That’s all I can surmise from Terry McAuliffe’s boast that Hillary "won" Michigan.
Goddamned I wonder if these people give a damn how aggravating such statements are to people in MI whose Hillary-supporting Governor and other top leaders played chicken with the DNC and lost … our vote.
There’s a lot of outrage over Hillary’s comments on nukes and Iran yesterday (some of which will be broadcast today on the Today show). Some of that is not surprising, given the way the comments make her sound like Dick Cheney without his meds.
But there’s a kernel of sense in her comments that is being missed–and we’d be much better off pointing out that kernel and understanding it and its limits–than magnifying the sound bites that make her look so bad.
Here’s the transcript that Ab2kgj put together.
Well what we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran, if Iran does achieve what appears to be it’s continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons, and I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times, we used it very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world, and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.
In addition, if Iran were to become a nuclear power, it could set off an arms race that would be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing because the countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power. So I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves. In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement where we said, ‘No, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well.’ It is a theory that some people have been looking at because there is a fear that if Iran, which I hope we can prevent, becoming a nuclear power, but if they were to become one, some people worry that they are not deterrable, that they somehow have a different mindset and a worldview that might very well lead the leadership to be willing to become martyrs. I don’t buy that, but I think we have to test it. Read more →
Remember Christopher Ward? The guy who set up a bunch of interlocking campaign funds at the NRCC, all the while inventing audits that made it look like it was kosher, but whom the FBI is very busy investigating for fraud? Well, key to the interlocking campaign accounts were his Victory Funds. I still owe you all a series of posts describing how the money worked. But for a short summary of how I think they work, you can read this Politico story describing how McCain plans to finance his campaign.
Indeed, to help counter their money deficit, McCain strategists now suggest that the proper comparison should be between the combined assets of the campaign and the RNC and that of their opponent and the far less flush DNC.
“The McCain camp is funded jointly” is how one adviser describes it.
By taking federal funds — something they intend to do, campaign manager Rick Davis told a closed-door meeting of chiefs of staff on Capitol Hill last week — McCain will receive $84 million.
That money, McCain aides say, will be bolstered by the $20 million in coordinated funds that they can legally direct the RNC to spend on anything they want.
Further, they’ll rely on the committee-campaign joint Victory Fund run out of the RNC, which allows contributions of up to $28,500 per person — far more than the $2,300 donors can give to individual candidates.
The Victory dollars will go into the states and be used to hire staffers, who in some cases will serve as the de facto McCain aides.Other elements of the campaign, such as those tasked with developing coalitions and lining up surrogates, will also be placed at the RNC to save on overhead.
“Those functions that can legally be done at either [the campaign or RNC], we’ll err on the side of doing them at the RNC,” Black says. “The whole thing is under one umbrella in the way we are budgeting.” [my emphasis]
This is not to say McCain is breaking the law (aside from the campaign finance limits which he has already broken, that is). But it does say McCain is choosing a finance method that the Republican Party has already shown it cannot manage properly without someone committing fraud and–potentially–sifting money off the top for other expenditures.
As it happens, the two Pennsylvania voters I had visiting and I missed the debate last night. Thankfully. Though I’ve watched most of it at NYT. And I agree with the general consensus that the debate marks a low point in American journalism.
Still, I wonder whether it can’t be turned into a public good.
I’ve argued for a long time that journalists need to clean up their own house, first, before they start demanding new privileges or criticizing bloggers (and see Athenae kicking ass on this today in typically glorious fashion). Yet it is rare that journalists take critical stances of their own. They’d rather turn Judy into a martyr–presumably in hopes it will benefit them, too–than acknowledge Judy’s profound failures and how those failures discredit their profession.
But this time, it seems different. Already a number of mainstream journalists have criticized last night’s performance, most notably Tom Shales.
When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates’ debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news — in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.
For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.
[snip]
At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates — or was he really patting himself on the back? — for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He’s entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.
More generally, this debate seems to be a rorschach test for journalistic responsibility. Howie Kurtz and David Brooks were delighted with the debate. Greg Mitchell and Will Bunch were appalled. Walter Shapiro judges the debate failed both on democratic terms and on bad spin terms. Read more →
My family’s family recipes tend toward the white trash side of the palate. Our potato salad leads the list (secret ingredients: mustard, onion flakes, and–depending on who’s making it–Miracle Whip). Then there’s our ice tea (secret ingredient: frozen lemonade mix). There’s our "recipe" for Thanksgiving turkey–which is no more complex than slapping a pound of bacon on top of the turkey and then picking the bacon off and eating it at about 4PM, just when you begin to get really hungry on Thanksgiving. And finally War Cake, which no one has made since Anastasia passed away. I guess mom’s refrigerator rolls have become a family recipe, too–gooey white rolls that seem perfectly designed as a vehicle for leftover turkey gravy (of course, the gravy always has a slight bacon flavor).
Then there are the recipes I’m famous for: peach, apple, or rhubarb pie, sourdough pancakes (though mr. emptywheel is now in charge of the pancakes), bread pudding. They may or may not be white trash recipes, but they’re damned good (if I do say so myself).
As I think about it, there are a whole slew of things my family might consider family recipes.
But none of them qualify mr. emptywheel to be President. Not least because one of the perks of being President is a full time White House cook–it’s not like I’d be baking my rhubarb pie for the Pope when he came didn’t come to dinner.
Which is why I’m fascinated by recipe-gate–the news that someone in the McCain campaign had borrowed a bunch of recipes from the Food Network and posted them as "McCain Family Recipes." Yeah, I think it telling that the McCain campaign has been circulating a bunch of recipes and pretending they’re Cindy McCain’s–yeah, that’s dishonest. Gotcha!
I’m more fascinated by the larger practice of collecting a bunch of recipes and submitting them as if they somehow make the potential first lady authentic and, by association, the presidential candidate as well. Read more →
The news that McCain called his wife a "trollop" and a "cunt" …
The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, which will arrive in bookstores next month, reports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop. An advance copy of the book was obtained by RAW STORY.
Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain’s intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, "You’re getting a little thin up there." McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain’s excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.
… makes me wonder the following:
Oh, this should be fun. Bush chose today to send the Colombia Free Trade pact to Congress today, just one day after Mark Penn’s former contract with Colombia led to his firing resignation forfeiture of his Chief Strategist title with the Clinton campaign. I especially like this bit:
The president also has said that failing to approve a free-trade deal with Colombia would have the effect of encouraging Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez’s anti-American regime and casting the United States as untrustworthy and impotent across South America.
You see, I’m not convinced that Penn was fired resigned gave up his title because he mis-stated Clinton’s stance on the Colombia Trade pact.
If he had gone that far off the reservation, after all, you’d think he’d have been fired outright. So this may be just cover–to prevent unions from balking at Penn’s comment. Or a slap on the wrist, to ensure that Penn doesn’t speak out again in the remaining time of the campaign. Or, it could be that Penn doesn’t want responsibility for what’s going to happen in the next several weeks of the campaign. Or, it could be an attempt on Penn’s part to regain the business with Colombia.
But one thing’s clear. Anything short of a full end of the relationship between Penn and Clinton suggests only lukewarm disapproval that his meeting with the Colombians was reported in the press. Take that to mean what you will.
So now, after Democrats had hoped that Bush wouldn’t make the Senate vote on the pact, he’s doing just that.
Moreover, Democratic leaders balked at forcing the matter to a vote.
I can see why, when the economy is tanking and the country is being devastated by foreclosures and Wall Street is getting addicted to public financing, Bush would think the most important way to spend the Senate’s time is to consider sending more jobs to places where environmental regulations and pesky unions won’t trouble the captains of capitalism.
But I’m particularly intrigued that Bush is turning the US-Colombia pact into an issue of Chavez. Bush would love to start war-mongering against Chavez, along with Iran, and you could argue the Administration and its Colombian allies have already started doing just that. Of course, the US could make no credible military threat against Venezuela right now–we’ve squandered that ability in Iraq.
The press is agog that Hillary Clinton sat down with–and wooed–her long time personal vast right-wing conspiracy funder, Richard Mellon Scaife.
NYT:
But in a striking about-face, Mr. Scaife now says he has changed his mind — at least about one half of the duo.
Fox:
Scaife, who unnerves some conservatives with countervailing positions on abortion and the war in Iraq, said he still wants to hear from Barack Obama before his newspaper endorses a candidate in Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary.
ABC:
Richard Mellon Scaife, a major funder of the 90s-era Vast Right Wing Conspiracy — specifically, The American Spectator and its "Arkansas Project" — today reconsiders his former nemesis in an op-ed in his newspaper, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
JMM:
This alone has to amount to some sort cosmic encounter like something out of a Wagner opera. Remember, this is the guy who spent millions of dollars puffing up wingnut fantasies about Hillary’s having Vince Foster whacked and lots of other curdled and ugly nonsense.
Aside from the fact that it is quite common for the poobahs of newspapers to meet with political candidates leading up to an election in their community (and Scaife suggests he’ll meet with Obama, too), I think the meeting ought to be put in context with Bill Clinton’s earlier meeting with Scaife, back in November (a meeting only ABC’s Tapper notes in his coverage), one carefully stage-managed by Scaife’s vast right wing conspirators of the 1990s, Christopher Ruddy and Michael Isikoff. Scaife’s revisionary history of his involvement in the Clintons’ woes started when, in November, Ruddy called Bubba "part Merlin and part Midas."
As you’ve no doubt heard, three second-rate burglars have been caught accessing Obama’s passport files. The WaPo reports the tree days when his files were accessed:
State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the employees had individually looked into Obama’s passport file on Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14. To access such a file, the employees must first acknowledge a pledge to keep the information private.
To which Josh connects three events:
A few more details about the Obama passport breach. According to a new piece out in the Post from Glenn Kessler, the breaches occurred Jan. 9th, Feb. 21st and March 14th.
That would be the day after the New Hampshire primary, the day of the Democratic debate in Texas and the day the Wright story really hit.
I’m rather more interested in two of the dates on the Republican side. The day after the New Hampshire primary (when it became clear McCain’s campaign was far from dead), and the day of the Texas primary (when McCain sealed the nomination). After all, New Hampshire was a set-back for Obama. Why would a Democrat waste bribes to do oppo research on Obama when it looked, once again, like Hillary would win the primary? But I can understand why McCain would start doing oppo research at a time when his chances started looking up.
Though, I would still have to explain the February 21 date.
Markos likes the idea Mark Halperin claims is being floated.
–Michigan’s 156 delegates would be split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama.
–Florida’s existing delegates would be seated at the Denver convention—but with half a vote each. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 19 elected delegates.
– The two states’ superdelegates would then be able to vote in Denver, likely netting Clinton a few more delegates.
Now, any "solution" to the clusterfuck needs to fulfill one goal and ought to fulfill another. The goal it ought to fulfill is to swing the delegate counts in favor of momentum if, indeed, either candidate is picking up momentum (in other words, break open the close race for delegates). This solution might do that–if Florida’s and Michigan’s super-delegates swing heavily for one or another candidate (and they are currently swinging heavily for Hillary).
But the other–far more important–purpose for a "solution" to the clusterfuck is to enfranchise the voters who were screwed by their state’s clusterfuck, and to find a real measure of the support for Hillary and Obama in each state.
I won’t speak to Florida in this case–I’d rather leave that to Florida’s voters.
But consider how this work in MI. A recent Rasmussen poll actually found Hillary and Obama tied, 41-41 (though that obviously means there are a lot of undecideds). So the 50-50 split wouldn’t be terrible–except that it would transform a meaningless vote into an equally meaningless vote. It would, once again, deprive Michiganders of working to elect their favored candidate. It would deprive Michiganders of actually having a voice that mattered.
Which would mean the super-delegates would have a voice that mattered that much more, since the possibility of dirty fucking hippy citizens affecting the vote would be nullified.
Only super-delegates would get a meaningful vote.
But those are precisely the geniuses who got us into the Clusterfuck in the first place! So you punish the dirty fucking citizens of Michigan, by withholding their ability to cast a meaningful vote. And meanwhile, you make the super-delegate votes more powerful!
I think non-Michiganders simply don’t get the levels of raw anger present here–anger directed at these same super-delegates who, according to this genius "solution," would pawn off the punishment for the super-delegates own Clusterfuck on ordinary voters.
This "solution" is not a solution at all. It allows the super-delegates to avoid all punishment for their rashness. But it still leaves Michigan voters–the ones we’ll Read more →