May 30, 2008

5/30: Look, Ma, No Math!

On the eve of the much-anticipated DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, liberal bloggers continue to dispute Hillary Clinton's claim that she leads Barack Obama in the popular vote. Markos Moulitsas crunches the numbers from every contest that was held this cycle (including FL & MI, the TX caucus, and the unsanctioned primaries in NE, WA, and ID) and calculates that Obama actually leads Clinton by 82,115 votes. Moulitsas writes: "While Clinton may claim she's gotten more votes than Obama this year, fact is, that's not true under any scenario unless you start excluding elections." Meanwhile, The Huffington Post's RJ Eskow calls the popular vote "a meaningless metric from the start." Still, should Clinton win a sizeable victory in Puerto Rico on Sunday (which seems likely, based on the latest polls), you can bet that the Clinton camp will continue to push this popular vote argument in the coming days. Whether the superdelegates will buy it is another story...

CLINTON: I Thought You Wanted To Count All The Votes...

Liberal bloggers dispute Clinton's claim that she leads Obama in the popular vote:

• Moulitsas: "Since the Clinton campaign wants to count unsanctioned contests and include their votes into the popular vote tally ('I've gotten the most votes ever!'), here are a couple more unsanctioned contests that could be thrown into the tally: (1.) Nebraska: Obama +2,663 (2.) Washington: Obama +36,015 (3.) Idaho: Obama +7,869. Those are all from non-binding primaries conducted in those caucus states. Combined, they'd add 46,547 votes for Obama if we were stupid enough to think that votes that don't matter actually count. But that's not all the votes that were cast for either Obama or Clinton this year. There's the Texas caucuses, which aren't counted in any popular vote tallies. But since every vote matters to Clinton, and she's claiming that she's gotten more votes cast for her than any other Democrat in a primary, then of course we have to be intellectually consistent and, well, count every vote. Based on sign-in sheets at caucus sites, turnout for the caucuses was roughly 750,000. Obama won the caucuses 56-44. That 12-point spread is another 90,000-vote gain for Obama."
• Moulitsas continues: "That means that tallying EVERY single contest this cycle, even the ones that didn't count (since that's the Clinton standard), gives Obama an extra 136,547 votes. Now let's look at the popular vote tally if Michigan, Florida, and the caucus states are counted (and remember, this is with Obama getting zero votes in Michigan): Clinton has a 54,432-vote advantage. Now let's roll in the vote totals from every other contest that didn't matter, and we now have a 82,115-vote Obama advantage. So while Clinton may claim she's gotten more votes than Obama this year, fact is, that's not true under any scenario unless you start excluding elections. This post is absurd, of course -- there's no reason to count the votes of non-binding contests that had no bearing on the delegate selection process, and it's sketchy at best to double count Texas voters participating in their two binding contests. Still, this post is the logical extension of the Clinton argument. If you're going to count every vote cast this primary cycle, even those of contests that didn't count, then you count every single vote cast, including those of every contest that didn't count."
• RJ Eskow: "The notion that Clinton has won the most 'popular votes' is a meaningless metric from the start. Clinton people say Florida and Michigan Democrats shouldn't be 'penalized' for the errors of others, yet their argument punishes voters who stayed home in those states believing their votes wouldn't count. And it 'penalizes' Democrats in every single caucus state! Yet Clinton defenders insist on claiming they're fighting for the 'principle' of 'counting every vote.' Gen. Wesley Clark, who I respect (and would like to see nominated for VP), made this claim last night on Dan Abrams. But this so-called 'principle' disenfranchises Democrats in Iowa, Alaska, Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, Wyoming...and parts of Texas. Is that really a 'value every Democrat should support,' as Gen. Clark claimed?"

OBAMA: Pastorized

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama after Michael Pfleger, a white Catholic priest from Chicago, was videotaped mocking Hillary Clinton from the pulpit of Obama's church:

• Michelle Malkin: "Pfleger, who until recently was featured on the Obama campaign website as a spiritual endorser, was back at Obama's Trinity United Church this weekend mocking Hillary Clinton's 'white entitlement.' It's one thing to ridicule Hillary's sense of political and ideological entitlement as part of the Clinton dynasty. But the demagogic emphasis on her race from this hate preacher on the pulpit is quite another thing. You really have to see his performance to believe it."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Words cannot describe the surreality of watching a middle-aged white man in a priest's collar appearing like he is trying to imitate Jeremiah Wright at his most outrageous."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Like Wright, Pfleger is a supporter of Louis Farrakhan. Post[ed] below is video of Rev. Pfleger preaching at Obama's church. Pfleger argues that whites must give up their 401(k) money in order to have any hope of atoning for the sins of their ancestors. He also maintains that Hillary Clinton's unhappiness over losing out to Obama is specifically related to his race. In other words, Clinton would have been less distraught had, say, John Edwards bested her. In this account, of course, Clinton is a racist."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Add Pfleger to the list of friends that Obama has to disown that includes Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Tony Rezko."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "According to this CSM piece from last year, Barry O's known Pfleger since his early days in Chicago. Funny how these longtime acquaintances of his keep 'surprising' him with incendiary racial rhetoric."
• The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett: "Personally, I consider Father Michael Pfleger's oratory from this past Sunday at Obama's Trinity United Church less striking than Jeremiah Wright's. Nevertheless, it's still odd how Obama wound up in the company of so many people for 20 years whose true natures eluded him. By his own reckoning, the candidate is clearly a less-than-canny observer of human nature. I certainly hope he acknowledges this shortcoming before attempting mano-a-mano diplomacy with the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadenijad."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "The reporting on Pfleger casts a new and disturbing light on Barack Obama. [...] It suggests, disturbingly, that Barack either agrees with -- or is all too willing to tolerate -- radical racial hate speech from the left. It's clear that Barack has accepted contributions from Pfleger, accepted his endorsement (although James Taranto reports that the campaign has since suppressed it) and directed a whole lot of Illinois taxpayers' money to Pfleger's projects. No doubt Barack will tell us that he supported Pfleger's good works, not his radical race-baiting. OK; there's a way to test that claim. Has Barack sought to support any good works by conservative pastors with whom he disagrees? Or does his tolerance for ideas he claims he doesn't share extend only to the left side?"

MCCAIN: Let The Googlebombing Commence

Several liberal bloggers are launching an effort to "Googlebomb" John McCain:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Searching for John McCain is a massive, online activism campaign designed to make at least ten million non-partisan, poll-tested, on-message voter contacts that reveal the damning truth about John McCain entirely through mainstream news reports and McCain's own words. Through mass blogger participation and the use of embedded hyperlinks, Searching for John McCain will connect millions of curious, low-information swing voters to negative, mainstream news articles about John McCain without 99% of those voters even knowing that Searching for John McCain exists. It is the more sophisticated, and hopefully more effective, 2.0 version of the Googlebomb the Elections campaign which, with only $1,500 and three days of work, reached 6% of the electorate in 47 swing congressional districts during the final two weeks of the 2006 mid-term elections. You can participate if you have a website of your own, if you make comments on other websites, or even if you are a registered user on a community website. It is quick. It is easy. It is free. And it is very, very effective. If it is done correctly, and if enough people participate, this campaign alone should cost John McCain 1% of the vote in November."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "What do you do for an encore once your Googlebomb project causes Michelle Malkin to unleash her legion of shrieking howler monkeys on you? Well if you're Chris Bowers, you set your sights on John McCain. According to Pew, the number one way voters use the internet is to search for candidate information. Ergo, it makes sense to try and embed hyperlinks of telling McCain articles across the internet in order to raise their Google ranking. So here we go:

  1--McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'
  2--McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist
  3--Bush, McCain plug Social Security
  4--McCain blasts Obama's and Clinton's attacks on NAFTA
  5--McCain in NH: Would Be 'Fine' To Keep Troops in Iraq for 'A Hundred Years'
  6--McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
  7--Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition
  8--McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion
  9--McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy"

MCCAIN II: Vice President Palin?

Several conservative bloggers are buzzing about the possibility that McCain will select AK Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, following Wizbang's Kevin Aylward's report that the head of McCain's VP search team was recently spotted in Juneau:

• Aylward: "A tipster sent us word that John McCain's VP advance man Arthur Culvahouse has been spotted in Juneau, Alaska. There's only one reason he would be there -- to meet with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin about the Vice President position. [...] Governor Palin would (in my estimation) make an excellent VP candidate for McCain. Thomas Cheplick at The American Spectator makes the case that she's probably the only VP candidate who can balance the ticket against Obama. She's also a potential magnet for disaffected Hillary Clinton voters, many of whom are just looking for a reason not to vote for Obama."
• The Weekly Standard's Brian Faughnan: "In many ways, Palin is an ideal choice: a governor, a woman, a conservative, a Christian, a budget-cutting fiscal hawk known for opposition to pork-barrel projects. And even as an Alaska governor who favors drilling in ANWR, she is known for standing up to 'Big Oil.' Would McCain really make such an unorthodox selection? And does the fact that Governor Palin merits a clandestine visit, rather than an invitation to McCain's VP cattle call indicate that she is a more serious candidate than the others, or is it simply because Palin gave birth just over a month ago?"
• Allahpundit: "I'm cool to the idea of her on the ticket but less so than I used to be. The Spectator likes her as balance for our old-coot nominee, although I'm not sure why when the main line of attack on Obama this fall will be that he's not an old coot, i.e. that he's too young and inexperienced to handle the job. Palin's been governor for two years, which is longer than [LA Gov. Bobby] Jindal but still less time than Obama's been a senator. If he's not ready, why is she ready to inherit the presidency at a moment's notice if, god forbid, McCain's age gets the better of him? Needless to say, her home state's no electoral prize either, and given her approval rating (in the 80s, last I checked) can probably be delivered if she simply campaigns for him there as a regular ol' supporter. So why am I warming up to her? First because the GOP needs new faces, figuratively and literally, and as faces go you can scarcely do better than hers right now (figuratively and literally). [...] Second, obviously, having her on the ticket would steal some of Obama's media juice as the candidate with the Narrative versus the same old patrician Republican crap. And third, well, watch this. We're not going to win the woman vote, but there are surely some [Geraldine] Ferraros out there disgruntled enough about how Hillary was treated to give McCain/Palin a very close look."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is It In Her DNA?

Open Left's Matt Stoller speculates about why Clinton appears committed to staying in the race:

"This is why I think Clinton is staying on despite repeated pleas to drop out. In 1998, insiders on both the right and left of the party were begging [Bill] Clinton to resign, and he refused. It was a great decision, possibly the best one in his Presidency. And so today, when insiders are begging [Hillary Clinton] to give up what she thinks is her Presidency, she is saying no and turning to the right. It's in her DNA."

LEST WE FORGET: Desperate Chives Marketing Board Launches 'Big Bowl O' Chives In The Mornin'' Campaign

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- In response to flagging sales and plummeting prices, the American Chives Council launched a last-ditch advertising campaign Monday urging consumers to increase their daily chive intake by 12,000 percent. 'There's nothing like a hearty, fragrant helping of chives to jump-start your day,' celebrity spokeswoman Jessica Alba says in one of the new 'Big Bowl o' Chives in the Mornin'' commercials, which feature the actress smiling broadly with chives stuck in her teeth. 'But that doesn't mean eating a big bowl of chives is just for breakfast. The American Chives Council recommends three heaping servings a day. The bigger the better. Get some chives in ya!' Despite the push, analysts predict that the chive industry will continue to struggle, citing the ongoing repercussions of the ACC's ill-fated 2005 split with the American Sour Cream Association."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at May 30, 2008 12:49 PM