I find it quite disingenuous of you to point out that the VoteBoth movement has gathered over 25,000 signatures without also recognizing that Rush Limbaugh and various other conservative pundits are urging their 20 million+ listeners to essentially sabotage the signature list.

I know it's not something that is verifiable, but your breathless "Late late updates!" in which you cite different people calculating the importance of the number of signatures is just really shameless when the verification of the signatures is completely suspect, and especially after a number of commenters alerted you to the fact the signatures list is being freeped by dittoheads.

At the end of the day I realize it's not that big of a deal, but your reputation should be at least relatively important to you, and by disingenuously omitting the fact that there is a huge push by conservative media to continue the candidacy of Hillary Clinton sort of undermines the neutrality of opinion you attempt to maintain.

Dear Campaign Surrogates (But Especially Mickey Kantor and Rev. Wright):

When a YouTube video is released showing ugly and offensive comments (like, for example, your contempt for the good people of Indiana), you have one responsibility and one responsibility only: to shut your effing pie hole.  I can see from this Huffington Post article that you are not taking this simple and obvious advice.

Even the good Reverend Wright realized as much - at least for a month and half, that is, before the spotlight became too tempting.  But you're an old political hand, Mickey.  You really think that claiming a "conspiracy" is going to make this go away?  You think people aren't going to inspect this tape and pass it around even more now that you've weighed in?  You think you're helping Hillary by trying to get into a public wrestling match with the originator of this video?  You do realize, right, that you still quite clearly called the people of Indiana "shit."  Buddy, you just don't get it, do you.  In fact, I'm starting to think that you must be out of your damn mind, you worthless white...

On Friday, a prominent Obama adviser confided in Greg Sargent that Obama was going to "take Fox on" during his interview this morning on Fox News Sunday.  Well, now that the dust has settled, it's clear that Obama merely <i>discussed issues in a reasonable way</i> with Fox News correspondent Chris Wallace.  And though Sargent agrees that, "Obama turned in a perfectly solid performance," and, " he probably succeeded in
making a positive impression on many voters he might otherwise not have
reached," the real issue here is that the prominent Obama adviser LIED to Greg Sargent.

Yes, he was lied to!  Or, at the least, was slightly misled!

Now, if you don't think that's a big deal, be sure to check out Greg Stoller who, according to Sargent, "has some strong criticism" of Obama.  In other words, Sargent has some harsh words for Obama, Stoller links to Sargent's post, then Sargent links back to Stoller's post.  It's a veritable consensus!  Clearly the blogosphere agrees that Obama's interview should be viewed as an outrage!  Obama went on Fox News Sunday and DID NOT punch Wallace in the face!

I am confused.  I have no idea what the issue is here.  Why is this a post?  Why the multiple updates and the breathless condemnation of Obama's performance?  When did it become unreasonable for Democrats to appear on Fox News?  What other Democrats are engaging in a boycott of Fox?  Why is this not an issue when Clinton appears on Fox?  Why is Sargent picking fights with people in the comments?  What the hell is going on here?

Damned if she is, damned if she isn't.

Hillary made a big mistake the other day on Inside Edition when she said, in regards to her husband's Weather Underground pardons, "Well, I didn't know anything about it."

Oh, reeeeeeeeeally.

I'm glad to see that Josh is diving into this story, because a response of "I didn't know anything about it," just begs reporters to prove her wrong.  Any sort of flat denial like this raises more questions than it answers, because a touchstone of Hillary's campaign has been the implied assertion that she was something of a co-president or at the least a trusted adviser during her husband's tenure.  Hilariously, any time a current issue becomes unpopular (NAFTA, pardons), Hillary seems to have been magically absent from those White House discussions or was, even more amazingly, "secretly" lobbying against it.

Simply put, Hillary put her foot in her mouth big time in the Inside Edition interview.  If she would have instead just obfuscated or ducked the question, I'm sure she'd keep skating for a few more weeks.  Instead, she flatly denied knowledge of the pardons and pricked the ears of journalists around the country.  Bad move.

The fact is, Bill's pardons are a huge deal and they are going to be a big issue in a general election should HRC get the nod.  And so it comes down to: either she knew about them or she didn't.  If she knew about them, and I think there's ample evidence that she must have known about most of them and possibly even lobbied on behalf of some of those who were pardoned, then she needs to explain herself.  On the other hand, if these were all done without her knowledge, let alone without her consultation, then it raises serious questions about how much of the White House operated on a level above Ms. Clinton's head.

To sum: either she knew about the pardons and is outright lying, or she didn't know about them and her claim to have been a major player in the White House should be seriously questioned.

So, which is it, Hillary?  Are you lying to us, or have you been exaggerating your role in the White House?  You can't have it both ways.

It's interesting.  Obama puts his foot in his mouth when talking about voters in Pennsylvania, and "bittergate" becomes non-stop news for days.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, lies about her knowledge of Bill pardoning two members of the Weather Underground, and all is silent.

This is a big deal.  Hillary Clinton continues to lie.  And the hypocrisy here is that she is trying to hit Obama about his relationship with William Ayers, while she sat on her hands and did nothing to stop her husband from pardoning
two members who were actually convicted of violent crimes (Ayers, on the other hand, was acquitted at trial).

So, thanks again, news media.  Fair, balanced, and unwilling to take Hillary Clinton to task for her implausible denials of any of her husband's poor judgment.

Information can be found here.

During the long course of this primary, supporters of both Obama and Clinton have touted the strengths of their candidate and slammed every misstep of their opponent.  In turn, some supporters have become blind to the failings of their guy (or gal), and deaf to the ridiculousness of each camp's spin.  Chances are, all of us have harbored idiotic thoughts these last few weeks.  Check below to find out whether or not you are or ever have been an idiot!  GUARANTEED to piss off just about everybody!

Delivered, of course, in the style of America's favorite funnyman - Jeff Foxworthy!

Without further ado...(drumroll...)

If you're not worried about Obama's ability to win working class white voters, you might be an idiot!

If you think that the votes of Michigan should count in a popular vote tally, you just might be an idiot!

If you think that a caucus where people can waltz in and vote with a paper ballot and then leave is "undemocratic," you make idiots look good, moron!

If you think Obama is a cross between JFK and MLK, there's a chance you're an idiot, idiot!

If you sincerely think Hillary Clinton is a fighter for the working class, then make no mistake about it - you are without a doubt a certifiable idiot!

If you think that this long primary process is the best thing to happen to the Democrats in a long time, you might need to take a look in the mirror, you goddamned idiot!

If you think that African-Americans are "racist" for voting for Obama, you just might be a fucking idiot!

If you think Obama is going to win Kansas and Montana in a general election, you might be a very hopeful idiot!

If you think Clinton doesn't have a chance in a general election against McCain, you might be an idiot!

If you think Obama is lucky to be a black man running for President, you could be the world's biggest idiot!

If you think Randi Rhodes is anything besides an unhinged conspiracy theorist crackpot, you might be an idiot!

If you think the media has been easy on Obama, you just might be drinking the idiot juice!

If you think Obama's campaign has been playing the race card, you might have to change your name to Idiot McIdiot!

If you think Clinton would be able to push her healthcare plan through the House and Senate without it getting watered down and altered significantly, then I've got some land to sell you, you idiot!

If you think Obama is going to stop the loss of manufacturing jobs, you might be an idiot!

If you think Clinton would be where she is if she hadn't married Bill, you just might be a revisionist idiot!

If you don't think Rev. Wright is going to hurt Obama in the general election, you're Time Magazine's Idiot of the Year!

If you think Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is good for democracy, you might be an idiot who would love living in a South American country!

If you think Bill Clinton has, in the past 8 years, refrained from having sexual relations (finger wagging)...with lots of women...like Ms. Lewinsky...you might be an idiot!

If you think Fox News is more "fair and balanced" than MSNBC, you might be an idiot!

If you don't think Obama needs a new stump speech, you might be an idiot!

And finally....

If you're thinking about voting for McCain over either Democratic candidate in November, THEN YOU ARE WITHOUT A DOUBT A HUGE FUCKING IDIOT, YOU DOUCHEBAG IDIOT!!

What do you look for in a President?  Me, I look for someone who is a leader, has a cool head, is articulate, a deep thinker, fearless, progressive, positive.  Those are a few reasons why I support Barack Obama.

However, if for any reason you prefer candidates who act like WWE wrestlers, and who say things like "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," then maybe Hillary is the choice for you.

Seriously though, I have to ask, because I'm seriously confused here: this isn't for real, is it?

George, in your interview with Greg Sargent, you said:

"We decided to focus at the top on the issues that had been at the
center of the debate since the last debate. Everything we brought up in
that front section had not come up since the last debate. And they all
focused on the same theme -- which candidate would be a stronger
Democratic candidate in November."

This argument is intellectually dishonest, and it is sad to me that you don't understand why this comment, and the heart of your entire argument, is fundamentally flawed and fatal to the prospect of intelligent political discourse in this country.  You see, George, you have a television show.  Every Sunday.  I usually watch it.  So don't give me this bullshit line about how you had to cover the recent topics of discussion in the last few weeks - you are one of the people that peddles this senseless nonsense in the first place!  You are one of the people who picks and chooses what gets discussed in the weeks leading up to a debate.  Then you act like you have no choice but to discuss this nonsense in a debate because, well, hey, the people are interested in it!  I wonder why!

Garbage in, garbage out.  Of course the American people want to know whether or not Obama hates his country because he doesn't wear a flag pin.  This is the tripe that counts as "news" nowadays.  And for you to put on your pundit hat on Sunday mornings and dissect every misstatement or wrong look between Clinton and Obama, which in turn further propels a certain storyline and narrative about competing personalities, while neglecting discussing other issues, only to step to the plate on debate night and act as though the people have demanded to know whether or not Obama shook Ayers' hand twice or three times and are they or are they not Freemasons who want to blow up the Capitol building?

You had a choice, George.  You could have left your Sunday morning horse-race, focus-on-the-minutia hat at home, but you didn't.  You were a moderator, you got to define the debate.  And you chose to define it in as small a way as possible.  Don't blame the "American people" for your pettiness.  You could have made it bigger last night.  You could have asked about food shortages, China, Afghanistan, the energy crisis.  You chose instead to inquire as to whether Obama was more patriotic than his minister.  Or why Clinton lied about Bosnia, as though that hadn't gone through the ringer already either.

Own up to it, man.  Just own up to it and say that you messed up.  You blew it.  You're better than the stunt you pulled last night.

Is it just me or does the Clinton campaign have a strange knack for producing Onion-like headlines of hilarious irony?  Didn't we all see this coming?  Hillary's latest ad in which (to quote from Sargent's post on TPM Election Central) "ordinary Pennsylvania residents express their displeasure about Obama's comments" includes - you guessed it - a guy from New Jersey.

So here's a question - is the Clinton campaign putting us on, or are they really this dense?

Lately I've been bouncing the idea off of friends that at least some of Hillary's appeal - at least with some middle aged women and homosexual men - has to do with what I call her "Diva Appeal."  Now, before I go on, let me say that this theory is not grounded in anything resembling facts or statistics or anything beyond my own mere observations and extrapolations.  But then a couple of things caught my eye that so perfectly reinforce my (shabby, overgeneralized) theory that I just have to share this and get it out there - maybe someone else can better articulate what it is I'm trying to say.

The first example was at last night's Elton John concert in which he basically said to all the haters out there: "to hell with them!"  And then, this morning, I read what is perhaps the most perfect distillation of the Diva Theory: the post Hillary is My Revolution by Billy Glad.

There is something weird going here.  Hillary is the diva, the fabulous woman who is fabulous just because she says so.  She's the woman who is abused (by her husband), ridiculed (by the press), hated (by Republican mouth-breathers), yet she's still standing.  She's like from some exploitation film where the heroine is beaten and barely raped before pulling a knife out of her sock and slicing the mean guy's balls off.  Her supporters have stood by her and fought her battles with her - and sometimes for her - since the 1990s.  The emotional connection runs too deep.  R-e-s-p-e-c-t, she shakes her finger.  Find out what it means to me.  And the crowd eats it up.

Nevermind that Hillary Clinton hasn't ever really ever done anything for the gay community.  They just like her moxie.  It's the defensive/aggressive posturing of a member of an ostracized community, and they identify with that.  I see it my friends who are gay who support Hillary.  They say the same trite things over and over: she's a fighter, she's a strong woman, people hate strong women, people are jealous...  Surprisingly, they like my Diva theory.  To them, a diva is exactly what we need in the White House.

And to go back to Billy Glad's post, I have no desire to call him out personally, but the post is just too rich in odd, projected emotionalism.  All the signs of an abusive relationship are there.  She cheats on him, lies to him, lets him down, but damn if she isn't a fabulous woman.  And this weird idea that she shares a relationship with him?  I quote:

Hillary and I have been together a long time. We have a history. You know the story.

No you don't.  She doesn't know you from Adam.  This is projecting.  She is a politician.  She doesn't care about you.  She plays the victim because being a diva works for her.  She thinks that people hate her because she is a fabulous woman.  You think people hate because she's fabulous.  This is her schtick.

One last thing.  Wouldn't you know it, I type in "Hillary Diva" in Google, just to see if this path has been tread before, and, well, of course it has.  I'm not the first one to see it at all.  Here are just a couple:

The Diva's Camp: The Appeal of Hillary Clinton

From her burlesque biography to her faux-marriage; from her stylized
overemotionality to her pseudo-drag admixture of male and female traits
and gestures; from her synthetic stump speeches to her outrageous
pronouncements and staged lies; and from her international acclaim to
her most recently discovered wealth, Hillary, whether intentionally or
not, embraces melodramatic excess at every turn.

and...

In Texas, Gay Bar's Patrons Love Hillary

"The thing is, Hillary's been a victim," says Leo Bartlett, taking a drag of his cigarette. "Hillary's a real fighter."  She's been picked on, ridiculed, bullied. Those haircuts, that laugh,
the clothes. Oh, and Monica. But she never gives up. She's got good
policy positions. She bullies when she needs to. She's "a diva."

By now you've probably heard the big news - destor23's preferential candidate microchip
has finally been activated by the Obama campaign.  Where and when the
Obama campaign was able to surgically implant the chip into destor23's
brain is still a mystery, but sadly his story is not unique.  The
lifeless, unthinking, hopeful automatons are growing in numbers.  Like
heat-seeking missiles, they travel in packs to Costco, purchase bulk
cases of Kool-Aid and then transport them to local Obama campaign field
offices.  Following instructions beamed to them through their chips,
they are ordered to purchase Obama's books and donate weekly to his
campaign.  Before long destor23 will personally be fighting poverty by
trying to keep his own finances above the national line.  Like a shell
of a human, his lifeless eyes will blink slowly and from his mouth will
come empty platitudes, and he will speak of "community involvement" and
"a new dialogue" and "a fresh direction."



It's interesting, because his activation comes just as my chip is
getting weaker and more infrequent signals.  Why, just last week I went
an entire day with baaahing like a sheep, as RaeK so often accurately
depicts.  Long an Obama supporter, reader of his first book, and close
follower of his campaign, I'm simply waiting patiently for Obama to
kick it into the next gear.  And, even more surprisingly, I'm starting
to admire the ruthlessness of Clinton.



Now, before the goon squad comes in here and compliments me for seeing
the light, and calling Obama and his supporters all sorts of names, let
it be known that I still support Obama, I do not think Clinton has a
chance in Hell of winning the nomination or the general, and that at
the end of the day, I largely despise Clinton's tactics and the
meanness and cynicism that she brings out in people.  In addition, I
recoil at the thought of 4 years of a Clinton White House, the constant
soap opera drama that she and Bill seem unable to live without, the
gridlock between a slight majority Dem House and Senate and the rabid
defiance of Clinton-hating Republicans.  No, that is not a pretty
picture.  That is not what I want.  But I do want the young Jedi to
learn from this fight.



First of all, Clinton is out-hustling him.  She does more campaign
events, more one-on-one meet and greets, and in general looks like she
works harder than he does.  Of course it helps their campaign that they
have two strong advocates and that Bill Clinton is out-hustling the
both of them, but Obama would do well to learn from these two.  Even if
he is working as hard as them, it doesn't come across.  Let us see you
sweat a little, Barack.  Loosen your tie at the end of a long day and
look a little exhausted.  It'll seem like you've been going 150 all
day, and that's a good thing.  We want to see you put in the elbow
grease for this nomination.



Second of all, Clinton doesn't give a shit about looking mean.  She's
in it to win it.  You can say that hurts the party (personally I don't
think it does), but I do want someone who's going to kick and
thrash about a bit before giving up.  Shows me that they really want
the job.  Now, Obama's personality is not well-suited to this kind of
behavior, and he's exhibited a calm, even, cool demeanor throughout
this process.  But at some point, I'd love to see him get his blood
up.  Not in a "SHAME ON YOU, BARACK OBAMA!!" kind of a way, but perhaps
he could show a little, teensy bit of anger at McCain's idea of
continued war in Iraq.  Or a little anger at the fact that this economy
has been destroyed by this administration.  And because of his demeanor
so far in the campaign, all it would take is one press conference with
a clenched jaw and an icy stare.  I want to see the eye of the tiger,
Barack.  The "I'm coming after you, muthafucka" stare that will show us
that you're going to fight your way to the White House, not hope your
way there.



Lastly, the Clintons are just better at playing the press.  Earlier in
the campaign, they strong-armed them into going after Obama.  They
showed their effectiveness again by demoting Penn without actually
firing him.  Releasing their taxes on a Friday at 4PM.  And besides the
Bosnia mishap, she's gotten away with a series of exaggerations and
misstatements.  Most importantly, we see now that they and their
surrogates are aggressively pushing to frame the last part of this race
as a matter of civil rights - the counting of the popular vote in FL
and MI.  Obama could certainly learn from this endless assault of press
that spews forth from the Clinton camp.



Ultimately, the Clintons are ruthless, strategic, selfish, and they
really, really, really want to get back to the White House.  Those may
not be admirable qualities, but they certainly don't hurt an aspiring
Presidential candidate.  Obama's chip is still firmly implanted in my
brain, but the signal is getting fuzzier.  He needs to increase the
volume a little bit if he wants the instructions to keep getting
through.  I often thought he would turn up the heat in the general
election, but maybe now is the time.

In regards to the upcoming Pennsylvania primary, Clinton leads Obama 47-42 in the latest Rasmussen poll.

Link here.

No, not an April Fool's joke.

And no, don't expect this to make the TPM front page.

Nonetheless, it's an interesting little statistic.  This has to be seen as worrying news for Clinton supporters and good news for Obama supporters.  More polls like this and I think you will see more calls for Clinton to drop out.

(also posted at DailyKos)

There's been a lot of speculation lately about Hillary trying to knee-cap Obama's chances this year so that she can run in 2012.  Maybe that's what is in her mind but that's not how it's going to work.  First, if Obama loses this year in the GE, blame will be placed at Hillary's feet for "endorsing" McCain so often in this process.  She will be the new Nader.  Nobody will want her to run in 2012.  And if she DID try to make a run in 2012, she would not be able to run for Senate.  So if she lost the nomination process for President, she would not have a Senate seat to fall back on.  Likely there will be a Democratic challenger for her seat.  It's hard to imagine her giving up public office completely.  Maybe she hasn't thought about this prospect very much.  However, one way to get her, and everybody else, to start thinking about that simple fact is to start drumming up support for a challenger RIGHT NOW.

Imagine this.  A youngish, progressive veteran, perhaps a one-term Congressman or woman from New York (are there any?), or a young mayor, sends out a press release stating their intent to begin raising funds and laying the groundwork for a possible run at a Senate seat in 2012.  This is what needs to be said in the press release:

1. Hillary Clinton supported the war and has not and will not apologize for this egregious error (this is why a veteran would be so great).  An understanding of the cost of this war to American lives and treasure is what I will bring to office.  I will be committed to not only extricating ourselves from Iraq, but as Senator, I will work to prevent these types of unnecessary wars from occurring in the future.

1. Hillary Clinton accepts more money from lobbyists than either of her opponents, and does not support ethics reform.  It's time to change the way Washington does business, and transparency and ethics are at the top of my list.  This is the mindset I will bring to Washington as your Senator, and with dogged determination I will work to open the doors to the halls of power.

1. Hillary Clinton is currently using right-wing and Rovian tactics to win the nomination for President.  That type of campaigning against another Democrat is unacceptable.  We will only be able to solve the tough and important issues of today if and when we come together as progressive thinkers.  We cannot pursue a more equitable and just agenda while also questioning each other's patriotism and experience.  All of the candidates are well prepared to be President, and what separates the Republicans from the Democrats are ideas and solutions to help regular Americans.

1. I have lived and worked in New York State my entire life.  I know the people here, I know our struggles, and I will work tirelessly to improve the lives of regular New Yorkers when I am your Senator.

1. It is not yet clear whether Senator Clinton will win our party's nomination and then the White House, or whether she will fall short of that goal and attempt another run in 2012.  Either way, I feel strongly that I am capable and able to grab the reigns in four years and to represent the good people of New York.  I bring with me a lifetime of commitment and service to my country, and a strong record of ethics and responsibility.  This country is ready for change, and ready for new leadership.  I look forward to the next four years of experience working with the great people of this state in my capacity as (______), and I hope that you will consider me a worthy replacement to our current Senator, Ms. Clinton.

I know, it's more of a pipe dream than anything else.  But this would get HUGE press, it would show the country that the progressive side of the Democratic Party has grown a bit weary of Hillary, and she would be put on the defensive in a major way.  Imagine a poll showing a Democratic challenger losing to Clinton by 10 points or so.  That would be damaging.  Imagine if, miracle of miracles, the poll showed her losing (I doubt that).

There might be some initial blowback - that young whippersnapper can't do that!! - but it would actually be a really wise thing to do.  Thing of the amount of money that person could raise from Obama supporters.  I certainly would give that person money.  They would also get a ton of press and would, presumably, continue to get press for the next four years or so.  If you think it's crazy to announce four years in advance, Cory Booker did it in Newark and it turned out pretty well for him.

You may be right - I may be crazy - but it just might be a lunatic you're looking for!!

Kevin Drum.

Atrios.

James Fallows.

And it's not the Wright thing or Snipergate that did it.  It's the fact that Hillary has now decided to lie down with the so-called "vast right-wing conspiracy."

What is it called when you finally become the thing you hate?  Is it just sad?  Pathetic?  Or is there a better word for it?

Recently, Mark Penn stated:

The more that the voters learn about Barack Obama, the more his ability
to beat John McCain is declining compared to Hillary. For a long time
we have explained that poll numbers for a candidate who has not yet
been vetted or tested are not firm numbers, and we are beginning to see
that clearly.

Well, Penn has been proven, uh, correct?  Today's Gallup poll shows that Obama leads Clinton by 3 points, 48-45.

So I think that without any uncertainty, we should be able to deduce that Mark Penn thinks that Obama has been vetted, the damage has been done, and now that the voters have had a chance to reflect, they have come to the conclusion that they like Obama and prefer him over Clinton.  Right?

Come on, Mark, we're waiting for an answer.  Is this poll as insignificant as Richardson?  As insignificant as red states, caucus states, the popular vote, and Illinois?

On a serious note, I can honestly say I've never seen a political operative as short-sighted as Penn.  I sincerely believe he doesn't consider the impact his words will have in the next day's news cycle, let alone the impact they will have in a week, or a month.  He is a walking gaffe-machine and it is amazing that Clinton keeps paying him his millions.