I hereby nominate Harold Ickes.  In a meeting stacked with Clinton supporters, Ickes claims the election is being "hijacked".

Harold Ickes: worst loser in the world?

Donna Brazile was just booed (presumably by Hillary's supporters) for saying that her Momma taught her to play by the rules.  She was booed.  Which tells you how Clinton's supporters feel about the rules.  And Brazile was booed for stating that trying to change the rules is cheating.  And God bless her for saying it clearly, and God bless her for pointing out once again that the goal here is party unity.  Party unity.  What a concept.

If either Clinton or Obama wins today, the party will not have been well served.  Every Democrat should come away today with the feeling that they've given a little.

In today's Boston Globe, Geraldine Ferraro presses her increasingly bitter and loony case that Hillary Clinton was "denied the presidency" due to sexism.  One problem: Ferraro can't seem to be bothered to cite a single example of the horrendous "sexism" Hillary has been subjected to (although I suspect Penn Jillette and Chris Matthews are mostly to blame).  What we know from Hillary's own statements is that Hillary believes the nasty part of campaigning is "the fun part" and that those who "can't stand the heat should get out of the kitchen."  I would assume the heat includes sexist remarks from pundits, but perhaps there are rules here that only Hillary and Geraldine understand.  Ferraro then goes on to suggest once again that the reason Obama is winning is because he is a black man who has been able to successfully exploit the super-secret political equivalent of Affirmative Action in order to game the system.  The tortured, twisted logic here is truly breathtaking, as Ferraro tries to juggle her racist attitudes with her strong belief that she is, in fact, NOT a racist.  Nice try, Geraldine.

They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment.

See?  It's not racism.  It's racial resentment.  That's completely different.  I don't hate black people--I merely resent them.  In Ferraro's world, sexism and "reverse racism" have skewed an election that should have gone to the obvious best choice for president: the woman.  In Ferraro's world, being a woman is a nearly insurmountable deficit, but being a black man is somehow an advantage.  Oh, to live in the incredibly simple world of Geraldine Ferraro.

It's worth a read, if only because she seems to have grudgingly begun to accept reality.

Dawn Teo has a piece up at the Huffington Post that's well worth reading.  Michelle Obama, speaking at a fundraiser in Phoenix, addresses the security question:

"I've talked about this before. Barack is probably safer now than he was before. Kids are dying in the street in our community. They get shot walking to class, sitting in school, taking the bus home. They are dying in the street.... Send us good vibes. Pray for us. Think positive thoughts. But most of all, be vigilant. Be vigilant about stopping this kind of talk. It's not funny. You don't have to like Barack to dislike that kind of talk. Be vigilant about stopping that kind of talk."

Michelle has really grown as a spokeswoman for her husband's message.  I believe the Obamas will serve this country well, and that Michelle will be an amazing First Lady.

Ever wonder who's been dishing the dirtiest dirt this campaign season?  Well wonder no longer.  Poblano over at FiveThirtyEight has crunched the contumely and he's got the numbers.  Check it out:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/incoming.html

The Obama campaign has done an amazing job, but they're missing a few vitally important points:

1). Judgment

The McCain campaign has lately been trying to conflate the word experience with the words wisdom and judgment. Listen to McCain when he speaks.  He always says, "Obama lacks the experience and the judgment and the experience, blah, blah, blah, whatever..."  This is a framing strategy, and the Obama campaign needs to defuse it immediately. Experience informs judgment, but it does not define it.  Obama may not have the experience of McCain, but he's got McCain beat by a mile on judgment.  McCain voted to invade Iraq.  Obama warned against it.

2). Experience

The Obama campaign is undervaluing the breadth of Obama's experience and allowing McCain to overvalue his own. This is a serious mistake. John McCain spent 22 years in the Navy. His life experience is shallow.  This is his fatal flaw. His years in the military have given him an incredibly skewed view of how problems are solved. The Obama campaign needs to hit him hard on this. The reason McCain is a militarist is because he is a military man.

3). Rage and Instability

John McCain has a history of being angry and unstable. He called his wife a cunt in public. This will be extremely important to Hillary's supporters.

4). The Constitution

Obama's expertise in Constitutional law is being underemphasized. Among the worst crimes of the Bush administration have been his blatant attacks on the Constitution--the heart and soul of our democracy. Obama has the judgment and the knowledge to repair the damage. McCain is not even in the conversation. The fight for the restoration of the Constitution should be a central theme of the Obama campaign. This is where Obama establishes his patriotism. This is where Appalachia salutes the flag. This is where McCain can't compete.

Any others you can think of?

 

I believe I've come up with a solution for Michigan and Florida that is both fair and simple to implement.  I've already sent my idea to the Obama campaign, and will be submitting it to the Clinton campaign as well.  I thought I'd post it here for your consideration.

In both states, I believe Hillary should receive all of the votes that were cast for her, and those votes should be subtracted from the total number of registered Democrats in the state.  Obama should then receive the number of votes equal to the difference.

Seems fair to me...

From the Washington Post's The Trail:

"A federal judge in Tampa has again tossed out a lawsuit filed by a Florida political consultant angry that his vote in the state's Democratic primary will not count. Victor DiMaio's lawsuit contended that the Democratic National Committee is discriminating against Florida voters.

Judge Richard A. Lazzara agreed with the DNC, which said that it its practices are not discriminatory and political parties have a constitutional right to determine how delegates are selected in their nominating process."

On Saturday, the Clinton and Obama campaigns will each present their cases to the Rules and Bylaws Committee concerning the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates.  While this may appear to be a simple matter, it is far from it.  Saturday's decision could well change forever the way the Democratic nominating process works.

First off, it's important to remember that this issue has already been settled.  The Rules and Bylaws Committee has made its decision, the votes were counted, and all parties have signed off on the decision.  All of the candidates went into the race knowing that the delegates from Florida and Michigan would not be seated and, in an oft-quoted statement from October of last year, Hillary acknowledged her understanding of and agreement to the rules.  And yet the Clinton campaign now seems determined to have the rules changed in the middle of a contentious nominating contest.

Let's be clear: this is not about some high-minded concern by the Clinton campaign for the rights of the citizens of Florida and Michigan.  The Clintons' concern about those states' delegates extends only as far as those delegates might help Hillary secure the nomination.  You can be quite certain that if Obama was behind in this race, and needed those states in order to compete, the Clinton campaign would be fighting equally hard to prevent those delegates from being seated.  What this is really about is an exception.  The Clinton campaign wants the Rules and Bylaws Committee to make a special exception to the rules--an exception that would favor them and would allow them to make their case to the superdelegates.  The case, of course, being that this race is so close that a winner cannot be determined, and that the superdelegates should hand the nomination to Hillary, based upon some metric other than the delegate count.  The public outrage that the Clintons are attempting to generate is a smokescreen.  Their intention is to convince you that there's something dishonorable and possibly undemocratic about sticking to the rules that all parties agreed to.  In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Here's the point you need to consider:

If the Clinton campaign somehow manages to convince the Rules and Bylaws Committee to change the rules and make an exception in this case, this will set a precedent that will forever be part of the Party's nominating process.  It will also threaten the independence and authority of the DNC, since, once an exception has been made, aggrieved candidates in the future <em>will</em> be able to claim discrimination any time they are denied an exception--citing the current situation as a precedent.  Lawsuits will be filed, and the courts will hear cases.  And, ironically, we could be stuck with a situation similar to Florida in 2000, where the courts may very well be in a position to decide the nominee of the Democratic Party instead of leaving that decision up to the voters.

This is the situation we are faced with, and it presents a question that supporters of Senator Clinton should consider very carefully.  Because this is a sword that, once unsheathed, will forever cut both ways.  A decision in your favor now may very well lead to a very unhappy situation in the future.  Is this what you want?  Think carefully before you answer.

(CNN) — A Florida court threw out a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the Democratic Party's decision not to seat delegates from Florida — as litigants prepared to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Political consultant Victor DiMaio and his lawyer Michael Steinberg had compared the party's decision to earlier prohibitions against allowing African-Americans to vote and invoked the trauma of the Florida recount in the 2000 contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush, both arguments also used by Hillary Clinton to support the seating of the state’s delegates.

"This is nuts. This is not right. How can they remove Florida after all the things that Florida has suffered through– hanging chads, through Bush v Gore, and they're sticking it to us again," DiMaio said before the hearing.

Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean says the situations are not comparable.

"You cannot violate the rules of the process and then expect to get forgiven for it," he said.

Judge Richard Lazarra sided with the party, saying political parties have the right to make their own rules.

DiMaio's is the second Florida lawsuit protesting the Democratic Party's decision to be thrown out of court. An earlier one filed by Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Alcee Hastings, both Florida Democrats, was also dismissed.

Link

According to the Associate Press, DNC lawyers have advised the Rules and Bylaws Committee that seating half the delegates from Florida and Michigan "is as far as they can legally go."  If this is true, and if this analysis by Madison Powers at CQ is correct, it's essentially all over for Hillary.

According to Powers: The effort to press for the counting of Florida and Michigan was a premeditated act, a deliberate strategy adopted at a time when it was clear that her opposition was relying on her representations that neither outcome would count. It was, in effect, a classic case of bait and switch.

If so, we should see Hillary pull out when it becomes apparent that the Florida/Michigan strategy has failed.  But will we?  I've learned not to underestimate the self-interested ruthlessness of the Clintons.  I'll believe it when the Hill lady finally sings.  And if they have another few aces stashed up their sleeves, I won't be at all surprised.

A Florida judge has just ruled that the Democratic National Committee has the right to determine whether to seat Florida delegates.  The plaintiff has vowed to take the battle to the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, I went to a picnic at a friends house.  She's a very enthusiastic supporter of Hillary Clinton, and she really doesn't like Barack Obama at all (let's call her "Sue" because her name is Sue).  Another Hillary supporting friend (Kathy) was also there.  At one point, the conversation turned to the subject of Hillary's assassination comment.  My friend Kathy said that she was really shocked by the comment, and that Hillary had lost her as a result of it.  She said she found it ghoulish and unforgivable.  She's always been a Hillary stalwart, so I was a bit surprised to hear this coming from her.  My friend Sue gave the standard Clintonista answer--that Hillary was simply noting that primary battles often go into June and that the assassination talk had nothing to do with anything.  She also restated her belief that Obama is a phony, and too inexperienced to be president.  The usual shit.

Here's the weird part: Kathy won't vote for Obama even though she says Hillary has lost her.  The reason?  She doesn't believe Obama can beat McCain.  So she's not voting for him?  Twisted logic indeed.  On the other hand, my friend Sue says she'll vote for Obama even though she hates him, because she hates McCain worse.  Does this make any sense?

I'm wondering what others are hearing from their Hillary supporting friends.  Will Obama get their vote, or are they planning to make good on the threat to stay home or vote for McCain.  So far, I haven't met a single Hillary supporter who's willing to vote for McCain.

I was just describing Lanny Davis' bizarre, ridiculous piece on Politico to my wife, when she said, "Wait.  I don't remember who Lanny Davis is.  Is he that guy that looks like a cross-dresser?"  Without even thinking, I said, "No, that's Lindsay Graham."  I even surprised myself when I said it--it just popped out of my mouth.  My wife replied, "Yeah--that's him!  He always looks like he's still wearing the remnants of last night's makeup."

Is that weird, or what?

And if you haven't read Lanny's piece, and you're in the mood to be shocked by how weird things have become in the Clinton camp, hop right over to Politico and read it.  Good for a morning laugh.

Danica Patrick made history last month at Twin Ring Motegi in Japan.  She became the first woman ever to win an IndyCar race, taking the Indy Japan 300 5.8594 seconds ahead of second place pole-sitter Helio Castroneves.  If you're not into auto racing, this may seem like a relatively minor accomplishment, but if you're a racing fan (and particularly a female racing fan), this was an amazing triumph.  It was Patrick's 50th IndyCar start since she began driving in the IRL IndyCar series in 2005.

Today in Indianapolis, Danica isn't doing nearly so well.  Maybe she won't win this time.  She's currently running in 11th place, after losing 10 seconds due to a bad pit stop.  Danica's 26 years old.  She'll win again.

If Danica loses today, I'm fairly certain a few things won't happen:

1). She won't argue that she should have won because she had the shortest pit time of the day, the nicest-looking car, the most fans, or because she ran the fastest single lap of the race.  If she loses, she'll know that it was because she didn't finish first.  She won't try to change the rules.
2). Even if some other driver hits her car and causes her to crash, she won't talk trash about them.
3). She won't claim she lost due to sexism.
4). She won't say she lost because she was outspent.

Danica Patrick is a professional driver in a sport completely dominated by men.  She knows that you win some and you lose some.  And she knows that the sport is much bigger than she is.  Hillary Clinton ought to give Danica Patrick a call sometime.  I think Danica could teach her a thing or two.

In a piece in today's New York Daily News, Hillary Clinton digs in:

This past Friday, during a meeting with a newspaper editorial board, I was asked about whether I was going to continue in the presidential race.

I made clear that I was - and that I thought the urgency to end the 2008 primary process was unprecedented. I pointed out, as I have before, that both my husband's primary campaign, and Senator Robert Kennedy's, had continued into June.

Well... not exactly.  What she pointed out was that Robert Kennedy had been assassinated in June.  If she had said what she claims to have said, there would have been no outrage, and she would not now be forced to revise or explain her statement.

One wonders why she prefers this path over a simple apology.  And particularly why she refuses to apologize to Senator Obama, his supporters and his family.  While I'm trying to accept her claim that she meant no offense, she is certainly aware of the implication of her statement--intended or not.  And she is certainly aware of the distress her comment caused members of the Obama campaign, as well as members of his family.  It would be honorable and right to simply state: "What I said was insensitive, and I apologize to the Kennedy family and the Obama family for any distress I have caused them.  I meant no harm."  Would that be so difficult?

In any other circumstance, I would say that there would be a definite political risk in making such an apology.  An unprincipled opponent could seize upon such a statement and exploit it for their own gain.  We can be reasonably certain, however, that the Obama campaign, working hard now to unite the party, would not go there.  Obama has been gracious and forgiving in this case.  If anything, Hillary has much to gain by apologizing to all of the parties she may have upset (and I'm thinking not just about Senator Obama, his wife, and his staff, but of his two little girls as well).

I'm forced to one of several conclusions:

1). The reason she won't apologize is because, if the situation were reversed, she would exploit it, and she can't imagine Obama not using her apology against her.
2). Her statement was as ghoulish and calculated as it sounded, and she's not willing to admit that she is the monster many have accused her of being.  Her goal was to remind people that Obama could be assassinated.  She wanted to get the word out there and she did.  She made her point.  Why would she apologize?
3). She is unwilling or incapable of taking responsibility for her own mistakes, and apologizing for something she has done which was clearly wrong is not within her vocabulary.

If there's another explanation, I'd like to hear it.  Ignoring or writing over what she said, and lying through elision is simply not acceptable.  I want to give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt, but it's very difficult.