Remember the girl-or-boyfriend that wouldn't go away? The one you told a million times you were leaving, but they kept coming back, just another date, maybe it can work out, one more chance, let's at least be friends, and then 3 years later you realize you're still in the same place trying to change your phone number or city of location so they can't track you down? Okay, didn't happen to me either, but you can imagine, right...?

Obama just missed the whole context of our involvement with Hussein. Oh yeah, we could just wait around till he retired or died or was deposed. Like, sure. But the point is we'd met this really hot dude/chick called bin Laden, and well, summer flings and puppy love only last so long. It was so over. Like 12 years over. Like time to move on. And along comes this dude Obama to tell us, like "hey - give it time, we can work it out." Like dude, sure, and someone stalking you might turn out to be your BFF, eh? In 40 years. Why don't *you* go out with her if you think she's so cool. Oh, but wait - you're too young. You just want to give *me* advice. What-ever. When you grow up, you'll understand.

What Obama said: "But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

Right, the neighbor kid with the trenchcoat who's always playing with the chemicals in his basement and talking world domination and getting back at the CIA and "corporate AmeriKKKa" while looking at you with that "you know what I'm getting at, right Vern?" look as he asks you, "do think they really check to see if you're 21 when buying a gun?" And then your cat shows up at your door covered with 3rd degree burns and you find out the kids down the block did it, but you can never quite look at trenchcoat kid the same way. "Take it easy", our Zen master friend say, "he's just going through a stage - he'll get over it - eventually". And you look at your dog without the 3rd degree burns and wonder, "Yeah, but when?"

Oh wait, that kid didn't have $3 billion in oil-for-food kickbacks to work with, nor Al Samoud and Scud missiles that were over range plus a reputation for producing really killer (pardon the pun) Anthrax and VX, or had used gas on his neighbors. The kids down the block? They just had box-cutters and plane tickets, but those seemed to be effective enough.

It's hard to imagine that the guy who never convened his foreign policy committee would have taken the trouble to read the NIE either.

And he didn't have Tony Blair as an old house guest or a former President who'd dealt with Hussein for 8 years as a pillow mate, or Jay Rockefeller as a Democratic colleague who'd read the NIE and still voted for the AUMF or Colin Powell, another old respected colleague who thought this was serious, or the NIE itself that mostly supported the worst biochemical allegations except for the portable biolabs, or the head of inspections Hans Blix to express his worries.

And while Obama's stance was popular for his state Senate district and for a progressive Democratic audience, it's hard to see this as something that's going to help him in a general race once the subject of defense and security comes up.

But I guess it's not fair to bring this up, because this hurts Obama in November, while Hillary's stance would only help her then (if she survives the attacks through the primaries). One of life's bitter ironies - defending yourself is seen as an unfair attack.

Just a few listings providing info & debunking some of the worst chatter on the 2002 AUMF.

How the AUMF worked & a timeline
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/7/1140/59584/613/331948

Why Bush didn't think the AUMF was a vote for war:
http://realdemmoderate.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/a-liberal-blog-misses-the-point-on-the-2002-aumfagain/

Background on the debate, Autumn 2002
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011884.php

Quoting Rockefeller: http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2008/03/03/todays-barack-obama-digest/
http://www.trueobamafacts.com/2008/03/05/brilliant-obamas-not-very-brilliant-move/

Popularity of war: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/1/183011/9628

Bill & Blair: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html

Your opponents call you a Monster!!!
Excellent. Even better than SuperBitch!!!

I posted something on Godzilla vs. Gamora not long ago, and apparently it's coming true - my Double Creature Feature. You can't go wrong as a 150 ft. Goliath threatening Earth with calamitous destruction. Even Chris Mathews seems small compared to that, and he's like God.

Next step - Invasion of the Body Snatchers vs. The Pod People, or Plan 9 from Outer Space.

Once the primaries are over we can move to The Mummy vs. Thing from the Crypt.

In Ohio, Hillary and Obama basically tied for the white 17-29 vote with 47%-48% respectively. (In Texas, white 18-29 preference was unavailable.)

Republican crossover was equal for the 2 candidates in Ohio at 49%, but favored Obama by 53% to 46% in Texas (Independents were roughly tied, and Democrats favored Hillary in both - 53% to 46% in Texas and 56% to 42% in Ohio).

Hillary is catching Obama in "does X inspire you" with 58% to 64% in Texas, 57% to 64% in Ohio.

In Texas they were given equal marks for the economy. In Ohio advantage greatly to Hillary.

In "has a clear plan for country" and "most qualified to be Commander in Chief", both states significantly favored Hillary.

In general, this goes against some of the previous expectations - that youth will break overwhelmingly for Obama, that Obama is more inspirational, that from Rush the Republicans would now be voting more for Hillary to help her win (either to prolong the race or because she's easier to beat in November or....)

Additionally, since economy and security are 2 extremely important factors in general elections, Hillary's standing helps her in both areas (excepting the economy in Texas.).

These movements can of course easily change as the race continues and according to the particulars of each state, but still useful to consider.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#OHDEM
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#TXDEM

Sorry for the rough title, but it is politics and all, and with all the slinging, I'd hate to think it's only mud.

Why am I happy? Let me count the ways.

2.8 million people voted for Texas' 128 primary delegates. And 110 thousand voted for Texas' 67 caucus delegates. That means a primary delegate represents 22,000 voters while a caucus delegate counts the same but represents only 1650 people - the same day, the same state. Can we now say definitively that caucuses suck, whether they "build party morale" or not? No one got to vote early for a caucus. They either made it or didn't - and obviously most didn't, say about 2.7 million primary voters.

Why else happy? Hillary fought back a 2nd time against the press (perhaps a 3rd if we include the Chris Mathews hug). And she won. Yes, it can be done. And while some were scoffing about whether her "knows how to fight back" claim was empty bluster, she did it.

Third one - she came back. After a month of Obama "inevitableness", the inevitable one took a dive. Of course he's not out, not even in 2nd place. But a whole list of nonsense falls to the side - that Hillary doesn't know how to campaign or organize, that "the more people know her, the less they like her", that she should just quit.

#4 is kinda like #2 and #3 - she fought back - against defeat and against the media. She didn't Just Give Up (tm). So maybe she or Obama (or both) will fight back against McCain. And the press. And the Republican machine. And keep fighting on into the next Presidency to actually get something done. Okay, maybe too optimistic, but I have a dream that one day Democrats will grow a spine, and this may be the first vestigial appearance.

The fifth? Never again will this female's candidacy be seen as a lark, undeserved, given to someone with no skills, no political ability. Hillary did a double bank shot when things got tough, and while she may not go on to clear the table, she's going to finish out the contest and still may win. She is a pro. While she certainly had some help, like everyone running for President, she did it foremost on her own ability, her own persuasion, her own direction. Certainly not as a gift from her husband, the party, the press, the political machine - the latter 3 seemingly more infatuated with Obama. Whatever happens from here on out, or next election, or the one after, we now know that a woman can be a true contender for President. And considering woman make up almost 3/5th of the people voting, that's a helluva step.

And why am I not happy? Obama has been winged, perhaps seriously damaged, both due to his own problems and because of the turn of the vicious press. And I certainly don't want McCain in as President - not just because he's tainted and a bad candidate and flawed policies, but also because he would enable the whole Republican machine to keep up its dirty work, and he certainly doesn't have the moral courage to put it down. So this is not complete Schadenfreude - while I certainly enjoyed seeing some wind taken out of Obama's sails, I don't want to see the Democratic Party (or in principle us, the American people) damaged. We'll see what happens. But for now, 5 pluses with 1 minus is enough to keep me smiling.

Hillary should get out now.

She's a puffball - nothing in the center. She's shown she just wins states that are on the edge of America like California, Ohio, Florida and New York, but she's just air in the middle, like Colorado and Iowa. This isn't a battle for the nicest beaches, it's who will represent the heartland.

And she's just coasting on old people, like thinking she can win on women over 45, when Obama has blacks and young people and even a third of Hispanics (un tercero es mejor que nada, ¿no es verdad?).

And it's obvious people don't like her - in caucuses when they have to stand up and say something nice about her, they just sit there all mum - it's only when they're locked away in the silence of voting booths all scared that they seem to be able to pull the handle. I'd be ashamed too. I don't know why private voting is considered a good thing - it just seems to bring out the worst in people - look at people in cars.

You see it too in the states - the places where Hillary spent the most time, except New Hampshire, Texas, Ohio, New York and California, people seem to vote against her, like as if once they get to know her they want nothing to do with her. As Ted Kennedy said in Texas the other day, people are ready for change, for fresh faces. Actually he said it in Spanish, but I think that's what he said.

And then look at the delegates - the numbers don't work out for her - Obama only needs 728 more to win, and she needs 840. It's obvious the writing's on the wall. She thinks she's entitled to all the superdelegates, but obviously if you discount old people and women, she shouldn't get that many, and it's just because of name recognition she's even gotten this far and besides, she has too much baggage - people just have a visceral reaction against her when they hear her name.

So for the good of everyone, she should just quit now so she doesn't give the Republicans more ammo for the fall, because we need a candidate who has nothing to fear, no skeletons in the closet, nothing that can be attacked, to take us into November. America doesn't want more fighting and bickering, we want someone strong and positive, who can reach across the aisle to form consensus instead of more partisan politics. That's how we'll kick the Repugs' ass, not with more tired old triangulation.

Just Give Up, Hillary. Si se puede.

Just 2 1/2 months ago, McCain was on his last legs, out of money, taking a whooping from Huckabee and Romney. So why exactly do people keep trotting out this matchup polls with Clinton and Obama 9 months before the national election? Habit? Delusion? Senility? Deviousness? Until the candidates campaign, smear each other, kiss baby bottoms and otherwise degrade themselves, it simply doesn't matter and has nothing to do with reality. The polls are wrong; they're comparing nothing with nothing.

Speaking of "detached from reality", how come these overblown assessments of Hillary's campaign continue to reign? While certainly not the best run ever, you'd never guess she was in a near tie despite continual predictions of doom - before New Hampshire, before California, before Massachusetts. Rumors have it that the shakeup in her campaign are having a good effect, but even without, she is still within difficult striking distance of a guy seen as one of the party's bright lights 4 years ago. [Despite the focus on the candidates' speeches and ads, much of the work is on the ground, and this is apparently where her shakeup is working best.] And no, she never called her election "inevitable" or owed to her, even if the rather venomous press did. Once again, the Washington Post lets loose, this time with Charlotte Allen condemning women as stupid, which of course means Hillary and her campaign manager above all. "You've come a long way baby - nice nay nays." And then the Post's Linda Hirshman examines the election and the best she can come up with is that women are "fickle". And then the NY Times Jeffrey Rosen pulls out the long cobwebbed and doubtful Kathleen Willey scandal to defame Hillary - of course, it was the wronged spouse's fault. Given this continual movable feast of insults, ridicule and libel, it's amazing that Hillary wasn't buried in this sewage long ago, much less running the most successful by a female candidate ever.

Thanks to Bob Somersby of Daily Howler for keeping this in our consciousness. But he has an audience of thousands. The NY Times' Maureen Dowd has an audience of millions - appealing to our inner Archie Bunker. How is it she does it - keeps a well-paying job while pulling out more of her "Mommie Dearest" imagery. After a career of effeminizing Gore, Kerry and Edwards while butchifying and bitchifying Hillary, you'd think someone would tire of the media's Eddie Haskell, but then the Village has its own reality.

But possibly the most ludicrous event of this primary season will be seen as the self-appointed press deciding to ignore the vote of 1.7 million people in Florida. 1.7 million people doing anything is typically newsworthy unless it's eating breakfast, but in this case they just decided to ignore it. And of course ignoring it 6 days before Super Tuesday combined with the "Jesse Jackson" pseudo-scandal helped to keep Obamamentum going. The same people who ignored Edwards' campaign for how many months and through how many debates? "Thanks for the help, guys - I'll take it from here". Hopefully at least no concession will take place before Florida gets to vote again. (And yes, it's absurd that Obama is seen as principled on Florida, yet sued to get his name back on the ballot in November, and it's absurd that 5 states moved their primaries against the rules, but only 2 were punished. Living with absurdity takes some getting used to, just like selective principle.)

A diarist over at MyDD (sorry, lost the link) comments on faulty memories over the Iraq AUMF - how voters who managed to pull the handle for Kerry & Edwards who voted for the AUMF are now hysterical about Hillary's vote (accompanied with qualifying speech) and might even support McCain, who voted yes plus thought the occupation'd be a cakewalk and supported the surge and supports it still. Meanwhile, Obama portrays Jay Rockefeller as voting against AUMF when he voted for.

Here's Hillary on it: Sen. Clinton explained to Tim Russert, "I was fully briefed by the people who wrote [the NIE]. I was briefed by the people from, you know, the State Department, the CIA, the Department of Defense." [Tony Blair as well.] Sen. John Kerry, a supporter of the Obama campaign, echoed these sentiments this summer saying, "I didn't read the full report because I got it from them straight." Oh well, some words just don't matter. Months before inspectors came back, Obama decided Hussein was absolutely no danger to anyone, how exactly we don't know, but that has made him a modern Svengali on the left. I'd be brazen if I pointed out his most glaring lack of foresight.

So get out there and vote. Absurdly.

Actually, how to tell not-a-Moslem. Copied from a thread.

Why doesn't the Obama campaign answer this "Are you a Moslem" question sensibly?

"Yes, Obama's father was a Muslim, and abandoned Barack when he was 2 years old. Except for 4 years in Indonesia with his hippie/rural development/NGO/world religion mother Ann Dunham and a Moslem stepfather Soetoro who was a Shell manager more interested in golf and oil than religion, Obama spent most of his youth with his Christian grandparents and became a Christian.

Obama's sister who remained in Indonesia with Dunham and Soetoro is a Buddhist, giving you an idea just how worried about Moslem religion Soetoro was."

Was that that difficult? And isn't it much more convincing than arguing about whether we should say Obama's middle name or worrying about whether "as far as I know" is convincing enough?

And people on this site say Hillary has trouble speaking clearly.

I keep wondering how many people hate Hillary enough for her AUMF vote so as to vote for McCain if she wins - a guy who voted for the AUMF as well as not just supported the surge but pushed for it and glories in it (and acts like it's working).

Because I also think there's a big difference between invading Iraq and deciding to stay, along with the issue of why the hell was there no planning for the weeks post-invasion.

So, are there some of you who hate you some Hillary for the AUMF but are willing to bed down with McCain? Would love to understand why.