Reprehensible Embrace

That Bush said something reprehensible was no surprise. Nor was McCain's reprehensible embrace of it:

This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?

We also might want to discuss why McCain embraces one.

Hillary Clinton's response, from the same article:

President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush.

Straight talk from someone, anyway.

Saint Flip-Flop

The great thing about being John McCain is that you get to play politics-as-usual, and continually flip-flop on the issues, and the corporate media will continue to promote your marketing brand as if it were valid. In 2007, McCain was dead set against Iraq withdrawal timelines. The Associated Press reported:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Saturday he will not relent in his fight against Democrats in Congress who want to set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

"We will not allow the United States of America to lose this war," the Arizona senator told a packed crowd at a restaurant.

Now, we'll just slide by the part about not losing a war that had already been lost, and that never should have been fought, but note that McCain was equating timelines with defeat. And just last month, McCain criticized Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for suggesting timelines:

Love And Human Rights!

San Francisco Chronicle:

Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.

In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.

The ruling set off a celebration at San Francisco City Hall. As the decision came down, out-of-breath staff members ran into the mayor's office where Gavin Newsom read the decision.

Los Angeles Times:

Today’s ruling by the Republican-dominated court affects more than 100,000 same-sex couples in the state, about a quarter of whom have children, according to U.S. census figures. It came after high courts in New York, Washington and New Jersey refused to extend marriage rights to gay couples. Before today, only Massachusetts' top court has ruled in favor of permitting gays to wed.

Bigots will attempt to overturn this by constitutional amendment. Even Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed bills legalizing gay marriage says he will fight an initiative to ban it.

Endorsements

I'm not surprised that Sen. Edwards chose to endorse Sen. Obama. This is his right as a politician and I'd like to commend him for his gracious comments about Sen. Clinton during his endorsement. Sen. Edwards was my second choice for Presidential candidate. I have a lot of respect for him and for Elizabeth Edwards - and that won't change regardless of whom they choose to endorse.

I'm also not exactly surprised by NARAL Pro-Choice America's endorsement of Sen. Obama (interesting that they left their local affiliates uninformed). The day their endorsed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont was the day I stopped paying any attention to them.

I'd just like to say this to Clinton supporters. The spate of endorsements of Sen. Obama will continue. Every victory of Sen. Clinton's will be followed immediately by high profile endorsements to blunt the impact of that victory - it's called politics. We can't let these things take away our energy or focus in getting people to the polls in the upcoming states to support Sen. Clinton. If you are concerned or upset by the rationale of some of these endorsements, I suggest writing polite emails of disagreement and contributing in some way to Sen. Clinton's campaign. She is at the tail end of a historic race. One of the reasons why pro-Obama forces have been trying to force her to quit is to prevent the possibility of her winning the popular vote. It's in our best interest to be constructive in our advocacy of Sen. Clinton and enable her to win the popular vote. The superdelegates might still tip the nomination to Sen. Obama even if Sen. Clinton wins the popular vote and that is their prerogative and they are allowed to do so per the rules of the primary. However, if that scenario happens, we can make it clear to the entire world that the superdelegates went against the winner of the popular vote. That alone is worth fighting for.

A final request. Let's not respond to endorsements of Sen. Obama by behaving in the same way that we have criticized some Obama supporters of behaving. We can be and should be better than that. You are entirely within your rights to criticize the endorsements but please do so in a polite and thoughtful way.

P.S. Remember the real Fighting Democrat left in this race - "Clinton was brain behind the [Senate] war room".

Open Thread

Enjoy.

Saint Maverick's Mavericks Problem

A couple small problems could be looming for Saint Maverick. And as we saw in 2000 and 2004, even a small problem can turn out to be decisive. The Los Angeles Times Blog reported:

Virtually all the nation's political attention in recent weeks has focused on the compelling state-by-state presidential nomination struggle between two Democrats and the potential for party-splitting strife over there.

But in the Texas Rep. Ron Paul and his libertarian-minded GOP backers are collecting delegates at the local level and planning a revolt against Sen. John McCain at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul in Septembereantime, quietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in Minnesota at the beginning of September.

Paul's presidential candidacy has been correctly dismissed all along in terms of winning the nomination. He was even excluded as irrelevant by Fox News from a nationally-televised GOP debate in New Hampshire.

But what's been largely overlooked is Paul's candidacy as a reflection of a powerful lingering dissatisfaction with the Arizona senator among the party's most conservative conservatives. As anticipated in late March in The Ticket, that situation could be exacerbated by today's expected announcement from former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia for the Libertarian Party's presidential nod, a slot held by Paul in 1988.

And speaking of exacerbations, of course, Barr did exactly that. Taegan Goddard even thinks Barr's candidacy could put Georgia into play:

With former Republican Rep. Bob Barr's announcement yesterday that he'll run for president as a Libertarian, he could actually play a very critical role in deciding the next president.

Most people think Barr's candidacy will drain votes from Sen. John McCain. Though Barr says he's not getting in the race to play a spoiler, that's clearly how he'll make the biggest impact. Hiring Ross Perot's former campaign manager doesn't mean he'll gather support anywhere near the levels Perot did in 1992 and 1996. But he can reach single digit support in many states. Ralph Nader was a spoiler in the 2000 election with just 2.7% of the national vote.

The one state to watch is Barr's home state of Georgia, where he could conceivably get five or more percent of the vote. Georgia has long been seen as part of the GOP base. However, when combined with the large numbers of black voters expected to come out for Sen. Barack Obama, Barr's candidacy could possibly tip the state's 15 electoral votes to the Democrats. That could be the difference in a close election.

Goddard goes on to say that because Barr opposes the war, he could drain votes from presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama. I think he twice overstates Barr's impact, as very few Obama voters would switch to a right wing extremist like Barr, but I also doubt Barr can put a deep red state like Georgia into play. Even so, both Barr and Paul may prove to be headaches for John McCain. Already, in recent primaries, roughly a fourth of the Republican vote is going to people who are not John McCain. That could be telling. In what may be a very tight electoral college map, a couple headaches like that could be decisive in true swing states.

The Media Are the Menace: McCain and Climate Change

The New York Times Editorial Page graciously provides us with an example of why running against John McCain will be so difficult, even in a year that's shaping up as a Democratic tidal wave. As Steve pointed out, just yesterday, John McCain is trying to recast himself as a green conservative. The Times buys it:

John McCain has been engaged in the fight against global warming for years, even at the expense of breaking with Republican orthodoxy and with President Bush on the issue. But it was still an important moment this week when Mr. McCain, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, decided to raise the profile of climate change in the 2008 campaign. We have clearly entered the post-Bush era of policy and politics on climate change. However this election turns out, the United States will have a president who supports mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases. It is possible to begin to believe in the prospect of serious Congressional action.

The "post-Bush era" is not exactly a high bar. One could step over it without one's feet leaving the ground. Being better than Bush on environmental issues is like being smarter than Bush- most sentient beings are. Most non-sentient beings, too, for that matter. But as Joseph Romm recently pointed out in Salon:

While McCain may understand the scale of the climate problem, he does not appear to understand the scale of the solution. He understands the country needs to put in place a mandatory cap on GHG emissions and a trading system to energize American innovation. But in a recent Republican debate, he denied that a cap and trade system is a mandate, even though it would arguably be the most far-reaching government mandate ever legislated.

Moreover, like most conservatives, he doesn't understand or accept the critical role government must play to make that system succeed. Besides initiating a cap-and-trade system, the next president must:

1. Appoint judges who won't gut climate-change efforts.

2. Appoint leaders and staff of key federal agencies who take climate change seriously and believe in the necessary solutions.

3. Embrace an aggressive and broad-based technology deployment strategy to keep the cost of the cap-and-trade system as low as possible.

4. Lead a change in utility regulations to encourage, rather than discourage, energy efficiency and clean energy.

5. Offer strong public advocacy to reverse the years of muzzling and misinformation of the Bush administration.

McCain, of course, would appoint industry lackies such as Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court. His pool of candidates to appoint to federal agencies who both believe in global warming's existence and are Republicans could fit in a thimble. Furthermore:

It's Ain't Over Yet

Having been rather busy last week, I'm a bit behind on blogging. I thought the best way to catch up and comment on the state of the race is to respond to Steve's question on why Sen. Clinton would stay in the race despite facing significant debt ($). West Virginia aside, I can think of so many reasons. Here are a few, not necessarily in order.

Political: Sen. Clinton appears to be staying in the race because she really believes she has a much better chance of delivering the White House to Democrats in November than Sen. Obama. I have seen a lot of discussion in the blogosphere about who has a better chance of winning against Sen. McCain and obviously supporters of Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton both have strong views about their respective candidates' electability. My view has been unchanged since December. I strongly believe Sen. Clinton has a much better chance of beating her Republican opponent - esp. Sen. McCain - than Sen. Obama, once the GOP and media attacks begin. The events of the last couple of months have only solidified my view. More importantly, neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to cross the delegate threshold (more on this below), there is just a slight difference between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama on the popular vote and she's still got a shot at coming out ahead on this metric when all the races are over (see Jay Cost's spreadsheet where Sen. Clinton just beat his popular vote estimate for WV, and Cost's article from last week "Not Quite Yet"). Moreover, according to the rules of the primary, the role of superdelegates is to exercise independent judgment, and given the other not so minor detail that Sen. Obama has not won yet, there is absolutely no reason for her to quit now. The fact that her chances of winning are low doesn't mean her chances of winning are zero. When you are this close on the popular vote and creaming your opponent by over 40% after he has been crowned the nominee (by the media and big chunks of the blogosphere) then you have every reason to stay in the race. [Fun fact: Nebraska - discussed later in this post].

Don't Let The Media Define the Rules of Elections: One of the fundamental values I have sought to see in Democrats is that they not quit before the votes are counted and certainly not quit because the media asks them to quit. I was appalled at what happened in 2000 when Vice President Gore was hounded in the media and declared a "sore loser" even before a Florida recount. I was very disappointed in 2004 when Sen. Kerry gave up quickly without a proper recount in Ohio, ostensibly because he didn't want to be branded a "sore loser". I am sick and tired of Democrats who refuse to stand up for democracy and who are more concerned about what elitist jokers like Tim Russert, David Broder, Frank Rich or (fill in the blanks) think of them than they care about the Democratic party's ideals - one of which is making sure as many people can vote and another being that every vote should be counted. So, if Sen. Clinton can afford to campaign till June 3rd and she and her supporters continue to fund her campaign (I certainly will), I would consider myself indebted to her if she does exactly that and demonstrates that the era of the media ordering candidates around is effectively over. I want a Fighting Democrat as President and as good as Sen. Obama may be as a candidate, there's only one Fighting Democrat left in this race and that's Sen. Hillary Clinton (also see here). As Emily's List President Ellen Malcolm said recently in her op-ed focusing on the calls for Sen. Clinton to quit - "winners never quit and...quitters never win". In fact, there is simply no other American candidate in modern history that I'm aware of who withstood absolutely unprecedented and sustained levels of hostility in the media and blogosphere, was outspent by huge margins in state after state (even WV), was insulted and demeaned in the worst manner possible - sometimes by alleged progressives, and yet, stayed resolute and focused and revealed the true fighter that she is. Her blowout victory in West Virginia where she amassed an impressive popular vote gain under record turnout follows a series of victories in big states despite calls for her to drop out - this is particularly noteworthy coming as it did after the morale-depressing commentary in the media last week about how the race was over. [Big bonus for Democrats if Sen. Clinton becomes the nominee: She is building a massive base of Democratic voters who don't trust the media to tell the truth about Democrats (like her) and who have deep contempt for the gasbags in the media. This is a dream come true for me because building voter skepticism about the media has been one of the principal failings of the Democratic party for a long time and she's almost single-handedly accomplishing what to me should be one of the holy grails of Democratic and progressive politics, i.e., making voters realize that the media is elitist and often dishonest in how it transmits false, often Republican (and increasingly fake "progressive") talking points about Democrats. Another holy grail that she's on the right side of - she has been long been firmly in support of funding alternative progressive institutions and groups outside the Democratic party apparatus that are critical to ensuring the long term success of the progressive movement; contrast that with Sen. Obama's inclinations.]

Universal Healthcare: Yet another reason why she should not drop out has to do with one of the biggest issues facing the country - something that affects the poor and working class of all races and backgrounds - universal healthcare. As I have said before, Sen. Clinton represents the only remaining opportunity to really get universal healthcare passed in the next 4 years. Granted, the chances of her getting it passed are less than 50% but those odds are much better than the odds that truly universal healthcare will get passed by an Obama administration (0%). To me, this alone is an important enough reason for her to stay in the race to be the Democratic nominee, especially given the other considerations above.

Not Good, Senator

It is one thing to lose an uncontested race by 20 points or so. It’s another matter entirely when you lose the same race by over 40 points, after the media has anointed you the presumptive nominee. Team Obama can spin this any way they want, but to suggest that being obliterated by that large of a margin as the presumptive nominee means little is a little disingenuous.

I am also troubled this morning by the news that Team Obama wants to control all the Democratic money this campaign cycle themselves. The campaign has apparently put the word out that Obama doesn’t want his supporters to contribute to the pro-Democratic independent committees that make up the emerging part of a counter-GOP infrastructure. The campaign may be arguing that it wants to ensure a unified message consistent with Obama’s own, and therefore doesn’t want any independent players doing a Tier Two negative campaign against McCain, especially if former Clinton people head those groups. However, a successful Democratic candidate at the national level needs a Tier One/Tier Two effort to win, whereby the candidate stays on the high road pitching voters a positive message himself while Tier Two organizations pin the GOP opponent up against the wall and keep them on the defensive through surrogates that have some distance from the campaign. This is the way successful GOP campaigns have operated against Democrats for years, and Democrats had reached the point of parity with the GOP over the last several years, with better funding. It was supposed to be an essential part of the pushback effort against McCain this year, and Obama just pulled the rug out from under it, because he apparently wants to control the whole message, whatever that will be. I guess I wasn’t aware that the whole party was being taken over by the Obama movement.

Regardless of what you may think about Hillary Clinton's campaign, no one can now doubt that she would have thrown the kitchen sink at McCain using every club in the arsenal during the fall campaign. If Obama thinks that controlling everything himself through a single message from one point of attack is what the primary voters endorsed when he won all these contests, then Democrats have a right to know now what exactly that message will be this fall, and how tough and ruthless his campaign will be in carrying it out. I don't want to find out in September after Obama's defunded the progressive infrastructure through unilateral disarmament that he feels it is beneath him to go toe-to-toe with McCain and fight fire with fire.

Open Thread

Some good news for a change and, boy, these changes are good:

California's new Speaker for the California State Assembly is also the first African-American female to hold the top post in any state. Welcome Karen Bass.

The old Republican playbook of demonizing your opponent by associating them with someone negative doesn't seem to be working this year. Maybe demagoguery has a limit when people realize you are the one who's been screwing them. Wonder how badly the Republicans would lose if the only thing they could run on is their accomplishments.

Your turn now.

Three In A Row

Travis Childers has won Mississippi's 1st Congressional District. He becomes the third Democrat this year to take a Republican seat in a special election. Earlier, Don Cazayoux won Louisiana's 6th, and Bill Foster won Denny Hastert's Illinois 14th. None of these were considered swing districts. All were deep deep red. This is beginning to look like a true tidal wave year for Congressional Democrats.

Almost Heaven?

Okay- you didn't think you could get through West Virginia without a cheesy John Denver reference, did you?

I'll be out tonight, but here's the CNN Results link. Terrible news network, great election night website. Oh- not that it means anything, but Hillary Clinton won. Big. Very big.

Sacrifice

The Boy in the Bubble was interviewed by Politico, and among the usual garbage about the intelligence having been at fault before the Iraq invasion (okay- intelligence was at fault, but not in the sense Bush means), and that leaving would cause a disaster (as opposed to the peace, prosperity, and security caused by staying), we get this:

For the first time, Bush revealed a personal way in which he has tried to acknowledge the sacrifice of soldiers and their families: He has given up golf.

“I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization’s high commissioner for human rights.

“I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life,” he said. “I was playing golf — I think I was in central Texas — and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, ‘It's just not worth it anymore to do.’"

The poor little child. How he suffers.

Has there ever been a more despicable excuse for a human being inside the Oval Office?

Of, By, And For

Interesting little item from the Associated Press:

A list by agency of 51 federal health and safety regulations proposed or adopted since 2005 that could make it more difficult for consumers to sue businesses for faulty products:

Is West Virginia Irrelevant?

There are only two questions about today's West Virginia primary: how many people will turn out, and what will be the meaning of Hillary Clinton's probably enormous margin of victory? If turnout is huge, Clinton could make up the popular vote margin she lost in North Carolina, but that's not likely. Halving it seems more probable. The percentages will be striking, and it will be interesting to watch which the Hillary Hating corporate media will emphasize- the numbers or the percentages. Certainly, the main story line will be that it's too little, too late. Obama has been anointed, the superdelegates and even at least one pledged delegate are moving into his camp, and despite the months of caterwauling from the shrillosphere about Democratic insiders deciding the race, they and the corporate media pretty much have. And despite the months of shrill caterwauling from the shrillosphere about the Clinton team's obvious political ploy of downplaying the importance of states she lost, the states and territory she wins will be marginalized as irrelevant. Anyone who ever believed irony was dead need only tune in to this year's campaign to know that it is doing pretty damn well.

The meaning of today's results will be spun in the obvious ways by the obvious people. That white working class voters will once again favor Clinton by a huge margin will be, by many, written off as attributable to racism. That Obama wins African American voters by absolutely staggering margins never is. And some will once again ignore the possibility that Clinton is dominating the demographic that dominates the West Virginia electorate because she speaks better to their issues. It's easier for some to denigrate certain demographics than to admit that maybe their candidate just isn't closing the deal on that demographic's meat-and-potatoes issues, while the wonkier Clinton is. And the obvious people who have been making obvious demands that Clinton get out of the race will once again ignore the obvious: if he is going to beat McCain, Obama is going to have to find a way to reach the demographics he is not now reaching. Don Frederick and Andrew Malcolm, of the L.A. Times, were right: by staying in until the end, Clinton is actually helping Obama, whose probably enourmous losses in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico would be all the more glaring, were those losses to a candidate no longer in the race; but that still fails to address the continuing problem. Even with the media having buried her. Even with the shrillosphere having buried her. Even with a cacophony of haka having declared her a traitor to all that is right and good in the Universe, hundreds of thousands of people in a small state are today turning out to vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. Some will disparage them. Some will ignore them. Some will pretend that their demographic will still do the right thing, come November. But anyone who is serious of both mind and purpose will take today's result as but yet another measure of the difficult and uncertain task that lies ahead.

Remind Voters That McCain Is A Republican

There’s a raft of campaign-related items yesterday and today for you to comment on.

The latest USA Today/Gallup poll shows that a majority of Democrats across the country don’t want Hillary to drop out. Furthermore, a majority want Obama to unify the party by having Hillary as his running mate. Although this will never happen, what may very well happen is for Obama to select a Hillary supporter from a key state as his running mate, like Ohio’s popular governor Ted Strickland.

Obama has a seven-point lead over McCain in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll out today, 51-44%. The poll notes that Republicans are unpopular among the country, suffering a 21-point disadvantage against Democrats in generic comparisons, yet McCain escapes that damage because seemingly he isn’t being viewed as a Republican. Part of that is successful marketing by his team, part of that is adoring fluffing by his media friends, and part of that is the fact that it’s only May and Obama hasn’t yet hammered him for several months as just another GOP enabler of the worst president in modern times (now down to 31% approval in this poll, and less than that elsewhere).

McCain’s team is now advocating an idea that may doom them: having unmoderated debates with Obama around the country during the summer. I’m sure Team McOld thinks it will be swell for Straight Talk to have multiple opportunities to tell Obama to his face that he is an inexperienced, tax-raising terrorist sympathizer, but I suspect that after he tries this once Obama will mop the floor with him. At least he better mop the floor with him. I don’t want to hear any more crap from him about “respecting” McCain’s service after McCain hits him in the face with a rhetorical fusillade, and Obama better take the gloves off and bury this guy multiple times. Obama may have an easier time now dealing with the expected smears from McCain’s team, with news that Americans now trust Democrats to handle better than Republicans all top ten issues identified by Rasmussen, including terrorism and national security.

AWOL Eight Years On Global Warming

As we have said before, John McCain will spend the next several months recasting himself as a better conservative than George W. Bush, especially on issues important to swing and independent voters like health care and global warming. McCain has already modified his earlier, lame health care agenda, which originally relied upon Bush's tax credit approach and did nothing to make coverage more affordable. He and his chief advisors have re-issued his proposal to rely upon purchasing pools, technology, and competition without mandates to make insurance more affordable, a small-ball approach that does little to ensure affordability or deal with the millions who don't have insurance. Then again, that really isn't the point behind McCain's pivot. He simply wants to spin his new proposal as a better approach that shows he cares, even though it does nothing to rein in costs or extend coverage to the uninsured, especially those with pre-existing conditions. McCain simply wants to scare voters away from a Democratic proposal by using the same "Harry and Louise" talking points that Obama has already used against Clinton and Edwards' proposals.

Similarly now, McCain is racing to recast himself as a conservative who will do something on global warming. Yesterday, McCain separated himself from Bush's inaction on the issue by saying eight years of neglect was wrong. He supported caps on emissions and a trading system along the lines of what he and Joe Lieberman have touted for years. The only problem with McCain's sudden indignation against Bush's record is that McCain was a member of the majority party in the Senate for much of this decade, and was in a position to be a leader on this issue with broad bipartisan support already in place. And yet never in those six years did McCain take on Bush directly and mount a bipartisan assault on the administration's negligence. He had the right issue, the right pulpit, the street cred, and broad bipartisan support for the taking, and yet he never hammered away on this issue.

And now suddenly, when he is running as the Better Bush, he wants us to believe that this is a major issue that has his attention, when he couldn't be bothered to challenge Bush directly on it for eight years?

Open Thread

Another sign of inflation, albeit just a penny this year.

Your turn now.

The Real Math

Marc Ambinder offers an Obama/McCain Election Map:

McCain's base states + his leaners: 245 electoral votes.

Obama's base states + his leaners: 221 electoral votes.

McCain's base:

Texas (34), West Virginia (5), Georgia (15), South Carolina (8), Kentucky (8), Tennessee (11), Alabama (9), Mississippi (6), Louisiana (9), Arkansas (6), Wyoming (3), Idaho (4), Utah (5), Arizona (10), Alaska (3), Oklahoma (7), Kansas (6), Nebraska (5), South Dakota (3), North Dakota (3), North Carolina (15)

Tilting McCain, he sees Virginia as a possible toss-up, thanks to Mark Warner's popularity. I'd love to be wrong, but the polls I've seen have McCain with a solid lead over Obama, and I think Virginia will prove a false toss-up, as New Jersey and Hawaii proved for Bush over Gore. Ambinder also leans Florida as tilting McCain, but I think it's more solid. Same with Indiana. I do think Obama could win Missouri and Nevada, although the polls show a tough fight for Obama in the former, while McCain has the obvious neighbor's advantage in Nevada (the same factor helps Obama in Indiana, but that's a pretty solidly red state).

The toss-ups are Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, New Mexico, and Colorado. I think those are all fairly listed, although I think Obama has particularly strong chances in Wisconsin and Iowa, while he'll be particularly vulnerable in Pennsylvania and Ohio- which is the key to his electability problems. I agree that New Mexico and Colorado could go either way.

Obama's base:

Washington, D.C. (3), Maryland (10), California (55), New York (31), Vermont (3), Massachusetts (12), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Rhode Island (4), Illinois (21), Hawaii (4), New Jersey (15), Maine (4)

Probably right, although some polls have shown Obama could be vulnerable in Masachusetts, of all places!

Tilting Obama are New Hampshire, Michigan, Minnesota, and Oregon. As Ambinder points out, New Hampshire is trending blue, but McCain's maverick schtick could work there. Michigan could give Obama problems similar to those in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Ambinder thinks the convention will give McCain a boost in Minnesota, and adding Pawlenty to the ticket would make for an added boost, but I disagree with the former and doubt the latter will happen. For McCain to win Minnesota would strike me as a pretty big upset. And even though some polls have shown McCain to be competitive in Oregon, I don't see him winning. Maybe it's faith in my home state.

But once again, I think people need to realize that this is going to be a very tough race. On the surface, it would seem that any Democrat should be able to win, this year, but McCain is a corporate media darling, and a variety of factors put a variety of states into play. From previous Clinton/McCain maps, it seems that Clinton puts fewer states in play. She is vulnerable in fewer states, but she also has upset possibilities in fewer states. Obama has a wider playing field, but that cuts both ways.

The key for Obama still comes down to the swath of states from Pennsylvania through Michigan and Ohio to Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missouri. Some think he will turn enough western states blue to be able to overcome some losses in some of those larger states. I don't. He's not, as some would have it, unelectable; but he's also not, as some would have it, a clear favorite. I cannot say this often enough: this is going to be a long, hard, and often vicious campaign. Be prepared.

What Will It Take?

I've said it before: I don't see many substantive differences between Clinton and Obama, and I do see many substantive differences between both of them and McCain; so, even though neither of the Democrats was close to being my first choice, my support for whichever wins the nomination is certain. But I have a short, simple question for those Clinton supporters who are considering not voting for Obama, should Obama become the party's nominee: what does Obama have to do to win your support?

I realize that there are Obama supporters who are appalled and outraged that anyone could fail to comprehend the wondrousness of the Chosen One, and I realize there are Clinton supporters who will never sell their souls by voting for the Evil One, but I want to hear from the sane and the rational. I want to hear from the Clinton supporters who are upset, and considering walking away, but who are, however reluctantly, open to persuasion. I want to hear from the Obama supporters who are thrilled that their guy now almost has the nomination locked down (and, yes- there is still a very very small chance that he doesn't), but who recognize that there were valid reasons for good people to prefer Clinton. I'd love to see evidence that some of you who are truly passionate for your candidates can discuss this passionately, honestly, and calmly. I've seen it in some threads, but not in others. So, what issues make you Clinton supporters waver? What can Obama do or say to win you? What can you Obama supporters say, in response, to convince these Clinton supporters that Obama is a worthy consolation candidate?

Smart

This is a step in the right direction, and I'm glad to see it. From the Associated Press:

Barack Obama's surging presidential campaign announced Monday that he will visit politically neglected Florida and Michigan, as he focuses on a general election strategy with his primary race winding down.

It will be Obama's first time in either state since signing a pledge nine months ago not to campaign in the two states that violated national party rules with early primaries. Obama will have to build relationships in the two critical general election battlegrounds if he wins the Democratic nomination.

It's great that the Obama team recognizes they have two big problems, and now that Obama's all but inevitable, it would also be smart for them to take a more reconciliatory stand on seating the delegates.

Shredding The Constitution For Naught

So the vastly increased amount of domestic surveillance upon Americans by the Bush Administration isn’t resulting in more and more terrorism-related prosecutions after all? If they aren’t using the fruits of these illegal activities to actually round up terrorist cells and prosecute the bad guys here at home, then there are several questions:

1. What exactly is the Bush Administration shredding the Constitution for, if it isn’t to assist law enforcement to bring alleged domestic terrorist threats to justice and protect the homeland?

2. Was the original threat of domestic cells overstated from Day One?

3. How can anyone measure the War on Terror if prosecutions don’t matter?

The number of FISA warrants and National Security Letters has spiked upwards, but the DOJ says that measuring outcomes in terms of prosecutions isn’t necessarily warranted, as there are other uses of this information in the diplomatic and military worlds, presumably overseas. But if such information is generated from domestic surveillance and yet doesn’t result in domestic law enforcement or prosecution activities, then how relevant is this information to fighting terrorism at all?

The $20 Million Question

Why rack up a debt of $20 million this late in the campaign? What nobility is there in continuing a race without broad financial support, one that has generated a debt that will require years of fundraising to pay it off? No matter how much you may support Hillary’s remaining effort, can a debt that size this late in the season be justified as the cost of doing business at the back end of a failed strategy, despite the more civil tone each side has displayed towards the other since North Carolina?

It would be different if Hillary were still within striking difference even with uncontested upcoming victories in Kentucky and West Virginia, and with a firewall of superdelegate support. But both of those are now no longer in play, as Obama has caught and passed her among superdelegates, and the upcoming contests will not turn the race back to her favor among elected delegates. So why go into debt $20 million this late in the campaign, if the only reason is to leave on your own terms, or to save one last round of cannon fire for the front-runner? In either case, the indebtedness seems unwarranted.

Open Thread

Meanwhile, the Chilean volcano, Chaitén, continues to spew ash across more than 1000 miles of South America -- across Patagonia and Argentina. What is the effect of this ash on the landscape upon which it falls? Evidently the Chilean scientists are telling the people that the ash is not toxic. Yet, volcanic ash can have very bad effect on people and animals in its path according to this USGS report. Also, wet volcanic ash is a good conductor of electricity according to the USGS. Check out the 11th picture in this set if you are curious to see how good it can be at that task.

What stories are you following?

American Workers Are Not Parts

To the absolute surprise of no one the sorry-assed excuses daring to call themselves human beings “managing” Circuit City offered the company for sale yesterday, failing in their cash flow as badly as they failed the workers they were responsible for. There are a great many elements of America in need of urgent change in the 21st century, and surely one of the most desperately needed is a complete turnaround from the outrageous business norm that American workers are merely parts, anything goes in any sickening attempt to keep a business profitable.

For those who don’t know, Circuit City fired all of its experienced better-paid sales staff in 2007 and replaced them with cheaper new hires, all those long hours of sore feet, learning arcane product knowledge, dealing with the public and bringing in the life blood of the company simply tossed to the winds. There is no American life without a decent job, you invested years into this one playing by all the rules but poverty and no health insurance is what you get. So?

Open Thread

A sad Saturday night movie viewing: No End In Sight.

Funny how badly Bush's little war turned out.

Your turn now.

Neo-Con Dreams

We've always known that when George W Bush launched his preemptive war against Iraq, the public reasons and excuses for war were a mere cover for the actual reasons the neo-cons wanted war. In 2003, the American Public thought that the war was for: 1) Saddam was seeking to create weapons of mass destruction, 2) Saddam was behind 9/11 and 3) Saddam was an ally of Osama bin Laden.

However, the invasion of Iraq was always about more than "the central front on the war on terror", it was the first step on the way to creating the American empire. Now there is even more proof that this was true.

Many in the Bush administration were eager to invade Iraq immediately following the September 11 attacks, regardless of who was later deemed to be responsible. This is well-known. What's gotten less attention are claims, made by Wesley Clark in 2003, that Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and possibly Lebanon were on the hit list as well. New credence has now been given to these claims -- credence that comes from examining passages in Douglas Feith's recent book War and Decision. In the book, Feith wrote of the September 30, 2001, memo from Rumsfeld to President Bush advocating "new regimes" in some states -- in quoting from the document, Feith mentions Afghanistan but deleted the rest of the list, putting "some other states" in brackets, seemingly as an irrelevant aside.

So the enterprising historian Gareth Porter did what, apparently, nobody deigned to do: he simply asked Feith what other states the Secretary of Defense proposed invading. Feith declined to say, for national security reasons, what the states were -- but the wily Porter pressed on, asking Feith what countries on Clark's list were in the document. Feith acknowledged, "All of them."

It was supposed to be easy. Iraq was first on the long list of countries that would be violently yanked into America's list of vassels. Saddam was seen as weak and a suitable object lesson.

Altercation asks a frightening question: What if Iraq had gone well? In that case, how many countries would we have invaded already?

One other point. If John McCain is elected president, the neo-con dreams would continue unabated as voting for McCain would be seen as a total vindication of the neo-con's approach to foreign policy as so aptly noted by Turkana.

What Kind of Party?

As Atrios absent-mindedly rang the bell for a six year run at Eschaton yesterday I suddenly realized with a pang that the blogosphere I have known so well for all this time will soon change dramatically forever. Before we know it there will be no derisive Your President Speaks! at First Draft, for President Mondo Fucko, as the incomparable Melissa McEwan of Shakesville describes him, will finally, actually be gone. A grateful, happy change, yes, but it will still mark the official end of a very special time.

I have no doubt whatsoever the blogosphere and internet political activism will continue to thrive and grow next year, just as I am implacably certain John McCain and the Republicans are about to get the unholy shit beat out of them in an epic record-shattering loss by Barack Obama and all the rest of us. No self-identified, registered Democrat is staying home this year, no matter what happens, the Independents are all breaking Democrat and we have awesome internet activism machines, Jesus what a rout it’s going to be.