The primary battle is pretty much over, my dog hasn’t crapped inside the house, and the Penguins just scored the first goal of the game. Things are off to a good start.
Posted in Uncategorized
I’ve been saying for some time now that Hillary Clinton didn’t really want the Florida and Michigan controversy to be resolved. What she wanted was doubt and uncertainty. To be able to make the claim that she is the true choice, and that Obama’s victory is illegitimate. If the Florida/Michigan problem came to even an amiable resolution, Clinton would lose. Period.
The resolution increased the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination to 2,118, leaving Obama 66 delegates short but still within striking distance after the three final primaries are held in the next three days.
…
Clinton’s camp insisted Obama shouldn’t get any pledged delegates in Michigan since he chose not to put his name on the ballot, and she should get 73 pledged delegates with 55 uncommitted. Obama’s team insisted the only fair solution was to split the pledged delegates in half between the two campaigns, with 64 each.
The committee agreed on a compromise offered by the Michigan Democratic Party that would split the difference, allowing Clinton to take 69 delegates and Obama 59. Each delegate would get half a vote at the convention in Denver this summer, according to the deal.
…
Obama picked up a total of 32 delegates in Michigan, including superdelegates who have already committed, and 36 in Florida. Clinton picked up 38 in Michigan, including superdelegates, and 56.5 in Florida.
Obama’s total increased to 2,052, and Clinton had 1,877.5.
The way Hillary wanted it to go down was for her to get ALL the delegates, and Obama to get as few as possible (including none from Michigan). Basically, whatever scenario meant she could win it.
The cries of “this isn’t democracy” are total bunk anyway, because tons of votes don’t make a difference in the primary season. None of the Republican votes matter any more, and if the primary season had gone normally and a winner been decided or one of them had conceded back in April then all the upcoming primaries would have been moot, meaning a whole slew of votes were uncounted and meaningless.
They’ve been counted, and Clinton is still far behind. Nearly 200 delegates behind, to be precise. She will lose, period. Obama needs 66 delegates, meaning unless he loses roughly 90-10 in the upcoming primaries he’s got it sealed once the supers make their voices heard.
The one thing that’s really been niggling at me is how the two sides have acted. First Clinton said FL/MI wouldn’t count and that was a given, back when she was the presumptive nominee. Then she’s far behind and now she wants them all counted in her favor. First she loved the superdelegates because that was how she was going to win (in her terminology, it’s just how the rules work). Now she’s got a new-found enthusiasm for the will of the people. Whatever side she needed to take to win, she did.
Obama? From the beginning he’s said “let’s let the people vote, have the superdelegates decide, and then support whoever the winner may be.”
If nothing else, this primary showed why Hillary would be an awful president, let alone candidate. She is not interested in a battle of ideas, letting the people vote and the system work as it is constructed to do and let the decision come down from there. She’s everything we on the left have complained about in president Bush; she’s focused on nothing but her own victory, ethics and consistency be damned.
And that’s a real shame, too, because I liked Clinton until all this happened. I can’t imagine what it’ll be like to go back to the Senate after this. I doubt she’s got a lot of friends after the way she’s conducted her campaign.
Posted in 2008 election, democrats
Talking to Will, who’s been vigilantly watching the Florida-Michigan debacle on C-SPAN:
“So what’s the latest?”
“I don’t know, I got bored so now I’m watching cartoons.”
Dedicated political pundits are we, yes sir.
Posted in Uncategorized
I have to admit, this is a story that I haven’t been paying too close attention to. It would have been easy for me to pick it up, hammer out a quick “hey look, religious nutballs!” article and then dust off my hands and consider it a done deal.
I’m not going to go over it all, you can read up on the latest developments here. Basic story, big giant polygamist sect, children getting married and impregnated and otherwise treated terribly, government steps in and takes the kids, big hullabaloo.
Again, normally I’d either fire out an easy article or, in this case, just ignore it entirely, but then another article came down the pike: the Vatican has completely barred women from being Catholic priests. This one even showed up on Boston legal, with the lawyer arguing that as the church has made progressive decisions in the past, why not this?
This is a great time to sit down, stroke our long white beards in thought, and take a nice long consideration about our 1st amendment. For reference, here it is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Okay, there we go. The first part doesn’t really apply, but the second is certainly interesting. Objectively speaking, there should be absolutely no legal standing for anyone who wants to either force the Catholic church to let women be priests or to stop Mormons from marrying barely-teenaged girls. That’s exercise of religion, ne?
Sure, you say, but that doesn’t count when you’re talking about breaking the law. Close but not quite. It’s happened in the past that religious groups have been allowed to flagrantly break the law because it’s part of their religion. Look at the New Mexico church that won a SCOTUS decision allowing them to drink tea with a hallucinogenic ingredient, technically a Schedule I substance. Or the Amish kids who aren’t subject to laws requiring children to stay in school until they’re 16.
Clearly we have precedent for such things, but there is something inherently in all of us that says these things aren’t right. Not to mention we all do have a piece of our heads that tells us that just because the religion believes it’s right doesn’t mean they should be allowed to do it. Strictly speaking there are all kinds of illegal things commanded by whatever God someone may believe in, can we stop them from acting upon it?
The major religions all have some rather harsh words for what to do to unbelievers, or to those who don’t follow the faith’s commands. You can pick up any book you want and start reading through it, for any religion from Christianity to Wicca, and find a whole slew of things that are against the law or otherwise would not work in 2008 America.
We’re going to have to make a decision in the United States. Either everyone’s subject to the same laws or they aren’t. Either we let everyone have “free exercise” of religion and deal with the consequences or we’re all on the same playing field and you can have whatever faith you want, you just have to be within the same bounds as everyone else.
Being a liberal, I want people to be free to live their lives however they want. Frankly I think if the church says no women priests, deal with it. That’s their rules and if they decide to change ’em, then fine, but don’t force ’em. However, if they’re going to do so, then I subsequently say no to tax-exempt status. Fix the economy and ensure that the church can do their own thing. Win-win!
The bottom line is, we can’t keep dancing between “free exercise” and “the law”.
Okay, back to normal politics.
This is turning out to be the next big thing. Watching the right absolutely melt down trying to shitcan McClellan’s tell-all memoir is nothing short of, to use Bush’s terminology, “awesome”. In a move that probably caused many pants to be shit, Scotty McC even agreed to testify before Congress about what he’s written. Amongst the targets?
The committee is looking into the use of prewar intelligence, whether politics was behind the firing of eight U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity, Wexler, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said.
In the book, McClellan says President Bush told him he had authorized the leaking of Plame Wilson’s identity to the press.
There’s a catch, however. Not only does the White House apparently think they’re allowed to excuse people from testifying, but they think that they can prevent people from doing so.
QUESTION: Could the White House block him from testifying, if he wanted to testify? Or how does that work?
PERINO: Conceivably?
QUESTION: Yes.
PERINO: Hypothetically, which I’m not supposed to answer a hypothetical, yes, I think so. The law would allow for that. But by saying that, I’m not suggesting that that’s what would happen or not happen.
We’re entering new territory of secretive and corrupt here, folks. I’m not even sure how to contemplate an administration that will actually stop people from testifying if they want to.
Posted in republicans
This is turning out to be the next big thing. Watching the right absolutely melt down trying to shitcan McClellan’s tell-all memoir is nothing short of, to use Bush’s terminology, “awesome”. In a move that probably caused many pants to be shit, Scotty McC even agreed to testify before Congress about what he’s written. Amongst the targets?
The committee is looking into the use of prewar intelligence, whether politics was behind the firing of eight U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity, Wexler, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said.
In the book, McClellan says President Bush told him he had authorized the leaking of Plame Wilson’s identity to the press.
There’s a catch, however. Not only does the White House apparently think they’re allowed to excuse people from testifying, but they think that they can prevent people from doing so.
QUESTION: Could the White House block him from testifying, if he wanted to testify? Or how does that work?
PERINO: Conceivably?
QUESTION: Yes.
PERINO: Hypothetically, which I’m not supposed to answer a hypothetical, yes, I think so. The law would allow for that. But by saying that, I’m not suggesting that that’s what would happen or not happen.
We’re entering new territory of secretive and corrupt here, folks. I’m not even sure how to contemplate an administration that will actually stop people from testifying if they want to.
Posted in republicans
Somehow a while ago I managed to miss when the New York Post endorsed Barack Obama. It happened in January, and I guess my extreme aversion to ever glancing at anything the Post does prevented it from entering my radar. But it happened, under the heading “POST ENDORSES OBAMA”:
Democrats in 22 states across America go to the polls next Tuesday to pick between two presidential prospects: Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
We urge them to choose Obama – an untried candidate, to be sure, but preferable to the junior senator from New York.
Obama represents a fresh start.
Okay, so that’s an editorial in the post. Whoop-de-doo. So Murdoch let a pro-Obama endorsement slip through the cracks concerning the Democratic primary. That doesn’t mean we’re talking about the general election, right?
Wrong. It looks like ol’ Murdoch is serious about liking Obama. What does he say about the B-O?
“We’re on the verge of a complete phenomenon,” Murdoch said. “Politicians are at an all-time low and are despised by 80% of the public, and then you’ve got a candidate trying to put himself out above it all. He’s become a rock star. It’s fantastic.
…
Murdoch heaped praise on Obama, saying he was a “highly intelligent man with a great record at Harvard”, but stopped short of a full personal endorsement because he wanted “to meet him personally”.
Okay, maybe that’s just because he dislikes Clinton and doesn’t want to see her get any more support. Certainly he won’t promote Obama over McCain right?
“McCain has been in congress a long time and you’ve got to make too many compromise,” he said.
“What does he really stand for? He’s a patriot – he’s a friend of mine and a really decent guy – but he’s unpredictable.
“[He] doesn’t know much about the economy and – I say this sympathetically – I think he has a lot of problems.”
Ho-lee shit. So Murdoch’s tearing into Clinton and McCain and calling Obama a rock star, intelligent, fantastic, he had a hand in the “we endorse Obama” editorial and he’s going to personally meet him and perhaps fully endorse the man personally? Hot damn.
Now it’s worth pointing out that Murdoch’s conservative bend comes less from a rock-ribbed ideology and more from his business sense. He’s not the kind of guy who just believes in the Barry Goldwater doctrine and thinks “GOP do or die” like many of his employees. So this endorsement, or potential for one, is not a complete flip of beliefs, but it does suggest that Obama is for real to be able to sway the man almost solely behind the emergence of the right-wing media.
One could be cynical and say that after 8 years of putting all their eggs in the Bush basket, he’s taking the business approach and going in the direction the wind blows in order to salvage his media empire. I’m sick of the cynicism though, and if Murdoch says Obama is a fresh breeze, I’m going to go with him this time around.
Posted in 2008 election, media, Obama
Tagged barack obama, FOX News, media, rupert murdoch
Once again, I’m both elated and severely concerned.
So Jeremiah Wright is not the only pastor giving Barack Obama headaches. We’ve got another on who made some racially-tinged remarks, and oddly enough this one’s a white guy. In true black gospel church fashion, he embarks on a thoroughly entertaining tirade to the cheers of his congregation/audience.
In the video, Pfleger wipes his eyes with a handkerchief and suggests Clinton wept because she thought that as a white person and the wife of a former president, she was entitled to the presidency.
“And then, out of nowhere, came ‘Hey, I’m Barack Obama,’ ” Pfleger said during a sermon Sunday at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois. “And [Clinton] said, ‘Oh damn, where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!’ ”
Now I’ve said this before, but the fact that the inflammatory comments of preachers has become a handicap to presidential candidates strikes me as nothing but a good thing.
That said, I think we’re getting a little nutty here. Anyone who’s been to a gospel church knows how animated they get, that’s a part of the culture. It’s not the quiet droning and somber silence us white folk have in ours. So, naturally, once in a while something’s going to be a touch off-color. There’s a difference between combing through for actual problematic statements (“New Orleans drowned because they harbored sinners”) and something like this.
But again, racism, when it’s against White America, is what gets on the news. Ah well, another one bites the dust as it were.
The interesting question is: will either candidate manage to have any pastors in their corners by the time the general election season comes around?
Posted in 2008 election, Obama, religion
The latest Obama nontroversy continues, as conservatives continue to pick at his story that his great uncle helped liberate Buchenwald (yes, he said Auschwitz first, but once again I don’t think that’s a significant enough gaffe to give any measure of a crap about). The ironically titled Sweetness & Light blog is now claiming that a Charles W. Payne of Kansas, Obama’s alleged uncle, served in the Navy and couldn’t have been at Buchenwald.
The 89th Infantry Division of World War II web site, a site that honors the 89th division, claims that Charles T. Payne, Obama’s actual great uncle, served in Company K of the 355th Regiment of the division. A “Cigarskunk” from Sweetness & Light recently emailed Mark Kitchell, one of the site’s webmasters, claiming that the Kansas Historical Society’s index of WWII veterans only listed a Charles W. Payne, the name listed on some online geneology charts of Obama, as serving in the Navy.
Unfortunately, Cigarskunk’s logic is spurious at best. We know very little about Charles T. Payne or what his life was like before WWII. By sticking to the Kansas Historical Society, it’s assumed that Payne stayed in Kansas and enlisted in Kansas. It also assumes that the Kansas Historical Society’s records are complete and are missing no detail. If Charles T. Payne moved out of Kansas when he came of age and enlisted in another state, the entire argument is meaningless.
According to the National Archives, 157 Charles Paynes enlisted in the Army in World War II. Out of those, 6 are Charles T. Payne and 19 are Charles W. Payne. On top of those 25, another two Charles Paynes with different middle initials are listed on the Kansas Historical Society’s list as enlisting in the army.
Even if none of those are Obama’s great uncle, it doesn’t mean his story has been disproven. The National Archives recorded these records into their system from microfilm photographs taken of the original punch cards used by the U.S. Army. According to the National Archives, about 1.5 million (or 13%) of the punch cards could not be scanned into the database. On top of those, another 4 million (or 35%) have scanning errors. It’s not a perfect system, though it’s the best one we can have online after several generations of archiving. A Charles T. or Charles W. Payne of Kansas might be among those 1.5 million lost records, or changed to Charles A. or Charles H. Payne as the result of one of 4 million scanned errors. Or maybe he simply enlisted in another state. Perhaps they simply spelled his name wrong on the enlistment form. There are many, many possible reasons to explain this “controversy.”
I contacted the webmaster of the 89th Infantry Division site to see if I could get more information. He simply said that the site stands by its previous statement that Obama’s great uncle, Charles Thomas Payne, served in Company K of the 355rd Regiment of the 89th Infantry Division.
The sad thing is that people are taking this seriously as some sort of horrible sin committed by Obama. If you count this somehow as evidence that Barack Obama will make a bad president or that he is some sort of gaffe machine, I can only conclude that you’ve been comatose for the last decade.
Note from Hanlon: it really depresses me that an article like this is necessary. This is the kind of unbalanced see-saw politics has. An attack this completely off-base on McCain would never gain traction, even his legitimate speaking blunders are gone in a few days.
The latest Obama nontroversy continues, as conservatives continue to pick at his story that his great uncle helped liberate Buchenwald (yes, he said Auschwitz first, but once again I don’t think that’s a significant enough gaffe to give any measure of a crap about). The ironically titled Sweetness & Light blog is now claiming that a Charles W. Payne of Kansas, Obama’s alleged uncle, served in the Navy and couldn’t have been at Buchenwald.
The 89th Infantry Division of World War II web site, a site that honors the 89th division, claims that Charles T. Payne, Obama’s actual great uncle, served in Company K of the 355th Regiment of the division. A “Cigarskunk” from Sweetness & Light recently emailed Mark Kitchell, one of the site’s webmasters, claiming that the Kansas Historical Society’s index of WWII veterans only listed a Charles W. Payne, the name listed on some online geneology charts of Obama, as serving in the Navy.
Unfortunately, Cigarskunk’s logic is spurious at best. We know very little about Charles T. Payne or what his life was like before WWII. By sticking to the Kansas Historical Society, it’s assumed that Payne stayed in Kansas and enlisted in Kansas. It also assumes that the Kansas Historical Society’s records are complete and are missing no detail. If Charles T. Payne moved out of Kansas when he came of age and enlisted in another state, the entire argument is meaningless.
According to the National Archives, 157 Charles Paynes enlisted in the Army in World War II. Out of those, 6 are Charles T. Payne and 19 are Charles W. Payne. On top of those 25, another two Charles Paynes with different middle initials are listed on the Kansas Historical Society’s list as enlisting in the army.
Even if none of those are Obama’s great uncle, it doesn’t mean his story has been disproven. The National Archives recorded these records into their system from microfilm photographs taken of the original punch cards used by the U.S. Army. According to the National Archives, about 1.5 million (or 13%) of the punch cards could not be scanned into the database. On top of those, another 4 million (or 35%) have scanning errors. It’s not a perfect system, though it’s the best one we can have online after several generations of archiving. A Charles T. or Charles W. Payne of Kansas might be among those 1.5 million lost records, or changed to Charles A. or Charles H. Payne as the result of one of 4 million scanned errors. Or maybe he simply enlisted in another state. Perhaps they simply spelled his name wrong on the enlistment form. There are many, many possible reasons to explain this “controversy.”
I contacted the webmaster of the 89th Infantry Division site to see if I could get more information. He simply said that the site stands by its previous statement that Obama’s great uncle, Charles Thomas Payne, served in Company K of the 355rd Regiment of the 89th Infantry Division.
The sad thing is that people are taking this seriously as some sort of horrible sin committed by Obama. If you count this somehow as evidence that Barack Obama will make a bad president or that he is some sort of gaffe machine, I can only conclude that you’ve been comatose for the last decade.
Note from Hanlon: it really depresses me that an article like this is necessary. This is the kind of unbalanced see-saw politics has. An attack this completely off-base on McCain would never gain traction, even his legitimate speaking blunders are gone in a few days.
Hanlon\'s Razor 