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.