Quick Links
No time to write tonight, but I thought I'd provide some links to stuff you may have missed.
1) This piece by Dahlia Lithwick at Slate is really good.
2) While I'm cautiously optimistic about Obama's chances of winning the nomination, John Dickerson reminds me why I should remain only cautiously optimistic.
3) I don't blame Hillary Clinton for trying to spin her recent losses, but can we all please agree that this spin makes no sense at all:
4) The more I read about the role of so-called "super delegates," the more absurd I think it is that every news network insists on including them in their reported delegate totals. These delegates can and do change their minds. They're in no way bound by their initial declared preferences. So what sense does it make to include them with the pledged delegates actually won in primaries and caucuses? All that does is create confusion. I agree with Noam Scheiber that the super-delegates are likely to vote en masse for whoever ends up with the most pledged delegates.
1) This piece by Dahlia Lithwick at Slate is really good.
2) While I'm cautiously optimistic about Obama's chances of winning the nomination, John Dickerson reminds me why I should remain only cautiously optimistic.
3) I don't blame Hillary Clinton for trying to spin her recent losses, but can we all please agree that this spin makes no sense at all:
[Clinton] noted that the states she won on Super Tuesday were all states Democrats must win to succeed in the general election. Many of the states Obama won that night, such as Alaska and North Dakota, would not be competitive for Democrats next November, she said.This is easily the dumbest argument I've heard so far in the primary season. In the general election, the Democrat--whoever that turns to be--is going to win states like California, New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. The real question is which candidate is more likely to bring a few of the states that went for Bush in 2000 and 2004 into the Democratic column.
4) The more I read about the role of so-called "super delegates," the more absurd I think it is that every news network insists on including them in their reported delegate totals. These delegates can and do change their minds. They're in no way bound by their initial declared preferences. So what sense does it make to include them with the pledged delegates actually won in primaries and caucuses? All that does is create confusion. I agree with Noam Scheiber that the super-delegates are likely to vote en masse for whoever ends up with the most pledged delegates.
posted by A.L. at 11:16 PM
9 Comments:
Here's a note from an acquaintance of mine who participated in Maine caucus, and tried to attend an Obama event. He's a small business owner near Portland, mid-50s in age, favors Obama.
"Saturday we drove 2.5 hours to the Bangor Auditorium to see him. Overflow crowd so we didn't get in. About a thousand of us waited outside. He came out and gave a 5 minute speech. Nothing of substance but a nice gesture anyway. Went to the caucus in town yesterday and they were overwhelmed. About 10 times as many people showed as the previous record. 200 for Hillary, 500 for Obama. I think everyone knew who they were for when they arrived. First time I ever participated. Pretty interesting."
It's all about Florida and Ohio.
It's all about Florida and Ohio.
Where have I heard that before.
From WSJ today:
"It says something about his national security world view, or his callowness, that Mr. Obama would vote to punish private companies that even the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee said had "acted in good faith." Had Senator Obama prevailed, a President Obama might well have been told "no way" when he asked private Americans to help his Administration fight terrorists. Mr. Obama also voted against the overall bill, putting him in MoveOn.org territory.
The defeat of these antiwar amendments means the legislation now moves to the House in a strong position. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in the Dodd-Obama camp, but 21 Blue Dog Democrats have sent her a letter saying they are happy with the Senate bill. She may try to pass the restrictions that failed in the Senate, and Republicans should tell her to make their day. This is a fight Senator McCain should want to have right up through Election Day, with Democrats having to explain why they want to hamstring the best weapon -- real-time surveillance -- we have against al Qaeda."
This is a fight Obama should also want to have--to defend and uphold the 4th amendment of the constitution, against those whose only means of attack is to lie. Which is what the WSJ is doing right now.
It's not only the right-minded and american thing to do. But it is an action that would resonate with a significant number of independent and republican voters.
Casual Observer
PS--The new posting system is a mystery to me. Perhaps a little explanation on how to use it?
CO,
One of the things you said really needs to be emphasized: while a majority of GOP loyalists are eager to have a surveillance state (imagining that the GOP will be in power forever), and a fair percentage of Dem loyalists would accept such a state, since they know they'll have their turn to turn the screw, the independents, and those for whom the parties merely represent a "best fit at present" are going to find the idea utterly reprehensible.
What new posting system? I see about the same thing as always. Of course, I signed up with Google blogger, so maybe that's why I don't see a different interface. There are some new radio buttons down at the bottom -- but they don't mean anything to me, and apparently do not need anything from me.
c2,
I'm not sure rank and file republicans understand that all their electronic usage is being split, copied, and screened by telecoms and big brother. Very few people have actually articulated this so that folks can understand it, in a venue where it actually gets out to people--i.e. television. If Obama chose to spell it out to people, I think they'd be amazed to hear it.
re: the posting thing--I use the "Name/URL" option, and simply can't get anything to post or preview now, using that option.
casual observer
I don't think the superdelegate rules should be changed this cycle--just as we should change the rules now to count FL, MI. In the future though, the idea that party elites count for 20% of the delegate total needs to be examined.
That said, I think they will end up honoring the winner of the pledged delegate count to avoid a potential revolt.
In regards to your third point - I voted for Obama, but I'm not sure I get your criticism of that particular spin. Clinton is right in saying that her wins in NY, NJ, and California outweigh Obama's wins in places like Alaska, North Dakota, or, just to pull in another example, Idaho. We liberals are NEVER going to win those particular states, so while it's nice that Obama won them, it really doesn't mean much come next November. What's wrong with Hillary pointing that out?
R.I.'s Lincoln Chafee endorses Barack Obama
by John McCormick
Former Rhode Island Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee told reporters this morning that he is backing Sen. Barack Obama, despite the fact that Sen. John McCain campaigned for him in his failed 2006 re-election bid.
Once one of the Senate's most liberal Republicans, Chafee lost in 2006 and now works at Brown University. Now an independent, Chafee said he plans to vote for Obama in Rhode Island's Democratic primary on March. 4.
He said his support for Obama, who campaigned for his opponent in 2006, was based primarily on the Illinois Democrat's early opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Chafee said Obama has the "ideas and fortitude to be our next president."
Asked whether McCain, the Republican nomination frontrunner, should take offense at the endorsement, Chafee said these things happen in politics. "I'm sure Sen. McCain will understand," he said.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home