Back Off

by Tad Devine (NYT, 2/10/08)

...the Democratic Party is once again engaged in a nominating process — this time between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — in which the margin of victory will be achieved only with broad support from the superdelegates, the nearly 800 party leaders and elected officials who become delegates not on the basis of votes cast in primaries and caucuses, but because of their status under party rules.
...
The superdelegates were never intended to be part of the dash from Iowa to Super Tuesday and beyond. They should resist the impulse and pressure to decide the nomination before the voters have had their say.
...
After listening to the voters, the superdelegates can do what the Democratic Party’s rules originally envisioned. They can ratify the results of the primaries and caucuses in all 50 states by moving as a bloc toward the candidate who has proved to be the strongest in the contest that matters — not the inside game of the delegate hunt, but the outside contest of ideas and inspiration, where hope can battle with experience and voters can make the right and best choice for our party and our future.

This is pretty funny -- and smart.

My Brother the Superdelegate and Why I Don't Trust Him to Pick the Next President

My brother Rahm Emanuel is a superdelegate. I love my brother, and I trust my brother. But I gave up letting my brother dictate my life since he determined whether he got the top or bottom bunk in our bedroom back in Chicago.

So, as much as I love and respect him, I don't trust him and his fellow superdelegates to decide for me and the American people who should be the Democratic nominee -- and, therefore, most likely the next president of the United States.

“Superdelegates are, by design, supposed to exercise independent judgment.” -- Hillary Clinton, 2/9/07 (NYT)

“It would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters.” -- Barack Obama, 2/8/07 (NYT)

CNN reports (emphasis added):

There seems to be a growing consensus that if the contests play out as expected, both Clinton and Obama will essentially be tied in pledged delegates at the end of the primary season – leaving it to super delegates to decide the race.

Just because a contest is within a point or two doesn't mean it's tied -- essentially or otherwise.

For better or for worse, in democracy there are winners and there are losers -- there are no ties.

Even if there were ties, it's shouldn't be up to political insiders to break the tie.

Howard Fineman says the Clinton campaign will not concede even if they lose the battle for democratically elected delegates.

A commenter requested this chart of state-by-state totals for my "Obama is winning" post.

After last night's convincing victories in three very different states, it's fair to say that Barack Obama is winning.

Yes, Obama is winning.

Since the start of the primary process, Obama has received 275,000 more votes and caucus supporters than Hillary Clinton. He now leads her by 2% in the popular vote.

(Even if you include Florida's beauty contest, Clinton merely ties Obama; the two are separated by 0.07% with Florida's meaningless primary returns included.)

All week long we've heard from the media how the Democratic primary process would last through April or maybe even June -- and that John McCain had wrapped up the nomination on the GOP side.

Meanwhile, Obama is winning a clean sweep of the Democratic primaries and caucuses today -- by large margins. Staggering margins, in fact, in Washington and Nebraska.

As for John McCain -- he might lose every single GOP contest, depending how Washington state turns out.

I love the media -- they get things wrong more often than I do, which is saying something special!

MSNBC's David Shuster has earned an appropriate dose of condemnation and outrage for his disgusting assertion that Chelsea Clinton had been "pimped out" by her parents for political purposes.

Now is a good time to remember that before there was a David Shuster, there was John McCain.

Ten years ago, McCain told a cruel joke about Chelsea to a group of Republicans:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

This joke is vile in more ways than I count. Chelsea is and was beautiful -- not that it should even matter. It's never acceptable to make a joke like that, but the fact that Chelsea was a teenager at the time makes it even worse.

The joke wasn't merely sexist and mean, it was also homophobic. It is a brutal indictment of John McCain's personal character -- and the character of those who laughed along with him.

As David Corn observed at the time, the press mostly covered up the joke:

Earlier this month, at a Republican Senate fund-raiser, McCain told a downright nasty joke making fun of Janet Reno, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chelsea Clinton.

The fact that McCain had made the tasteless joke was reported in major newspapers, as was the vain attempt by his press secretary to initially deny what McCain had done. But in several major newspapers, the joke itself was kept a secret. When McCain subsequently apologized to President Clinton, the Washington Post, in its personality section, noted the apology but said the joke "was too vicious to print."

The Los Angeles Times, in its Life & Style section, provided an oblique rendering of the joke that did not fully convey its ugliness. When Maureen Dowd penned a column in the New York Times about the joke, she wrote that McCain "is so revered by the press that his disgusting jape was largely nudged under the rug." But Dowd chose not to relay the joke, either.

The joke did appear in McCain's hometown paper, the Arizona Republic, and the Associated Press did report the joke in full, so everyone in the press had access to McCain's words. But by censoring themselves, the Post, the Times and others helped McCain deflect flak and preserved his status as a Republican presidential contender.

For all the lovejobs that McCain is about to get from the media in the coming year, don't forget that he's also the kind of man who thought nothing of ridiculing a beautiful teenage girl's appearance in order to make a homophobic joke.

They say that what makes McCain different is his character. But what kind of character must he have to have made this joke?

And what does it say about journalists that they let him get away with it?

This is a post about electability, but I'm not going to argue that either Obama or Clinton is more electable than the other.

Rather, I'm just going to offer a comprehensive review of available polling data, allowing you to draw your own conclusions.

Moreover, instead of zeroing in one one specific poll or polling organization, the data in this diary is based on averages of 62 different national polls and 20 different state polls.

McBush and Huckaveepee are the last two standing candidates.

COMBINED they raised less than half as much as Barack Obama.

Moreover, in the last month alone, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have raised more money than every Democratic Congressional challenger COMBINED raised -- for all of 2007.

Catching up on Countdowns from days gone by...and Jonathan Alter floated three names as Obama veeps:

• Anthony Zinni. I don't know much about Zinni other than that he's a retired General who opposed the Iraq War.
  
• Jim Webb. Not a bad idea.
  
• Sam Nunn. Yikes. Not another "bi-partisan" independent Democrat. If Obama's campaign is floating Nunn's name I'll be pretty ticked off. (Kerry considered him in 2004 and chose the guy who I think Obama should choose, should Obama get the nomination.)
  

Very good decision by Obama. These debates are good for him and the party.

Hillary raising $6+ million online in 24 hours.

Who would have thought it!

Incredible.

A friend just made that comparison to me.

What a joke.

One of the biggest reasons why there is the pile-on NOW as opposed to when it could actually have had an impact is that they are trying to position McCain as acceptable to Democrats.

On the single most important foreign policy issue – Iraq – he has by far the most reactionary position of the GOP field.

The world's rubbish dump: a garbage tip that stretches from Hawaii to Japan

By Kathy Marks, Asia-Pacific Correspondent, and Daniel Howden
Tuesday, 5 February 2008

A "plastic soup" of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an alarming rate and now covers an area twice the size of the continental United States, scientists have said.

I bet Mitt Romney endorses John McCain within a couple of weeks. Just to show what a man of principle he is.

Dear Mr. Conservative GOP Man,

Here I am, basking in the glory of a Super Tuesday in which Democratic presidential candidates got nearly twice as many votes as Republicans.

I turn on the news (brought to me by General Electric), and I find out that you are so desperately sad that it makes Tim Russert want to cry.

It raises a question, Mr. Reactionary Right Wing Constitution Hater:

What in the heck is wrong with you?

Last I ran the numbers (using my own spreadsheet built with data from MSNBC), this was the breakdown of the Super Tuesday popular vote:

Clinton 7,435,435 Obama 7,390,600 Edwards 412,556

I'm including Edwards in there because California, which has a disproportionately large number of mail-in ballot voters, also had an atypically large number of Edwards voters -- a little over 4%, compared to about 2% everywhere else.

Based on some back of the envelope calculations, I'm figuring that about 70% of the Edwards people have gone to Obama, and about 25% to Hillary.

Thus, almost all of the gap between Hillary and Obama probably would have been made up by Edwards voters.

Excluding Michigan, the overall popular vote so far (imputing Nevada and Iowa caucus goers based on state delegate breakdowns):

Clinton 8,674,768 Obama 8,501,311

Excluding Florida as well:

Clinton 7,817,560 Obama 7,932,270

Effectively, to the extent that Hillary has a popular vote lead it is on the basis of Florida.

I don't know what to make of that, but at least Florida wasn't like Michigan where Hillary's name was the only one on the ballot.

Although Hillary has raised more money than Obama from the super-wealthy -- people who can donate $4,600 at a time -- Obama is now in a better position to raise money than she is.

Why? Obama has more support from upper-middle class folks than Hillary, whose supporters tend to be less affluent -- and therefore less likely to donate $100 or $200 online.

This counter is really in-your-face.

I am still having trouble seeing how Hillary can win the contest at this point.

Obama Directly Attacks Bill's Presidency, Blames It For Massive Dem Losses By Greg Sargent - February 6, 2008, 12:38PM

In what may be Obama's most direct and aggressive criticism of Bill Clinton's presidency yet, the Obama campaign dropped a new mailer just before Super Tuesday that blasts "the Clintons" for wreaking massive losses on the Democratic party throughout the 1990s.

Not sure what I think about this strategy. There may be some truth to it, but I also think it's important to remember that on balance, the Clinton presidency was good for America, especially in contrast to the Bush I and Bush II.

Whatever the case, given that Hillary does claim her years in the White House as a part of her experience, I do think the issue is fair game.

crazymoloch has a good post on what the magic number for the Democratic nomination should be.

His conclusion?

Either 1,614 -- which would guarantee a plurality of pledge delegates (assuming Florida and Michigan are not seated) or 1,771 -- which would guarantee a plurality of pledged if FL and MI are seated.

The formal magic number is 2,025, which includes super delegates, but I cannot imagine that the super delegates would go against the popular vote.

This is too funny:

‘Obama Girl’ Didn’t Vote

By Jennifer 8. Lee

So, did the “Obama Girl” actually vote for Barack Obama on Tuesday?

Actually, no.

Based on the (probably flawed, based on superstition) Drudge exits…

…Obama should get ~729 delegates and Hillary ~697. That leaves 262 delegates from caucus states, which Obama is expected to do well in. If those split 141-121 (which I think is conservative) that would give obama:

~870 for Obama
~818 for Hillary

If that happens then Obama (rounding up from 51.5%) wins 52% of the delegates today.

Game over, right?

Update: Partially Impartial has a similar projecting using more current CNN exit polls that show a much closer (as if that were possible!) race.

Update 2: When I add in PI's numbers, it narrows things a little bit, but still gives Obama a delegate lead: ~860 to 828.

Update 3: Probably best to ignore all of this. CNN's exits now show a 51/45 win for Hillary.

Update 4: Obama's delegate guy thinks they are up 606-534.

According to CNN exit poll among white men, Obama 50, Hillary 45.

Huge for Obama.

It looks like voters' decision-making timelines were roughly equivalent to those in the past:

About one in 10 voters in each party said they decided whom to vote for on Tuesday. Slightly more said they decided in the last three days. About half of Democratic primary voters and a third of Republicans said they made up their minds more than a month ago.

If national polls at the time were any indication, Clinton probably has a significant lead amongst those who made up their minds a month ago.

She and Obama are evenly splitting the latest deciders (last three days).

The question I think will be what about people who made up their mind in the week or two before that?

Those #s don’t suggest that Obama is going to win today, given that early deciders were likely to have favored Hillary.

On the other hand, it could be that Obama’s peak was in people who decided within the last 2-3 weeks, but not in the last three days (i.e, between South Carolina and Florida, but before this weekend).

If you recall, in the past, Obama has done equally well with early deciders as late deciders, while Hillary has done worse and Edwards better.

I think Barack Obama would be a great presidential nominee and I hope he wins more delegates than Hillary Clinton today. At the same time, I share most of Paul Krugman's reservations about Obama.

I see no contradiction between these two positions.

Just as Paul Krugman does not speak the gospel truth, neither does Barack Obama. Both are flawed.

I've been distressed by the extent to which many Obama supporters have demonized Krugman for his heretical views. (I'm sure the same could be said about many of Obama's detractors, but that doesn't excuse the Krugman-hate, nor is it the point of this entry.)

Rather than rehashing the merits of Krugman's position vis-a-vis Obama, I'd like to put Krugman's critiques in some perspective.

To do that, I've gone through every column written by Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman, and Frank Rich since September 1, 2007. (I also looked through the columns of David Brooks and Gail Collins, but decided to exclude them from this analysis. Brooks is a conservative, and Collins tends to not be as polemical as Dowd, Rich, and Krugman. Herbert writes less frequently about the candidates than Collins, but when he does, he tends to take a more clear-cut position.)

Here's some of what I've found:

First, overall, the foursome has written 146 columns since September 1. 110 of those had nothing (or little) to do with the campaign. 36 (roughly one-quarter) were about the campaign.

Of those 36, 18 were anti-Hillary and 14 were anti-Obama. 3 were pro-Hillary, and 10 were pro-Obama. (A column can fall into more than one category.)

Of Bob Herbert's 39 columns, 6 (15%) were on the election. 2 were anti-Hillary, 1 was anti-Obama, 1 was pro-Hillary, and 4 were pro-Obama.

Of Paul Krugman's 44 columns, 8 (18%) were on the election. All were anti-Obama, with 2 also being pro-Hillary.

Of Maureen Dowd's 43 columns, 12 (28%) were on the the election. 9 were anti-Hillary and 5 were anti-Obama.

Of Frank Rich's 20 columns, 10 (50%) were on the election. 8 were anti Hillary and 6 were pro-Obama.

Excluding Krugman, there were 28 columns about the election. 18 of them (64% were anti-Hillary). 6 of them (21%) were anti-Obama. 10 (36%) were pro-Obama and 1 (4%) was pro-Hillary.

In short, other than Paul Krugman, the New York Times op-ed page has been a virtual love-fest for Barack Obama, and a hate-fest against Hillary Clinton.

Even with Krugman, the page is tilted against Hillary.

Now, I agree with much of what Frank Rich has written. (I detest Maureen Dowd's hackery and am mostly bored by Bob Herbert.) And, as I said, I hope Obama wins Super Tuesday.

My point, however, is that put in perspective of his colleagues, Paul Krugman is providing some necessary balance to the opinion page.

Not pro-Hillary balance -- but rather constructive criticism of Barack Obama.

One thing you'll notice if you read through the columns I analyzed (they are copied below) is that the criticisms of Hillary are far more likely to be personal in nature than are Krugman's criticisms of Obama, all of which are grounded in either policy or ideology.

Attacking Hillary's personality or character achieves nothing constructive; indeed, if anything, it makes you wonder the extent to which her "likeability" problem is created (or at least reinforced) by writers like Maureen Dowd.

Meanwhile, Krugman's criticisms of Obama are on things that Obama could actually do something about -- such as his health care policy.

I'm really under no illusion that extreme Obama partisans are ever going to agree with Krugman's critiques of Obama.

However, they really ought not demonize him. Indeed, they should keep in perspective the fact that 82% of his columns since September 1 have had nothing to do with Barack Obama. There's a lot of value to be found there.

Even if you think Paul Krugman is wrong about Barack Obama, I'd be surprised if you didn't find him to be right on a lot of other stuff.

Likewise, hopefully some of you are like me: I agree with Paul Krugman's criticisms of Barack Obama. At the same time, I think that at this point in time, Barack Obama is the best candidate for the Democratic Party.

I suspect that during the general election, once Obama gets the nomination -- assuming that he does -- Paul Krugman will be one of Obama's staunchest defenders.

Moreover, I suspect that Hillary Clinton's detractors won't be there for her if she wins the nomination. Unfortunately, that's part of the reason why I support Barack Obama.

I just wish Krugman bashers would keep that in mind the next time they feel the need to slam him.

This is good news for Barack Obama, who has said that if the Republican nominee abides by spending limits, he would too. Obama has far more ability to raise money than McCain, and now that McCain has abandoned the primary campaign public financing system, Obama shouldn't even consider abiding by the general election public finance system.

No public funds for McCain By: Jeanne Cummings Feb 4, 2008 08:47 PM EST

With the Republican presidential nomination within reach, John McCain is reshaping his campaign to press on without public financing that could limit his spring spending, senior advisers say.

CNN has the first national poll that I am aware of showing Obama leading Hillary.

Update: More importantly, the poll shows Obama +8 versus McCain, with Hillary +3.

Somehow, I didn't know about this:

Senator Clinton, in Pander Mode

Published: December 7, 2005

Hillary Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill to criminalize the burning of the American flag.

(snip)

The bill attempts to equate flag-burning with cross-burning, which the Supreme Court, in a sensible and carefully considered 2003 decision, said could be prosecuted under certain circumstances as a violation of civil rights law. It's a ridiculous comparison. Burning a cross is a unique act because of its inextricable connection to the Ku Klux Klan and to anti-black violence and intimidation. A black American who wakes up to see a cross burning on the front lawn has every right to feel personally, and physically, threatened. Flag-burning has no such history. It has, in fact, no history of being directed against any target but the government.

It reminds me of this Penn and Teller skit:

(hat tip: dnA)

Hillary Clinton cries in Connecticut

by Jason George

NEW HAVEN, Conn. – Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law school in the early 1970s.

As a refresher, here she was right before the primary in New Hampshire:

Surprise, surprise: Barack Obama does support individual mandates for health care.

How?

First, Obama has proposed a mandate requiring that families provide health care insurance for their children.

Second, Obama has proposed charging back premiums as penalties for uninsured adults who come in contact with the medical system as a way of reducing the problem of free riders.

In other words, Obama favors mandates. The difference is whether the mandates are enforced retroactively or proactively.

So what's the big fuss about?

::

First, a little more detail on Obama's proposals.

Here's what his Plan for a Health America says about mandates for children:

(4) MANDATORY COVERAGE OF CHILDREN. Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage by allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents’ plans.

Although the plan itself does not specify an enforcement mechanism, Obama has publicly stated:

“I would sign them up in school in the same way they would get inoculated. I would fine parents if for some reason they refused. I am happy to be very clear on how we would enforce the mandate.”

As for adults, Obama has been a bit more...squishy. Here's what he said last week during the debate:

BLITZER: On this issue of mandates, those who don't, whether it's 10 million or 15 million, those who could afford it but don't wind up buying health insurance for one reason or another, they wind up getting sick, they go to an emergency room, all of us wind up paying for their health care. That's the biggest criticism that's been leveled at your plan.

OBAMA: If people are gaming the system, there are ways we can address that. By, for example, making them pay some of the back premiums for not having gotten it in the first place.

To be fair to Obama, he's not saying he would implement this policy immediately. However, he is making it clear that if people who can afford health care don't get it, he's going to propose they be charged back premiums when they touch the medical system.

That's a mandate, albeit one enforced in sub-optimal fashion.

What Obama is saying is that if people game the system (i.e., voluntary participation does not approach 100%), people who don't purchase health insurance but require medical care will be confronted with a choice: pay back premiums, or forgo medical care.

At the same time, if voluntary participation is close enough to 100%, then Obama sees no need to charge penalties. That's an important point, but it's also true that for all practical purposes, if voluntary participation levels were that high, the mandate features in both Edwards' and Hillary's plans would not be used either.

In other words, if voluntary participation is high, mandates won't be a notable feature of any of the plans.

The key difference is that Obama's proposed enforcement mechanism is retroactive, and the Edwards/Hillary enforcement mechanism is proactive.

::

So Obama has conceded that mandates will play a role under his health care plan under the same conditions that mandates will play a role in the Edwards/Hillary plans.

The question is merely to what extent, and how they would be implemented.

So what's the big deal?

The big deal is that his attacks on the mandates in both John Edwards' and Hillary Clinton's health care plans will make it very difficult for him to enact legislation including the mandates which he has proposed.

Moreover, Obama's line of attack can be used against programs like Social Security and Medicare.

In other words, if you accept Obama's contention that the government should not mandate behavior, how can you argue for Social Security? How can you argue for Medicare?

By my reckoning, officials gave the New York Giants an extra 18 seconds in game clock they never should have had yesterday. They also probably called an official time out when they shouldn't have.

As a result, Eli Manning faced far less clock pressure than he would have otherwise. We'll never know for sure how that impacted the game, but it was probably major.

As a Seattle Seahawks fan, my heart goes out to the New England Patriot fans who will always wonder if bungling by the referees cost them a chance at a perfect season.

After the jump, I've posted some slides to show where I think the officials screwed up.

Also, here's a YouTube video that does a decent job of showing what I'm talking about (it's a little too hard to read the time on the clock, though):

From Political Punch:

B-Words

February 03, 2008 2:52 PM

It was not Sen. John McCain's most chivalrous moment when, last November, campaigning in South Carolina, an older woman stood and asked him, "How do we beat the bitch?"

"That's an excellent question," McCain said. "You might know that there was a poll yesterday, a Rasmussen poll, identified, that shows me three points ahead of Senator Clinton in a head-to-head matchup."

(snip)

The reason I bring this up is that ABC News' sagacious Kate Snow reports that just now in St. Louis, Mo., a woman asked Clinton a question, referring to President Bush as "George the bastard."

"Clinton smiled and laughed mildly before regaining her composure and looking serious," Snow reports. "Clinton made no effort to correct this questioner’s language or reprimand her."

McCain was hammered by the Left for his response to that language being used about a colleague. How will Clinton's response be received?

The difference:

George Bush is a bastard. Hillary Clinton is not a bitch.

Both words are derogatory, however one is a slur confined to women, the other isn't a slur, and it isn't confined to one gender.

In fact, bastard essentially is the same as "jerk," another derogatory term.

A few months ago, McCain called some kid a little jerk. He was being ironic, and it was actually funny. (McCain lists the video as a favorite on his YouTube channel.)

His ironic use of jerk was funny, because jerk is a derogatory word but not a slur.

Can you imagine if McCain had called the same kid a little bitch? Even if he said it with the same irony, it would not have gone over as well.

Why? Because bitch is a slur, jerk is not.

As I said, bastard is the equivalent of jerk.

Go ahead Jake. Make it a controversy. I welcome it.

If we want to win in November, it won't be enough to offer the American people Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and expect to him or her to stand on his or her own.

It won't be enough to point out the fact that George W. Bush has been the worst president in American history.

We're also going to need to tell a story about the Democratic Party, and a key part of that story is going to be the Clinton years -- and how much better they were than the Bush years.

I made a simple chart with a few key stats to illustrate just how much better things were from 1993-2000 than they have been since.

Sure, this chart isn't perfectly comprehensive, nor do I mean to gloss over the fact that there were things undone, but the reality is that the following table probably understates the extent to which things were superior back then than they are now.

My point here isn't to anoint Bill or Hillary Clinton to sainthood. I'm sure we could rattle off a list of twenty things we'd have like to have been done differently.

In fact, as I've said before, I lean towards Barack Obama (although I'm an Edwards delegate here in Nevada).

My point is that the Clinton years present quite a clear contrast to the Bush years.

It's a contrast that works in our favor, and we need to embrace it, because when the election rolls around in November, we're going to need it.

::

I was struck by the Republican presidential debate last week, once again held at the Reagan Presidential Library.

They lionize that guy. To borrow some famous political words, it's the biggest fairy tale ever. But sometimes fairy tales are useful.

The problem the Republicans have is that George W. Bush killed their storyline. The last Republican presidency that the American people would agree went fairly well lasted from 1981-1988. Since then, we've had almost twelve years of rule from the Bush dynasty, and those twelve years have been pretty brutal years indeed.

Under the Bush family's reign, We've engaged in not one, not two, but three wars (or four, if you count GWOT as a separate conflict).

The economy under a Bush? Anemic.

No wonder the last thing the GOP wants to talk about is a Bush presidency. No wonder the Republicans seek to embrace a different legacy.

::

As they do, no matter what your feelings are towards Hillary, we must also remember that the story of the Clinton years will be our friend.

Not only would it be historically wrong, but it would be a huge political error for us to concede to the Republican narrative about the Clinton administration.

Yes, he was impeached, but it was for parsing words in relation to oral sex. It was a political witch hunt, conducted by a zealous prosecutor appointed by right wing federal judges.

It was an expression of the very Conservative Movement that gave us George W. Bush.

Meanwhile, Reagan and Bush I had Iran-Contra, and Bush II lied us into war, broke surveillance laws, and had so many other smaller scandals I can't count.

As far as whose administration was more scandalous -- it's not even close.

That's one contest a Bush could beat a Clinton in -- and by a landslide.

::

Elections are about the future, but as in all elections, voters will look to the past when making judgments about whats best for the future.

Regardless of whether we nominate Hillary or Obama, if this election is a referendum on whether the Democratic approach of the Clinton years is better than the Republican approach of the Bush years, we'll win hands down.

If we decide to make this election purely about the future, and allow John McCain to define himself without respect to the Bush years, and define ourselves without respect to the Clinton years, November will be a total crap shoot.

We've got to remember, we'll win this by running against John McBush.

We must embrace the successes of our past -- that's how we demonstrate that we are worthy of trust.

It's not enough to say yes we can -- we also must say, yes we did.

I'm starting a blog over at www.JohnMcBush2008.com with a pretty self-evident mission: to let people know that a John McCain presidency would be just like a third term of George W. Bush.

I'll be getting it up and running over the next few weeks, so if you check it out please pardon the dust. Hopefully you'll enjoy the content that's already up!

Andrew Sullivan blogs:

In Tennessee 01 Feb 2008 01:11 pm

The Edwards vote appears to be shifting to Obama.

Apparently he didn't read the actual poll which was taken BEFORE Edwards dropped out. It did conclude that Edwards' support was dropping -- and going to Hillary.

Among the Democrats, Senator John Edwards’ support largely dissolved (and this survey was taken before Edwards’ decision to withdraw). Most of his supporters – nearly all of whom were white – shifted to the Hillary Clinton camp. At the same time, a significant portion of Clinton’s support among African-Americans has moved to Barack Obama’s camp.

I wish I could get paid to be as sloppy as Sullivan!

In Obama's new Harry and Louise mailer, he cites the Daily Iowan as the source for his attack. That's the student newspaper of the University of Iowa.

Lame.

Paul Krugman:

Obama does Harry and Louise, again

The Obama campaign sends out an ugly mailer. Sorry, but this is just destructive — like the Obama plan, the Clinton plan offers subsidies to lower-income families. And BO himself has conceded that he might have to penalize people who don’t buy insurance until they need care. So this is just poisoning the well for health care reform. The politics of hope, indeed.

Update: Ezra Klein adds a screenshot of the original Harry and Louise ad — they’ve obviously deliberately copied it. Just to remind everyone, Harry and Louise were the center of the vile smear campaign the insurance lobby waged against health care reform in 1993 — and this time a Democratic candidate is doing the smearing for them.

According to the new FEC filings, Democratic and Republican candidates for federal office have raised just over $1 billion so far during this election, with a majority of the money going to Democrats.

It's nice to know that that Democrats are finally outraising Republicans, but our campaign finance system is still horribly broken.

Of the $1 billion, less than $75 million went to challengers -- and of that total, $18 million came from the candidates themselves.

Political fundraising is a booming industry. The Democratic presidential field has raised $317 million this year, up from $140 million at this point in the 2004 election and $57 million in the 2000 election.

Republicans have raised $265 million, twice as much as President Bush raised through this point in 2004.

It's important to remember what this boom means, however.

Over the $582 million raised by presidential candidates, just $127 million was raised from donations smaller than $200.

In other words, roughly 80% of all money donated to presidential campaigns came from a very small group of politically influential people.

Along with the media, people who donate large sums of money to political candidates own the political process.

It's still one person, one vote, but these are the people who decide for whom we can vote.

Jan. 25, 2001:

Mr. Penn branded Mr. Gore's campaign one of "lost opportunity," saying Mr. Gore reverted to an old-style populism that alienated independent suburban white men. He did well among upper-income women, Mr. Penn said, largely because he supported abortion rights. But, he said, Mr. Gore "abandoned the fight for smaller government," losing "new economy" men who favored "smaller government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility."

Here's some more recommended reading...Mark Penn's 2002 presentation to the DLC on Democratic political strategy.