Josh asked the other day if Bristol and Levi are married yet:

 

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/248961.php

 

But what I want to know is....

...Has she had that baby?

If not, why not?

I've googled in search of news and come up with nothin'.

What have you heard or seen?

 

Josh linked to this Spencer Ackerman blog entry:

http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/22/alqaedaendorsesmccain/


Buried in the middle of a graf is this statement:

That's why, along with millions of wingnuts worldwide, it [Al Qaeda] wants you to focus on lies about Ayers and ACORN. It leaves angry comments on Fox News websites, incredulous that the media won't ask real questions about Obama.

This is actually a somewhat astonishing assertion. Has anyone seen hard evidence for such a claim -- that AQ is behind at least some comments trashing Obama in various corners of the media nut-o-sphere?

I've been shamelessly spamming this comment from DairyStateMom everywhere I can and decided to post it here, too:

Okay, let me get this straight.  John McCain has 527s who he "can't control," and takes all kinds of money and help from lobbyists, is a good guy because he supports public financing -- except when he doesn't want to follow the spending limits in the primary season, even though he opted in to public financing so he could get a loan to spend more money than public financing would allow him to spend.   Barack Obama has a whole bunch of little donors, which is supposed to be the whole point of the public financing system, making little money more important than big money, and has expressly said he doesn't want 527 ads or lobbyists' money or help -- and Obama is the sharp-elbowed Chicago political operator who's throwing principle under the bus to get elected? I'm sorry, what planet are people living on?!?!?!?

That, says Hillary Clinton's spokesman on NPR's All Things Considered tonight, is what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been on all these many primary months.

"A very special journey together."

Yeah, like the one Martin Sheen took up the river in Apocalypse Now.

Or, suggests DairyStateMom, like the one Jimmy Hoffa took some 35 or so years ago.

What "very special journey" would you compare the primary race to?

I'm a non-lawyer, and I'm curious about the Blackwater grand jury and prosecutor's thinking in this case, reported by the Washington Post:

As I understand it the Blackwater killers have been immunized from prosecution under Iraqi law. (And even if they weren't, a US Attorney and federal grand jury would lack jurisdiction to enforce an Iraqi law, would they not?)

So what's your theory as to what body of criminal law--what jurisdictional grounds--could be in the back of the prosecutors' mind in pursuing the Blackwater grand jury investigation?

Over on Marc Ambinder's blog at The Atlantic is a memo from a guy who worked for Perot in 1992 and wants to work with a Bob Barr third-party Libertarian run. He points out that Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992.

Conventional wisdom says a serious third-party push from a Bob Barr-type would hurt McCain, and on paper it's true. But what concerns me about the prospect is that it would handicap the Democrat (presumably Obama) who wins the White House in November.

Bill Clinton had a pretty good presidency. Much of the problems he had were the result of the confluence of partisan Republican gameplaying, a problematic media environment, and his own personal shortcomings. But I believe the fact that Clinton never had won an outright majority of the electorate also played into the attacks on him. We can argue whether Perot's run in 1992 may have thrown the election from Bush to Clinton. But I don't think it is arguable that Clinton's lack of an outright majority of the vote helped make him vulnerable. And I would fear that outcome this time around.

I believe Obama's capable of winning a real majority. I worry that in three-way race, however, he'd wind up winning with only a plurality--and that would give the opposing GOP cover to be obstructionist.

(This is not an argument against BHO; I think this scenario is just as possible--perhaps even more so--if Hillary Clinton were the Democratic nominee.)

How risky do you think that prospect might be?

Daily Kos has the latest in the WVWV controversy here.

The whole thing sounds really crazy to me. DairyStateMom got one of their forms in the mail last week, months after she voted in our primary. The Kos item linked above says that they appear to be pretty indiscriminate about how they get people registered:

Guy Zeigler, clerk of the Franklin County Board of Elections in Frankfort, Ky., estimates that about half of the forms from Women's Voices that are returned to his office come from people who are already properly registered to vote -- raising questions about how the nonprofit measures its success.

In West Virginia, Secretary of State Betty Ireland issued a press release [pdf] on Thursday, May 8 cautioning voters about Women's Voices "potentially misleading" registration efforts. The warning came after the organization began mailing voter registration forms to more than 16,000 unmarried women across the state right before the primary election, but after the April 22 deadline to register for that election had already passed.

So the whole thing is goofy, but what is the real agenda, do you think? I've been running one hypothesis after another through my pea-brain and can't make sense of it.

Are they
1) Well meaning but inept?
2) Well meaning and clever? (If so, explain how this is really clever.)
3) Up to no good and clever? (So then what is their real intent and agenda?)
4) Up to no good and inept? (And if so, what will the real impact be, intended or not?)

OK, the news headlines here linked to this WSJ story about Hagee, in which he says...

“Out of a desire to advance greater unity among Catholics and Evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful”...

I wonder if Hagee will get the same kind of pushback from rightwing commentators who sneered at Obama for insincerity when he apologized for his wording about "clinging" to guns and religion...

In the upcoming edition of The New Yorker, Henrik Hertzberg hypothesizes that Hillary Clinton would have been more assured of a victory this year had she moved to Illinois and run in 2004 for the Senate.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/05/19/080519taco_talk_hertzberg

Not an unreasonable theory, but just to be contrarian.... Obama surprised everyone in the Illinois primary by blowing away what was thought to be a pretty strong field of other Democrats. As long as we're positing alternate universes, I'm going to say it's not unreasonable that he might have beaten her under those circumstances, too.

I'm with those who dislike the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket. But let's face it: She does have an important base. She's run a very close second. The pressure on Obama is going to be very intense to pick her as VP, it seems to me. I don't think he should, but he needs to not pick her in a way that saves face for her. (Forget about whether she's deserving--this is about scoring votes in the fall, not grudge-match points now.)

One solution might be to see that she gets publicly teed up to be the next majority leader before Obama announces a VP pick, so that she's out of the running otherwise. DairyStateMom suspects that Axelrod and Plouffe and Obama have already been chatting with Harry Reid to pave the way.

So what other scenarios for this are there?

(PS: And fugeddaboud SCOTUS. She's not cut out for that at all.)

DairyStateMom and I both favor Obama. This morning she voiced a contrarian view on the continued primary battle. I suggested she put her thoughts in writing, and she did:

 Yes, it's a long time, in media years, between the Iowa caucuses and the the Indiana primary.  For those of us who are avid (some might say "rabid") readers of all things political, with strong opinions to boot, there's an element of "come on, let's get this over with!"   But consider these thoughts from a Wisconsin resident who spent her formative years in Indiana:  Indiana hasn't had a meaningful voice in a Democratic primary since 1968.  My kids weren't even a half-formed thought back then.  For die-hard racing fans:  Andy Granatelli's "whoosh" turbine car had turned laps at the Speedway a year before. The fastest lap at the track was about 168 mph, in contrast to today's 220+ speeds.   These days, we're used to candidates pitching for votes in electoral-vote-rich swing states.  Indiana has been regarded as too small and too red and too unimportant for any national candidate to even look in on lately.  This primary season, though, the Indianapolis Star's nifty online map of candidate stops looks like a pincushion, with visits everywhere from Evansville to Gary.  People are excited, engaged, and talking about candidates.  In the words of Star columnist Mike Lopresti:  "They like us! They really like us!"  Democratic officials are ordering extra ballots, anticipating record turnout.   This is a democracy.  It's nice to see that yes, every vote counts.  I think maybe those of us who voted a while back can take a deep breath and wait while people actually, you know, vote.
~DairyStateMom

Ok, I haven't watched all the debates, so perhaps I've missed it. But especially in the wake of ABC's travesty, I've wondered this: Has anyone, anywhere, in any formal debate, asked Sen. Clinton this question:

"Senator, you're running for office as the most experienced person for the job. Yet during your husband's administration, you had one official job: Chairing a group to implement national health care. You completely blew that assignment. Why should your 'experience' then have any credibility with voters?"

With all their crazy claims of "elitism" and other disingenuous, misleading, and downright wacko attempts to discredit Obama, here's what the true aim is of both HRC and JMcC:

To cause all Obama supporters to bang their heads against the wall in incredulity and frustration, so that that they are rendered unable to vote, either in the upcoming primaries and/or in November.

This has been bothering me for the last several days.

Does anybody remember this story from last year? At the so-called "Values Voters" meeting a song was sung calling on God to damn America, albeit in slightly nicer words.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/09/why_should_god_bless_america.html

The fact that this event did not get the endless MSM play that Rev. Wright has been getting is Exhibit A in the case for media bias against the Democrats.

What is the history in past Democratic primaries of one candidate saying that another one can't win? Specifics, please. The only generic example I can think of is when more Progressive candidates challenge more centrist rivals with lines like, "Give people a choice between a real Republican and Republican lite and they'll pick the real thing every time."

But did Edwards go around telling people Kerry couldn't win in 04? Or did either of them say that about Dean?

I know Dean used to say he was from "The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party," but I don't recall him (or surrogates) using that as a direct attack on individual rivals. And what about past years? Did Hart say that about Mondale in '84? Did anyone say that about Jackson in '84 or '88? Did Bill Clinton say that about Tsongas or Jerry Brown in '92? Did Bradley say it about Gore in 2000?

I'm truly agnostic here. What's the precedent?