1. Senator Clinton: the first official campaign statement regarding your opinion that delegates for Florida and Michigan should be seated came on January 25th. This was after votes held in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. It was also just one day before polls showed you would likely lose in South Carolina and just four days before Florida would hold its primary.  

Why didn't your campaign protest the idea of the delegates being taken away from MI and FL back in September when you signed the no campaign pledge or in the several months after that when you were campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire where voters there take the early primary status seriously?   Follow-up: If it was such a great injustice to the voters of these states, shouldn't you have protested the DNC plan to strip the delegates immediately when the punishment was proposed?    2.  You've made foreign policy experience an issue in this campaign and said that you are the better Democrat on foreign policy and would be best in a crisis. Two of the examples you use have been Northern Ireland and Kosovo. Is it fair to use the best foreign policy examples of your husband's Presidency when you had no meaningful role in negotiations with heads of state and no actual decision making authority?   Followup question, probably the most important foreign policy issue that has come before you as an elected official was the vote to authorize President Bush to use military force against Iraq. Were the 23 Senators who voted against the war authorization, which included 21 Democrats, ultimately proved that they were correct to oppose the AUMF resolution?   3. How can your campaign claim that your primary victories in states such as Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and California are good examplesof your strength as a candidate for the General Election, while then your campaign also dismisses the same conclusion for the states won by Senator Obama such as Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa, and Colorado?   Follow-up: If you are the nominee in November, many people have said that your candidacy will be the greatest chance the GOP has to mobilize a base of voters who are voting simply against the Clinton name and who otherwise are not going to be motivated in November. Could a Clinton candidacy in November have an adverse affect on "down ticket" Democrats running for elected office in states like North Carolina, Kansas, Iowa, and Washington? 


If you enjoyed this post, please click the recommend this link and share with other readers.

Harold Ickes, senior advisor to Hillary Clinton, said this week:

As another counterargument, Mr. Obama has been toting up his victories to suggest a striking range of popularity in states that usually fall outside the Democratic electoral map. Yet though these states have helped give him a lead in pledged delegates, it appears far from likely that he would be able to carry some of them in a general election....

“Most of those states haven’t voted Democratic in a presidential since the Johnson landslide over Goldwater in 1964, and we don’t see that changing,” said Harold Ickes, a senior adviser to Mrs. Clinton. “They’re great states, but Idaho, Nebraska and the Carolinas are not going to be in the Democratic column in November. He’s winning the Democratic process, but that is virtually irrelevant to the general election.”

I find this amusing/infuriating not because he is wrong, but because he is right.

Winning the Democratic process in Ohio, New York, California, Pennsylvania AND also in Nebraska, Louisiana, and the Carolinas IS irrelevant to the general election. (except in the sense of winning the most delegates to get the nomination...)  

Please remind Hillary Clinton, Mark Penn, and the other Clinton spokespeople that winning or losing a primary does not equal general election success.   

However, what are some numbers or statistics that could give us some insight into likely success or failure in the general election?  How about a mid-40s nationwide unfavorable rating that has lasted about eight straight years?

Each time we seem to take a step closer to a revote in FL or MI, a day or two later we seem to take two steps back. Just as the "mail in vote" seemed to be gaining traction in FL, it now appears unlikely to happen given opposition from the entire FL Democratic congressional delegation.

Here are the ideas I've read about as options:
1. Hold a new vote, primary style
2. Hold a new vote, caucus style
3. Hold a new vote, mail-in
4. Seat the delegates, splitting them 50-50 for HC and BO
5. Only seat the delegates after nominee is decided
6. Seat the delegates according to elections results.

As has been widely reported, #1 main problem is cost and each week that passes the time needed to pull it off gets more challenging. #2 is opposed by the Clinton camp since they've performed so badly in caucus states. #3 is looking like is has lots of holes now. #4 would be opposed by HC campaign because they need to cut into Obama's delegate lead. #5 would be great except here we are in mid-March and there are still two candidates. #6 ain't going to happen unless the nomination is in someone's hands already.

I would propose a two part solution based on #4 that guarantees MI and FL are at least seated at the convention:  Howard Dean and the DNC should pledge that the FL and MI will be seated at the convention no matter what happens. The only fair way to do this would be to require that the two state's pledged delegates be allocated 50-50 (option 4), however at the same time freeing up the superdelegates to support either candidate. However, the 50-50 solution is not final. If either state can find a satisfactory way to hold a new primary before the convention, then the delegates will be re-apportioned based on that vote. (apologies if this has been suggested already).

Why this is good for all involved:  For FL and MI delegates and party members, it allows them to make preparations to get to Colorado for the convention. For Hillary, at worst she would pick up a net gain of 10 superdelegates and she can continue to try to negotiate with the states to run new primaries. For Obama, he loses the 10 superdelegates but this would prevent a nasty convention fight with the credentials committee on this issue, something that would be a devastating way to end this affair for the party. It also possibly makes it more acceptable for party leaders in MI and FL to do nothing on a re-vote.

I don't know. It seems like we need some sort of compromise on this. If you don't agree, tell me what you think should be done. It seems like any solution/compromise must:
- clearly not benefit one candidate over the other
- be reasonably fair to MI and FL voters
- be legal
- be affordable
- be done before the convention

Last thought: Rock, paper, scissors?

If you enjoyed this post, please share with other readers by clicking on the 'recommend this' link below. If you want to be smarter, don't go to my blog but rather I'd suggest you read FlyOnTheWall's blog.

Yes, Geraldine Ferraro may be right. I've looked into some key states Obama won in the primary and the numbers don't lie. Just look at the unfair advantage he held in those states based on the demographics:

Percent of state population that is African-American:
Wisconsin:  6%  (Obama won +17%)
Minnesota: 4.5% (Obama won +34%)
Washington: 3.6% (Obama won +36%)
Iowa: 2.5% (Obama won +9%)
Wyoming: 0.9% (Obama won +24%)
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ and
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/

There's more though. It's clear that many white voters across America are excited by the prospect of supporting historic black elected officials. This is patently unfairly to other qualified candiates.

For evidence look no further than the United States Senate. Long a bastion of the elite, times have changed because of the demand for more black officials from America's voters. Between 1881 - 1967 there were no African-Americans in the U.S. Senate. But since 1967 there have been 3 black Senators - and Barack Obama is one of them! 

While this does mean African-Americans make up only 1% of the U.S. Senate, they've also seen a tripling of their number in that body since 1967. This clearly demonstrates that black politicians have an easy road to success in modern American elections.

It's a fact: Voters across America just want to elect black people - regardless of their positions or the issues they stand for. You can argue with me about my opinion, but you can't argue with the math!

Important author note: this was written with obvious sarcasm and snarkiness. I'm mostly just blowing off steam because this is all kind of sad really. Those numbers are correct though. I think Josh's points about this are right on. 

If you enjoyed my sarcasm, please click the "recommend this" link. Please add your sarcasm or snark to the comments below. 

I don't think there's any way that McCain will pick Mitt Romney for the VP slot, but the Weekly Standard believes the GOP ticket could use a dose of Mittmentum:

Romney...[is] acceptable to conservatives and especially to social conservatives, who disproportionately volunteer as ground troops in Republican presidential campaigns. He's unflappable in debates. With the downturn worsening, the economy may surpass national security as the top issue of the campaign. And after years of success as a big time player in the global economy, Romney understands how markets work. He could shore up McCain's admitted weakness on economic issues.

Romney has allies in the Bush wing of the Republican party. President Bush favors him as McCain's veep. Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, preferred Romney over McCain in the primaries, but never endorsed him publicly. Karl Rove, the president's political strategist, has hinted that he considers Romney to be McCain's best running mate.

Please, please, please pick Mitt. President Bush and Karl Rove like him - and they're never wrong!

There's only one thing that could distract me from the Democratic race and that's the possibility that Mitt will return and try to run with the man who belittled him at each and every debate.  

The Weekly Standard, while pushing for Mitt on the ticket, admits in the end what will stop this dream ticket:

Romney thus appears to have the best ratio of virtues to drawbacks. But there's just one problem: McCain doesn't like him.

It's not going to happen - but we can dream. 

Viva Mittmentum!

If you enjoyed this post, please share with other readers by clinking on the 'recommend this' link.

The anxiety of not knowning how this primary is going to turn out has possibly led to an increase in the vitriolic comments recently on TPM, from supporters of both candidates. I've gotten caught up in this at times as well - say like blowing a fuse when someone argues that New York is a swing state or that I'm a sexist if I say anything critical of Hillary's campaign...WTF?!....doh...anger coming back...just breathe...

Some of the exchanges remain all in good fun and what I would call playful ribbing of each side (for example the now cult like following of idiotic's sarcastic posts that "THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!"

Maybe it's time for everyone to take a deep breath. Ok, so I'm going to try to help start the healing by recognizing the Clinton campaign for a few things:   

1. They said she had to win TX and OH and she did: Hillary's campaign was floundering between South Carolina and Wisconsin. They seemed to make blunder after blunder and her message and groundgame were not working. Whatever happened with the delegate count in Texas, Clinton won the popular vote and so in the traditional sense she won Texas. (Ironically, had Obama won the popular vote but somehow lost the delegate vote there he would have almost certainly forced Hillary out). The camapign went all in and Obama could have ended it in Texas but was unable.

2. Superdelegates remain neutral: The main reason that her OH/TX popular vote victories were so important was that they kept the superdelegates from deciding this right now (although as I noted this week, he's still slowly gaining on her). You'll remember some articles out there before TX-OH that said that many superdelegates were ready to end this after 3/4 and that the Clinton campaign was working hard to tell superdelegates to give them more time. There is now sufficient doubt with the superdelegates, especially with the possibility of FL and MI revotes, that many are staying out of it until there is a "clear" winner.

3. Elevating the importance of big states: I will grudgingly tip my hat on this one because I personally find it so ridiculous. But there's no denying now that that the MSM is repeating the Clinton camp message that Hillary has demonstrated electoral strength for the general election by winning in the big or big-swing electoral states.  Oh how this talking point is flawed but somehow it keeps coming up in what I'm reading and around the water-cooler. The Obama camp has not effectively countered this recently and has allowed Clinton to set up a new measurement for success that benefits her. Which has led to... 

4. Pennsylvania already touted as "the new Iowa":
The MSM and perhaps many of us had already counted WY and MS as wins for Obama this week and so it has already been set up that Clinton didn't have to compete. Everyone is talking about PA instead, another natural place for a Clinton victory. For an Obama supporter this is frustrating (why does Obama have to prove himself in states that lean toward Hillary on demographics, but she does not have to do likewise in states that benefit Obama demographically?). But I again tip my hat to the Clinton campaign for working to set the tone of the measurements for victory.    

Final thoughts: I can be angry with Hillary for her Iraq war vote without  hating her as a person. I can dislike her red phone ad, but also acknowledge that she's fighting for her political life and is going to hit hard. I can disagree with her mixing Bill Clinton's accomplishments into her own record on foreign policy but acknowledge that she has successfully put doubt into some people's minds about Obama's credentials.

I still don't think she can win the nomination (because of the delegate math which leaves Hillary with little room for error). But I'll admit that she's not out of it yet either- she'll have to have a pretty amazing run from here on out. I'm beginning to prepare for a ticket with her on it as the VP too. While I still don't like the idea (because I think it means national losses for Red State Democrats), I am more at peace with it if it means that we can all move forward towards November as a united bunch, working to win. 

As FlyOnTheWall would say, if you liked this post please share it with other readers by clicking on the "recommend this" link.