Monday Miscellany - Misplaced Meme Edition

Dyre42 at Dyre Portents is starting to piss me off. First he tagged me with the Page 123 Meme about six weeks ago. Although I politely indicated I would follow-up, I studiously ignored the meme thinking it would just go away. Then, he tagged me again! Can you believe that guy? This time it was the Rated E for Excellent Award, singling us out as "woefully unappreciated". Ok, well that part is true - but - regardless, now I have to deal with this flood of awards/tags/memes before I drown in them.

Getting tagged by one of these tag/meme/award things is like getting a homework assignment. It just sits there, hanging in the back of your mind, weighing on you, draining all the joy out of life. You know you have to get the homework assignment done, but would much rather go outside and play baseball with the other bloggers.

As luck would have it, today, only one thing happened in the entire world. A muckraking New York Governor got caught boning an overpriced hooker. This item immediately made my "Items I Will Never Blog About, Even If You Waterboard Me" list. Since this was the only thing that happened in the world today, my schedule was clear and I could finally get to the meme/tag detrius that keeps washing up on the beach.

I will respond and forward these tags per their rules later in the post, but first I have a very special present for Mr. Crapomatic (Dyre Portents is located at crapomatic.blogspot.com and no - I don't know what the connection is between Dyre Portents and Crapomatics).

I hope I do not seem ungrateful, but - you see, I spent too much time once before on the question of Memes and Awards. Specifically this post:

"Now some might think this has something to do with a pyramid type scheme for trafficking in the primary currency of the blogosphere - links. But as any thinking blogger knows, these schemes are unsustainable due to the mathematics of geometric progression.This chart from Wikipedia illustrates the problem of geometric progression when one blogger tags six other bloggers and asking each blogger to tag six more - etc. If each blogger acts within one day of getting tagged, then inside of two weeks the entire population of the earth will be tagged... "

But, upon further reflection and research, I decided that I was being a little too hard on the meme creators and promoters, and after further meditating on the unappreciated status of the blog as reflected by the pathetic DWSUWF technorati rating, I had an epiphany and we were inspired in that very same post to create the:

*************

Partisan Reflection on a Pissant Provocateur Award.

Let's get the terminology straight. We are not using the Merriam Webster definition of a pissant. We are instead using the Urban Dictionary's second definition:

Pissant - Little person blog with big attitude.

Which I think, pretty much covers the entire blogosphere. Recipients should also feel free to substitute, at their discretion, definition 3:

Pissant - Any person who is incapable of consuming as much alcohol as you can. Generally someone who has arrogantly been boasting about how much alcohol they can consume but then falls far short of the trumped up expectations.

That cleared up - on to the rationale for the award. This blog is in the service of promoting the notion that our government runs better when congress and the executive branches are divided between the major parties, and that people should vote to keep it that way. Further, we have refined this notion to assert that if the electorate remains polarized, and equally divided, a relatively small number of libertarian or independent swing voters can have a disproportionate impact by consistently voting for divided government. To that end, it is in our enlightened voting interest, to insure that the electorate remain polarized and balanced along partisan lines. This award is offered to further those ends.

The Rules of the Partisan Pissant Provocateur Award:

1. Copy and link to this post (meaning these rules and the Award icon).
2. Reflect on five bloggers who cause you to gnash your teeth when reading their posts, but who you nevertheless feel compelled to return to and read time and again. Write a short sincere (or not) paragraph about each one.
3. Make sure you link this post so others can read it and the rules.
4. Go leave your chosen bloggers a comment and let them know they’ve been given the award.
5. Put the award icon on your site.
6. Did I mention you should link this post?

This award should make you reflect on five bloggers who have motivated you to unleash fire breathing partisan posts of your own. Carefully crafted logical arguments and good writing are a bonus but don't overlook particularly sharp satire, biting snark, or a high octane flamer. Try to keep the quality high, but in a pinch, feel free to substitute your basic journeyman partisan hack.

*************

Congratulations Dyre42! - you are now the proud recipient of not one but two Pissy Awards! As you now have two awards, you are obligated to forward this award to double the usual number of recipients. Congratulations again!

WARNING: To all bloggers. The DWSUWF Award/Meme defense policy is to immediately award a Pissy to anyone nominating DWSUWF for any awards or memes whatsoever. Full stop. This policy takes effect immediately. There will be no additional warnings.

That out of the way. I will fulfill my obligations for these meme/tags - The rules ...

The "Page 123" Tag

1. Pick up the nearest book ( of at least 123 pages).
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the next three sentences.
5. Tag five people.

RATED "E" Tag

And the "This Blog is rated E for Excellent Award" simply requires it to be passed along to ten others. Apparently Dyre42 was rated by Carrie at Carrie's Nation who was rated by Archcrone. who was double rated by Drinking Liberally and Moes/ROTUS and that is as far back as I'll take it. My recommendation to Dyre42 is to start there with the Pissy. Remember, if we fight this meme scourge over there, we will not need to fight it here.

Page 123 of Timbuktu

First the book. Timbuktu by Marq De Villiers & Sheila Hirtle. The book was given to us by fellow travelers on a recent trip to West Africa and yes... Timbuktu. It is sitting nearby because I have been intending to finish up my blog trip journal with some pithy quotes from the book. I am only three months behind schedule on that project. The page 123 quote:

"I had once spent a morning in Mopti and had seen the stack of salt slabs piled on the cobblestoned wharfside. The merchant I talked to didn't know or care, exactly where they came from. "The Taureg bring them in them in from the desert." he said. "I don't care to go and see myself."

Actually, this is quite a good quote. We visited Mopti, saw the slabs, and walked that very wharf.

Now the winners - I cannot deal with choosing 10, so instead, I will choose six, and simply triple the number of meme/awards. Everyone on this list gets an "E", a "Reads Page 123" , and a "Pissy". Congratulations one and all.

Award/Tag/Meme Winners

First up HDW - who has been quite the nag in the comments here lately. He posts at HDW Mobile blog, with an emphasis on trout and wilderness management policy and his kids. He is also my brother and a co-blogger here, but you probably didn't know that, as he has never actually posted anything here in two years. He already has a Pissy - so - HDW - enjoy your 123+E.

Blogenfreude at Agitprop. A cynical and profane bastard. And funny as hell (your mileage may vary). But he believes in Unicorns. Go figger. One Pissy, One E, One Page 123.

Mark at Publius Endures - A like-minded small "l" libertarian trying to figure out how to make some sense out of the remaining choices for President. He is working to derive a logical freedom based voting rationale for this years election. That, at least, is his intent. But like most people, the emotional choice comes first, and the rational justification for that choice second. He apparently doesn't know it yet, but it is clear he is voting for Obama. I'll be interested in his final rationale/justification for that vote. One Pissy, One E, One Page 123.

Steph at Death Chic - because she coincidently has the the same first name as Steph from Queen of Dysfunction, who was directly responsible for the creation of the Pissy Award and I am still bitter about that whole sorry situation. Also because I know that Steph's Page 123 meme will come from a Mortuary textbook, and who doesn't want to know what is on page 123 of a mortuary textbook? Finally, because she wrote a truly great letter to her Dad as he was deployed to Afghanistan. One Pissy, One E, One Page 123.

Stormwarning - because I have been arguing with him for years, and because I need to bring a little rational right wing ballast back to these pages, as we have been listing to port in recent months. One Pissy, One E, One Page 123.

Ok we have a right winger, a left winger, a moderate, a libertarian, and a mortician mom. How about one more -

Jeff at The Dominican - Because he is the best of the Blogging Deans of Small Midwestern Theological Colleges Who Are Also Fans of 24 And The Chicago Cubs. He is also my brother-in-law. One Pissy, One E, One Page 123.

Enjoy your awards, everyone . See you at the apres award ceremony party. Time for a celebratory drink.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, blogging , Pissy Award, meme.

Oh Denny Boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling.

And if you come, when all the flowers are dying
And I am dead, as dead I well may be.
Irish Folk Song - Oh Danny Denny Boy

As republican former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert retires to his suburban Illinois district, he will now be represented in Congress by Democrat Bill Foster.

James Kimberly reporting for the Chicago Tribune:

"In a stunning upset Saturday that could be a sign of trouble for Republicans this fall, a little-known Democratic physicist won the special election for a far west suburban congressional seat long held by former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Foster had 53 percent to Oberweis' 47 percent with all of the unofficial vote counted... As the winner, Foster is set to enjoy some advantages as the sitting congressman: staffers to perform constituent service, the ability to send mail paid for by the public and easier access to campaign contributions... The 14th District historically has been very Republican, re-electing Hastert with 60 percent of the vote in 2006 and giving President Bush 55 percent of the vote in 2004."

Deanna Bellandi of the Associated Press further notes:

"The district will have a rookie congressmen after years of enjoying Hastert's clout. During his 21 years in Washington, Hastert funneled millions of dollars to the district that stretches from Chicago's far western suburbs to almost the Mississippi River."

There is just so much to see as we watch the slow motion train wreck that is the GOP in 2008. Obama supporter Dick Durban has a predictable explanation for the Il-14 vote - it is all about change: "It tells me that voters are ready for a change. They want new leadership in Washington". Another interpretation is that the voters of the 14th district are so accustomed to suckling on the federal teat under Denny Hastert's beneficent reign, they are voting out of simple self interested recognition that they'll need to switch parties to keep the juice flowing under the single party Democratic rule in 2009.

But sticking with our musical theme -If this outcome does does not tell my fellow Republicans which way the wind is blowing, then, Bob Dylan not withstanding, they do indeed need a weatherman. Taylor Marsh prefers Barbara Streisand's cover of "Happy Days are Here Again" as a soundtrack to gloat by. Meanwhile, the laughter you hear is the derision in the left leaning blogosphere over NRCC spokeswoman Karen Hanretty's statement:

"The one thing 2008 has shown is that one election in one state does not prove a trend. In fact, there has been no national trend this entire election season. The one message coming out of 2008 so far is that what happens today is not a bellwether of what happens this fall. "

I almost feel sorry for her. I mean, what the hell is she going to say? Complete denial may be the only rational reaction when staring into the abyss. Interestingly, the GOP talking points have departed too far from reality for even Michelle Malkin to parrot. She devotes a blog post to pondering whether the communication from the NRCC is "wishful thinking or hopeless spin?".

Personally I am ready to move on. There is no longer any point in beating this dead elephant. We need to move on to the next phase, which will be even more entertaining - Assigning Blame.

Clearly the legacy of George W. Bush has already been written. The leading entry for his epitaph: "The man who destroyed the Republican Party". Sure, there will be those who will argue that GWB did not have the intellectual capacity to pull this off on his own. They'll want to allocate primary blame to Dick Cheney, pointing to the VP's singular achievement of stampeding the country and the President into the Iraq War, while allowing GWB to think, even to this day, that it was his decision. I'll leave that nuanced debate to future generations. But I will submit another nominee - a man who's role in the destruction of the GOP has been vastly under appreciated. Our very own Denny Hastert.

Ed Morrissey blogging from his new Hot Air platform home examines the "Hastert (non-) Legacy":

"Hastert’s actions created the legacy we see now: no legacy at all. Although he doesn’t deserve the blame for the collapse of the GOP in Illinois, he deserves at least some of the blame for leaving his constituency in a mood for this kind of change. It’s a lesson that the current House GOP caucus needs to learn, and learn quickly, if it wants to avoid losing even more ground in November. "

Oh, I don't know Ed, I think he leaves quite a powerful legacy. In my 10/19/06 post "Hastert goes home", I predicted that Hastert would resign in disgrace and summarized his legacy thusly:

"The Hastert legacy is out-of-control earmarks, corrupt land deals, the Foley cover-up, and the continuing Abramoff investigations."

But that was just the beginning. We can now add responsibility for losing a safe Republican seat in Illinois Congressional District 14. Ironically, Hastert's resignation and the consequent early special election was timed with the intent of giving the Republicans a leg up for the fall election. Instead - advantage Democrats. No, Ed - I must disagree - The Hastert Legacy is huge, monumental, gigantic - a legacy as big and bloated as the man himself. His leadership presiding over the most corrupt Congress in United States history was so profoundly loathsome, that he single-handedly undermined the the 2006 Karl Rove "fear and loathing" campaign against Nancy Pelosi. It was hard for voters to get worked up about Nancy, if the Hastert alternative made them nauseous. If you will permit a brief digression, it was also while commenting on an election eve ghost-written Denny Hastert guest post that I was banned at RedState. I guess I should be grateful.

But Hastert's greatest hit may be the new high water mark for personal corruption he established by earmarking $207 million dollars of your tax dollars to enable him to profit personally from the increased value of his personal property near Plano, Illinois. A legacy we explored in a blog post and video reprised here (Soundtrack: Pink Floyd's Money) putting it in the context of Honest vs. Dishonest Graft:

Denny Hastert purchased land near Plano, Illinois in 2002 and 2004 for $2.5 million. In 2005 he earmarked $207 million dollars of your tax dollars to build a highway and interchange that passed within a few miles of his property. Four months after GWB signed the bill into law containing that earmark, Denny Hastert sold his land for almost $5 million dollars. This is a perfect example of what George Washington Plunkitt (a corrupt turn of the century Tammany Hall politician) called "dishonest graft". Wikipedia helps clarify Plunkitt's distinction between "honest graft" and "dishonest graft"...

The point, is that the 2006 Speaker of the House of the United States of America, the man who was third in line for succession to the presidency of the United States, engaged in activity that would not meet the moral standards of one of the most corrupt 1906 political participants of the most corrupt political organization in the history of the United States.

A blast from the Past
Denny Hastert's Greatest Hits


But let us not dwell on the past. Let us take this opportunity to look to the future that Denny Hastert helped make possible. As we head into 2009 with expanded Democratic party majorities in the both Houses of Congress, a potential filibuster-proof Democratic super majority in the Senate, and a Democratic president flexing the pumped up biceps of new unitary executive branch power - courtesy of Dick Cheney's six years of steroid injections - the players forming a new team of corruption have been called up.

The Democratic Congress have already shown that they did not learn the lessons of the Republican mistakes. The much heralded ethics bill was emasculated and the corrupting influence of earmarks continue unabated. Jack Murtha, will show us the way. He may not be as dumb as Hastert, but he is just as corrupt. Keep an eye on him. Perhaps he may yet match Hastert's legacy of undermining his parties majority in Congress through rampant greed, corruption, and power lust enabled by a single party government. Go for it, Jack.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Republican, Congress, 2006 Election, Bill Foster, Dennis Hastert, 2008 election, Jack Murtha, Divided Government

Alter's Word Comprehension Problem

After advising that "Hillary Should Get Out Now" in a column last week, Jonathan Alter is frantically patching a leaky argument before potential Clinton wins in Ohio and Texas tonight put a couple of torpedoes below the water line. In his most recent column "Hillary’s Math Problem" he says to "Forget tonight. She could win 16 straight and still lose."

He does a lot of arithmetic to arrive at the conclusion that Democrats should ignore the "will of the voters" in Ohio and Texas in order to maintain the integrity of the "will of the voters" in the undemocratic Democratic Party nomination process:

"So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal."- Alter

Alter's problem is not math. It is word comprehension. The problem with his thesis is that he conflates a lead in pledged delegates with "the will of the people". The pledged delegate total is many things, but the one thing it is not, is the "will of the people". The pledged delegate lead is polluted by many and significant non-democratic elements in the peculiar byzantine Democratic Party nomination process. Among these are: Caucuses that have absolutely nothing to do with the "will of the voters" in their states; Weird delegate allocation rules like in Texas that make some voters more equal than other; Ignoring all of the voters in two of the biggest and most important states in the union. The pledged delegate total is certainly important. Very important. It could still be decisive if Obama closes the deal in either Ohio or Texas. But ultimately it is just one piece of data, and has little more inherent validity or claim on the "the will of the people" than the preferences of the superdelegates.

If the undemocratic superdelegates reverse a narrow undemocratic pledged delegate lead, well - that is the way the game is played. Clinton did not make the rules. If Obama fails in Ohio and Texas then he failed to render the superdelegates moot. And there will be no party "suicide" and no disunity if the superdelegates mandate Obama as VP at the same time as they install Clinton as the nominee.

Better get started on next week's column Jonathan.

H/T Josh Marshall & Mark Nicholas

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: predictions, 2008 election, Democrats, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton

Sunday Soliloquy - "The Story" in Ohio and Texas

On Meet The Press this morning, an interesting mix of Republican and Democratic strategists explored the Ohio and Texas Democratic primary election themes and the prospects for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Tim Russert introduced the panel:

MR. RUSSERT: "He helped put Bill and Hillary Clinton in the White House in 1992: Democrat James Carville. She worked for Bush 41, Bush 43 and Dick Cheney: Republican Mary Matalin. He worked for John McCain on his 2000 presidential campaign: Republican Mike Murphy. And he worked for Kerry, Gore and Barack Obama's key supporter Ted Kennedy: Democrat Bob Shrum. The very latest polls, strategies and issues. The race for the White House through the eyes of Carville, Matalin, Murphy and Shrum, only on MEET THE PRESS." - [Transcript]

While "Conventional Wisdom" has Obama pulling a victory out of Texas, if Texas turns into New Hampshire Redux - Mike Murphy knows the reason why:

"She's got one thing working for her, that is the near death experience phenomena this year - every time it looks like the perils of Pauline., the trains coming, she has a rescue." - Mike Murphy

Remember New Hampshire? - Obama up by 10 points in the polls the night before the primary, with Olbermann, Matthews and the media in general fawning and falling all over themselves waxing poetic about a new dawn for America and virtually conceding the primary and nomination to Obama - right up to the minute that the votes were counted and Clinton declared the winner. There was lot of speculation of what moved the voters and changed the votes those last days. Was it - The Clinton tears? The sympathetic woman vote? The humanization of Hillary? Hillary "finding her voice"? - I think it is none of these, but a variation of Murphy's observation. What moved the vote, was the specter of the nomination process ending in New Hampshire.

This is the dynamic - Clinton is such a polarizing personality, that if a primary is perceived by voters as a popularity contest, or even just a mechanism for allocating delegates, Obama wins. If, in the voting booth, the voter is simply answering the question "Who do I like better?" - they tend to vote for Obama. It is only when the voter clearly understands that they are voting for the end of the 2008 Democratic party selection process, that the dynamic changes. When a vote for Obama is a vote to end the Clinton campaign, the personality and likability preferences are swept away and voters face different, tougher questions:

• "Am I certain that Obama is the best choice to lead the party?"
• "Do I understand what an Obama presidency would actually be like?"
• "Are we really ready to decide or would we prefer the the process continue?"
• "Should we or should we not look at this choice a little longer?"

In January, in New Hampshire, the frenzied media bias for Obama created the perception that a victory for Obama would be the practical end of the Democratic nomination process. This time, in Texas and Ohio, a victory for Obama is, in fact, the practical end of the Democratic nomination process. My guess - Like New Hampshire, when the undecided voters walk into the booth thinking a vote for Obama is a final vote for the selection of the Democratic nominee "beyond any reasonable doubt", they will vote instead to continue the deliberation. Bill Clinton made the smartest move on the campaign trail when he stated this choice explicitly - telling voters:

"If she wins Texas and Ohio, I think she will be the nominee. If you don’t deliver for her then I don’t think she can be. It’s all on you.”

He was making sure they understood that a vote for Obama was a vote to stop looking and evaluating - the exact message that changed the vote in New Hampshire. James Carville then explained the significance if she does win both.

"If she wins both, it changes the narrative, then she has a real case to make. She is coming back." - James Carville

Absolutely correct. This is what I have been saying here and in comments on other blogs. With a Clinton win in Ohio and Texas, the narrative, The Story, becomes more important than the elected delegate total. That said, it is appropriate to paraphrase an infamous Clintonian parsing and state: It depends on the what the definition of “win” is. What exactly does it mean to "win" in the byzantine undemocratic process that is the Texas primary/caucus?

In this context, the popular vote in Texas is the sole determinant of victory. Not delegates and not caucus results. As long as she wins the popular vote The Story stays intact. The Story is all that matters to her campaign now. The Story that Clinton wins all the big states except Illinois. The Story that momentum has shifted. The Story that Hillary Clinton is the new "comeback kid". That story is all that is needed to provide political cover for the superdelegates to vote for Clinton at the convention. Even a 200 elected delegate lead for Obama is the equivalent of a dead even tie, as long as The Story is intact.

Mary Matlin refines The Story with an interesting embellishment.

"If she wins both states, even fractionally, she can say he [Obama] can't close the deal." - Mary Matlin

Finally, while Bob Shrum agrees this is the last stand, he puts the contest in the context of a generational transition:

"...what we're really seeing is a generational struggle inside the Democratic Party. We've seen this before... And there's a huge fight going on inside the party, I think, between the old order and an emerging new order. And I don't know how it's going to be resolved. I think it's very, very close. I do believe Bill Clinton was right: She must win both of these." - Bob Shrum

Where have I heard this before? Ah - I remember - it was me. The generational nature of Obama's campaign is a theme I was pounding in my August 20,2007 post "Obama's core constituency - not racial, not geographic, but generational" and even earlier when he announced his campaign "Obama declares candidacy for Vice-President & launches pre-emptive strike on Boomers".

Certainly if The Story unravels, and she loses the popular vote in Texas, the game is over. But I still find it hard to believe that Boomers are going to step into that voting booth and say - Bill Clinton and George W Bush will be the sole boomer representatives in the White House.

My view - If this is indeed a generational struggle, it is not yet time for the Boomers to pass the torch.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: predictions, 2008 election, Democrats, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton.

Live Blogging the Live Bloggers - Clinton's Last Stand - no, really this time.

Why? Why? Why can I not get my act together on these things ahead of time? The debate is minutes away and I just finished the screen shot montage. We had some fun with this last Thursday in Texas so we'll give it a go again tonight in Ohio. The last two Democratic presidential candidates are taking the stage for the 20th debate in Cleveland tonight, covered by MSNBC live and moderated by Brian Williams. I'll start with the question I ask every time:

"There are plenty of bloggers covering the debate live tonight, but is anyone covering the live bloggers? DWSUWF rushes in where other, more sensible bloggers, fear to tread. "

We'll include Daily Kos, from the left, a commenter suggested VodkaPundit for the right but since CQ's Ed Morrissey has moved to HotAir I'll also check in there. We will continue the Wonkette and Cynic's Party snark-off, and stick with Megan McArdle for a libertarian point of view and 2008 Central as the centrist blog. As always I will likely guess wrong about the blogs to monitor and will be scrambling for substitutes once we get started.

======

PREGAME

Wonkette: "...the only way Hillary Clinton can win the 2008 Democratic nomination: get it close, fudge some rules, break the country. Let’s see if she can do it!"
VodkaPundit: "The problem with hauling the laptop into the bedroom for these events is, I can’t have a cigar in the bedroom. Who wants to contribute to the Buy VodkaPundit an Outdoor Television Fund?"
Daily Kos: "Obama just needs to basically hold his ground. Clinton can "win" any given exchange on pure debating points (and often does) but unless she knocks something so far out of the park it achieves orbit, or unless Obama screws up in a big way, it's unlikely to change the dynamic of the race, and that dynamic favors Obama."
2008Central.net:"Will Hillary Clinton continue her harsh attacks from the weekend on Barack Obama? Will Obama maintain his cool presence he’s worked hard to maintain in these debates? Will Tim Russert admit he attended law school at Cleveland State on national television? Will Clinton fight back against MSNBC, or have those battles passed? Will Obama keep up his attacks on Clinton? Will Brian Williams ask more or fewer than 4 pointless questions"
Reason - David Weigel: "For all the hubbub about Clinton's attacks and graceful exit line in the Texas debate, polls showed that voters think she lost it, badly: Texas voters who watched it swung hard against her. Clinton spent the weekend bashing Obama in Ohio, but today she backed off and her campaign pushed the argument that the media was rooting for her to lose. The goal, I'd guess is to stoke up some anti-Obama questioning from the Russert-Williams moderator tag team."

DWSUWF - Ok, I am 15 minutes behind. Sue me. Apparently the entire debate is about health care - so - No problem. Megan McArdle is not live-blogging, so back to David Weigel at Reason.

======

HILLARY OR SHOULD I SAY - SYBIL?

Wonkette: "First question, paraphrased: Hillary, do you consider calling Barack shameful and a liar very “valedictory”? Why are you still running against our favorite Kenyan potted plant?"
VodkaPundit: "Well, this is a contested campaign…” Clinton, explaining her “change of tone” since the debate last Saturday. She excuses herself by playing defense on NAFTA and her health care plan. It’s a judo move, trying to make Obama look like the attacker. I think it sounds lame."
Daily Kos: "Hillary denies the recent Obama photo came from her camp and Obama graciously accepts that response "
2008Central.net:"The first question is about some the anger expressed by Hillary Clinton over the weekend. She explains that she is upset because she believes that Obama is distorting her record and the facts and wants to have a real debate grounded on true statements. Williams follows up with a question about the now infamous photo of Obama in Somalian elder clothes that appeared on Drudge. She states that to the best of her knowledge she is not aware of it coming from her campaign."
Reason - David Weigel: "Clinton brings the funny: "If anyone saw Saturday Night Live, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and if he needs another pillow." The crowd is so amused that it stays stone silent. (Does she really want people to wash a show where the guest host recommended Ohio votes for her because "bitches get things done?""

DWSUWF - Rolling. Will branch out to more blogs if I catch up. Right.

======

YOU WILL TAKE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE AND WE WILL BEAT THIS DEAD HORSE INTO SUBMISSION.

Wonkette: "Ooh, the University of Pennsylvania (among others) said Barack’s attacks on Hillary’s health care plans were unfair. Well, this writer recently graduated from this same UPenn and now writes dick jokes all day on Wonkette. Advantage, Barry."
CYNICS' PARTY commenter Cynica:"OMG, she’s self-destructing! She just pointed out that she ALWAYS gets the first question in EVERY debate; “I’m not complaining, I just think it’s curious.” Also, she said spending 16 minutes on who covers more people under their healthcare plan is OK because “that’s the most important issue.” Really? I’m a lot more concerned about stagflation and the war in Iraq than about some pipedream of UHC that I don’t see ever happening in this “you eat what you kill” culture. Arrrgh!"
VodkaPundit: "What is it about Democrats that they can talk for hours over who covers either 14 or 15 million more people? Yawn... “This is not just any issue… but whether the country will do what is right.” “Right” in this case telling millions of people exactly what to do. I thought rights were things the government isn’t allowed to stop us from doing. "
Daily Kos: "They ended up getting into what they got into last week - trading the exact same points about their healthcare plans. Obama says mandates are bad and Clinton doesn't cover everyone anyway, Clinton says Obama does have a mandate, Obama says "wait, let me answer that..." and the debate does not move on. It's an important issue, but we've gotten to the point where there's no value being added in the discussion."
2008Central.net:"Clinton will not let this discussion go. She contends that at the point that Obama’s plan has mandates, he recognizes the necessity of them and argues that it’s simply bad policy for him to leave them out in the broader sense... Brian Williams tries to shift the topic and Clinton is not having any of that. She talks right over him until she’s able to make her point. Finally, Williams changes topics to NAFTA, but not before complaining about the 16-minute discussion on health care."
Reason - David Weigel: "All this wonking on health care can't be good for Clinton: She has hit this argument in state after state, in (as Obama said) negative mail and robocalls, and the vote of Democrats who care about this has shifted to Obama anyway. She is convinced that her crushing defeat on this issue in 1994 gave her credibility for life. Voters: Less convinced."

DWSUWF - I am still losing ground. Well, after all - this is a second degree derivative blog. Give me a break.

======

NAFTA

Wonkette: "It’s a NAFTA question, for Hillary — basically, what does she think about it in toto? Hillary thinks this is a good opportunity to mention her Saturday Night Live endorsement. — Oh, and she thinks NAFTA’s terrible and broken and they should fix it, terrible law. Would you like a pillow with your retort, Barack?"
CYNICS' PARTY commenter pedonator:"The most important message of tonight’s debate: Television doesn’t stop!"
VodkaPundit: "Oh, please. Clinton says she has been against NAFTA “since the beginning,” but bit her tongue because she was First Lady. Did I already say “Oh, please?” And what the hell is a “trade time-out?” - “Hey, Mexico, don’t send us any stuff for a couple weeks while we figure stuff out. You too, Canada. We don’t need no stinkin’ Dodge Chargers for a while. Obama wants a “fair deal” for American workers. Harry Truman called, and he wants his line back."
Daily Kos: "Russert pressuring Clinton for a response to pull out of NAFTA within 6 months of taking office. Clinton refuses to commit to the timeline. The crowd let out a collective gasp. She says she wants to renegotiate. Obama agrees with Clinton and says that renegotiation is the way to go."
2008Central.net:"Tim Russert confirms that Sen. Clinton indeed said what Obama suggested that she did about NAFTA. Notes that during the ’90s, Al Gore said that the president can withdraw from NAFTA within six months and asks Clinton if she’s elected, will she notify Canada and Mexico that she’ll withdraw from NAFTA. Clinton says she will notify Canada and Mexico that we will opt out, unless we renegotiate some of the core components of the agreement. Noting Obama’s equivocation/ambivalence on the issue, Russert asks him the same question about withdrawing from NAFTA. Obama seconded Clinton’s answer."
Reason - David Weigel: "Woo-whee, here comes the trade restrictionist one-upping! Clinton has "always" been critical of NAFTA (remember when she strapped herself to her husband's desk and refused to let him sign the treaty?) and wants a trade pause. Obama awkwardly unleashes some oppo: "When she was... running for the Senate, she said... NAFTA had been... on balance, good for New York and good for America. I disagree.' - Good for Russert, citing trade facts to both candidates and trying to get them admit they're pandering to economic ignorance."

DWSUWF - Tough for both candidates to triangulate, when primary voters like NAFTA in Texas and hate it in Ohio. Perhaps next time the Dems can align the primaries around the issues. Only states on the same side of an issue can hold primaries on the same day.

======

WAR

Wonkette - Ken Layne: "Ha ha, Hillary made a speech about how Barack Obama is just like George W. Bush. — Ha ha ha more, John McCain has “vast” experience in foreign policy, in that he has been a tool of lobbyists from here to the Middle East. — $12 billion a month x 100 years = Who f*cking cares, we’ll all be dead then, anyway. — Attacking sovereign nations, blowing up our allies, blah blah, whatever."
CYNICS' PARTY commenter Lyndon LaDouche: "I like how Barry sits back from time to time with a “Bitch is wack” expression. I think she’s doing badly. She looks tense, aggressive (not in the good way) and curiously ineffectual. And the voice! Please! Turn down the mic. He is being very much the candidate waiting out her rants."
VodkaPundit: "Obama on the Muslim world: “You know those elections and riots that have totally screwed up Pakistan lately? I would have made sure they happened much sooner.”
Clinton on Obama: “He gave a great speech in 2002 when he didn’t have to do anything.” And, “until relatively recently” Obama and Clinton have voted the same on war issues in the Senate. It’s a pretty lame attack. - On the other hand, Clinton pointing out that threatening to “bomb Pakistan” maybe wasn’t “too wise” was pretty sweet... Obama’s weakness is, he forgets that the enemy in Iraq is al Qaeda and Sunni deadenders, and not the government in Baghdad."
Daily Kos: "Williams asks Obama to defend his lack of foreign experience. Obama hits back with his stance that he was against going into Iraq and brings up holes in our current policy in Pakistan. Says his judgment in these matters is superior to Clinton's. Hillary is now pointing to her own foreign travel and experience. Then turning to Obama's Iraq vote and his record of voting to fund the war. She keeps going negative and it just isn't working. This is not pretty."
2008Central.net:"Clinton will respect Iraq’s sovereign wishes too. Then, takes issue with Obama’s argument about his judgment on Pakistan and Afghanistan by stating that he’s the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs and hasn’t had any oversight hearings yet on issues related to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama concedes that he hasn’t had oversight hearings yet. He states that he became chairman of that subcommittee when the campaign began and then seems to suggest that oversight hearings wouldn’t have really mattered much anyway because of the Bush Administration. Uhm, I’m not sure this is a particular good response."
Reason - David Weigel: "Would Clinton skedaddle from Iraq if the people asked her to? "Absolutely." She makes another unheard-thus-far oppo attack, that Obama hasn't held Afghanistan oversight hearings. There's probably not space in a debate to tease out Clinton's real foreign policy differences with Obama. She has the White House's ear; he doesn't. She was extremely Janus-faced about the surge. But she comes off as well as she possibly could talking about her specific (and forgotten) Senate initiatives."

DWSUWF - Agree with Weigel - no real difference between their positions, but this is the reason that McCain loses in November. It's still the war stupid.

======

LOUIE AND THE JEWS
(sounds like an Elton John song)

Wonkette - Ken Layne: "Louis Farrakhan likes you. Why do you kill white people that you supposedly will represent — or is there something you’re not telling us? Let’s up the ante, Barry: why do you support the Holocaust you anti-Semitic piece of sh*t? Nah nah, Barry says. No anti-Semitism. Ruh roh, Hillary wants to chime in on her relationship with the Jews. — Barack thinks her dichotomy on their different ways of denouncing Jew-denouncers is, say, a false dichotomy. He thinks there’s really no difference and he’ll denounce Jew-denouncers in all sorts of fancy wordplay. — Hillary agrees. Barack Obama does not hate the Jews"
CYNICS' PARTY commenter pedonator: "Well I’m glad that we’re all agreed on denouncing and rejecting anti-Semitism, and much more importantly, anti-Israelism. Because we all know they’re one and the same. That was just about the most awkward few minutes I’ve seen so far in this campaign, from both of them."
VodkaPundit: "My drunkblog is being liveblogged. That’s so meta, I need a drink... Kudos for Obama for denouncing Louis Farrakhan… but then he dodged the issue of rejecting Farrakhan’s support. Dude, you can’t pull out after you’ve… oh, never mind. Obama: “The Jews love me!” Clinton: “They love me, too!” This half-Jew is pretty much sick of the both of you."
Daily Kos: "Clinton followed Russert's attempt at a bullshit anti-semitism issue with Farrakhan's support of Obama with an even more bullshit moment in which she jumped on him for only denouncing rather than rejecting, and he agrees to do both while pointing out the silly vagueness of the distinction."
2008Central.net:"ROAR! No, it’s not a monster; it’s another Russert question. He asks if Obama will reject Louis Farrakhan’s support. Obama says that he doesn’t condone some of Farrakhan’s remarks, but isn’t really sure what else to say on the subject. Russert wants to know what Obama will say to the Jewish community to reassure them that he doesn’t support/agree with the anti-semitic remarks that Farrakhan has made. *sigh* Really? Is it really necessary to ask Obama to say that he’s not antisemitic? I could understand if he was having high-tea and pork with Farrakhan on a regular basis, but, they don’t even deal with each other. As you can imagine, Obama says he’s not anti-semitic. *shock* I guess these are the kinds of lawyering skills Russert learned in law school (and may also explain why he’s not a lawyer). Clinton follows up by noting that in New York she rejected the Independence Party because of anti-semitic statements that they have made in the past and adds that she did so in the face of political"
Reason - David Weigel: "Huh. Notice how Obama keeps looking away from Russert after each of this "what do you think of this asshole who supports you? When's the last time you shaved your head and drove your car into a bris?" questions. I don't think these questions were good for Obama, but Russert packaged them in a friendly way, to let Obama explain his connections away. And he doesn't interrupt them. That was surreal, Clinton's attempt to re-link Obama and Farrakhan by pointing out, hey, she's rejected anti-Semites full-out. I can't decide if Obama defused it by making it sound like she was parsing."

DWSUWF - Oh man... I am a full hour behind, but I have to have a drink now with my fellow half-jew Vodka Pundit.

Umm - That's really good. A simple tall drink - Gin and Tonic. Boodles Gin. A double. And another. I just realized how I can get caught up, just go right to...

======

THE LAST QUESTION

Wonkette - Ken Layne: "Does Hillary regret anything? Does Barack regret too much? — Hillary: Well… Jesus, let me rack my brain!… I’ve mentioned the Iraq vote was iffy before — Russert: DO YOU REGRET IT — Oh Tim, it was the Bush Administration, you see, who did the Iraq war after I pretended to vote for it, no big — Russert: DO YOU REGRET THE VOTE, BILLARY. — Tim, did you know that Barack did crack in high school, while plagiarizing, and last week too? — Russert: DO YOU REGRET THE VOTE, BILLARY ROD-SHAM CLINTON. — Yeah sure I regret that vote all the time."
CYNICS' PARTY commenter SanFranLefty: "She looks so much better than last week. But I agree on the Rhode Island sweatshirt, etc., that Chelsea needs to step up and take a role in pointing her mom to some nipped-in jackets in cool jewel tones. Hillz does have beautiful skin and eyes and I’m sure just an hour with Tim Gunn could do so much to help."
VodkaPundit: "Clinton, at long last, renounced her vote on the Iraq War. I think. Kind of, anyway. Depending on how you parse the Clintonese, that little statement could be the big story of the night. Obama would have changed how he acted (or failed to act) regarding Terry Schiavo. Nobody gained anything to be proud of from that sad case. And we end with a general love fest, group hugs, kumbaya and all that."
Daily Kos:"Russert is asking them what vote they'd like to take back. He is treating this like Meet the Press rather than a debate. Obama going back to the economy and trying to end on a high note with compliments for Clinton. No doubt he came off looking better tonight."
2008Central.net:"Russert wants to know if either candidate would like to take back a vote or a statement they have made. Clinton won’t admit she made a mistake on Iraq, much to Tim’s chagrin, but she does state that she would like to have her vote back. Obama would like to take back his inaction on the Senate’s approval of the legislation that allowed the Federal government to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. You see, many Senators (including Obama) were on vacation when the bill came to the floor and so it passed with little opposition. To Obama’s credit, he does answer these questions honestly. However, this Schiavo issue is something he talked about regretting back in April 2007, so it’s not like he’s saying anything novel or particularly controversial. Although, it’s probably not a good political strategy to say something unpleasant took place in part because you were on vacation."
Reason - David Weigel: "Why. In the name of God. Would Clinton bring up Iraq in her closing answer? It's the third or fourth issue on the minds of Ohio voters. It's the issue that Obama owns her on. It's like she threw in the towel, walked into the ring, grabbed it, and threw it again. And this is just weird: Obama is taking the long leash the moderates have given him and doing his own version of Clinton's closing answer from the Texas debate. He closes weakly. I think he needs occasional bursts of applause to keep his solar panels charged."

DWSUWF - That gin and tonic was good. I think I'll have another one.

======

POST GAME WRAP UP

Wonkette - Ken Layne: "Barack Obama doesn’t look like a clown, which becomes painfully apparent watching Andrea Mitchell, Jesse Jackson and Chris Matthews jabbering dumbly. Keith Olbermann is … uh … hang on, we need to get a lot more wine, in our mouth. Pat Buchanan is somehow Barack’s biggest supporter. Rachel Maddow wants us to know that we should not vote to drive into a ditch. And that means JOHN McCAIN WON THE DEBATE. Oh what is wrong with this woman?"
CYNICS' PARTY commenter RedManLaw: "I’d have scored it 54-46 Hillz in the first half, and the reverse of that for 2/3 of the second half... Unicorn could have pointed out that Bill Clinton’s only significant foreign policy experience prior to becoming president was letting Columbian drug planes land at Mena... Pundit on MSNBC just said O was “strong, firm and in command.” Notice that Hillz said she was part of the administration when talking about good stuff coming from Hubby’s administration? O shoulda jumped on that like a loose ball and made it 3rd and long. Barry didn’t lose, so I’m good with it."
VodkaPundit: VodkaPundit has either passed out or is still working on his Pajamas Media wrap-up. So we switch to noted gay conservative author and Obama supporter -
Andrew Sullivan:"Obama won it - quite easily. It was overwhelming before the final break. But decisive nonetheless. I can't see how she manages to rescue her campaign now. And his momentum will continue. It's over, right?"
Daily Kos: "I'm not sure which is worse.....Russert moderating or Matthews analyzing afterward... Well, now we know what's worst of all: Russert and Matthews analyzing it together. Two such stupid men so pleased with themselves, their grins wrapping around their entire damn heads as they stroke each other's egos.."
2008Central.net:"If you’re still watching MSNBC, change the channel immediately or risk absorbing some of the idiocy that is almost guaranteed to ensue. Matthews opens his analysis by complaining that the 16 minutes of health care policy discussion was pointless and boring; he laments the lack of fireworks. Apparently, substantive discussions are bad for Americans to listen to because it means we may learn something. Does he realize how incredibly detailed debates over policy and political discourse used to be say 60 or so years ago?"
Reason - David Weigel: "America loses. Obama waffled and swerved and sounded worse than I think he usually sounds. He was saved on the Farrakhan issue only when Clinton went overboard. He was saved on his closing only when Williams asked for another closing. Clinton sounded about the same as she did in Texas... Geraghty thinks the moderators sowed doubts among swing voters by asking about things Obama is never asked about. I'm inclined to agree but only if Clinton uses some of those revelations on the trail."

DWSUWF - Consensus view - the debate was a draw. DWSUWF agrees. Clinton will take Ohio. So it's all about Texas. If she takes Texas and Ohio, she'll take Pennsylvania. If she finishes with all three, the superdelegates will give her the nomination regardless of the pledged delegate count. The price for the nomination, will be to make Obama VP. With that ticket Dems win in a landslide, because either can chew up and spit out McCain on TV. Think Kennedy vs. Nixon.

If I have anything else to add. I'll update tomorrow.

Sheesh. The MSNBC crew is taking a lot of flak. I though Russert, Matthews, Williams and MSNBC did a credible job.

Some links may be screwed up. Probably some typos. I'll fix tomorrow.

======

UPDATE: 27-February-2008
Made a few repairs. Added a few links. Edited a few linked quotes.

======

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Barack Obama, libertarian, 2008 election ,Hillary Clinton, debate, Democrat, Republican.

Is the Clinton Campaign Undead?

Image credit: Diesel at the Mattress Police

I said I would update the last post with concluding thoughts on the Democratic debate, but as it turns out no real analysis is needed. After watching the coverage on CNN and MSNBC, I realized that the Democratic race was indeed over, and apparently only Hillary Clinton and her campaign is tragically unaware of this fact.

Keith Olbermann in particular seemed positively and justifiably incensed (and nobody does righteous indignation like KO) that Clinton is continuing a hard scrabble fight for every vote and delegate, behaving for all the world like - I dunno - she is running hard to win the nomination for the Presidency of the United States. Bitch.

Keith directs the conversation to his predetermined conclusion analyzes the debate with Newsweek's Richard Wolff in Thursday's Countdown Transcript:

OLBERMANN: "Richard, there is a handshake in there, there’s a standing ovation. It sounded not just polite, it sounded conciliatory. In that answer, did we find out ultimately which part of her camp, which elements in her campaign group won the battle? The go nuclear camp towards the stretch run here, or the preserve dignity camp?"

Interesting formulation there Keith. The Clinton camp can either "go nuclear" or "preserve dignity" and apparently "fighting to win the nomination" is no longer an acceptable option in the world according to Keith Olbermann.

OLBERMANN: Well, interpret that, because obviously that’s the headline question before we go nuts and bolts on the individual answers, was there a message in there? Was there some sort of door being knocked on even if Hillary Clinton has gone from great favorite to long shot underdog, was she knocking on the door saying, you know what, we don’t have to be enemies, here, if you’re going to beat me, I’m not going to drag the ticket down, I’m not going to drag the Democrats down, I would be even willing to campaign for you, I might even be on your ticket? Is it too much to read all that into a simple handshake and a “we’ll be fine” answer at the end?

WOLFFE: We’re reading a lot into it, but I think it was striking. Look, that was by far and away her best moment of the debate. It was the very last moment of the debate, so if she was really trying to deliver that message, she could have done it right at the very start...

OLBERMANN: Just as we speak, an e-mail has gone out from the Clinton campaign. Let me ask you about this. This is from Howard Wolfson about that very last moment.

“What we saw in the final moments,” said Wolfson of the Clinton campaign, of course, “in that debate, is why Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States. Her strength, her life experience, her compassion, she’s tested and ready. It was the moment she retook the reins of this race and showed women and men why she is the best choice.”

I don’t know of anybody who would have seen that who would have thought of that in terms of a commanding moment other than Howard Wolfson. Does that suggest that when she got off that stage, somebody in her camp said: why did you do that? And was outraged, surprised, shocked, whatever term you’d want to use?

WOLFFE: Well, look, the campaign has got to continue to fight and project some confidence in their own victory ...

What is it with these people? Keith Olbermann - I mean, KEITH OLBERMANN - the righteously indignant voice of "Countdown's Special Comment" and keeper of the flame of white hot truth- that very self-same KEITH OLBERMANN - determined through his insightful analysis that Clinton was virtually conceding the nomination to Obama and that the campaign is all over. Done. Finis. And Richard Wolffe is going to suggest that THE OLBERMANN is reading too much into it? It is truly surprising that a man of Richard Wolffe's journalistic credentials fails to appreciate THE OLBERMANN analysis. And that is not the worst of it. Howard Wolfson, The Clinton campaign Communications Director had the temerity, the unmitigated gall, to suggest that the Clinton's concluding comments showed she was the best candidate and was continuing to fight on. I could feel Keith's disappointment and pain as he shook his head and clucked his tongue while reading that blatant falsehood.

It really should be enough for all of us that THE OLBERMANN has rendered judgment on the race. But for those who, for reason beyond all understanding, do not think that Keith Olbermann's assessment is definitive, there is a virtual unanimity of similar views in in the blogosphere and mainstream media:

Kristopher at The World Around You says to "Put a Fork in Her", while Bill Quick of the Daily Pundit prefers the "stick a fork in her" phrasing as does pundit guy and the Hub Blog. GPC justs ruminates about the nature of Hillary and forks over a Friday Lunch. Doug Mataconis is attending to the "Hillary Clinton Death Watch" , while Kos says "no need, she is already dead". Larry Kudlow also says it is over, over, over, and The New York Times metaphorically sees a darkening horizon, but I am not sure if they are invoking a setting sun or an approaching storm or - you know - that thing that always happens before the dawn. The Seattle times prefers a boxing metaphor, putting Hillary Clinton "on the ropes". Sully finds that Hillary Clinton in the rear view mirror is still closer and larger than he would like.

Hillary Clinton is also getting a lot of advice. Gordo advises that "Clinton should back off" and Jonathon Alter wants her to "get out now". Carl wrote an open letter to the Senator as did the Zaftig Redhead, posting her open letter at TPM and saying "Cease campaign operations -- NOW. Call a press conference. Preferably before the Ohio and Texas contests. "

All this advice. All this certainty. All this unanimity. What is Hillary thinking? Why would she continue to subject us all to this completely pointless campaign? It is so so sad.

After all, the only way she could win is if she won in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Even Bill understands that and has said as much. There is just no reason to think there is any possibility of that happening, unless you want to put some stock in the meaningless fact that SHE IS LEADING THE POLLS IN ALL THREE STATES (although a virtual tie in Texas). Why does she not understand that she must get out of the race with dignity even though SHE IS LEADING IN PENNSYLVANIA, LEADING IN OHIO, and LEADING IN TEXAS? Nobody knows. After all, that outcome would only give her victories for EVERY SINGLE BIG CITY STATE IN THE COUNTRY INCLUDING NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY, CALIFORNA, MASSACHUSETTS, TEXAS, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, FLORIDA*, and MICHIGAN*, excepting only Illinois. ALL OF THEM.

Not sure what is wrong with this Caps Lock key. It appears to be sticking. Whatever.

Now some silly, uniformed amateur political dilettantes might think that three big state victories in a row would bring the Obama "10 in a row" momentum to a full, four wheel lockup, tire screeching stop. Some might think the momentum would then be in Clinton's favor, just in time to provide political cover for the super delegates to “vote their [arm-twisted] conscience” about what is best for the Democratic party in November. You know, like winning all the big states.

Don't listen to them Hillary. Just get out. Don't keep fighting. It's all over. Please, please consider these quotes and face reality:

Rasmussen says that Obama has an insurmountable lead in the polls, The Huffington Post says the Shaken Clinton Camp facing trench warfare after probable defeat and Keith Olbermann says "All right, if the polls are on the money there, it‘s Obama by at least a dozen... In that construction, what could possibly happen later on that would make this statement false: when the polls close... Barack Obama will have cinched the Democratic nomination?"

Oh wait. All of the links in that last paragraph were from just before New Hampshire primary, which umm... Clinton won. My bad. No matter. That's irrelevant. Just get out, Hillary. Just quit now for the good of the party and the country.

Senator Clinton - let me add my voice to the chorus and net this out for you:

We don't want a president that can pull off a come-from-behind, against-the-odds, back-against the-wall victory using old fashioned hard ball politics. The Democratic Party does not want a fighter that is building momentum at the end of the process with wins in Texas and Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Finally, we the American people don't want a president that can cut deals, trade favors, twist arms, and pull every trick in the book to win the nomination. If Obama has more elected delegates earned in a byzantine undemocratic nomination process that is over-weighted with caucuses that ignores Florida and Michigan, well that should be definitive. I mean, in this world (It's a small world after all) , who would want a hard eyed, ball-cutting, arm-twisting, politically sophisticated, articulate, scary-smart policy wonk, who is a cutthroat negotiator, never gives up, figures every angle, a political realist and ruthless bitch sitting in the oval office and leading our country?

No, no, no - we don't want that.

What we really want is the inspirational leader of a children's crusade.

Can we fix it? "Yes we can."

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: predictions, 2008 election, Democrats, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton.