And the latest...
Peter Daou: Three Myths About the Democratic Race. Hmmm, just look at all that name-calling. By the end of the voting, its a good bet that the math will show whatever you want to see, leading back to a circular argument over FL & MI.
Maybe four: The 2012 Theorem, and Newshoggers. '12 talk seems like something we could take up during this famine as we wait for, but calling Clinton's base "shrinking" while she's energized the biggest bloc of growing voters in Latinos, and increased the turnout of women to about 60 percent on average of the total vote, seems very odd.
Newsweek: When Barry Became Barack. A good "old friends" article.
The GOP viewpoint on Democrats' Obama Dilemma. I don't get all this talk about how the Democrats cannot afford to not choose Obama, because of fear of alienating the African-American vote. It's not like we don't have an opposite reaction if Democrats don't choose Clinton, among segments of Latinos, perhaps part of the Jewish and Catholic vote, certain women and working-class Democrats... That ship has already sailed.
MI Dems: They've postponed until April 19th for selecting delegates. It's said (conference call) that the Obama campaign's starting position for negotiations is that only a 50-50 delegate split is acceptable, and no distribution from the votes (this deserves follow-up). I don't understand why either of the candidates even have a say, or a veto, in how the state decides the formula of how they will attempt a DNC-sanctioned election.
Evan Bayh: the electoral votes as "another guage" for SD's to consider. It makes as much sense as does counting individual states. I'd add to the list the delegate/popular vote ratio. Overall, comparing the ratio of their totals, how many votes has it taken for each candidate to win a delegate? This is especially important if the popular vote becomes an measure of difference.
Josh Marshall: He runs smack dab into an epiphany about the situation, but comes out stating that: "My take is that whatever the arguments, the superdelegates aren't going to go against a clear pledged delegate leader." He must believe that there's an un-spoken moral argument to be made that a "pledged delegate leader" trumps everything, even though it'd only be a plurality lead, not the majority that grants the nomination. Unfortunately for his logic, this take would be exactly the sort of "rule change" he's saying leads down the rabbit hole into a "different set of rules" than the one that exists.
Obama's Iowa co-chair: Has to apologize for blogging, and since deleting, "B. Clinton should never be forgiven. Period. This is a stain on his legacy, much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress." Heh, no biggie. And the Clinton campaign responds, "...don't know why he would apologize as its quite in keeping with the tenor and tone that the Obama campaign is running right now."
Does anyone even care if either Obama or Clinton release their tax returns while they were in public office? I don't, but it does seem like it should be a "two-way street" if the Obama campaign thinks it matters so much.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 162 Comments :: Post a Comment
|