Street Money

Found a video in this comment on DailyKos that should interest you all out there.



Word is, Barack Obama has refused to do this Pennsylvania, just like he refused to do it in South Carolina. In fact, that was the news in this Kos Diary.

This is one more reason why I like Obama. It takes a lot of balls to refuse to kowtow to the system, to not play the machine game.

I think I know what lead up to this bizzare commercial.

A bottle of tequila, shared between the political director of the McCain Campaign, and an eager young media student who can't wait to try out his new video effects program. (original link to article where I found this.)



Hey, I'm not judging, I've been there. Only I've never put out anything this... original. Yeah. That's the word for it.

Strategic Credibility

Here's how I think McCain gains his credibility. He publically arranges to do something substantially different from the party line, or makes some statement critical about a policy, and then makes sure the media covers it as if he's what he says he is.

The rest of the time, he does the standard things. The trick is to have those moderate, bipartisan things (or things that seem that way) be the face of his political career, rather than the stuff he actually does.

The key is to get the maverick, bipartisan, moderate stuff out in front, so when he backslides in private, he still appears like he's got the potential to do something surprising.

The Problem is not that we're pulling troops out...

...too fast or not fast enough. The real problem here is that regardless of what we've been doing, we've had no real control over the situation in Iraq, which right now seems to be worsening.

Last year, we benefited from the cooperation of the Sunnis, and the cooperation of the al-Sadr in reaching a ceasefire. The way things are arranged, though, even with the numbers of soldiers we had at the height of the surge, it's not enough to smackdown the insurgents if they want to get rowdy. Meanwhile, we stand in the way of the Iraqis and their government coming to a modus vivendi, which they'd pretty much have to reach if they didn't want things to utterly fall apart.

Withdrawal was the best of bad options in 2006. Now it's the best of genuinely terrible options now, and things have become quite a bit more complicated now that we've been arming sides. The best we may have done is allowed certain groups to consolidate at the expense of others, making them stronger in comparison to the weak central government. I know some might say, but isn't that the best government? But looking at a failed state, I say, no, not really. You need a government that people actually listen to. It doesn't help the Iraqis that they're living in this kind of system of de facto tribal feudalism, unmanaged, unchecked by a strong modern government.

Bad Idea. Terrrrrrrible Idea.

I'll tell you what the problems with holding a Superdelegate convention before the real one to decide who gets them are:

1) It won't prevent a nasty public fight, it will likely just relocate it.

2) It would have all the elitist charm, if it's results went a certain way of somebody trying to appeal to the superdelegates at the convention.

3) Mathematically, we already have a decent standard on hand: pledged delegates. And that has the bonus of having a winner ready made, even if some in the party don't like it.

4) There's already a way for the superdelegates to decide what to do on their own. Follow the general state of the primary. If some catastrophe happens, you can always turn around and goe the other way.

At the end of the day, if the Superdelegates weren't so craven, we'd have a candidate already. And if we didn't have them at all, we'd hardly be having this conversation. We'd have a candidate. But that would be doing things the easy way, and the Democratic Party's hardly been interested in that for the generation or two before this one. Oh well, said the hydrologist.

The Long and Short of this...

Is that if they're being this reckless with letting Bill out to do damage, they are really desperate.

Bill's problem is that he's not merely a loose cannon on deck, but essentially a second captain on a ship that should only have one. Ideally, he should have have remained in the background, because he's hardly the kind to stay on the bench and let Hillary shine for herself.

Reality Call for Evan Bayh, Steve Daugherty on the Line...

I know the Indiana senator's just trying to back his candidate, but it's a little too early to start calling these states for Hillary in the General Election.

Here's how it breaks down: she's a long shot in the general election if she can't unite her party behind her. No matter what the poll results say now, they will say something else entirely eight months from now.

Senator Clinton has a chance to beat McCain that's better than even odds, but she will depend upon and campaign mainly in the swing states, and in the safe states that form our core constituency. This will make for a fragile set up, where local victories by McCain will make more of a difference.

Obama has the skills and organization to move past this, to make our victory more robust. Every time we've depended on swing states to win, we've lost. We need to move into new territory to win. Obama can take on challenges in both the Swing States and the Red States, and by doing that lead us to a comfortable win and mandate, as opposed to a weak 50+1 victory that only benefits Clinton politically, and that, by getting her into office.

Gee, I don't know. Will he reconsider that Endorsement Now?

According to Mark Penn, Bill Richardson has joined the ranks of the insignificant.

Mark Penn. Being paid millions of dollars by Clinton and worth every penny of it...
...to Obama.

Warning Signs

McCain is the only Senator, much less presidential candidate, to get an incomplete on a recent survey about Middle Class Responsiveness.

Stroke patient Tim Johnson, debilitated from serving until September of last year, showed up to vote, good or bad, fifty percent more of the time.

I'm afraid I can't say I share this guy's pessimism

There needs to be some confrontation, I think, so Obama has a chance to shine once again, and Hillary has the chance to announce that's she's returned to her senses and has ditched the advisors who are sinking the Clinton's popularity.

They Won't Dance Because of Obama...

...They'll dance because of that crazy Casssbaah Sooooound!

Seriously, folks, the racism and fearmongering doesn't get any more obvious than this.

This ranks right up there with concerns that electing Kennedy would put America under the control of the pope.

Clinton's Experience?

She goes around, talks with people, gets people organized, makes strong statements on moral matters.

So says the Chicago Tribune.

Which means the only real thing she has on Obama is a couple of years in the Senate. And he has six years on her in elected office.

Experience might count, if you have it, and have learned properly from it. Otherwise, all experience is a collection of bad habits made more confidently.

Support the Troops*

*Just not their education.

ThisDudesArmy tells us about the brilliant reasoning faculties of the college-educated Defense Department, who in their infinite wisdom have decided it's a bad idea to back an updated GI Bill to reward those who will put their life on the line for their country, since folks might leave after one tour to attend college.

Well, gee, that shouldn't be their problem. You might consider that people might be attracted by the idea of free college to serve their country. It's probably better for the economy in the long run than a recruitment bonus.

Besides the fact that this was one of the most successful government programs in history, laying the foundation of our economic dominance, making education a middle class reality, I think their real concern might just be that if our soldiers get educated, those folks might have to compete with people who actually know how wars really are run. And we just couldn't have that, could we?

Well, the least you can say is that she's got guts...

...because otherwise, I don't know how you can say this after your campaign has done this, otherwise.

More to the point, what Powers said actually makes some kind of sense. You want somebody in the loop when they're hashing out the details of the plan. You could make claims taking certain words out of context, of course, if you were inclined to do that, but as a whole she's saying that the Obama campaigns committed to getting us out, just not doing it in some ideologically imposed way. An ideologically imposed entrance into the war is what got us into trouble in the first place. Why should we allow ourselves to make the same mistake going out?

Michigan and Florida: A Path to Forgiveness (or how to pay for new primaries)

If both states are willing to do new elections in order to leave the illegitimate first tries behind, but neither is willing or able to pay for it, then I have a suggestion.

We've seen both candidates raise massive amounts of money to fund their presidential efforts. We've proven that this can be done within a matter of weeks.

So here's what we do: we set up a fund for these primaries, and both candidates implore their supporters to donate to it, the same way they've donated to their campaigns.

The advantages of this approach is that we have no one candidate funding the election, with the conflict of interest that brings, no drain of Party or candidate funds currently going to win races. If distributed widely enough, it would hardly have an effect on what people give to the candidates.

If we all give to the fund with the same commitment we've given to our respective candidates, we can easily pay for these new primaries. But that's not all.

The funding drive, if successful, would show that the Democratic Party is more united than it seems at the moment. It would show that our party is committed to keeping voters enfranchised. It would allow us to do this within the party's rules, maintaining their integrity.

Last, but not least, it would welcome Michigan and Florida back into the fold in a way sure to improve party morale. The national party, this drive would say, came together to give these two states their voice. All is forgiven. It would also reflect positively upon the party in those states, which might give our candidate an advantage in November.

MAGIC MARKET FAIRY MAKE PONY!1!1!! LOL

Not only does Atrios' entry at Eschaton contain the funniest snark I've read all day, it also contains the most astute economic analysis of the matter I've seen in a long time.

Now where's that pony?

Maybe it don't mean a thing...

But could Texas have that Swing?

Do wop do wop do wop do wwwwooooop!

Burnt Orange Report is reporting that poll results indicate that Obama might be within striking distance of winning Texas this next election.

When one decides to throw bombs at others...

...one is advised not to be within the radius of the blast when it goes off.

This is further evidence of how disorganized and ill-informed this campaign is.

If she tries to push this point in a debate, It will be all too easy for the Obama to say, "according to these reports, your own campaign was making such assurances as you described."

Don't throw razor boomerangs without padded gloves.

She might not be ready for the fork to be stuck in...

But the timer on the oven says she's close to being done.

Diminished Returns

I would like somebody in the Bush White House to explain to me how we can be spending the most money for our military since WWII, and yet still be losing the war we're currently fighting. A big defense budget doesn't add up to success.

We're paying mostly to outsource things we could do more cheaply, and do better internally. We're paying mostly to run an unsuccessful war into the ground, rather than admit we screwed up. We're paying mostly to fund cold-war style projects for an international situation that has rendered them obsolete. American needs a sustainable defense, not an unsustainable war in Iraq or corporate welfare program for defense contractors.