Subscribe via RSS Feed

"The tree of progressive politics must be watered with the metaphorical blood of sellouts"

[ 7 ] February 13, 2008 |

I think this correctly assesses the significance of Donna Edwards defeating Al Wynn in the primaries last night, with the caveat that I get the sense that Wynn and a lot of blue dogs aren’t so much sellouts as just straightforward conservative hacks. Either way, while you have to live with blue dogs in conservative districts there’s no reason to tolerate them when they waste safe seats.

Meanwhile, although I am amused that Rudy!’s campaign manager has endorsed Clinton’s campaign strategy, presumably as recently consistent with his own (“1.Lose state after state by resounding margins. 2. ? 3. Victory!”), I also agree that burials of Clinton are very premature. Evidently, she’s not comparable to Giuliani, as 1)she’s actually won several important states, and 2)she’s a good campaigner well-liked by Democratic primary voters. Obama deserves to be favored because he’s generally increased his support as he’s had time to campaign (a primary reason, of course, why trying to claim that Florida can be treated like a normal primary just because lots of people voted is silly.) But Clinton can at least take a very close race to the superdelegates if she pulls of strong wins in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and these states are demographically favorable states in which she leads in the polls. These leads may evaporate as her leads in a lot of other states have, but until they actually do she has a reasonable chance of winning, and her buy option at 25 is probably a decent bet.

Share with Sociable

No You Can’t

[ 0 ] February 13, 2008 |

A parodic McCain response to the viral Obama Yes We Can video.

I particularly like the signer.

Share with Sociable

Alan Keyes Watch

[ 20 ] February 13, 2008 |

So Alan Keyes wasn’t on the Republican ballot in either Virginia or the District of Columbia. Nevertheless, with nearly 70% of Maryland’s precincts reporting (9:26 PM Alaska time), he’s locked in a battle with Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson for fifth place.

I’m going to stay up all night if I need to, but after the ass-kicking he delivered to both of them in Kansas last week, I’m confident the 500-vote gap will disappear and Keyes will be wearing their ears on a necklace by tomorrow morning. (This is a guy, you’ll recall, who wasn”t afraid to expel his lesbian daughter from the family, so I doubt a pair of has-beens are going to keep him down.) If my predictions hold true, Keyes will have beaten four candidates who lacked the oysters to continue fighting, leaving Mittens as the only withdrawn candidate to out-poll him in the Potomac. This, to use a term of art, is what’s known in the political trade as “momentum.”

Earlier in the week, Alan Keyes was understandably buoyant about his prospects of winning the Republican nomination through a brokered convention. In an interview with The Beaumont [Texas] Enterprise, he quickly brushed past the question of whether he could actually overtake McCain before the party gathers this summer in Minneapolis St. Paul.

Of course I can. I am both the most experienced in every respect, and the best candidate. I proved that back in 2000, when I won every single Republican debate.

I think it is just a matter of getting the word out, from the grassroots to the media, to overcome the effort of the elite to destroy the freedom of choice of the American people.

If you don’t see the choice, be the choice. Americans should not accept the other choices. We are the masters of the political realm in this country, not a bunch of self-serving elites.

People should step forward and offer leadership. I happen to be in a positon to do that, it is not only my right, it is my obligation.

When the history of this political season is written, I’m confident the Keyes campaign will have completely revolutionized the way we think about the nomination process. Unlike Fred Thompson, for example — who blew his wad fighting in vain for an early-stage victory in South Carolina — Alan Keyes is a patient man. And unlike the Mayor of 9/11, Keyes has wisely chosen not to spend tens of millions of dollars only to pull in one lonely convention delegate. In preparation for the state’s March 4 primary, he’s campaigning non-stop in Texas, hoping to catch the rest of the Republican field when they’ve either given up or taken victory for granted. He’s got a lot to overcome, of course. The media treat him as if he were some kind of clown, and even the political futures markets ignore him, which is a total mound of fucking bullshit, since Alan Keyes is the only candidate who actually believes in free markets.

Anyhow, the next few weeks will be crucial for the Keyes campaign. He’ll be spending Valentine’s Day at the Houston Pachyderm Club (look for him in the Spaghetti Warehouse room) before heading to League City for a Friday evening engagement at the Shrine of the True Cross Church. And if anyone knows Mike Kinsky — Keyes’ point man in Southeast Houston — you’ve probably received your invitation to the reception he’s generously hosting at his home.

In case you’re not quite as worked up as you should be about this, go listen to “Yes Keyes Can!” — an excellent mash-up from fellow Keyes enthusiast Undercover Black Man.

. . . UPDATE (6:34 AM): A recount is in order. Like the man says, “If you can’t see the change, be the change.”

Share with Sociable

Preview of the First Republican Attack Ad

[ 18 ] February 13, 2008 |

Barack Obama’s last name rhymes with “Osama”…. as in Osama Bin Laden.

Barack Obama’s middle name is “Hussein”… just like Saddam Hussein.

Barack Obama says that he’s fought on the streets of Chicago… just like Al Capone.

Do we really need a President who’s worse than Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Al Capone combined?

Vote John McCain for President.

Share with Sociable

Potomac Tuesday Open Thread

[ 18 ] February 13, 2008 |

After New Hampshire, no blowout predictions or any such thing from me. However, VA already called for Obama.

…D.C. called for Obama at 8:00:01. This is probably not surprising.

…Democratic turnout appears to be roughly double Republican turnout. In Virginia. To put it more clearly, right now Obama is receiving more than 3x the votes of McCain. I know that the Republican race is supposed to be over, and that might depress turnout, but still…

…ROB: is it just my imagination, or is Pat Buchanan making sense? While I hope that the campaign doesn’t go negative, I think he’s right that in order to win Clinton needs to go on the attack right now. She’s not going to out-positive or out-likable Obama at this point.

…ROB: And for crying out loud, can’t either of them come up with a campaign song that’s not by U2?

Share with Sociable

Please Please Please

[ 0 ] February 13, 2008 |

If Huckabee wins Virginia, this will be the happiest day of my life.

….er, except for my wedding day. Ahem.

UPDATE: McCain up by ~150 votes with 29% reporting. Shut the counting down now!

Share with Sociable

Why Pantload Will Be Voting for McCain

[ 15 ] February 12, 2008 |

Shorter Pantload, explaining why conservatives just might want to reconsider their loathing of John McCain:

Tobias: You know, Lindsay, as a therapist, I have advised a number of couples to explore an open relationship where the couple remains emotionally committed, but free to explore extra-marital encounters.

Lindsay: Well, did it work for those people?

Tobias: (chuckles) No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but…. But it might work for us

Share with Sociable

Campaigns And Rules Matter!

[ 57 ] February 12, 2008 |

Josh Patashnik notes the vote-predicting regressions run by Pablano, which suggest that “if a normal campaign had been conducted in Florida just like everywhere else, there would have been a 12-to-14 point swing in Obama’s favor.” In some sense, this data is superfluous, because outside the necessity for desperate ad hoc pro-Clinton spin nobody would argue that no-stakes straw polls produce the same results as actual elections, or that campaigns in primary elections don’t matter. It should also be obvious that to cite the raw level of turnout as a reason why the non-election should be retroactively counted is to commit the same fallacy as the Literary Digest poll with a 2.3 million sample that had Alf Landon in a landslide over FDR in 1936. Not only would the size of the electorate had been different in a real election, but the composition of the electorate would different because vote preferences aren’t static.

Meanwhile, since we’re likely to hear more such desperation if Clinton doesn’t do well today, I suppose I should address this:

[A]n all time record voted.

Obama lost be 300,000 votes.

He lost. There will NOT be a new selection process.

Obama was ON the ballot.

Throw these results out at your peril. Florida will be lost to us.

Even if you agree that fundamental norms of fairness and legality should be violated to change the rules ex post facto to benefit a particular candidate and count a non-election as an election, this argument that we can’t afford to alienate Florida fails on its own terms because it ignores the obvious costs of such an action. Would a marginal increase in Democratic prospects in Florida be worth a convention battle that would tear the party apart? This is, to put it mildly, implausible. And, moreover, the assumption about Florida itself it highly dubious. What do you think that, for example, African-American turnout would be in Florida given the widespread (and correct) perception that Clinton stole the nomination? Do you think there’s much of a chance the Dems could win Florida under this conditions? Of course not. This dilemma might be a good argument that the DNC’s action against Florida was excessive, but to just change the rules in a way that would allow delegates from a non-election in Florida to determine the nominee would compound the error in numerous ways.

This may be unduly optimistic, but having said this I’m not too worried about this happening; I don’t think the people responsible for determining this have the kind of death wish for the party that some Clinton supporters do. The superdelegates will ratify any candidate with a significant lead in pledged delegates, the Michigan and Florida non-primaries will not count towards pledged delegates, and the delegates from these states will not be seated unless they can’t affect the outcome of the nominating process.

Share with Sociable

More on Axe

[ 59 ] February 12, 2008 |

Following up on D, Axe has perhaps taken it to a new misogynistic low with their newest add (and here you didn’t think they could go any lower). Behold:

As Jezebel says, the ad “stinks worse than their crappy cologne.” Anyone else think Barack Obama could sue for defamation simply because the company implies that he wears the stuff? Apparently McCain could too.

Share with Sociable

It’s The Media

[ 0 ] February 12, 2008 |

I agree with my colleagues about Krugman’s latest column, which is really unworthy of him. To add one more point, it should be noted that Krugman adduces exactly two pieces of evidence for his claims that Obama’s supporters are unfairly savaging Clinton. The first is about criticisms of Clinton’s LBJ comments. These criticisms were, I agree, stupid — sort of like Clinton’s surrogates bringing up Obama’s brief use of drugs as a young man — but 1)Krugman supplies no evidence that they’re “venomous,” and 2)the most prominent advancer of this argument was the New York Times op-ed page, a supporter of…Hillary Clinton. The second data point is the comments of David Shuster, which were indefensible but again I’d like to see some evidence that Shuster is an Obama supporter per se. And this is what’s so frustrating about Krugman’s column. It’s great to see someone in his position calling out the Whitewater non-scandal and the media’s treatment of Gore, but Krugman completely buries his very legitimate points about the media’s treatment of the Clintons by shoehorning it into his anti-Obama jihad, where it simply doesn’t belong. I’m sure there are isolated incidents of Obama supporters indulging in sexist attacks on Clinton, but I see no evidence that Obama’s Democratic supporters — as opposed to various media hacks — are generally playing by the “Clinton rules,” and Krugman certainly doesn’t supply any. And the fact that even his random anecdotes don’t actually support his position pretty strongly suggests that his central claim is false.

Share with Sociable

Missing the Forest for the Trees

[ 19 ] February 12, 2008 |

The wingnutty among us are about to go into a frenzy over the fact that a group of volunteers opening an Obama office in Texas (in preparation for actual Obama staffers, who will arrive later this week) placed a Cuban flag with a picture of Che Guevara on the office wall. While considering this crime against humanity, it’s probably useful to recount the following planks of the platform of the Texas State Republican Party:

  • The Party calls for the United States monetary system to be returned to the gold standard. Since the Federal Reserve System is a private corporation, has no reserves, and is not subject to taxation or audit, we call on Congress to abolish this institution and reassume its authority, enumerated by Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, for the coinage of money.
  • The party opposes the decriminalization of sodomy….We publicly rebuke judges Chief Justice Murphy and John Anderson, who ruled that the 100 year-old Texas sodomy law is unconstitutional, and ask that all members of the Republican Party of Texas oppose their re-election.
  • We urge that the IRS be abolished and the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution be repealed. A constitutional tax, collected and controlled by the States, must generate sufficient revenue for the legitimate tasks of the national government.
  • The Party believes the minimum wage law should be repealed.
  • The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations.
  • The Party urges Congress to support HJR 77, the Panama and America Security Act, which declare the Carter-Torrijos Treaty null and void. We support re-establishing United States control over the Canal in order to retain our military bases in Panama, to preserve our right to transit through the Canal, and to prevent the establishment of Chinese missile bases in Panama.

Ask not for whom the batshit crazy in Texas vote; they cast for thee, not me.

Share with Sociable

The Axe Generation

[ 39 ] February 12, 2008 |

I have little to add to this open letter from the Angry Professor to her male students:

Sexy television commercials notwithstanding, Axe body spray does not make you smell irresistible. On the contrary, it makes you smell like rubbing alcohol and pickle juice. Hot chicks would prefer it if you smelled like soap, and you can smell like this simply by taking a shower every morning.

The only thing Axe body spray might be good for is masking the odor of your acne medication. Of course, you wouldn’t need quite so much acne medication if you smelled more like soap.

Oddly enough, I have come to learn that Axe once marketed a variety of the spray known as “Alaska”. I assume the scent was intended to evoke the place rather than the people, but Alaskans being a rough-hewn sort, “rubbing alcohol and pickle juice” wouldn’t actually be too far off the mark.

Share with Sociable