Here and There

DailyKos posts on potential plagiarism of a McCain supporter’s video, dated Jan. 6, 2008:

Shame on YOU, Hillary Clinton!

As DailyKos notes, this is big. Rockefeller’s name is synonymous with intelligence and national security.

This could be my preference speaking here, but in response to this Clinton campaign video:

Barack Obama’s showed once again how he can not only call something for what it is, but he can respond with the kind of coup de grâce people are flocking to his campaign for.The New York Times reports (dateline: my hometown).

From DailyKos, rumors that the campaign may sue Texas over complicated voting procedures. I concede the point, but not the tactic. If you really care about voter reform, sue after the election, not when your poll numbers suddenly show the evaporation of a 13-month lead.

The New York Times has a story about Clinton’s shrinking superdelegate lead. Maybe the next plan will be to turn the earth around and let her November 2007 poll numbers prove that she should be the nominee for the November 2008 election.

Michael Cooper and Sarah Wheaton report. The most telling graf:

“A survey of superdelegates conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, which had lower superdelegate counts for both candidates, found that Mrs. Clinton’s edge with superdelegates was more than halved during February. Her Feb. 2 lead of 105 superdelegates over Mr. Obama has since been cut to 42 superdelegates, the survey found.”

From SFGate, Hillary Clinton announces her February fundraising numbers. Obama expects substantially more.

Early this morning, a friend sent a link to DailyKos. It was a story about how Ralph “More than a day late and several million dollars short” Nader has chosen a running mate — none other than former San Francisco Board of Supervisors President and one-time Mayoral Candidate Matt Gonzalez.

When I opened the link, I thought, Thank God.

You see, at this point, I’m hoping for this whole campaign to unravel into sheer entertainment. Because we’ve had nearly eight years of cynicism and incompetence, the more folly surrounding a candidate as qualified and inspiring and able to bring about a new form of politics as Barack Obama is, the better. I never expected Nader really to be able to do much this time around. As another friend pointed out, Nader’s returns this time will be even more diminished than they were in 2004, which were a piss in the pot compared with 2000.

I worked with the Gonzalez for Mayor campaign here in SF in 2003. It was the first time I had ever been involved in politics, and it was exciting, to say the least. Back then, I and almost everyone I knew supported the relative upstart, the underdog, that Gonzalez was. He represented a new way to get things done, a fresh take on old problems that had been stuck in the mud since time immemorial. He ended up losing against the anointed successor to a popular mayor. You may have heard of Gavin Newsom by now. He eked out a 52-48 victory over a grassroots campaign in a city were money equals power.

Fast-forward to late 2007/early 2008. A eerie similarity exists between the level and style of support for Barack Obama. The difference is, we’re talking about the presidency. I don’t see any particular reason Matt Gonzalez is prepared or qualified to be president or vice president (ditto for Nader, but that’s another post). Thus, I’m forced to sit back and watch the circus come to town. Or, perhaps, by its very nature, the circus will never leave this town …

Today, the president criticized both Democratic contenders for their positions on free trade and Iraq. Not sure if this is some ploy engineered by the McCain camp to shore up conservative votes (McCain leveled some of the same criticisms against Obama yesterday) or a conspiracy between the administration and the Clinton people to get her more votes on March 4.

Spotted this headline on CNN just now, concerning a verbal exchange between John McCain and Barack Obama over iraq:

Um, CNN, can you consult those under 80 in your office? It’s pissing match. Thank you.

The UI is a little lame (input fields show up tiny on my Firefox browser), but this tool from Slate.com lets you enter predicted outcomes of the remaining primaries and caucuses to see how far each candidate would still be from locking up the nomination. Such an exercise underscores the need for whoever loses March 4 to concede the race. Hard to imagine Obama losing all four primaries. Even harder to picture Clinton winning them all, and by the substantial margins she needs to make up for a virtually wasted February.

Well-written prose from Michael Bloomberg on why a political independent in the White House would be the best thing for this country. I agree with him.

Yes, we’ve heard it before. But that was way back when Hillary Clinton was the Democratic frontrunner and the need for a candidate like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was real.

My guess? He read the so-called tea leaves and decided Obama was the nominee. Now maybe he’ll get a Cabinet position in the Obama administration.

Update: In my haste to get this news out there, I forgot to reference what the hell it’s about, and where I found it. More than 1 million people have now donated to the Barack Obama campaign. The link comes The Caucus, via The New York Times.
Original Post: Wow.

This came to me via Olivia.