By Big Tent Democrat

"I just have to mention this because I don't want anybody here to be confused," Mr. Obama said. "I was opposed to this war in 2002. If it had been up to me we would have never been in this war. It was because of George Bush with an assist from Hillary Clinton and John McCain that we entered into this war." Under Mr. Obama's rules, the attack does not violate his pledge to wage a new type of politics because it revolves around a specific issue, like Iraq.

NYTimes

I want to be clear on this - I understand that pols have to engage in "negative" attacks. Because they work. Pols do what they do. But I can not stand the false conceit that any pol, including Obama, is going to usher in an era of "new politics." They can't. He can't. He is just mendacious about this. Heck, how about this from the same article: [More...]

By Big Tent Democrat

Jay Cost of Real Clear Politics has a learned piece on what is wrong with the Democratic nomination system. It provides a strong basis for questioning the new CW that the pledged delegate lead is the designed be all and end all for choosing the nominee. My earlier take is here. As for Cost's piece, I will skip the social science, and get to what I deem the heart of the argument:

The problem for the Democrats might seem small at first. Obama has won about 53% of the delegates, and about 51% of the popular vote. That is a pretty small difference. The problem is that the difference is systemic. The nominating system seems to contain several biases that favor Obama.

. . . Voters in larger states are not as well represented as voters in smaller states. Thus, the states form a band that move from the bottom-left to the top-right. Look carefully at it, and you'll notice a curiosity. States at the top of the band are almost always strong Kerry states, while the states at the bottom are almost always strong Bush states. This implies that Bush states are better represented at the convention than Kerry states, independent of population.

MORE . . .

Wyoming caucuses convene tomorrow morning. 12 delegates are at stake. Hillary, Bill, Chelsea and Barack Obama all have campaigned there this week, with Hillary and Obama each making two appearances today.

Denver's Rocky Mountain News had reporters live-blogging the appearances all day and evening.

They drew large crowds and while Obama is expected to win the caucus vote, Hillary should make a decent showing.

One joke Obama didn't tell today: the one about Cheney being his cousin. A story about Hillary that did come out through one of those introducing her: Hillary has eaten reindeer.

Wyoming is pure Cheney country. The chances of the Dems taking it in November are nil. But, it's exciting to see both Hillary, Obama, Bill and Chelsea in western mode.

Update: The reindeer story below:

Sen. Barack Obama likes to say he intends to rely on the people around him in making presidential decisions.

We've seen how that would play out with Samantha Power. Now there's John Brennan, one of his advisers on intelligence and foreign policy.

Think Progress reports:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has consistently spoken out and voted against granting retroactive immunity for telecoms that participated with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. This stance was part of the reason he won the support of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), a leader on civil liberties issues.

One of Obama’s advisers on intelligence and foreign policy advisers, however, is someone who “strongly” supports telecomm immunity.

What Brennan told the National Journal is below the fold:

Everyone knows Cindy McCain, the heiress wife of John McCain, was addicted to pain pills. CNN's 360 tonight highlighted it in a profile of her tonight.

But Cindy McCain wasn't just addicted to pain pills. She was investigated federally for stealing pain pills from a medical charity she headed and for having prescriptions filled in the names of the charity's employees. She admitted it. One of the doctors who wrote the prescriptions for her lost his license.

Mrs. McCain, through her lawyers, was able to get federal prosecutors to let her enter a diversion program and avoid jail.

Diversion is common in state courts for first-time offenders. It isn't in federal courts.

Here are some articles from that time period:

• Opiate for the Mrs
• How Cindy McCain was outed for drug addiction

John McCain is a hawk in the war on drugs. One standard for his wife, another for everyone else.

His voting record on drugs, after his wife's problems:

More....

Newsweek reports:

A plan to raise soft money to pay for a second Florida Democratic primary--this one by mail--seems close to approval, according to Sen. Bill Nelson.

I hope it fails and the Florida delegates from the Jan. 29 vote are seated. Big Tent Democrat favors a revote.

We've all weighed in on this numerous times, but once more won't hurt.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

I am a free trader and a NAFTA booster. I think both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were and are demagoguing on NAFTA and agree with me mostly on trade. Ezra Klein, at least as to Obama, agrees with me:

But Austan Goolsbee isn't Barack Obama's adviser by accident, or because Obama never noticed he violently disagrees with Goolsbee's economic outlook. Goolsbee is his adviser because...Barack Obama doesn't really agree with what Barack Obama is saying about "NAFTA, China trade and a host of related issues." . . . Barack Obama is much more worried about trade when trying to get votes in Ohio.

Yep. Pols are pols. They do what they do.

By Big Tent Democrat

One thing I doubt you will hear the Obama campaign claim is that it "won" Texas, as this top reccomended dkos diary does. Why? Because, if in fact Obama garnered more delegates in Texas after losing the popular vote, the whole argument of the pledged delegates reflecting the "will of the people" is utterly exposed as a sham. The will of the people is expressed in the votes in the primary in Texas. Clinton won.

If you insist that Obama won despite the fact that more people vote for Clinton, you have destroyed the false moral legitimacy of the pledged delegate leader argument. That is happening already of course but nothing will accelerate it more than insisting, as the dkos denizens do, that Obama won Texas despite losing the popular vote. Can anyone say Bush v. Gore?

By Big Tent Democrat

Samantha Power resigns:

With deep regret, I am resigning from my role as an advisor the Obama campaign effective today. Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign. And I extend my deepest apologies to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and the remarkable team I have worked with over these long 14 months

It is sad yet appropriate. Samantha Power is a good person who said an inexcusable thing. I think she had no choice.

NOTE - Comments closed. I hope supporters of both candidates can exhibit better discourse going forward than I saw in this thread.

By Big Tent Democrat

(Speaking for Me Only)

Ras has them. In MI:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that Hillary Clinton would attract 41% of the Primary Vote while Barack Obama would earn an identical 41%.

In FL:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that Clinton attracts 55% of the Sunshine State Primary Vote while Obama earns 39%.

Come on Barack, let's do the revotes. Clinton and Obama should fund them. Now Obama has nothing to fear from this. Let them vote. Full primaries. Let them vote.

By Big Tent Democrat

On a conference call today, a reporter for the St. Pete Times asked Howard Wolfson, why not just split the Florida delegates 50/50? Wolfson is a professional and did not ask how stupid that reporter is. The last thing the Clinton campaign wants is to have this story go away and Wolfson leveraged that silly question to hit his talking points for the Clinton campaign, it is a close race, 1.7MM Florida voters, Obama can not win the big states - you know the drill by now.

I predicted that Michigan and Florida would come to the forefront. The day of the Texas and Ohio contests, I wrote:

Excellent news. Puerto Rico has decided against caucuses and in favor of a primary and moved the date up to June 1.

[Puerto Rico will] change the voting process from 8 caucuses to a primary with voting places in all 1,800+ barrios in Puerto Rico's 78 municipalities. This is done in light of the hundreds of thousands of Democrats expected to turn out on June 1, a late date in which we would have originally expected a pro-forma vote with low turnout.

Puerto Rico has 55 pledged delegates. The DNC has approved the move up to June 1. The last states will now be Montana and South Dakota, which vote on June 3.

Update [2008-3-7 10:15:21 by Big Tent Democrat]: I want to make one point about Puerto Rico that I think some folks are missing when predicting what will happen there. First it is not a winner take all contest. Nonetheless, I believe Hillary Clinton will run up big margins in Puerot Rico. As much as any jurisdiction in this contest, Puerto Rico has political machines for churning out the votes. There are no "new voters" for Obama to turn on. The political bosses turn out the vote. They are mostly with Clinton, especially the ones with the most powerful vote getting machines. The Governor of Puerto Rico, is not going to go all out for Obama and his machine is frankly, not as strong as others for THESE purposes. Puerto Rico will go Clinton 2-1 imo.