25% of Hillary supporters would vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination. Way to go, Hillary.

Earlier this week, Hilda, a Hillary supporter, emailed me the following:

From: Hilda
Subject: biased
Date: March 9, 2008 5:14:12 AM EDT
To: americablog

you obviously love obama
i'm not going to read your blog anymore
and if obama is dem nominee i'd rather vote for mccain

I've received a lot of emails and comments like this from Hillary supporters. A recent PEW poll shows that 10% of Democrats who support Obama would defect and vote for McCain should Hillary become the candidate. But, a whopping 25% of Democrats who support Hillary would defect and vote for McCain should Obama become the candidate.

Are one quarter of Hillary's supporters racists? (Latte-drinkers not looking so bad, after all, eh?) Have they simply bought in to Hillary's incessant message that Obama, the possible Democratic candidate in the fall, is much less qualified than McCain? It's probably a mixture of both.

(I was a bit surprised to read the other day that Hillary's staff was forwarding this particular part of the poll to reporters. Is Hillary's campaign suggesting that we let racists determine who we pick as our candidate? That if a certain segment of our society doesn't like your race (or gender) then you shouldn't be our nominee? No blacks need apply? No, no race-baiting here, I'm sure it's just another coincidence.)

Someone in the party (and the media) needs to ask Hillary what her plan is to get those 25% back should she not win the nomination. Hillary can only tell Democratic voters so many times that McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama before her supporters (and lots more Americans) end up listening to her. Or is that her plan after all? If Hillary can't win, then no Democrat deserves to win? Read the rest of this post...

Pelosi pique?

Earlier today, Joe wrote that Harry Reid offered some opinions on the race for president.

Speaker Pelosi also weighed in earlier this week. Reader SP caught this quote about a possible Obama-Clinton/Clinton-Obama "unite ticket" at the end of an article:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, who hasn't endorsed either candidate, said a unity ticket was impossible.

She said the Clinton campaign "has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama."

And, she had more to say today:

"Take it from me, that won't be the ticket," Pelosi said with a smile, provoking laughter from members of the media who were prodding her.

Read the rest of this post...

Mark Penn continues his destructive ways

The losing campaign's chief strategist, Mark Penn, kept up the trash talk today. On a campaign conference call with Governor Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Mike Nutter, Penn said that Pennsylvania provides a "significant test" of who can win the general election. Penn said it will show that "Senator Obama really can't win the general election." Yes, he did. USA Today has the audio and this blurb:

Though the campaign later argued that he hadn't said it, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief campaign strategist told reporters this morning that Sen. Barack Obama "can't win the general election."

As painful as it is to listen to the pompous Penn, it's worth hearing the audio. Then listen to the next segment provided where Howard Wolfson denied that Mark Penn made the statement. It's classic Clinton campaign. These people are dangerous. They know they've drifted into dangerous territory but can't help themselves.

What's important is that Penn is wrong. The Clinton campaign just made up the idea that primary performance is related to general election results. Matt Yglesias and Noam Scheiber both look at a Pennsylvania poll that counters Penn's argument. According to Matt, the poll "indicates that Clinton will do much better than Obama in the Democratic primary but Obama will do slightly better than Clinton in a general election." With strong support from the Rendell machine and the Mayor of Philadelphia, Hillary should win Pennsylvania by 20 points. But that is irrelevant to the general election.

Also, I am relinking to an earlier post about Mark Penn, the CEO of Burson-Marsteller. One of the companies under his control represents Hillary Clinton. Another of Burson-Marsteller's companies, BKSH, is run by Charlie Black, who is a top adviser to John McCain. So a Clinton win or a McCain win is good for Penn's business. Just makes you wonder where Penn's loyalties lie -- and we shouldn't be wondering about the loyalties of a top Democratic strategist. Read the rest of this post...

Paulson & Bush spring into action on bad loans

Only the Republican knuckleheads could actually rush into action now that the situation they created is imploding and pulling down everyone. Uh, guys, this game ended a long time ago and all you could do was brag about the homeowner society.

The changes include tougher disclosure requirements for banks and Wall Street firms, a nationwide licensing system for mortgage brokers and new rules for credit rating agencies, which have been widely criticized for failing to recognize major problems with mortgage-backed securities and for having potential conflicts of interest.

“This effort is not about finding excuses or scapegoats,” said Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., who outlined the proposals in a speech here on Thursday morning. “But poor judgment and poor market practices led to mistakes by all participants.”

To hell with excuses like this, let Paulson, Bush and the GOP explain themselves. There were plenty of poor judgments through the entire GOP and that's the plain truth. Read the rest of this post...

When Good Math Goes Bad or Why the Delegate Count Counts

Let's head this one off at the pass and start with the following: I am not a Hillary-hater. In fact, some Obama supporters (like my significant other whom I lovingly and lazily refer to as my signif) think I am too soft on Clinton from time to time. However, for the purposes of this conversation, the Clinton camp - and the media - are going to take a little heat.

Greg at TPM Election Central reports Governor Ed Rendell is now voicing an up-and-coming Clinton meme: "that the popular vote is at least as democratic a metric for judging the winner as the pledged delegate count."

Let's make this simple. You can't give the popular vote the same weight as the delegate count in a mixed system. Some states have primaries. Some states have caucuses. More people turn out for primaries than caucuses. Why? Because it is a heck of a lot easier to show up at some point during the day and push a button than it is to stand around in a gym for two hours and listen to speeches.

So states with primaries are better represented than states with caucuses simply because of the type of election processes in place. And the delegate allocation system - if I am not mistaken - has been designed specifically to counteract this discrepancy.

For example -

In the Wisconsin primary, about 1.1 million people voted.
In the Minnesota caucus, about 210,000 people voted.

Again, keep in mind that it's a lot tougher to break away for hours to caucus than it is to show up to a poll and just vote.

The delegate allocation system takes this into consideration.

Wisconsin had 74 pledged delegates
Minnesota had 72 pledged delegates.

It's why The Biggest Loser measures percent of weight lost versus actual pounds. Because the big 400 lb guy is going to have more weight to lose - and be able to lose it more quickly - than the 175 lb woman. Percentages even the playing field.

Toss out this system, and Wisconsin gets more than five times the "say" of Minnesota in the democratic primary. Minnesota is essentially penalized for holding a caucus. And even though Senator Obama is winning the popular vote and the delegate count at this stage, if the caucus states had held primaries, it would be safe to assume the following:

Obama's delegate lead may have been cut slightly, but his popular vote lead would be almost insurmountable.

Take a look at a quick comparison of caucus wins:

Obama (12 states): Hawaii, Wyoming, Washington, Nebraska, Minnesota, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado, Maine, and Iowa.

Clinton (1 state): Nevada

(Texas is weird - not the state, the system - so I'm excluding it for the time being.)

So assuming you're still with me, I say now'd be a good time for informed election experts on the teevee to start debunking this new Clinton campaign strategy. Don't even let them take the goalposts out of the ground, let alone move them once again. Read the rest of this post...

Pelosi: The President is wrong and he knows it.

Fighting back on FISA:

Read the rest of this post...

For upcoming House FISA vote, Bush brushed off his circa 2002 terror talking points to attack Democrats for not caving to him

The House will be voting on its version of the new FISA bill today -- debate should start around 3:00 PM. The Democratic bill actually stands for the rule of law. There was a time -- before George Bush -- when the rule of law mattered in this country. It's time it mattered again. Christy Hardin Smith is hearing rumors of GOP shenanigans to prevent a vote. McJoan at DailyKos has a list of the Democrats who need to be Democrats today.

Meanwhile, you know an election is coming up because George Bush, using his best 2002 talking points, is in a tizzy over the House bill:

Using tough language on a subject on which he has been persistent and unswerving, Mr. Bush warned House members that “they should not leave for Easter recess without getting the Senate bill to my desk.”

He argued that failure to pass the Senate language would make it harder to detect emerging terrorist threats.

“Voting for this bill would make our country less safe,” Mr. Bush said. “Congress should stop playing politics with the past and focus on helping us prevent attacks in the future.”

Yeah, he's been persistently and unswervingly wrong. We've heard this all before from Bush.

The Democratic Whip, James Clyburn, blasted Bush:

The absurd and outrageous allegations made by President Bush this morning that FISA legislation being considered in the House would make America less safe are false and misleading.

The FISA legislation being debated in the House this week would upgrade our intelligence surveillance capabilities while at the same time protecting core constitutional freedoms that all Americans value and cherish. Keeping America safe and defending the Constitution are goals I would hope the President could share with us.

Bush doesn't share those goals. But you know the GOP loves to play politics with national security. This time, the Democrats -- at least the House Dems. -- are fighting back. Read the rest of this post...

Top Clinton fundraisers told Hillary can only get nomination through super-delegates

Greg Sargent has a report on a meeting of top Hillary fundraisers:

Fundraisers were given a presentation on Florida by Senator Bill Nelson, and one on Michigan by Senator Debbie Stabenow, and senior Hillary adviser Harold Ickes walked listeners through the challenges ahead. The presentations had a tone of optimism tempered by realism, the fundraiser said, adding that Ickes didn't try to persuade his listeners that she would be able to catch up with Obama in pledged delegates.

Rather, the clear message emerging from the presentations was that Hillary's success depends on the campaign's ability to persuade the super-delegates that they should be considering three "data points," as this fundraiser puts it, in considering whom to back: The pledged delegate count, the popular vote, and the specific states won by each candidate.

Okay, let's review: 1) Clinton can't and won't win the pledged delegate count; 2) Hillary can't and won't win the popular vote; and 3) Hillary has lost an overwhelming majority of the states. By her campaign's own "data points," it's over. She can't win the nomination and shouldn't.

On NPR this morning, Hillary did add another firewall -- Puerto Rico:

"We'll wait and see where the voters go," Clinton says, when asked if she thinks the superdelegates should follow the lead of the popular vote. "I want to see what happens in Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico, Michigan and Florida."

Yes, Puerto Rico (not Missouri, Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, Maine, Washington, Wisconsin... ) is now a big part of her super-delegate strategy --even if that undermines her other argument that only a winning a few primaries in some big states matters.

The Clinton campaign is always re-setting the bar, cherry-picking what "counts." And, the punditry, loving the game and the ratings, plays along. But, this game is dangerous. The longer it goes on -- the more "kitchen sink" the Clinton campaign throws -- the worse it gets for Democrats.

The Clintons can't win this fair and square. She can't win if she has to play by the rules. That's why Harry Reid had to remind "everyone" that we can't change the rules in the middle of the game. The Clintons want the White House again. They think it is theirs. And, that's all that matters. Read the rest of this post...

Harry Reid rebuts caucus criticism: “You can’t change things that have already taken place.”

It's really quite a phenomenon. In every state that has held caucuses this year, we've seen great enthusiasm and excitement -- and unprecedented turnout. My mother and father (not latte drinkers, btw) gladly waited in the snow for 2 1/2 hours to just get inside the building for their caucus in Maine. Yet, the caucus system has been met with criticism and disdain by the Clinton campaign, which started after Clinton started losing all the caucuses.

Yesterday, Harry Reid stepped in to quell and rebut the criticism of the caucus system:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday defended his state’s January caucus, saying it created a “tremendous sea change on how politics are looked at in Nevada."

His comments came as the campaign for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has increasingly criticized the caucus system, which has favored Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the two senators’ quest for their party’s presidential nomination. Clinton won the popular vote in the Nevada caucus, but she has fallen short on a number of other caucuses, including Saturday’s in Wyoming.

Reid is one of the most influential uncommitted superdelegates — the members of Congress and state and party officials whose support could tip the nomination to one of the two candidates. Reid said Wednesday he will continue to stay neutral in the race.

“In a period of an hour, we had 30,000 new Democrats in Nevada,” Reid said in defending the Nevada caucus on Wednesday. “We had tremendous new participation we’ve never had before.”

That was repeated across the country. You'd think that would be a cause for celebration in the Democratic party. And, it is. But, not for team Clinton. What's most annoying is that the Clinton campaign knew the rules and agreed to play by the rules. Now, in the middle of the process, they want to change the rules. Reid put an end to that idea, too:

Some Clinton supporters have suggested that caucus delegates should be treated differently than pledged delegates from states that hold primaries, but Reid seemed to reject that suggestion.

“If we’re going to change any of the rules it has to be [in the] next election,” Reid said at a “fireside chat” podcast honoring the 75th anniversary of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first such chat. “You can’t change things that have already taken place.”

Exactly. It's always the loser who wants to change the rules. Read the rest of this post...

"An unapologetic liberal" -- Senator Howard Metzenbaum died yesterday

The guy was a great, tough ally:

Former Ohio Democratic Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, a self-made millionaire who championed workers and consumers during almost 20 years in the Senate, has died at age 90, according to media reports on Thursday.

Metzenbaum, who left office in 1995, died at his home in Florida on Wednesday night, the Cleveland Plain Dealer said on its Web site.

An unapologetic liberal, Metzenbaum helped pass measures to strengthen workers and consumers' rights, including a bill to provide employees with 60 days' notice of plant closings. He also promoted the Brady bill, which mandated a waiting period when buying a handgun.

Metzenbaum was a frequent critic of big business and earned the nickname "Senator No" for his success in blocking bills he considered overly favorable to special interests.

Read the rest of this post...

O'Hanlon disengenuous on Iraq, Episode 58,204

Michael O'Hanlon, surge shill and general embarrassment to foreign policy professionals everywhere, outdoes himself in the pages of the New York Times (William Kristol! David Brooks! Mike O'Hanlon! Your favorites from the "liberal" New York Times!) with his conclusions-without-evidence op-ed about how Iraq's political situation is doing just fine

I'd say more, but my colleague Ilan Goldenberg gets it exactly right. Including:

Here’s the best thing about this. There is no way to refute it because his scoring isn’t up anywhere. It’s not in the Iraq Index and the closest thing he has is an A, B, C grading system from a month and a half ago. So, five out of eleven it is because that’s what Mike O’Hanlon tells me it is.

Go read. Read the rest of this post...

Lenders seize assets of Carlyle Capital - $16.6 billion default

Carlyle Capital is a publicly traded fund run by the well know Carlyle Group, where former Presidents, Prime Ministers and top government officials work. This is yet another shocking fall from the sky courtesy of non-existent regulation by the Republicans. A small dose of regulation could have lessened the blow for everyone but no, the Republicans would have none of it. Where are all of those big talkers now that their self-regulation ideas are dragging down everyone? Notice how quiet they have become? Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

See any articles today about John McCain breaking the campaign finance laws lately? I haven't -- and I've been looking. Next week, his campaign will have to file its FEC reports. Will the traditional media continue to give him a pass on this issue? If reporters actually report on McCain, the "Straight Talk" bus might not be as much fun. And, those barbecues at the ranch in Sedona might be off-limits.

It must be so hard to be a reporter covering a presidential candidate like McCain. They all know they're dealing with an unstable, volatile candidate. Maybe, the reporters are actually afraid of McCain.

Anyway, get cranking.... Read the rest of this post...

What downer cow? Oh, *that* downer cow

In case you are wondering who is on the front line of protecting the American food source, here's a perfect example of why it all needs to change. In recent weeks we've watched clueless CEOs deliver everything from sorry excuses to shoulder shrugs when explaining why Americans have become sick and even died because of food production problems. Notice the quick "hot under the collar" moment shortly into the video as the slaughterhouse executive is asked whether he ordered a recall in 2005 after a previous problem.



All of us would like Congress to do more in many areas and we get frustrated but what jumps out for me is that none of this would have happened under a GOP Congress. Congresswoman DeGette and her Democratic colleagues are doing exactly what we want Congress to do. The Republicans were fine with letting people like this exec produce potentially dangerous if not illegal products. The GOP was always so focused on how they could help characters like this instead of American families. Even now as we watch the economy go down because of bad Republican policies, think about how a Republican Congress would have handled this meltdown. Would I like to see more from Democrats? Of course. It seems obvious that we need more DeGettes and fewer Steve Mendells and friendly Republicans shaping our future. Read the rest of this post...

Exactly

One of these days it would be nice to see the wife not have to stand up and be so damned humiliated. I respect the work Spitzer did in the past but please, is it necessary to always drag wives into these seedy press conferences or TV interviews? There's always going to be another sex scandal, Democrats and Republicans alike, but there's no need to drag spouses through the mud. Read the rest of this post...