US exceptionalism

There's a certain satisfaction in the U.S. media these days when they point out that the U.S. financial crisis has hit the entire world. But there's an important point missing here. The financial crisis exists because banks are holding securities that all of a sudden aren't worth anything. That problem is world-wide. But there are two other parts that are concentrated in the U.S. -- the crash in the housing market, which has made ordinary people much less wealthy, and a large amount of government debt. Even if some sort of massive restructuring of mortgages goes on, this problem will not go away, because people's net worth has been hit hard. For example, municipal tax bases are going to shrink. Given this underlying problem with the fundamentals, there is no reason to expect the U.S. economy to recover soon, or even to stay in sync with the rest of the world. We may be able to avoid a Depression caused by illiquidity, but maybe not one caused by massive debt. And we may have to go it alone.

Greatest strength = greatest weakness?

McCain may be said to have two main strengths -- his POW status, and his image as a "reformer." Turning the latter strength into a weakness is easier than it might seem, because McCain hasn't always been a reformer -- as his membership in the Keating Five proves. Look at Obama's latest economics speech:

It happened in the 1980s, when we loosened restrictions on Savings and Loans and appointed regulators who ignored even these weaker rules. Too many S&Ls took advantage of the lax rules set by Washington to gamble that they could make big money in speculative real estate. Confident of their clout in Washington, they made hundreds of billions in bad loans, knowing that if they lost money, the government
would bail them out. And they were right. The gambles did not pay off, our economy went into recession, and the taxpayers ended up footing the bill. Sound familiar?

I wonder who constituted their "clout" in Washington? And then later in the speech:

We can’t have a situation like the old S&L scandal where its “heads” investors win, and “tails” taxpayers lose. That’s going to take ending the lobbyist-driven dominance of these institutions that we’ve seen for far too long in Washington.

It would be very daring on Obama's part, but attacking head-on McCain's membership in the Keating Five (which, by the way, is far more direct than Obama's connection to Bill Ayers) might be a very effective attack.

Lieberman's Grammar

The rules on this appear to be somewhat murky, but Lieberman really goes to town on this:

And in my opinion, the choice could not be more clear; between one candidate, John McCain, who has experience and has been tested in war and tried in peace, and another candidate that has not. Between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put his country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate that has not. Between one candidate that's a talker and one candidate who's the leader America needs as our next president. [emphasis added]

I've never noticed this before, but maybe it's more common than I realize. Still, with Lieberman's construction, he has four pairs of "that" and "who," and it really looks glaring. Maybe no worse than "Democrat Congress" -- I wonder when Lieberman will fall into that.

Conspiracy Theory

I have no argument that this is true, I just think it would be diabolical: Through Randy Scheunemann, who was a lobbyist for Georgia, the McCain campaign, Bush government, and Georgian government have a ploy that buys Georgia sympathy in the eyes of the West, while simultaneously ratcheting up the foreign policy pressure/saber-rattling in the Presidential campaign. Why the hell did Georgia make the first move against Russia? Maybe there were back-channel direct promises of aid, as opposed to the public statements that have been made.

Guaranteed Loss for Obama

Israel's military training exercise brings up an easy way to defeat Obama. Bush may not have the leverage left to invade Iran, but Israel doesn't need to worry about U.S. approval ratings. If Israel bombs Iran, and Iran retaliates against Israel, who knows what happens. If what happens is a full-on war between Israel and Iran, the U.S., judging from the current full-throated defenses of Israel offered by both presidential candidates, may not find it too difficult to jump into the fray. And if that move doesn't turn off the American public, McCain will have a powerful argument to use against giving the reins to Obama. Other option -- capture Osama bin Laden and then repeatedly refer to him as "Obama."

Pardonable offenses

While other countries may eventually charge the architects of the Bush administration's torture policy, most people think that the U.S. is not going to go there. But how sure is the administration of that? Even if the odds are minuscule, there's still a chance that in a President Obama's second term, with a solid Democratic Congressional majority, the topic would be broached. Bush's power to pardon people involved in torture (there seems to be very little hard evidence that he was directly involved) could be used to great effect here, and the offenses wouldn't even have to be enumerated -- the parties involved could be pardoned for all offenses they committed against the United States, as Ford did to Nixon. Bush's confidence might well keep him from considering this at all. But if I were Alberto Gonzales, or maybe more relevantly, David Addington, I would be worried.

In Four Years

The non-Poblano poster at fivethirtyeight.com had a piece listing the many wrongs Hillary Clinton did in this campaign, and says that he may never vote for her again. I think that he's right, and that he may even understate the case a bit. Obama pushed back on certain topics, but, by and large, he didn't call into question Clinton's basic morals, or bring up the 90's too much, presumably because he didn't want to awaken nostalgia for Bill Clinton's administration. But in 2012, 90's nostalgia is not going to be a campaign issue. And Clinton may not be lucky enough to be running against someone whose campaign is based on a new kind of politics. If I were running her opponent's campaign, I would just show her meeting with Scaife (with a clip of the "right-wing conspiracy" quote to lead in), promising to suspend the gas tax, and talking about hard-working Americans, white Americans, and have the slogan, "Hillary: she'll say anything to win." None of her campaign positions are going to play any better in 4 years.

right and left both attack obama: from Sekhar

I think most people on the left realize the unique nature of the election in the US this year. For the first time ever, a progressive and an oppressed minority has run a brilliant campaign and is very likely to become president.

Curiously, and this is perhaps a reflection of the state of the left historically, some don't share this understanding. They demand a platform acceptable to the left. I am not sure whether they actually fantasize that it is possible to win an election in the US on a [left]-friendly platform; a modicum of knowledge about where this country has gone in the past thirty-odd years should make the fantasy part very clear. The alternative is that they don't in fact care whether Obama wins or not, as long as he says all the right things.

There are three issues that are (and should be) very important to the left, but which will certainly sink any candidacy - Palestine, Cuba, Affirmative Action. I am confident, based on Obama's life experience, that he will be good on all three issues. Anyone who wants to debate the point should at a minimum read his first book.

At the same time, because of his progressive background, Obama cannot allow himself to be defined as beyond the pale (to use another meaning of the word). The right wing would love to hammer away on any one of these three topics and force him to defend himself day in and day out. Obama has to push these topics to the side so that the focus can remain on what Bush
has done to Iraq, to the economy, and to civil liberties. This means he has to say what is acceptable to most people - on these three issues, that is not what leftists would find acceptable. Most leftists undestand this and support Obama. Some, unfortunately, don't and spend their time hacking away.

The most recent example is Obama in Miami. It could just as well be AIPAC, which is coming up. What Obama said to the Cuban audience is not what I would like to say to them, but I am not trying to win Florida (or any place else). Obama wants to win that state along with many others. Two significant voting blocs there are Cubans and elderly Jews. There are quite a few in
both communities who will never vote for Obama because they are racist. The New York Times story talks about the racism of some of the older Jews. Likewise with the Cubans, where the situation is much more hopeless. The Jewish community, contrary to what the Times story says, has been quite steady in its support for Democratic candidates, second only to Blacks; the
Cubans are mostly reactionary. So why does Obama tell the Cubans he will keep the embargo for now? The topic has to be off the headlines. That is all.

Actually, there is more. Obama has made the debate to be about diplomacy. He has said he will negotiate with all world leaders, friend or not. He has been denounced by the right wing, and also by the Clintons, for this view. There are three things to be said about this. One is that it shows how backward US politics is, that even talking to adversaries is a big deal. Two, it is a debate that Obama can win, by appealing to people's common sense. Three, if Obama proposes actual solutions now like the dismantlement of settlements or normalization of relations, that will be the end of his candidacy.

These points all came out even in the way Obama's speech was received. We can all wish he had spoken differently. But the NY Times, for instance, focused on Obama wanting to meet with the Cuban leadership:

MIAMI - Senator Barack Obama on Friday called for greater engagement with Cuba and Latin America, saying the long-standing policies of isolation have failed to advance the interests of the United States or help people who have suffered under oppressive governments.

In a speech before an influential Cuban-American group here, Mr. Obama said he would meet with the Cuban leader, Raúl Castro, "at a time and place of my choosing." He derided Senator John McCain and other Republican critics as embracing what he called hard-line approaches that have failed.

"John McCain´s been going around the country talking about how much I want to meet with Raúl Castro, as if I´m looking for a social gathering or I´m going to invite him over and
have some tea," Mr. Obama said. "That´s not what I said, and John McCain knows it. After eight years of the disastrous policies of George Bush, it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions."

Sure, Obama could have said he would immediately lift the embargo. That will satisfy us leftists and make us feel good, but it will be futile. Obama won't win and the embargo will stay in place. The way Obama framed the issue, the general public will support him.

Of course, the Cuban leadership in Miami is not going to support him. They are reactionaries, bound to the Republican party. They will never support Obama, or any other Democrat. But they didn't dominate the discourse in the coverage. The left should recognize when one of their own controls the debate so well.

A few more Times excerpts from the piece about Florida Jews:

"The people here, liberal people, will not vote for Obama because of his attitude towards Israel," Ms. Weitz, 83, said, lingering over brunch.

"They´re going to vote for McCain," she said.

Ms. Grossman, 80, agreed with her friend´s conclusion, but not her reasoning.

"They´ll pick on the minister thing, they´ll pick on the wife, but the major issue is color," she said, quietly fingering a coffee cup. Ms. Grossman said she was thinking of voting for Mr. Obama, who is leading in the delegate count for the nomination, as was Ms. Weitz.

But Ms. Grossman does not tell the neighbors. "I keep my mouth shut," she said.

The article goes on to say, "[b]ut in recent presidential elections, Jews have drifted somewhat to the right." This has been disputed on various blogs. The percent of Jews voting for Republicans has not changed much in over twenty years; the Democratic vote has fluctuated somewhat, perhaps because of Ross Perot in 92 and 96.

Then, there are the false stories, many of which are circulated by Israel fanatics (the Times doesn't say so):

Mr. Obama is Arab, Jack Stern´s friends told him in Aventura. (He´s not.)

He is a part of Chicago´s large Palestinian community, suspects Mindy Chotiner of Delray. (Wrong again.)

Mr. Wright is the godfather of Mr. Obama´s children, asserted Violet Darling in Boca Raton. (No, he´s not.)

Al Qaeda is backing him, said Helena Lefkowicz of Fort Lauderdale (Incorrect.)

Michelle Obama has proven so hostile and argumentative that the campaign is keeping her silent, said Joyce Rozen of Pompano Beach. (Mrs. Obama campaigns frequently, drawing
crowds in her own right.)

Mr. Obama might fill his administration with followers of Louis Farrakhan, worried Sherry Ziegler. (Extremely unlikely, given his denunciation of Mr. Farrakhan.)

As with other ethnic groups, age is an important factor. Many Jews in Florida are older, having moved there after retirement.

Younger Jews have grown up in diverse settings and are therefore less likely to be troubled by Mr. Obama's associations than their elders, said Rabbi Ethan Tucker, 32, co-founder of a Jewish learning organization in Manhattan and the stepson of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of
Connecticut. Rabbi Tucker said he had given money to Mr. Obama and would vote for him in the fall. "If association was the litmus test of identity, everyone would be a hopeless mishmash of confusion, or you´d have no friends," he said.

Lieberman won't support any Democrat; it is interesting that his stepson, an orthodox rabbi, is for Obama.

This is Obama's accomplishment, and that is what is going to help him become President, not just his progressive politics.

Here are some articles about attacks from the right -- in the Washington Post, lies we will hear about Obama. From Politico, viral emails forcing Obama to emphasize his American roots. One trusts the left is as smart as the right and can see who should be attacked and who should be supported.

More articles: from Newsweek, an attempt to show that not supporting Obama correlates with racist attitudes. Along the same lines, an Al Jazeera report on racism in Kentucky. http://isbarackobamaamuslim.com/ tries to answer itself.

Obama's massive rally in Portland (60,000) opened with a local indie band, the Decemberists who, it is said, often open with the Soviet national anthem. Some rightwing blogs think the choice of the band shows Obama's politics.

Where's the DNC memo?

Nobody seems to actually have the entire memo -- TPM has 7 pages dealing with Michigan. Michigan is a fairly clear-cut case, because it has a Democratic governor and house. The Michigan Democratic party can't very well claimed they did their best to prevent the primary from being moved up. Florida, however, can make that claim, however implausible. And the DNC rules allow the Rules Committee to reinstate delegates in that case. Now, I've written that Florida doesn't really have a case. I still think that. But the Rules Committee should be able, theoretically, to overrule itself and decide that Florida does have a case. I think they shouldn't, but I don't think it's a matter of law.

Is McCain really even with Obama?

The Times has a piece on McCain's slow progress in campaigning. Mentioned as a positive is that, despite a highly-damaged Republican brand, McCain is running even with Obama in national polls. But how much is going to change once Hillary drops out and her supporters are really, truly convinced that she's gone? How many of her supporters are going to (maybe grudgingly) accept Obama? Once Obama gets nominated, he's the Democratic candidate, not a Democratic candidate. My guess is a 5-point boost, at least -- and we're seeing some of that already in the more recent polls.

Irrational cable pricing

Cable companies claim that if they offered a la carte pricing, each channel would get more expensive, because each channel depends on the fees that come from subscribers. But the per-channel fee should be calculable so that this doesn't matter. Just take the total fees currently paid by subscribers, and divide by the total number of channels times the total number of subscribers. That's how much each channel should get for each subscriber. If the claim is that people won't ask for more TV, but will watch it if they have it, make canceling channels an opt-out. If the claim is that TV sucks people in, well then the cable companies should be forced to make that argument.

Three-way Left Irrationality towards Obama: from Sekhar

There is a view on the left that Obama should be rejected as a sell-out and that a left candidate should be supported instead. Leaving aside the arrogance and self-destruction of working to defeat the first black president, there is also the idealism - Obama is opposed for his stands on certain issues despite his long service to the poor people of Chicago, while random people are supported for their position papers, regardless of their actual record. Leftists who want to oppose Obama should, at a minimum, compare his community work with what the "left" candidates have done.

The second line of attack is that Obama was progressive once but has sold out. This is again idealism, ignoring the real-life problems faced by a radical and how one manages to deal with them while remaining progressive. McKinney, for instance, has so little political savvy she could not even hold on to her seat against another black candidate.

The Sunday NY Times has a long article on Obama in Chicago. It can be read in multiple ways. A pure leftist can read it as the story of a sell-out. I read it as how a man with good politics learned how to work in the system to do good. I was at a local community function on Sunday. They were honoring local people who were "good neighbors." The person who runs the group gave a talk, whose main point was that Obama's rise is about the importance of community organizing from the bottom up. I found one of his points very interesting - when Obama went to Chicago and began his community work (1984?), he found few takers for militant action; local blacks pointed out they had just elected the first black mayor, Harold Washington. Obama had to adapt to a reality different from what he had imagined for an oppressed black community.

The third line of attack is to call the Obama movement personality-based or charisma-based (the left may be too polite to say cult), and not a movement for social change. I am sure there are a few teens (and some older) who are like cult-followers. But the people who put their careers on hold to work for Obama are not just following the personality. Frank Rich has a vastly better-written account, also in the Sunday Times.

When one and a half million people contribute to a political campaign, and when, in quite a few states, more people vote in the primary than Kerry got in the general election in 2004, the Left should take it seriously.

The issue that drives so many is Iraq. The anti-war movement chose Obama because he was an early and consistent opponent. The NY Times article expresses surprise that, in his 2002 speech, he said he didn't oppose all wars. The reporter doesn't realize that people against the Iraq invasion are not anti-all wars. I was reminded of Cindy Sheehan who does fit the reporter's idea of an anti-war figure. A few years back, she spoke at the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade program in New York. Speaking to an audience of people who had supported the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War (many with their lives) and then enlisted in the Second World War, and their descendants and admirers, Sheehan expressed her opposition to all wars, including the Second - not the best venue to express such a stupid thought. But I digress.

Returning to Iraq, moveon.org is a good example. I understand it was started by people who opposed Clinton's impeachment, the name coming from the sentiment to criticize Clinton for his behavior but to "move on" to other issues. The organization was supportive of the Clintons for several years. But Hillary's support of the Iraq invasion and general saber-rattling led to their endorsing Obama. This happened because Move-On is in fact a democratic organization.

Obama has just launched Vote for Change, a 50-state effort to energize the public, not just for this election but beyond it. One has to wait and see how these movements evolve. But to deride them for not fitting in with a preconceived notion of a "social movement" is to jump to conclusions prematurely.

The Sunday NY Times also had an article claiming that the negative campaigning by the Clintons with help from Jeremiah Wright has made Obama a better candidate for November. I think that is correct; it is far better that Wright came out now and not later. However, for whatever reason, the Clinton campaign did not raise the Palestinian question. We can be sure that will be a big issue for the Republicans, both to move Israel-supporters away from the Democratic party and also to link Obama to Islamic terrorism. McCain is already talking about Hamas endorsing Obama. The Times Obama profile gives a reasonable account of Obama's interactions with Palestinians.

Clinton's loan

In paying off her $11 million loan to her campaign, Bloomberg reports, as others have, that she cannot do so after the Democratic convention, making it more likely that she stay in. It does raise an interesting possibility, though -- she could ask donors who have given to her general election fund to redirect their contributions towards her 2012 Senate run. She could then pay off the vendors, etc., through that fund.

clinton pre-mortems: from Sekhar

There is a lot of analysis on why Clnton lost, but it is mostly about
details. Time has "The Five Mistakes Clinton Made," but there is no mention of Iraq. Others have discussed her refusal to apologize for her vote authorizing Bush to invade Iraq.

But it is still about tactics. That she authorized Bush because she would want similar powers if/when she became President, that she continued to support US occupation - these are not mentioned.

Even on a tactical level, that she relied on large donors instead of using the Internet, and that she focused on large primary states instead of smaller states and caucus states are viewed as tactical errors. Thisanalysis is fundamentally wrong. Over a year ago, I met friends of my daughter who were already working full-time for Obama, willing to travelfrom state to state, spending a few weeks in each place. There have been repeated stories in the media about graduate students (including Indians) who have suspended their careers to campaign for Obama, and about people in different communities spontaneously organizing support groups (with advice from barackobama.com). It is this groundswell of support that made it possible for Obama to rely on the Internet and to campaign in every state, small and large. The media completely overlook the movement aspect of the Obama campaign, focusing instead on details, as if Clinton could have matched Obama on the Web if only she had a better site, succeeded in caucus states if only she had spent some money there, etc.

I also found the NY Times story I posted earlier very interesting - that the tactics associated with Bill Clinton in the 90's were often executed with Hillary's enthusiastic participation. That explains the ruthlessness of the present campaign as not just Bill's doing. It also explains her continued negative campaign. She has released a letter to Obama on resolving Florida and Michigan, but it has more attacks than any actual solutions. More significant is the USA Today interview with the explicit racial comment (below).

From the letter:

When efforts were untaken by leaders in those states to hold revotes to ensure that they had a voice in selecting our nominee, I supported those efforts. In Michigan, I supported a legislative effort to hold a revote that the Democratic National Committee said was in complete compliance with the party's rules. You did not support those efforts and your supporters in Michigan publically opposed them. In Florida a number of revote options were proposed. I am not aware of any that you supported.

Your commitment to the voters of these states must be clearly stated and your support for a fair and quick resolution must be clearly demonstrated.

But not just any resolution:

It is not enough to simply seat their representatives at the convention in Denver.

The Michigan Democratic leadership, which supports Clinton, have made a proposal but Clinton has rejected it. Clinton is urging not only that delegations from those two states be
seated, but seated in full (and without Obama receiving any delegates
at all from Michigan, where his name was not on the ballot).

USA Today has an audio link to the racial comments, which are remarkable for suggesting that (1) all hard-working Americans are white, and (2) poor whites will not vote for Obama. Jon Stewart had a good segment on it last night. Daily Kos has a post challenging the factual basis of Clinton's comment that Obama's vote share in any white group is declining, but I am skeptical that he has the right subgroup data. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Clinton supporter, is saying the same thing:

Senator Clinton continues to demonstrate that she has what it takes to win the Presidency ... while Senator Obama does well in areas and demographic groups that the Democratic nominee will win anyway. She has my full support, as she is the best candidate ... and would be the best President of the United States.

This is the argument reduced to its essentials. Blacks will always vote for a Democrat, so you worry only about the white vote. One commenter at the tboblogs site says:

Posted by Justin Randolph, Miami, FL on 05/09 at 11:26 AM

Rep. Wasserman-Schultz is very confused if she thinks that African-Americans will vote for Clinton if she walks into Denver trailing by every measure and walks out the nominee because enough people buy her argument that America is just too racist to vote for the black guy. Not only wouldn’t African-Americans come out to vote, the next generation of Dems who are lining up in droves to vote for Obama wouldn’t come out either. Democrats would lose the ability to win the presidency for at
least a generation.

Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post also writes about Clinton's arrogance.

Buying time

And, following on the heels of my last post, why is Clinton trying to buy time? A May surprise? There are two options. One is that she really, really doesn't want to admit losing -- the Bush rationale for staying in Iraq. The other option is that she is going to ride the bash-Obama train as far as it will take her, in an effort to wound him for the general and set her up for 2012. That really seems too Machiavellian, especially for a campaign too incompetent to find an economist ready to shill for Clinton's gas tax holiday (and too incompetent even to come up with their own pandering idea). But we'll see. Clinton has no discernible motive anymore for bashing Obama -- it's not going to convince the superdelegates, the voters don't matter anymore -- so if she does, then something is up.

June 15th is too late

Who can say how reliable this is (not very), but the Huffington Post has an interview with an unnamed Clinton adviser who says the nominee will be chosen by June 15th. There's no reason to believe them. Obama is going to have a majority of the pledged delegates on May 20th. If the FL/MI delegates are seated at half-strength, Obama will pick up 33 delegates from FL, and Clinton 89 from FL and MI (I'm not counting any MI uncommitteds as Obama). That cuts his lead to about 105. That means Clinton has to win around 2/3 of the remaining pledged delegates to catch up -- still impossible. In fact, after May 20, Obama has a pretty good chance of having an insurmountable lead even counting FL and MI -- there are 86 pledged delegates remaining at that point, and so long as Obama has lost fewer than 20 from KY, WV, and OR, he still mathematically wins. It'll be close -- KY and WV are going to be huge for Clinton, and she could easily run up 25 delegates in those states, and it's unlikely that Obama will get 5 in OR. But this is not looking like a good week for Clinton. If he can hold her to within 5 delegates in WV, he can make the case on May 20th that, even if you count FL and MI at half-strength, same as the Republicans did, there's no way she can win. All of which is to say, that June 15th is silly, even if the superdelegates let it go on that long, and there's no reason they should. It's just the Clinton campaign buying time.

Definitely not 2,209

Clinton's camp has started hitting the 2209 number (of necessary delegates) harder, as it becomes obvious to everyone that she can't make 2024.5 (she couldn't even before IN and NC, but whatever). But where does this 2209 (actually 2208.5) come from? It assumes that FL and MI delegates -- pledged and super -- will be seated in full force by the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC), or after some appeal. But there is absolutely no reason for that to be the case. The Delegate Selection Rules say that states that have their primaries too early are penalized 1/2 their delegates. The rules also say that the RBC can impose harsher punishments, which is what happened in this case. The RBC may lift the punishment, assuming they find that the state party made every effort to hold the primary on the proper day, but they specifically found that not to be the case earlier. Thus, the only easy way for the RBC to help Clinton is to do the minimum of the rules' sanctions -- loss of half the delegates. Moreover, the rule in question (20.C.1.a) states that all superdelegates from that state lose their votes. If that's the case, then we're just adding 93 delegates from Florida and 64 from Michigan, for an additional 157 delegates. On top of the 4048 that we have now, that makes 4205, of which "more than half" is 2103, not 2209.

Post-election: from Sekhar

Obama won by holding Clinton to a very narrow win in Indiana (margin under 2%) and sweeping North Carolina. This despite having to deal with the crazy AIDS-conspiracy-Farrakhan-all-right Wright, not to mention Clinton's populist gas tax holiday. At least the cheap-rice schemes in India benefit the very poor; the gas tax holiday was only going to enrich the oil companies.

The Washington Post's election results -- Clinton is claiming 2209 is the number of delegates now. Another article from the Post about Obama's campaign strategy after Pennsylvania. The Huffington Post has an article comparing Obama's willingness to admit imperfection with his opponents' cut-throat style. The AP story about nuns turned away from a polling place. TPM on Clinton's continued obfuscation about her husband's foundation. The Guardian's Michael Tomasky on Hillary's right turn. Carl Bernstein on Hillary's Bill Ayers tactics. Juan Cole on "obliteration." John Pomfret (great name) blogs at the Washington Post about Hillary's China-bashing. Daily Kos on Hillary's "50 years in Iraq" quote. Ellen Ladowsky at the Huffington Post thinks Hillary is delusional. The NY Times on Clinton's fighting style.

Kentucky now an important state

In Clinton's bizarre concession/we will go on/we will unite/I will get to the White House if I have to tunnel into the White House using a crack team of criminals assembled from around the world/bad Myanmar!/seat Florida+Michigan speech, she revealed that her campaign now believes she can win Kentucky. No, not against Obama in two weeks -- that's a given. In November. So the list is now: 1) obliterate Iran, 2) dismantle OPEC, and 3) win Kentucky in November against McCain. In case you're wondering, Kentucky went for Bush in 2000 by 16 points, and by 20 points in 2004.

That was not a shot

Ok, I wasn't going to post on this, because it's so asinine, but Terry McAuliffe is trying to hammer this story. Problem is, Hillary did not "do" a shot. She drank a shot -- look at the source video. She gets the shot glass, and takes a small sip, although she throws her head back a bit. But then the shot glass is clearly visible with almost all of its contents. She later finishes the glass in two more swallows. I have no problem with Hillary using this episode to show her conviviality, or common touch. But don't say she "did" a shot. It's just not true.

Predictions

Obama has failed in blowing out Clinton in NC, so he won't make up Pennsylvania, but he will come out of the night with more delegates and a gain in his popular vote lead. Pollster has Clinton up by 4.4% in IN, and Obama up by 7.8% in NC. Since the NC trend has been down for Obama, and Indiana has stayed fairly steady, these might edge closer -- say 5 for Clinton in IN, and 6 for Obama in NC -- but there's no reason to think Clinton's margin in IN will be larger, percentage-wise, than Obama's in NC, since every poll has shown Clinton stronger in IN and Obama stronger in NC. Plus, once you factor in the state sizes, it's not close. IN has 72 delegates, NC has 115. 115/72=1.58, so Clinton has to win IN by something like 1.5 times Obama's margin of victory in NC -- a 4-point Obama victory in NC means Clinton needs a 6-point victory in IN just to stay even.

Fractions!

I noticed today that Demconwatch's delegate count (taken from Greenpapers) says that Obama and Clinton both have a fractional number of pledged delegates. Turns out this has been the case at least since April 12, when Democrats Abroad finished their allocation of 4.5 to Obama and 2.5 to Clinton. There are 4048 total delegates total. Usually, "50%+1" is a majority, but here, because DA split their votes fractionally, and there are still more superdelegates with fractional votes undecided, 2024.5 is a majority that either of the candidates might achieve. Currently, Obama has a fractional pledged count and a whole superdelegate count, while Clinton has fractions on both, and so a whole total.

Unfortunately, 1/2 is the smallest fractional delegate allowed for the convention -- although on the Credentials Committee, Guam has .25 of a vote.

Prosecuting racism

The Times has a piece on a Human Rights Watch report about racism in drug arrests and prison time. One implication of the statistics is interesting, because it puts the lie to conservatives who argue that police are going after drug use that leads to violence, and therefore leave suburban white kids alone, while harassing inner-city youth. That is as follows: According to the report, 35.1% of drug possession arrests are of blacks. But felony convictions for drug possession are split 50-49 between blacks and whites, according to the Bureau of Justice. That can't be due to emphasis on policing certain areas. Yet:

Some crime experts say that the disparities exist for sound reasons. For example, said Heather MacDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York, blacks and Hispanics are more often involved than whites in the distribution and sale of heroin and cocaine.

Ms. MacDonald said it made sense for the police to focus more on fighting visible drug dealing in the inner city, largely involving minorities, than on hidden use in suburban homes, more often by whites, because the urban street trade is more associated with violence and other crimes and impairs the quality of life.

Don't throw sand in our eyes by talking about distribution and sale! Let's talk about simple drug possession. Of course, we need the breakdowns by drug and by prior record to really make a case, but let's not confuse the issue -- on drug possession alone, blacks are treated unfairly.
And that unfairness isn't limited to likelihood of arrest -- it extends to likelihood of conviction given arrest.

More credentials minutiae

To throw another twist on things, the Credentials Committee has jurisdiction over the following challenges (Rules of Procedure of the Credentials Committee of the 2008 DNC, 1):

A. Any challenge brought before the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and not resolved before the 56th calendar day preceding the date of commencement of the Democratic National Convention; and,
B. Any challenge alleging:
1. Failure to implement a final order of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee; or
2. Failure to implement a plan approved by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, if such challenge is initiated on or after the 56th day preceding the date of commencement of the Democratic National Convention, except with regard to Rule 19.E. of the Delegate Selection Rules.

Thus, if the RBC rules against Clinton, it's not clear from this text that Clinton can appeal it to the Credentials Committee -- it won't be a challenge at all, first off, because you "challenge" the credentials of seated delegates, which is the opposite of what Clinton wants. And a challenge alleging failure to follow RBC orders won't work, because that's what she's appealing in the first place. On the other hand, if the Rules and Bylaws Committee does seat the delegates, Obama can appeal back to the RBC, and, so long as the appeal isn't resolved by June 30 (56 days before the convention starts), the Credentials Committee will hear it. Of course, I may be reading the above passage too narrowly, in which case any challenge, whenever made, will be heard, and not just ones that went through the RBC.

"Nuclear" option

The Huffington Post has an article today on the possibility that Clinton will get Michigan and Florida seated via the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC), on which she has more members than Obama. I posted on this in March, but now Demconwatch has a nice list of the RBC members, and their endorsements. Edsall, at Huffington, has an estimate that's off -- Clinton actually has 12 declared supporters on the committee. There are 30 members on the committee, but members from a disputed state can't vote on that state's being seated. That means there will be 29 members voting on each state, since there is one member each from Florida and Michigan. Will Clinton be able to get 3 votes from members who haven't endorsed her? Possible. But there's more.

The next stage, as Edsall says, would be a challenge at the Credentials Committee. There, Obama is leading by various amounts -- here's a spreadsheet with the numbers. Obama is leading by 11.5 with all state delegates included (bizarrely, FL and MI will be seated on the Credentials Committee), and MI's three uncommitted going for him. However, FL members cannot vote on the FL challenge, and likewise for MI members. Obama's lead goes up to 13.5 for the FL challenge, and stays even for the MI challenge, except that the "uncommitteds" now in his column go away, as do 3 members in Clinton's column. Since Obama's lead will almost certainly stay the same through the rest primary process, that means that Dean's 25 appointees would have to break 19-6 for Clinton to seat MI, and 20-5 to seat FL. That is clearly a very unlikely scenario.

Thus, we can see that, even if Clinton wins the RBC fight, she will almost certainly lose the Credentials Committee fight. What happens after that? The Credentials Committee report, along with a "minority report," dissenting from the decision, goes to the full convention. And here's where things get more tricky: by VII.B.1. of the DNC's Rules,

The Secretary of the Democratic National Committee shall determine a Temporary Roll of delegates to the Convention which shall consist only of those persons selected and certified as delegates in accordance with the Rules and pursuant to this Call, unless a credentials contest shall have arisen with respect to any such person(s), in which case the Secretary shall include on the Temporary Roll the name of the credentials contestant recommended for inclusion by the Credentials Committee in its report.

Since Obama will win the Credentials Committee fight, the delegates voting to approve the Credentials Committee plan will not include FL and MI (who wouldn't be able to vote on their own states' delegates anyway).

So where does this leave us? Clinton can't win this battle as it stands. She could drop a nuclear bomb by convincing the RBC to seat FL and MI as they stand, but it would almost certainly be overturned by a Credentials Committee controlled by Obama, and upheld by Convention delegates supporting Obama. More likely would be some sort of compromise -- penalizing FL and MI half their delegates, etc. That might be politically harder to overturn. The question will be, if the RBC denies her, will she continue to fight it, knowing that she will lose at the convention? That will say a lot about her goals for this campaign.

Clinton's Indiana-China problem

McClatchy has a good summary of the events, as well as a link to a rebuttal by Clinton. Basically, Clinton ran an ad attacking Bush for allowing a factory making magnets for weapons to be "moved" to China. It turns out, however, that the initial sale of the factory to the Chinese company was approved by the Clinton administration. Clinton's rebuttal is that the factories were required to remain in the U.S. That doesn't take account of the fact that the requirement was only until 2005, but that's not even the biggest problem.

There were two factories, in Anderson and Valparaiso (note the misspelling in the Clinton press release). The Anderson factory was closed in 2001, and there was no fuss at all about it. I have a link to the original AP article text, with no mention of any legislators protesting. The protests came when the Valparaiso factory, which the Chinese company hadn't bought until 2000, after the original sale had gone through, was closed. So here's the question. If the factories were supposed to remain open until 2005, then why weren't there protests when the Anderson factory was closed? Because, according to a disreputable-looking source from 2003, the source of the guarantee was just an agreement the union had with GM, and tried to have with the Chinese company. It wasn't negotiated into the sale agreement.

Let me be clear: I don't really care that the Chinese make our magnets -- various experts have said that it's not really a risk. The issue is just about plant closings, and there, Clinton is being disingenuous. There was no government-enforced guarantee that the Anderson plant would remain open. Now, even on the subject of the plant closings, I'm not disagreeing with the Clinton Administration's actions, but Hillary Clinton is misrepresenting those actions. The Valparaiso protests by Bayh and others were on the grounds of national security, not job loss -- and this is not a national security issue, it is a job loss issue.

Switching sides

Numbers are quoted here and there on the percent of each candidate's supporters who will support the other candidate. But these numbers are wrong in a crucial way. For Clinton's supporters to imagine her losing via pledged delegates doesn't take much -- the steady trickle of superdelegates continues. to both sides, and at some point Obama passes 2025, probably in mid-June. The Obama superdelegates can argue that all they did was ratify the pledged-delegate lead. But to really find out what Obama supporters will do, you need to ask them, "Would you support Hillary Clinton if she won the nomination in a floor fight at the convention after finishing behind in pledged delegates?" I think the numbers will change then.

Black groups are already warning that this would be unacceptable -- Sam Stein at Huffington says that a group called Color of Change is starting a petition to tell superdelegates not to deny Obama the nomination, and McClatchy has an article about black voters staying home if Obama doesn't get the nomination. We'll see whether everyone finds it unacceptable.

The way, of course, that people make it "unacceptable" that Obama loses is by turning on their elected politicians who didn't help. Now, Clinton needs those elected politicians -- she needs basically every DNC member who hasn't declared just to draw even, and so she has to hold on to her congressmen, governors, etc. Will superdelegates who represent populations that went 65-35 for Obama really be willing to stand up to that? Maybe Charles Rangel, but he's somewhat unique.

Which superdelegates?

Obama is now leading Clinton in every category of elected superdelegate -- Representatives, Senators, and Governors. He trails in Distinguished Party Leaders (ex-Presidents, ex-chairs of the DNC, ex-Speakers, etc.), by 10 to 4, and in DNC members by 145 to 119. The DPLs are small numbers, so the DNC members are the real meat of it. So Obama is leading in pledged delegates and in superdelegates who were elected to their positions. How "unelected" can the superdelegates choosing the nominee be? We'll find out.

Philip Roth was always first

The Wall Street Journal has a piece on unconventional baseball thinking. I really like the idea of putting pitchers in the outfield for positional matchups. At the end, the Brewers owner complains that he can't get people to try the idea of starting with a relief pitcher, then switching to the starting pitcher later. Wonder if he got the idea from the Great American Novel? From page 368:

Start with a "relief pitcher" who works approximately two innings . . .

80 more superdelegates

The fabled "leaked spreadsheet" predicts that Obama is going to pick up another 208 delegates over the coming contests. While it was off by one delegate in Pennsylvania, let's take it to be fairly accurate for the time being -- let's round down, and say Obama will pick up 200 more delegates from these contests. Demconwatch has Obama at 1727 total delegates right now. With another 200, he's at 1927, or 98 delegates away from the nomination. Let's say 100. There are still over 22 add-on delegates from states that Obama won that select their add-ons at the state-level convention (where Obama supporters will be in control). This is only counting 1 delegate from each such state: for instance, I'm only counting 1 add-on from Virginia, even though it has 2.

All this is to say that, if Obama gets 80 more non-add-on superdelegate endorsements, the add-ons alone will almost certainly put him over the top. It may take until June 21st, when Nebraska picks its add-on, but as soon as 80 more come in, it's a done deal.

Food shortages = better info for travelers

In perhaps the best news about the looming global famine, Singapore is trying to publicize cheap food stalls -- S$2, or about USD$1.50. The list is up. Average Singapore food stall meals are around S$4, so while this isn't a huge amount of money we're talking about, it's useful if you're trying to stuff yourself to the brim during your four hour layover in the city. I recommend the pig organ soup. No, seriously. It's really good.

How many superdelegates are left?

Demconwatch says that there are 304 superdelegates left (always not including FL or MI). However, as a commenter on their site points out, 65 of them are add-ons, that is, they will be chosen state-by-state, and presumably the bodies that choose them will choose them to accord with the bodies' preferences. (It varies by state who chooses.) The consensus seems to be that the add-ons will roughly reflect the way that the states voted (Maine, Utah, and California, for instance, have said that). If we knock those off, there are under 250 uncommitted superdelegates remaining. Taking away superdelegates who will endorse once their states' primary is run (Montana, for instance), we're left with somewhere above 200 named, uncommitted superdelegates, some of whom, like Howard Dean, are not going to publicly commit.

What's the significance of this? Assuming Obama and Clinton split the add-ons, and endorsements by superdelegates whose states have not voted yet also split, Clinton is going to have to win something like 2/3 of the remaining delegates to pull ahead. In other words, the 300 uncommitted superdelegates the candidates are wooing is really much more like 200.

Ayers, popular vote nonsense - from Sekhar

Articles about the popular vote nonsense are below. The popular vote idea is so silly it works only because the Clintons are involved. If Obama were behind and tried to bring up an issue like this, he would be laughed off. Since many states use a caucus system, there is no way to compare a caucus vote with a primary vote - Minnesota and Missouri have the same number of delegates but the number of votes in the Minnesota caucuses were only one-fourth the number of votes cast in the Missouri primary. I think this is the main reason the "popular vote" appears closer than the delegate count where his lead is about 160 out of 2,800. Even otherwise, the Prime Minister is chosen by MP's, not on the basis of which party got more votes; and Test series and baseball/basketball series are not decided on the basis of total runs or points scored.

It is also interesting that Clinton's losses between Ohio and Pennsylvania are not mentioned; it is as if she keeps winning. Wyoming and Mississippi have disappeared from media consciousness. On May 6, if Clinton should win Indiana, that will be a bigger deal than Obama winning by a much bigger margin in North Carolina with a much bigger population (115 delegates to 72).

Kos attacks the lie that Clinton is winning in popular vote. He and Mark Nickolas at politicalbase go through the Clinton campaign's statements in favor of delegates over the last few months, changed now that they are losing in delegates.

Also, here are some Ayers-related articles: Chicago mayor Richard Daley defends Obama and Ayers. So does the Chicago Tribune, which also has a profile of him. The Chicago media in general doesn't care. Some photos with Ayers as well.

Superdelegate misconception

Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, in a CQ article on superdelegates:

He also rejected the suggestion that publicly undecided superdelegates start declaring themselves now as a way of wrapping up the nomination race. “What if the undecided go 50-50? You’re in the same position,” Hoyer said.

This is just not true. If all the undecided superdelegates declared now, and at least 120 (out of 300) went for Obama, he would win the nomination by June. In fact, he would probably win the nomination by May. Saying that superdelegates will "decide" the race only means that they could make either Obama or Clinton the winner, not that if they favor one candidate, that candidate will win. Clinton has to be favored by a significant margin of superdelegates, because Obama has a significant margin of pledged delegates.

What he said

Dylan Loewe, at the Huffington Post on how the race is over.

Metrics, and May 6

The Daily Kos "letter" linked below makes a good point -- popular vote is a really bad way to choose a primary candidate, given the vagaries of the different states' voting systems. PocketNines, the author, brings out the absurdity of Missouri's popular vote margin counting far more than Minnesota's, because of the caucuses. Wisconsin is another good example. Obama won Wisconsin by 17%, and netted 193k votes from it. He won Minnesota by 34%. Even if he'd won Minnesota by the Wisconsin margin, he would have netted more votes than he's netted in all the caucus states combined.

But what is the point of all these ways of judging who's on top? The issue all along has been, will there be any conceivable way that the remaining undecided superdelegates can tip the election to Clinton without provoking a civil war in the party? The answer is no. Is there a way that the undecided superdelegates can tip the election to Obama without provoking a civil war? Yes. They can do what they're doing -- trickle in for the candidates, making as little an impact as possible. We're down to 305 undecided, according to demconwatch.

But given that the superdelegates are not going to tip the election to Clinton, what is the point of her staying in? We can speculate, but the fact remains, Clinton is going to stay in until she is forced out. How can that happen? If the superdelegates tip the election to Obama. So the question will be, at what point is the decision made that the harm being done to the party (and Obama, the eventual nominee) outweighs the bad feelings of the superdelegates running Clinton out? I think that point comes on May 6. Assuming Obama performs to expectations in NC, after May 6, Clinton will once again be over 600k votes down, and more than 150 delegates down. At that point, Clinton supporters may realize the inevitable, along with the media, allowing the superdelegates to act without repercussions. The point of the popular vote analysis below, and other calculations of this kind, is not to legitimize Clinton camp arguments, but to show that, no matter what, there is no way to give the nomination to Clinton without overturning "the will of the people," any reasonable way you define it.

PA primary analysis - from Sekhar

Obama did not do as well as his supporters hoped for, but better than in early polls, whatever that means. Clearly, Clinton has a solid base, especially among non-college-educated whites. She got 64% of high school graduates, who made up 23% of the electorate. Blacks made up 13% of the electorate. If two-thirds of them are high school graduates and Obama got 90% of their vote, it doesn't leave too many votes for him in the white high school graduates. Questionnaire results from the NY Times.

The net effect on delegate count is pretty small - Clinton got 84 delegates and Obama 74. Two weeks from now are North Carolina and Indiana.

Andrew Sullivan points out that white women are still the Clinton stronghold. Matthew Yglesias takes issue with the claim that Obama can't expand his coalition, and also points out that NC matters. Sullivan quotes Dick Morris on how the structure of PA favored Clinton. Daily Kos has a "letter" to Obama surrogates urging them to attack the concept of the popular vote being important. Sullivan mentions this New Republic piece on Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager -- his delegate predictions from February have been dead on. Tom Hayden wants to know why Clinton is disowning her roots.

What Clinton needs now

With the results still settling, it looks like Clinton will have picked up an inconsequential 12 delegates from PA, as well as a bit under 200k in the popular vote. Note that NC alone is going to undo both of those gains.

Going by the pollster.com averages for all the remaining states (which are almost certainly going to tighten -- in Kentucky, she's ahead by 32%, which is way too high a lead for anyone not named Barbaro), and the turnout averages for the states so far, she ends up down about 200k at the finish without counting caucus estimates, Michigan, or Florida. Including caucus estimates and Florida, it's a squeaker -- Obama may be up 20k, or maybe he's down a few hundred votes. This assumes she wins PR by 13%, that the turnout in PR is 2 million, as it was in 2004 for the governor's race, that she wins Oregon, etc.

As the polls tighten, her ending deficit will go up and up. Basically, she's in the same position as before in terms of what she needs to win, but now even blowouts aren't enough to carry her over the top without Florida. We'll see whether Dems buy the argument that the popular vote in Florida should count, even if the delegates don't.

Beating the spread

Obama said that losing by less than 10 in Pennsylvania would be a victory. The final tallies are going to be 55% Clinton, 45% Obama. Looks like he didn't make it -- or did he? He may have -- Clinton looks awfully close to getting less than or equal to 54.74%, with Obama getting 45.26%. Note that 54.74-45.26=9.48%, which rounds down to 9%. As I write this, Clinton has 54.69% with 99% of the votes counted, so if that holds, then Obama accomplished his goal of finishing within 10. Of course, looking at the 55-45 numbers, you'd say the difference was 10. But that's like taking 5.47, rounding to 5.5 because 7 is more than 5, and then rounding to 6. They finished 55-45, but the difference was 9. Math is weird, huh.

Better update: Talking points memo points out the above, as well as claiming that the AP's numbers are probably better than the official returns, at least for now. Since both sets of numbers are below 54.74% for Clinton, the analysis above stands. They're both above 54.5% also, although the official returns are at 54.587%, so conceivably that could shift below 54.5%, at which point it would become a 54/46 result, with rounding.

Update: The PA official election returns seem to be at least as complete as CNN's, and they have Clinton with 54% and Obama with 46% -- the spread is beaten anyway! Of course, since Clinton has 54.3% and Obama has 45.7%, the margin is actually 8.6%, so Clinton wins by 9%, not the 8% you would think from a 54-46 split.

Bloomberg is wrong, but Clinton still needs help

Zach noted a Bloomberg article about the impossibility of Clinton catching Obama. But it makes the silly, silly mistake of assuming that around 1 million people will vote in Puerto Rico, because that's how many voters in the last election were "Democratic-leaning." Poppycock. It's an open primary. Neither PR party is "Democratic" or "Republican." And, just in case people forget, 2 million people voted in 2004. I would be willing to bet a fair amount of money that 2 million people vote in PR, unless the race is completely over by then. Maybe even in that case. Imagine if you never got to vote for President, and then, all of a sudden, you did, and it would decide everything.

To do this number-crunching, there's no need for a Bloomberg article -- just go to Jay Cost's calculator at realclearpolitics. You can see that, if Pennsylvania gets 2 million voters today, and they go for Clinton by 15%, and she wins by 20 in PR, and everything else breaks her way, she could conceivably pass Obama if you don't count caucus estimates.

This will all be settled tonight, though, probably. If Clinton doesn't beat Obama by about 300,000 votes, her popular vote hopes are toast. In other words, Clinton needs not a 10-point victory, but a 15-point victory and record turnout. Anything else, and she's done. And note that high turnout might well favor Obama, since it will likely mean that the new Democrats (who disproportionately back Obama) are making an impact.

What to Expect in Penn

So rather than rely on the silly averages done by RCP and Pollster, here are the last polling results done in Pennsylvania before today (from most recent to least):

• Zogby: Clinton +10
• Rassmussen: Clinton +5
• Insider Advantage: Clinton +10
  
• Suffolk: Clinton +10
• Public Policy Polling: Obama +3
• Strategic Vision: Clinton +7
• Quinnipiac: Clinton +7
• SurveyUSA: Clinton +6
• American Research Group: Clinton +13
• Mason-Dixon: Clinton +5
  

As in all elections, the results tonight will depend on turnout. In fact, the difference in the polls above are almost entirely on how they predict turnout.

Clinton Needs Record Margins, Turnout to Catch Obama

Catherine Dodge and Kristin Jensen over at Bloomberg have a good piece today about the relative impossibility of Clinton matching Obama in the popular vote:

After more than 40 Democratic primaries and caucuses, Obama, the Illinois senator, leads Clinton by more than 800,000 votes. Even if the New York senator wins by more than 20 percentage points tomorrow -- a landslide few experts expect -- she would still have a hard time catching him....

To earn that split decision, though, Clinton would need a 25-point victory in Pennsylvania, plus 20-point wins in later contests in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Even that scenario assumes Clinton, 60, would break even in Indiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana and Oregon -- a prospect that's not at all certain.

Not at all certain? I assume they mean almost impossible, assuming Barack's campaign doesn't somehow implode. Obama has been consistently polling 13+ points over Clinton in North Carolina and looks to handily take S.D. and Oregon (although polling has been sparse). Additionally, Obama has about 5 times the amount of cash on hand, something that will all but prevent a 20 point win in any of those Clinton-must-dominate states (maybe with the exception of Puerto Rico). Anyway, more from Bloomberg:

More than just big margins, Clinton would need record voter turnout too. In Pennsylvania, she would need a turnout of 2 million, about half the state's registered Democrats; in the 2004 primary, about 800,000 voted. She would also need turnout to almost double in other states where she leads, and reach some 1 million in Puerto Rico, which is about how many Democratic- leaning voters went to the polls in a 2004 gubernatorial election. The territory, known for its high turnout, didn't have a presidential primary that year.

In Pennsylvania -- where a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll gave her just a five-point margin last week -- Clinton would need to win a strong majority of the state's suburban voters, about half of male voters, three-quarters of the rural vote and probably 70 percent of white voters, says Chris Borick, director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion in Allentown. She would also have to erode Obama's strength among black voters and college students...

To shrink Obama's 800,000 popular-vote margin, the Clinton campaign argues for the inclusion of votes cast in Michigan and Florida... There's almost no chance that party officials will give credence to those results. ``No one is going to buy the argument that you have to count Michigan and Florida,'' says Allan Lichtman, a professor of political history at American University in Washington. ``Those were not contested primaries.''

Instead, Clinton's slim prospects may rest on persuading enough of the 795 superdelegates that she has the better chance of defeating McCain... Polls on the general election don't support the case that Clinton would make the stronger national candidate; they show little difference in head-to-head match-ups between McCain, the 71-year-old Arizona senator and presumptive Republican nominee, and either Clinton or Obama.

Right... so what's the argument for staying in the race?

Bitter politics - no room for intelligence: from Sekhar

This week's brouhaha about Obama terming the white working class bitter makes clear once again that there is little room in US politics for thoughtful, intelligent analysis. What Obama said in San Francisco is quite close to what Thomas Frank said in "What Is Wrong with Kansas?" and what even Bill Clinton has said in the past - that poor whites often vote against their own self-interest. Obama went beyond Clinton did and said this was because neither political party did anything to help the poor. But neither the media nor, naturally, Obama's opposition want an intelligent conversation. Obama did defend himself for one day but has backed down since then to avoid getting stuck on a word. His speech in San Francisco and the defense in Indiana are both worth watching/reading. It is also interesting that Obama does not talk about a big reason poor whites may not vote for him - race. I begin with two interesting analyses of Clinton exploiting the issue by questioning Obama's Americanness, from the Jed Report, and by Jane Smiley.

Mayhill Fowler, who broke the "bitter" story, has audio and a partial transcript.

Obama responds in Indiana - video and transcript with link to video.

Obama said something similar four years back - video.

Dirt off his shoulders - from Sekhar

The ABC debate was ridiculous, the only positive aspect being that it was a preview of Republican attacks in the fall. Memorable: Clinton invoking 9/11 no less than three times; the moderators' view that people who make $200,000 a year ought not to pay higher taxes; their disapproval of Obama's reasonable approach to stabilizing Social Security (right now, people pay a percent of income but not for what they earn over $100,000; Obama would remove the cap).

Videos: a TalkingPointsMemo compilation of the worst. An Obama Jay-Z mix, called a mash-up I gather. Obama's reaction next day.

Articles: Clinton and 9/11 at Politico. The Nation goes into Obama's shoulder gesture. FAIR goes through the debate questions. The NY Times discusses Ayres. The Post hated the debate. Greg Mitchell (Huffington) and Will Bunch (Philadelphia Daily News) slam ABC and the moderators.

Krugman vs. Herbert (also reality)

Krugman is on fire these days. Here's his latest column, in which he attacks Obama's "bitter" remarks from the "left," claiming that Obama's analysis of religious-economic links is flawed. But then he hits his own downfall when he says that, rather than religion being a tool for the Republicans, some say:

the shift of the Solid South from Democratic to Republican control in the wake of the civil rights movement” explains all — literally all — of the Republican success story.

Huh. So you think maybe race is one reason some people won't vote for Obama? I wonder if that would be a touchy topic. Let's go to Obama's words:

. . . they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment . . .

See what he did there? "antipathy to people who aren't like them . . ." Maybe, just maybe Obama was trying to say, as delicately as possible, that some of these voters are racist. It's a topic he really doesn't like discussing, because it's been used by the Clinton campaign (see: Ferraro, Rendell, et al) to raise doubts about his electability, and it's just not something that needs to be in the national consciousness, but when he's directly asked, by a group of supporters, "Why can't some Pennsylvania voters be won over?" he tries to say, maybe it's race.

Now, this point of view is not original. For instance, Bob Herbert's last column, appearing on the very same page Krugman's column does in the NY times, said:

Maybe Barack Obama felt he couldn’t afford to give the correct answer. . . it’s pretty widely understood that a substantial number of those voters . . . will not vote for a black candidate for president

So has Krugman suddenly become blind to race? What's going on here? If you want to criticize Obama from the left, you have to acknowledge what he was really talking about. And what he was really talking about is real, and no matter how mangled or incorrect his formulation, you have to acknowledge that. Which Krugman never did.

Republicans really don't get it

The national communications director of McCain's 2000 campaign has a piece in a Times blog on how liberals are hypocritical for bemoaning the "economic-political disconnect" (my phrase) in low-income socially conservative voters (a la "What's the Matter with Kansas?"), while ignoring the same disconnect in high-income socially liberal voters. Seriously? Are you comparing the impact of a higher capital gains tax rate on someone who made $2 billion last year with the impact of cutting off food stamps and unemployment insurance, or spending $10 billion a month on the Iraq war ($400/month for every family in the U.S. -- now that would be a rebate)?

There's a case to be made that the economic prosperity of the U.S. has allowed socially conservative voters to neglect their economic interests. But during recessions/depressions? That's a different story.

Republicans heart Bush

The new AP poll shows Bush at 28% approval. 60% of self-identified Republicans approve of his job performance. That may be a new low, but it's still a pretty good majority. Something to think about next time someone mentions bipartisanship -- a solid majority of Republicans think Bush is doing a good job. You wonder, are these the same Republicans who run businesses? Because their talent evaluation skills don't seem so good.

David Pogue is really weird

From an article about small camcorders:

In a big elevator last week, my children began tickling each other, doubled over in laughter. The tiny Sony was in my coat pocket. I loved how it was ready to film nearly instantly when I opened the flip-out screen — (all three camcorders offer this standby mode).

Unfortunately, even when I mashed my back against the far wall of the elevator, all I got was the children’s faces. You couldn’t even see that they were tickling each other without panning down. It was supremely frustrating.

Please don't use the phrase "panning down" when describing your children.

first Puerto Rico poll -- via Jusiper

Jusiper, which might have the most Puerto Rico information of any English-language politics blog, has a link to the first poll in Puerto Rico -- Clinton 50, Obama 37, 13 undecided. Not that bad for Obama -- definitely better than the 25 points some people were assuming. Note that realclearpolitics doesn't have this up yet!

Humor of the day

Politics/basketball from endpoliticsasusual and war from the Onion.

realclearpolitics doesn't like ARG?

Anybody (all you millions of readers) know why realclearpolitics' poll average never includes American Research Group (ARG) polls? ARG seems sketchy in various ways, but why, specifically, did realclearpolitics decide to drop them?

Superdelegates

Demconwatch, of course, has the best superdelegate counter around. Obama has been catching up, slowly but surely, in recent days. But it's not from people deciding to endorse. It's just from the states choosing "add-on" delegates (this is explained over at talkingpointsmemo). The 76 add-on delegates are chosen in various ways by the states, but often the body choosing the delegates has a composition influenced by the state's vote. Thus, all these add-ons are (roughly) reflecting Obama's pledged delegate lead (although, since FlyOnTheWall thinks they'll mostly be allocated winner-take-all, they might actually give Obama extra, since he's won more states).

It's certainly not bad news for Obama, and he can hope that enough will come down the pipe that he might be ahead of Clinton in superdelegates as well as pledged by the time Pennsylvania votes, but these are a little bit different from the usual superdelegates-- they're less signaling accumulation in momentum than cementing victories that he's already won.

Clinton's popular vote hope: Puerto Rico

A blogger at realclearpolitics has an argument that Clinton has a reasonable chance of winning the popular vote. He has lots of fancy maps and arguments about the Appalachians, but that's actually mostly irrelevant. The main issue he points out is that Puerto Rico has extraordinarily high voter turnout (close to 2 million last election, with a total population of 4 million -- over 80% of registered voters participated).

Of course, it doesn't matter how many people vote if they don't vote for Clinton, and there's the rub. Basically, Clinton will need to pick up on the order of 400,000 votes (at least) from Puerto Rico. Even out of 2 million voters, that's a tall order -- 60/40 split. Can she do it? It's all just guessing until polls start coming out of there. But if they do, and they show Clinton with a 20+ point lead, then she does indeed have a shot of winning the popular vote nationwide, even without Florida and Michigan.

New Credentials Committee Issues

David Paul Kuhn at the Politico writes:

[The DNC announced that Florida and Michigan members] will be seated on the three standing committees -- including the critical Credentials Committee -- at the party's 2008 national convention, a position that could affect the selection of the Democratic nominee

While both states were stripped of their delegates to the convention, according to the DNC's interpretation of party rules, members from those states will be seated on the Credentials Committee. The Credentials Committee, which can meet prior to convention, resolves disputes over whether to seat delegates at the convention.

But the mere presence of Florida and Michigan on the credentials committee raises the prospect of vote-trading or last-minute maneuvering, creating potential confusion for a convention already shadowed by procedural controversies.

As Janak said, there's no real reason to believe that these representatives will force a full convention vote, but this news does not make the Credentials Committee as open and shut for Obama as it was according to traditional DNC Convention Rules.

trivia of trivias

The designer of the typeface used by the Obama campaign, Tobias Frere-Jones, is the brother of the New Yorker music critic, Sasha Frere-Jones. Note that the font, "Gotham," was not designed for the Obama campaign.

When the race will end

May 20.

By pledged delegates, Clinton is around 159 delegates down. Giving her the most favorable difference ratings in the upcoming states (and splitting Guam 2-2, not that it matters), Obama will have an insurmountable (i.e., more than all the remaining delegates) lead after the Oregon/Kentucky primaries on May 20 -- I'm giving her a pickup of 18 in Pennyslvania, 6 in Indiana, loss of 9 in North Carolina, pickup of 8 in West Virginia, 15 in Kentucky, and 4 in Oregon. These are all from the most favorable for her recent opinion polls in those states that I could find.

These numbers are pretty stable. It will be almost impossible for Obama to have an insurmountable lead before May 20, because there are 189 delegates assigned on or after May 20, and his lead would have to grow by 30 delegates before then, which is impossible unless Clinton simply collapses. It will also be almost impossible for Obama not to have an insurmountable lead after May 20, because after May 20 there are only 86 delegates left to be assigned, and his lead of ~160 isn't going to be halved with an assignment of 480 delegates -- that would require Clinton win two-thirds of the delegates.

All these are subject to Obama not being hit by lightning or being found out as a secret Buddhist, of course. But barring that, Obama's pledged delegate lead will be impossible to beat on May 20. Then there are 11 days before Puerto Rico votes. Since Puerto Rico isn't a state, and Montana and South Dakota are red states, and so don't "count," Clinton's camp should be ok with the superdelegates making their decision on May 21.

Credentials Committee counting

Clinton says she wants to fight on to the credentials committee decision on whether to seat Florida and/or Michigan. But would it be friendly to her at all? Nope. The credentials committee will be as pro-Obama as the convention delegates:

The rules of the DNC say (VII.C, page 10, page 18 of pdf) that membership on the Credentials Committee is proportional to statewide preference, with delegates given in Appendix D. I've made a spreadsheet with the results. So far, it's 67.5 for Obama, and 52.25 for Clinton (the territories get .25 votes each). One would expect him to hold this lead pretty much unchanged. He may lose 1 in Indiana (3 delegates), 1 in West Virginia (1 delegate), and maybe 2 in Pennsylvania (7 delegates), but he'll probably pick up in South Dakota and Montana (1 each). So look for Obama to be up by at least 12 in state-picked delegates, out of a total 183.

Mark Ambinder has a list of credentials committee members selected by Dean, and thinks they're mostly Dean loyalists. Thus, assuming Clinton doesn't get a 19-6 split in Dean's people (very unlikely), she will have a minority of the credentials committee, and will not be able to pass any proposal to seat Florida and/or Michigan delegates.

As Greg Sargent says, 20% of the committee can force a full convention vote, but that would probably cause havoc. Clinton would need a straight up/down majority to win, and you'd imagine the uncommitted superdelegates would take the easy way out and abstain.

Jeremiah Wright - from Sekhar

The Wright church is apparently the largest in the United Church of Christ. Wright is very highly regarded by other UCC leaders. He is also considered very progressive on gay issues, though he, too, is a victim of some AIDS conspiracy theories.

Matthew Iglesias talks about Wright's Nagasaki reference. Andrew Sullivan on Wright and gays.
Another LA Times story on Wright. An LA Times story on Chicago residents' reactions to Wright. Clinton's pastor defends Wright. Excerpts from Clinton's pastor's Easter sermon. A piece by a former professor and parishioner of Wright's.

hillary, truth and right-wing conspiracy - from Sekhar

Not much is written about how the Clintons have reached out to the people who hounded them most fiercely during the 90's. Hillary's attempt to revive the Wright story in Pittsburgh is helping to bring it back.

TPM points out that when Clinton made her remark about Wright, she was being interviewed by Richard Mellon Scaife's newspaper, with him present -- photo at TPM. Marc Ambinder mocks the Clinton-publicized American Spectator article claiming McPeak (Obama's advisor) is anti-Semitic.

The New Republic points out that Clinton is strengthening her ties to the far right that demonized her and her husband ten years ago. Politico says that reporters knew Clinton's Bosnia story was bogus, but didn't report it until the video. The Obama camp is asking that Clinton reject a letter to Pelosi from her donors demanding that Pelosi state publicly that superdelegates (actually, all delegates) can make whatever decision they wish. The NY Times blog says that Carville stands by his Judas remark about Richardson. Carl Bernstein points out that Hillary has always had a problem with the truth.

Obama's VP choice - from Sekhar

Unlike the other posts "from Sekhar," which are extracted from his voluminous emails, this one is from conversation.

How is Obama going to win back the Hillary voters? On the assumption that most of the die-hard Hillary voters are supporting her not because of her policies (hard to distinguish from Obama's on the surface), or because they hate Obama (a lost cause anyway), but because they like the idea of a woman president, and object to Hillary's treatment in the campaign, a good way to do it would be to choose a woman (white, naturally) as a running mate. Not Hillary -- the Clinton's have done as much as they can to scotch that possibility. Katherine Sibelius of Kansas, despite her anemic response to the State of the Union, or Janet Napolitano, despite her inability to bring along Arizona, given McCain, are likely possibilities. If only Jennifer Granholm of Michigan hadn't backed Clinton. Of course, given the noises from Maria Cantwell in Washington about switching away from Clinton, who knows what will happen if Obama starts to put out feelers.

clinton fibs, obama speech follow-up, etc. - from Sekhar

A Washington Post blog deconstructs Clinton's "sniper fire" story. Jake Tapper at ABC points out that Clinton's White House schedule shows her meeting with women to drum up support for NAFTA. A blog at The Nation says Clinton is a liar on free trade, and can't be trusted. ABC News thinks Clinton may be pushing the Wright story to superdelegates. Adam Nagourney at the NY Times writes about the obvious -- that it will be almost impossible for Clinton to win the nomination. The NY Times blog points out that Clinton is in debt, even after record fundraising. A blog with background about Jeremiah Wright, thank-yous and photos from Presidents, and Wright's full 9/11 speech. The Huffington Post reports that Wright's comments about 9/11 were drawn from those of the Ambassador to Iraq under Carter, made on Fox News. Newsweek has an article on Trinity, Obama's church. Mike Huckabee is the most reasonable commentator on TV about Wright. Sam Harris says the problem with Obama's speech is that he didn't renounce religion. Bob Ostertag points out the pandering Obama had to do about Israel in his speech. At the NY Times, Roger Cohen continues his love affair with Obama.