test

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.