Dean Tries To End This Party Early (& Other News)

On Good Morning America today, Howard Dean tried to lay down the law, announcing that he wants superdelegates to make a decision by July 1.

Personally speaking, I think it will be decided by then - unless Hillary somehow puts together a late-season run which I view as increasingly unlikely. Among other things, some of the as yet-uncommitted supers can probably be be put in the Obama column; here in North Carolina, Congressman Mel Watt (chair of the Congressional Black Caucus) is almost a sure-thing Obama super, yet hasn't officially endorsed. Even the letter from her moneybags supporters to Pelosi, chastising her for suggesting that supers should back the pledged delegate leader, may not save her if it's not close (this merits a story in itself...).

But Dean didn't say, at least not this morning, what others in the party have been repeating in recent days: supers should not override the "will" of the electorate - basically refuting the Clinton supporters. If the supers do? Goody. But again, doubtful. What's interesting is in that Politico piece, both Pelosi and TN Governor Phil Bredesen are quoted; might Bredesen be making a play for the #2 spot? Chris Dodd has also urged the party to find a way to end this mess...("I know! Nominate me!").

Speaking of Obama picking up supers, it's come out this morning that Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey has endorsed Mr. Change, and will join him on the bus tour. On the face of it, this is significant because Casey could give Obama some badly-needed help among the white working class voters who were decisive in Clinton's wins in Ohio and Texas. But that's not the fun part about Casey's endorsement: the fun part is that Casey's father, Bob Casey Sr., was governor back in the 80s and 90s. He tried to get a speaking slot at the 92 Democratic Convention to voice his opposition to abortion. Organizers, probably pressed by the Clintons, refused. Revenge, unlike a Philly cheese steak, is a dish best served cold.

Choose Your Own Adventure

Or at least your own Democratic outcome - RCP's Jay Cost has put together an HTML-based spreadsheet (Google Docs, perhaps?) which allows you to play with potential outcomes of the remaining Democratic nomination contests (super-delegate primary not included) and see how that affects Hillary's final vote total.

Me? I don't think she's going to lose Montana by 10 points, even though Chris Cillizza took a good look at that yesterday and Obama's clearly got the edge in the ground game; I also think that South Dakota's being closed will result in a closer race or even a Clinton victory (though the fact that SoDak's sole Rep, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, is an Obama supporter - thanks to CC for that tidbit as well - probably helps him in a big way).

Of course, Hillary's trying to move the goalposts, so to speak, once again, with surrogate/super-del Evan Bayh arguing a few days ago that the real metric should be comparing the electoral college votes of states Hillary won versus those Obama own. This is a new spin on Clinton's tired old "I won big states therefore I'm more electable" argument, which no one bought; whether the change of clothes will change perceptions remains to be seen. The irony, of course, is that a few years ago Hillary was all for doing away with the Electoral College and going to a popular election - popular election=popular vote=Obama's winning - thus she's switched sides. However, it's interesting to compare those numbers. So, using the Post's fun Electoral College tool, let's take a look.

Clinton's Wins:


Obama's Wins:


Clinton's got a 61 vote lead by this count, and isn't far from "victory," though the visual effect of this is to show just how many states Obama's won. How many of those he'd carry in a general election is a different question. If Clinton somehow pulls off a near-sweep in the remaining contests, that'll even at least the coloring but only narrow the popular vote and delegate counts (barring a resolution of Florida and Michigan). I'm not going to predict this one...

What's Going On in Pennsylvania?

The expectations game in Pennsylvania's April 22nd primary is already underway: Clinton's predicting (and needing) a win. Obama manager David Plouffe has also set her up for a win, saying she "should win by a healthy margin given where they start....We'll try and get as many votes and delegates as we can, but our campaign will not be defined by Pennsylvania ...."

Demographically, the state favors Clinton. Western PA is heavily white, working class, and Catholic - think Steelers fans. Much of the central region is also white and middle- or lower-class. Those demographics are also the kind of voters who are leery of Obama's ties to Jeremiah Wright - a leeriness reflected in a new poll showing her up 51-37 among likely Democratic voters.

Clinton's chances are bolstered by the endorsement of Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a pretty serious party boss who topped the ticket in a great year for Democrats in the state in 2006. An additional boost is the fact that the state's is a closed primary: only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary; the independents who have fueled Obama elsewhere won't be able to take part unless they re-register their affiliation (playing back into the import of that poll).

Obama should fare better in the eastern part of the state - urban Philly's minority voters as well as the wealthy, educated suburbs surrounding the City of Brotherly Love. The area is rife with classic swing voters: While delivering the state to Kerry in '04, they also sent their Republican representatives back to Congress; in '06, they voted solidly Democratic. So the fact that it's that area that has seen one of the largest increases in Democratic registration may be very telling; ironically, this was the territory Rendell carried en route to his primary victory in 2002 against now-Senator Bob Casey.

In one of the most interesting Keystone scenarios, a pair of state political observers make the argument that this primary replays that '02 gubernatorial between "the son and heir apparent of the former Governor Casey against the liberal, urban, upstart Rendell." Rendell won just ten of the state's 67 counties enroute to a 54-46 victory. Can Obama do it? Maybe. Wright's a cross he has to bear among increasingly suspicious voters outside of the guilt-ridden liberals who are his base. Philly's also got about a billion colleges and universities, meaning that if his campaign has its usual success in getting students to the polls, he could do pretty well there.

For Hillary, Pennsylvania may be do or die again - just like New Hampshire and then Ohio and Texas were do or die. Should he somehow win here, Obama may run the rest of the table. However, his prospects may have become complicated by Wright, reflected in developments like the poll in North Carolina that has his lead down to one; Allahpundit situated that poll in the larger picture of a campaign hemorrhaging support across the country. If he loses PA, and loses (or almost loses?) NC, it's all eyes to Indiana, where popular Senator Evan Bayh has endorsed Hillary. So, once momentum's tossed into the mix, there's an argument to be made that Pennsylvania could be do-or-die for either candidate [ed: this may not be entirely clear right now; perhaps I'll flesh it out later].

Another element that I haven't seen discussed anywhere is the cost of running a campaign in Pennsylvania. There are two major media markets - Pittsburgh and Philly - and a handful of smaller ones. Philly's DMA (designated media area), bleeding into New Jersey, is among the most expensive in the nation. Both Hillary and Obama have a ton of cash, but both will have to throw a ton of it into the state to pull out the W. We're not talking break-the-bank expenditures, but enough that whoever comes up short may wonder if they got their money's worth.

Uh-Oh Hillary

Senator Clinton's campaign has been trying to make as much hay as possible out of Obama's ties to Jeremiah Wright. Those efforts stop now, as photos emerge of Bill Clinton and Wright together at a White House prayer breakfast in 1998; more damningly, Hillary's recently-released First Lady schedules indicate that she, too, was in attendance. Obviously Clinton & Co. are doing their best to spin this, noting that Clinton met and took photos with untold numbers of people in his eight years in the White House. While there's truth in that, Obama can push back hard.

This one should be fun...

UPDATE: The photo may have come from Obama' s campaign, and Hillary's camp is spinning hard.

Speaking of Foreign Policy Missteps

Maybe McCain misspoke, maybe he didn't. Either way, he's got a fall back position in those reports of Iran's ties to al Qaeda. Now I'd like to turn the spotlight to both Hillary and Obama, and turn the clock back to their sparring match in Cleveland. Russert asks Hillary about Putin's handpicked successor, Dmitry Medvedev. From the official transcript:
"Russert: Who will it be? Do you know his name?

Sen. Clinton: Medvedev -- whatever."

Whatever, Hillary? Obama then gets his bite at the apple, a long-winded reply that tries to blame Bush for everything. But Marc Ambinder, writing immediately after the fact, poses an interesting question:

Although Clinton had trouble pronouncing his name -- Medvevev, it was clear that she knew it, and that she was at least cursorily familiar with the details of the election and the challenge it poses for the U.S. As NBC News’s hounds noted, Obama appeared to defer to her. If you were watching closely, you might have wondered whether Obama had received a briefing recently on Russia, rather than a recitation of the case against George W. Bush’s relationship with Putin.

Too bad that one didn't go to Obama - and it suggests that if he secures the nomination, McCain & Co. would do well to hammer him on all things international.

Netroots Fractures

The Hillary-Obama brouhaha appears to have claimed, or is beginning to claim, another victim: the netroots. These clowns, who took credit (without any evidence to support this claim) for the outcome of the '06 midterms, used to be unified in their support of Democrats and their hatred of any and all Republicans (most of them are a half-step away from Stalinism vis-a-vis the bourgeoisie).

Now, however, Marc Ambinder reports that netroots anchor DailyKos is being boycotted by Clinton supporters; they claim that Kos has become hostile to any who don't buy into the Obama fad, and have boycotted, taking their writing elsewhere.

Does it matter? Yes and no. The latter argument: Dick Meyer criticizes what he terms "blog triumphalism - the idea that a Web format could dramatically change human communication, journalism and the mechanics of democracy;" this triumphalism "exists only in its own echo chamber." So in that sense, this particular falling-out is of limited importance to anyone.

So why is there a yes? Because these people are the activists within the Democratic Party - the ones who walk precincts, recruit friends, donate, and vote. No one can predict whether this factionalism will subside once Hillary or Barack clinches the nomination, or whether the losing party's aggrieved partisans will become embittered and sit out the rest of the cycle. If that's the case, it does matter.

Only time will tell.

Shows What I Know

Although nobody has officially called the race, it would appear that Hillary Clinton's caucus losing streak continues: with 78% of precincts reporting, Obama leads 59%-40%, or in real terms, 4,000 votes to 2,756 votes. As CNN's cool graphic shows, the majority of the counties have reported (with 2 exactly tied and fully reported); only five remain. Most of these are sparsely populated, with Sheridan being the most populous at 26,560 (thanks Wikipedia!). It would appear that Obama did well in the populous parts of the state (a relative term, I admit), while Clinton carried more rural areas. Still, she could pull it out. This is more about momentum than about delegates, so a loss isn't too crushing for her.

Still nothing from IL-14.

Three Events Today

Three events worth taking note of today:

1) Special election in the 14th CD of Illinois to replace retiring Representative Dennis Hastert. This isn't an especially juicy prize, as whoever wins will have to run again in November's general election. However, in a normally safe Republican district the Democrat is running almost even. Special elections such as this one are often considered bellwethers for the coming general - Paul Hackett's August '05 near-miss in the bright red Ohio 2nd presaged the Democratic gains in 2006. To that end, the NRCC has dumped almost 20% of their cash on hand into the race. Part of the GOP's issue here is their candidate - no one really likes Jim Oberweis, and if he wasn't a self-funder the party bosses likely would not have coalesced behind him like they did. Some of his attacks on his opponent have also been questionable in their accuracy. Democrat Bill Foster's also helped by the fact that Illinois is Obama country, and Obama's endorsed Foster; to me, at least, an Oberweis win may be another sign that Obama is losing some of his aura. Coverage from CQ (and CQ) and The Fix are worth reading. If the GOP's using its 72-hour GOTV program, I think Oberweis pulls out a narrow win.

2) The Wyoming Democratic Caucus. Wyoming Republicans caucused months ago - 2 days after Iowa to be exact. Democrats are only now getting around to it, but it's a lot more significant than the GOP contest which Romney won. There are eighteen delegates at stake, and for the life of me, I haven't found any polling on the race. Neither Kerry nor Gore cracked 30% in the state, but Republican Representative (the only one) Barbara Cubin's victory in 2006 was a relative squeaker. I think the outcome is a result of who shows up; fundamentally, I think it's a Clinton state: 89% white, a median income just under $38,000 (less than that of Ohio). But I also have to wonder about immigration to the state from elsewhere, specifically wealthy, liberal voters flocking to places like Jackson Hole. Obviously, they'll be Obama voters and thus could make things interesting. If Clinton wins, expect her to make a lot of noise about it - she hasn't won a primary in a long time. She also needs a win to slow Obama down a bit more; Tuesday's Mississippi primary is demographically Obama country. Coverage from the WaPo and the NYT is worth taking a look at, the latter piece describes essentially record turnout.

3) Duke-UNC: Go to Hell Carolina, Go to Hell! It's at Cameron Indoor, but Duke's been inconsistent of late (though they looked pretty good in their road win over UVA on Wednesday) and UNC's been looking pretty good. The Heels should also have their starting point guard back, though no word on whether he'll start or whether he's 100%. All that being said, Duke won in the Dean Dome by 11, raining 3 pointers. Assuming Demarcus Nelson doesn't get into foul trouble, and that the shooters aren't laying eggs all day long, it should be interesting. It's sort of a mismatch game as Carolina (really, Tyler Hansbrough) dominates the front court while Duke dominates the back court with legitimate marksmen in Paulus, Scheyer, Singler, and occasionally King; both teams have productive benches, and Scheyer has been known to have game-changing performances. Both teams also have that extra motivation. For Duke, it's a home game in the biggest rivalry in college hoops (if not college sports), and the last time senior captain Demarcus Nelson will step foot on Coach K Court. For Carolina, they're looking to protect their #1 ranking, as well as perhaps distract their fans from the tragic death of student body president Eve Carson. For both teams, the ACC regular season title is on the line. Duke's got their 6th man in the Cameron Crazies, so I'll (not entirely neutrally) give the Blue Devils the edge in this one - but expect it to be a classic.

Lessig for Congress?

One of the more interesting books I've read for a class recently was Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. It's a book about creativity and copyrights, and despite sound like something only a wonk could love, Lessig succeeds in making it accessible, even pleasant, for the lay reader. As such, I strongly recommend it. Besides being an author, Lessig's also a professor out at Stanford Law and a blogger. Busy man. He may also be looking for a new day job.

Lessig lives in (or at least near) California's 12th Congressional District, until recently represented by the late (and sorely missed) Tom Lantos. I didn't always agree with Lantos - indeed the man often drove me up the wall - but I respected him (as Congress's only Holocaust survivor, he deserved at least that much) and found myself agreeing with him more than I might have thought likely. Now there's a Draft Lessig movement afoot, looking to him to replace Lantos. The 12th is a district in which the primary is essentially the ball game - no Republican has gotten more than 43% since 1982 - and more recently most have been held south of 30. Looking at the map such poor performance shouldn't come as much of a surprise - we're talking deep Bay Area here.

I imagine that we can do much worse than Lessig (more on this later). In recent years, Congress's track-record on matters of intellectual property has continually been somewhere between ludicrous and unconstitutional; debate has been minimal at best (the infamous Mickey Mouse Act, properly the Copyright Terms Extension Act, passed by voice vote leaving no record of those few who stood in opposition). Lessig would certainly change all of that, sparking a serious debate on an important and neglected area of policy. Of course it's not all peaches and creme - he's a vociferous Obama supporter and has also stood up for Net Neutrality (on which I remain neutral). But as I said, I imagine we can do much worse.

What's also interesting is the nature of his still-unofficial campaign: it started with a "Draft Lessig for Congress" Facebook group. The movement has gone from there to draftlessig.org website and has gone so far as to have established an Actblue page for the candidate (through which he's already garnered $24,240). Lessig officially remains coy; on his blog, he's said he'll decide soon whether or not to run. Making this whole thing more intriguing is the fact that, in his words, "A bunch of people have asked (and some in the strongest way possible) that I not run because somehow, as a progressive (the pc word for "liberal"), it is wrong to challenge another established progressive."

"Another established progressive" refers to Jackie Speier, who presumably was the establishment candidate to replace Lantos (who had already planned on retiring). Speier looks like Pelosi - which is reason enough to support Lessig over her. She also sounds like Pelosi - cut and run on Iraq, "bring the troops home to fix the economy," yadda yadda yadda (though interestingly, her positions on the Environment and Health Care are "Coming soon...").

If they're both progressives, I presume Lessig feels much the same way on the issues. Given the choice between the two, I have to say that Lessig is the lesser of two evils - in fact he'd be a fine addition to Congress (remember, we're not getting anything that smells like a Republican elected out here). Check out his blog and some of the other links; I encourage you to read Free Culture. This special election may be one worth watching.

Does He Know Something We Don't?

Cleveland's former Boy Mayor, Dennis Kucinich, has told his supporters (whoever they may be) that if he doesn't garner sufficient support they should back Obama.

But in 2004, when he was more "popular," Kucinich told his adoring fans to back Edwards. Edwards, today at least, is far more in line with Kucinich's politics than Obama; the Illinois Senator seems downright conservative by the Cleveland Commie's perspective. Or does he know something we don't?

In any case, Kucinich's supporters may give Obama an edge in some parts of the state; every "vote" will count if the outcome is as close as some predict.

Obama: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back?

Barack Obama's presidential bid has hit some speed bumps lately, most stemming from the fact that the candidate himself is a relative novice, his senate campaign against Allan Keyes hardly providing a real test. Now I think he's hit another landmine, at least as far as the base was concerned.

Obama named names of Republicans that he could work with - a show of bipartisanship that isn't likely to win friends among the moonbats, to whom all Republicans (with perhaps the sole exception of Ron Paul) are devils incarnate - a whopping three in all. The lucky trio? Senators John Warner (VA), Dick Lugar (IN), and Tom Coburn (OK). The first two have led the charge, or perhaps more appropriately the retreat, among Republicans arguing for a troop draw-down in Iraq. So that's two steps forward - he names two anti-war Republicans he can work with (both of whom are also considered deeply knowledgeable), thus partially appeasing the base while appearing moderate to the base.

Coburn's a different ballgame. Even I think the man's a little bit nuts, but to the foaming-at-the-mouth Democratic base, he is Lucifer. Coburn is vehemently pro-life, objecting to abortions even in the case of rape; he is also strongly anti-gay. And he hasn't flinched on the war. That's a trio of things that are going to get the base riled up, and the fact that Obama can work with him means that to many on the Left, he can't be their man. I'm just waiting for the fallout.

"Ideological Agitprop"

Or so runs Brendan Nyhan's assessment of one of Kos-founder Markos Moulitsas's (many) logically fallacious arguments this morning on Meet the Press. I haven't watched his "debate" with DLC Chair/Archenemy Harold Ford just yet, but given the arrogance of his column in yesterday's WaPo, I'm not sure I can stomach it. His overall argument is that the DLC is bad, that the netroots are good, and that Americans are all a bunch of peacenik socialists in denial. [The state of journalism is reflected in the fact that pompous clowns such as him get inches on the op-ed page of a "respectable" rag like the Post]

UPDATE: I'm not going to bother embedding it, but Allahpundit has had some fun with today's debate, interspersing it with clips from an interview with Kos at last weekend's YearlyKos; watch it here. And he just sounds condescending, in the worst stereotype of a liberal.

When Will Democrats Lash Out?

Yesterday's troubled markets (which, many analysts believe, will continue for a while) is partially the product of two prominent Democratic bogeymen: those "evil" sub-prime lenders and globalization. The mortgages offered by those sub-prime lenders have essentially been bundled and transformed into securities, sold around the world and thus transferring their risk around the world. This is why BNP Paribas halted withdrawals from a trio of funds yesterday, claiming that because of upheaval on the US credit market, they couldn't properly value the funds.

I haven't exactly scoured the web looking for it just yet, but I imagine that some Democrats will connect these dots and start brandishing their pitchforks in the near future. What they can do about it remains to be seen.

Feinstein's Vote for Justice?

As I'd previously noted, Democratic opposition to judicial nominee Leslie Southwick was appearing both absurd and insurmountable; it didn't look like the impeccably-credentialed Iraq veteran would ever make it to the Senate floor, that Democrats would keep him bottled in Judiciary.

Then Dianne Feinstein did something inexplicable: she voted honestly, refusing to kowtow to the loons in her party. And boy oh boy, the loons are angry - especially the members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The bloggers over at Bench Memos have sampled some of the venom, including one pundit who slanderously labeled Southwick both "archconservative" and "neoconfederate." BM also highlights an interesting article from the SF Chronicle, which reports the threats of retaliation from Feinstein's left (hard as it is to believe that such a place exists).

So let's review: a judge with impeccable credentials (including the highest marks from the left-leaning ABA) squeaks through the Judiciary Committee on a largely party-line vote, despite strident opposition from a coalition of left-wing interest groups. I think we call that obstructionism. Now my question is this: how many Democratic Senators will bow to that pressure and try and scuttle this nomination? Will they be dumb enough to filibuster? Do they understand that by no stretch of the imagination (and their reality is more fantastical than anything else) can Southwick be maligned as a judicial extremist? This'll be interesting to watch. It's also endlessly amusing that Democrats continue to fuel the flames of judiciary battles, one of the few topics which still excites the Republican base.

Democrats Fearing Victory?

For a while now, I've thought (and perhaps blogged?) that the latest round of Democratic shenanigans, attempting to force a pullout from Iraq without waiting for Petraeus's September progress report, was driven by fear. Fear that the good news coming out of Iraq (and if you're not hearing it, you're simply choosing to ignore it) is a harbinger of things to come, a sign that the tide has finally turned and that the definite potential for victory exists. If so, Democrats are going to look pretty damn stupid. Their solution? Short-circuit things to avoid that outcome. If true, I will again overflow with disgust for this party - that they'd throw our troops and the Iraqi people under the bus for short-term political gain.

And I'm not alone in thinking this - Thomas Sowell agrees. He notes, and I agree (and they understand) that victory in Iraq likely means a Republican presidential victory in 2008. Here's hoping.

Obama: Genocide? So What?

Bill Clinton said "Never again" in Rwanda; today's Democrats are hardly so principled. And Barack Obama is bordering on downright crazy. Today in New Hampshire, Obama said that "There's no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there." Really? I'm glad you're bright enough to realize that. But (brace yourself for this bit): "It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions." I don't even know how to respond to that. He also has the "wisdom" to claim that we haven't lost in Iraq - no Senator, but you want us to - and that a withdrawal would leave troops in the region to intercede (with international help). Where have we heard this before? Maybe Murtha's proposal to redeploy to Okinowa?

This is wrong-headed, short-sighted, and truly does abandon America's position of leadership in the world (as well as our credibility in opposing genocide).

More Orwellianism

I've become increasingly suspicious of Democratic usage of words like "choice" and "fairness." Time to add "responsible" to the list. As in the "Responsible Redeployment from Iraq" act that the House passed on Friday. Why include it? Because there's no such thing as a responsible redeployment. And if they were to be linguistically honest, it'd be called either the Iraq Retreat act or the Iraq Surrender act.

McGovern Weighs In

And Mr. "Come Home America" doesn't know if an anti-war Democrat can win. Check it out.

This is Getting Absurd...

I've remarked previously that the Democratic Party isn't so much a party as a disparate group of interest groups that can hardly tolerate one another and are often willing to subvert the party's interests to those of their particular group. And because of their 'party' composition, Democratic presidential candidates have been pandering away. There was a forum discussing Spanish issues in Miami. There was supposed to be a debate co-sponsored by the CBC and focused on black issues - except that the nutroots couldn't stand Fox asking real questions. And now there's going to be a gay debate.

I find it bizarre to think that there's enough issues to keep them pandering away: aren't blacks, Hispanics and gays all concerned about jobs, national security, etc.? I also think these debates might be counterproductive for Democrats: if they don't sufficiently pander to the "concerns" of the interest group in question, the activists get pissed; if they actually say anything of substance, Republicans may have material for attack ads. Pretty absurd.

I Love the Democratic Party!

Apparently anti-war crazy Cindy Sheehan's threatening to run against Pelosi if Madame Speaker doesn't begin impeachment proceedings against the President. Given that that seems unlikely to happen, I think we could see the Democratic primary fight of the century. I just don't know who I'd more like to see win - the crazy who admits she's crazy or the crazy one who plays like she's sane?

And people wonder why Democrats have a hard time winning national elections? This fratricidal excuse for a party is not so much the big tent as the freak show on the side.