There were really two problems with Hillary Clinton's claim earlier this week that she was ahead in the "popular vote."

First, the popular vote is not a relevant standard for determining who the nominee should be. PocketNines laid three very good talking points at Daily Kos a few days ago. I'll rephrase them here:

1. If popular vote were the standard, then we'd be counting Missouri four times as much as Minnesota, even though the two states are about the same size. The reason? Missouri holds a primary, Minnesota holds a caucus.
2. If popular vote were the standard, the candidates would have executed different strategies, likely spending less time in places like Iowa and New Hampshire and more time in larger states like California.
3. If popular vote were the standard, then states with closed primaries would be counted less than states with wide open primaries because more people vote in wide open primaries than in closed primaries.

Second, Hillary Clinton's claim to be ahead in the popular vote is false, even when you count both Michigan and Florida, and exclude Michigan's uncommitted vote, 73% of which was cast in support of Barack Obama.

Continue reading this blog entry »

I hope you'll indulge me writing about something that doesn't have anything to do with the presidential election. (At least not directly -- there's actually a link, but it's very indirect.)

The Guardian has an article about Palm Jumeirah, the multi-billion dollar real estate development in Dubai billed as the "eighth wonder of the world." Palm Jumeirah is a completely artificial creation extending from Dubai's shore, adding 40 miles of coastline and allowing residents to live in the midst of amazing sea creatures ranging from barracudas to dolphins to sting rays.

Things aren't quite working out as planned, however. Some problems are relatively trivial. Summer temperatures hover around 118F/48C. It's not a dry heat, like here in Vegas -- it's humid. Incredibly, the homes there didn't come standard with air conditioning, despite being worth millions of U.S. dollars.

Continue reading this blog entry »

Over the past month, foreign agents have had a tremendous impact on two key decisions made by John McCain during his presidential campaign. First, McCain endorsed Osama bin Laden's views on the Iraq war. Second, over the past week, McCain has embraced the words of a Hamas leader to divide the American electorate.

Here is McCain in late March, justifying the war in Iraq with Osama bin Laden's declaration that Iraq is the central battle ground in the war on terror:

Sadly, McCain never considered the possibility that bin Laden is perfectly content with us wasting untold billions and needlessly sacrificing American lives in Iraq -- just as long as we don't actually go after him, wherever he might be. It's too bad McCain didn't remember the advice of General George S. Patton: "Never let the enemy pick the battle site."

Continue reading this blog entry »

Last month, Hillary Clinton's vow to stay in the race was definitive:

I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started.

Since then, she's milked the "I'm not a quitter" theme for all its worth. But now it looks like she's backing away from her bluster:

In satellite interviews with television stations in Indiana and Kentucky, Clinton three times sidestepped questions about whether she would remain in the race if she lost Indiana's May 6 primary.

"We have a long way to go," Clinton told a Louisville station when asked if she would campaign in Kentucky if she lost Indiana. "I'm looking forward to coming up to Kentucky." The Bluegrass State holds a primary on May 20.

Pressed on the question, she said, "Well, I don't make any predictions or speculate on things that haven't happened yet."

Ultimately, who cares what she does? The outcome will be the same either way. But all the same, it is funny watching her change her tune.

On Thursday night, kid oakland posted an exceptionally good diary at Daily Kos about Hillary Clinton's attack on Barack Obama for attending the Trinity United Church of Christ. (He's always a good diarist, but this is one of his best.)

The only thing that I would add to his diary, which focuses on the Pennsylvania debate, is a reminder that Clinton made the initial attack sitting in front of Richard Mellon Scaife, the leader of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that sought to destroy the Clintons in the 1990s. Timothy Noah documented the exceptional hypocrisy of that moment:

"Hate speech [is] unacceptable in any setting," Hillary Clinton today told the Tribune-Review. We turn now to this excerpt from a 1981 Columbia Journalism Review profile of Scaife by Karen Rothmyer, in which the reporter describes a conversation with the distinguished publisher and philanthropist:

"Mr. Scaife, could you explain why you give so much money to the New Right?"

"You fucking Communist c*nt, get out of here."

Well. The rest of the five-minute interview was conducted at a rapid trot down Park Street, during which Scaife tried to hail a taxi. Scaife volunteered two statements of opinion regarding his questioner's personal appearance—he said she was ugly and that her teeth were "terrible"—and also the comment that she was engaged in "hatchet journalism." His questioner thanked Scaife for his time. "Don't look behind you," Scaife offered by way of a goodbye.

Not quite sure what this remark meant, the reporter suggested that if someone were approaching it was probably her mother, whom she had arranged to meet nearby. "She's ugly, too," Scaife said, and strode off.

Simply put, if given the choice between a candidate who worships at a church with a minister like Jeremiah Wright and a candidate who forms a political alliance with Richard Mellon Scaife, I'll take the former every single time.

There is no longer any question about whether or if Barack Obama will be the Democratic candidate for president. The question now is when and how he will be recognized as the party's presumptive nominee.

It will happen sometime before the Democratic National Convention, just as soon as he secures the 2,024 delegates it will take to win the nomination on the convention floor. When that moment is upon us, everything else that has happened in the campaign will be overshadowed, rendered moot in an instant.

Think of that moment like the final touchdown that puts away a football game for good. And in this football game, superdelegates control when and where that touchdown will occur. They have two options. They can try to score themselves, or they can hand the ball off to voters, and let the voters finish the game off.

Continue reading this blog entry »

ARG has a new post-PA poll Indiana showing Clinton leading Obama 50-45.

So here's my prediction: the media + Clinton camp will spin this as a sign of a Pennsylvania "bump."

In so doing, they will cleverly ignore the fact that in the previous ARG poll, Clinton led 53-44.

So her lead has diminished from +9 in early April to +5 in late April -- a drop of four points.

That drop is reflected in the only other post-PA poll of Indiana -- by Research 2000, which shows Obama leading by 1 point. In late-March/early-April, the same poll showed Clinton with a 3 point lead. So she slipped four points in that poll as well, over the same time frame.

My money is on Clinton to win the Indiana primary, but as an Obama supporter, I'll take this kind of bump any day of the week.

Update: Bump? Major Clinton fundraiser defects to Obama. (h/t: Steven R)

Rep. James Clyburn (Photo: NYT)

Remember, many of the undecided superdelegates would be better characterized as undeclared. Many of them, in fact, already have decided to support Barack Obama -- it's just a question of when they will announce their support.

Take, for example, Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina. Read this passage from the NYT:

In an interview with The New York Times late Thursday, Mr. Clyburn said Mr. Clinton’s conduct in this campaign had caused what might be an irreparable breach between Mr. Clinton and an African-American constituency that once revered him. “When he was going through his impeachment problems, it was the black community that bellied up to the bar,” Mr. Clyburn said. “I think black folks feel strongly that that this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation.”

Mr. Clyburn added that there appeared to be an almost “unanimous” view among African-Americans that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were “committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win.”

Technically, Clyburn is an undeclared superdelegate. But is there any doubt about who he'll vote for as a superdelegate?

I absolutely guarantee Barack Obama will be the nominee. Yesterday, I posted a chart showing why he was unbeatable.

The most realistic worst-case scenario from that chart would have Barack Obama merely winning 48% of the pledged delegates from here on out (he'll actually do better). In that scenario, he'd need just 29% of the uncommitted superdelegates to support him -- and he wins the nomination. There's no doubt that will happen. None. (Edit: I added the preceding paragraph and removed the chart, which you can find in my earlier post.)

Barack Obama's lead is insurmountable. He has a mortal lock on the nomination.

Continue reading this blog entry »

*Restrictions and conditions do apply. Please read the fine print.**

**Proper use of this video requires insertion of the word "not" before "winning".

I'm planning on doing a video on the Pennsylvania debate sometime soon. I know it's not really topical at this point, but I'm interested in it, because I want to explore how Obama can improve his game and be ready for some of the tricks that tiny little reactionaries like George Stephanopolous plan on throwing his way during the general.

Here's a textual look at the questions Stephanopolous asked in the first half of the debate, separated out by each candidate, and alternating colors for different topics. (Transcript.)

Continue reading this blog entry »

Here's the boxscore:

CHW: 5 runs, 8 hits, 0 errors, 6 LOB
NYY: 4 runs, 9 hits, 1 error, 7 LOB

The Clinton campaign is arguing that the Yankees won because they got more hits.

This chart pretty much tells all you need to know to figure out who the Democratic nominee for president will be.

It offers four different scenarios of how Barack Obama might finish relative to Hillary Clinton in the pledged delegate tally, showing the percentage of remaining pledged delegates he would need to achieve that scenario and the percentage of superdelegates he would need to secure the nomination.

The only plausible scenario here is actually the final one (the others are all too conservative), under which he will finish the primaries and caucuses leading by at least 150 pledged delegates. To get there, he only need to win 48% of the remaining pledged delegates, and he'll actually almost certainly end up doing better than that.

Assuming he ends up leading by 150 pledged delegates (again, a very conservative estimate), to secure the nomination Obama would at that point need just 29% of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates. Piece of cake.

The great thing about these numbers is that the best case scenario on this chart is actually probably a worst case scenario in reality.

At this point, as I've been saying, it's not a question of whether or if Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

It's a question of when and how. Those are important questions, and not just for our state of mind. We want a narrative of Barack Obama's victory that allows him to triumphantly cross the finish line.

At least the most important question is already resolved: Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

Clinton wins
another

The Clinton spin:

The Tide is Turning. After last night's decisive victory in Pennsylvania, more people have voted for Hillary than any other candidate, including Sen. Obama.

The WaPo's Pinocchio test:

By any measure, double digits or not, Clinton won an impressive victory in Pennsylvania. But it is misleading for her to suggest that she has now overtaken her rival in the popular vote.

Remember that Clinton camp boast about raising $10 million in the 24 hours following her Pennsylvania victory? Um, well, not exactly.

Update: The report I linked to has been updated. The Clinton camp is sticking by the $10 million number and they seem to be correct. So, it would seem, no lie. Absolution! Apologies for passing along incorrect information.

Ben Smith:

9.2%

It doesn't look like Clinton's going to get that double-digit win in Pennsylvania after all.

With 99.5% of precincts reporting, she's at a 9.2% lead -- and the votes left to be counted seem to be in Philadelphia.

It's nice to know, but at this point, it probably doesn't matter. All that matters now is wrapping up the final stages of the nomination contest.

Look, I feel really bad that I keep on beating up on Jake Tapper, especially after ABC's "stellar" performance in the debate last week. But he just keeps on giving me so much material to work with! Don't blame me, blame Jake.

Today's Tapper is a detailed analysis of the scurrilous new anti-Obama ad being pushed by Hillary Clinton's old Whitewater nemesis-turned-ally.

The question Tapper asks readers to answer is whether the ad will work. The thing he doesn't tell readers is that the ad is not currently on air and is only being pushed by Newsmax.com, the Richard Mellon Scaife-owned media outlet. The head of the PAC seeking to put it on the air hopes to raise $300,000 -- which viewed in the larger scheme of the campaign, is nothing. (We're taking about 0.1% what what Clinton and Obama have raised up until this point.)

So no, Jake, no matter how good the ad is, it won't work, because nobody will see it -- unless members of the media like you obsess about its particulars. In fact, that's the entire goal of the ad -- to get the media to debate whether or not such a strategy will work.

Toughen up, Jake. Quit falling for their dirty tricks. Quit letting these hacks set the agenda for you. You write enough smart things that I know you don't really buy the sleaze they are selling. So have the courage to ignore them.

As promised, I've updated the post-Pennsylvania delegate totals and the magic number tracker for ObamaIsWinning.com. The same information is now also available on the sidebar on the home page of The Jed Report.

Continue reading this blog entry »

Jake Tapper of ABC News

Earlier, I said I probably wouldn't be posting much if anything today. Four hours later, here I am making another post. It'll be quick.

Check out this blog entry by ABC's senior political correspondent Jake Tapper about the Clinton camp's false representation of ABC's reporting on the (irrelevant) popular vote. The thing that interests me isn't that the Clinton camp lied about what ABC had said -- that happens every day, like sniper fire on a morning run.

No, the thing that interests me is that after he posted the item, he temporarily unpublished it -- because the Clinton camp complained that his debunking was inaccurate (they were wrong, Tapper was right).

UPDATE: The Clinton campaign pushed back on this post...I took this blog post down for a brief time this morning while I was on a train and couldn't fully look into all the arguments the Clinton campaign was making. Minus this update, the above post is the same as it was before.

That gives you a sense of how afraid some reporters are of the Clinton campaign. Tapper wrote something that was accurate, they complained, and so he took it down to double-check what he had already believed to be true. If the Clinton camp is able to intimidate all reporters as thoroughly as they appear to have intimidated Tapper, the rest of this campaign is going to be something of a slog.

As I said earlier, the question isn't if or whether Obama will win -- it's how and when.

It's pretty clear by now that the ongoing contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is doing nobody other than John McCain any good. It's also obvious that Obama will be the nominee: his pledged delegate lead is insurmountable, and superdelegates aren't going to lead coup against the voters.

Superdelegates could in theory end it tomorrow by lining up behind Barack Obama and pledging their support to his candidacy. Logically, that would make sense -- after all, they are going to to do it eventually anyway.

The problem is that it just wouldn't look right for Barack Obama to lose Pennsylvania -- albeit by a narrower than expected margin -- only to have superdelegates appear to bigfoot all over the results by endorsing him. Yes, I know that defies all logic, but this is politics we're talking about.

So how the hell do we end this thing in triumph? Well, documenting the various reasons why Hillary Clinton is screwing the party by not quitting won't end it, unfortunately. (I'm still going to keep on doing that for therapeutic reasons, if nothing else.)

The way I see, there are two ways we can end this campaign in reasonable time, and both of them involve Barack Obama getting across the finish line with a win.

Plan A (May 6): Barack Obama wins both Indiana and North Carolina

If this happens, Clinton will withdraw, and if she doesn't withdraw, half her campaign staff and all her fundraisers will quit. I like this scenario because it happens soon -- May 6, just four days after my birthday -- and because it doesn't require any math.

So as for Plan A: Go, Barack, Go!

Alas, Plan A may not come to pass. Barack is not a favorite to win in Indiana, though he should be able to win in North Carolina.

That brings us to the next scenario.

Plan B (May 20): Uncommitted superdelegates join the "Pelosi Club" (i.e., promise to support winner of pledged delegate contest)

Under Plan B, Barack Obama will win the nomination after he wins Oregon on May 20. Let me work through the math to show you why. (Don't worry, it's simple math.)

To start with, there are 3,253 pledged delegates, and 1,627 of them will constitute a majority. The first candidate to hit 1,627 pledged delegates will be the nominee unless there is a coup by superdelegate.

Now, keep that 1,627 number in mind while we turn to the actual totals of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

After Pennsylvania, Obama will probably have around 1,493 pledged delegates and Clinton will have 1,334. Assuming that she wins Indiana (remember, this is Plan B), West Virginia, and Kentucky, and that Obama wins North Carolina, Guam, and Oregon, on May 20, Barack Obama will have 1,634 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1,485. That means on May 20, he will have guaranteed himself a majority of pledged delegates heading to the Denver convention.

Now, as things currently stand, 230 superdelegates support Barack Obama and 255 support Hillary Clinton. 310 are undecided.

That would give Barack Obama a total of 1,864 delegates on May 20 -- 161 short of the 2,025 delegates he needs to win the nomination.

So what we need is about 161 (let's say 170 to be safe) superdelegates to join the Pelosi club, agreeing to support whomever wins the pledged delegate battle.

The beautiful thing about Plan B is that it does not require superdelegates to endorse Barack Obama -- it doesn't require them to "give" him the nomination. Instead, by committing their support to the winner of the pledged delegate battle, these superdelegates will allow Barack Obama to earn the nomination on May 20, crossing the finish line with a win.

That sets up a narrative for a huge, inspiring victory in Oregon.

(Now there's always the chance that Barack Obama will lose Oregon, but I think that if he loses Oregon, enough other bad things will have happened that he won't be hitting 1,627 pledged delegates on May 20. But he's going to win Oregon. Maybe a 5% chance we need a Plan C, but I doubt it. We'll figure out what to do in the unlikely that scenario presents itself.)

Getting superdelegates to join the Pelosi club shouldn't be hard to do. Again, they don't have to endorse anyone, and it's what they are going to do anyway. Even some pro-Clinton superdelegates can join the Pelosi club (some already have according to DemConWatch).

Conclusion:

Over the next two weeks, Barack Obama (and us, as his supporters) should focus his most of his energy on winning both North Carolina and Indiana. Hopefully, that results in two wins, ending the campaign.

On a parallel track, Democratic Party officials who understand that Obama will be the nominee should work to secure 170 or so commitments by superdelegates to join the Pelosi Club.

This sets up a perfect narrative. Either Plan A works -- we win North Carolina and Indiana -- or we mvoe on to Plan B, and by winning Oregon on May 20, Barack Obama will cross the finish line and become the nominee.

Either way, if we head down this path, there's a 95%+ certainty that on May 6 or May 20 we will be celebrating Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.

Until that point, who cares about the spin of the media? I find it annoying so I just turn the television off.

We're going to win. It's not a question of whether or if. It's just a question of how and when.

And I think that on May 6 or May 20, one of these two plans will allow Barack Obama to win -- not by default, but by triumph.

So what do you think? Are you ready? Let's close this out!

(I've got some non-campaign obligations to attend to today, so this will probably be my last post for the day, or at least until the late evening. Please leave your thoughts and comments, though -- I'll be reading them and my e-mail.)

We already know who will win -- Barack Obama.

After last night, the things we still don't know: how and when.

Not if, not whether, but how, and when.

Clinton won Pennsylvania. Congratulations. She was expected to win. After Barack Obama's worst month (Jeremiah Wright, Bitter, crappy debate, Media pile on) he managed to eat away a little bit at her lead from Ohio even though Pennsylvania was a stronger state for her than Ohio (Closed primary, Gov. Rendell, Mayor Nutter, family roots).

In short: Pennsylvania wasn't a game changer, and the campaign continues. The delegate math is pretty much unchanged, and that's really the only thing that matters.

I want this thing to be over just as much as anybody else; it makes me sick that we're going to have to listen to another few more weeks of this nonsense.

But let's remember: we're going to win. Our challenge now is figuring out how to beat Clinton as quickly as possible so we can turn to McCain.

We can afford to forget the math, because the math is over. We don't need to spin, because the spin won't change who is going to win.

All we need to do is remember: it's not if or whether. It's how and when.

(Bumped.)

During the 1990s, ultra-conservative Pennsylvania billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife funded what Hillary Clinton called a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to destroy her husband’s presidency.

Now, one decade after Scaife’s operation nearly removed her husband from office, Hillary Clinton has reached a rapprochement with the reclusive owner of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Last weekend Hillary Clinton accepted Scaife’s endorsement in the Pennsylvania primary, offered in the pages of the Tribune-Review. She had pursued the endorsement since last month, earning it after sitting down with Scaife and publicly attacking Barack Obama for attending Trinity United Church of Christ.

One day after Scaife’s endorsement, Newsmax, a Scaife-owned media outlet, began pushing a new negative smear campaign against Obama, attempting to portray him as “weak” on the war on terror because he opposes the death penalty.

At the center of the smear campaign is a television ad produced by an anti-Obama 527PAC called “The National Campaign Fund.” (Although the ad is sinister in tone, it is so over-the-top that it’s actually somewhat humorous.)

The National Campaign Fund is headed by Floyd Brown, infamous for creating the 1988 “Willie Horton” spot that helped defeat Michael Dukakis. In 2004, Floyd Brown was a key player in the right-wing assault on John Kerry.

In the 1990s, Brown was also a key player in the right-wing campaign to destroy the Clinton presidency. According to Joe Conason, Brown and his sidekick David Bossie “served as publicity agents for David Hale, the crooked and discredited former Little Rock municipal judge whose allegations against the Clintons forced the appointment of an independent counsel.” Hale was one of the most important early figures in “The Arkansas Project,” the Scaife-funded effort to destroy Bill Clinton documented in the 2004 movie “The Hunting of the President.”

Brown, who wrote “Slick Willie” in 1992, played an important role in shaping the media coverage of the Whitewater investigation throughout the 1990s, operating out of an organization called “Citizens United.”

Newsmax, which is now hosting and promoting Brown’s new television ad on its YouTube channel (it has already received over 50,000 views), was founded by Christopher Ruddy, formerly one of Richard Mellon Scaife’s top “reporters.” Ruddy spent much of the 1990s trying to prove outlandish conspiracy theories linking the Clintons to Vince Foster’s suicide and Ron Brown’s tragic death in a plane crash.

Scaife, one of Ruddy’s primary investors, owns the third-largest share of Newsmax.

Despite Clinton’s public embrace of Richard Mellon Scaife and her acceptance of his endorsement, Newsmax continues to pump out right-wing propaganda aimed at discrediting Democrats, including Barack Obama.

In addition to pushing the new smear campaign, Newsmax last month published a false story claiming that Barack Obama had been at church during one of the Wright sermons broadcast on YouTube. After New York Times columnist William Kristol repeated the false claim in his column, he was forced retract his claim and apologize. Despite clear video evidence disproving their claim, Newsmax merely issued an ambiguous “clarification.”

::

On Monday, Keith Olbermann asked Clinton why she had accepted Richard Mellon Scaife’s endorsement given his history of opposing the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

Clinton’s answer offered quite a glimpse at her loyalty to the Democratic Party, focusing completely on Scaife’s support for her and completely ignoring the ongoing negative impact that Scaife has had on the party. “I do believe in redemption, Keith. I believe in death bed conversions and I think it's possible for anyone to see the error of their ways. So I'm bringing people together as we speak. Anyone who doubts my ability to bridge the most incredible chasms can point to those recent events.”

It’s obvious that Scaife is using Hillary Clinton as a pawn with which to attack his real target: Barack Obama, who will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee in 2008. Apparently, Clinton doesn’t care. As long as Scaife isn’t after her, it’s not her problem.

That may be true, but Scaife is a problem for Democrats, though. Even though Clinton is so desperate for support that she doesn’t care where her friends come from, as Democrats, it is our responsibility to care.

Clinton’s ongoing embrace of right-wing thugs like like Scaife and her rejection of progressive stalwarts like MoveOn.org threaten to undermine our party’s bid for the presidency.

It’s time we step up and demand that Clinton both denounce and reject Richard Mellon Scaife and his endorsement.

We simply cannot afford his poison in our party.

Update: There is a discrepancy between the media's count which shows a 9.4 point Clinton win versus the Pennsylvania Secretary of State which shows an 8.499% win. In either case, it's not a double digit win, and it's narrower than Clinton's Ohio win. It's just not clear whether it's an 8 or a 9 point win. I'll try to sort it out tomorrow but for now, I'll be conservative and assume it's 9 points and update this post accordingly.

Earlier in the evening, I thought Clinton was on her way to a 10-point victory.

Looks like that won't be happening. Instead, she'll probably win by nine points -- a let-down for Clinton folks who had really set their sights on a 10-point win and went to bed last night thinking they had accomplished their goal.

So she's looking at a bit of a drop-off from her Ohio performance.

Given that Pennsylvania was supposed to be a better state for her than Ohio, that's going to be hard for her to explain. As a refresher, here are some of her advantages:

1. She positioned herself as a favorite daughter with her strong family ties to Scranton.
2. Pennsylvania has a closed primary, restricted to registered Democrats. (In Ohio, 20% of voters were independents, a group Obama won.)
3. Obama endured the worst six-week stretch of his campaign (Jeremiah Wright, Bitter-gate, terrible debate).
4. The media was clearly rooting for her to do well.
5. Clinton won the endorsement of the Scaife-owned Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. (Okay, snark.)

Given all those advantages, the fact that she actually lost some of her lead in Ohio is bad news for her campaign. She's already far behind, and can't afford to fall further behind the pace.

All in all, Obama seems to have actually had a stronger performance than the initial numbers would have indicated.

Update: ayjaymay adds a few more good points in the comments, including Clinton's support from Gov. Rendell and Mayor Nutter, plus her husband's popularity in PA in 1996.

Via Michael Calderone, Terry McCauliffe praises FOX New as "fair and balanced" during an interview with Major Garett. (I just posted the video into the video pod at the top of the page.)

Calderone has another funny catch, also from FOX: Karl Rove told Chris Wallace he needed data to analyze and casually mentioned that he would give PA Gov. Ed Rendell a call, noting that he had Rendell's numbers in his cell phone. That Ed Rendell sure does get around...

Excellent diary over at Daily Kos by PocketNines explaining three important reasons why the popular vote total while interesting is not relevant to the nomination battle:

Point Number 1:  If the popular vote determined the nominee, no candidate would ever go to Iowa or New Hampshire.  They'd spend all their time in big urban areas all over the country from the outset of the campaign, racking up raw numbers.  What would be the point of even visiting New Hampshire if you could camp out in Brooklyn? Concrete Example:  Barack Obama would not have spent only a day and a half in California before the Feb 5 primary.  He would have never gone to Idaho.  Duh.

Point Number 2:  If the popular vote determined the nominee, no state in its right mind would ever hold a caucus, instantly disenfranchising itself.  Concrete example: Minnesota-Missouri.  Minnesota gets credit for 214K votes, and Missouri gets 822K votes, but they each get 72 delegates.  Is Missouri's voice 4 times more important than Minnesota's?

Point Number 3:  The arbitrary distinction between who gets to vote in these primaries is nothing like the general election, where everyone registered gets to vote.  In the primaries, sometimes it's just Dems, sometimes Dems and Indies, sometimes anyone.  Concrete example: Texas gets a million more votes than similar overall population New York (2.8M to 1.8M), even though New York is far more Democratic, simply due to this arbitrary restriction on who can vote (NY = closed, Texas = open).

So this is off-the-cuff -- I reserve the right to change my mind, and welcome any criticism.

My overall take is that at this point it's not a question of whether Barack Obama wins the nomination, it's question of how he wins the nomination.

Here's how I arrive at that conclusion:

First, if Pennsylvania were the only state that mattered, Clinton managed to win by 8 points -- a smaller margin than her Ohio victory of 10.5 points. Moreover, it was in a closed primary, unlike Ohio, where Obama actually won among independent voters who were about one-fifth of the electorate. Clinton won a solid victory, somewhere around 9 or 10 points. Hats off.

Second, Pennsylvania isn't the only state that matters -- it's important, but 95% of the delegates are selected elsewhere.

Third, Barack Obama still has a mortal lock on the pledged delegate battle, which means that he will be the nominee. The superdelegates just aren't going to overturn the popular vote.

Fourth, Hillary Clinton's continued candidacy means that she would rather see John McCain be president than Barack Obama. She's got virtually no path to the nomination. Continuing this campaign will just further polarize the Democratic Party, and draw vital resources away from defeating John McCain -- and other downballot races.

Fifth, although superdelegates could step up and end the campaign right now, Barack Obama will be best served by defeating Hillary Clinton. He does not want to be seen as having relied on party insiders to "rescue" his campaign. He'd be best served by a trickle of superdelegates between now and then.

Sixth, two weeks from now, he will have won -- in North Carolina. As long as he keeps it closer in Indiana than it is in North Carolina, at that time a stampede of superdelegates in his direction will be welcomed and seen as a sign of strength, not weakness. (Of course, if he wins in Indiana, every superdelegate in town will be fighting to jump on board, even Clinton superdelegates.)

Finally, Obama does I think need to hone his message a bit. Clinton comes across as someone who is running for Mayor -- she is pandering, and promising the world to a lot of people. In effect, she is lying: she is making promises that she can't or won't keep. Obama does need to call her on this, and he can do so in a humorous way. I think voters need to see some of her flip flops, especially on NAFTA. Just as importantly, Obama needs some work on his message to women voters who are sticking by Clinton because they see her as a victim who has fought through extraordinary challenges. I'll post more about that tomorrow, probably in the next couple of days.

I'll close by repeating my opening thought: at this point, it isn't a question of whether Barack Obama wins the nomination -- it's a question of how he wins it.

Update: You can track the numbers at the PA Secretary of State website if you haven't already checked. As of 8:40pm Pacific, Clinton had a 9.6% lead.

Update 2: This where you can see how absurd the digit obsession is -- as of right now, it's 9.46%...a 9 point victory, not 10 after rounding. (9:44PM)

Update 3: I am now absurdly obsessed with this: 98.4% reporting, Clinton has an 8.7% lead. If she stays below 9.5%, she can't plausibly claim a double-digit win.

Update 4: 8.5% with 98.8% reporting...

Update 5: (10:53PM, 98.91% reporting) Still 8.5% but getting very close to under 8.5% which would mean an 8 point victory. Left to report are Philly, Chester, Delaware Counties (all pro-Obama) and Allegheny and Bucks (both pro-Clinton). There looks to be many more votes to be counted in the pro-Obama areas, so I'd say 8 points is very likely!

Update 6: (1:20AM) Looks like the PA Sec'y of State website and the AP totals don't match up. AP says it's a 9.4 point Clinton lead. For now, I'd assume that is the right number. The key thing is for the spin game -- it's not a double-digit.

Clinton is now leading by 10% and last I checked the CNN map, it said that Philadelphia had nearly all reported. Unless there are other pockets of support for Obama, or there is some quirk about Philadelphia's reporting that I'm not aware of, it seems likely Clinton will have hit the 10% mark. I'll update this later when we have final numbers.

NYT's take on Pennsylvania:

On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.

If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: “We would be able to totally obliterate them.”

...It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind with they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.

Yes it's true -- Barack Obama is guaranteed victory among pledged delegates. What this means is that the only way Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee is by coup by superdelegate. That's not going to happen. This primary is over. Yet it continues. Barack Obama is the underdog who cannot lose.

Remember what he said a few weeks ago?

Watching him now and two things that are interesting:

1. He's no longer on the same panel as Rachel Maddow, who has consistently kicked his ass. Is he afraid her? I'll bet he is -- because unlike Harold Ford, she wouldn't let him get away with his bulls**t.
2. "The Interrupter" doesn't interrupt Harold Ford nearly as much as he interrupts Maddow, in part because Ford let's him talk most of the time.

UPDATE: Oh lord will somebody shut this blowhard up! Rachel where are you?!?!?!

Keith O. just said Axelrod was wearing a t-shirt today with that slogan. Looking for a picture of one now...

UPDATE -- Clinton wins, no word on the margin.

More importantly, here is a picture of the photo -- I think as worn by Robert Gibbs:

...and they didn't call it right away for Hillary Clinton.

So right there, that's something of a victory. Who knows what the final total will be? But certainly seems like Clinton is not on track to get anything near the 20 point win she really needs. Still be interesting to see if she manages a double-digit victory.

It's useful to remember that there are 3,253 pledged delegates overall and tonight 158 are at stake. Currently, Obama leads 1,420-1,249 (171 delegates). So not much is going to change substantively tonight, but it sure will be a media frenzy!

More importantly, as the talking heads on MSNBC are now saying, Clinton's donors will be looking at the final numbers to determine whether or not they will continue to pay for her campaign.

Bill Clinton got himself all caught up in another lie today, directly contradicted by his own words -- recorded yesterday.

Clinton was asked by an NBC reporter about his claim that Obama had played the race-card on him. Clinton's reponse was to deny ever having made the claim.  "No, no, no," he said. "That’s not what I said."

But a recording of his conversation with WHYY radio shows that Clinton did in fact make that very claim, saying:

I think that they played the race card on me. And we now know, from memos from the campaign and everything, that they planned to do it along.

After Clinton thought he was off-air, he told a companion: "I don't think I should take any shit from anybody on that, do you?"

For the record, Obama himself actually never did racialize Clinton's remarks. Back in January, on This Week with George "The Little Patriot" Stephanopoulos, Obama was directly asked about Clinton's remarks and didn't call them racist or race-baiting.

I will say this, however -- however politically savvy they may have been, on a substantive basis, Obama was wrong: Bill Clinton's remarks were race-baiting.

Continue reading this blog entry »

ABC's Jake Tapper: Extremely unpatriotic

In a shocking turn of events, ABC senior political correspondent Jake Tapper admitted on Monday that he had never heard of the "Stars and Stripes" -- a common nickname for the flag of the United States of America. Tapper also told the entire internet that he was unaware that "pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes" is an obvious reference to the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

After Tapper's stunning concession on his highly trafficked blog "Political Punch," speculation mounted that he does not have sufficient Patriotism(tm) to cover the 2008 presidential election.

Marc Halperin, Hillary Clinton's chief press liasion officer, said Tapper would be lucky to last a week. "Really, I think it's a matter of days before George Stephanopolous frog marches that Europe-loving freakshow out of the office."

Hillary Clinton's chief spokesmodel Howard Woolfson made a short statement available to the press.

Senator Clinton is appalled by Mr. Tapper's remarks, which were deeply hurtful to all Pennsylvanians -- and she hopes all big-state Americans -- because they came after 9/11, and 9/11 was an attack on our country, and Mr. Tapper's remarks were an attack on our country.

Continue reading this blog entry »

We'll know who won Pennsylvania soon enough, but speculation can be fun. So let's take a look at the polling averages, using the Ohio as a point of comparison.

For polls completed on the Sunday or Monday before each contest:

• In Pennsylvania, Clinton leads 50%-43% (7 points)
• In Ohio, Clinton led 51%-43% (8 points)

During the week before the final Sunday and Monday of each campaign:

• In Pennsylvania, Clinton led 49%-42% (7 points)
• In Ohio, Clinton led 48%-43% (5 points)

So the good news is unlike in Ohio, Clinton doesn't seem to have momentum. The bad news is that the numbers were about the same in Ohio as they are now in Pennsylvania.

What does this all mean? I'll tell you on Wednesday.

During last week's debate, George Stephanopolous asked his now-famous question tying Barack Obama to remarks made by William Ayers, a supposedly unrepentant terrorist. Those remarks, as Stephanopolous noted, were published in the New York Times on 9/11.

After Obama made the important point that William Ayers was not a confidant and that it was ridiculous to impute the views of people he knows to himself, Hillary Clinton went on the attack. Here's what she said:

I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.

And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more.

Notice the references to 9/11? How dare Mr. Ayers have said such horrible things after 9/11?

Except his remarks were actually made well before 9/11. That fact that they were published on 9/11 (really, 9/10, when the first editions are printed) was a purely coincidental.

Continue reading this blog entry »

Needless to say, the answer wasn't satisfactory, but here's video, along with clips from March 25th when she sat down with Richard Mellon Scaife and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial board.

An excerpt from Chapter 3 of All Too Human: A Politicial Education by George Stephanopolous:

Clinton went on Nightline. Answering the questions was our only hope. Koppel first asked Clinton if he wanted to read the letter on the air, but we weren’t that dumb. A clip of Clinton reading one damaging line out of context would be replayed endlessly. Instead, Koppel read the letter and gave Clinton the whole show to explain himself. Clinton was masterful – calm about the past, impassioned about the future, with just the right degree of indignation about the kind of issues that ought to matter in electing a president. In the final minute of the show he squeezed in a sterling sound bite: “Ted, the only times you’ve invited me on the show are to discuss a woman I never slept with and a draft I never dodged.”

Even had I known for certain then that Clinton’s closing statement wasn’t really true, I would have had a hard time admitting it to myself. I was in battle mode, and nearly anything we did, I believed, was justified by what was being done to us. Tabloid reporters were prowling the streets of Little Rock, offering cash for stories about Clinton. Almost all the rumors swirling around our increasingly gothic campaign – that Clinton sanctioned drug running from Arkansas’s Mena Airport, that Clinton was a cocaine fiend, that Hillary was a secret lesbian – were both malicious and untrue.

Experience can be an asset. But when you've learned all the wrong things from that experience, it becomes a liability. And that's the situation that Hillary Clinton finds herself in today.

Here's Barack Obama's response to Hillary Clinton's fear-mongering ad. I think it's much better than his response to Hillary Clinton's 3AM ad in Texas because he's framing the question in his terms, not hers.

Obama is countering fear with optimism and a positive message of change.

ANNOUNCER: Who has what it takes to really bring change? To finally take on the special interests - not take their money. Who made the right judgment about opposing the war and had the courage and character to speak honestly about it. And who in times of challenge will unite us - not use fear and calculation to divide us.

BARACK OBAMA: We are one people. All of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes. All of us defending the United States of America.

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton won the endorsement of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, owned by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Clinton actively sought the endorsement -- a bitter irony, given that Scaife had funded The Arkansas Project, which, as this clip from "The Hunting of the President" shows, played an important role in the impeachment of President Clinton:

Incredibly, during Hillary Clinton's editorial board meeting with Scaife, she attacked Barack Obama over Jeremiah Wright:

And now, after embracing Scaife and adopting the right-wing tactics that undermined her husband's presidency, Hillary Clinton accuses Barack Obama of hypocrisy?

$109 million later, they learned all the wrong lessons.

From MichaelMoore.com:

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw.

Next up: John Edwards?

Even though Ed Rendell has said some pretty awful things during this campaign, there's something endearingly off-message about him.

Unfortunately for Rendell, now that video of him has emerged sharing a platform with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, heaping praise upon NOI and one of Farrakhan's ministers, Hillary Clinton's complete embrace of the right-wing's political correctness orthodoxy will rule him out of consideration for the vice presidency.

Here is Rendell at Tindley Temple United Methodist Church on April 14, 1997 (part 2 is here):

Recall that in last week's debate, Clinton attacked Obama for having a pastor who knows Farrakhan. And in February, when Tim Russert asked Obama about his pastor's positive words about Farrakhan, Clinton went on the attack as well, saying:

I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.

And now here we are, with her top public surrogate standing by Louis Farrakhan's side. It really doesn't even matter whether she denounces or rejects him. The point is that Hillary Clinton trapped by the unbearable political correctness of her campaign.

The bottom-line: she wants to play a game that she herself cannot win. She hasn't learned the right lesson: it's time to change the game.

Correction: When I initially posted this video, I wrote that the video showed "Rendell praising Farrakhan." The specific individual who Rendell praises is not Farrakhan but one of his NOI ministers, Minister Rodney Muhammad. That being said, the essential point is the same. All the ingredients are there for a Hillary Clinton-style guilty by association attack: video showing Rendell sharing a platform with Farrakhan, lavishing praise on NOI, and shaking Farrakhan's hand at the conclusion of his remarks (see part 2).

Hillary Clinton is absolutely determined to wage this campaign on John McCain's terms. Here's her closing argument to Pennsylvanians, complete with an image of bin Laden:

Sometimes you get the feeling that Republicans saw 9/11 as a political bonanza more than anything else. It's too bad that Hillary Clinton is following their lead.

There's nothing new about this kind of politics: in 1984, Ronald Reagan ran an ad with similar themes, but different imagery.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain want to keep on doing things the same way we've done them year after year, with the same old arguments and the same old battle lines.

This year, with Barack Obama, we've got an opportunity to change that game. That's the test of this election. Isn't it time we try something different?

I guess Hillary Clinton's debt-laden presidential campaign needs some financial help and John McCain was happy to step up to the plate!

Tee-hee. :)

Earlier, I posted a blog entry about John McCain's false attack on Barack Obama, in which he said that Obama had "countenanced" Bill Ayers' violent past. (Obama has done no such thing, and in fact has rejected and denounced them as detestable acts.)

In that post, I said that McCain had brought up the attack on Obama unprompted. My source was Jake Tapper who wrote:

On "This Week with George George Stephanopoulos" this morning, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., unprompted, raised the issue of the connection between Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and William Ayers, a former member of the radical group the Weather Underground.

Now that I've watched the interview for myself, I find Tapper's frame to be at best deceptive. It was Stephanopolous, not McCain, who brought up the subject of Barack Obama's patriotism. So it was true that McCain was not prompted specifically to talk about Ayers, but he was prompted to talk about Obama's patriotism -- which is close to the same thing.

Another important point: during a 23 minute interview, Stephanopolous and McCain found themselves spending 3 whole minutes -- 13% of the interview -- discussing Barack Obama's patriotism. During that exchange, McCain made several false statements, only a handful of which were parried by Stephanopolous, and not that effectively.

I'll buy you a milkshake if Barack Obama ever has an interview longer than twenty minutes with a major MSM figure where the discussion dwells on McCain's relationships with pastors for 13% of the interview.

Today was the deadline to file FEC reports for March fundraising. If you're a geek like me, view the actual reports here: Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton.

Obama had another huge month, raised $41 million and entered April with $51 million cash on hand, $42 million of which was available for use in the primary. Clinton raised $21 million and McCain raised $15 million.

I'm still trying to figure out how much Clinton has for the primary and how much she has for the general. At most, she entered April with about $12 million available for the primary.

Excluding the $5 million Clinton lent to her campaign, she reported more than $10 million in debt -- about half of which was owed to Mark Penn's firm.

Update: I should have taken a look at AMERICAblog before posting this! Joe Sudbay has a good rundown. The bottom-line: As far as the primary is concerned, Clinton began April in the red -- she owed more money than she had in the bank.

Pittsburgh's largest newspaper, the Post-Gazette, endorsed Barack Obama:

Obama's moment: On Tuesday, Democrats should dare to be different
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

In this old commonwealth, the past throws a long shadow and what is familiar tends to muscle aside the promise of change. As Pennsylvania Democrats approach Tuesday's primary, they need to meet the historic moment with the historic courage it demands.

... With Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama differing little on the issues, Democrats can dare to be different and vote for the truly fresh force in this race, the one who has sparked an excitement and energy not seen since the Kennedy years. The bold choice is Barack Obama, who is uniquely placed to bridge America's most bitter divisions. History now calls on Pennsylvania to lead this nation into the future -- and all it requires is the courage to believe.

Today Hillary Clinton won the endorsement of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a newspaper owned by billionaire right-wing activist Richard Mellon Scaife.

If you don't already know who Richard Mellon Scaife is, I apologize in advance for allowing him into your life. In the 1990s, he funded some of the most virulent anti-Clinton efforts, spreading scurrilous smears about Bill and Hillary Clinton through his various media outlets. Take for example this 2002 article published in the Tribune-Review, which tried to paint Clinton as a Marxist radical:

In 1969, a group of Black Panthers was on trial in New Haven, Conn., charged with the torture killing of one of their comrades. The story goes that Hillary Clinton, then a student at Yale and working with the ultra-radical National Lawyers Guild, supported the Panthers and helped shut down the university with protests. Today, Hillary's friends will say, "It is hard to fault her efforts to monitor the trial." They don't want to comment on the fact that the future first lady joined the law office of hard-core communist Robert Truhaft as an intern and worked with him on defense strategies for the New Haven Nine.

Sound familiar?

Continue reading this blog entry »

If nothing else became clear this week, it should now be obvious that John McCain will not eschew Karl Rove-style politics this campaign season. In fact, he's already embraced them. On Friday, he sent supporters an e-mail falsely suggesting that Barack Obama had ties to Hamas. Today -- unprompted (edit: it wasn't unprompted after all) -- he parroted the Clinton-Hannity-Stephanopolous line of attack and falsely claimed Barack Obama supported William Ayers' violent acts -- acts which Barack Obama has repeatedly denounced as detestable.

Continue reading this blog entry »

I've had a quiet day of blogging so far -- something tells me I'm about to get going on some new posts. In the meantime, enjoy this this mashup by buckpowerLA of Barack's "Declare Independence" speech in Philadelphia on Friday night.

MSNBC/McClatchy has a new Pennsylvania poll showing a close race -- 48% to 43%, with Clinton in the lead -- but as Chuck Todd's analysis shows, things probably aren't actually that close. My best guess: Clinton scores a double-digit victory.

The important question then is this: what will Hillary Clinton's near-certain Pennsylvania victory mean for the campaign?

The first thing to remember is that even though all of our attention has been focused on Pennsylvania for the past several weeks, it is just one state of the many that have voted. 158 delegates will be awarded on Tuesday -- precisely 4.9% of all the pledged delegates going to Denver.

That means that 95.1% of all pledged delegates were decided by voters in other states. It's something worth keeping in mind, because it's the voters who will pick the Democratic nominee, not superdelegates. Yes, the rules provide a mechanism for superdelegates to overturn the judgment of voters -- but unless they want a repeat of 1968, that won't happen.

So the real challenge is winning a majority of pledged delegates -- the delegates that are selected by us, the voters. As you may know, there are 3,253 of these pledged delegates, and the first candidate to win a majority of them -- 1,627 -- will win the nomination, unless the superdelegates execute a coup.

1,627, then, is the real magic number. That's the important number.

Continue reading this blog entry »