Our Long Florida-Michigan Nightmare Is Over

Today the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee finally put an end to the Florida-Michigan fiasco, and in probably the best way possible. Here is a breakdown:

• Both Michigan and Florida get 100% of their delegates seated, thus giving their voters a voice at the Convention, even if the votes represented illegitimate elections in the first place.
• The delegates from Florida and Michigan only receive half a vote at the Convention, which represents the punishment for breaking the rules, yet is gracious considering the original penalty was no vote at all. This was necessary because without a penalty there would be no reason for them, and every other state, to break the rules next time around. People never mentioned this, but Michigan has broken the rules THREE presidential elections in a row (2000, 2004, 2008), they knew what they were doing, and they keep breaking the rules anyway, sanctions were necessary to maintain order in the Democratic Party and to not be a HUGE slap in the face to the 48 states that actually obeyed the rules. Hillary wanted them to not be penalized at all, apparently not caring that such a decision would mean chaos for the next contested primary season.
• Obama received the "Uncommitted" delegates from Michigan, the vast majority of which obviously voted for Obama (and then some for Edwards, who endorsed Obama). This was quite obviously the fairest outcome, since it comes closer to mirroring the actual will of the voters than the alternative solution, which was Hillary's contention that Obama should get ZERO votes from Michigan. Yes, they think that was the fairest outcome. No one in the entire state of Michigan voted for Obama apparently. That is what the Hillary camp would like us to assume.

In the end, Hillary got 19 more delegates out of Florida than Obama, and 10 more out of Michigan, meaning that after their votes are cut in half, she gets 14.5 more delegates than Obama, which changes nothing. I should also mention that this was the exact solution I was supporting as the ideal compromise, for everyone.

What is really important here is that the Florida decision was UNANIMOUS, meaning every single Hillary supporter on the Committee voted in favor of the compromise, signaling how ridiculous her position was, and how the Party is unifying around Obama, despite her scorched earth strategy. The Michigan vote was 19-8, so 8 Hillary supporters hung on to the outrageous demand that Obama get zero votes out of Michigan, apparently thinking it is perfectly acceptable to disenfranchise every Obama (and Edwards) supporter in the state, even though they just spent and entire day calling for the DNC to "count every vote" that helps Hillary. But even that vote shows that the Party is essentially behind Obama now, and that Hillary has no place to go. Although her spokesman Harold Ickes did close with a threat that Hillary "reserves the right" to take her complaints to the Credentials Committee (i.e. scorching the earth).

Hillary's supporters in attendance and protesting outside put on a pretty pathetic and petty show though. They repeatedly booed when Obama supporters on the Committee were making points, while Obama supporters never booed Hillary's supporters on the Committee, as apparently they've been house trained, while Hillary's supporters obviously have not. Outside Hillary's supporters were angry, and vowed to vote for McCain in November (yes, obviously they were great Democrats in the first place). There were also reports of some of her supporters handing out right-wing propaganda about Obama. Here is a sampling:

"[Obama] is a cult. His campaign is an anti-woman cult."

"I will actively campaign against him."

"You know who is backing him is George Soros. It'll be George Soros, not Obama, who is running the country."

"South Dakota is totally rigged for Obama because of Tom Daschle. Obama's going to win South Dakota because he's buying it and rigging it."

"[Obama] is a socialist! You know what the Nazi Party was before it was the Nazi Party? It was the Socialist Party."

It was not all that different from the mood outside, where signs read, "At least slaves were counted as 3/5ths a Citizen," and some pamphlets detailed Obama's supposed dealings in drugs and gay sex.

"Would you rather have a president who had an affair [Bill Clinton] or one who was a murderer [Obama]?" Eve Fairbanks, a reporter with The New Republic, was asked by one protester.

[And this shows who's side they are on:]

"HuffPost sucks! HuffPost sucks!" and later, "Fox News, fair And balanced! Fox News, fair and balanced!"

Yes, Obama is a murder apparently, and a gay one at that. And these despicable people pretend to be Democrats. Even Ann Coulter doesn't say crap that vile and ridiculous. All a pretty sad display, and I'd be embarrassed by their conduct if I was Hillary, or a sane Hillary supporter.

Anyway, I'm glad Florida and Michigan are behind us, Hillary is out of ways to distort the delegate math, and essentially everyone won, aside from Hillary and her supporters who were less concerned with a fair outcome than they were with Hillary's political games.

Update: Apparently Obama actually had the votes to press for an even more favorable option on Michigan, a 50-50 split, but chose not to, in order to be more charitable to Hillary, and to help Party unity.

The Popular Vote, A False Measure Even If It Were Within Her Reach (Which It Isn't)

Many have been taking on Hillary's ridiculous math that she is trying to use to claim she is ahead in the popular vote, and thus entitled to the nomination. Contrary to her repeated claims, she has NOT won the popular vote. Her math only works if you count the invalid results from Michigan and Florida, even though Obama wasn't allowed to campaign in either state, and so they were little more than name recognition tests against someone who has been on the political scene for almost two decades, then, assume Obama got ZERO votes from Michigan, then you don't count ANY votes from Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, and then you count the popular vote for Puerto Rico, even though they don't have an actual say in the general election (which flies directly in the face of her alternative claims that only states that factor into electoral votes for Democrats in November count). Simply put, she has most definitely not won the popular vote.

I've also attacked her popular vote argument from another angle by pointing out that changing the rules after the game is over and then claiming victory is outright bullshit. Her claims assume that Obama would have been playing by the same strategy if the rules had made the popular vote the goal from the beginning, which is ridiculous. Obama played by the rules, and played for delegates, and he won. If the rules were different, he would have developed an entirely different strategy. Let's use an example.

You have Obama and Hillary playing blackjack. Obama gets two 10s, so he ends up with a 20. Hillary gets dealt a 4 and a 2, she hits, gets another 4, hits again, gets another 2, and stands with 12. Obama wins, as he is closest to 21 without going over (the goal of the game), but right before he declares victory Hillary yells "Wait wait! If we were playing poker I would have won, two pair beats two of a kind!!"

This is essentially what Hillary is trying to do (plus maybe adding a few cards, Florida and Michigan, to her hand by cheating). Do you see the problem with this? Does she really expect us to believe that Obama would have stopped at two 10s if the goal hadn't been getting close to 21, but had instead been winning at poker? C'mon now. And the sad thing is, like I said before, in real life she still hasn't won at blackjack OR poker.

Anyway, today I read an article which took on Hillary's popular vote argument from a completely different, more existential angle, and I thought it was worth sharing. The gist of the critique is this:

But a general election for president has two qualities that a presidential primary campaign lacks, and which make it reasonable to talk about the national popular vote in the former but not the latter: (1) all fifty state elections in a general election are synchronic, i.e., they take place at the same time; and (2) the fifty state elections are all open to the same pools of voters and governed by roughly the same procedure.

No two elections that lack either quality can be combined into a meaningful aggregate result.

Give the whole thing a read here, because it successfully adds yet another dimension in which Hillaryland math is outright illegitimate, as if we needed another:

Hillary Clinton and the Popular Vote: Not Wrong, But Meaningless
by Daniel Koffler, The Huffington Post

And for my less word-inclined readers, a few pictorial representations:





Update: Donald Sutherland has also had enough with Hillary's popular vote nonsense:

Hillary's Popular Vote Notion only 'Popular' with the Punditocracy
by Donald Sutherland, The Huffington Post

Obama Endorsement Watch

Obama received two endorsements this morning, one from Rep. Jim Costa of California, and another from Rep. Cardoza of California, who switched from Hillary to Obama, saying that Obama will be the nominee and that Obama will take us in the right direction. He also specifically disagreed with Hillary on her attempts to divide the Party by trying to change the rules at the end of the game:

This is the most important election of my lifetime. While I continue to greatly respect and admire Senator Clinton and feel she has made history with her campaign, I believe that Senator Obama will inevitably be our party’s nominee for President. He has proven himself to be a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and inspirational leader and will take America in a new direction, which we desperately need.

The Bush Administration has been a huge disappointment. Mr. McCain, while certainly an American hero, represents more of the same failed Bush policies.

I am deeply concerned about the contentious primary campaign and controversy surrounding the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan – two states Democrats need to win in November. I will not support changing the rules in the fourth quarter of this contest through some convoluted DNC rules committee process. Yet, we must find a resolution to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates so these states’ voters are represented at the Convention. I believe we need to avoid this potentially divisive situation by uniting behind one nominee and bringing the party together immediately. Therefore, I have made the decision to support Senator Obama at the Democratic Convention in my role as a super delegate.

Update: State Sen. Peter Burling and Deborah Nelson, two Edwards pledged delegates from New Hampshire are officially switching over to Obama. Burling said of Obama:

We chose Obama because he so clearly understands the American yearning for change. He understands it, he embraces it, and I think he has the leadership to deliver it.

Update #2: Oregon DNC member Jenny Greenleaf endorsed Obama saying:

The voters of Oregon have spoken, and I have listened.

I will be supporting Senator Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention in August. Senator Obama has the vision and leadership ability to move this country forward and to undo the damage done by the Bush administration. I am proud to support him in this endeavor and will do whatever I can to make sure Oregon's electoral votes are Democratic this fall.

This gives us a net of 6 for Obama so far today.

Update #3: Here is some potentially huge news, and if it were true it would mean a net boost of 80 superdelegates for Obama, essentially ending the primary (wait, nevermind, math doesn't actually matter, she'll keep going until she is satisfied she has successfully sabotaged Obama in November):

The Field has learned that Cardoza is the first of a group of at least 40 Clinton delegates, many of them from California, that through talking among themselves came to a joint decision that all of them would vote for Obama at the convention. They have informed Senator Clinton that it’s time to unite around Obama, and that they will be coming out, one or two at a time, and announcing their switch between now and the convention if Senator Clinton doesn’t do the same.

Update #4: Ouch, it turns out Rep. Cardoza was also co-chair of Hillary's National Hispanic Leadership Council, ouch, that hurts.

Hillary Questions The "Principles" Of The Democratic Party [UPDATED]

Here's some great hillpocrisy for you. Today she took some time out of her busy schedule to trash on the Democratic Party:

I think that what's happened with Florida and Michigan raises serious questions about the principles of our party.

Again, she clearly only cares about Michigan (and by Michigan I mean only the voters who voted for her) and Florida because they were essentially held in information blackout and thus went to her by decent margins. Let's take a look back at what Hillary was advocating a few months ago:

I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.

How's that for principles Hillary? But hey, if you want to know why Florida and Michigan can't be seated as is, maybe you should ask your top spokesman Terry McAuliffe, who made the stakes clear in 2004 (the last time Michigan broke the rules):

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

Oh, you mean there are rules, rules that have a purpose, and they knowingly violates these rules even after they knew of the consequences? Apparently for Hillary rules are meant to be broken, even if breaking them means anarchy in future primaries. On wait, they do know this, they signed a pledge saying as much back in 2007:



Chuck Schumer got one thing right, Hillary changes her position based on what helps her, but Obama has been 100% consistent and 100% in compliance with the DNC rules that everyone agreed to at the beginning. Hillary is the only one here saying one thing and then spinning around and saying the completely opposite for political gain.

But what is really disappointing here is that Hillary would go after the Democratic Party like that, and say that there is something wrong with their principles because they made rules and created consequences for breaking those rules as a way of enforcement. She is basically saying to the people of Florida and Michigan that the Democratic Party is out of touch and doesn't care about them, and I think it is safe to assume she is implying that unless the Democratic Party gives her what she wants and ignores the rules, they will suffer loses in Florida and Michigan in November, which is no doubt what she would like to see since she won't be the nominee.

And of course she went on to repeat her outright lie that she is ahead in the popular vote, which couldn't be further from the truth. Kos did a great job of summing this argument up today:

One of the wonders of this primary season has been the ability of the Clinton campaign -- including Hillary herself -- and their supporters to engage in some of the most patently ridiculous and bald faced lies, knowing that everyone else knows they are engaging in patently ridiculous and bald faced lies.

Chief among those lies is the fiction that Clinton leads in the popular vote.

Aside from the idiocy of the argument itself -- 1) this is a delegate race, and 2) unlike the 2000 presidential election, you can't compare the popular vote from contest to contest since each state has different rules (caucus or primaries, open, closed, or hybrid -- the way the Clinton campaign and its supporters shamelessly stretch this argument is almost embarrassing.

Clinton is "leading" the meaningless popular vote, but only if:

1. You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;

2. You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and

3. You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.

In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates.

In fact, it's so insulting to people's intelligence, that it's hurting the credibility of anyone stupid enough to use it.

I'd like to expand a little bit on his first point. This is a delegate race, that is what the agreed upon rules state and there is no mechanism in those rules to accommodate a win by any other metric than delegates. Now if they had decided popular vote would decide the nominee from the beginning, and if Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington were counted (and Florida and Michigan counted fairly--NOT Hillary's way), then the primary could have been decided in that manner, but that means that the strategies would have been very different. Her bringing up ridiculous measures of victory like popular vote, for the Republican system ignores the fact that if we had been playing by different rules Obama wouldn't have chosen the same strategy he did, so you can't assume the results would have been the same. If it had been winner-take-all you can be sure Obama would have fought like hell for California and the bigger states. If it had been all about the popular vote you Obama and Hillary would have focused more on running up the turnout in their home states while focusing on the most populous states and ignoring the majority of the US. But popular vote wasn't the goal, and this was never winner-take-all, so Obama went with the best strategy for winning the most delegates, and he won. Now Hillary can whine and go "but what if.." or "but the Republicans.." or "if only.." and she can try to change the rules and play the victim like she was robbed of the nomination, but those were the rules, the rules she agreed to, and the rules that must be followed. This is about fairness, not about what works best for Hillary. She doesn't seem to understand that. I, for one, am sick of hearing her lie and spin about the popular vote, Michigan, Florida, and all her false excuses for losing. Basically I'm tired of watching Hillary act like a child. It is undignified and embarrassing to the Democratic Party.

Update: Hillary highlights her attack/threat against the Democratic Party:

If we fail to [seat the Michigan and Florida delegates], I worry that we will pay not only a moral cost, but a political cost as well. We know the road to a Democratic White House runs right through Florida and Michigan. If we care about winning those states in November, we need to count your votes now. If Democrats send a message that we don't fully value your votes, we know Sen. McCain and the Republicans will be more than happy to have them. The Republicans will make a simple and compelling argument: why should Florida and Michigan voters trust the Democratic Party to look out for you when they won't even listen to you.

And then she put counting the delegates from Florida and Michigan (oh, except Obama's) on the same level as the struggle against slavery and other historic fights:

"This work to extend the franchise to all of our citizens is a core mission of the modern Democratic party," she said. "From signing the Voting Rights Act and fighting racial discrimination at the ballot box to lowering the voting age so those old enough to fight and die in war would have the right to choose their commander in chief, to fighting for multi-lingual ballots so you can make your voice heard no matter what language you speak."

Those people, she said "refused to accept their assigned place as second-class citizens. Men and women who saw America not as it was, but as it could and should be, and committed themselves to extending the frontiers of our democracy. The abolitionists and all who fought to end slavery and ensure freedom came with the full right of citizenship. The tenacious women and a few brave men who gathered at the Seneca Falls convention back in 1848 to demand the right to vote."

Yes, she is comparing the issue with Florida and Michigan, whose votes wouldn't even change the outcome of the primary, to universal suffrage and the fight against slavery. Oh, but of course she doesn't have a problem with disenfranchising everyone who voted for Obama or Edwards in Michigan, or the people who voted in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington. Funny, the fight for HER voters in Michigan and Florida is suddenly the latest battle for human progress, but everyone else's voters can go to hell. And apparently she doesn't care that the voters in Florida and Michigan didn't really have a choice, as long as voters were put in boxes, it was "democratic" and should be counted. Many a third world dictator would agree whole heartedly. Oh but wait, there is more:

"In Florida, you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner," she said. "The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear: if any votes aren't count, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished."

So there you have it, in the same breath she lied and said she was ahead in the popular vote, she compared Obama to Bush stealing the 2000 election, and she committed brazen hillpocrisy by saying "if any votes aren't count, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished" when HER OWN PLAN doesn't count the votes of half the voters in Michigan and completely ignores the voters of FOUR other states!! The ridiculousness of this is astounding, I mean just amazing that she can talk like this with a straight face. How shameless and small, invoking the memory of the great struggles of American history to serve her own political agenda, while committing the same acts of disenfranchisement that she is being all self-righteous about. Shameless.

Next thing you know she'll be saying Christ died for the votes of Florida voters, and only her voters from Michigan, and so that the people of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington got ignored. "You better seat those delegates or Jesus died for nothing!!" Hell, she acts like she has a divine right to the nomination and the presidency, it is only a matter of time before she invokes the will of providence as a new measure of victory.

Update #2: Oh, and I should also add one more thing. You know those super fair and democratic Republicans who Hillary is saying will get all the angry Democratic voters? They cut the delegates from Michigan and Florida by half for breaking the rules. So I can only assume that Hillary would be ok with her delegates from both states being cut in half as well, since that is how the Republicans do things, which is pretty consistently the measure by which she addresses all problems.

Update #3: Here is a statement by a Florida voter who is tired of Hillary speaking for them. This voter is not being disenfranchised. This voter is not being punished.

Update (5/22): NY Governor and Hillary supporter David Paterson profoundly disagrees with Hillary's Michigan-Florida claims:

Paterson, a superdelegate, said he doesn't believe the DNC should change the rules after the fact on Florida and Michigan and added that he's not buying her claims about leading the popular vote if the ballots cast in those states were counted.

"I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support and I'll support until whatever time she makes a different determination," Paterson said, adding: "I thought she was the best candidate and I thought she had the best chance of winning."

On Clinton's claims regarding the popular vote and likening the fight to set the Florida and Michigan delegates to the civil rights movement, Paterson said:

"You have to rule out the undecideds in Michigan. You have to assume she won 100 percent to nothing in Michigan. I don't think anybody in their right mind would do that, nor would they see it as a civil rights issue."

Democratic Victory

Last night Obama officially won a majority of the pledged delegates, making it impossible for Hillary to win by the rules. Last night Obama stopped short of claiming victory, padding reality so as to not give Hillary ammo in her campaign to convince her supporters that Obama is sexist because he is trying to push her out of the race, even though she has clearly lost. Watch his victory speech in Iowa, where he came full circle, its very good:



Notice he congratulated Hillary on her win in Kentucky, as he does every time she wins an election, whereas in Hillary's victory speech there was no congratulations to Obama, or even an acknowledge that Oregon had an election. This is typical of Hillary. I don't remember her publicly congratulating Obama since Iowa, although I could have missed an instance or two. Typically she won't acknowledge Obama's wins or the states that voted for him, and she'll just contact him privately to say "good job" so she can say she was gracious, even though she can't muster the sportspersonship to say it in public. Not only did Obama congratulate Hillary for her win, he heaped praise on her for her service to the country and commitment to the American people. I think he was being overly gracious with that praise, but this is why he makes a much better leader than I would, I couldn't find anything nice to say about Hillary, and yet even though he has been the target of her nasty campaign for months and months he still somehow manages to be the bigger person. Much bigger. And here is where it all started, with his Iowa victory speech:



So, tonight he secured a democratic victory by clinching the majority of the pledged delegates. He won by the rules, the rules that everyone agreed upon, including Hillary and her entire campaign, he won by the rules fair and square. And he still didn't declare victory because he is that nice. Yet Hillary is going to try to say that Michigan and Florida must be counted. Okay, that is deceiving, she is going to try to say that Florida must be counted, and that only the voters who voted for her in Michigan should be counted. This even though she said that the votes in those states wouldn't count for anything. This even though she ran unopposed in Michigan. This even though both primaries were little more than name recognition tests, and Obama wasn't allowed to campaign in either state, which essentially locked in wins for Hillary because the voters didn't have access to enough information to make an informed judgment. This even though Michigan and Florida violated the rules, and not enforcing the rules would be a giant slap in the face for the 48 states that did follow the rules, and it would create absolute unmitigated chaos during the next primary season. And the funny thing is, even if the tainted primaries of Michigan and Florida were counted, she still wouldn't win. But like I said, this now has very little to do with the current race, but will be greatly important to future elections. And don't feel too bad for Michigan, they violated the rules in 2004 and were punished as well. Michigan is a naughty naughty state, and we have to be firm with it. I say split them all 50/50, so they make no difference, yet the delegations still get to sit. Incidentally according to the polls a 50/50 split would probably be pretty close to how it would end up if they were allowed revotes. But of course Hillary doesn't care about what the voters actually want, or that they weren't really given a choice in the first place, she is just concerned with winning, at all costs.

On the election results, Obama beat Hillary by big margins white voters of all ages except those 60 and older. Obama beat Hillary among voters with no college degree, and voters making less than $50,000 per year, which are supposed to be the voters he has some kind of "problem" with. Turns out there is no problem when the voters don't live in areas where racism is endemic.

Oh yes, and Hillary's last three victory speeches have been little more than infomercials for her website which revolve around desperate begging for donations, and last night's was no different. Today we got a look at why she has been doing this. Hillary claimed her campaign raised "approximately $22 million" in April, but the figure was actually closer to $21 million, and she neglected to mention that her campaign spent $28.9 million during the same time, adding nearly $8 million to her already huge debt. Now her campaign is more than $20 million in debt, and still failing to pay bills. According to the LA Times, "She also delayed payments to consultants. Including the $9.5 million in unpaid bills from April, she owes consultants and other vendors $19.5 million." Tisk tisk, and yet she continues to throw donors' money away while stiffing vendors and weasels like Mark Penn on what she owes them. Personally I think she doesn't owe Mark Penn anything more than a swift kick to the nuts, but I feel bad for the smaller vendors she has been screwing over for the last 5 months. Oh yeah, and Obama has $37 million just waiting to be spent.

Looking ahead a Reuters poll out today shows blue skies for Obama, both in the Democratic primary and the general election. He is trouncing Hillary 59% to 33% among Democrats, with the support of more than 80% of voters under 35, with a lead among all voters under 70, with a lead in moderates, liberals, and progressives, with a lead among Catholics, Protestants and those claiming no religious affiliation, in short the poll shows there will likely be no problem in Obama bringing the Democratic Party together for November, indeed he is already well on his way. For the general election the poll shows him handily beating McCain, 47% to 37%, and has a big edge over McCain in independents. The poll also shows that McCain's nonstop attacks Obama on foreign policy isn't making a scratch on Obama, but may actually be hurting McCain. This is basically like watching a boxing match between Muhammad Ali and, well, John McCain. It would almost be hard to watch if it wasn't so delightful.

Obama Endorsement Watch

Add-on delegates aren't really superdelegates or endorsements generally speaking, but they do affect the math, so I'll jump back to yesterday really fast and acknowledge that Obama picked up a handful of add-on delegates from various states. He picked up add-on delegate and former Denver Mayor Federico Pena and Kansas Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson. He also picked up 2 add-on delegates from California that were awarded according to the popular vote (so Hillary received 3).

Obama also received the endorsement of superdelegate and Maryland DNC member Greg Pecoraro.

Today, Obama got the endorsement of Washington State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz, who urged unity and told his supporters that, "Sen. Obama will be our nominee, and that it is time for us as Democrats to begin the final stretch of this historic 2008 campaign to take back America. It is time to unify our party around one candidate."

Update: A big get for Obama today, West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd endorsed Obama today stating that Obama is "a noble-hearted patriot and humble Christian, and he has my full faith and support." This should definitely give Obama some help in fighting Hillary's lies that he has some sort of "white problem". A little background on Byrd: Byrd is the longest serving senator in Senate history, and the oldest member of the current Senate (91). In his youth he was a member of the KKK, and openly pro-segregation. In 1964 he stood with Republicans and aided them in their 83 day filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He was essentially a Republican, but never switched over in name when the South became Republican territory and the North became Democratic during the Civil Rights Movement. He has since rejected his segregationist views, called joining the KKK "the greatest mistake I ever made", supported the 1968 Civil Rights Act, and has recently received a 100% rating from the NAACP. Obama wrote this of his first meeting with Byrd in The Audacity of Hope:

Listening to Senator Byrd I felt with full force all the essential contradictions of me in this new place, with its marble busts, its arcane traditions, its memories and its ghosts. I pondered the fact that, according to his own autobiography, Senator Byrd had received his first taste of leadership in his early twenties, as a member of the Raleigh County Ku Klux Klan, an association that he had long disavowed, an error he attributed—no doubt correctly—to the time and place in which he'd been raised, but which continued to surface as an issue throughout his career. I thought about how he had joined other giants of the Senate, like J. William Fulbright of Arkansas and Richard Russell of Georgia, in Southern resistance to civil rights legislation. I wondered if this would matter to the liberals who now lionized Senator Byrd for his principled opposition to the Iraq War resolution—the MoveOn.org crowd, the heirs of the political counterculture the senator had spent much of his career disdaining.

I wondered if it should matter. Senator Byrd's life—like most of ours—has been the struggle of warring impulses, a twining of darkness and light. And in that sense I realized that he really was a proper emblem for the Senate, whose rules and design reflect the grand compromise of America's founding: the bargain between Northern states and Southern states, the Senate's role as a guardian against the passions of the moment, a defender of minority rights and state sovereignty, but also a tool to protect the wealthy from the rabble, and assure slaveholders of noninterference with their peculiar institution. Stamped into the very fiber of the Senate, within its genetic code, was the same contest between power and principle that characterized America as a whole, a lasting expression of that great debate among a few brilliant, flawed men that had concluded with the creation of a form of government unique in its genius—yet blind to the whip and the chain.

Update #2: Kansas Democratic Party Chair Larry Gates has endorsed Obama, saying the following:

Kansans can unite behind Sen. Obama and his positive campaign, and that is why I have chosen to endorse him. He has proven his ability to bring Democrats, Republicans and Independents together, and holds the same commitment to working across party lines as Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (TPIP: Who has been floated as one of the top choices for Obama's VP spot).

Senator Obama inspired record numbers of voters to turn out to the Kansas caucuses, which not only strengthens our Party but also the whole political process. He is the best candidate for Democrats to stand behind as we work to take on John McCain – who supports the war in Iraq and Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans – in November.

Update #3: Obama received the endorsement of Alaska superdelegates Cindy Spanyers and Blake Johnson, bringing Obama's total to 5 for the day, to Hillary's 0.

Obama Endorsement Watch

Yes, it's the weekend, but that doesn't mean Obama can't get superdelegates!

This morning Obama got the endorsement of Maryland superdelegate Greg Pecoraro who said in a statement:

Today, I am very excited to join the large majority of Maryland Democrats who expressed their enthusiasm for Senator Obama’s candidacy in our state's presidential primary. Like them, I believe Barack Obama is the right leader for our time. With Barack Obama as our nominee and as our President, we have real hope that a new way of governing the nation is at hand. I strongly believe that Senator Obama offers us the best opportunity we have had for many years to turn away from the politics of division and despair, and look towards an America of opportunity and progress.

Obama is also likely to get an add-on delegate from Colorado as soon as former Denver Mayor Federico Pena, an Obama supporter, is officially becomes the add-on delegate.

Update: Hillary loses a pledged delegate from Nevada, and it goes to Obama:

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama succeeded in driving more supporters to the Nevada state convention than his opponent U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, who had won the state in the Jan. 19 caucuses. Obama essentially reversed Clinton's lead from the caucuses, capturing 55 percent of the state delegates to Clinton's 45 percent.

The heavy turnout earned Obama one more delegate to the national convention, than previously expected based on the caucus results.

The final tally: Obama won 14 national delegates and Clinton won 11 national delegates. Under the caucus results, Obama was expected to win 13 national delegates to Clinton's 12. Although Clinton won the caucuses, Obama out-performed her in rural Nevada and Washoe County.

The convention has one more delegate to name, although that person goes to the national convention unpledged.

Pledged Delegate Switches To Obama

This is pretty huge, today Jack B. Johnson, the executive of Prince George's County, Maryland and elected pledged delegate for Hillary has decided to switch his vote over to Obama saying "I cannot in good conscience go to the convention and not support Barack". He believes that Obama has won the nomination and it is time to come together around our nominee. It has also been supported that he is going to be urging other Maryland Hillary supporters like Sen. Barbara Mikulski to switch over to Obama to bring the Party together.

Now I don't support pledged delegates switching, because they are the entrusted caretakers of the people's votes, and those should be respected. I firmly believed this when Hillary was trying to corrupt the process by trying to steal Obama's pledged delegates, and I believe it now. Having said that, I think this is very important because it shows the extent to which the Party is ready to rally behind Obama and move on, whether Hillary is willing or not.

Hillary's Campaign Now In A Death Spiral

Last night was the beginning of the end. This isn't because we haven't been in the final stretch for a long time now, because we have, and I'd say the real beginning of the end was when Obama won 11 contests in a row, somewhere in the middle of that was the real beginning of the end, but last night something amazing happened, the media actually acknowledged that it was pretty much over for Hillary. FINALLY! For anyone who has passed 3rd grade math that fact has been obvious for quite some time, but now the impossibility of her winning is so blatantly obvious that even the media can't carry her anymore. But more on that later.

Last night I mentioned that North Carolina, which Bill predicted would be an upset victory for Hillary, that would change everything, that everyone would be watching, went overwhelmingly for Obama. His win there completely erased Hillary's popular vote gains from Pennsylvania. Basically it absolutely destroyed any chance of her being able to pull of claiming a popular vote win, even by counting unfair contests in Florida and Michigan and ignoring a bunch of caucus states that Obama won. It also crushed her already ridiculous "big state" argument, because North Carolina is a big state (and so is Indiana, which we will get to shortly). Basically Obama's big win in North Carolina was the second to last nail in Hillary's electoral coffin.

The final nail was Indiana, which she also lost. It's true, she lost it. Obama won, and Rush Limbaugh came in with a paltry 5% or so of the vote. Of course his 5% backed Hillary, in a continuation of his quest to keep Hillary in the race so she can continue to be the GOP attacking Obama from the inside. The final tallies from Indiana show Hillary winning by less than 2%, while the exit polls show that 7% of her supporters would vote for McCain over her in the general election. About 2% of Obama's voters said the same about him. While I'm not sure of the logic behind a Republican voting for Obama but not actually supporting him, for the sake of argument let's just cancel out an equal 2% of her support as the Limbaugh Effect. So 5% of her vote was thanks to Rush Limbaugh, so in reality, if the Republicans hadn't been tampering with the election, Obama won Indiana by more than 3%. Limbaugh is no doubt loving his influence, and loving that Democrats are still supporting Hillary even though the Right is openly relishing the fact that she is helping McCain. But even his influence and her superficial declared victory in Indiana couldn't save her. It didn't matter if she won Indiana, because she was supposed to win that by a large margin, and she couldn't do it, just like she couldn't catch up to Obama in North Carolina.

So the reaction from the media, which is probably the biggest story here. Tim Russert pretty much personifies the mood of the media here:



There you have it, the media finally acknowledging: "We now know who the Democratic candidate is going to be."

Or in the words of Thomas Edsall:

In the universe of political clichés, she is on life support, her oxygen choked off, her knees buckling, unable to stanch the bleeding, down for an eight count, on the ropes, praying for the bell to ring, desperate to get her wind back.

That's about right. Perhaps realizing this Hillary canceled all of her events for today, including her appearances on the morning news shows. (Update: After the media took note of this last night she added a small event in West Virginia today, most likely to keep the media from questioning her clearing of her schedule.)

So going forward, what does it look like? Well Hillary is still broke, and there are reports that she had to loan herself more money again (Update: She did, $6.4 million last month!). With the media coverage now reflecting reality her funding is going to dry up, and her campaign will be slumping along, suffocating for lack of money, as everything slowly fades to black around it. She will also face more superdelegate gains from Obama (his first was a NC superdelegate last night), and possibly even some more defections from her camp. This kills any chance of her electoral coup by hijacking the vote via superdelegates. Another strategy thwarted. And lastly there will be a growing chorus of Democratic officials calling for her to resign, especially if she continues her ultra-negative scorched earth strategy of trying to destroy Obama and the Democratic Party. There were even reports that last night Wes Clark, a big Hillary supporter, called Hillary and told her it is over.

One thing that pissed me off though was Harold Ford Jr. who kept bringing up the idiotic "dream ticket" idea, saying that Obama "needed" Hillary to shore up his white vote, regardless of the fact there is no evidence that there is any problem aside from some small margin of white, blue collar Democratic voters, in a few states, who prefer Hillary over Obama in a Democratic primary. Limbaugh "Democrats" aside (which no doubt have been inflating the appearance of some sort of "white problem" for Obama, there is no indication that these Democrats are voting against Obama, and that he wouldn't be able to get their support in the general. Obama has won in very white states all across the country, and he has overwhelmingly won among blue collar workers. And despite two months of overwhelmingly negative media coverage of Obama he has continued to improve his numbers amongst demographics such as white women, Catholics, gun owners, households earning under $50,000 annually, voters prioritizing the economy, and voters without a college degree. This is a feat comparable to a fish swimming up a waterfall, but he has done it. In the end all the talk about Obama's "white problem" or "working class" problem is fiction, a creation of the Clintons and the media. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of voters believe that Obama is better able to beat McCain than Hillary. So there will be no "dream ticket", indeed it would be a nightmare ticket. There are a thousand reasons Hillary would make the WORST choice for VP, and here is an excellent blog post describing just some of the reasons. Give it a read!

Anyway, this thing is over. The only question now is whether Hillary will stop running a scorched earth strategy or if she'll continue stabbing the Party in the back and helping McCain.

Update: It turns out that Hillary did indeed loan herself money again, three times in the last month, according to ABC News:

On April 11, Sen. Clinton loaned her campaign $5M; on May 1, she loaned $1M; and on May 5, loaned $425,000.

Insiders says Clinton "will continue to" loan money to the campaign.

She is quickly turning into the next Mitt Romney. This means that now she is has loaned herself $11,425,000 of their own money. It must be nice having that much money laying around to dump into a dying campaign. Of course this again raises the question of where all of Bill's money came from, and what promises he made in exchange for the money, and what conflicts of interest now cloud his judgment.

Update #2: McCain faced a bit of a no-confidence vote yesterday in North Carolina and Indiana, and the results weren't all that spectacular for McCain. A full 25%, one quarter of Republicans voted against him, the Republican nominee, for people who haven't been running for months, and Ron Paul. That's embarrassing.

Update #3: Hillary, never a fan of honesty, says she is happy with yesterday's results, even as everyone from top supporters to the media are busy writing the obituary for her presidential bid. Seriously, you can admit it sucked for you, no one will blame you, you don't have to lie, you can just try once to not lie, just give it a try, just once, cut the bullshit and stop lying when we all know you are full of crap. Oh, and she also defined "progress" and success for her campaign as racial polarization, racism, in North Carolina. Niiiccee.

Update #4: A nice diary from kos discussing ridiculous ideas such as Obama paying off Hillary's debt and Obama picking Hillary as VP. On the debt paying idea, speaking as a multiple-donator to Obama, I would be LIVID if he paid off her debt. By the end of this Hillary is going to owe herself over $11 million, money which she has used to smear Obama with every Republican attack in the book, even though it has been obvious that he will be our nominee since Super Tuesday. I donated to Obama to support Obama against Hillary and against McCain, NOT to have Obama give the Clintons $11 million as a "thank you" for trying to sabotage his candidacy. Although I don't believe Obama would entertain the idea of paying off her debt, he needs every penny to win the election in November. And on the VP prospects, right now I'm partial to Gov. Richardson.

Obama Wins Big

Just a few days ago this is what Bill Clinton had to say about North Carolina, predicting a huge upset win for Hillary:

This primary election on Tuesday is a game changer. This is going to make a huge difference in what happens going forward. The entire country – probably even a lot of the world is looking to see what North Carolina decides.

Turns out North Carolina went big for Obama, giving him a big double-digit win which completely erased Hillary's popular vote take from Pennsylvania, and giving him more than enough delegates to make up for her PA win.

So Bill, what kind of "huge difference" will this big Obama win mean for what "happens going forward"? It obviously has to "change the game" in Obama's favor, according to Bill. The whole world was watching in anticipation to see what North Carolina decided, and they decided Obama is the best candidate, so now what Bill?

And then there was Indiana, which was supposed to be a fairly safe win for Hillary. Now, as we wait for Lake county's results to come in, it is obvious that the best she can hope for it for a narrow few point victory, and at worst Obama will actually pull out an upset win in Indiana. This also means that at best-case scenario for Hillary, she owes her victory in Indiana to Rush Limbaugh. If it wasn't for Limbaugh, Obama would have been declared the winner by now. Limbaugh is no doubt sailing at full ego right about now, I just hope he celebrates with a couple handfuls of prescription medication.

In the end these results make a win by Hillary even more impossibler than it was before, which was already pretty damn impossible.

I will have a lot more to say tomorrow. But for now I leave you with Obama's North Carolina victory speech:

Obama Wins Guam!!

Woo! Two delegates for Obama!! And two for Hillary. Okay, so it was basically a wash, but Obama won, giving him officially more than double Hillary's number of wins, 31-15. On the bright side the pro-Obama party chair and vice-chair in Guam won their race, thus becoming superdelegates, so two more for Obama there. Obama also picked up a few more add-on delegates giving Obama a +4 over Hillary for the day. Every day the math gets even more impossible for Hillary, if that is even possible at this point. It also doesn't help her that she is now threatening superdelegates in Congress with Republican talking points to support a Republican $10 billion handout to oil companies. Her pandering to voters might fool enough voters to get a win out of Indiana, but it isn't going to make superdelegates happy, or environmentalists.

And for those who believe in signs, earlier this week Hillary told supporters:

I hope that everybody will go to the [Kentucky] derby on Saturday and place just a little money on the filly [Eight Belles] for me. I won’t be able to be there this year -- my daughter is going to be there and so she has strict instructions to bet on Eight Belles.

To which Eight Belles' trainer replied, "It looks like it could be the year for the girls. Eight Belles I’m sure would want to endorse."

Only Eight Belles finished second, collapsing immediately after crossing the finish line, and was euthanized shortly thereafter. It was a very sad and tragic end to the race. But for those who believe in signs, maybe this means it isn't "the year for the girls", and maybe Hillary should just drop out before it is too late and she euthanizes her own political career.

For what it's worth, the winner was the Kentucky Derby was crowd favorite, Big Brown.

What It All Means (Pennsylvania Edition)

You can be sure of one thing, no matter what happens tonight, there will be a ton of spin and a veritable punditry orgy. On top of that you can pretty much be certain that unless Obama wins by a solid margin, Hillary will spin it as "Well Obama should have done better!" She is already saying that he ought to win and that if he can't then that somehow "proves" that he is lacking in some respect. She will cite his cash advantage and outspending her 2-1 on ads. There are many things wrong with this spin:

• Not so long ago Obama was behind by 20-30 points owing to Hillary's huge name recognition advantage - Obama needed to significantly outspend Hillary in advertising to make up the difference. This isn't an advantage for Obama, it is what he had to do to cancel out heradvantage.
• Hillary has the advantage of a former president campaigning for her full time, an advantage that Obama has never had, an advantage that ought to put to rest any claims of Obama having any kind of unfair advantage going into this race.
• It is said that the predominately white, working class demographic makeup of Pennsylvania is custom-made for Hillary, making it an uphill battle for Obama from the start (This isn't to say that Obama has any problem with this demographic, but Hillary has tended to do slightly better with this demographic).
• Hillary has the support of almost all of the Party establishment including Gov. Rendell and lots of mayors.
• Hillary has "roots" in Pennsylvania, and as MSNBC notes, she hasn't shut up about her PA ties for weeks. She can't have it both ways, if she has the home turf advantage she can't dismiss Obama for not being able to beat her there.
• Limbaugh "Democrats" might give an edge to Hillary, for no other reason than to keep her in the race so she can continue to backstab Obama and the Democratic Party for the benefit of John McCain. This has been a factor in recent races, however the media generally refuses to acknowledge it).
• Obama not only has faced an amazingly negative campaign from Hillary, he has also been constantly targeted by John McCain and the Republicans. He is fighting a two-front war.
• This election is late in the game, which makes it harder to change votes. Think about it, these people have been watching this election for months, and during this time 20-30% more Pennsylvanians preferred Hillary to Obama (again, mostly based on name recognition and lack of knowledge about Obama), meaning Obama just had a little over a month to change the long-held opinions of 20-30% of Pennsylvanians. Not an easy task, despite how easy for Obama Hillary suggests this should be.
• Lastly, Hillary generally gets a big boost in every election from a surge of older women voters who flock to the polls in each state to try to keep Hillary from tanking. This saved her in New Hampshire, and she has been able to rely on this failsafe each time her campaign's future was on the line. If this was do-or-die for Obama you can be sure that his supporters would be extra committed to turning out for him as well.

Now that is by no means a comprehensive or exhaustive list, but it gives you an idea of what Obama was up again, and how ridiculous Hillary's spin is. No one expects Obama to win Pennsylvania, and moreover he doesn't have to. Hillary has said that "a win is a win", but this couldn't be further from the truth. A win is a win in a winner-take-all situation, which this is not. A 1% win will net her no delegates, or next to none. A 5% win will net her barely any. A 10% win will net her barely any. A 20% win still won't even come close to making a meaningful dent in Obama's delegate lead, and he will erase any gains she makes in PA in North Carolina. The math doesn't lie, and it says the same thing it said before Texas and Ohio: Hillary cannot win, period.

Anyway, I'll report on the results, but as they come in, keep these things in mind. No matter what her spinsters say, Obama had an uphill battle, Hillary had every advantage going into this, Hillary fought hard and dirty, Obama doesn't need to win PA, and not winning the more working-class voters does not show he has some problem with that demographic anymore than Hillary could be said to have a problem with younger voters just because Obama is far more popular among them.

They will also bring up the old "big state" argument, you know, the one she refused to explain the logic of when asked by a reporter. The false assertion here is that whomever wins a state in the primary (no matter if it was only by a small margin) is somehow better suited to beat McCain (despite all the polls to the contrary). And I'm sure the media will repeat this ridiculousness, even though there is absolutely no evidence of this magical phenomenon, no logical foundation for its existence, and in fact all of the polls suggest that Obama even does better against McCain in states that Hillary won.

Today's Obama Endorsements

Today Bill Clinton's former Secretary of Labor and a current professor at the University of California at Berkeley endorsed Obama for president:

The formal act of endorsing a candidate is generally (and properly) limited to editorial pages and elected officials whose constituents might be influenced by their choice. The rest of us shouldn't assume anyone cares. My avoidance of offering a formal endorsement until now has also been affected by the pull of old friendships and my reluctance as a teacher and commentator to be openly partisan. But my conscience won't let me be silent any longer.

I believe that Barack Obama should be elected President of the United States.

Although Hillary Clinton has offered solid and sensible policy proposals, Obama's strike me as even more so. His plans for reforming Social Security and health care have a better chance of succeeding. His approaches to the housing crisis and the failures of our financial markets are sounder than hers. His ideas for improving our public schools and confronting the problems of poverty and inequality are more coherent and compelling. He has put forward the more enlightened foreign policy and the more thoughtful plan for controlling global warming.

He also presents the best chance of creating a new politics in which citizens become active participants rather than cynical spectators. He has energized many who had given up on politics. He has engaged young people to an extent not seen in decades. He has spoken about the most difficult problems our society faces, such as race, without spinning or simplifying. He has rightly identified the armies of lawyers and lobbyists that have commandeered our democracy, and pointed the way toward taking it back.

Finally, he offers the best hope of transcending the boundaries of class, race, and nationality that have divided us. His life history exemplifies this, as do his writings and his record of public service. For these same reasons, he offers the best possibility of restoring America's moral authority in the world.

In addition to this endorsement, Obama also got the endorsements of former Senators Sam Nunn (25 years in the United States Senate and was Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee from 1987 through 1995) and David Boren (served in the United States Senate from 1979 to 1994 and is the longest-serving Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), who are just the latest of his endorses to dash Hillary's false attacks that Obama is somehow lacking in foreign policy knowhow. Here were Sam Nunn's comments:

America remains the strongest nation in the world, but we can only be successful in tackling our toughest problems if we gain cooperation at home and abroad. Our next president – working across party and economic lines – must restore and strengthen our national purpose, our credibility, our competence and our spirit.

We need a president who has the temperament of a leader – a sharp, incisive, strategic mind, a rare capacity for self criticism, and a willingness to hear contrary points of view.

Based on my conversations with Senator Obama, reading his book and his speeches and seeing the kind of campaign he has run, I believe that he is our best choice to lead our nation.

And David Boren's:

I am joining Senator Barack Obama’s advisory team on foreign policy and national security because I believe it is my duty as a citizen to do all I can to help our country at this critical moment. Our strength is declining. Eighty-one percent of Americans believe we are headed in the wrong direction. We must act quickly to meet and overcome the challenges we face.

Our most urgent task is to end the divisions in our country, to stop the political bickering, and to unite our talents and efforts. Americans of all persuasions are pleading with our political leaders to bring us together. I believe Senator Obama is sincerely committed to that effort. He has made a non-partisan approach to all issues a top priority.

On top of this (and don't expect this to be reported on anywhere), Hillary lost a pledged delegate in Ohio today and Obama gained one (giving Obama a net of two) after Ohio finished counting their absentee and provisional ballots. Everyday, even with no elections, the math is getting even more impossible (if that is possible) for Hillary to overcome (hijack).

Obama Is Up Two More Delegates In Mississippi

Today the Mississippi Secretary of State finally got around to certifying the results of the Mississippi primary, and it turns out that Hillary lost a delegate and Obama gained one, giving him a net boost of two pledged delegates over what the media reported on election night, along with more popular votes to add to his lead.

Percent chance the media mentions it or even changes their delegate counters?: 5%

And the impassible gulf in delegates grows even wider...

A New Tactic: Attack and Extort

Hillary's big establishment backers are now lashing out at Speaker Pelosi for her position that the superdelegates couldn't overturn the will of the people, and they are threatening to withhold donations to the DNC if she continues. They have a word for this: extortion.

Here is an excerpt from the angry letter her big money backers just sent to Pelosi, emphasis mine:

Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.

During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier...

Yes, you read that correctly. They actually had the audacity to say that the voters have a right to be heard, and then attacked Pelosi for saying that the will of the voters should be respected, and that the popularly elected candidate should be the nominee. It is hard to find a better example of shameless doublespeak, short of Orwell's 1984. "The people deserve to have their voices heard! How dare you suggest that the people's voices actually matter!!" That is essentially what they are saying...plain and simple. This is quite in keeping with Hillary's typical doublespeak on the issue, pretending she cares that every voter is counted in Michigan and Florida, saying it is a huge moral issue, while at the same time planning to overturn the will of those very voters by using superdelegates and stealing pledged delegates. How despicable. The only thing perhaps more despicable is the thinly veiled threat included in the letter:

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

This isn't the first time her major establishment donors have threatened the DNC over not being pro-Hillary enough, and I'm certain it won't be the last time. It is very disconcerting though that Hillary and her supporters have resorted to extortion and threats in their attempt to steal this election. I wish only wish the media would point out the obvious brazenness of this latest development, as well as the overall theme of underhanded tactics and hypocrisy, but I have little hope of that happening. It would be nice if her supporters, at least those hardcore ones who may just not know any better would hurry up and become aware of these despicable schemes and her despicable power-hungry character so we could end this thing once and for all before it is too late.

Update (3/27): Oliver Willis of Huffington Post has a great response to these rich donors trying to walk all over the Democratic Party for Hillary:

Just Who Do These Rich Clinton Donors Think They Are?

Update (3/27) #2: MoveOn is gathering signatures for the following petition to show that progressives will stand being Pelosi against this extortion from Hillary's rich backers, so if you are angry about this brazen new low the Clintons have gone to, please sign!:

The Democratic nomination should be decided by the voters--not by superdelegates or party high-rollers. We've given money--and time--to progressive candidates and causes, and we'll support Speaker Pelosi and others who stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party.

Is Hillary A Dictator At Heart?

Okay, I have to repost this at the top, because it is just crazy, and something this important can't get buried. I wrote yesterday (and I've written previous to that as well) about how Hillary's only option to "win" this nomination is to hijack the democratic process by using superdelegates, and now "switched" pledged delegates, essentially disenfranchising 10,000+ voters for each delegate, only you'll never catch her saying it that way, but that is what it is.

Anyway, today the Clinton campaign has gone even further, basically saying that pledged delegates are expected to use their own judgment to pick whichever candidate they want, meaning that the will of the voters should have nothing to do with how the pledged delegates vote:

In an interview with Mark Halperin, Hillary Clinton again put out the idea that pledged delegates do not have to stick with the candidate they were elected to back: "We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment."

They are essentially saying now that the will of the voters is meaningless, or should be meaningless, and that the entire race not only can, but ought to be decided undemocratically! That is crazy!! They are saying there needn't be any relationship whatsoever to what the voters want, and what the pledged delegates do, meaning the whole system in their minds is nothing more than an empty gesture, completely meaningless! This really shows how little they care for democracy and the will of the voter.......yet Hillary continues to cry foul about every voter in Michigan and Florida not having their voices heard (because she only cares about voters when they agree with her).

I'll just give you a second to let the astounding hillpocrisy of that sink in......

Hillary's Only Path To The Nomination: Disenfranchise Hundreds Of Thousands Of Voters

I wrote previously about the hypocrisy of Hillary's doublespeak about being so concerned that every voter's voice is heard in Florida and Michigan (just as long as they didn't have much of a choice when they cast their votes), while basing her path to the nomination on hijacking the will of the voters via superdelegates and switching pledged delegates, essentially overturning 10,000+ voters with each delegate gained. Well now she is at it again, saying that pledged delegates are just like superdelegates, and they can switch at anytime (and implicit in this, is that they should switch, and switch to her, since that is the only way she has even the faintest chance of winning):

I just don’t think this is over yet, and I don’t think that it is smart for us to take a position that might disadvantage us in November. And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They’re just like superdelegates.

After that, she defends her position that that is a fair way to win (notice there is no acknowledgment of what she is saying really means, which again is disenfranchising 10,000+ voters for each superdelegate, and anywhere from 4,000 to 12,000+ voters for each pledged delegate, depending on the state and turnout), because the rules allow it, and she is suddenly a big fan of following the rules:

There are different ways to become a delegate, there are delegates from caucuses, there are delegates from primaries, and there are the appointed delegates, they’re all equal, they all have an equal vote – those are the rules of the Democratic Party. Now if you don’t like the rules, change them going forward but those are the rules. And they are there for a purpose...

Please notice that she wasn't a fan of the rules that allowed students in Iowa to vote even though they live in Iowa at least 3/4 of the year, work there, pay taxes there, fund their university system, and are legally allowed and encouraged to vote. She also didn't like the rules that she had previously agreed to that gave workers on the Las Vegas Strip access to caucus sites, as soon as the union endorsed Obama, and her surrogates filed a lawsuit on her behalf to change the rules and shut the caucus sites down. She also hasn't been a fan of the rules in any of the caucus states, because even though they have run that way for a long time, and even though they run by established rules, she consistently claims they don't count, except for Nevada of course, which she won. She also wasn't a big fan of the rules in Texas, which she constantly complained about, and even considered filing a lawsuit to protest the rules and delay announcement of the caucus winner long enough that the media would ignore it and say she won Texas, even though she only narrowly won the primary, and Obama blew her away in the caucus, netting him 3 or so delegates, a clear victory. She has also not been a fan of the DNC rules concerning Michigan and Florida, rules that she agreed to in advance, yet she now wants to change because doing so would benefit her. Now does that sound like "those are the rules of the Democratic Party. Now if you don’t like the rules, change them going forward but those are the rules. And they are there for a purpose."?

No, that sounds like the ugliest kind of hillpocrisy.

And now Clinton strategist Harold Ickes backs up Hillary's position:

I think what Mrs. Clinton was trying to make clear is that no delegate is required by party rules to vote for the candidate for which they're pledged. Now obviously circumstances can change, and people's minds can change about the viability of a particular candidate, and that's permitted under our rules ever since the 1980 convention.

While technically true, the Clinton campaign misses another opportunity to point out what this actually means to voters. Say, for example you have a pledged delegate from a fairly populous district, and this pledged delegate is given the position of being the caretaker of the people's will, say 12,000 voters, from the ballot box to the DNC. So say this delegate chances his or her mind, and switches support to the other candidate. Instantly 12,000 voters who went to the polls not only didn't vote for their candidate, they voted for the other one. It is worse than just disenfranchisement, it is stealing their vote and giving it to someone else. I for one would be sick to my stomach if I knew my vote cast for Obama got changed after the fact and cast for Hillary, as any voter would in a similar situation, no matter if you support Obama, Hillary, McCain or Ralph Nader. THAT is what all of this smooth talk about "pledged delegates can switch" really means. The cold ugly truth isn't as palatable as the euphemisms and distorted doubletalk coming from the Clinton campaign, yet no one seems to be talking about what winning an election via superdelegate or pledged delegate coup would really mean for democracy. We certainly can't count on the media to connect the dots, but I hope if the blogosphere and the netroots keep the issue alive, and keep pointing out how blatantly Hillary is trying to hijack democracy, maybe people will start to see through her two-faced rhetoric.

Update (3/26): Now this is pretty crazy, today the Clinton campaign has gone even further, basically saying that pledged delegates are expected to use their own judgment to pick whichever candidate they want, meaning the will of the voters should have nothing to do with how the pledged delegates vote:

In an interview with Mark Halperin, Hillary Clinton again put out the idea that pledged delegates do not have to stick with the candidate they were elected to back: "We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment."

They are essentially saying now that the will of the voters is meaningless, or should be meaningless, and that the entire race not only can, but ought to be decided undemocratically! That is crazy!! They are saying there needn't be any relationship whatsoever to what the voters want, and what the pledged delegates do, meaning the whole system in their minds is nothing more than an empty gesture, completely meaningless! This really shows how little they care for democracy and the will of the voter.......yet Hillary continues to cry foul about every voter in Michigan and Florida not having their voices heard.

I'll just give you a second to let the astounding hillpocrisy of that sink in......