Popular Vote Fist-Pounding

Wow. There is a lot of underwear being tied into all sort of knots over the issue of who is winning the popular vote in the Democratic primary. Eschaton, Talking Points Memo, Shakesville, Alas, and plenty of others have been weighing in on this topic... actually, 'weighing in' isn't really the right word. Rules lawyering is more appropriate. Because not only is it important who has the popular vote, but how that popular vote is calculated. Do you count Michigan and Florida votes? If so, do you count all the votes or a percentage? What about caucus results? Do you count uncommitted votes? If so, who gets them?

It reminds me of a game of Dungeons and Dragons I was running once. One of my players, whose character was an impulsive monk not terribly unlike himself, wanted to try to wrestle a balrog to the ground. Per the rules, I had him roll to compare his strength against his opponent's. He failed. He became irritated, and wanted to be sure I'd included all the bonuses he was entitled to as per the official Player's Handbook section on grappling. Finally, I pointed out, with exasperation creeping into my voice, that it didn't matter, because he was trying to wrestle a 30-foot tall demon made out of fire, and no amount of bonuses was going to change the fact that he was a 3-foot tall halfling without a suit of asbestos armor.

The point is, it doesn't really matter who has the popular vote. By one person's standards it might be Obama, and by another's it might be Clinton. There is no need to argue over who is right, because it makes no real difference. Popular vote doesn't count for anything other than unofficial bragging rights. Even if you argue that it might sway the votes of superdelegates, all the argument proves is that the votes are close enough that the delegates should choose based on other criteria. It's just arguing for the sake of arguing. And not just tossing out an opinion here and there, but epic-length diatribes calling into question every popular-vote-grappling rule in the DNC Player's Handbook. This is what the Democratic party has been reduced to.

Remember how Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000? Remember how much that mattered? All it did was give Gore supporters something to put on bumper-stickers after the election was over. So hopefully I'll be excused for worrying that this pointless argument doesn't bode well for the unification of the party after the nomination is made. You will have people stridently claiming Obama's win was illegitimate because he didn't win the popular vote. Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money, in the post that seems to have set off the latest volley of 300-pound marshmallows, appears to agree, but then legitimizes the argument by participating in it. This is not helpful.

Say WHAT?

According to CNN.com:

"Clinton, who is banking on a large win in Kentucky Tuesday to keep her presidential hopes alive, also said she doesn't believe racism has played a role in the presidential campaign."

I would really, really like to see an exact quote here. Sexism has most certainly been a factor in this campaign, but to claim that racism hasn't is borderline delusional. I really want to believe something she said was taken way out of context.

Monsoon of Venom

There's an awful lot of Clinton-supporter craziness going on today. I suppose it could be because her projected landslide in West Virginia won't mean much, but even more likely, it's because the inevitable truth is beginning to sink in, and it hurts. It hurts enough, apparently, that the threats of staying home in November are threatening to flood the discussion. And I hate to generalize or paint with broad brushes, but the feminist contingent seems to be the loudest on this front right now. (With the notable and sobering exception of Amy, who, as usual, rocks out.)

I think it's great that you've got the determination and fortitude to stick to your guns and refuse to vote for any candidate other than Hillary Clinton. Really. That's fantastic. I hope you pass those admirable qualities on to all of your unwanted children and grandchildren when the Supreme Court, bolstered by McCain's justice nominations, overturns Roe vs. Wade.

Seriously, people. It's bad enough that we have to convince huge numbers of racist, blue-collar, and backwater Democrats that Obama is a better candidate than McCain. It'd be great if we didn't have to waste our time on activists who should fucking know as much already.

Being Mean To Hillary

Good holy hopping hell, people.

You know what? When people were saying two months ago that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race, it was bullshit and, to a large extent, carried sexist undertones, if not overtones. But you know what? Those days is all over, gang. Today is today, and today the math says Hillary can't win the nomination. That's not to say that Obama has, but Obama can, by the numbers, and Clinton can not. Does she have to drop out? No. Does she have the right to stay in the race? Yes. Is her dropping out of the race, at this point, in the best interests of the Democratic party and the nation? Yes. Yes it is.

It's not just telling her to take her boobs and go home, as some of her vocal blog supporters are fond of calling it. Her boobs have nothing to do with campaign funding, negative ads, and party distractions. The democrats need a unified front ASAP. You can jab at Wil Wheaton all you want, and you can make snide jokes about grade-school math, but in the end, you're just magnifying the problem, which is fracturing of the party. The left blogosphere is complaining way more about fellow Democrats than Republicans right now. It's been ugly, it's still getting uglier, and it is hurting the cause in a major way. I'm sorry if that rains on Hillary Clinton's parade. I really am. But accepting reality is not the same as promoting sexism. I don't care that Hillary Clinton is a woman. I never have, outside of thinking it would be great to have a woman as President. I care that the Democrats are diligently working towards losing the easiest race they've ever run.

Hillary Clinton should drop out, not because it isn't her right to continue running, but so that we can address the national election before it's too late.

If it's not already too late.

Nap Time

Amy's worried about jinxing the election. She should stop worrying, because I've been at it for over a month now. If I was superstitious about anything except my socks*, I'd be afraid of being so openly cynical about how things are going to turn out. But frankly, I think the worst thing would be for progressives, liberals, and rational moderates to believe that we've got this thing in the bag. We definitely do not, and resting on our laurels now will just mean we have to endure watching McCain's inauguration with laurel-shaped welts in our asses.

The press is all over trying to make Obama look shaky, and has no problem running Clinton hit-pieces in the guise of stunningly poor journalism. McCain is getting none of this. None of it. The guy who doesn't know the difference between Iran and Al Queda is getting a pass from the media, because he's not in a real race right now and isn't very interesting.

And Amy's right about Obama's speech too. It was stunningly moving; without a doubt, one of the best examples of true modern-day statesmanship I've heard in a long time. Does it matter? Not at all. Nobody wants statesmanship. They want Hillary upstairs while Bill gets a blowjob. They want Obama's uppity pastor who don't know his place. They want governors with hookers, or maybe admitting to threesomes. Real statesmanship, well, that shit's boring.

We are screwed.

*I never wear matching socks. This message brought to you by Americans Dedicated to Exposing Useless Information About Me.

Aw Hell...

Not that it's a shocker at this point, but for the first time, McCain is running even with both Clinton and Obama in national polls. This should surprise absolutely nobody. While Clinton and Obama do everything in their power to ensure that the other is unelectable, McCain gets to make photo-op trips to Iraq, looking oh-so-presidential and carefree. The media loves him, and the Democrats are too busy infighting to do anything about him.

The Democrats are blowing this election. It has been handed to them on a gilded platter, and they're blowing it. Go ahead and read the comments section under just about any CNN Ticker post about either Democratic candidate. I hate to base anything on web commenting, but I think it's relevant that there are very, very few Republicans taking part in the argument. It's just line after line of Obama supporters calling Clinton a liar, or Clinton supporters calling the Obama campaign a cult. A frequently expressed sentiment goes along the lines of "If [Clinton/Obama] is the Democratic nominee, I'll vote for McCain." Really? Then you're an idiot. But since you're already doing the work of his campaign staff, why not toss him your vote too?

Hillary Clinton Pops an Artery

This is so precisely calculated, the irony floors me. Karl Rove tactics, in my opinion, are far more subtle and manipulative than a mailer featuring arguable spin. They might include, for instance, exaggerated response to a perceived slight to turn attention away from the issue at hand and focus it instead on invented integrity issues.

Is Karl Rove Working on Clinton's Campaign?

AP via Yahoo:

Attached to the Obama complaint was an instruction sheet that Bauer's letter attributed to the Clinton campaign. The sheet offers guidance on how to persuade caucus goers to caucus for Clinton.

One line states: "It's not illegal unless they tell you so."

What the shit, people. This is why I'm not a Republican anymore. I'm not asking for much. Could we maybe just avoid asking our supporters to break the law for us?

They Can't Resist

CNN.com decides that if all the other major news sources are going to insult southern black women, they're not gonna miss the bus.

Recent polls show black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina's primary in five days.

For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?

Because voting on politics is apparently more than we can expect from the monolithic entity of South Carolina Black Woman Voters. We are to believe that they can understand nothing deeper than skin tone and bra size.

Regardless of how this thing turns out, I think it's safe to assume that this will go down as the most embarrassing political race ever in terms of journalistic integrity.

Aw... C'mon, John.

Frequent readers (when posts are frequent, anyway) will know that I've been a John Edwards supporter pretty much since the candidates became official, which coincided with my reading of Economic Apartheid in America. Hillary Clinton, being the democratic candidate who is most part of the establishment and propped up by corporate interests is easily my last choice of the bunch.

That said, I have no problem with Clinton choking up a bit when discussing the campaign process. I don't want an emotionless robot running this nation. Passion and emotion are not evil, estrogen-oozing things to be avoided at all costs.

I most certainly do have a problem with John Edwards being a total asshole in response.

"I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business."

Don't be that guy, John. Because that guy sucks, and I won't support him.

Taking It Personally

CNN.com declares:

Attacks get personal between Romney, Giuliani

Uh-oh. Really? Are things getting personal? Let's take a look. According to the article, the attacks follow this pattern:

Giuliani criticized Romney's appointment of Judge Kathe Tuttman, who Romney is now calling to step down after the judge released a convicted killer who then murdered a couple in Washington State.

Romney defended the appointment based on the judge's previous record, and pointed out that given the issues surrounding Giuliani's appointment to police commissioner Bernie Kerik, maybe picking good help wasn't Giuliani's strongpoint.

Giuliani than expanded on his issue with Romney, claiming that the incident was illustrative of Romney's poor record on violent crime.

Romney then criticized Giuliani's fiscal policies while mayor of New York City.

Uh... huh. You know what I can't find? A personal attack anywhere in there. All criticism was directed toward what the candidates did in the course of their duties as governor and mayor. Giuliani didn't call Romney a Mormon whackjob, and Romney didn't respond by calling Giuliani a revolving door for ex-wives.

Holding a candidate responsible for their political and professional record is a good thing. I don't care much about this particular exchange because both candidates are unrepentant waffling panderers who have abandoned their principles to appeal to the social extremists that make up much of the Republican voting base, and are therefor unworthy of the office they're running for. But this smacks of the same nonsense surrounding Obama and Edwards supposedly attacking Hillary Clinton on a personal level, something that hasn't happened despite being widely reported. I want candidates forcing other candidates to defend their platforms and ideologies. It's not negative campaigning, it's responsible politics.

Leaving Las Vegas

Sometimes, when I look at the process, it makes me want to throw my hands up and quit. Why do we bother to have debates? What's the point? Those Who Choose have already settled on Hillary Clinton, Those Who Blindly Accept have consented, and now it's just a dancing game until the actual campaign begins.

Case in point: When John Edwards discussed the difference between himself and Clinton, he pointed out that he was working on public campaign funding while Clinton was accepting money from corporate sponsors and lobbyists. He didn't even add a value statement there. But the hyped-up Clinton-leaning audience booed him for it.

It wasn't a statement of opinion, you numb fucks. If you consider "Senator Clinton takes money from lobbyists" to be an insult, then your issue isn't with the person who points it out but Clinton herself. Clinton personifies the broken system. If that makes it harder for you to blindly accept her as the foregone victor, maybe you should cut that shit out and actually participate in the process instead of blaming the person with the audacity to shatter your pretty little fantasy.

Also, although Amy beat me to the punch on this one, I am dying to know if Barak Obama prefers diamonds or pearls.

Avoiding Surprises

Hillary's campaign has been planting questions from the audience at events.

Her reaction now that she's been outed:

"It was news to me," Clinton told reporters, "and neither I nor my campaign approve of that, and it will certainly not be tolerated."

It amazes me how much the woman appears completely unaware of what her employees are doing. Pardon me if that doesn't fill me with confidence in regards to her filling the position of national manager.

Obama and Edwards both called her on it. Edwards mentioned, correctly, that it bore a disturbing resemblance to one of GW's bad habits. Clinton came back by saying that Edwards was more like Bush for trying to divide the country by attacking Democrats. I find it unsettling that the Clinton campaign considers it an attack when she is called out for lapses in integrity. This isn't the first time it's happened, and I'll bet my preordered copy of Rock Band that, given her reaction, she doesn't expect it to be the last. Maybe she could avoid such problems in the future by adopting some integrity.

I am less and less willing to support Clinton with each passing day. Be careful, Democrats. Recent converts like me are here because we grew sick and tired of the hypocrisy and hubris of the Republicans. You can't afford to alienate us by supporting the exact same nonsense.

People as Props

This made me cry a little on the way in to work this morning.

Two women caught up in Democratic campaigns.

If you have time, don't just read the article. Listen to the audio. The first woman, now a crowd-pleasing anecdote for Hillary Clinton, lost one of her two jobs over the incident because her boss isn't 'a big Hillary Clinton fan.' She's just another 'uniquely American' single mom, mocked and exploited by the current administration, and not even left a tip by the giant Hillary entourage she served. She's been walked on by everyone, and it's heartbreaking.

The second woman's story is sad in a more obvious way; her brother is dying of cancer, and she just wanted validation. She went to Barak Obama's campaign for help, and he held her hand and validated her. It almosts sounds like personality worship when she tells it.

Of course, these are two perfect examples of people who should be supporting John Edwards.

No. No, no, no.

From today's edition of the New York Times:

"John Edwards, specifically, as well as the press, would never attack Barack Obama for two hours they [sic] way they attacked her," said Geraldine A. Ferraro, the 1984 vice presidential candidate who supports Mrs. Clinton. "It's O.K. in this country to be sexist," Ms. Ferraro said.

BULLSHIT. Clinton is showing at 44% support, Obama at 25%, and Edwards at 14%. Frankly, if they hadn't gunned for Clinton, that would have been sexist, because damn straight they'd be gunning for a man that far in front, and failing to do the same for Hillary would have been patronizing.

Sexist describes the newspaper articles that preface any discussion of something Hillary said with what she was wearing. Her candidates pressing her on the issues has nothing to do with sexism. When you're 19 percentage points ahead of your closest rival, you're commanding almost half of your party's support, and your gender automatically buys you (for good or ill) extra publicity, you don't get to call it sexist when your opponents call you out for being evasive on points that you are clearly being evasive about.

Hillary Clinton says some stuff about something while wearing a sporty powder blue pants suit. Barak Obama ponders serious political issues nearby.

As much as I appreciate Amy's opinion on the topic, I can't see Hillary as an icon of feminism. She would not be where she is today if she were not married to Bill Clinton. I don't discount some of the positive implications of her strong campaign. But how can someone who started her career as a high-profile wife be an icon for female equality? I want to see a woman in the nation's top office. I want to see our society reach that pinnacle. But if I believe GW's station is compromised by his family's legacy, how can I think differently about Hillary? Does that make me as bad as Edwards and the media?

I guess my main issue with this story is that it misrepresents where sexism exists in this campaign. The way the press treats Clinton is sexist, but not because they press her on issues. It's because they tell us what she's wearing, and how her hair is done, and how she deserves to be protected from spirited debate because of her gender.

The Politics of Umbrage

I don't care for Hillary Clinton as a candidate at all. She is just as careful and calculated and corporate as her Republican rivals, and her popularity causes me to believe that many Democrats do not actually desire fundamental change, but only care about seeing their 'team' win.

This is a good example of why Hillary is not someone I'm willing to support. Umbrage is the new Republican strategy. They get a lot of mileage out of pretending to be deeply offended by mildly pointed statements, huffing and blustering and calling for condemnation of the 'attack' by everyone who has ever registered as, voted for, or befriended a Democrat. It's a weak response and an irritating addition to the political process, and it looks like Hillary is ready to jump on board. What a wasted opportunity to point out Bush's conflicting comments of the danger posed by Osama Bin Laden, his continued use of 9/11 to rally support for the unrelated occupation of Iraq, or his fundamental failure to understand world history (Lenin? Is Bush actually saying he would have had America invade and occupy Russia to stop the Communist Revolution there? It's a wonder the man was able to maintain even a C average at Yale.)

Instead of diffusing the situation with humor and personality, Hillary just follows the lead of the Republicans, sputtering with deep offense at the President's "efforts to play politics with national security and practice the politics of division." Pretending to be deeply offended is apparently going to be a necessary skill on both sides of the aisle now. I find this immensely tiresome.