Now, of course, in the mind of Melber and all proponents of the Obama inevitability campaign, the pledged delegate count is king, which means that if superdelegates hand it to Obama it's OK, but if they hand it to Clinton it's not. How convenient.
It's time to give a name to this pile of crap I've heard so many times - the notion that, because neither candidate will win on pledged delegates alone, we've got a virtual tie, with no reason for the supers to favor either candidate as they resolve the nomination.
So I name it the "implicit tie" fallacy.
We all know why it's a fallacy. Regardless of the actual party rules (decided on back in 1982 or whenever, and fossilized since then because they didn't affect anything), Democratic voters didn't go into this thing having approved the superdelegate rules in advance. Rather, they believed they were participating in a fundamentally small-d democratic process by which their votes would determine the nominee.
If a distinct plurality of primary voters chooses one candidate (who is thereby ahead in the official scoring process for months as a result), but that plurality is overruled in favor of the second-place candidate by a bunch of DNC members that nobody's ever heard of (and at least in the MD-VA-DC area, these folks are complete unknowns to the voters), then of course there's going to be trouble.
The supporters of the leading candidate will believe they were robbed. And it will fundamentally undermine the Democratic Party's commitment to being, well, a democratic party.
It makes a big difference who's ahead in the pledged delegates. Pretending otherwise is bullshit.
I guess I'm still ready to see it end after NC/IN. They're the last of the medium-to-big states, and if the supers were to, by some miracle, settle this thing en masse on May 8, most of the positive effect on registration in every state except maybe SD and MT would have already happened, and we'd know who the new Dem primary voters were in every state but OR, KY, WV, MT, and SD.
Is this a permanent change, or just a transitory blip? F***-all if I know, and I'm skeptical of anyone else who says that they do.
Lately, all the heat has been on Obama. Hillary's been getting a free ride since the Bosnian snipers dropped out of the news. An inconclusive win in PA that actually left her worse off in terms of delegates has been trumpeted as a 'decisive' win. Of course she's looking better in the polls.
If Howard Dean's gonna put ads like that on the air, I'll happily chip in.
I won't give to the DCCC and the DSCC because our Congresscritters won't stand up and fight the GOP. (I'll give to individual candidates, though.) But I'll give to the DNC, you betcha, as long as they're doing good stuff like this.
No one but Obama is to blame for his having no votes in Michigan.
Jerome, do I have to jump through this monitor and smack you?
If you're trying to accurately measure which candidate has more support among Democrats (which is the only reason for looking at the popular vote in the primaries and caucuses), then the fact that "no one but Obama is to blame for his having no votes in Michigan" just plain doesn't matter.
Hillary was on the ballot in MI, Obama wasn't, and we don't have a good measure of who has how much support there in a head-to-head race.
The only reason to use the popular vote totals from the MI beauty-contest primary is if you're simply coming up with a new, abstruse scoring system that would vaguely approximate popular support, rather than discern some sort of truth.
But we've already GOT an abstruse scoring system that vaguely approximates popular support: it's called the delegate count.
The only reason to sell people on another such system is to mess with their heads to show people that your candidate really, by gosh, ought to be ahead. You want to find out truth, then do so in a way that gets you truth. If you want to invent BS reasons for people to believe that Hillary should be ahead, then you continue to lose the respect of anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.
I grew up in a world where full-blown military attacks on Israel by its neighbors were commonplace. This fall, it'll be 35 years - most of Israel's history as a nation - since the Yom Kippur War of 1973.
Egypt and Jordan recognize Israel, and have no desire to fight her. Syria doesn't recognize Israel, but has expressed an interest in negotiations to that end. Lebanon may harbor terrorists, but it's never sent an army over the border, and isn't likely to.
That's progress. See - it can happen.
The weird thing is that, even though these changes have made Israel much, much more secure (nobody's going to push Israel into the sea, no matter how heated their rhetoric), the conservatives in Israel, and their political allies in the U.S., seem far more paranoid now than they did a generation or so ago.
I don't know what can be done about that. But progress IS possible, even in this intractable corner of the world. It's just a question of what form it will need to take.
Listen to it again. All he says is that we need to take care of our planet.
Maybe he gets more specific somewhere else, but in the commercial, he doesn't say a thing about global warming or climate. Doesn't say it's a problem, doesn't endorse any particular solutions...hell, even our dumb-ass President goes further than that.