mycatharsis.com

Jon Stewart embarasses the MSM yet again with dead-on analysis you just don’t see much from them.

Actually, yeah, I really like the Democrats proportional representation/delegate system.  Criticism of it has been rife lately, mainly because Hillary Clinton has been losing under this system since about February 5th.  And any system that does not allow the Clinton’s free rein over the Democratic party is immediately suspect.   Now the superdelegates, on the other hand, I certainly do not think that was a good idea.  But look at what has happened to this campaign under the current system.  Every state has become involved, and the candidate who adopted a 50 state strategy has the nearly insurmountable lead over the establishment candidate.  Turnout last night in Pennsylvania was great, and with the way delegates were apportioned, there was great incentive even for Obama voters, many of whom probably knew deep down he wouldn’t win, to get out there and make their voices heard. Even though their guy lost, their votes still worked to elect delegates who will represent them at the Democratic convention.  Perhaps the closeness of this race is partly a function of the proportional representation, but on the other hand, so is the 50 state strategy that now seems integral to winning the Democratic nomination.

This system forces their nominee to tailor a message suitable to all of America, not just the cities and college campuses they see as their strength.  And this, I think, could help them greatly in November.  They actually have to run a little to the middle now during the primary season, while the Republicans, who value loyalty and a clear winner, all had to line up behind the most unpopular President in history in order to get the nomination. And that’s going to be a central theme in the campaign against McCain.

Since Senator Clinton is losing this race, I expect a movement to start among her cronies to ‘reform’ the system and make it more ‘fair’ (politcalspeak for unfair, ironically) once all is said and done.  However, moving to a winner takes all strategy would reform nothing, and again only serve to tailor their message to the coastal big delegate states. In fact the Republicans should adopt this very same system as a way to get their message to all of America, although there’s virtually no chance that will ever happen.  Does it seem fair that, under a winner take all strategy, that a win by one of these candidates in PA last night would count more than a win by the other in Wyoming, Hawaii, Mississippi, Vermont, and Wisconsin combined? Or that the votes of the losers of all of these states would count for nothing? And under such a system, doesn’t it seem obvious that Pennsylvania would then also receive a greater amount of attention from the candidates than all five of these states combined?  Ok, so maybe that happened here, but that was more a function of Pennsylvania being the only primary within a two month time span.

Maybe the Dems should shorten the primary schedule for 2012, and it seems indubitable they should get rid of the superdelegates next time around.  But keeping the proportional delegate system should also be just as high a priority for them …

Senator Clinton on the travesty ABC called a debate …

“We need a president who is going to be up there fighting every day for the American people and not complain about how much pressure there is, and how hard the questions are.”

However, don’t confuse this with complaining about getting the first question at every debate.  That, of course, is entirely legitimate.  And lord knows, Hillary certainly couldn’t be accused of ‘complaining’ throughout these primaries!

I’m sure there’s a method to her madness that I’m just missing.  She seems to have really painted her career into a corner with her ‘win at all costs’ mentality.  She must know she’s doing herself more harm than good.  I thought there was a political truth that when an opponent’s digging a hole for himself, you sit back and let him dig, lest you look like you’re piling on.  Yet that’s exactly what she’s doing, and I think she’s starting to feel the blowback from it, she’s allowing Obama’s troubles to hurt her as well.  She almost seems politically tone-deaf, to a degree not unlike our current president.

And the Vice Presidency?  She must know her attacks give her no shot at it, that even if Obama wanted her as his running mate, and I can’t imagine why he would, he probably couldn’t do it because she would be the ultimate distraction during a general election.  Could he really trust her not to make an ‘innocent’ slip-up or two along the way that costs him the election, but preserves her chances in 2012?

She’s painted herself into a real corner here.  So much of her future relevance in politics depends now on Obama’s future irrelevance.  How powerful could she be if Obama wins the presidency? And does it with a large mandate for his vision?  Even at her current job as Senator, will she feel that she’s going to be marginalized?  What does she do about it? In that light, I can see some sense what she’s doing now, running despite having almost no chance to win, and dragging herself down in the process. As long as it drags down Obama as well, it helps preserve her 2012 campaign.  This theory makes a lot of sense, but is also incredibly cynical. Unfortunately, after seeing the Clintons in action for 16 years, that cynicism can’t be easily dismissed.

In a way, I can see their point. Perhaps they could have squeezed a few more billion out of Verizon and AT&T by ignoring the calls for open access to the spectrum.  But the very fact they’re complaining about not being able to sell off this somewhat basic consumer protection is reason enough to not like their comments.

I just hope it’s their actual views talking, and not Verizon’s money in an attempt to change the rules they agreed to when they placed their supposedly ‘lower than it could have been’  bid.

They really should preface Hillary Clinton’s public appearances with this disclaimer, because it sure seems she has no real point to dragging down Barack Obama every chance she can get.  Her ‘chances’ for the nomination just simply would not be ‘chances’ if the candidate was anyone else.  Yes, the delegate race is close, but not close enough.  It is entirely within Clinton-think to sabotage Obama now and actively, if perhaps not overtly, work for the election of John McCain in 2008 to preserve her an opportunity to run for President again, in 2012.  I’m sure her own mental calculus is that she can possibly run again in 2012 if Obama loses the general election. But if he wins it, she may never have another chance to run.  Obama would obviously run in 2012 and his VP would be the establishment candidate in 2016.  Observe Carville’s calling Bill Richardson “Judas” if you have any trouble believing the Clinton’s have the sense of entitlement necessary to pull off such a destructive course of action.  And if they do, they’re sacrificing the good of the country to advance their own personal ambitions, actions little different from Rush Limbaugh’s attempts to get his listeners to vote for the weaker Democrat.

Look how quickly Giuliani, Thompson, and even say-anything-at-all-to-win Mitt Romney got out of the race when victory looked merely improbable.  Even against a candidate that looked as weak as McCain did a few months back.  And the one establishment candidate who stuck in the race, Mike Huckabee, made a point to be gracious and effusive in his praise for McCain on the campaign trail.  Instead, we have Hillary unleashing the full Clinton playbook against Obama, including the gem of recycling a scandal just as it appears to be passing out of the public view …

 ”He would not have been my pastor,” Clinton said. “You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.”…

I gotta say, as someone who watched the Clintons demonize the Republicans throughout the 90’s, there’s a part of me from that time laughing at watching the Clinton’s do this to their own party, the same party that excused basically every wrong they committed because they won.  That same part of me just also looks incredulously at this mess and sees the stark difference between the Democrats and Republicans in how they choose a candidate.

On the other hand, Barack Obama seems like a heckuva candidate, a scholarly and yet down-to-earth politician who can bring a vast well of intelligence to the job and yet not alienate either the working class or most other constituencies.  And it’d be more than just a shame to see him ground under the wheels of the Clinton machine.  The country would be much poorer, but at least the Clinton’s would have their precious power.

If McCain wins the presidency, he’ll owe Hillary BIG-time.   She’s been by far his most effective campaigner for the past month or so, and looks as if she’ll continue that trend for longer yet.   A month ago, I wasn’t sure I bought all the hype I was hearing about Clinton’s desperate refusal to acknowledge could kill their chances in the general election.  Now I have to say I’m starting to see their point.

A victory for judicial conservatism over political conservatism from today’s Supreme Court… In Medellin vs Texas, the court insists that the President can’t simply rule by fiat, telling the states what to do and expecting them to follow suit.

One problem I’ve had with this administration is a pervasive belief that the ends make the means irrelevant.  Basically, any manner of illogic that gets the desired result is a-ok with this group…

(b) The United States marshals two principal arguments in favor
of the President’s authority to establish binding rules of decision that
preempt contrary state law.  The United States argues that the rele-
vant treaties give the President the authority to implement the
Avena judgment and that Congress has acquiesced in the exercise of
such authority.  The United States also relies upon an “independent”
international dispute-resolution power.  We find these arguments, as
well as Medellín’s additional argument that the President’s Memo-
randum is a valid exercise of his “Take Care” power, unpersuasive.
Pp. 29–37.

Basically, the government argued that international law gave the President the power to tell Texas what to do! No wonder this 6-3 decision against the administration included all the courts conservative members.  Failing that, the respondent then argued that the President could essentially rule by fiat thru the use of his Memorandums and Executive Orders, which also was rejected.  Too bad no money was involved here, else the administration could have simply claimed the Commerce Clause applies here and probably would have won!
It’s probably not really possible to celebrate a decision that allows the state to move ahead with their executions. But it sure sounds like the court exercised due prudence in limiting the power of the President over the states here, and hopefully gives the administration a tiny dose of reality as they work thru their last year in office.

Now it’s Ann Lewis and Howard Wolfson bringing the bile up in your throat… from Time’s The Page blog …

Senior adviser Ann Lewis scolds Obama on media conference call for stepping up attacks against Clinton instead of talking about “positive ideas” on the issues.

“I did not realize that their version of new politics is to recycle some of the same old Republican attacks on Hillary that have failed for years.”

Howard Wolfson says he doesn’t “believe imitating Ken Starr” is a way to run a nomination campaign.

Ugh, the gall of these people is just incredible.  Enough that I gotta wonder about the suitability for office of a candidate who can make politics as dirty as she wants, and then plays the victim card as soon as anyone dares criticize her.  They drag a race into the gutter and then blame their opponent for getting himself dirty.  Classic Clinton and classic Clinton-lackey.  At least the reference to Ken Starr should backfire, I believe.  Yes, I’m sure he’s not a popular figure among Democrats, but referencing him would only, I think, remind people of just how nasty and divisive the Clinton years were and will subtly play on voters minds.  Do they really want another four years of independent prosecutors, and the do-anything-to-win politics that is the Clinton’s trademark?

and the Democrats are endangering us because they won’t approve immunity from past illegal acts for the telecoms.   The threat of this expiring bill harming our war on terror wouldn’t ring so hollow if Bush hadn’t already refused to sign any temporary extension of the act.  He CHOSE to let the bill expire, rather than pass a temporary extension that didn’t contain the immunity.

Oh yeah, there was some bad economic news today too….

At-largely has the story.  The station, WHNT, claims technical difficulties,  a fairly ludicrous claim on it’s face, considering the story, location, and timing of the so-called ‘glitch’.  Even CBS in New York refutes it, saying there most certainly was not any glitch.  The station, of course, is owned by a family of heavy Republican contributors.

Technically speaking, this isn’t illegal censorship of course.  The effect is the same though, and at the very least, it’s an extremely persuading argument against the deregulation of station ownership done over the last decade or so by both Presidents Clinton and Bush.   Unfortunately, it will take someone not solely looking out for their own self-interests to change it.