I live in Connecticut and frankly you could not come up with a better choice in terms of quality in my mind than Chris Dodd. A fine gentleman, an honorable and experienced man.

One caveat on the write up: when Chris was born his father was a special assistant to the United States Attorney General and subsequently went on to become a prosectutor at Nueremberg.

He was elected to the House in 1952 but he wasn't elected to the Senate until 1958.

Posted at June 6, 2008 8:32 AM in response to Chris Dodd for Vice President

Ickes statement was factually incorrect at best! None of the voters were voting to seat a single delegate in Michigan.

Posted at May 31, 2008 8:27 PM in response to In Blow To Hillary, DNC Agrees To Seat Florida And Michigan Delegations At Half-Votes

I hate to break the news to Ickes and the rest of Hillary's team: the question over Michigan had nothing to do with the will of the voters. Ickes argued that it was unfair to take delegates away from a candidate who won them.

He's an idiot. No candidate in Florida or Michigan won a delegate through the votes taken in either state. The primaries there didn't count, were not primaries and the voters were NOT voting to apportion delegates.

Frankly, Hillary should be glad she received any consideration of the challenge. Michigan flat out broke the rule and probably shouldn't have been given any delegates. And if the voters in Mich wanted to be mad at someone, they could be mad at the idiots in their own state legislature who voted for the law in the first place and then refused to change it when the ramifications became obvious.

And that's the fact - Michigan flat out chose to violate the rule. While I have a great amount of respect for Senator Levin, he and Michigan need to stop whining. I understand they aren't happy with Iowa and New Hampshire starting off the process every year. They make a valid argument. In response to Michigan's issues in 04, a commission considered the issue, decided to bring two other states into the pre-window period, and assigned NH the fourth spot. NH asked for a waiver, pursuant to the rules and received one. Michigan asked for a waiver pursuant to the rules and was denied. At that point Michigan decided the rules no longer mattered.

Michigan's respect for the rules is as believable as Hillary's claims that caucuses are unfair. In other words, neither complained until they didn't like the outcome. (I don't think Hillary was claiming caucuses didn't matter when she was trying to win Iowa!).

Posted at May 31, 2008 8:24 PM in response to In Blow To Hillary, DNC Agrees To Seat Florida And Michigan Delegations At Half-Votes

I join with everyone in wishing him the best in his treatment and recovery. I'm not old enough to remember his brothers, so when I say the Kennedys are inspiring its really the Senator that I think about. I was ten years old when he ran in 1980. Obviously I wasn't capable on knowing the issues or debates between him and Carter, but I could damn well tell who was the inspiration and had the passion. Great man though he is it wasn't Carter - it was Kennedy.

Even today, almost thirty years later, and over forty years after he got to the Senate, there is no one who can inspire hope, optimism and a sense that the fight is right like he can. (though you can see some of that in Obama)

Best wishes and Godspeed Senator.

Posted at May 20, 2008 2:58 PM in response to A word of strength for Senator. Kennedy

I agree with Redshift to a point that, technically, there is a difference between all over and all over but the shouting. That said, the difference is so slim as to be invisible to the naked eye.

The Hillary has a chance and why are you bailing on her nonsense needs to stop. She has a right to continue, agreed. That said its over. yes, I know its disappointing but its over. He has the nomination - at this point its inevitible - frankly even if he came completely derailed by something the nomination couldn't be undone until the convention anyway.

In basketball you foul in the last few minutes hoping to stop the clock, hope the opponent doesn't score and that you can score quick to close the gap. BUT you don't do that when its under a minute and you are down by 25 - there's no point to it, it annoys the fans, and frankly its a waste of time. Anyone complaining about NARAL's endorsement at this point is committing a foul when down by 25 and there's 5 seconds on the clock. Its little more than willfully refusing to see reality.

Posted at May 15, 2008 2:13 PM in response to NARAL Affiliates Question Mothership's Endorsement Of Obama

The original post has something exactly right: Howard Dean has done something very well - two things actually. 1st the 50 state strategy has been brilliant for all the obvious reasons of rebuilding the party and making the R's fight on their own turf for a change.

Bigger thing done right: and this is only partially Dean and partially the DCCC and partially state parties etc. We are running the right Democrats in the right places. I'm probably more left than pro-life/pro-gun Travis Chilers. But lets face it: a pro-life/pro-gun candidates was winning this race, period. I much prefer to have a pro-life/pro-gun Democrat than a pro-life/pro-gun Republican.

I don't need to agree with Childers on every issue (and frankly I'm a little tired of these being the only two defining issues to be a Democrat)

The Democratic party has done an excellent job in 06 and 08 of getting candidates who can actually win in the district they are running in. This is a big part of the 50 state strategy and should not be overlooked.

Posted at May 15, 2008 12:25 PM in response to Why isn't Anyone Talking about Travis Childers?

Its an interesting issue the national organization v. the local chapters.

Several posters indicating that they can't understand why NARAL did this now or why couldn't they wait until the nomination was over.

Folks it is over. This is not a shot at Clinton supporters. Though I voted for Obama in the primary, I could easily support Clinton in a general were she to get the nomination.

The long and short of it is this, though: she cannot get the nomination. Its over, done, through, finished, all over but the crying, the fat lady is signing. . . . pick you own cliche'.

The math has been uniformly horrible for her since the end of February. Ohio, Texas and Penn. did not, and never could, help her enough to offset the 11 in a row she lost in Feb.

The superdelegates are not buying into her arguments about being more electable and are cascading toward him in droves. The most likely reason for this is twofold: one, not a single poll supports her argument and two, the math cannot work out for her, no matter how much she or her supporters would like it to.

She has a right to stay in through June 3rd and she can certainly put up a fight. The facts, however, are not just not in her favor - they are dispositive. There aren't enough delegates of any kind to go out and get.

if John Edwards delegates follow his lead and declare for Obama it would wipe out her win from Tuesday night! actually it would exceed it by 8 - her net 10 to his net 18.

Its time to face facts folks - there was no reason to wait until its decided, because it is decided - its over - Obama won, Hillary did not. Its time to start running a general election and retaking the White House. Chasing dreams of a nomination that is gone is not only illusory, its a waste of time!

Posted at May 15, 2008 12:15 PM in response to NARAL Affiliates Question Mothership's Endorsement Of Obama

Geraldine Ferraro probably isn't a racist - she is however an idiot. If making the statement in the first place wasn't idiotic, then repeating them 400 times was utterly moronic.

While I voted for Obama in the primary, I could easily support Hillary is she gains the nomination. This entire situation is troubling though for exactly reasons Olberman brings up. Her advisors must be on Mars. Talk about the gang that couldn't shoot straight! Its the Apple Dumpling gang minus Tim Conway!!

No strategy post Super Tuesday, no plan for caucuses or caucus states, no realistic estimation for what money would be needed post Super Tuesday etc. etc. etc. I wouldn't let Penn run an election for class president in a one room school house!

A candidate must be able to recognize the instances when they must do something! Alas John Kerry didn't see it with the swift boat liars until it was too late and the fat lady is warming up on Hillary's time to disavow Ferraro. (the only other option would be surgically remove Ferraro's foot from her mouth and her head from her colon!).

Posted at March 13, 2008 9:58 PM in response to Olbermann Special Comment on Ferraro (Ouch!)

I will leave the question about whether in the context reported whether the comment should have been on or off the record to the professionals.

I don't think its crawling out on a limb to say that, right or wrong, this reporter has essentially killed a career. I don't doubt for a minute that she will always have a job but if she thinks she's ever going to have a real interview with any public official or candidate she has completely lost her mind. By real I mean an actual conversational interview, not asking questions at a press conference or the corner of a convention floor. Who would trust her now? and if you can't trust the reporter you are talking to why would you agree to an interview?

Posted at March 8, 2008 7:18 AM in response to The Reporter Who Launched The "Monster" Story Speaks...

I haven't read all of the comments above, so please pardon me if I repeat anything anyone has already said.

While for mass consumption a win is a win is a win. Yet, you could argue that she didn't really "win" all that much. There are two things to consider:

1. If we ignore Vermont and RI for a moment (assuming they cancel each other out as has been reported) she "won" Ohio by 10pts and Texas by about 4pt.

On February 14th - the Qunnipiac Poll had her ahead in Ohio 55:34, Rasmussen had it at 51:37 -

Huge leads that were drawn down to a ten point win in a state that she a.) had to have and b.) was perfectly set up for her campaign, her issues, and her demographics.

On the same date, Rasmussen had Texas with Hillary leading 54:38. Ultimately she wins by 4pts.

Correct me if I'm wrong but when you are ahead by 15 or 20 pts three weeks out - aren't you supposed to win? and wouldn't it be deadly to all of your hopes if you didn't? (Sort of like you happen to have a 7 game lead with 17 games to play and spit the bit like my beloved NY Mets did last year) i.e: if you are up by that much and lose its a complete choke job.

Therefore, it seems that an arugment could be made that by reducing these overwhelming margins, Obama "won" something too - especially since it has real meaning in terms of rendering the delegate split virtually even.

2.) Delegate math - the most important issue - it completely works against her even in the states she "won."

Thus it brings us to a question that isn't as existential as it wounds, what does "win" mean?

She "wins" the primaries in three states and he "wins" the primary in one. Ok good night for Hillary.

Yet: as we've been hearing all along its about delegates, not states (I think that's been a Clinton talking point more than once during the losing streak)- Thus, if we look at it that way: she "wins" delegates in RI and he "wins" in Vermont. Its been reported that they break even between these two. Lets assume that they do.

Now we go to Ohio and Texas. She "wins" both primaries and it looks like he "wins" the Texas caucus. Good night for Hillary. Yet - There is almost no chance the math actually works for her in the end. The Ohio race turned out to be about 10% - assuming of course that they managed to count all of the votes in Cleveland (why does it always take so long there?).

Ten point wins do not seem to be resulting in major delagate differences in prior contests. I haven't heard any reason to assume otherwise here. Thus while she will pick up a few here - I doubt it will be all that many.

On to Texas: the allocation of delagates based on turnout in the last election means some State Senate districts have far more delegates to award than others. Under this structure, winning the state is useful for the press and a sense of momentum, but for all practical purposes its irrelevant. It matters where you got your votes. (Kind of like the electoral college but, if possible, more confusing).

Add in the fact that Obama is likely to pick up a few extra in the caucus portion and he is likely to wind up picking up more delegates in Texas regardless of who "wins" the state.

Thus - why did she win - really isn't the question - its did she "win" and you can't answer that until you define what "win" means.

I realize these issues seem to split hairs and minimize what she did last night - don't think for one minute though that the superdelegates won't ask these questions. While what is a "win" isn't a question the average voter is likely to ask, it is one that a super will ask. These are mostly experienced and hardended political people - they understand what it means when you close a twenty point gap to 4 pts in three weeks and they understand the concept of who wins more delegates etc.

Posted at March 5, 2008 11:38 AM in response to Why'd She Win?