Here and There

A semi-new blog I set up because Hillary pissed me off.

I’m so pissed I could Blog. Let it out.

The Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC voted in favor of seating the full delegations from the renegade states of Florida and Michigan, but each of these states’ delegates will get .5 votes.

The committee also agreed to the Michigan Democratic Party’s proposal to split that state’s delegates 69-59 in Hillary Clinton’s favor. Halved, that means Clinton picked up 38 in MI (pledged and supers) and 56.5 in FL. Obama netted 32 in Michigan and 36 in Florida.

Clinton wins the day 84.5-68. She’ll gain even more tomorrow in Puerto Rico.

But Obama is just 64 away from the new magic number of 2,117, according to DemConWatch.

Oh, and Harold Ickes is a devilish cock.

With the latest endorsements, Barack Obama is now within a decent showing in the three upcoming elections. Predictions to come, but my estimates show him picking up a little more than 40 between now and Tuesday. Remaining superdelegate endorsements, plus any fair seating of Florida and Michigan delegates, put him over the top, where we’ve all known for some time that he was destined.

For the record, DemConWatch now has him needing 41 to clinch

Caveat: I don’t expect Clinton to go anywhere. I fully expect challenges, appeals, lawsuits, and it could easily become exactly the media narrative she wants. The biggies in the party, Reid, Gore, Pelosi, Carter, Mitchell, they’ll show support for Obama next week, but no matter. It’s about to get ugly, y’all.

Halperin lays out at least some of the moves Team Clinton may make after next Tuesday, when all the voting will have wrapped up and Obama will, to everyone with a nugget of logic and acceptance in their brains, be the presumptive nominee.

A brilliant ass-ripping of Clinton huckster (and general moron) Lanny Davis’s so-called solution to Michigan and Florida.

It’s a long read, to be sure. But so worth it to see what depths of illogic the Clinton people will stoop to get their way.

Thx: John Cole.

“I know you are, but what am I?”

So of course they’ve done it. The Clinton campaign is blaming the Obama camping for “blowing” this assassination controversy up. It’s quite brilliant, if it works. If you believe people are that stupid, then you can try anything.

Here’s how it goes: Your candidate says anything she wants to try to get elected, especially when she’s beyond the mathematical possibility of doing so. In fact, now that she’s out of mathematical range, her comments will be more desperate, thus the assassination comment.

Then, after everyone in the world except your husband and your most die-hard supporters (i.e., all those who believe, as you seem to, that you can somehow win it) cry wolf, blaming either the press or the candidate for making such a big deal.

For the record, Clinton’s apology is about as offensive as the original comment, if that’s possible. She used it simply as an opportunity to try to get back in with the Kennedy family, not mentioning anything to or about Barack Obama, not offering the American public an apology, and qualifying it with “If my comments were offensive …” They were offensive, you dolt. (I realize this is pro forma for all public apology, and it bugs me every time I hear it.)

But she’s done it again. I’m back to being totally amazed at what lengths (depths) Hillary Clinton will go (sink) to get the power she so brazenly craves.

Now Clinton has evoked political assassination.

I renew calls for her removal from the party. Starting now.

I want to say out front that I am not a Democrat. I am officially registered as a non-party independent voter in the state of California.

But I typically vote for Democrats because, while never perfect, their politics tend to be closest to reflecting my beliefs. I am liberal, and that’s never been a bad word.

But when I read that a former president, one whom I admire, makes foolhardy and erroneous statements such as this:

It is shocking and somewhat embarrassing to me to see the Republicans in a more progressive position than the Democrats

it strikes me that the proper reaction would be to question that former president’s fitness to remain a member of that party.

I’d like to know if it’s possible to bar Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party. He is clearly not intent on restoring any “Democrat” other than his wife to the presidency, nor to help Democrats at the state and local level get their governments back into responsible hands.

I still haven’t sold my copy of My Life and given the proceeds to Barack Obama, but I will. I can now say, with no hesitation, that I no longer have a shred of admiration left for Bill Clinton.

This time, Ed Koch destroys his legacy (with this liberal, anyway) by suggesting that Obama is a sure loser, and Clinton should stay in the “race.”

I used to like so many Democrats, until they turned into hacks.

Did you really expect her to drop out? Really? Really???

She’s shown time and again that she disdains logic, math, economics, reason, common sense, grace, gratitude, and acceptance. Why would she start now, when there’s more money, time, energy, and fuel to waste?

Okay, so we’ve got massive amounts of Republicans voting in the Indiana primary, almost certainly coming out “for” Hillary.

This is what it’s come to.

In a pointlessly drawn-out campaign season, with unnecessary millions spent on advertising, travel, and other aspects of 24-hour campaigning … with a candidate supposed not to have “sealed the deal,” despite having put together the largest coalition of political contributors ever (1.5 million and counting), despite having registered what will surely amount to a record number of new voters … despite having, month after month, outraised and outpolled his opponent … despite the fact that, as early as February, this could’ve been over and all the money and energy and attention could’ve been focused on John McCain, THIS WHOLE TIME … despite what has been the mathematical near-certainty since February (that she couldn’t regain the lead in delegates) … despite Obama’s having come back from more than 100 down in superdelegates to the latest count of around 15 in a few months … despite having netted 28 superdelegates to his opponent’s 11.5 since he lost Pennsylvania and the press has kept the Reverend Wright affair alive for its own cynical bottom line…

Despite all these factors and more, Hillary Clinton remains defiant.

They say Barack Obama can’t close the deal. Well, actually, he can. He could’ve a long time ago if Clinton believed in math (or economists, for chrissakes).

But has anyone ever questioned whether she can close the deal? Has anyone asked her, directly, how exactly she plans to even come close to Obama’s delegate count? And, as a follow-up question, what good such a tactic would do for the country, the party, her own career and legacy?

If I could ask Senator Clinton one question, it would be this: “Isn’t it possible that this is the closest primary race in a long, long time, but that, even then, there’s no way for you to win it short of destroying the party and your opponent?”

Al Giordano does a way better job of explaining the madness than I could ever hope to do. I turn you over to Al.

I’m breaking my self-imposed sanction on Hillary Clinton. Deal.

Yesterday, a quote circulated from her interview with Bill O’Fuckfacely:

“Rich people, god bless us. We deserve all the opportunities to make sure our country and our blessings continue to the next generation.”

Then, today, Clinton suckup Howard Wolfson has the balls to suggest that Clinton actually said, “God BLESSED us.”

I want logic back. I’m reclaiming it and common sense and honesty now on behalf of all the hardworking logicians, common people, and truthtellers out there.

Daily Kos post, which includes Wolfson’s comment.

The quote:

Last week, South Carolina’s James Clyburn told reporters that he had heard prominent people say that the Clintons were potentially sabotaging Obama’s chances of winning in November, setting themselves up for Hillary to run again in 2012.

Conspiracy theories aside, this is the third-highest ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives, not some lowly blogger.

But many have interpreted Clyburn’s remarks to mean that he believes this to be true.

He explains his comments to Keith Olbermann:

I dunno. It’s not original or anything. But I’m using “Clintonism” to describe a couple of types of things that come out of Bill Clinton’s or Hillary Clinton’s mouth: one is the constant besmirching of … well, you name it — black voters, black politicians, “small-state” voters, caucusgoers, grassroots activists, Bill Richardson, and generally anyone who disagrees with them; and the other is a constant alteration of what matters, from big states, to so-called popular vote (which, of course, includes bunk elections in Michigan and Florida, because that’s convenient), to issues (pro-Second Amendment, or handgun regulations? Eh, who cares?).

Here’s Jon Stewart: