Tuesday Open Thread

I'm not seeing a lot of news to write about yet today, so here's an open thread for those of you who do. Just remember, you can't call anyone, including public figures, "liars" on this site. I have routinely deleted comments calling both candidates that name, or characterizing their statements as "lies." It's okay to refer to statements as "inaccurate" when there is adequate support for it.

The best way to stop an open thread from becoming dominated by those who want to harp on a story few TL readers are interested in is to ignore their comments. Talk about what interests you, not them.

< 2nd Circuit Tosses Passenger Bill of Rights Law | Where Kos And I Agree . . . And Disagree >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Nothing on Medellin? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jr on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:35:52 PM EST
    I know it's always fun when the Court rebukes W, especially in an opinion authored by Roberts and signed on by Alito, but what the hell is the actual result of this ruling going to be?  It seems like they may have just crushed big swaths of treaty law in one fell swoop, and paved the way for a number of executions in Texas to go through (unless, by some miracle, Bush or Perry issue some commutations).

    labels (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by diogenes on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:39:09 PM EST
    As a legal commentator, surely Jeralyn should know that a false statement spoken with intent to deceive is a lie, not the euphemistically described "inaccuracy".  It is a fair point of debate whether a public figure intended to deceive or merely misremembered something, but I thought that was what forums on the internet were for.

    Reading minds (none / 0) (#36)
    by nellre on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:45:51 PM EST
    We don't have the technology for that yet.
    I give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they've proven their intent is to deceive.

    What (none / 0) (#42)
    by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:48:12 PM EST
    point in deceiving about the issue at hand?  She doesn't need to be under fire to be qualified at foreign policy and she was in Bosnia.  How many war fronts has Obama gone to?  

    The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.  She's competent to lead this country in a positive direction.  We know that.  What we don't know is anything about Barack Obama's ability to lead.   We know he can deliver a good speech and that's really about it.  Apparently it's enough for college kids but not for the Boomers.


    This was, I'm sure... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by sar75 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:35:36 PM EST
    ...in response to my posting of the video which disproved what Clinton has said not once, but at least twice on the campaign trail.  The details of her story are demonstrably false, but designed to make the point that she has the necessary experience for the job.

    Of course, TalkLeft deems such statements not to be "lies."  Okay. Let's call them demonstrably untrue statements that misrepresent reality in order to make a political argument.  Fine.


    Tweety-Dee and Tweety-Dumb (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by flashman on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:42:23 PM EST
    This is another rant about cable news, namely MSNBC.  Already, I can't stand to see Keith Bloberman's smirking face, and as such, I haven't watched his "All Obama All the Time" noise hour.  I've thus far held my nose and watch Tweety's show because I already knew he wasn't at all an objective news man, so I wasn't quite as disappointed in him...yet.  It had seemed to me that after Hillary won New Hampshire, he scaled back his untoward attacks on her to some extent.  That new attitude seems to have passed, however.

    Last night, in what looked like a direct read from the net roots, he did a segment on the sniper-gate story.  After reading through all the customary lines about how film footage shows Hillary being greeted on the tarmac, in apparent contrast to the story she told, he mentioned her campaign's statement about how she "miss-spoke."  Then, in one of his most condescending and intelligent-insulting moments, he scowled about how "miss-speaking' is identical to "saying something that isn't true."  Why exactly would be telling an apparent intelligent audience something that is universally obvious?  He was become such a Hillary-hating hack that he needs to talk down to his fans as a mother would talk to a 3-year old.  As though only HE is intelligent enough to interpret what a "miss-statement" is.  Listen up, folks; Daddy-Tweety is going to tell you what people's statements mean, and only his interpretation matters.

    If that wasn't bad enough, he then began to accuse Bill Clinton of "Cutting" Obama out of the race when he talks about how good it would be to have two candidates who care about the country discussing what direction they would take ( I'm paraphrasing his comments, but you get the idea )  I can't say if Tweety is blinded by his hatred of Hillary, or just too dumb to understand Clinton's point here.  Either way, his buffoonery prompted Chuck Todd to speak up and (correctly) say that Clinton was talking about getting past all of the race recriminations and get back to real voter's issues.  But Tweety wasn't done with his loonacy yet, he cut Todd off to blurt that nobody has more baggage than the Clintons.  He just refuses to understand the meaning of words, and thinks his distorted interpretations are the only ones that matter.

    One more show on my boycott list.

    I'd say that it isn't really a response (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:47:30 PM EST
    That's my charitable way of saying what you said.

    i'm uncharacteristically uncharitable (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Turkana on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:48:43 PM EST
    of late...

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:50:29 PM EST
    Must be J's rules. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:53:34 PM EST
    I have a long drive today (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:10:38 PM EST
    Wish I had your number, I have free long distance.

    visceral hatred (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by nellre on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:49:20 PM EST
    I don't understand the visceral hatred some feel toward HRC. What harm has she ever done to anyone?
    Does anybody have any insight into this?

    God Knows (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    But people do seem to hate her in a very visceral, very stupid way.  But here's a fun game to play--when someone you know is spewing anti-HRC hate, or says something like "I just could never vote for that woman!"  Smile, and ask them "Why?"  I guarantee you a deer-in-the-headlights look.  And would put odds on a stuttering response.

    It' a question of honesty (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimb1962 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:45:05 PM EST
    Someone needs to be the sacrificial lamb and quick.  Unfortunately for Clinton supporters that needs to be Hillary.  On the question of elect-ability consider the latest Gallup poll regarding "Trustworthiness and Honesty": McCain 67%, Obama 63%, and Clinton 44%.  The majority of Americans don't trust her and that will be a stampede to McClain's camp by both switch team Republicans and independents alike if she gets the nomination.  Hillary can still play an important role in politics and I hope she does, but this just isn't her time.  She's hanging by a thread and possibly destroying her career by staying in this race to the end.

    I have plenty of reasons not vote for her.


    Okay (none / 0) (#115)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:04:22 PM EST
    But I'm going to assume that your reasons aren't pure hatred created by a very weird media bias that's festered for years.  I hope it isn't her time, either.  I want Obama to win.  But I'm sure you've been in discussions in which someone goes on an anti Hillary rant about how terrible she is, etc.  
    Most of the people I've played this little game with honestly cannot come up with a response better than "well, I just don't like her."

    Not purely visceral (none / 0) (#65)
    by motorman on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:10:09 PM EST
    If she was just some lady speaking at the PTA meeting you would not get this reaction.  Not terribly charismatic on screen, associated with successful (and undesired) neo-liberal ideas and a reminder of acrimonious past times. To the casual drunk at the after-work bar she symbolizes his first spouse.  Also don't forget that almost everyone has been affected by 15 years of almost constant negative press. She would do better if her name was Smith.

    "Casual Drunk" (none / 0) (#85)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:17:00 PM EST
    You mean as opposed to the professional drunk?
    (This is a joke btw.  I see what you're saying).

    Obama needs Bill to defend him! (none / 0) (#2)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:23:55 PM EST
    As for Obama himself,  in a radio interview to be in Philadelphia, he defends his church, saying, "Despite these very offensive views, this guy has built one of the finest churches in Chicago. This is not a crackpot church. Witness the fact that Bill Clinton invited him to the White House when he was having his personal crises."

    His "not a crackpot church" got a lot of attention in right wing media.. but no one picked his using Bill to kind of defend his relationship with his Church

    I'm not sure I follow. (none / 0) (#6)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:27:09 PM EST
    Using Bill to defend his relationship (none / 0) (#10)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:31:18 PM EST
    Obama using Bill to defend his own relationship!!!

    His point was, if Wright is such (none / 0) (#17)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:35:50 PM EST
    an unacceptable figure,  why did Bill Clinton invite him to the White House?  You can agree or disagree with the point,  but he isn't "using Bill" to defend his own relationship.

    there is no equivalence (none / 0) (#26)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:39:33 PM EST
    There is not enough time in this election cycle for Obama to rehabilitate the image of Jeremiah Wright.  He should just drop it and stop playing defense.

    Agree (none / 0) (#63)
    by flashman on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:05:39 PM EST
    That more he says about it, the longer it stays in the news.  He also apprears more desperate and silly bringing up this kind of baloney.

    Well, yeah. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Fabian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:30:46 PM EST
    Obama does not have the kind of comedian level timing that a seasoned politician may develop.

    He should given his speech, and then every single time someone asks him about Wright, he should redirect/reframe to his speech instead.  Spin, spin, spin.  That's the way to go.  Getting defensive about it is like blood in the water.

    OT - I had a six year old niece at the same time we had an goofy, oversized puppy.  I had to train her that when Goofus came galumphing up to her, she was to stand still with her arms in tight and to be quiet.  Running, waving her arms and shrieking resembled prey behavior and made the dog even more excited.  (Later on, I taught my son to stand still and say "SIT!".   It won't always work, but it's worth a try.)

    Gotcha politics is much the same.  The media will ask open ended, leading questions in hopes that their subject will rise to the bait.  It takes a lot of discipline to avoid responding.  


    Someone can prove me wrong (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:47:49 PM EST
    But wasn't the invite one of many extended for a "prayer breakfast?"

    If so, the visit becomes a routine political act of no importance.


    wow, bringing the photo/meeting back up... (none / 0) (#21)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:37:57 PM EST
    Yes Obama, please keep doing so!

    He doesn't seem to know how to let a story die.  


    Clinton: He would not have been my pastor (none / 0) (#48)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:53:04 PM EST
    "He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

    there is more (none / 0) (#53)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:54:45 PM EST
    "You know, I spoke out against Don Imus (who was fired from his radio and television shows after making racially insensitive remarks), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that," Clinton said. "I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving."

    link - I would have left the church (none / 0) (#56)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:57:32 PM EST
    Interview today with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Link

    I would have left her church if her pastor made the sort of inflammatory remarks Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor made.

    This will backfire on her (none / 0) (#60)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:01:44 PM EST
    She should not be getting directly involved in this issue.  

    She wants to keep the story relevant, and this will do it.  But not in the way she expects.


    but she is telling the truth (none / 0) (#64)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:07:59 PM EST
    that is what she would have done.. of course Obama camp will label this as being racist or something.. but it is hard to be under constant fear of what Obama Camp will make this look like than speak your heart out

    Obama's statements today (none / 0) (#71)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:24:42 PM EST
    he directly involving Bill Clinton and bringing up that meeting/photo of Wright at the White House again.  Would you give Obama the same advice?  He needs to drop it also, don't you agree?

    I think his comments are from (none / 0) (#73)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:28:17 PM EST
    last week. He's not in Philly, he's on a break until tomorrow in NC. Or is his campaign re-using them?

    No this was recorded for Philly (none / 0) (#74)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:30:43 PM EST
    There no longer is any restraint (none / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:12:53 PM EST
    Hillary is trying to make Obama unelectable....So, she either wins the nomination, or she ensures that McCain wins against Obama....It is pretty transparent now....

    Obama, however, is only ten down in Pa, and is up by 21 in North Carolina.

    Meanwhile, Hillary says she misspoke for the first time in 12 years when saying she was under sniper fire at Tuzla....She also says she was sleep deprived....Yet, the sniper-fire-running-for-the-cars story has been repeated at least four times since last December and was apparently part of at least one prepared speech.  That's some sleep deprivation.


    Sure (none / 0) (#105)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:57:52 PM EST
    Because Clinton forcibly walked Obama into that church nearly every Sunday for 20 years.  She made him have long talks with Rev. Wright and put a gun to his head and threatened to pull the trigger if he didn't name his book, "Audacity of Hope."

    Get real.  The Wright fallout is all self-inflicted.  You can't blame Clinton for Obama's longtime relationship with the man or for what he said at the pulpit (or for videotaping the sermons and offering them online.)


    Supreme Court Death Penalty Opinion (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:26:31 PM EST
    The Court sided with Texas over Bush in the one death case he was correct on.

    The Supreme Court today said President Bush does not have to power to order state courts to reopen a death penalty case involving a foreign national because of a judgment of the World Court.

    The court held 6-3 that judgments of the international court are not binding on U.S. courts and President Bush's order that courts in Texas comply anyway does not change that.

    Background here.

    Was going to post the NYT version (none / 0) (#34)
    by rilkefan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:45:14 PM EST
    I thought Kennedy was interested in internationalism in reaching decisions, so I was a bit surprised by this.  But then I pretty much never understand SC decisions anyway beyond the us-vs-them aspects.

    Humor? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Coral Gables on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:50:25 PM EST
    I guess there really is never humor in capital punishment, but for Bush (the king of the death sentence in TX) to be on the side of stopping a death sentence?...if he was still Governor he would be arguing for him to be put to death.

    I Was Wondering (none / 0) (#49)
    by The Maven on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:53:29 PM EST
    if anyone was going to bring this up (I would have done so otherwise).

    For those who are interested, here's the 89-page opinion by the court (including concurrence and dissent), as well as the first takes on the decision by Lyle Denniston and Marty Lederman at SCOTUSblog.

    It seems to me that effectively giving state courts the ability to defy the federal government's attempts to enforce multilateral treaty obligations and/or international judicial decisions is kind of a big deal.  But maybe that's just me.


    Obama has apparently done a (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:23:17 PM EST
    lot of good work on death penalty issues....Also requiring that questioning of witnesses in Illinois be recorded....

    It would be interesting to hear more about that....


    No he hasn't (none / 0) (#104)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:56:02 PM EST
    Those bills were in the works long before Obama got top billing on them.  More here.

    Obama goal posts (none / 0) (#7)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:27:25 PM EST
    I heard a new one a few minutes ago. No, according to them, Hillary has to sweep PA, IN, NC and SD to make a difference.

    They seem to have forgotten WV, PR and Kentucky. Is it just me or does this seem...well...desperate?

    why would the goal posts even matter (none / 0) (#16)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:34:40 PM EST
    I don't get it either.  A great deal of Obama supporters have been knocking us over the head with the stark reality of "the Math" which they claim make it IMPOSSIBLE for Hillary to even come close to getting this nomination.  Why not just blow the whistle and end the game then... why worry about goal posts at all if you're them?

    Hillary can win all the remaining contests and Obama will be the nominee if we are to believe what they were telling us for the last couple of weeks.


    I'm not sure those are goalposts (none / 0) (#25)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:39:27 PM EST
    They are realistically races Clinton needs to win to be able to make any kind of momentum/electibility case to Superdelegates.

    It's difficult to see how she can make up the PV gap even winning those races,  never mind the pledged delegate gap,  but it would allow her to potentially make a case.


    Oregon (none / 0) (#69)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:17:24 PM EST
    She has to take Oregon too.  There is some firmness on this state.

    that's not going to happen (none / 0) (#70)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:23:14 PM EST
    Oregon seems to be a sure bet for Obama.

    I don't expect her to take Oregon (none / 0) (#92)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:57:31 PM EST
    I meant that the Obama supporter position is she needs to take it.  I still want to see what Obama originally projected for the next states and if they have recalculated.

    Obama's costly hair cut moment (none / 0) (#8)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:30:01 PM EST
    Obama Staff Silent On Tiffany's Purchase

    Barack Obama's campaign tossed around nearly $600 at Tiffany's last month - for a trinket that remains a secret.

    Obama's team tapped his flush campaign bank account to pay the $572.25 tab at the famed jeweler last month, recently released federal fund-raising records show.

    He surely needs more donations from his million + supporters!!

    Where is that guy who toppled Spitzer? (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:31:42 PM EST
    Roger Stone (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:21:17 PM EST
    So, someone bought a trinket and the world comes to an end?  The money was reimbursed to the campaign....

    $572 for a bracelet or little something?  It's bupkis....


    Well you may say so.. (none / 0) (#100)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:31:23 PM EST
    but the money was paid back after it came to light.. just like it happened in Edwards case.. the more important point being the press did not make this any issue just like they did for Edward.. world comes to an end? NO.. double standards..? perhaps..

    Trinket v. haircut (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:40:12 PM EST
    A nice little something for a woman is quite different than a haircut.....

    A bracelet or set of earrings will easily cost $472...It is actually quite modest....

    I don't think it is a good idea to be unfair to Obama just because someone was unfair to another candidate....


    But who received the trinket? Do we (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:59:05 PM EST

    Actually (none / 0) (#107)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:00:21 PM EST
    I would argue they were more unfair to Edwards.  Costs of maintaining his appearance are a cost of doing business.  Politicians can't have scraggy hair and I'm guessing every campaign uses campaign funds for make-up for debate or TV appearances.  It's right on the line, but one could make the case.  (Also, the reason Edwards' haircuts were so expensive is because it included travel costs for the stylist as well.)

    I have no idea how a gift or whatever for someone else would fit here.  Apparently the Obama people aren't telling either.


    I'll be glad to delete it with (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:33:08 PM EST
    your permission. Otherwise, I'll leave it up. Your choice.

    Yes, please delete (none / 0) (#15)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:34:11 PM EST
    Done (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    along with the replies to it.

    Kos front pages hisesponse to (none / 0) (#14)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:33:31 PM EST
    Armando/BTD, here

    And it's not a very good response (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:46:45 PM EST
    because what it boils down to is that tired old argument that the SDs must vote for the pledged delegate leader "or else."

    It's very rulesy, and not democratic. Why, oh kos, is there any moral difference between the fact that the rules allow Super Delegates to vote for whomever they like and for FL and MI to be disenfranchised?

    Ok, fine kos: when Obama blocked revotes in MI and FL, he was also participating in a coup. How do you like that?


    I suggest BTD fire back that (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:48:09 PM EST
    video clip from last night.

    Just Words (none / 0) (#22)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:38:58 PM EST

    While a coup by super delegate wouldn't violate the rules, the arguments that the Clinton campaign are advancing to those super delegates, the media, and their supporters make a mockery of them.

    If it is not breaking the rules how can he justify the use of the word "Coup" in that sentence .. may be its "Just Words" in the Obama supporters vocabulary.


    Look up the definition of "coup" (none / 0) (#80)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:43:28 PM EST

    Performing a "coup" doesn't require an illegal act. It's a charged word, especially for Clinton supporters I suppose, but it's not an unfair one under these circumstances. The reason it's fair is because under any reasonable scenario for the remaining primaries there is no way that Clinton can close the gap on pledged delegates. The math is inexorable. I'm sorry, but that is simply a fact.

    "Coup" is easy and fun for some to belittle in this context, I suppose, but that's really a side issue.

    Unless one candidate ekes out a double-digit win, each state's delegates will be split roughly evenly. In Texas, for example, Clinton won the popular vote 51% to 47%. Yet, she was awarded only four more delegates than Obama -- 65 to 61.  In Ohio, Clinton won 54% to 44% -- a double digit victory -- yet she was awarded only 9 more delegates than Obama -- 74 to 65.

    Obama has 1,413 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1,242. That's a 171 pledged delegate lead. Let's assume that Clinton wins every remaining primary by 10%. There are 566 pledged delegates left to be awarded. Using the mathematical formula of Ohio, which is close enough to approximate the remaining races, a 10% victory margin equates with an award of 53% of the pledged delegates. Thus, if Clinton wins all remaining states by 10% (an extremely unlikely scenario in any event) she will take 53% of the remaining 566 delegates and Obama will take 47% of them.

    Those totals: Clinton 300, Obama 266. Look at where that leaves each candidate in the pledged delegate column: Obama: 1,413 + 266 = 1,679. Clinton: 1,242 + 300 = 1,542.

    Thus, even if Clinton runs the table with a 10% margin in each state, she will still be 137 pledged delegates behind Obama.

    The point Kos and others are making is that while it is certainly within the rules for superdelegates to ignore this substantial difference, and Clinton supporters can offer numerous arguments why they should, the democrats who support Obama, and who supported him to his substantial pledged delegate lead, would view such an act by the superdelegates as a coup, and rightfully so. By the only significant measure selected by democrats in creating and enforcing the primary races -- delegate totals -- Obama is substantially ahead. The measure of his lead is easily understood by the virtual impossibility Clinton faces in making any substantial dent in his pledged delegate lead.

    The Clinton campaign and its supporters are doing all sorts of contortions to make other metrics more relevant than the pledged delegate count. It's popular vote! It's who can win the big states! It's who has momentum! It's who's ahead in public opinion polls! Most of these (with the possible exception of the popular vote) are laughable. Public opinion polls change daily, depending on who's getting piled on today. So what if Clinton won Texas? When was the last time Texas went blue?

    There are two questions to ask here. First, will any of this be persuasive to superdelegates? And second, what would make it persuasive to them?

    The answer to the second question will answer the first. I contend that the only way superdelegates would find any of these rationales for a wild swing toward Clinton is if the superdelegates were persuaded that rank and file democrats who supported Obama would accept the rationale and not fracture the party, ruining its chances in November both for the White House and downstream races. And, frankly, I can't see the superdelegates being that stupid. When Obama finishes the primary season with something between a 140 and 180 pledged delegate lead, Obama supporters will rightly conclude that he won the race set up by the DNC rules. Giving the nomination to Clinton, after that, would fairly be called a coup.


    BTD excellent article (none / 0) (#83)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:54:55 PM EST
    BTD excellent article exposed the kos hypocracy of rules are rules when they work for Obama.

    FL/MI : Don't seat them because the rules says so. (it may be unfair but rules are more important ..)

    Super's: They should not overturn the delegate/popular vote leader.. not because the rules say so .. (rules actually allow for it as Kos acknowledges) but for the reason that it is unfair !!

    SO bottom line: You cannot have it both ways..  
    Count FL/MI and you can have the cake..


    Hillary is going through her worst week ever (none / 0) (#20)
    by Raheem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:36:53 PM EST
    Its funny how this isnt news on this blog... at least cover it...


    5% from the David Brooks

    For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.

    When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

    Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?

    The better answer is that Clinton's long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life.

    For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn't know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head.

    Hey I never quote David Brooks (none / 0) (#29)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:43:08 PM EST
    Even when he is tearing Obama...

    Obama unites us? (none / 0) (#31)
    by nellre on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:43:54 PM EST
    Now Obama supporters are quoting the neocons?

    Speaking of quoting the neocons (none / 0) (#54)
    by magster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:54:59 PM EST
    Hillary just echoed  Fox News talking points on Wright.  

    She doesn't care if Obama wins against McCain in November.


    She probably cares if Obama wins (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:36:24 PM EST
    over McCain, but I certainly don't.  If he gets the nomination, he's probably going to get blown out and the hatemonger Wright will help with that.  Have a nice day.

    And... (none / 0) (#79)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:40:38 PM EST
    The Obama people are pushing and adopting right wing talking points on Bosnia.  Not to mention all this (don't feel like you have to stop at just this entry.  There's more and more.)

    And saying that that pastor was out of line is hardly a Fox News talking point.  It's not even that controversial at this point.


    Wait a minute (none / 0) (#33)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:45:03 PM EST
    since when is this blog or any place in the reasonable world obligated to "report" on whatever decides to come out of David Brook's you-know-what on any given day?

    one day it's drudge (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Turkana on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:47:04 PM EST
    one day it's politico.

    as long as it supports the annointed one and/or demonizes the evil one, any source is now credible.


    A Character Assination About Character Assination (none / 0) (#52)
    by flashman on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    First the author whines about character assinations from Clinton's campaign, and then proceeds to suggest that she is selfish and damaging the party for her own interest.  Hmmm... sounds like someone needs to look up the definition of hypocrisy.  How is that journalists got to be clairvoyants?  How does he know what her motives are?  He appears to be just another shrill who blathers about something he can't possibly know.

    It is just a plausible that Hillary is still in the campaign because she believes in what she is doing.  Maybe she still thinks she will make the better leader, and many still agree with her.  Maybe journalists like David Brooks are just too lazy to consider more possibilities than the first one he thinks of.


    urls must be html format or they (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:00:33 PM EST
    skew the site requiring deletion of your comment.

    reminds us of the double standard (none / 0) (#28)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:42:38 PM EST
    Maybe that's why.  It's a painful reminder that the media is oblivious to the continuing double standards applied to Clinton and the pass that Obama gets for much more aggregious acts of dishonesty.  (Like flip-flopping on whether he heard the controversial pastor statements)

    viacaucus.org (none / 0) (#32)
    by herb the verb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:44:31 PM EST
    Has an interesting online poll/survey where you characterize first your main concern for this election, then the strength/attributes required to deal with it, then the strength/attributes (as you see them) of each candidate.

    Very interesting.


    Jeralyn, check this out... (none / 0) (#45)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:49:47 PM EST
    Apparently Rush Limbaugh mentioned you on his show today. Maybe someone here can confirm...

    But I just read this comment at Taylor Marsh from a listener:

    Now Rush is mocking Jeralyn Merritt of Talk left. She stated on Abrams show that they should bring a case against the voters who crossed over if they can show proof that they committed fraud and it was there intent to effect the outcome of the election.

    Rush is saying that these are the people who are for Fisa laws, against Bush snooping , they want to violate their own internet privacy etc.

    how about Gore, remember him? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:54:12 PM EST
    from MyDD:

    There are super-delegates out there talking about a different candidate, from U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney:

    "If it (the nomination process) goes into the convention, don't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket," Mahoney said.  A compromise candidate could be someone such as former vice president Al Gore, Mahoney said last week during a meeting with this news organization's editorial board.  If either Clinton or Obama suggested to a deadlocked convention a ticket of Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama, the Democratic Party would accept it, Mahoney said.

    mmmm k

    The "will of the people" strikes again (none / 0) (#55)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:55:47 PM EST
    It would be pretty insane to nominate a guy who has not received a single vote in this primary.  I'll leave it at that, with all due respect to Al Gore.

    It boils down to what Clinton camp has been saying (none / 0) (#62)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:04:33 PM EST
    Pledged delegates == supper Delegates

    And the rules says so.

    In case of a major crisis that any one the candidate lands him/her self in .. then the automatic delegates and the pledged delegates can nominate whom so ever they think is the right decision. No matter who is leading in what ever matrix!!


    That would never, ever happen. Tim should (none / 0) (#68)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:13:30 PM EST
    spend more time working for his district, and less time coming up with silly ideas.

    A veiled threat to Clinton & Obama? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Fabian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:37:29 PM EST
    While I would be perfectly happy with Gore as the nominee, I don't see it happening - but he is useful as a way to chide the two front runners.

    Don't be so sure (none / 0) (#78)
    by eric on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:39:45 PM EST
    it happened at the 1952 Convention.

    yeah (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:45:01 PM EST
    why alienate half the party when you can alienate all of the party?
    it totally sounds like something they would do.
    also since I am out of allowed comments (I have not been counting but I must be close) I will suggest you contribute and get a chance to win a trip to NY to see Hillary and that other First Lady Elton John   on April 9th:


    she needs out help (Hillary not Elton)


    Regarding snipergate (none / 0) (#57)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:59:01 PM EST
    I don't really care that she lied or embellished or misspoke or whatever you want to call it.  As BTD pointed out yesterday, candidates do it all the time.  

    But what I do find concerning is that it reminds me a lot of the type of thing that Al Gore was pilloried for in the 2000 election.  

    If you are going to embellish, make sure it can be easily disproven.  It was unnecessary and dumb.   And Hillary is too experienced a pol to be making this kind of mistake.

    I suppose this same maxim applies to (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:13:02 PM EST
    urchingate also.  

    She may actually done some ducking (none / 0) (#72)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:25:19 PM EST
    and moving quickly on that trip. She did take a couple of helicopter rides out to see the troops ;)

    It's a shame the media doesn't spend as much time on their speeches etc about issues. He made an economy and Iraq speech last week. Those 2 speeches barely got a blip on the radar because they were too busy over-examining Wright. She's also given speeches, one yesterday on the economy (again) and they are talking about how fast she moved getting off a plane.


    I'm disappointed by this as well (none / 0) (#89)
    by ChrisO on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:30:54 PM EST
    I defend Hillary every chance I get, but I don't like being in the position of having to defend a story like that. I don't think it says awful things about her character, or anything like that, and I think Obama  has enough instances of fudging the truth to point to. But this just seems like there's no real excuse.

    What I wouldn't do, however, is choose my candidate based on one incident, one vote, or one speech in a park.


    It's not the original statement that gets me... (none / 0) (#95)
    by proseandpromise on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:06:22 PM EST
    It's the response afterward.  This could not have been a simple "misstatement" anymore than McCain's Sunni/Shiite deal was.  Call it a misrepresentation, or an exageration, or something.  But don't look me in the idea and call it a slip of the tongue.  I've had enough post-gaffe justification from the Bush administration.  I much prefer the way Obama handled his YouTube moment to the way Hillary handled hers.

    Huge (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    al-Sadr had kept a promised 6 month moratorium and just recently renewed that promise for another 6 months. Oh, well guess that is over.

    That he has begun a civil disobedience campaign, is big news. I am sure that his supporters have been targeted, once again.  I wish that it was just ironic that he has been, and is imo, the man most likely to bring stability to Iraq, and that the US has been trying its darnedest to eliminate him and his followers in the name of stabilizing the country.

    Must be that he is fiercely nationalistic, hates al qaida, and, wants US out of Iraq ASAP.

    At TPM... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Oje on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:49:53 PM EST
    Up is down, down is up. Outliers are reality, trends are outliers. JMM suspects that today's PPP with an Obama 20 point lead is the reality on the ground in North Carolina, while last week's 44%-43% was an outlier.

    Uhh, for the past month, Obama has never had a lead greater than 10% by a national poller. Plus, PPP - today's poll with a 20 point spread, consistently showed a tight race in their three previous polls: 44%-43%, 47%-43%, and 42%-40% (Obama leads in each). It is fine to suggest Obama may have opened a larger lead in NC, but what nonsense to label the month-long trend as an outlier, and the only outlier as the actual.

    Clinton on Wright (none / 0) (#87)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:24:57 PM EST
    She's on live.  Q:  Was asked about Wright.  C: Would not have been her pastor, SS, health care, Iraq,... (C takes it to other topics)

    Q: sniper fire. C: made a mistake in describing it, going in to war zone and to be careful, remember precautions but made a mistake talking about it recently, will put my experience up against Sen Obama's.

    Q: Rendell.  C: Admirer, strong leadership, etc.

    Q: Bosnia pattern.  C: Disagree, mistake, memory, made a mistake I'm human... for some people that's a revelation... a little laughter.

    Q: Race is over.  C: I hear, people say to me don't give up and that is what I intend to do.

    Q: boycott China.  Tibet is troubling, pattern by China, have raised the issue with China for years.  Admin speak out forcefully.

    Q: McCain, not duty to bail out those who act irresponsibly.  Sounds like Hoover, govt has tools suited for this situaton.  Inaction ah contributed, continued inaction will exascerbate.

    Q: Obama disenfranchise voters. If at convetion how is this not dis voters.  C: Wait and see, millions are going to vote, wait for outcome of votes.

    Q: ? missed it.  C: Lighten up.  I was joking.  I say millions of words a week.  There's lots of room for errors when you talk

    Q: Deficit.  C: One, fund part of stimulus package.  Two, Frank/Dodd could be self-financing over time.  Need experts.  Uncharted waters, not done since great depression bought mortgages. Buying mort could be considered.  Support Biden/Dodd but not complete plan.

    Q: Pastor, could tone be negative personal, is it justified.  C: The relationship with pastor is personal. I was asked a personal question.  I answered what I would have done.  I was asked a direct question I gave a direct answer, not personal, what I would have done.

    Pundits focus on Wright/Bosnia.

    Words: Hillary vs Obama (none / 0) (#88)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:26:26 PM EST
    There is a list from both the camps suggesting the other candidate is just words:

    Here is what all Obama camp could come up with

    And here is what Clinton Camp came up with.. I think they ran out of space..!

    Actually (none / 0) (#94)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:01:42 PM EST
    They leave a few things out of that.  Like the IL State Senate legislation he claims credit for that was actually tossed in his lap....

    Because of all the uproar about Wright and (none / 0) (#91)
    by athyrio on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:42:06 PM EST
    his comments about 9/11 being our fault...I remembered that Bill Clinton had spoken on that fact a few weeks or so back and someone kindly gave me this link for it

    Wait (none / 0) (#93)
    by proseandpromise on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:58:37 PM EST
    Markos is a person, right?  And you just characterized his statement as a "lie."  Why is your comment still here?

    thanks for the alert (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:14:03 PM EST
    that comment has been deleted.

    A sneak peak at a Gore presidency? (none / 0) (#99)
    by TrevorWynne on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:23:34 PM EST
    "A compromise candidate could be someone such as former vice president Al Gore"

    The new book, A Time Like This, http://www.atimelikethis.us/  offers a sneak peak at what such an administration could look like.

    -Trevor Wynne

    Rev Wright to give 3-4 sermons in Florida (none / 0) (#101)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:33:26 PM EST
    I hope he does not talk FL Voter disenfranchisement  !!

    typo (none / 0) (#102)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:34:14 PM EST
    I hope he talks about it

    This is funny... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Oje on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:27:41 PM EST
    "The Clinton machine obviously has its admirers, but I think it's held together mainly by its reputation for winning, not by any widespread warmth for Hillary. If she loses, that reputation vanishes."

    I would say that is the only thing that ever made Obama viable: admirers, reputation, winning, not so much substance or policy.

    4,000th American soldier killed in Iraq (none / 0) (#110)
    by john horse on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:36:05 PM EST
    We've reached a new milestone in our March of Folly in Iraq.  The 4,000th American soldier was killed in Iraq.

    I am not against all wars but I am against this war.

    Noone should have to die for light and transient reasons and there is nothing more light and transient than the tissue of lies that Bush has given justifying our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    colbert challenge (none / 0) (#113)
    by sleepingdogs on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:53:56 PM EST
    This is a challenge to fund PA school projects on behalf of the two candidates.  Obama's showing is quite strong but there's still time.  I know giving Hillary money is important but this is a good cause and backs her up as well.