The Politics of Hate and Desperation

It's hard to know where to start -- with McCain or Clinton, so I'll start with Claude Raines. You remember -- in Casablanca when he was "shocked, shocked I tell you" -- which is EXACTLY what John McCain's reaction was to having a bigoted, hate-mongering, yahoo talk about "peeling the bark off of Barack Obama." In a class with Rush Limbaugh saying a few weeks ago that he wouldn't "lynch Michelle Obama unless…." -- there is something TERRIBLY wrong with pundits who go that extra mile to insinuate physical violence against Democrats. (It never seems to happen that liberal pundits threaten Republicans for some reason.) Of course, this is America, and people can say what they want. I'm pretty sure that if Obama does get elected, their words will be considered threats against a sitting president, and that usually doesn't work out for them. But the point is, McCain didn't walk in and denounce Bill Cunningham -- he waited until MUCH later, after the audience had started leaving. It seemed all good fun to him, much like when he laughed when a supporter, talking about Hillary Clinton asked "how are we going to beat the bitch?" He was "shocked, shocked I tell you." I'd rail on about McCain, but he's got enough problems - what with the FEC refusal to let him out of the public financing program since he crossed the line and pledged the funds for a loan, his lying about his relationship with Paxon and Iseman (as proved by his 2002 testimony under oath), the fact that his WHOLE upper campaign staff is comprised of lobbyists, and the fact that we're only scratching the surface of his inability to integrate his words and his actions.

And then there was the debate.

It was in some ways hard to watch. For all one can hold against Clinton, you've got to admire her spunk, her toughness, and her Senate accomplishments. She's a smart policy wonk, and some of her ideas hold merit. We should send her a shovel, since it would make it easier for her to continue to dig the hole she's in.

She lost the debate, and by extension the nomination race, by twisting the truth, re-writing history, attempting to rest on semantics, being petty, and basically allowing the worst of her to be brought out. I guess the thing that most got to me was the exchange about Louis Farrakhan. Hillary Clinton, a woman who kissed Soha Arafat, possibly the ONLY American public figure to kiss a terrorist in public, railed that Obama only "denounced" Farrakhan, in lieu of "rejecting" him. Obama made a strong case for his fight against anti-Semitism, pointed out that his voting record has ALWAYS been strong on Israel, and said he saw no difference between the two words, but if she preferred "renounce", then he both renounced and rejected.

That sort of crystallizes it for me -- she wants it both ways. She can publically love Palestinian terrorists, who actually kill people, and wants to parry Obama because someone supported him. And as any of us who have ever run for office or worked campaigns know, you cannot chose your supporters. They pick you. However, YOU can pick who you kiss in front of cameras.

She predicates her run on her record, and a lot of her record, in her mind, has to do with being First Lady. But then, she only wants the parts of the Clinton years she likes, but not the other parts. So she can seek glory in the economy of the 90's, but overlook her support of NAFTA. I have to tell you, a lot of her "experience" either doesn't count -- as in voter registration drives do not count as political experience in terms of running for office -- they're just something MILLIONS of us have done -- or actually was her husband's experience that she watched. Her experience is her position in the US Senate -- and if you add up the years she spent there, and compare them to the years Obama spent there and as an elected state official in Illinois, there isn't that much difference.

Clinton was mean, caustic, desperate, and completely non-presidential.

The Clinton campaign failed because of arrogance. They NEVER believed things would go on past 5 February. They hadn't planned for it. Not strategically, nor financially. While people are railing about the money spent in January on donuts, that really isn't a big deal. $1200 over 30 days is $40/day which is NOT a lot of money to feed volunteers. The Times even did an article on what all the candidates spent on baked goods in January -- what a red herring. But the Clinton campaign did spend unwisely on consultants (MILLIONS and Mark Penn didn't even give up his day job) and luxury hotels. (In Vegas, not in Iowa, for obvious reasons, which I base on having visited Vegas and having lived in Iowa -- trust me on the choices). We all knew this was coming based on what she spent on her last, predominantly uncontested, Senate race -- the arrogance of only going first class.

While this is the year that anything could happen -- it appears we have a nominee, and his name is Barack Obama. It would be interesting if McCain's ethics problems cause the Republican convention to be more interesting than the Democratic convention. And for those of you who remember 1968 -- we Democrats DO know how to run an interesting convention. (And remember, Abbie Hoffman was 32 in 1968, and therefore shouldn't have been trusted <grin>).

But Dodd endorsed yesterday, Bill Richardson is set to endorse SOMEONE in the near future, and then the Senate may all endorse (25 are currently uncommitted, and ALL are SuperDelegates). Obama is leading in Texas and Vermont (Bernie Sanders says VT should be a blow-out). Hillary will likely take Rhode Island, and at best will split in Ohio. And then it's over. There is no firewall here in Pennsylvania.

When the campaign started last year, I didn't pay much attention to Barack Obama -- he seemed a lightweight, inexperienced, and lacking message. He came in, for me, behind preferences I had for others. But they faded away (and my personal favourite never entered the race….) and I watched him grow -- his maturation in the past 6 months has been miraculous. If you look at him at the debates last summer, and the orator he has become -- it's nothing short of impressive.

While Clinton built a campaign machine that resembled the Keystone Cops (and she should have known better, having the benefit of being involved in both winning and losing campaigns), and McCain built a campaign machine entirely based on lobbyists and special interests, the Obama team worked SMART. They did retail politics, they used the internet as it should be utilized (and if you haven't seen his site -- go look at it, then at Clinton's or McCain's and you'll see the difference between a Mac and PCs). They have more than ONE MILLION discrete donors (which is a first for a primary), they have organization, they have guts, they live on the high road. (That's the moral high road, not the financial high road.) Everything they sell is American-made, even the clothing. (That's both the moral high road AND the financial low road.) He has proved he can run a large organization.

On to the Buckeye State, the Ocean State, the Lone Star State, and the Green Mountain state. It may well be a rout.

It’s not the crime, it’s always the cover-up

It's going to be an interesting week for John McCain. No, not the affair. The money.

John McCain claims himself to be a reformer, especially as relates to campaign financing. He co-wrote the current legislation. He's fought for public financing of campaigns. (He's supposedly not even a fan of 527s, but I digress.)

McCain opted IN to the public financing program back in December when his campaign was floundering. Now, he's raising money, and he wants out. Not that simple. One can opt in to, or stay out of, the campaign financing system, but not both. It's not like a school yard game where you can jump in and out of the circle at will.

McCain did two things that require him to stay in the public system, unless the FEC gives him permission to get out -- first, he used the promise of public funds to guarantee a private campaign loan. (Last November, from Bethesda's Fidelity & Trust Bank for $4 million). Second, he used the promise of public funds to get his name on all the primary ballots. Running a primary drive is expensive -- you need to spend millions to get on all the ballots -- but if you take the public funds, you get an automatic walk on the work necessary to get on the ballots. So, while he technically did not take any dollars from the Feds, he DID get an in-kind contribution from OUR TAX DOLLARS equal to a minimum of $3 million.

The FEC could technically let him out, IF it had a quorum, which it doesn't. There are four open seats due to gridlock between the executive and legislative branches. (FEC appointments have to split between the parties, as an aside.)

If he can't get out, he's about near the cap for primary spending ($54 million). He can make an independent choice as to whether to accept the $85 million for the general election. Independent of 527 monies, of course. If he spends over the cap, he can be fined by the FEC, or they can fine him and turn it over to DOJ, which could conceivably result in jail time.

Once again, had he not been the "McCain" in "McCain-Feingold" -- no one would care that much -- but it is one of his biggest issues, and he must be, and likely will be, held to the highest standards.

The Texas Primary-Caucus System

Even by Byzantine standards, Texas' system is so convoluted as to be larger than life.

Texas has 228 delegates. 126 will be chosen proportionately to the primary vote, BUT the votes are weighted more towards those districts with a large Democratic turnout in the prior two elections. READ: the more Democratic votes in 2004 and 2006, the more proportional delegates. That is, Houston, Dallas and Austin. In the primary, your vote is, in essence, ¾ of a full vote. The polls close at 7 p.m.

Then, there is a caucus at the same polling place, at 7:15 p.m., where 67 delegates will be chosen. This is the standard caucus system where people pick a candidate and then politic one another if any candidate has less than 15% of the vote.

In addition, there are 35 SuperDelegates. 20 have been chosen, 6 will be chosen at the State caucus (weeks after March 4^th). To date -- Texas Supers who have not yet endorsed (8): Brooks, Crutchfeld, Al Edwards, Jaime Gonzalez, Johnson, Lampson, Patrick, Richie, and Rodriguez. 13 have endorsed Clinton (Cuellar, Jackson-Lee, Lovell, Thompson, Hinojosa, Reyes, Ortiz, Green, Flores, Holmes, Hurdt, Slagle and Wright (yes, that Jim Wright)). 6 have endorses Obama: Johnson, Chet Edwards, Green, Doggett, Charlie Gonzalez, and Mercado).

YES! You can vote twice. And your vote will count twice. If you live in West Texas, or any other part of Texas where there was low Democratic turnout in the past two election cycles, your vote actually counts more (as a percentage of the vote in that precinct) than someone who votes in Houston, Dallas, or Austin, although the Democratic precincts carry more weight in the overall tally.

In answer to the question: why would Texas do this? It was set up so that the Party elite could have as much pull as possible -- they WILL be at the caucuses. And you can be, too, if you have registered by 4 February.

 

 

 

 

 

A COMPLETELY Different View of the McCain Affair

Last night was cold and sort of snowy, so I was in one of my favourite positions - curled in a ball, under a comforter, near the dog, on the sofa, asleep. And then the phone rang, and a very excited voice told me to turn on the TV or the computer, the Times had that McCain had an affair.

In my half-asleep stage, my first thought was that John McCain didn't always seem to have enough energy for the campaign, and it would be difficult to layer an affair over that, and then, as I became more awake I realized that they were talking about EIGHT YEARS AGO.

Big deal.

An affair.

It didn't seem like a big deal.

And then it struck me -- the timing was wrong. WAY TOO WRONG.

Politico had the affair in December of 2007, and decided not to run with it. That means it's been "out there" for a minimum of 60 news cycles. This is an 8 year old story. A right wing affair. WHO CARES?

More importantly, who would put it out? This is not something that comes from the left because the timing is wrong. Of the entire original Republican field, McCain is the one the Democrats wanted to run against least. Therefore, if they were going to plant it, it would have planted 48 hours before Tsunami Tuesday. Alternately, they would wait until the general started on both sides for maximum impact. That same logic applies to a disgruntled McCain ex-crony. PERHAPS someone from the evangelical right, but for them (Haggard, Larry "Check my Stance" Craig, Foley, etc, etc, etc) other people's affairs fall under both "Let he who has not sinned….." and "It's never the crime, it's the cover-up."

But then, there it was, a quote from the McCain campaign…..

"It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign," said Jill Hazelbaker, the McCain campaign's communications director. "John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election." (Emphasis mine) http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/20/new-york-times-revisits-old-rumors-in-new-mccain-profile/

And suddenly, it all made sense.

Check the highlight -- think back -- KEATING FIVE. McCain HAS violated the public trust, he HAS done favours for special interests. The issue here is not the affair, but the favours McCain's committees potentially undertook for clients of Vicki Iseman.

So now let's revisit who would plant this at the Times. The Times is a Clinton-backing newspaper, and affairs and ethics are not the sort of thing that Camp Clinton wants to be discussing, for obvious reasons. (For those of you on this list who are still in college and don't personally remember it, Google "Monica Lewinsky" "Gennifer Flowers" and "Whitewater". Google "Vince Foster" to get a complete picture.) This isn't the sort of thing the Obama camp would do, not because they are above going negative, but because they are SO AHEAD that they wouldn't waste time on going after John McCain YET.

Mike Huckabee is unlikely, because he has his own ethics problems. There's no doubt in my mind that he's never cheated on Janet, and I say that because I've seen a picture of her, and trust me, had he cheated, he wouldn't be the man he is today. He would walk COMPLETELY differently.

The minor candidates, Kucinich and Paul, are both spending their time trying to keep their House seats (Dennis especially, as he's got competition).

The evangelical right seems unlikely to go after a corruption story….although they get 20% of my probability vote since they may have known about the affair but NOT the trust violation.

My vote goes to what can only be termed "the actual Republican right" -- that fun combination of neo-cons, tax-cutters, and anti-rights (anti-civil rights, anti-Constitutional rights, pro-torture rights, anti-intellectualism, etc.) READ: Ditto heads. This actually smells like it came from the Limbaugh/Coulter alliance. For the simple reason that they feel they cannot control McCain, he's not "right" enough, and they don't trust him.

This is going to be either an ugly campaign, or a fun campaign, depending on your sense of humour. And your stomach for YUCK.

 

 

 

On to Wisconsin and Hawaii

Tomorrow there are 94 delegates up for grabs; 74 in Wisconsin and 20 in Hawaii. If Obama captures 48 in Wisconsin and 14 in Hawaii (as it looks like he will) when added to the most up-to-date delegate count yields 1174 pledged delegates to Obama, and 1011 to Clinton, a lead of 163. Doesn't sound like much, BUT, Clinton's lead in SuperDelegates (using the highest split) is 78, yielding Obama an absolute lead of 85 delegates. EVEN if you factor in the Florida and Michigan delegates, Obama maintains a slight lead.

John McCain, in his own words…..

In response to a query from a friend about how McCain feels about issues related to science, I did a little research.

My favourite quote from him has to do with whether he believes in creationism. If you read transcripts of what he has said, the bottom line is that creationism is as valid a “view” (McCain’s word) as evolution.

If you want to read the full skinny on his views, they are listed on his website. But do yourself a favor, and first check out YOUR positions. This website http://www.electoralcompass.com/ has a great quick quiz on the issues of the day. You read each question, and answer from “completely agree” to “completely disagree”. They then use a grid to compare your responses to the (original) field of candidates. From there, you can link to specific candidate positions based on what the candidates have said in debates, posted on their websites, and said in interviews and articles. (Yes, it’s non-partisan).

This is the year your vote counts -- make sure you know for whom you’re voting.

After I wrote this, but before I sent it, I happened to turn on “Ballot Bowl” -- and John McCain was speaking about health care. His solution is (and yes, he repeated it three times) “Health and Wellness, Health and Wellness, Health and Wellness”. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of health and wellness -- but it is NOT a health care policy. My last major health care cost (covered mostly by insurance, and the rest by the owners) was a $3,000 bill for getting bitten by a dog. And when he bit me, I don’t think he cared HOW healthy I was.

Fun with Numbers

Now that you've seen the delegate count (post below this one), let's look at some of the things that can happen in the current races. First, to the left is a list of the upcoming races, the dates of those primaries and caucuses, and the total possible number of delegates.

NOTE -- when the news organizations come out with their numbers, they are usually less than the possible total. Often this is because of the "and a player to be named later rule" that comes from sports. But for fun, we're going to use ALL the possible delegates.

Thus, mathematically, if either candidate was able to capture all the delgates, or 1,332, either could conceivably get the nomination, as Clinton would have 2,252 delegates, or Obama would have 2,362, either number surpassing the 2,025 number without needing a single SuperDelegate.

However, that's not going to happen. Plus, the counts all change if Michigan does the do-over they are considering, or if the DNC relents and allows for current Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated. In addition, and very few people mention this, NO delegate is required to honour his or her commitment once the voting on the floor actually starts.

So now, let's play with numbers.

Assume that all of the delegates split 50/50, which I don't think will happen, that will yield at the Convention:

Clinton -- 1,586, or,
Obama -- 1,696

What I think WILL happen is that Obama is going to do MUCH better in certain states than the polls would indicate, and that Clinton will continue to fade (especially since Gruenwald and Penn are fighting, house-cleaning is on-going, cash is running out, and the Clintons NEVER believed this race would extend an hour past Tsunami Tuesday.)

So -- I started out assuming that Obama carries Wisconsin with 65%, and Hawaii with 70% next week. Then, I assumed that on 4 March, Obama carried Rhode Island and Vermont with 65%, and the two candidates split Texas and Ohio 50/50. (Remember, these are delegate counts, not necessarily direct popular vote due to apportionment). I further think that Obama will get 65% in Wyoming, 80% in Mississippi, 55% in Pennsylvania, 66% in Guam, 65% in Indiana, 75% in North Carolina, 50% in West Virginia, 35% in Kentucky, 75% in Oregon, 50% in Montana, 50% in South Dakota, and 10% in Puerto Rico.

If I'm right, this would mean Obama would come to the convention with 1,786 of the pledged delegates, or 54%, while Clinton would have 1,496, or 46%. Even if you add in the current pledged SuperDelegates, that only moves Obama to 53% (1,940, therefore would need an additional 85 to clinch the nomination) to Clinton's 47% (1,744, would need an additional 281 to clinch).

My numbers do not include any "momentum changes", and DO include the cracker factor. In addition, this is different from the actual popular vote. You can lose the popular vote and win more delegates, or there can be a direct correlation.

Remember -- only half of the 796 SuperDelegates have endorsed.

Still, it appears that the nomination will belong to Obama.

The JRW Current Delegate Count

To the left is the current count of pledged delegates. The numbers come from my personal evaluation of the delegate numbers compiled by ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, NBC and the New York Times. These numbers did not always match up. Therefore, I applied the following logic --

1. If MOST of the numbers matched, I threw out what didn't and went with the majority.
2. If numbers were all over the map, I went with NBC, except for Missouri, which was there math error, and which I corrected here.

Caveat 1: While Democrats Abroad voted, I couldn't find the tallies anywhere.
Caveat 2: New Mexico might change.
Caveat 3: These numbers DO NOT included unpledged delegates, uncommitted delegates, nor John Edwards' delegates.

The "Lady" Clinton Problem

Last night, the pundits were talking about what Clinton needs to do to win outside the Latino core in Texas. They talked about things like how "the tears" helped in New Hampshire made her appear more ladylike and more "real", and those "types of things" would resonate with the voters.

Yesterday, I sent a note to Ed Rendell explaining HOW APPALLED I was that he gave an interview to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette where he explained that there are whites who would not vote for an African-American.

I would send a similar note about bringing up Hillary's effective femininity, but I'm not sure to whom I'd address it.

Every time you raise the specter of "blacks" or "women" it truly denigrates these two human beings as CANDIDATES.

The media missed the best opportunity EVER last fall to teach the nation a giant civics lesson. There were 18 candidates, and instead of focusing on haircuts and rumours, they could have picked one topic a day and then explained each candidate's position. One night on immigration, one night on Iraq and nation-building, one night on the economy. They blew it. And candidates with good ideas fell by the wayside.

Now, they have an even better opportunity to compare and contrast the candidates, and instead wish to play the audience to see whether as a country we are more racist, or more misogynistic. I'm hoping we are not that stupid.

Halfway There

Obama is halfway to the magic number of 2025.

Usually, the pundits chat as the results come in about the exit polls. They are interested in the split of men/women, income, religion, ethnic group, race, etc. But last night, Obama took it ALL -- so it didn't matter.

HOWEVER there is a question about where a lot of those independents will go in the general.

Can Obama hold on to the independent coalition?

It's pretty obvious from the exit polls that they will go to McCain if Clinton is the nominee. She even looked strained at her El Paso speech last night, and spoke more about the past than the future.

Next week, it's Wisconsin and Hawaii.

There aren't a lot of solid poll numbers yet but it appears that Clinton isn't even bothering -- making a "Guiliani last stand" in Texas.

I've been reviewing the delegate numbers (as usual, to a level of detail that most of you can't stand) comparing not only the precincts, but also the CNN/NBC/CBS/NYT/AP numbers. And this time I read HOW they calculate. That even bored me. Because after all the jargon, they're guessing. Just like the rest of us.

I sent a note to Chuck Todd, because I think NBc's math is wrong, based on the state-by-state numbers listed (they seem to put 39 delegates in the MO state, but don't carry the 39 over to the tally) -- I got a note from a staffer that they will look into it and either let me know why they're right, or let me know why they're right. (Yes, you read it correctly -- they're sticking by their numbers, but she did thank me for being an astute viewer.)

The head-to-heads indicate over and over that McCain will beat Clinton, but Obama will beat McCain. I actually have Republican friends that have given money to Obama. Still "electibility" has fallen in importance in the exit polls. We'll see if it continues.

Here in Pennsylvania it is a Clinton stronghold, officially. I think it won't turn out that way -- the best she can do is split the 188 delegates. I believe that because of the number of college students in this state, ESPECIALLY in Philadelphia. I think Obama can win Ohio and Pennsylvania, and maybe even split Texas.

If it does come down to McCain-Obama, things will be interesting. What will happen to the Republican platform if Huckabee prevails in getting what he wants? Even the Republicans are split on stem cells, even Nancy Reagan is in favour. Tom Delay said he might not be able to vote for McCain because the Democrat may be "less dangerous" (his words). Will the evangelical, Limbaugh-Coulter alliance stay home?

On the Democratic side, the platform won't be an issue. (And by the way -- the major party platform documents tend to be boring, although I always read them anyway, but the minor parties tend to have outrageous platforms. (Check out the platform of the American Party if you need proof.) But seating the Michigan delegates will be a real issue, since only Clinton appeared on the ballot -- she was the only major candidate who refused to honour the committment and remove her name. Michigan is considering a do-over. Florida is sticking by it's guns to be seated, and has said they will not hold a recount. HOWEVER -- it may be that their delegate count won't matter if Obama's lead grows. If you run the numbers (and I have) Obama can win anyway. If the momentum continues, there may not even be a floor fight.

Of all the SuperDelegates, the two elder statesmen, Carter and Gore, have not endorsed. From what I understand, neither plans to, in case there is a need to pull the players in a room and talk to them. Bill can't do it for obvious reasons, and Howard Dean doesn't have the juice.

NEVER has an election cycle been more transparent, nor more interesting. And every day the process wins, we all win.