Under the heading "Standing with Israel against terrorism," Clinton's official policy paper, released last September and currently touted on her campaign website, states, "Hillary Clinton believes that Israel's right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned." With the phrase "an undivided Jerusalem as its capital,"

Posted at June 4, 2008 3:46 PM in response to Obama commits to eternal war

Are you proposing the Jerusalem be divided?

Posted at June 4, 2008 3:44 PM in response to Obama commits to eternal war

To Hillary supporters not playing the victim card or who want to move on, I apologize for the below.

1. If you run for the nomination and don't win, play the victim, try to move the goal posts, and develop your own math to convince people who can't add. MSM will entertain it for the purpose of ratings.

2. If you finish the race so close to the winner he can feel your breath on his neck, sink your teeth and hope he bleeds to death before the nomination is decided.

3. If you decide to run, always remember that the Democratic party allows differing views. You must threaten and bribe others to convince them yours is the only way.

4. If you lose, remember a proper way to celebrate what you accomplished - don't encourage your supporters to get behind the winner to improve your party's prospects in the general election instead keep things in limbo and suggest they visit your website in the off chance they donate some more money to clear up your debts.

5. If the above seems a tad depressing, it is but remember you were entitled to the nomination.

Posted at June 4, 2008 12:59 PM in response to Top 5 Lessons for future Dem candidates

What specific statements from Rev Wright in Church offended you? Me thinks you protest too much...

Posted at June 3, 2008 11:42 AM in response to On Obama leaving Trinity.

My ego is forcing me to point out that I cited this study on my blog March 19th.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/disenfranchising-the-fl-and-mi.php

Posted at May 31, 2008 12:26 PM in response to Do Florida And Michigan Primaries Really Reflect The Will Of The People? Nope.

I live in the suburbs, so it hurts to say this, but we are going to suffer quite a bit more than the city folk in the coming years.

I've been extremely frustrated that they ruled out the Schukyill Valley Metro project to restore rail service between Philadelphia and Reading. The latest is a proposal to extend the R6 from Norristown using a diesel engine passenger train. Better than nothing, so I hope this one gets through.

But, even more than this I want sidewalks and bike lanes in my neighborhood. I could get to everything I need with them.

Posted at May 30, 2008 11:41 AM in response to The Price of -- Oil -- in China

First, I would like to remind you of something Hillary said: "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything".

I don't think it's much of a stretch, the majority do not follow politics as closely as we do. "All politics are local."

But, the point is that there is a significant movement towards Obama if you look before and after their campaigning in states. They were also early in the primary season, so MI and FL did not have as much benefit as later contests in national coverage or in judging his viability.

You want to pretend that the turnout would increase but the percentages would stay the same. I don't see it.

Your goal seems to be to convince us that Hillary legitimately won the popular vote, the same as Clinton's with superdelegates. I would suggest to do so, you need to give up on MI as you lose credibility in claiming it's a valid result with his name off the ballot.

But, more importantly explain to me why FL would be different than other states where there was a significant movement toward Obama before and after his campaigning in state.

Posted at May 28, 2008 1:45 PM in response to Popular Vote vs Popular Vote

Had Obama not campaigned in Iowa then the answer is yes, he would been almost a nobody. He had nearly 2000 precinct captains in the state communicating his message and answering voters questions. He won because more Iowa caucus goers got to know him and preferred him to Hillary. Since you want to discount caucus states feel free to choose one of the primary states where he won or closed the gap after campaigning.

I think it's objectivity you lack, not creativity.

Posted at May 28, 2008 12:55 PM in response to Popular Vote vs Popular Vote

So true. I find it hard to imagine McClellan has a single original thought in his book let alone any insight worth checking it out for free from my public library. Actually, I think my next visit I will ask our librarians not to spend the tiny fraction it would cost in my taxes to add it to the collection.

Posted at May 28, 2008 11:06 AM in response to McClellan's Story. Who's Buying it?

Whenever anybody wants to add FL and MI into the results without making a clear statement acknowledging how different the results would have been had those states held legitimate primaries, they are arguing against democracy and fairness not for it.

As stated above the candidates did not campaign there, so Clinton took all the benefit of her name recognition and Obama the weakness of being a relative unknown. It's likely Hillary would have still won FL, but the margin in popular vote and delegates would have been much smaller. MI would probably have been within a few percentage either way.

Based on a statistical comparison with turnout in other states' primaries, it appears that roughly two million more people would have voted in FL and MI had they expected their delegates would be seated. It's obvious why Clinton and her supporters continue to ignore these voters.

It's fair to argue the popular vote metric, but not to ignore the unfairness of including FL and MI based on the illegitimate primary results or to blame Obama for them. In hindsight it is clear that the DNC, elected Democrats in FL and MI, and voters should have done more in advance of the primaries to either ensure the dates were moved or that the penalties enforced did not lead to unrepresentative results. But, again some Clinton supporters fight against democracy and fairness by arguing that no penalty should be assessed after the fact.

Posted at May 28, 2008 10:38 AM in response to Popular Vote vs Popular Vote