CNN Opinion Research Poll sez:

What would Hillary Clinton bring to a Democratic ticket? Answer: about three percentage points. A hypothetical Obama/Clinton ticket would currently get 52 percent, compared to 46 percent for a hypothetical McCain/Romney ticket. And if she's not on the ticket? Sixty percent of her Democratic supporters would vote for Obama, 17 percent would vote for McCain, and 22 percent say they would stay at home in November and not vote for anyone.

Earlier, a Gallup poll indicated Clinton gives Obama a 5 point bump. I think electorally, no one offers Obama what Clinton offers him. Will the Obama camp be professional about this? Or will it be driven by personal feelings?

By Big Tent Democrat

Baltimore police detective Charles Hagee was part of an "elite" team investigating drug trafficking. His credibility was important to the outcome of hundreds of cases. It is therefore distressing that the chief of the state's attorney's police misconduct division, Thomas Krehely, deliberately kept himself in the dark about misconduct allegations that called Hagee's integrity into question.

Krehely ... testified that he does not routinely review police misconduct files after he decides not to press criminal charges, mainly to avoid being subpoenaed by defense attorneys.

Krehely decided not to press criminal misconduct charges, without bothering to review the file, because internal misconduct charges that the police department leveled against Hagee -- charges that the department didn't pursue aggressively -- were resolved in a deal that favored Hagee with a dismissal of the charges that impugned his integrity. Krehely's "see-no-evil" approach meant that (in his mind, at least) he was not required to disclose information to defense attorneys that destroys Hagee's credibility as a police witness. Had Krebely done his job responsibly, resources would not have been wasted on the dozens of prosecutions that have been dismissed because they are tainted by Hagee's involvement. (more ...)

Just a heads up, I will be live blogging Hillary Clinton's speech tomorrow including the Media atrocities that will proceed it. I think it is scheduled for Noon tomorrow. It surely will be televised by all the cable news networks.

Another Open Thread.

There is no point to this post other than to point out how bad the so called political punditry can be. For years, Amy Sullivan, has been one of the worst imo. And that probably explains why she is a Time columnist now. And she continues to be bad. Look at this column. It may have a point to it but the obtuseness of the analysis just irks me. Sullivan writes:

One of the Democratic campaign's great misperceptions has been that Clinton held an overwhelming advantage among women voters. But that isn't the case. As expected, Clinton captured the over-65 vote, and Obama won over younger women. But women in the middle split almost evenly between the two. And while both Senators boasted historic candidacies, Obama's seemed to resonate more deeply, translating into 70%, 80% and even 90% of the black vote in primary contests. No one expected Clinton to sweep 90% of Democratic women voters, but 60% wouldn't have been an unreasonable accomplishment for the first woman to have a serious chance of winning the presidency. Instead, Clinton won just over a majority of women's votes. . . .[W]omen themselves cost her the nod. The reasons more women haven't voted for Clinton tell us something about the evolution of feminism and what the future may hold for female politicians.

What is wrong with this picture? Hint: some African Americans are women. Psst, Amy, if African American women were, say 25% of the female vote in the primaries and Obama won 90% of them, then it becomes hard to win 60% of the TOTAL women's vote. Sheesh. More . . .

You can continue the ongoing discussions regarding sexism, McCain's disdain for the Constitution, or any other subject you choose here. I do apologize to folks looking for discussion of criminal law, but believe me, you do not want me writing about it. Jeralyn is in Aspen and TChris is tied up apparently.

Open Thread.

Comments closed.

Digby wrote this a few days ago:

Whatever happens, Bill Clinton will still be the 42nd president of the United States and the first two term Democrat since Roosevelt. That's never going to change. Democrats should ask themselves, once the smoke has cleared, if it's really a good idea to discredit his accomplishments. However you personally may feel about him, there is value in a popular ex-president remaining popular. Political value. (See: Reagan legacy project.) The question is what they are valued for.

I see the Clintons as warrior chiefs against the hardcore conservative movement machine that nearly crippled this country (but which may have just run its course after drifting into decadence and hubris.) But, at the time of the movement's greatest power and influence, no one took more crap or was more deft at beating them back. I, for one, am grateful to both of them for taking a nearly unbelievable amount of heat from both the media and the Republicans during that era --- and surviving.

More . . .

Over at TAPPED, Christopher Hayes, the Editor of The Nation, writes:

What was most striking about her campaign was the sexist venom directed at her from so many corners of the establishment, and the steely resolve with which she faced it down. That dynamic is what, I think, helped her win New Hampshire, avoid an early demise, and inspire the passionate support she gained from white women of her generation. These women are the backbone of the Democratic coalition, and they live life within the chaffing confines of a culture that feels as if it has, depressingly, outrageously, grown more sexist over the last several decades. As a male writer, I can say this lived reality is probably too easy for me to brush aside. But as Dana Goldstein pointed out, the presence of these sentiments, in all their vulgarity, presented progressive men with ample occasion for introspection on the ways in which progressive politics, and the discourse we all engage in sometimes explicitly, and more often tacitly, reinforces this power imbalance. This will, I hope, I believe, have a profound lasting positive and progressive effect.

(Emphasis supplied.) Excuse me Mr. Hayes, too many so-called progressive men and, some women, say it is irrelevant. I am still waiting for that "profound lasting positive and progressive effect."

Speaking for me only

Comments closed

John McCain admits that he doesn't understand much about economics. It's time for him to make the same concession when it comes to constitutional law.

A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.

In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.

McCain might want to double-check the validity of his beliefs by reading the Constitution. He should start with the Fourth Amendment. Then he should peruse the rest of the document in a fruitless search for a presidential exception to the Warrant Clause. He might also hazard a glance at Article I, which grants law-making powers to Congress, and at Article II, section 3, which requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" -- even laws the president doesn't like. (more ...)

For those who do not wonder why sexism and misogyny are not an outright breach of community and societal norms. For those to whom the sexism in this campaign was irrelevant. For everyone.

Katha Pollit:

Clinton's run has put to rest the myth that we are living in a postfeminist wonderland in which all that stands in women's path is women themselves. Like a magnet--was it the pantsuit?--Clinton drew out the nation's misogyny in all its jeering glory and put it where we could all get a good look at it. . . . Vats of sexist nastiness splattered across the Comments section of hundreds of blogs and websites. . . . As for the . . . pundits, thank you, Hillary, for showing us the snickering belittling of women that passes for media commentary . . .

The Times Caucus Blog has some tidbits from The Meeting:

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California got the call from Hillary Rodham Clinton Thursday afternoon: Could she, would she let Mrs. Clinton use her home in Northwest Washington for a little sit-down with a certain senator from Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president of the United States? Mrs. Feinstein had made the offer before and it was still good. And so a few hours later, at just about 9 p.m., Mrs. Clinton and Senator Barack Obama arrived for a face to face chat. No staff. No spouses. Just the two of them in Mrs. Feinstein’s living room.

And so it happened, The Meeting, that Democrats knew was inevitable, but for a long while thought would never come. It lasted about an hour.

More . . .

Jeralyn is off to Aspen for the NORML Conference and I do not know a thing about criminal law.

Let's hope TChris comes along and gives us some of his great posts because otherwise it is just me and my yammering about politics.

You can yammer here about anything you want to talk about.

One of Barack Obama's biggest assets in the upcoming campaign is his relationship with the Media. In short, he is their Darling. They have tossed over their long love John McCain for him. This is worth a ton.

The Media has told Barack Obama that he can not pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate. To use the parlance, they have "jammed" him regarding his VP decision. Of course, since the Media is doing the jamming, they will never write that Obama's not choosing Hillary Clinton BECAUSE the Media jammed him is a sign of weakness.

On the other hand, I believe most honest observers know that if Barack Obama picks Hillary Clinton, the November election will be a lock. Of course, Barack Obama can win without Clinton. But with her, he WILL win. More . . .