I have liked Dean for years now, too, but with all this mess w/the peninsula states, I have wondered: whose idea was it to deny them their delegates? Presumably, even if it was the rules committee, Dean had a major hand in it. It's hard to avoid hindsight on this one, since things are so different now than they were 6 months ago...but in restrospect, doesn't the idea of withholding the delgates seem like a really dumb one? Did they really think they were going to sail past that one?

It reminds me of disciplining my teenagers - I say, if you do this, I'll make some bad thing happen - and then they do it, and oh sh*t, now I have to make the bad thing happen, and I wish I hadn't said it.

It's great Dean will be around for the next four years, for the reasons stated above, but I'm just surprised he hasn't been hammered more for that decision.

Posted at June 6, 2008 12:57 PM in response to Howard Dean Gets His Due

Who gets to be the half-superdel? Someone not so super? Just kind of semi-super? An apprentice super?

Looks like we'll have to get them to turn the bar TV over to CNN again tonight...should be interesting, but maybe not as exciting as last night's hockey game.

Barack Obama is the Marc-Andre Fleury of politics.

Posted at June 3, 2008 12:35 PM in response to Hillary Campaign: She Will Not Concede Tonight

Very nice, nisleib. It's frighteningly close to being there.

Posted at June 2, 2008 3:50 PM in response to Obama And Hillary Spoke Privately On Sunday Night

There was already a thread on the Obama VP debate, and I posted some of these thoughts there, to little response - but my ego prefers to believe that's because the thread wasn't listed on the front page shortly after I posted (coincidence, I hope)...so undaunted, I'll try again:

I'm just thinking back historically, and I wonder: how often has a VP choice really made the difference in the election? Rarely, I think. IMO, you'd have to go back to JFK/LBJ to make the point that it mattered, and I'm not sure that's even true. And a bad one doesn't hurt: I mean, HW Bush won with Quayle, for God's sake, and there was Nixon/Agnew for 2 terms. (BTW trivia question: who was Humphrey's running mate in '68? Muskie, maybe?)

Now, McCain - there's a guy who needs to take care with his VP pick, because his/her day may come before they know it. But if political calculation is the big issue - is it really a big deal? Assuming Obama doesn't pick Al Sharpton, is it that important?

Posted at May 22, 2008 11:50 AM in response to Obama Begins Veep Selection

OK, lots of discussion on almost all candidates imaginable (except one, down below) but let me ask the more historically inclined: when has the selection of the "right" running mate clearly led to victory?

Seems overstated to me - I know some presidential history but I'm no expert. Looking back, just at the recent winning candidates: Did Cheney help Bush "win"? God knows that he's the best example of a scary VP, but did he really contribute to the win?

Clinton/Gore: two southern white men, what's the dif?

Bush I/Quayle: Yeah, right.

Reagan/Bush I: perhaps an argument can be made, but my gut says no.

Carter/Mondale: H'mm...probably not.

Going way back - Kennedy/Johnson?

Perhaps the better argument is, the wrong choice costs you. But truthfully, I think the whole thing is more of a parlor game for the MSM and political junkies than a deadly serious matter. (McCain's eventual choice being a glaring exception.)

I'd love to hear reactions on this, but I'll play too: what about Bob Casey for VP? He'd carry PA, he's got that white working-class thing going, and he showed real courage backing Obama here in PA. (Tell you what though, the guy's no rocket scientist, but when has that been a big deal for VP?)

Posted at May 8, 2008 2:40 PM in response to So how does Obama graciously NOT name HRC VP?

I cannot look at Donna Brazile without remembering her botched job as head of Gore's campaign - something she has never really owned up to or explained, as far as I know. Also, as I said to the TV last night, why does she get to be a superdelegate?

That said, I enjoyed her spanking of that weenie Begala. However, God willing, this has got to stop soon. HRC wins West Virginia?? CNN trumpeting their coverage of this big primary?? They're milking this for ratings. NOTHING MATTERS NOW. Can't the Clintons/media get this through their heads??

It's clear the Clintons are just treading water while they desperately search for a way to destroy Obama - a task that becomes more difficult every day, as he gains strength. And if somehow they succeed, and the superdels are convinced - can you imagine what that convention will be like? A combination of '68 (fighting in the streets) and '72 (civil war inside). And need I remind everyone, the convention is BARELY TWO MONTHS before the general election.

I'm ranting, and saying little that hasn't been said. Is there no talking to these people at all??? I'm continually amazed. And depressed.

Posted at May 7, 2008 11:50 AM in response to Donna Brazille takes on Paul Begala on CNN

Is this a mouthful: "The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news"? A niche website, I guess. BUT CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT THIS MEANS? And how much "coverage" they provide, apart from links posted by readers? And how this somehow translates into a Hillary sanctuary, because apparently it is?

I am so confused.

Posted at April 20, 2008 11:55 AM in response to I found TPM's polar opposite blog site

Big whoop.

Posted at April 20, 2008 11:46 AM in response to Sen. Clinton May Have Secured My Vote

Just to amplify what's been said: Michelle Obama looked TERRIFIC. That elegant blue dress, her charm, her smile, those gorgeous long legs...no wonder Colbert started singing to her. Barack, charismatic though he is, is clearly an overachiever.

I too thought she stayed on message a bit more than I would have liked, but I wouldn't take chances at this point either.

BTW Just a quibbe w/Colbert: Philadelphia is not the only city in PA, or even the only city with major sports teams, as his all-purpose sports jersey would suggest. Although we in the west do appareciate (somewhat) the Terry Bradshaw head on his state map.

Posted at April 16, 2008 12:16 PM in response to Michelle's Colbert appearance was excellent

I know someone who went to the Steelworkers speech that's used in the ad. I'm going to ask him about the boos. Even if they amplified them (which I doubt, because I saw another clip yesterday), it's not like they're making them up.

IMO, Rendell is right on his observation about many PA voters, and wrong on his candidate choice.
(Posted this on another thread, ao forgive me if I'm repeating myself to you: I went door-knocking for Obama in a middle/lower-middle class Pittsburgh suburb Saturday. Most people were polite, very few were Obama supporters (and these were just Dems), and one 82-year-old man told me he would not vote for either the "jive n***er or the f**king bi*ch.")

Ah, vox populi. I'm looking (praying) for a knockout blow from Obama in the debate tomorrow. As Bill so chivalrously pointed out recently, ol' Hill is 60, after all. I think she's ripe for it.

Posted at April 15, 2008 6:26 PM in response to New Obama Ad In Pennsylvania Hits Back At Hillary Over "Small Town" Flap