Wednesday Morning, 4:30 a.m.

As of this minute, the news is that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, while Obama took Vermont.

As for the delegate counts -->

                               Clinton    Obama    Remainder to be awarded

Vermont -- FINAL --        6           9

Rhode Island - FINAL -    13           8

Ohio                            71          57            13

Texas                          78          70            45

Totals                        168         144           58

Previous Hard Count    1042        1202

New Soft Count          1210        1346

The demographics out of Ohio are devastatingly terrifying.  

Hillary Clinton's campaign has done something NO OTHER Democratic campaign I can think of has done. (And yes, I know if I'm wrong, I'll hear from y'all) -- she used fear, lies, duplicity, and chicanery AGAINST A FELLOW DEMOCRAT. She undertook actions which make the Republican opponent stronger no matter whether she or Obama wins the nomination. She is running as if she wants to be McCain's veep choice instead of his competitor. It is offensive on every level.

I know a contingent of you are Clinton supporters, and that's certainly your right. Some of you believe the process should play out because as convoluted as it is, the process is what it is.

But we'll see what happens over the next few days. Will the party elders come out and say "for the good of the party....go back to the Senate Hillary"?? Will Florida and Michigan reschedule primaries? Probably not.

So -- I'm coming live to you from the final battleground. We here in Pennsylvania should have been an unimportant footnote in a battle which is now internecine warfare. No fractured party has ever gone on to win the presidency. The final Texas delegate count will end up being closer than the numbers at this hour indicate -- and may even end up being an Obama win.

The Ohio numbers will be closer, but will still be a minimum +5 win for Clinton. The demographics out of Ohio are an incredibly uneducated electorate (high school diplomas rule), very low median income (compared to general US numbers), something like the 2nd or 3rd highest unemployment rate in the US, large senior population and 80% white. These are what is generally referred to by most people as "Reagan Democrats". This is the group that McCain can most easily take from ANY Democrat in the general. The people that McCain cannot get -- intelligent, educated, well-compensated, white liberals -- the people he can NEVER get -- those are the Obama voters. And they've left Ohio. Sure, Obama got another group McCain can't get -- but blacks are a falling percentage of the electorate.

I for one, don't want to see 100 more years of war, a $500 billion dollar defense budget, an Iranian invasion, the continuation of the Bush tax cuts, a human life amendment, judges that make Alito look competent, and Scalia look liberal, a full depression (as in, Ohio thinks it has it bad now with 6.4% unemployment, imagine how they'd feel if it went back to the 80% it was when FDR took office), the continuation of government-by-lobbyist, and ANOTHER president with no respect for the Constitution.

But that's what we're heading for. Unless the forces of truth, right and light can prevail here in the Keystone state.

Go home Hillary, your party needs you. In the Senate. Hopefully this time voting AGAINST war.

Vote Early and Vote Often…

Although I want "Vote Early and Vote Often" to be attributed to Richard J. Daley, who truly embodied the spirit of the line, it wasn't originally his. (Although he did more to live that line than anyone else, especially in 1960) -- it's actually from someone else. (Answer at the end). Still, from that perspective, it's a great day to be a Texan!

Today the primary polls are open in Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont AND Texas: 370 pledged delegates, 444 total delegates. Everyone except Texans can vote once: you Texans out there can vote (or have voted already) and if you vote in the primary, you can vote again at 7:15 local time. Part of Texas is in another time zone, but as all of you know, I get those persnickety time zones wrong close to 100% of the time, so we won't do the El Paso discussion.

And it's interesting how today's contest has morphed from an actual primary to a war of words of expectation. Coming into today, Obama has won the last 11 contests, and at a minimum has a 100 delegate lead. The campaign says that no matter the outcome, they're going to still be ahead in the raw count, the soft count, and the hard count. And numerically, that's true, unless the far right has its way.

The Clinton camp started out by saying that Texas and Ohio were must-wins or Hillary would drop out. Even Bill said it. Now, they're down to -- if Hillary wins one or the other, they're staying in. The polls are all over the place -- and in case you're wondering how that happens, it has to do with two things: who is polled, and what questions are asked. "Who is polled" depends often on who the pollster is, whether they choose to go after "likely voters" or "registered voters", how big their sample is, which lists they used to select names, and whether the pollster has a stake in the outcome. (Rasmussen and Zogby, for example, are Republican pollsters). "What they ask" can skew anything.

The interesting thing today is that both Texas and Ohio are open primaries -- Rush Limbaugh and the other right-wingers are suggesting that Republicans go vote for Clinton JUST to keep the Democratic race in play. They have accepted that Obama will be the candidate and they want him as bloody (Rush's word, check it out if you don't believe me) as possible for the general. Wouldn't it be funny if they got their wish, they pulled the McCain voters who believed he was a shoo-in, and Huckabee won Texas? (Gotta love them thar' possibilities! -- Romney may have suspended his campaign, but he's still got close to 300 delegates….and he hasn't released them, McCain endorsement notwithstanding. It's all in the details.)

And on that "open primary deal" -- in Texas, you don't actually register with a party. At all. Only state that works that way.

So enjoy -- it will be a long night!

Results and analysis tomorrow.

 

And oh….it was Al Capone -- who understood all systems except those related to taxes.

 

The Obama Campaign Comes to Pennsylvania

I've worked a lot of campaigns in my life. Everything from school board and alderman, through statewide contests, as well as Presidential campaigns. Working campaigns has changed a lot since I was a kid and you started out STRICTLY RETAIL by licking envelopes and doing door to door lit drops.

I know that many of you have never worked a campaign, so you may be curious how one gets involved in a campaign. For local campaigns, it's relatively easy -- generally the candidate is someone you actually know (or are related to….). Local campaigns are fun because you talk up someone you truly believe in to other people you know. I have a friend running in this year's primary for a local spot, and if he wins, even though he's a Republican, I'll work for him because I know him, I like him, respect the fact that his positions are moderate (which is what I support on a local basis) and I'll be glad to call people I know in our district, and do lit drops. That's a local election. All retail.

For the statewide offices, you also may know the candidate. Or else, you're involved with your local party. And then someone calls you and says "I'm running, will you write me a check, or work at my headquarters." Alternately, if it's your first campaign, you call them or stop by the local store front, and write your name on the list for when you'll do phone banking.

And then there are the BIG campaigns. The first big campaign I worked was in 1976. Back then, it was actually easy to meet the candidates. I had taken a year off from college, and was doing some grunt work for Paul Sarbanes (who won the MD Senate seat). I met Jimmy Carter and Jerry Brown. They just stopped by the campaign office to chat with the workers. It was an election full of hope -- the first true post-Watergate election.

Since then, I have worked elections for candidates at all levels, have done voter registration drives, and have done non-partisan things like working at the polls for the County. I have stuffed envelopes, run phone banks, done election day logistics, counted votes, been a poll-watcher -- you name it, I've always loved it.

And I've been contacted by campaigns -- normally a phone call from someone local asking me to participate. Sometimes, direct calls from candidates.

Since the internet has taken hold as "netroots" -- there are a lot of organizations that send emails to ask for your involvement -- everything from calling your Congressman/Senator, to giving money, to signing petitions, to working at election sites to insure fairness (Move On is especially big on this last point.) In addition, there are the strict issue groups (NRA, NARAL, NORML, etc) who contact you to work for or against a specific person based on one issue.

But today, the Obama campaign officially arrives in Pennsylvania, and they are doing something I've never seen before. The perfect marriage of outreach and individuality. If this is an inkling of how Obama would run that large bureaucracy called "the US government" -- it's truly impressive.

First, there was an email from the state coordinator saying that the campaign would arrive on March 1^st. A simple link where you could put in your zip code and find official events near you. The events, for today and tomorrow, include training sessions for GOTV activities, registration drives, and organizing techniques. Most are followed by canvassing. There are also Sunday night/Monday night events so groups of people can make phone calls to the Tuesday primary states -- actual calls, not robocalls.

In addition, individuals have the ability to set up non-official local groups and events. The local groups include groups at certain local colleges, some which are geographic ("Main Line for Obama"), some are demographic ("Women for Obama" "Veterans for Obama"). Events include primary results watching parties, meet-and-greets, and discussion groups. Don't like any? You can start your own.

The approach is at once centralized and decentralized, slick but welcoming, detailed but easy to navigate. I've never seen anything like it, and as you all know -- I actually pay attention…if someone had done something like this in the past, I would have known.

For my political action for this year, (in addition to actual candidate work) I will be running my personal GOTV program, which some of you (sad to say) have watched with jaw-dropping horror. I believe in process, I believe that "voting" is far more an obligation than a right -- and as soon as I get over to the county building to replenish my supply, I'll be back to asking everyone I meet whether they are registered to vote, and if they're not, will have voter registration forms. If you're planning on your own GOTV program -- the most effective locations are restaurant wait-staffs, and checkers at the market and the Home Depot (which has a surprising percentage of not-yet-registered people, for some reason, more than Lowe's or the local hardware stores). Bad locations include bookstores (because normally readers are also voters), dental offices, and car mechanic shops.

People often say to me that their vote doesn't make a difference, or that no matter what they do, things won't change. They rail about corruption, and ingrained people and special interests.

But I disagree.

We are the only country in the history of the world with free, scheduled, elections, where the transfer of power has always been bloodless. (For any of you who want to write back and say "What about England?" -- NO -- they ***CALL*** elections, and they're not scheduled. And for those that want to claim Mexico has scheduled elections -- yes that's true, but they're not free, and they're not honest.) Political action is part of how we became a country.

The Obama campaign has come to Pennsylvania, bringing hope and organization. Perhaps in their honour, the expected 3 inches of snow which was to fall last night never materialized….

And oh yes, the Clinton campaign has also come to Pennsylvania -- they wrote and asked for money, and said they are looking for volunteers. This is also the state that never actually filed a full delegate state for the primary, even after Ed Rendell extended the deadline for them. They never thought it would get so far -- kind of echoes of the 2002 Iraq vote……

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.