The InfiniteTruth

More Carnage in Iraq

2008-03-17T12:35:00.000-07:00

It just goes on and on:

A female suicide bomber has killed at least 42 people and injured 58 in the Shia Iraqi holy city of Karbala, Iraqi health officials say. The bomb went off near the Imam Hussein shrine, reportedly inside a cafe, and eyewitnesses described seeing bodies scattered across the street.

17 more of our heroes have been killed this month bringing the total now to 3,987 who have died for George Bush's pointless nationbuilding fiasco in Iraq. So far this month 420 Iraqi civilians have died. This could end up being the worst month for civilian casualties since August of last year.

The reduction in violence brought about by the surge has come at the terrible price of a wave of ethnic cleansing, and the subdivision of Baghdad into separate walled and armed camps. What's more the US has now organized and financed an army of 100,000 Sunni militias members who are not loyal to the central government and will never be integrated into Iraq's army and police. By doing this, Bush has laid the groundwork for an even bloodier civil war than the one we've seen so far.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian disaster created by Bush's war is growing worse:

Five years after the United States led an invasion of Iraq, millions of people there are still deprived of clean water and medical care, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said on Monday.
[...]

Some areas of the country of 27 million people have no functioning water and sanitation facilities, and the poor public water supply has forced some families to use at least a third of their average $150 monthly income buying clean drinking water.

In short, Iraq is still a bloody disaster and the surge hasn't fundamentally changed the situation. All it has accomplished is to reduce the pressure for compromise among Iraq's warring factions and given them time to rearm and regroup.

The Surge is Still Not Working

2008-03-13T17:02:00.000-07:00

The surge isn't going too well:

A U.S. military spokesman said three American soldiers were killed in a rocket attack on their combat outpost south of Baghdad on Wednesday. The deaths bring to 12 the number of U.S. troops killed in three days.
Navy Lt. Patrick Evans, a military spokesman, told The Associated Press that the soldiers were killed on Combat Outpost Adder near Nasiriyah, about 200 miles southeast of Baghdad.
Two other American soldiers were injured in the rocket attack. Eight American soldiers died in separate attacks on Monday and one was killed Tuesday.

Iraqi civilian deaths are on the rise too (these numbers are deaths per day):

January: 20
February: 26
March: 39

The fact that the death toll is again on the rise provides ample evidence that George Bush's much vaunted surge strategy has failed miserably. The goal of the surge (in Bush's words himself) was to provide the environment where political reconciliation could take place. While violence did fall in the last quarter of 2007, the endlessly bickering Iraqi factions did not take advantage of the respite to forge a lasting peace.

And now we have built an army of 100,000 Sunni militia members whom the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government refuses to induct into the police or the military laying the groundwork for the bloody civil war that must eventually happen. But George Bush has almost accomplished what he set out to do: play out the clock on Iraq and dump the whole disaster on the next president. That way he thinks he can escape responsibility and his right-wing lackeys in the media and blogosphere will chortle on endlessly about how President Obama lost Iraq.

Meanwhile the Iraq War drags on, bankrupting the country and helping to drag us down into a severe recession. Billions have been squandered and hundreds of thousands of lives lost all for no gain. We've redrawn the strategic map of the Middle East putting the Iranians in the driver seat and our allies at risk.

George W Bush. Worse. President. Ever.

Obama Back on Top

2008-03-13T17:01:00.001-07:00

The much ballyhooed Clinton "surge" has fizzled according to Gallup

Obama: 49%
Clinton: 44%

What's even more interesting is that Obama has padded his delegate lead during his "bad week" as Kos explains:

A reader passed on a full list of all the super delegates who announced the last six days their endorsements:

Obama
DNC Carol Fowler (SC), 3-4-08
Mary Long (GA), 3-4-08
Roy LaVerne Brooks (TX), 3-4-08
Rhine McLin (OH), 3-5-08
DNC Jane Kidd (GA), 3-5-08
DNC Darlena Williams-Burnett (IL), 3-5-08
DNC Connie Thurman (IN), 3-6-08
Rep. Nick Rahall (WV), 3-6-08
DNC Teresa Benitez-Thompson (NV), 3-6-08
DNC Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker (CA), 3-7-08
Rep. Bill Foster (IL), 3-9-08
DNC Mary Jo Neville (OH), 3-9-08

Clinton
Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), 3-6-08
DNC Mona Mohib (DC), 3-6-08
DNC Aleita Huguenin (CA), 3-7-08
DNC Mary Lou Winters (LA), 3-8-08

So that's an 8-delegate advantage for Obama.

As for the elections:

Obama Clinton OH 66 75 RI 8 13 VT 9 6 TX 99 94 WY 7 5

Total 189 193

That gives Obama a four-delegate victory since last Tuesday. Add the four delegate gain out of California after that state's vote was certified, and we're up to 8 delegates for Obama. Throw in the four delegates Clinton lost in California, and that's 12 delegates for Obama. Today we had DNC member and super delegate Everett Sanders of Mississippi endorsing Obama, so make that 13 delegates for Obama.

So officially, Obama has a 13-delegate advantage for the week even before Mississippi votes tomorrow. Throw in the unpledged delegate in Wyoming who will certainly be an Obama delegate, and unofficially, Obama notched a 14-delegate gain in this "week from hell" for him.

Drumbeat Grows Louder for Clinton Tax Returns

2008-03-10T10:37:00.001-07:00

The mainstream media is finally taking an interest in this. From ABC News:

After weeks of intense pressure, and more than a year after announcing her presidential candidacy, Sen. Hillary Clinton has offered little explanation for why she has delayed releasing the tax returns made public by most other Democratic presidential candidates in recent years.

"What is the holdup?" said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that tracks the role of money in politics. "She hasn't exactly made it clear as to what process is making it so cumbersome to just release them."

The laughable excuse that they keep offering is that her taxes won't be done until April 15. They seem oblivious to the fact that April 15 is the deadline for 2007 taxes. Not 2006 or 2005 or prior years. That they keep offering this as an excuse is an insult to the public's intelligence.

The Clintons certainly have cashed in on their celebrity status since Bill left the White House:

Since 1999, the couple's net worth has increased from somewhere between $1.25 million and $5.7 million to between $10 million and $50 million, according to filings. In 2006, the Clintons earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from book royalties, and former President Bill Clinton made $10 million in dozens of paid speeches.

The disclosures shed some light on President Clinton's role in two companies run by longtime friends and fundraisers. Clinton earned an unspecified amount as a consultant for InfoUsa, a data company run by longtime friend and fundraiser Vin Gupta, according to the filings. The forms also showed ten of thousands of dollars invested in funds with the Yucaipa Companies, a private equity firm run by another close friend, Ron Burkle.

Joe Klein rips Hillary on all of this:

Hillary is not fighting for the average worker. She is fighting to conceal evidence that she and Bill have exploited the kind of tax loopholes that are costing average working people who play by the rules many millions of dollars in tax revenue that could go toward paying for universal health care, education, housing relief, etc.

It gets even more interesting when we examine Clinton's ties with billionaire playboy Ron Burkle:

Even worse is the mystery surrounding Bill’s relationship with three Cayman Island-based global funds, run by his billionaire pal Ron Burkle. Through WJC International Investments GP, Bill Clinton has invested in Yucaipa Global Holdings and Yucaipa Global Partnership. The Yucaipa Global Partnership Fund “invests in securities of corporations that conduct significant operations in foreign countries.” Bill is one of three owners of the Yucaipa global fund’s general partner. The others are Mr. Burkle, who is the managing member, and an entity connected to the ruler of Dubai.

Bill is reportedly going to make around $20 million if he disentangles himself from this foreign-based relationship, as he said he would do in the event that Hillary wins the Democratic presidential nomination. Yet, in Hillary Clinton’s Public Financial Disclosure Report that she filed with the Federal Election Commission and signed on June 13, 2007, she indicated that the valuation of her spouse’s holdings in the Yucaipa Global Holdings and Yucaipa Global Partnership Fund did not exceed $15,000. Her 2006 Senate disclosure filing for the calendar year 2006, signed on May 15, 2007, lists the valuation of both these holdings at less than $1000! More miraculously than Hillary’s profits in cattle trading decades ago, the asset value of the Clintons’ Yucaipa global investments appears to have risen about two thousand percent in less than a year’s time when those financial disclosure filings were made - unless the filings were misleading in the first place. Of course, Hillary has not sought fit to amend her public financial disclosure filings accordingly.

Bill and Hillary. Change you can believe in.

Obama Halts Hilary's Momentum in Wyoming

2008-03-08T18:30:00.000-08:00

Any momentum Hillary Clinton may have acquired from her wins in Ohio and Rhode Island hasn't carried over with the voters of Wyoming where Obama won today's caucus:

Obama: 61%
Clinton: 38%

The whole concept of "momentum" that the media likes to promote is probably more of a figment of their imagination than anything else. Just now on ABC News a reporter said that Obama now has to deal with a "surging" Hillary Clinton. This is utter nonsense. The net 10 delegates she gained on March 4 (which will likely be cut in half when the Texas caucus results are in) don't represent a "surge" at all; they are simply reflective of each candidate's relative strengths with the varying Democratic party constituencies.

Voters in Wyoming didn't wake up on March 5 and decide that they were going to switch their vote from Obama to Hillary because of what happened in far-away Ohio. By this point in the race most voters have already made up their minds, and they aren't going to be swayed by what happens in other states. The whole idea of "momentum" is simply a creation of the mainstream media that wants to keep you tuning in and watching their commercials for as long as possible.

If Hillary did in fact have any momentum she would not have been blown out of Wyoming by 23 points. I am sure she will whine about the caucus format again but the fact is that Wyoming with it's small black population and relative lack of affluent suburbanites should have been a state that played to her strengths.

The reality is that Obama's campaign continues to run circles around Hillary's and rack up delegates which are, after all, the name of the game. So, it's on to Mississippi where Hillary will once again try and fail to throw a monkey wrench into the Obama machine. Good luck.

From Rezko to Cattle Futures

2008-03-04T16:38:00.001-08:00

You've got to love these conference calls that the Clinton campaign staff has with the media every day. Real Clear Politics has a post on how Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson has demanded that Obama be more forthcoming on his relationship with Tony Rezko:

"Obama had an opportunity yesterday to put some of the questions of his relationship with Mr. Rezko to rest," Wolfson said. "The bottom line is that Democrats are prepared to begin voting in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont, and there are many many more questions than answers in regards to the Rezko matter. Voters deserve answers."

Yes, I'm sure that the Rezko affair is the single-most important issue for voters going to the polls today. It's more important than NAFTA, the economy and the war in Iraq without a doubt.

The fact is that very, very few people voting in the Democratic Party have the slightest interest in the Rezko affair. Why? Because it reminds them of the incessant and endless Republican attacks on the Clintons during the 90's. We were subjected to an almost daily bombardment about the many and varied Clinton scandals for eight long, agonizing years. One after the other and they never amounted to much of anything because it is extremely difficult to prove these kinds of allegations.

Was Hillary's $100,000 profit at trading cattle futures really some sort of a kickback or payoff from someone she did favors for? To this day, no one really knows and Democratic primary voters certainly don't care. While the Clinton campaign has gotten down into the mud about the Obama-Rezko "scandal" Obama has steered clear of the many scandals that clouded Clinton presidency. I think that needs to change. It's time to start fighting fire with fire.

Ironically, we now see the Clinton campaign employing the same tactics that were used against them for so many years. What you do is repeatedly ask the same questions that have already been asked dozens of times before about an issue that challenges the integrity of your opponent. Never mind that those questions have all been asked and answered dozens of times before. Never mind that reporters have been poring over the details of the Obama-Rezko connection for years now and haven't found anything substantial to report. The idea is that if you repeat the same questions over and over again it will eventually ruin a politician in the eyes of the voters.

In keeping with the way the Clinton campaign thinks this campaign should be run I'd like to ask the following questions of Hillary:

How did Hillary manage to score a $100,000 gain on trading cattle futures when she had no history or experience with that type of investment?

Who assisted Hillary in making this trade? Was it her idea or did someone suggest it to her?

Why did James Blair of Tyson Foods place most of the orders for the cattle futures?

What is the extent of Hillary's ties with Tyson Foods? Has she ever done any work for that company?

All questions that have been asked and answered countless times before. All questions that Democratic Party primary voters couldn't care less about. But, nevertheless, turnabout is fair play. Hillary needs to come forward with answers and put this issue to rest once and for all.

Surge Euphoria is Wildly Misplaced

2008-03-02T21:48:00.001-08:00

It seems nearly every day we are bombarded with the "surge is working" mantra by right-wing war apologists and their willing accomplices in the media. In reality, the deep fissures and conflicts bubbling just under the surface are just waiting for the appropriate moment to break out and destroy this false sense of euphoria about Iraq. As an example, consider the question about the future of Kirkuk:

The struggle between Kurds and Arabs for control of the city of Kirkuk and its oil amounts to a "ticking time bomb'' in northern Iraq, according to the new United Nations envoy trying to broker a settlement.

Mediator Staffan de Mistura said in an interview that he has about four months left to solve "the mother of all crises'' in Iraq. "If that takes place, we will have contributed substantially to avoiding a new conflict at the worst possible time,'' he said.

The Bush administration's approach to Kirkuk has been the same as it's approach to every other conflict facing the faltering Iraqi state: paper over the differences and play out the clock until it's all someone else's problem. The next president will inherit an Iraq that continues to descend deeper into crisis despite the presence of 150,000 US troops and the expenditure of billions of US dollars.

The whole question of Kurdish autonomy and self-government is one that will be with us for years to come and will most likely result in a bloody war of independence pitting allies of the US against each other. In the Sunni areas of Iraq, militias that have been organized, financed and armed by the US present a grave threat to the central regime in Baghdad. In the south, powerful Shiite militias hold sway and are gradually enforcing a strict regime of Islamic law that is completely contrary to the democratic and open society that President Bush hoped to foster in Iraq.

The Iraqi state continues to fragment internally while powerful regional players like Iran and Turkey work to tear it apart at the edges and establish their spheres of influence. While the administration sleepwalks through it's last year providing no effective leadership or plan for success, the situation continues to deteriorate and will pose an enormous challenge on multiple fronts for the next administration.

Rove Warns Republicans off the "Hussein" Game

2008-02-28T16:52:00.000-08:00

Yes, we all know by now that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. How ironic that the leading presidential candidate for the Democratic Party would have a middle name that is the same as the last name of the evil dictator that our troops brought down just five years ago.

Yet, we all know that in this life none of us gets to choose our names. While many on the right are having great fun endlessly repeating "Barack Hussein Obama" none other than Karl Rove is warning his fellow Republicans away from this course:

"The context was, you're not going to stimatize this guy. You shouldn't underestimate him," one of the executive directors said. Rove said that the use of "Barack Hussein Obama" would perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted and would hurt the party.

I rarely agree with Karl Rove, but on this issue I think he is right on target. And that's why I hope the right-wing blogosphere and talk-show hosts continue to use Obama's middle name as often as possible. I'm sincerely hoping that Rush creates one of his famous parodies (remember "Barack the Magic Negro") and plays it over and over endlessly until November.

I know a lot of Republicans (hey, I used to be one until last month when I registered Democrat to vote for Obama) and I know most of them are not bigoted. But by pursuing this game of repeating Hussein at every opportunity they send a subtle message to all people whose color and ethnicity does not match the standard white Anglo-Saxon mold.

The message is that you're somehow different from the rest of us and you'll never really be accepted by us. In a country with rapidly expanding minority populations that puts the Republican Party at an enormous disadvantage in winning over groups that are absolutely vital to restoring their majority status in Congress and capturing the presidency.

Making fun of Obama's middle name may be good red meat for a Republican rally and fire up the base, but it's a turn-off to independent voters who will decide the presidential election and determine the balance of power in Congress.

Reconciliation in Iraq Going Nowhere

2008-02-27T09:23:00.000-08:00

In a 2007 Address to the Nation, President Bush explained the purpose of the surge:

When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace -- and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

In his own words, Bush clearly explained that the goal of the surge was to provide political "breathing space" that would help make "reconciliation possible". Right-wing bloggers like Engram have been doing their level best to rewrite history to claim that reconciliation was never the goal of the surge in the first place; that it was all about improving security. In their view, all we needed to do in Iraq was improve security, and it's perfectly fine if the Iraqis spend the next 100 years bickering about how to turn their fragmented, failed state into a cohesive functioning society.

Fortunately, we have the words of the president himself to prove the "surge is working" crowd wrong. And, we have the relentless efforts of the Iraqis themselves to subvert a meaningful and effective reconciliation:

Iraq's presidential council rejected a measure Wednesday setting up provincial elections, sending it back to parliament in the latest setback to U.S.-backed national reconciliation efforts.

But don't worry. According to Dana Perino, they just need a little more time:

"We believe that the Iraqis will be able to work it out," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.
"While we would have liked to have it go forward without any complications, this is democracy at work," she said.

What's another year and another 1,000 of our heroes killed and thousands more wounded, maimed or crippled for life? We've got plenty more where those came from.

What's another $200 billion down the rat hole? We've got plenty of cash lying around that we have nothing to do with.

Enough already. Bring our troops home now.

Casualties on the Rise Again in Iraq

2008-02-25T16:00:00.001-08:00

The surge has come and gone and now Iraqi casualties (including civilian, military and police) are on the rise again:

Oct-07 565
Nov-07 471
Dec-07 476
Jan-08 485
Feb-08 527

There are still four more days left in February so it could end up being the worst month since September of last year. The death toll is still rising from this weekend's suicide bombing:

The death toll from Sunday's suicide bomb attack on Iraqi pilgrims heading to a Shi'ite festival south of Baghdad has risen to 63, a health official said on Monday.
The bomber exploded a suicide vest packed with metal ball bearings in a refreshment tent full of pilgrims heading to the annual Arbain festival, one of Shi'ie Islam's holiest events, in the southern city of Kerbala.

Meanwhile, fighting has erupted in the once relatively peaceful northern part of the country:

Turkey sent military reinforcements into northern Iraq yesterday as clashes with militants from the Kurdistan Workers' party (PKK) continued for a fourth day. According to the Turkish army, another 25 tanks crossed the border to help the hunt for PKK fighters, whom Turkey accuses of launching attacks on its forces from bases in the sparsely populated mountains along the Turkish-Iraqi border.
"The bombings are continuing by land and by air; the clashes are becoming heavier," a Turkish military source told the Reuters news agency.
Roj TV, the voice of the PKK, reported that 5,000 Turkish troops with 60 tanks had launched an offensive against the militants early yesterday in the Matin mountains. Ahmed Deniz, a PKK spokesman, told the Guardian that fierce fighting was continuing in several places along the border.
Since the major air and ground offensive began last week, Turkey says 15 of its soldiers and 112 militants have died. The PKK claims that 47 Turkish soldiers have been killed. The PKK spokesman said its fighters also brought down a Turkish army helicopter in the remote Chamsku area, close to the border. Turkey confirmed the loss of a helicopter, but said it was due to unknown reasons.

Obama was Right

2008-02-21T12:07:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama, for all his "inexperience", was one of the few politicians who was right on target about Iraq. From his 2002 speech:

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

Iraq has been a disastrous waste of precious lives and resources for America. We diverted assets from the Afghan theater thereby allowing bin Laden to escape and regroup in Pakistan. We've created legions of new recruits for al Qaeda and created an incompetent, corrupt, house-of-cards regime in Baghdad that would collapse within a week if we pulled out. We are locked in a quagmire where our only choice is to maintain a massive occupation force for decades to come and squander billions more on this fruitless nationbuilding exercise or abandon the place to a variety of terrorists, extremists and religious fanatics. We've weakened our military and our country, and destroyed our international standing which is essential to victory in the war on terror. Iraq is the greatest foreign policy disaster for America in our nation's history. It is long overdue for us to elect a government that will respect the wishes of the American people and pull out. We can use the billions that we are squandering in Iraq to rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, funding development of renewable energy sources, providing health care for our kids, and saving Social Security.

Or we can elect McCain and see another 4,000 troops die over the next 4 years to prop up a government of pro-Iranian religious fanatics who want to establish Sharia law, commit genocide against the Sunnis, and turn their women into slaves. Brilliant.

Time for Hillary to Step Aside

2008-02-20T09:20:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama has now crushed Hillary Clinton in 10 successive contests since Super Tuesday. Last night's landslide margins in Wisconsin and Hawaii were just the latest in a long string of overwhelming victories for Obama since then. Here are the margins:

DC: +51
Louisiana: +21
Hawaii: +52
Maine: +19
Nebraska: +36
Maryland: +23
Virginia: +29
Washington: +37
Wisconsin: +17

He's now won 23 states to Hillary's 11.

As Hillary's campaign faltered she turned increasingly negative in the hopes that she could tear down Obama's stature in the eyes of the voters. They labeled Obama a coward for ducking debates in Wisconsin. They accused him of being an empty suit who plagarized from others and couldn't write his own material.

All of these attacks bombed miserably and have substantially diminshed Hillary Clinton's stature rather than Barack Obama's. They have also provided grist for the Republicans to use against Obama in the general election. At this point, Hillary is so far behind in delegates that it is mathematically impossible for her to win barring a massive swing in superdelegates against the candidate that has been chosen by the people.

The time has come for Hillary to do what's best for the country and the Democratic Party and step aside. Continuing her campaign at this point can only help the Republicans in the general election. The party needs to unify behind Barack Obama and focus on defeating John McCain in November. The people have spoken; it's time for the Clinton campaign to respect the voice of the people.

Texas Rules Spell Trouble for Hillary

2008-02-18T09:32:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post has the story:

What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa's heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston -- where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support -- could yield three or four times as many
delegates.

"What it means is, she could win the popular vote and still lose the race for delegates," Hinojosa said yesterday. "This system does not necessarily represent the opinions of the population, and that is a serious problem."

One-third of the delegates will be chosen in a caucus which is good news for Obama given his strength in that format.

Under rules described in the 37-page Texas delegate selection plan, two-thirds of the state's 228 delegates will be chosen based on the vote in each of 31 state Senate districts. The remaining delegates will be chosen based in part on the outcome of caucuses held on election night after the polls close.

Hillary's people are worried that her working-class supporters may not have the ability to vote and to attend a caucus compared to Obama's more affluent supporters.

It gets better for Obama. It looks like Texas' gerrymandered districts will work in his favor according to the Huffington Post:

While drawing district lines in such a way that ensured victory for a Republican state senator, the Republicans also made sure that the Democrats in each new district were divided between moderate whites and/or African-American Hispanic minorities. The thinking was that these competing Democratic constituencies would cancel each other out--and that is exactly what is likely to happen come March 4th, because by putting a bit of black in as many state senate districts as possible, the Republicans have blunted the chances for Hillary Clinton to take a majority in districts that have 4 delegates to offer. Most of the 31 state senate districts that will determine the Texas primary deliver 4 delegates. Therefore, Hillary Clinton will be hard-pressed to find a way to a clear-cut victory in Texas.

Hillary really needs to take a large majority of Texas' delegates in order to make up her deficit in the delegate race. It increasingly looks like she won't be able to do that.

Of course, if she fails to score a big win, we can always rely on Mark Penn to discount the Texas contest as insignificant because of their strange rules and gerrymandered districts.

Is your State "Insignificant" According to Hillary?

2008-02-14T12:11:00.000-08:00

Mark Penn is Hillary's Chief Strategist and he is laying the groundwork for a bitter battle over superdelegates. Here's what he said trying to discount Obama's wins:

"Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama."

Here's another gem from Penn:

"I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate."

The "quality" of "where the win comes from"??? Maybe Mark Penn could share his quality criteria for wins with us. Maybe he could tell us what makes a state insignificant.

Since he clearly must believe that Barack Obama's wins in Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia and Washington are insignificant and not quality, I'd like to offer some of the unspoken criteria that he is using to make these judgments.

#1. States that have a lot of black people are insignificant and are not quality. (sorry Alabama, DC, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland and South Carolina).

#2. Small states are insignificant and are not quality. (sorry Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, North Dakota and Utah).

#3. States in the middle of the country are insignificant and are not quality. (sorry Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and North Dakota).

#4. States that have a lot of Mormons are insignificant and are not quality. (sorry Utah)

#5. States that run caucuses are insignificant and are not quality. (sorry Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota and Washington)

I think that covers almost all of them. So if you're a superdelegate from any of these states, Mark Penn thinks your state is insignificant and your contest was not "quality" so you should therefore ignore the wishes of your voters and support Hillary instead. Sure...makes perfect sense.

And, we should consider it "significant" that Hillary won California, Massachusetts and New York because we know those states will be up for grabs come November. Yeah...right.

This is an extremely perilous course that Hillary is embarking upon here, but I have to say that it's certainly no surprise. It should be obvious that she will do anything and say anything to win. If it means alienating and enraging African-Americans, a core constituency for the Democratic Party, then so be it. If it means infuriating Independents and Republicans in red and purple (mostly small) states who crossed party lines to vote for Obama then so be it. If it means going back on her word about Florida and Michigan then so be it.

Whatever it takes.

Potomac Blowouts Help to Explode Obama Myths

2008-02-13T08:55:00.001-08:00

Last night weren't just wins for Obama, they were complete blowouts. What's more the exit polling data shows that Obama is encroaching on Hillary's core constituencies in a big way.

First the vote totals:

DC

Obama: 75%
Clinton: 24%

Maryland

Obama: 60%
Clinton: 36%

Virginia

Obama: 64%
Clinton: 35%

These are absolutely stunning margins of victory. 24 points in Maryland, 29 points in Virginia, and 51 points in DC are all much more than anyone had expected. Obama picked up 76 more delegates to Clinton's 39 putting him out in front in the pledged delegate count:

Obama: 1078
Clinton: 969

He's also ahead if you include super-delegates:

Obama: 1215
Clinton: 1190

Exit polls from CNN and ABC exit show where the race is headed and destroy a number of myths that have been propagated by the Clinton Spin Machine and their shills in the media.

Myth #1: Obama can't win among older voters.

Obama beat Clinton 52-47 among voters over 60 in Virginia.

Myth #2: Obama can't win among women voters.

Obama beat Clinton 58-42 among women in Virginia.

Myth #3: Obama doesn't appeal to the working class.

Obama took 59 percent of the votes of respondents who said they earn less than $50,000 a year and 62 percent of those who said someone in their household is a member of a union.

Myth #4: Obama can't win among Hispanic voters.

Obama beat Clinton 54-46 among Hispanics in Virginia.

Myth #5: Hillary is widely viewed as more prepared to be commander-in-chief.

Maryland voters by 54-43 percent said Obama was better qualified than Clinton to serve as commander-in-chief.

Myth #6: Obama is strong in caucuses, not in primaries

All three of yesterday's contests were primaries.

So there you have it. Every myth about the Obama campaign that Hillary supporters have been using to talk up her chances in this race have been destroyed overnight. Hillary needs to figure out how to start winning and fast or this thing is going to be over soon. She can't afford to write off Wisconsin and Hawaii and then explain that those losses were "expected". That just won't work anymore. She's starting to sound like the new Rudy Giuliani. She needs to mount a full court press in Wisconsin especially to try and slow down the Obama bandwagon before it's too late.

Clinton Spin Machine Pumps up Prospect of Obama Blowout

2008-02-12T12:25:00.001-08:00

The Clinton spin machine at work:

Clinton aides have tried to dampen expectations, publicly stoking the prospect of an Obama sweep today. But strategic moves by both sides in recent days indicate that Virginia is positioned as Clinton's likeliest target of opportunity.

Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign's communications director, said Virginia was "a state along with Maryland and others in February where Sen. Obama has significant advantages. We have long factored that reality into our planning."

So they have "long factored" that reality into their planning have they? Well, they haven't been planning for it too long because just 11 weeks ago the polls in Virginia were telling a different story:

Clinton: 49%
Obama: 25%

I'd be willing to wager that a poll taken before South Carolina would have shown similar results. The contest in South Carolina fundamentally changed the nature of this race because it demonstrated that Obama couldn't just beat Clinton but he could beat the tar out of her as his 28% margin in that state demonstrated. It also showed that he could dominate the African-American vote while splitting off a good percentage of the white vote.

Since South Carolina, Obama has racked up some hefty double-digit margins of victory:

Idaho: 63%
Alaska: 49%
Kansas: 48%
Washington: 37%
Nebraska: 36%
Colorado: 35%
Georgia: 35%
Minnesota: 34%
Illinois: 32%*
North Dakota: 24%
Louisiana: 21%
Maine: 19%
Utah: 18%
Alabama: 14%

While Clinton has less than half as many; two of which are her home states (asterisks):

Arkansas: 44%*
Oklahoma: 24%
New York: 17%*
Massachusetts: 15%
Tennessee: 13%
California: 10%
New Jersey: 10%

The margin of victory obviously matters because it translates into delegates given the proportional allocation rules that the Democrats follow. I assure you the Clinton campaign could not have foreseen these margins of victory even just two months ago. And now, they are desperately running their spin machine at full speed in order to manipulate the media into buying into their narrative that all of these Obama victories are no big deal because they were "expected".

The fact of the matter is that the Clinton campaign is fighting for it's life right now and desperately needs a win in one of the three contests up for grabs today. If they do manage to eke out a victory the media will no doubt echo their spin by declaring it a huge "upset" just as they declared her slim 3% margin in New Hampshire an upset.

In reality, the upset is that Obama has been able to win so many contests and by such large margins. That is what no one expected just a few months ago.

So let's not buy their spin this time around. A win is a win is a win. A 20% margin is a "blowout", 10% is a "big win", 5% is a "win", less than 5% is pretty much a draw. These characterizations should hold no matter which side comes out on top.

The Clinton Campaign Spin Machine

2008-02-11T10:36:00.000-08:00

Kos eviscerates the Clinton campaign's attempts to discount all of Obama's wins:

Iowa didn't matter because it was a caucus state, and it's undemocratic. Same goes for every other caucus state including Maine. The only caucus state that mattered was Nevada.

Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alaska, and Utah don't matter because they're small Red states that Democrats won't carry in November.

Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana don't matter because they have black people. Expect the same spin out of DC this Tuesday. Black people don't apparently count.

Washington and Minnesota don't matter because they have educated white people.

In any case, Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana didn't matter on Saturday because everyone expected Obama to win them anyway.

Virginia and Maryland, assuming they're won by Obama, will be a combination of the "black people" and "educated people" rationalizations. Throw a little of "Obama was expected to win anyway", and you've got the trifecta.

Illinois doesn't matter because that's Obama's home state. Expect the same spin when Obama wins Hawaii by double-digit margins in two weeks.

Missouri doesn't matter because Clinton sent out a press release claiming she won it.

Colorado was a caucus state, so that leaves Delaware and Connecticut. Those are the only two states that apparently matter, giving Hillary Clinton a commanding 10-2 lead among states that matter.

Obama With Big Lead in Virginia

2008-02-08T12:35:00.000-08:00

This is something of a surprise:

Obama: 52%
Clinton: 37%
Other: 1%
Undecided: 10%
Error: 4%

That lead is outside of the combined margin of error and undecided total. I had expected Hillary to do better in Virginia.

Road Ahead Favors Obama

2008-02-07T12:19:00.001-08:00

The immediate road ahead for the Democrats looks to favor Obama:

Feb. 9

Washington caucus - Could be close but Obama does well in caucuses.
Nebraska caucus - Obama is doing well in the plains states. He took neighboring Kansas, Iowa and Colorado. Advantage Obama.
Louisiana primary - Obama should win big given that the state is 32.4% black.

Feb. 10

Maine caucus - another caucus Obama will probably win.

Feb.12

District of Columbia caucus - 60% black and a caucus. Slam dunk for Obama.
Maryland primary - 27% black. Obama won neighboring Delaware and should do well.
Virginia primary - 19% black. Has a lot of upscale voters who tend toward Obama. This is also an open primary and with Romney dropping out voters will have less incentive to cast a Republican ballot. Advantage Obama.

Feb. 19

Hawaii caucus - Obama's state of birth and a caucus. Advantage Obama.
Wisconsin primary - Obama does well in the midwest. He won neighboring Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois. Could be close but I think Obama will win.

That's 9 consecutive contests where Obama could run the table. If he does, the Clinton campaign will be on life support. It's a long road from now until March 4 when Ohio and Texas could turn things around for her. In the meantime, we are going to see Obama rolling up delegates, having victory celebrations, raising and spending tons of money. He raised 3 times as much money in January and HIllary is now dipping into her own pockets to the tune of $5 million.

Still, Hillary's got the establishment behind her (as is demonstrated by the super-delegate count). But she's exhausted, broke, uninspiring and has zero momentum. Women could still put her over the top though. I expect more tears from her in the next few weeks.

We are what We have been Waiting For

2008-02-06T16:24:00.000-08:00

Obama and Clinton Fight to a Draw

2008-02-06T12:34:00.001-08:00

There are as many different delegate counts out there right now as there are news outlets. MSNBC seems to be putting a lot of effort into maintaining an accurate count and here's what they have:

Obama: 838
Clinton: 834

Note that this total does not include super-delegates who are free to change their vote right up until the convention. Only the pledged delegates must vote for their candidate on the first ballot.

There are a lot of estimates around for how the super-delegates will fall and most of those give Clinton about an 80 delegate lead. Personally, I find it hard to imagine that the super-delegates will be the deciding factor in this campaign barring some unforeseen circumstances such as a scandal that would be seen to cripple one of the candidates in the general election.

Imagine the outrage among the African-American community if Obama wins a majority of delegates through the primaries and caucuses and the super-delegates hand the nomination to Clinton. We should see more discussion about this in the coming months, and I think it will become increasingly clear that the super-delegates will eventually have to follow the lead of the voters. Of course, at this point in time, there isn't any clear direction from the voters based on the current pledged delegate count.

The most interesting result of the night for me was Idaho where Clinton won by a lopsided margin.

Obama: 80%
Clinton: 17%

While it's true there were only about 20,000 people voting in the Democratic primary in Idaho it should be noted that Idaho is one of the whitest states in the union where blacks number just 0.4% of the total population. Barack Obama made a trip to Boise last Saturday where he spoke to a rally of about 14,000 people.

The Idaho results demonstrate the large impact that Obama can make when he is able to personally campaign in a state. This could make a big difference in the upcoming contests where there will be fewer states voting on any given day. Look for the Clinton campaign to challenge Obama to a series of debates in order to keep him off the campaign trail preparing for debates. The Clinton campaign's willingness to debate is a demonstration of how worried they are. If Obama is smart he will sharply limit the number of debates and focus on campaigning and pressing the flesh.

It also wouldn't hurt if he could learn a little Spanish.

Update: Another indication of the closeness of the race is the total vote count from last night:

Clinton: 50.2% (7,347,971)

Obama: 49.8% (7,294,851)

Yes We Can

2008-02-04T13:29:00.000-08:00

Hillary Bombs the Iraq Question

2008-01-31T20:38:00.001-08:00

Hillary blew it:

You know, the point is that I certainly respect Senator Obama making his speech in 2002 against the war. And then when it came to the Senate, we've had the same policy because we were both confronting the same reality of trying to deal with the consequences of George Bush's action.
I believe that it is abundantly clear that the case that was outlined on behalf of going to the resolution -- not going to war, but going to the resolution -- was a credible case. I was told personally by the White House that they would use the resolution to put the inspectors in. I worked with Senator Levin to make sure we gave them all the intelligence so we would know what's there.

Hmm...maybe Hillary didn't actually read the title of the resolution she voted for:

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

In reality, everyone in Washington knew exactly what they were voting for when they cast their votes in 2002. For Hillary to claim ignorance at this point in time casts significant doubt on her claims that experience is the most important factor in the choice between herself and Obama. Apparently, all of her experience didn't help her to understand the ramifications of the most important vote of her life that resulted in the deaths of 4,000 US troops.

Her answer got worse:

Some people now think that this was a very clear open and shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time which we discovered after the first Gulf War.
Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So, I think I made a reasoned judgment. Unfortunately, the person who actually got to execute the policy did not.

Perhaps Hillary made a mistake when she said Hussein "would not want" to compete for attention with bin Laden. It would seem to make a bit more sense if she felt that he "would want" to compete for attention with bin Laden.

So what point was Hillary actually trying to make? Does she believe that since Saddam Hussein was a megalomaniac that we were justified going to war? Does she believe that because he might have done something to steal the limelight from bin Laden that we were justified in invading Iraq?

Hillary's answer on this question was incomprehensible from a number of angles. One would have assumed that by this point in the campaign that she would have a better story for explaining a vote that is widely viewed by the Democratic base as incomprehensible and indefensible. She confused the Iraq issue significantly for herself and she will be explaining that answer until Super Tuesday. Meanwhile, for the base of the Democratic Party she's reminded all of us why she's not fit to be president.

Obama Takes Aim at Hillary

2008-01-31T15:37:00.000-08:00

Obama's message is getting sharper:

"When I am the nominee, the Republicans won't be able to make this election about the past," he told an overflow crowd of more than 10,000 at the University of Denver in a speech filled with sharp jabs at his rival.

"That's what the Republicans are going to want to do," he said. "They are going to want us to look backwards, but they won't be able to do that with me. Because you will have already chosen the future."

Once again, he makes the choice crystal clear in the minds of voters: the past or the future. Then, he makes a strong case that electing Hillary will just unite the fragmented and demoralized Republicans:

He spoke of how Democrats could win in November and build on their majority in Congress: "not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change."

Then, he reminds voters that Hillary had a shot at fixing healthcare and she failed:

A mother with a sick child and no insurance "can't afford to wait another four years -- or another 15 years -- to get healthcare because we've put forward a nominee who can't bring Democrats and Republicans together to get it done," he said.

Finally, the coup de grâce comes by reminding voters that Hillary and McCain agreed on giving President Bush authority to invade Iraq:

The best way to win a debate with Arizona Sen. John McCain, he said, is not to have Clinton's record of agreement with the Republican front-runner on critical foreign policy issues.

"Talking tough and tallying up your years in Washington is no substitute for judgment, and courage, and clear plans. It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One," he said, referring to a line in Clinton's stump speech. "You have to be right from Day One."

He makes a powerful case. Let's hope there's enough time before Super Tuesday for it to sink in.

Obama Closing the Gap?

2008-01-31T10:02:00.000-08:00

The money is pouring in to Obama's coffers as reported by the HuffPost:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama raised $32 million in the single month of January, a whopping figure that has permitted the campaign to boost staff and extend advertising to states beyond the sweeping Feb. 5 contests, aides said Thursday.

Obama is also attacking the entire SuperTuesday field while Hillary is just going after half of it:

Obama is now advertising in 20 of the 22 states in play for next week's Super Tuesday and plans to begin advertising in seven more states that hold primaries or caucuses later in February. Rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is advertising in 12 Super Tuesday states, including her own home state of New York.

In crucial California, Rasmussen has the race very close:

Clinton: 43%
Obama: 40%
Edwards: 9%
Other: 4%
Not Sure: 4%
Margin of Error: 4%

Hopefully, those Edwards voters will soon get a clue that he has dropped out. With the number of Edwards voters likely to shrink, 4% undecided and a 4% margin of error the race is effectively a toss-up.

A Gallup national poll also shows the race tightening:

Hillary Clinton is leading Barack Obama by just 6 percentage points nationally in a new three-day Gallup tracking poll of the Democratic nomination race, 42%-36%.

"Obama's position has been strengthening on a day-by-day basis. As recently as Jan. 18-20, Clinton led Obama by 20 points," Gallup editor in chief Frank Newport reported.

One thing I'm not sure about is how these pollsters deal with absentee balloting. In California, a large number of voters (including myself) have already cast our ballots. Obama looks to be surging but obviously he can't change the minds of voters who have already cast their ballot for Hillary.

From the way things are trending I have a feeling that Obama would win if the campaign wasn't so frontloaded with all these states voting on SuperTuesday. As the public gets more familiar with Obama, his stock continues to rise. The opposite is happening with Hillary.

And where, oh where, is Bill? Can someone send out the St. Bernards?