Hillary's "Count Every Vote" Hillpocrisy

Here is a fun bit of hillpocrisy, for those jonesing for an early morning fix. This didn't make the news anywhere, but at the same time Hillary has been running around the country decrying the terrible disenfranchisement of voters in Michigan and Florida who voted for her (she wants to disenfranchise every single voter who voted for Obama in Michigan), equating their struggle (okay, actually her struggle because they don't seem to really care) with the suffrage movement and the fight against slavery, and comparing the Florida-Michigan row to Mugabe's anti-democratic actions in Zimbabwe, she has been trying to disenfranchise voters in Texas. Yes, we all know she also doesn't want to count any voters from Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, but now she is going after caucus goers in Texas, who just happened to have voted for Obama. Hillary's campaign tried keep an entire county from being seated at the state convention because that county's senate district conventions were held a day late, because there wasn't a large enough venue in the county for the day it was originally scheduled. So Hillary's campaign wants everyone in the county (again, the county went to Obama, just a coincidence I'm sure..) disenfranchised, for breaking the rules, because they essentially had no other choice.

This of course directly contradicts her moral standard she has employed in the Florida-Michigan fiasco, which is that "whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their vote should be counted." Hm, I'm pretty sure these people intended to vote for Obama, so why are you trying so hard to get everyone in that county disenfranchised if you are supposedly the new hero of democracy? What happened to fighting for every single vote to be counted?

Oh, and a Hillary supporter on the credentials committee that would decide the ultimate fate of the votes from Collin County said "What is troubling me...is that it seems to me that this rule is crystal clear." Which is funny, because the rules of the DNC were also crystal clear, even clearer actually because they were warned of the consequences, and yet they violated the rules anyway. In Collin County the local Democratic Party didn't want to break the rules, but they had nowhere to hold their county convention that day, so they had to do it the next day. But regardless, what we see here is that on one hand you have Hillary demanding that every vote (that was for her) be counted, and saying screw the rules, and then on the other hand you have her trying to disenfranchise 40% of the voters from Michigan, not count the votes from Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, and now trying to disenfranchise the voters of an entire county in Texas, and defending the rules as "crystal clear". Funny how that works huh?

But that's hillpocrisy for you!

But this story has a happy ending, for democracy, not Hillary, because last night the Texas Democratic Party's temporary credentials committee voted unanimously to deny the challenge aimed at unseating the entire Collin County delegation from attending next week's state convention. The reason? The man Hillary's campaign had file the actual challenge with the committee on the grounds the change could have confused some voters in the county wasn't even from the county in question!

Cut The Crap, Obama-Richardson Is The Real "Dream Ticket"

With all this nonsense talk about a "dream ticket" (what I, and others who have been paying attention think of as a "nightmare ticket") I'm sure that before long I'll have to write a lengthy post about how that is the worst possible idea, for about a thousand different (and painfully obvious) reasons. But for now, let's look at the positive, or who would actually be a great choice for Obama's VP.

I've been partial to Bill Richardson since he showed us that he wasn't planning to be a puppet for the Clintons. I actually liked the idea of John Edwards originally, before he made it obvious he was too afraid of the Clintons to stand up for what he told everyone he cared about during his (2008) campaign. Regardless, the more I considered Richardson, the more I liked the idea. At first I was worried that having two non-white candidates might push away too many white voters, but then I realized that almost everyone who is too racist to vote for a black-Latino ticket would be too racist to vote for a black-anything ticket, so there really isn't much to lose there, but Richardson would likely cause a lot of Latino voters to support the Democrats, so electorally I think it would be a win. He could even put Texas in play--Texas being the backbone of the Republican Party electorally. If we took Texas, the Republican Party would be toast, period. And it would also be likely to help us steal a Senator from Texas as well (the current Republican incumbent is a total prick, if you've ever watched C-SPAN). Not that my considerations only revolve around who would bring who to the table, because they don't. I think he has the right experience, and decent positions, and the right temperament and persona to fit onto a ticket with Obama. Here is an article that does probably the best job of articulating why Richardson would be the best choice, basically repeating most everything I've been kicking back and forth in my head for the last few months. Below that I'll post two three quotes from the article to give you a general picture of what it says, but do read the actual article, it is worth it:

For a "Change-Turnout-New Voter" Election, Bill Richardson Should Be VP Choice
by Paul Abrams, The Huffington PostFirst, experience:

Governor Richardson has been nominated 5 times for the Nobel Peace Prize, is loved by labor, is highly experienced in foreign policy having negotiated successfully with the worst regimes, has been an extremely successful Governor of a red-state growing jobs/improving education/raising teachers' salaries/raising wages and re-elected with 68% of the vote, is a former Energy Secretary -- one of the critical issues for at least 2 decades to come -- is pro-2nd Amendment, hails from the West... and, he also happens to be Latino.

Second, changing the electoral map:

Let us turn again, then, to the electoral map. Even without increased registrations, Richardson's presence on the ticket, as a highly successful Western, Latino Governor, would turn Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico blue and put Florida back in play.

On last thing, it ends with this:

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the progressive politics of change to win a landslide victory, change forever the map of American politics, and deliver on policies that the majority of Americans have wanted for decades, and to make the world a better and safer place.

Or, we could put a relic of the 90s on the ticket, kill our "change" message, kill our ability to say we opposed the war from the beginning, energize the Republicans, ruin our electoral chances, shrink the board, and stick ourselves with 4-8 years of intra-White House bickering and sabotage (if we somehow got that far). I think taking that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and going with Richardson is a far better choice. For me, that is the real "dream ticket".

Alright, I suck at doing positive, so check out my blog here to see why the nightmare ticket is a horrible idea.

Obama-Richardson '08

Obama Clearly Won Texas, It's Official

Let's step into my magic time machine, and visit the Clintons in the leadup to the March 4th elections.

Bill said:

If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be.

Chelsea said:

I think we do have to win in Texas.

Carville said (emphasis mine):

She’s behind. Make no mistake. If she loses either Texas or Ohio, this thing is done.

Alright, so lets fast forward to election night. Hillary narrowly wins the primary in her firewall of Texas, but loses the caucus bad, giving Obama a clear net win in Texas. Yet the media, apparently unwilling to be so nuanced (or apparently wanting to keep the Democratic Party split, for profits and for the pro-corporate Republicans), just reported that Hillary had won Texas, and that she made a huge comeback and was still in the race, despite the fact that Obama had clearly come out on top.

Now fast forward back to the present. Yesterday Texas held its district conventions to officially choose the number of delegates each candidate got from the caucuses. Obama's campaign statement says it all (emphasis mine):

AUSTIN - With more than 56% of the results tallied from today's 284 Democratic district conventions across Texas, Senator Barack Obama currently is projected to earn a 38-29 pledged delegate win in the Texas caucuses, exactly as projected on the day after the March 4th precinct caucuses. The nine delegate margin in the caucuses means Obama will gain a net margin of five pledged delegates from Texas because Senator Clinton narrowly won the Texas primary by only four delegates, 65-61.

"Despite the Clinton campaign's widespread attempts to prevent many Texans from participating in their district convention, the voters of Texas confirmed Senator Obama's important delegate win in the Lone Star State," said Obama spokesman Josh Earnest. "Today's record-shattering turnout sends a clear message that the American people are ready for change in Washington and new leadership in the White House that will stand up for working families."

Carville and his wife have decided to pack their bags and leave Washington. He apparently got the memo. I'm still waiting on the media to admit that Hillary didn't even come close to winning Texas. Let's put it this way. Hillary had a big win in Rhode Island, clearly won Rhode Island, no one doubts that. She won Rhode Island by 5 delegates, just as many delegates as Obama beat her by in Texas. This is a clear win, it isn't like they tied, it isn't like it was one delegate, it is a 5 delegate loss for her in a state she HAD TO WIN.

I'm waiting for her withdrawal...any minute now...

Something Stinks In Texas (Again)

FUD in Texas, courtesy of Camp Clinton
by kos

While the Clinton campaign steps up its efforts to ratify the sham elections in Michigan and Florida -- their lone lifeline in a campaign they have otherwise thoroughly lost on the merits -- they seek to disenfranchise actual voters in a real contest -- that in Texas.

On Wednesday:

Garry Mauro, Clinton's state campaign chairman, said Wednesday he is satisfied that the process is working well. Mauro said Clinton is planning no challenge to the process.

Birnberg said he is not expecting many challenges to convention delegates because too many delegates would have to be rejected to change the mix for either Obama or Clinton.

"If you're talking about Senate District 13, which has 4,000 delegates, you cannot imagine how many credential disputes you'd have to have to change" the outcome, he said. "That probably takes 1,000 successful challenges mathematically."

Then on Thursday:

Hillary Rodham Clinton's Texas campaign is challenging the seating of delegates from numerous precincts for Saturday’s Democratic county conventions, particularly in Barack Obama's strongholds.

State Senate District 23, which includes much of southern Dallas County, was a central target of the Clinton campaign.

Just before Wednesday’s deadline to file complaints before the county convention credentials committee, Clinton campaign officials delivered a large packet of challenges.

"There are numerous challenges," said Dallas County District Clerk Gary Fitzsimmons, who is temporary chairman of the District 23 credentials committee. The district went solidly for Mr. Obama in the primary, and there’s a question over whether Mrs. Clinton will reach the 15 percent threshold needed to receive delegates.

The committee meets Thursday night to deal with minor challenges. The rest will be handled on Saturday, the day of the county conventions.

On a conference call Wednesday, Clinton campaign officials said they would not try to influence the county conventions with mass challenges before the credentials committee [...]

"Apparently the promise that the Clinton campaign made less than 24 hours ago not to challenge the seating of delegates at Saturday's district conventions was just another made-up story," [Obama spokesperson Josh] Earnest said. "The Clinton campaign's politically-motivated outrage over disenfranchising voters apparently doesn't extend to the 1.1 million Texans who participated in the precinct conventions earlier this month."

Of course it doesn't. Clinton originally agreed to the sanctions against Michigan and Florida. Yet now, even after the states have admitted they don't have the money, time, or political will to get new sanctioned contests, the Clinton campaign clings to the states in an effort to spread enough uncertainty to keep her failed campaign alive.

Note that in Texas, SD-23 in Dallas is little different than SD-13 in Houston -- Clinton got only about 27 percent of the vote, and only about 18 percent in the caucus. She's in danger of failing to reach viability there and in Houston's SD-13, and those are huge districts. Note also that the district, which the Clinton campaign is trying to disenfranchise, is essentially half African American, half Latino. But every delegate counts, and SD-23 has six of them. They'll fight for every single one of them no matter how many people and communities they disenfranchise.

There are also reports that several south Texas counties, Clinton territory, are refusing to publish the location of the conventions. In the old day, no one showed up to these things, delegate slates were just filled in without hassle by some local party honcho. These people would like nothing else than to fill in a full slate of Clinton delegates without the hassles of "democracy" and all. So between credential challenges and other subterfuge designed to depress Obama's performance and cast the caucus results in doubt, we'll see that once again, Camp Clinton will do and say anything in its mad pursuit of power.

[There have also been reports of robocalls telling people that the county conventions have been canceled.]

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......

About Last Night…

Last night proved a couple of things:

• The media is weak, and when Hillary throws a fit about the media being unfair (even when they haven’t been) they try to compensate by dutifully throwing every bullshit attack they can at Obama, using talking points straight from the Hillary campaign.
  
• After last night’s wins for Hillary, the same media bias that allowed her to still be taken seriously after 11 straight loses (by big margins) kicked in again to make her small victories last night seem like a big deal. It is more true than ever that the media is PATHETIC at putting anything into its proper context and giving the public the full picture.
  
• Voters are idiots. They are easily manipulated by lies and deception, mostly because they don’t pay attention, so they don’t really know what is going on. This is nothing new, the Republicans have been exploiting ignorance like this for decades, and now Hillary has found that she has a knack for the same kind of lies and exploitation (to say nothing of blatant fearmongering).
  
• No one in the media or the Clinton campaign can count to 10.
  
• Hillary will keep on stabbing our party in the back, while continuing to distort reality, and in the end, all for nothing.

So first, the context. After his Super Tuesday wins, Obama won the next 11 states in a row. He won these by large margins, the smallest of which was 17% in Wisconsin. He won states all over the country, and even Democrats overseas. He expanded his existing pledged delegate lead to around 160, which doesn’t sound like much in the big scheme, but it is really huge given that getting a delegate advantage is hard because it takes big wins. So after all these defeats Hillary said defiantly, “Meet me in Texas!” and then a few days later when it became clear that her Texas firewall was not really a firewall anymore, she said defiantly “Meet me in Ohio!”. These were supposed to be her big comeback states, her impenetrable firewalls. Back just a few weeks ago, before Obama had set foot in either state, Hillary had big leads over Obama, 15-25% leads. In just a few weeks, despite Hillary throwing every dirty cheap shot and lie she had at him, Obama managed to cut those 15-25% leads down to the wire. As far as goals went, going into the March 4th contests Hillary needed huge 20+ blowouts in BOTH Texas and Ohio to even have a chance at turning it around (and even then the math didn’t favor her).

So now the results. Obama only lost Texas by four points, and that is just the primary, with the caucus added he is likely to win MORE delegates than Hillary in Texas. Texas was supposed to be a big comeback, a firewall, and she almost lost it. Obama lost Ohio by 10 points, which in context was very impressive given it is a populous state, tailor made for Hillary’s target demographics, and given that just a few weeks before he was more than 20% behind. So Obama won big in Vermont, pretty much canceling out Hillary’s less impressive win in Rhode Island. Texas is basically a draw in delegates, or even a net gain for Obama, so that doesn’t save Hillary from delegate oblivion. And her Ohio win will give her a small handful of delegates. At the end of the day, Hillary’s delegate gain is probably in the single digits. Assumptions are that she’ll end up about 150 behind Obama, and with the two biggest post-Super Tuesday states spent, she doesn’t have any more cash cows to try to milk. Essentially she is worse off than she was yesterday morning. Dylan Loewe recently summed it up nicely over at the Huffington Post:

But Hillary's spin, and the media adoption of that spin, will do little to change an even starker reality this morning: Hillary Clinton cannot win the Democratic nomination. Barack Obama's pledged delegate lead was substantial before Texas and Ohio and will remain materially unchanged in its aftermath. He has cut Clinton's super delegate lead in half since February 5th, and is expected to roll-out as many as fifty more throughout the next few weeks.

So why is it I turn on the TV and hear nothing but pundits regurgitating Hillary campaign talking points like they are going out of style? This morning I heard almost nothing but talk of "Hillary’s big comeback", how this "changes everything", how it is now "anyone's game", how "the momentum is now with Hillary", and how "Obama maintains he is still winning" (said exactly as if they were reporting that Mike Huckabee still maintains he is going to make a big comeback, despite the fact Obama is still obviously way ahead). So really, what the hell is going on? The math is even more against her today than it was yesterday. Three small cosmetic victories after 11 huge loses (none of her victories last night, even her easy win in Rhode Island were nearly as big as his smallest victory in that 11 win streak), with barely any measurable change in the numbers against her, and all of the sudden the media is playing this like Obama got his ass kicked, like voters are questioning Obama now, like voters have rejected Obama, even though he wasn't even supposed to come close to beating her in these states just a few weeks ago! The media also likes to point out how Obama outspent Hillary 2-1 in these states, as if that somehow makes her wins in her firewalls somehow more impressive, and Obama's defeat somehow more stinging. I wish they could use their flair for context by pointing out he had an uphill fight against her and Bill in two states that were strongly tilting for Hillary just weeks ago. But no, I’m sorry, that would show a huge media bias in favor of Obama. It is kind of the same way the media saying there are no WMDs in Iraq is liberal bias in favor of Democrats (and coincidentally anti-American and pro-terrorist). But the media is so afraid after Hillary’s tirades about bias and two stupid and ridiculous SNL skits, that they need to overcompensate some more by biasing everything ridiculously in Hillary’s favor. I’ve previous written about how the anti-Hillary media bias argument is total rubbish, and that if anything the media has been utterly submissive to her campaign by failing to so much as question her experience argument (the foundation of her entire campaign) at all. Now these complete and utter distortions of reality are further proof of those in the media tripping over each other to see who can do their job the least effectively. They have gotten to the point where they are doing little more than repeating words straight out of Hillary’s mouth.

Here is a fun example of something the media has been parroting today. Last night in Hillary’s 3/4 victory speech she said "We need a candidate who can win swing states”, and went on to list every state she won (of course, all important, and all swing states apparently -- what happened to the 27 contests Obama has won, who knows?). Now I couldn’t agree more with Hillary, we DO need a candidate who can win swing states. However, I’m sorry to say Hillary, that isn’t you. While the media is hard at work making Hillary’s superior electability "conventional wisdom", lets try a different approach and actually use our heads. So here is Hillary’s list of swing states (states that matter) according to Hillary:

• Florida – A swing state, yes. One that Hillary can win in November? Not according to the polls. But then neither can Obama according to the same polls. What is important here is that Obama hasn’t campaigned in Florida yet, so his numbers are likely to rise significantly in the general, whereas Hillary and McCain are already well known there. So it says something that even given all of the advantages in Florida that Hillary enjoys, she can’t do any better against McCain there than a lesser known Obama.
  
• Michigan – Even though Hillary "won" Michigan unopposed, she can only hope to tie (44%-44%) McCain there in the general, while Obama wins Michigan easily 47% to 39%. So much for primaries equaling general election chances.
  
• New Hampshire – Not what I’d call a swing state. But since she brought it up, according to the polls Hillary can only beat McCain there 43% to 41%, while Obama can easily beat McCain, 49% to 36%, not even close. Again, the data doesn’t back up Hillary’s ridiculous claims.
  
• Nevada – Not a swing state, that’s a red state, and neither Democrat needs to carry it. But for the record, Obama can, and Hillary can’t, once again. Obama beats McCain easily, 50% to 38%, while McCain easily deposes of Hillary, 49% to 40%. Again, Hillary is dead wrong.
  
• Arizona – I hate to break it to you Hillary, but Arizona is a red state, and home to John McCain, do you really think you are going to carry that in November? Don’t think so. And it isn’t a swing state anyway.
  
• Arkansas – Not a swing state, another red state. This is her home state, if she could carry it, great, if not, oh well, doesn’t really matter. I haven’t seen any polls on this, but it really doesn’t matter.
  
• California – Am I supposed to be impressed you can carry California in the general? Dennis Kucinich could carry California in the general. Just because you beat Obama by a not very big margin (especially considering her boost from the early voters), doesn’t mean Obama can’t easily win California. And for the record, Obama actually does better than you in California. Hillary beats McCain by 23%, Obama beats him by 27%.
  
• Massachusetts – Not a swing state, same as California, any Democrat could carry it so I’m equally not convinced it matters.
  
• New Jersey – Same as California and Massachusetts.
  
• New Mexico – Not a swing state, but for the record, even though Hillary barely won their primary, she loses the state bad to McCain (50% to 38%), while Obama actually has a decent chance of winning this state (tied, 44%-44%). Again, Hillary is trying to deceive voters by saying she is more electable because she won these primaries.
  
• New York – Definitely not a swing state, and even though Hillary won the primary here, and even though this is her “home” state, Obama actually does much better in NY than Hillary! Hillary only beats McCain by 11%, whereas Obama beats him by 21%. Ouch..
  
• Oklahoma – Not a swing state and there is no way in hell either Dem will carry Oklahoma in the general.
  
• Tennessee – Basically the same as Oklahoma.
  
• Ohio – An actual swing state, woo! But uh-oh, even though Hillary just won here, Obama actually does better in the general! According to the polls Obama narrowly beats McCain, 48% to 47% (I bet he can do better in the general though), while Hillary loses 51% to 47%. There goes that theory Hillary!
  
• Rhode Island – Not a swing state and either can easily win this.
  
• Texas – Not a swing state, it is red and neither need to win it, and neither probably can.

So as we can see, Hillary’s argument that she is the best to beat McCain in the general based on her winning "swing" states, or "big" states, or "important" states, simply does not hold any water whatsoever. It is obvious she can’t carry the states she has won nearly as well as Obama can, and most of the states she has won are either states any Democrat could carry in the general, or states that she can’t carry in the general. Yet nevertheless, no matter how obvious it is that her "states that matter" argument is, the media dutifully eats it up, shits it out, and serves it to the voters like it is gourmet. My question is, why? Are they really that stupid? Do they not know any better? Are they so lazy they don’t do any research? Or are they purposefully dropping the ball to help Hillary, or, are they doing it so Hillary doesn’t yell at them again or so the big bad SNL doesn’t make fun of them again? It is hard to say, because the media has always been incompetent, even in matters totally unrelated to politics, but at least in the beginning of this race, they were equally incompetent and lazy toward both candidates. However, now that Hillary has attacked them for apparently not being lazy enough, they are working overtime to pander to Hillary, while they recycle every bullshit anti-Obama non-story or accusation that comes out of the Hillary campaign in order to overcompensate for some pretend past lapse in scrutiny. And so we have them going after Obama based on distortions and conjecture, while there are tons of painfully obvious questions they should be asking Hillary, but refuse to, for instance:

• What exactly about your “35 years of experience” is so superior to Obama’s experience? And be specific.
  
• When have you been tested in the sort of crisis situation you refer to in your “3am ad”? (and after she can’t come up with an answer) Then do you think it is unfair to attack Obama as being untested when he has been tested just as much as you?
  
• Why do you refuse to release your tax returns before you secure the nomination? Obama released his months ago, why do you refuse, especially considering you put $5 million of your money into your campaign?
  
• Nearly all of the general election polls have consistently shown you would have a hard time beating John McCain even in blue states, like Minnesota, the only state to vote against Reagan in 1984, whereas the same polls consistently show Obama easily beating McCain. Give this, how do you explain this contradiction with your claims of superior electability, and if you really had the best interests of the Democratic Party at heart, wouldn't you want them to nominate the most electable candidate?

But anyway, we can’t really count on the media to do its job, so what can be done? Well I’ve been trying to do my part, as have other bloggers, by trying to set the record straight. Obama has done an amazing job at running a clean campaign, no matter how many dirty shots Hillary, Bill and their campaign take at Obama, he takes the high road. People often fail to realize that he has basically done all of this with one hand tied behind his back, because unlike Hillary, he cares about what is best for the Democratic Party, and doesn’t want to stab a colleague in the back. Well now there is evidence that the gloves are coming off (or I guess you could say he is going to untie his other hand). From campaign managed David Axelrod last night:

If Sen. Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we'll join that debate. We'll do it on our terms and in our own way but if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that stuff issues, as I've said before I don't know why they'd want to go there, but I guess that's where they'll take the race.

Uh-oh, the obvious response to her bullshit attacks against Obama: let’s take a look at what’s in the Clinton closet! Here, according to the Associated Press:

A senior Obama adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama's team will respond to Tuesday's results by going negative on Clinton -- raising questions about her tax records and the source of donations to the Clinton presidential library, among skeletons in the Clintons' past.

Now I don’t like it being called “going negative”, because unlike Hillary, they aren’t seeking to make up issues, or distort facts, deceive the voters, or resort to the other types of underhanded negative tactics of the Clinton campaign, they are simply going to start pointing out the obvious facts that the media has failed to do, and that they have avoided doing up to this point for the most part. Asking her about the tax records isn’t negative, it is fair. Asking where their money is coming from since they are financing parts of their campaign with it isn’t negative, it is about transparency and accountability. Obama has also directly indicated that he intends to start pressing the obvious questions that Hillary has gotten a free pass on:

I hope people start asking, what exactly is this foreign experience she is claiming," he said. "Was she handling crises during this period of time? I haven't seen any evidence that she is more equipped to handle a crisis.

She made the experience argument and her ability to handle a crisis, so I think it is important to examine that claim and not just allow her to assert it," he added. "She has made the argument that she is thoroughly vetted. If the suggestion is somehow that on issue of ethics or disclosure or transparency that she is somehow going to have a better record than I have or could (better) withstand Republican attack, then that should be tested.

I couldn’t agree more. Fired up! Ready to go!!

Wake Me When It's Over

I can't stand to hear the punditry try to spin this race into cotton candy.

These are the facts:

• Hillary lost 11 races in a row, and lost them bad.
  
• Hillary is so far behind in delegates, that even if she won Texas and Ohio by 10 points each, she couldn't even begin to start catching up to Obama.
  
• Almost all of the states ahead favor Obama, tonight was Hillary's last chance to pick up a lot of delegates, and she didn't do it.
  
• Hillary positioned Texas and Ohio as firewalls, they were supposed to stop Obama dead in his tracks and be her big comeback. It turns out he either did beat her, or nearly beat her, in Texas, and came pretty close in Ohio. That's not a firewall, that is tissue paper.
  
• The pundits are tripping over themselves to ask if this is a repudiation of Obama, a rejection (this is mostly Joe Scarborough, a Republican douchebag), a sign he can't seal the deal, while they are overlooking the obvious fact just a few weeks ago he was behind in both of these states by 20-30%, and now he has all but destroyed that margin, and just in a few weeks, while Hillary was desperately throwing everything she could at him. That is NOT a repudiation, that is NOT a loss of momentum, he kicked her ass considering where he was just a short time ago.
  
• The pundits won't shut up about needing to win big states in November, while totally overlooking the fact that winning a primary doesn't reflect the general election outcome. Look to the polls (and use a little common sense), and while far off, they still show that Obama is MUCH stronger in almost every state (with the exception of Florida, where Obama hasn't been able to campaign yet) than Hillary against McCain. I don't know if these people are trying to be deceptive, or if they really are that stupid.
  
• The pundits are right about one thing, Hillary staying in this race is hurting the Democrats, and if she keeps this up until Pennsylvania, it is going to tear the party apart. Someone said it, I don't remember who, probably Olbermann or Matthews, but someone raised the question, if Hillary goes on, does this not show that she cares more about herself than she does about the party. Thank you for catching up, that much has been obvious for weeks now.

Having said that, I have to get up early tomorrow, I can't stand to hear these idiots try to find any reason to say Hillary's campaign has an ice cube's chance in hell of winning, so I'm going to try to sleep. I'll go over the results in the morning..

Something Stinks In Texas

This is interesting, here is a Report by the Dallas Morning New which talks about the training materials the Hillary campaign is sending out to its precinct captains for caucus night:

The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."

It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serve as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness.

"The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions."

I guess if you aren't likely to win an election, you might as well try to control it and be in a position to hijack the system. Now this might seem harmless, or relatively harmless, on the surface, because, after all, would the Clinton campaign really abuse power to their advantage? Well, of course. The last important contested caucus we had was in Nevada (you know, the one where the Clinton campaign tried to sue to disenfranchise thousands of union members because they had voted to endorse Obama a day before). In the aftermath of that disastrous event came a deluge of reports of malfeasance by the Clinton campaign. I encourage you to read this kos diary which does an amazing job at documenting many of the violations of rules and ethics by the Clinton campaign, here are some examples of what went down:

• Obama voters being turned away from a caucus site


• Obama voters being told to fill out voter cards in the lobby until noon while Clinton supporters were invited in the caucus room--then the doors being shut on the Obama supporters because they weren't in the room


• Interference on the part of State Party officials to cheat on behalf of Clinton


• Voter cards being filled out in advance for Clinton and given to all voters, regardless of support


• Voter cards being used in the place of actual headcounts to tally votes


• The Clinton campaign setting up signs against the rules


• Clinton supporters managing the voter registration process, and threatening to call the police when Obama volunteers requested equal access


• Other general bad behavior and bad faith moves by the Clinton team--and more besides.

Now this shows what the Clinton campaign and their people will do in order to try to win. They are mean, they are antagonistic, and now we know why, they were told to take control of everything and run the caucus their way. Again, these are just examples of SOME of what happened, but it is in no way a comprehensive report. I think there is good reason to expect that this will happen again on Tuesday in Texas, and the blogosphere WILL be reporting. We cannot let democracy be hijacked like this. Caucuses are supposed to be about political engagement and community, they are supposed to bring people in the community together and facilitate discussion, and Hillary wants to run them like war zones. She will do anything to win, she has proven that time and time again. And if you want another example of what can happen when her loyalists control the process, just look at New York City where 80 districts, many of them heavily African American showed ZERO votes for Obama. 80 is not a huge coincidence, 80 is malfeasance. For this reason we can't let Hillary get away with trying to dominate the electoral process so she can disenfranchise voters.

Also keep in mind that Hillary has been threatening lawsuits against the Texas Democratic Party in order to delay the results of the caucuses so as to keep them from being headline news (if/when she loses).

Update: Word on the street:

The Clinton camp is telling folks to arrive at the caucus at 6:30 and Obama is stressing 7:00pm.

This was forwarded to me. Please pass this around to all your Texas Groups and anyone you know in the media! I was wondering today why Hillary was telling her supporters to be at the caucus at 6:30!

In addition to the comments below, be aware that the potential impact of this is that a full parking lot at 6:30 PM could dissuade late Obama voters from casting their Primary ballot because they cannot find a parking space. This could be considered impeding voting.

For Obama Precinct Captains who are monitoring their voting location on March 4 (100 feet from the polling location until 7:00 pm or until the last voter is done) stay alert and report any questionable activities to the election judge and call the Obama Precinct Captain Hotline for election day questions and concerns at 1-877-48-OBAMA (62262) or the Texas Democratic Precinct Convention at 1-800-336-3254.

"Clinton has been telling her supporters to show up at 6:30 [Dallas/Mesquite speech on Saturday, March 1], while Obama keeps stressing 7:00. I'm afraid there's going to be some shenanigans involving closing the doors at caucus sites when at capacity or at 7:15 PM whichever comes first. There was a similar gambit run in Nevada where the Clinton camp shut out a good number of caucus goers by barring the doors.

Anybody who has got a line on Obama folks or Texas caucus goers please pass along the heads up to show up early and not to get muscled. Know your rights!

Compounding this issue is the possibility there may not be enough caucus chairs to go around for the 8,000 sights leading to the 1st person in the door being the caucus arbiter (TDP's apparent policy).

Again let's try to get the word out about this possibility as there is no doubt the Clinton camp is going to try to game this one.

Update (3/3): There have also been reports that Hillary has resorted to paying people (who happen to be black) to hold signs on street corners supporting her in Texas. If true, this means that Hillary can't even find enough serious supporters to hold signs for her. Ouch. At other points in this campaign I have heard of her resorting to paid "volunteers" to do work that tons of unpaid volunteers from the Obama campaign have been doing. It seems she may very well have a problem in the inspiring department.

"Meet Me In Texas--err Ohio--errr...Somewhere!"

Before the dust had even settled in the Potomac after her crushing one-two-three defeat there on February 12th, Hillary had a new challenge for Barack Obama: "Tell him to meet me in Texas. We're ready." Beyond Hillary characteristically diminishing the worth of the states she had just lost (which we've come to expect), she even managed, in one sentence, to diminish the worth of two states she hadn't lost yet, Hawaii and Wisconsin. Burn.

So Hillary was all set to make her last stand at the Alamo. "We're ready" she taunted, with arrogance strongly reminiscent of Bush's ill-fated "Bring ‘em on" taunt to the Iraqi insurgency just months after invading Iraq. Cut to 5 years and 4,000 dead American soldiers later, it seems the arrogance was a little presumptuous. And as with many other instances as of late, as goes Bush, so goes Hillary.

By the morning hours of February 22nd, just 10 days after her "meet me in Texas" taunt to Barack, she sounds a little different: "You know, I'd love to carry Texas but it's usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee." Quite the change in rhetoric from the person who just a week before was explaining to the country that people in Texas represent most Americans more than the people in places Obama has won. So what happened in those 10 days that caused Hillary to throw Texans under the bus before they even realized they were supposed to count? Well it turns out a lot of things.

First, for a candidate running on the message that only one candidate (her, supposedly) has the experience to be "ready on Day One", she has run a pretty horrible campaign. She somehow managed to start the race off with every possible advantage, and lose it all to a candidate who came into the race with nearly every possible disadvantage, and she managed to lose it bad. In Texas this failure first took the form of not knowing, until recently, about the unique Texas prima-caucus system that was going to make it nearly impossible for her to rack up a strong delegate lead over Obama there (oops). This isn't too surprising coming from the same person who failed to read the NIE report on Iraqi WMD (or lack thereof) before following Bush like a little sheep and voting to allow him to invade Iraq. Next, her organizing in Texas has been crap, just as it has been in most other states. Their on the ground effort in Texas has been described as chaotic, aimless, and more colorfully, "a clusterfuck". The Clintons also seemed to have the benefit of one of Texas’ historically black universities having its polling places taken away, yet in an amazing display of democracy in action, thousands of black students marched over seven miles to the nearest poll to vote and protest disenfranchisement.

Secondly, she again underestimated the unmatchable appeal of Barack Obama (while at the same time vastly overestimating her appeal). In state after state we have seen that she can only lead in places where he hasn't spent much time, but as soon as he sets foot on the ground and starts meeting with people, they love him. The most time the Clintons spend around people, the opposite happens. In Texas, Obama quickly went from being behind by double digits to shooting ahead of Hillary in the span of a couple weeks. He also got the endorsement of all five major Texas newspapers. In less than two weeks, Obama has made what looked like a safe, if narrow, win in Texas for Hillary, into a very possible win for him. So where does Hillary go from here after both Bill and Chelsea have said that Texas is a "must win" state for Hillary (no matter how many times her campaign denies ever saying it is "must win")?

Well the very next day after diminishing the importance of Texas in her grand strategy, Hillary gives us a hint of what’s to come: "Meet me in Ohio!!"

You can't make this kind of irony up.

Oh, and Ohio isn’t looking all that great for her either.

Wait for "Meet me in Rhode Island! We’re ready!!"

"Encuéntreme en Puerto Rico!"

Any day now…

Update: The trouble keeps on piling on for Hillary. Former Democratic Texas governor Mark White endorsed Obama today saying he believes Obama has "essentially become America's candidate. You see people from all walks of life, rich and poor, every color reflected, every ethnicity. There's enthusiasm, hope. He will not only be nominated, he will be elected president. He will be America's president."

Update from the Future: Well, Hillary ended up just narrowly winning the primary in the firewall of Texas, yet got her ass kicked in the caucus, so really Obama won Texas, came out with a couple more delegates, yet the media reported it as a huge Hillary win. Now it is "Meet me in Pennsylvania!"