A Spork in the Drawer

The End

Tony Norman:

So, tonight the polls will close and Mrs. Clinton will have easily collected 99 percent of the white vote in West Virginia. She will crow about her electability in a smug but meaningless victory speech on a stage featuring dozens of "hard-working Americans, white Americans" standing behind her waving flags.

Bill and Chelsea will grimace through it all, knowing that the jig is up and that the dream of the next phase of the Clinton dynasty has come to an ignoble end.

While no Confederate battle flags will be visible, they will feel it in the air. Mrs. Clinton's greatest victory will be a triumph of the kind of identity politics that makes a nation smaller.

.

The Real Fault

Atrios has a terrific post up that concludes thusly:

I'm not sure why so many online Clinton supporters seem to be lashing out angrily at Obama supporters, instead of at the people who ran Clinton's campaign. If they'd just done things a little bit differently in February they'd have won this.

And therein lies the lesson. Whether because of arrogance or stupidity Hillary's people - Wolfson, Ickes, and especially Penn among others - thought winning a few big states would lead to Ultimate Victory on Super Tuesday. By all accounts when that didn't happen there was no Plan B so they were forced to improvise by largely "going negative" - the kitchen sink strategy.

One thing that I would add to what Atrios wrote is what does this tell us about Hillary? Specifically, could we have expected these same people to have held powerful positions in her administration? And does that give us a clue as to what sort of an administration Clinton's would have been?

While it's now all but moot, the answer, I'm afraid, is "yes."

.

Why Mark Penn Should Be Driven Out Of The Party

Unbelievable:

As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories.

If this is true, that Penn doesn't understand how his own party's primary process works, then he has no business being in the business. (Well, I'd be OK with it if he jumped to the Republicans.) And if Bill and Hillary went along with him then they deserve to lose. This alone calls into question their grasp of facts and judgment.

Tumulty's article is worth a read - though, to be clear, I'm not vouching for her accuracy.

---

UPDATE: Penn denies he's a rank idiot.

.

Solution: Stop The Voting!

Oliver Willis brings da snark:

I’ve crunched the numbers, looked them over again and again, then again with a sprinkling of eye of newt and found the weakness in Barack Obama’s candidacy:

He’s getting too many votes.

Read the whole thing.

.

Not Dead Yet

On to West Virginia! But some doubt remains.

---

UPDATE: And she's loaned her campaign $6,400,000.

.

Over?

Hillary has cancelled all her teevee appearances and won't be having any public appearances tomorrow.

.

What's At Stake In November

St. John makes a promise:

Republican John McCain castigated Democrat Barack Obama for voting against John Roberts as Supreme Court chief justice in a speech about the kind of judges McCain would nominate.

McCain offered an olive branch to the Christian right in a speech planned for Tuesday at Wake Forest University. The far right has been deeply suspicious of McCain, the expected GOP presidential nominee, because he has clashed with its leaders and worked against them on issues like campaign finance reform.

McCain promised to appoint judges who, in the mold of Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, are likely to limit the reach of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Let's remember that the Roberts Court ruled that gender discrimination in pay is A-OK, that allowed non-scientific anti-choice boilerplate to determine a reproductive rights case, decided that certain classes of voters can be disenfranchised, and much, much more.

The next president will likely have the opportunity to appoint at least two justices. The country can't afford to have more Robertses, more Alitos, more Scalias, more Thomases.

Neither Hillary nor Obama may be liberals in any real sense but either is a damn sight better than McCain.

.

North Carolina And Indiana...

...will finally end our long national nightmare, right?

RIGHT?!

.

Maybe This Will Settle It

Guam.

.

Throw The Dogs A Bone

James Fallows on the McCain-Clinton "gas tax holiday" scheme:

The pandering and ignorance-across-party-lines represented by the John McCain-Hillary Clinton united front for a temporary reduction in the gasoline tax should make Americans hold their heads in their hands and moan. No one who has thought about this issue thinks that it will actually reduce prices or -- more important -- help the the people disproportionately hurt by $100+/barrel oil and $4 gasoline. And to the extent it has any effect on America's long-term approach to energy policy, transportation, oil dependence, and climate change, the effect will be perverse.

I can imagine that John McCain, who boasts about his sketchy command of economics, might consider this a good idea. But the master of policy, Hillary Clinton??

Even Hillary supporter Paul Krugman is scratching his beard:

Is the supply of gasoline really fixed? For this coming summer, it is. Refineries normally run flat out in the summer, the season of peak driving. Any elasticity in the supply comes earlier in the year, when refiners decide how much to put in inventories. The McCain/Clinton gas tax proposal comes too late for that. So it’s Econ 101: the tax cut really goes to the oil companies.

The Clinton twist is that she proposes paying for the revenue loss with an excess profits tax on oil companies. In one pocket, out the other. So it’s pointless, not evil. But it is pointless, and disappointing.

I agree that Hillary is too intelligent and knowledgeable to believe that this is a good idea. St. John, of course, is neither. So the only conclusion is that Hillary is engaging in a standard pander, possibly a double-pander: Fool the rubes with a simplistic "fix" for economic woes and maybe throw a few more subsidized dollars to the oil companies.

And everybody knows they need it.

.

Guam Is The New Pennsylvania

The Silly Season rolls on.

.

Not Helpful

Hillary:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

We've had 7+ years of the bellicose talk...couldn't we just dial it back a bit? For a little while, at least?

.

Our Long Statewide Nightmare Is Over

To the candidates: You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!*

*With apologies to Oliver Cromwell.

.

Ringer

Any doubt that ABC/Disney has a political agenda is now erased. Josh:

Remember that woman from the debate last night who the moderators showed videotape of asking whether Barack Obama "believes in the flag"? Her name is Nash McCabe.

[...]

Now, it does seem like McCabe is not a fan of Sen. Obama's. And I think we can assume that it's not a coincidence that McCabe managed to show up featured in the Times and also as the sole outside questioner in the ABC debate. Presumably, a researcher for ABC or Gibson saw the piece in the Times, figured, hey, this lady hates Obama and is seriously ginned up about the lapel issue. Let's send a camera crew Obama and film her slamming Obama to his face. It'll be great in the debate.

So this was hardly the voice of a random citizen; ABC/Disney sought out someone with full knowledge that she'd go after Obama. Ethical? Does it matter anymore? (Josh also wonders about another "citizen" questioner who was a "former" supporter of Hillary.)

Turning to the NYT story Josh mentions we find this:

Ask whom she might vote for in the coming presidential primary election and Nash McCabe, 52, seems almost relieved to be able to unpack the dossier she has been collecting in her head.

It is not about whom she likes, but more a bill of particulars about why she cannot vote for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

“How can I vote for a president who won’t wear a flag pin?” Mrs. McCabe, a recently unemployed clerk typist, said in a booth at the Valley Dairy luncheonette in this quiet, small city in western Pennsylvania.

Mr. Obama has said patriotism is about ideas, not flag pins.

“I watch him on TV,” Mrs. McCabe said. “I keep looking for that lapel pin.”

This illustrates quite nicely our descent into collective madness. The election could hinge on a flag pin.

A flag pin.

Let's face it: Too many Americans are as dumb as dirt.

McClatchy has background on McCabe here.

.

"Debate"

Per Atrios:

Light'Em Up

Complain about this atrocity.

Main ABC switchboard: 212-456-7777

As bad as the Republicans are the real enemy is our "news" media.

.

Destroying The Democratic Party

Hillary attacks Al Gore and John Kerry.

Remember this when McCain is sworn in as president.

.

Marx Is The New Hitler

It seems like just yesterday that Barack Obama was this year's Hitler. But last week The right took a new tack: Obama's a Communist! That's to be expected, I suppose, when it comes to the fever swamps of the right. But then Monday's NYT allowed William "The Bloody" Kristol to insinuate that Obama is, indeed, a Pinko if not an outright Red.

The New. York. Times.

And now, right on schedule, BushCo's™ favorite lapdog, the increasingly foul Holy Joe Lieberman, piles on:

NAPITALIANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today’s New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America. [emphasis added]

And this after Obama aided Lieberman in his 2006 reelection. (And, yes, I consider this a blot on Obama's judgement.)

So perhaps, along with calling Obama "boy", we're starting to see the outlines of the GOP's autumn attacks. It's not going to be fun.

(Oh, and if Hillary picks up on the whole Communist thing I'll support all legal means to have her removed from the Senate.)

.

Just Shoot Me

If the ducks shot back it would be a whole different election:

“You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” she said.

“You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.”

[...]

"As I told you, my dad taught me how to shoot behind our cottage,” she said. “I have gone hunting. I am not a hunter. But I have gone hunting."

Clinton said she has hunted ducks.

At least she didn't claim to have fired back when she was in Tuzla.

.

Puffery

The WaPo paints a pretty portrait of Pittsburgh's boy mayor.

Spare me.

.

Yowza

Clintons Made $109 Million in Last 8 Years

It's good to be an ex-president.

.

The State Of Things

By Ward Sutton from The Nation:

.

In The Tank

And so it continues. The Pittsburgh City Paper's Chris Potter:

While Barack Obama visited Oakland's Soldiers & Sailors Hall on March 28, Clinton was bewitching Pittsburgh Tribune-Review publisher Richard Mellon Scaife. Yes, that's right: The architect and arch-fiend behind what Clinton herself called a "vast right-wing conspiracy" is apparently quite taken with his onetime adversary. And the proof is a March 30 column Scaife wrote for his paper.

Titled "Hillary, Reassessed," the column notes that "Clinton has been criticized regularly, often harshly, by the Trib. We disagreed with many of her policies and her actions." That actually whitewashes the antagonism: Scaife doesn't mention the Trib's role in spreading scurrilous rumors about the death of President Bill Clinton's aide Vince Foster, for example.

But Scaife and Clinton have a lot in common by now. For one thing, Scaife's marriage is a public joke too, thanks to an ugly divorce profiled in a recent jaw-dropping Vanity Fair story.* Among the story's more delicious highlights: Scaife's estranged wife "once kicked Dick in the crotch ... and his testicles swelled to such a size that he had to be taken to the emergency room." [Link added - ed.]

From Dicky's love letter:

Does all this mean I'm ready to come out and recommend that our Democrat readers choose Sen. Clinton in Pennsylvania's April 22 primary?

No -- not yet, anyway. In fairness, we at the Trib want to hear Sen. Barack Obama's answers to some of the same questions and to others before we make that decision.

But it does mean that I have a very different impression of Hillary Clinton today than before last Tuesday's meeting -- and it's a very favorable one indeed.

A couple of points:

"'Democrat' readers" - 'nuff said.

Richard Mellon Scaife has all but endorsed Hillary. Think about that. This would be the same Richard Mellon Scaife who spent millions to destroy her husband (and her) and is such a classy, classy guy:

A few minutes later [Scaife] appeared at the top of the Club steps. At the bottom of the stairs, the following exchange occurred:

"Mr. Scaife, could you explain why you give so much money to the New Right?"

"You fucking Communist cunt, get out of here."

This is Hillary's new BFF.

.

Extortion

Hillary's big money donors write Nancy Pelosi:

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

In other words: Nice political party you have here. Be a shame if something happened to it.

Senator Obama responds:

This letter is inappropriate and we hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it. Regardless of the outcome of the nomination fight, Senator Obama will continue to urge his supporters to assist Speaker Pelosi in her efforts to maintain and build a working majority in the House of Representatives.

.

Democratic Self-Destruction Watch™

Gallup:

A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Unsurprisingly, the Clinton's have the lion's share of petulant little egomaniacs.

But no worries, it's only the future of the country at stake.

[Via John Cole.]

.

Enough

It's time for Hillary to go. Marc Ambinder:

The Clinton campaign is distributing an article in the American Spectator (!) about Obama foreign policy adviser Merrill McPeak and his penchant for.. well, the article accuses him of being an anti-Semite and a drunk. Principally, the author takes McPeak to task for supporting a Middle East map that would require Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 border. It also makes the case that McPeak supports the Walt-Mearsheimer view of the influence of the Israeli lobby on foreign policy.

The author's sudden conclusion: "Obama has a Jewish problem and McPeak's bigoted views are emblematic of what they are. Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself he wants. But until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama's sincerity and judgment will remain open questions."

This would be the same American Spectator that inflicted "Troopergate" and Paula Jones on an unwilling public and, it should be noted, played a large roll in bringing about only the second impeachment of a president in our Republic's history.

That president was Bill Clinton, in case you've forgotten.

And now the Clintons are using that rag for their own sleazy, grasping ends. It's time for both of them to go.

James Fallows:

That the Clinton family would dignify the American Spectator, of all publications, is astonishing to anyone who was alive in the 1990s.

That they would bless this attempt to paint Merrill McPeak as an anti-Semite is grotesque.

[...]

I can easily believe that the Spectator would publish such an article. That the Clinton team would circulate it I'm still trying to deal with.

And to add insult to injury I give you this photograph:



Sidney L. Davis/Tribune-Review

That's Hillary with Pittsburgh Tribune Review owner and publisher Richard Mellon Scaife. For those of you who don't remember Scaife bankrolled the so-called Arkansas Project which sought to destroy utterly a sitting president.

That president was Bill Clinton, in case you've forgotten.

I expressed tepid support for Barack Obama a while back but have tried to stay out of the nasty Democratic civil war which threatens to rip the party apart. I didn't want to contribute to that. But now that the Clintons have turned not only to their worst enemies to save Hillary but have turned to the most extreme, most hateful, most insane elements in our polity I can't stay aloof even if it means turning this blog into a Clinton-bashing site. Them's the breaks.

It's time for Hillary to go.

.

Democratic Self-Destuction Watch™

I hope everyone will be satisfied with President John McCain:

In a sign of just how divisive and ugly the Democratic fight has gotten, only 53% of Clinton voters say they'll vote for Obama should he become the nominee. Nineteen percent say they'll go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and 13% say they won't vote.

Sixty percent of Obama voters say they'll go for Clinton should she win the nomination, with 20% opting for McCain, and three percent saying they won't vote.

Good job as usual, Democrats.

[Via Keystone Politics.]

.

"I'm Casey Knowles. I approved this message. And not the other one."

It's 3am...

Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark.

[Via Election Central.]

.

Hillary's Turn

There's something rotten at the State Department:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has told Sen. Hillary Clinton, a Democratic candidate for president, that her passport file was breached in 2007, the senator's office said in a statement on Friday.

I'm sure Condi will launch a full investigation soon.

.

Rabid Mouse

This vile "news" story from ABC's Brian Ross hits the bottom of the barrel:

Susie Madrak has Ross' contact info. Call his cellphone.

Greenwald:

This is the standard media manipulation tactic when they cover petty, vapid gossip and then want to justify it: they assert that "voters" are interested in it and then self-referentially point to the reporters' own fixation with the gossip as proof that people are interested. See, they had no choice but to point this out -- it's not their fault -- because it's newsworthy, since the "the release of the documents reminds voters anew about Bill Clinton's affair."

Obama supporters - and I am one, however tepidly - should condemn this outright. Not because something similar will be done to him by the "liberal" media - it will - but because this sort of "reporting" shouldn't be countenanced regardless of whom it's aimed at.

And let's remember that ABC is the "family friendly" network that blamed the 9/11 attacks on Bill Clinton.

The corporate media is beyond redemption and should simply be taken out back and shot.

.

KO

.

That Worked Out As Planned, Didn't It?

It's 3AM:

Rasmussen Reports says this morning that when it surveyed Americans about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's 3 a.m. ad and asked which candidate voters would want to answer the telephone when the White House is alerted to a crisis the answer that came back from the greatest number of folks was Sen. John McCain.

Whoopsie!

[Via John Cole.]

.

Random Thought

Let's all call Hillary Clinton tonight at 3AM.

.

Scary Monsters

So Barack Obama's foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, made an intemperate remark...

"We f***** up in Ohio," she admitted. "In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win.

"She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything," Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.

...and Hillary's campaign starts squealing that Power Must. Be. Fired.

So Obama promptly fires Power.

The Republicans are going to roll over this guy. And I say that as a (however tepid) Obama supporter.

Grow some, Barack.

.

Memo To Hillary

Please stop telling us that St. John would make a fine president.

That is all.

Love and kisses,

spork.


.

Debate Debacle

I don't watch these so-called "debates" - they're not debates but simultaneous press conferences - largely because of the so-called "moderators." It looks like my aversion payed off rather well for last night's ridiculousness. digby:

Judging by their silly questions tonight, Russert and Williams obviously know nothing about health care policy, Iraq, Islamic terrorism, economics, global trade or any other subject that requires more than five minutes study to come up with some gotcha question or a stupid Jack Bauer fantasy. It's embarrassing.

These people guide the way citizens perceive politics even if the citizens don't know it. It's hard for me to see how anything can truly change until this is dealt with.

Josh Marshall:

9:24 PM ... Russert: If I don't get a yes or no answer to my clownish question, you're toast, woman!

---

9:31 PM ... Russert: I'm one hardass, Dude. You can't put anything past me.

---

9:42 PM ... I love it when Tim goes into character as an Iraqi nationalist.

---

10:08 PM ... Russert spews the Farrakhan story. Russert: Let me take a few moments to read into the record some of Farrakhan's most rancid quotes.

10:10 PM ... I guess it's good in some way that this sludge gets thrown around now in advance of the general. But Russert is well beyond the normal bounds of disgusting on this front. As a separate matter, the covert campaign to smear Obama with the Jewish community is a topic of great importance that I've been meaning to hit on and haven't done enough on it yet. At least we know now that Russert's enlisted with the cause.

---

10:33 PM ... TPM Reader MF chimes in: "It seems that Russert is asking the questions in the aspect that the candidates are guilty of something. It is really quite odd. And when did it become okay for a moderator to be an antagonist in a Presidential debate. I thought the job of a moderator was to moderate and not antagonize."

Josh also has video of Russert's most noxious moment here.

Debate (such as they are) moderators are supposed to moderate not display prosecutorial zeal or personal pique. Russert and Williams and Blitzer and King and all the other members of what Atrios calls "The Villiage" are, as Jon Stewart famously put it, "hurting America."

When are we as citizens going to stand up and say, "ENOUGH!"?

.

Jesus Saves

That's as may be but Hillary cozying up to Pat Robertson probably won't help save her campaign.

Ye gods.

[Via Tapped.]

.

The Hell?

Rightwing propagandist Frank Luntz:

On the February 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, while conducting a focus group analysis of the February 21 Democratic presidential debate, Fox News contributor Frank Luntz asked focus group participants if they "wanted" to see Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton "argue." When several of the participants responded, "Yes," Luntz asked, "You want them to take it on? You all agree with that?" After more participants concurred, Luntz asked: "How many of you want them to really argue? Raise your hands." Luntz then asked: "And how many of you want them to make love to each other?"

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Luntz was trying to plant the idea of miscegenation in people's heads. That sort of thing is effective with some of the lizard-brains out there.

.

The Nuclear Option

One of the things that's been worrying me of late is the possibility of Hillary losing the primary vote and refusing to concede thereby taking the party down with her. By way of Josh, it looks like this might be the case:

Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.

[...]

But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson.

[...]

"We don't make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,'' Wolfson said. "And we don't make distinctions when it comes to elected officials'' who vote as superdelegates at the convention.

"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period,'' he added.

Now, I've never been a big fan of the Clintons (note: I will vote for Hillary in November if she's the nominee) for many reasons but the pertinent one now is their tendency to make everything about them. There's already a lot of bad blood between the Clintons and Obama (and among their supporters) - to, I think, a ridiculous extent - and losing the popular vote, whether measured in ballots cast or pledged delegates, but winning the nomination thanks to party apparatchiks will simply blow the party up. Not surprisingly, the Clintonites dismiss this possibility:

Clinton advisers rejected the notion that the candidate -- and the party -- would be badly wounded in the general election if the nominee were essentially selected by a group of party insiders.

"This is a nomination system that exists of caucuses, primaries, superdelegates and also the issue of voters in Florida and Michigan,'' states whose delegates currently will not be seated at the convention because they broke party rules by moving up their primaries to January, said Mark Penn, senior strategist for the Clinton campaign. But "whoever the nominee is, the party will come together behind that nominee,'' he said.

That's as may be but I don't see Obama supporters - the core supporters - lining up behind Hillary if she wins through these means. We already have an example of how far the Clintons will go to win:

Clinton -- who initially joined other Democrats in opposing Michigan and Florida's decisions to go ahead with early primaries -- now wants the votes of those primaries counted. The Obama camp thinks that idea is unfair, since candidates were not allowed to campaign in those states, and Clinton alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot, meaning Obama did not have a chance at getting even provisional delegates.

In other words, because it might be the difference between winning and losing Hillary is going back on her pledge - changing the rules in the middle of the game. That may be desirable in a general election against a Republican (heaven knows they aren't interested in rules and laws) but will be a disaster in an intra-party contest.

Happily, the indications are that the superdelegates will break for Obama if Hillary fails to win convincingly in Ohio and Texas in 4 March. If it comes to that let's hope that the Clintons have the grace to go quietly.

Relatedly, Clinton supporter and all-around shame of the Democratic party Lanny Davis writes at HuffPo that superdelegates are a bulwark against the stupid voters:

But let's not rewrite history. When the superdelegates were first created by the Democratic National Committee in 1982, they were intended to be independent, able to vote for any candidate, regardless of the outcome of the primaries or caucuses in their own congressional districts or states.

Gotta make sure the party hacks maintain their hold, you know.

And ironically, Davis writes:

There is one principle we learned as kids in schoolyards and on which all should agree, whether supporters of Senator Obama or Senator Clinton:

Don't change the rules in the middle of the game or, more accurately, don't game the rules to change the outcome.

Which, of course, is what Hillary is trying to do with Michigan and Florida.

Finally, Davis Sirota notes this gem from Davis' piece:

We were also reminded that before these reforms, the "smoke-filled rooms" of Democratic Party leaders had led to the nomination and election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy. Not bad.

Ah, yes, we all remember when Stevenson trounced Eisenhower in the '52 election. Good times, good times.

Idiot.

.

Word Of The Day

Childish:

There's a new rule at the Republican National Committee. Refer to the two leading Democratic presidential candidates simply as "Barack" and "Hillary" and you'll be fined $10. The reason: Using first names makes the candidates sound more likable but calling them "Senator Obama" and "Senator Clinton" makes them sound more distant and bureaucratic. "I don't think people are actually being fined," says one insider. But everyone is being "encouraged" to follow the rule.

The Republicans could use a good spanking.

Except they'd probably enjoy it.

.

John Zogby Suicide Watch

Zogby California poll: Obama by 13.

Actual result: Clinton by 29.

Whoops!

Overall, it's basically a dead heat between Obama (732 delegates) and Clinton (825 delegates).

.

Well Then

Ann Coulter (yes, that Ann Coulter) endorses Hillary Clinton for president.

Apparently, to Ann John McCain is just too liberal.

Things are passing strange.

C&L has the vid.

.

Off The Fence

As I don't particularly care for any of the Democratic presidential candidates I had mostly intended to sit the primaries out (in the Pennsylvania primary - scheduled for April, 2016 - I was going to cast a symbolic vote for Dodd). But, as Scott Lemieux and Josh Marshall explain, Bill Clinton's comments over the past couple of weeks have been too reprehensible to ignore. And don't think he's some sort of rogue operator; Hillary could muzzle him if she wanted and if she is unable to do that, well, that's a problem in itself.

Unlike at least Josh, I was never a Clintonista. I voted for Bill in '92 as a hold-my-nose exercise (I sat out the '96 elections out of sheer cussedness) and grew to resent him for having to defend him during the Year of Monica. As the joke went during the '90's, Bill Clinton is the best Republican president since Eisenhower. I mean all of this merely as a reference point.

Come November I'll vote for the Democrat whoever that might be but for now, barring a miraculous Edwards comeback, the coveted and valuable spork endorsement goes to Barack Obama.

I expect to be named to head an agency in President Obama's administration for this.

ADDED: Greenwald:

The Clintons' strategy has become increasingly trashy, even ugly, and yesterday's remarks by Bill Clinton -- in which he pointedly compared Obama's candidacy to Jesse Jackson's and thus implicitly (though clearly) dismissed South Carolina as a state where the "black candidate" wins, followed up by the Clinton campaign's anonymous branding of Obama as "the black candidate" -- reeked of desperation.

.

Cognitive Dissonance

Reuters:

Clinton seeks to smooth relations with Obama

Former President Bill Clinton said he might have gone too far in attacking Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton said on Friday, adding that both Democratic presidential campaigns should focus on issues.

"He said several times yesterday that maybe he got a little bit carried away," Hillary Clinton said on CBS' "Early Show."

AP:

Clinton says she must counterattack

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she must respond in kind to attacks from rival Barack Obama even though she'd rather keep the race for the Democratic presidential nomination focused on their differences on public policy issues.

"I try not to attack first, but I have to defend myself — I do have to counterpunch," Clinton told NBC's "Today Show."

Elections are fun!

.

Headlines That Make Me Do A Double-Take

New Zealand says farewell to Hillary

Do they have a primary or a caucus?

.

WTF Is Wrong With These People

Andrew Cuomo edition.

.

The Tears Of A Clown

Rudy! discussing Hillary's "emotional moment":

The reality is, if you look at me, September 11 — the funerals, the memorial services — there were times in which it was impossible not to feel the emotion.

9iul1an1, indeed.

.

To Hell With The Associated Press

Headline:

Clinton says her sometimes Southern twahng thahng is a virtue

Put me somewhere and I'll start talking in the local accent within 5 minutes.

2 if I'm drinking.

This is Dowd-worthy nonsense.

.

VRWC

I'm no supporter of Hillary Clinton's but these people are still nuts:

The Right Wing Conspiracy was not as Vast as it once was, but yesterday's steering committee meeting at the National Press Club still had a decent turnout. WorldNetDaily was there, as well as the New York Sun, two representatives of Accuracy in Media, talk-show host Lester Kinsolving -- and a camera crew from Fox News, natch.

The subject: a new poll, funded by Judicial Watch, finding that people expect Hillary Clinton's administration to be corrupt. Some might regard the findings as premature, given that the Hillary Clinton administration has not been elected and, therefore, has had limited opportunity to demonstrate corruptness. But this was no obstacle to Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, which back in the day filed drawers full of lawsuits alleging Clinton corruption.

If the Clintons didn't exist the crypto-fascists would have to invent them.

.

Our Hillary Problem

kos:

Not only is the Clinton campaign pig-headed, they are also remarkably out-of-touch. They are "surprised" at the anger this war is generating? Has she been living in a cave the last four years (yes, the Senate apparently is a cave). The last thing we need in the White House is another out-of-touch, tone-deaf Bush-style presidency, unable or unwilling to admit mistakes and change course as a result.

[...]

For Hillary, No amount of nuance will make this issue go away.

I have nothing to add to this.

.