Some encouraging numbers

Workout notes I am going to do some walking a bit later, after my coffee has done its work.
Update: very pleasant 5 miles outside; dry roads, not too much traffic. It was crisp (20′s) but I was dressed.
I am getting stronger, but I should still stay reasonable. I don’t want to relapse.

(if the Rolling Stone gives you and endorsement, how can anyone argue? )

Some humor to lighten things up:

On an amusing note Dr. X (aka Dr. Andy; a 21 hour 100 mile runner and an out of this world bright Ph.D/MD who got his first job at Harvard Medical and a committed Republican) has convinced me to not even think about supporting McCain should “The Decider in a Pantsuit” somehow swindle the D nomination. He was taunting me that he is voting for Johillary McClinton in the Pennsylvania primary.

I had thought about crossing over and even working on the campaign…then I thought of how I’d act if I were phonebanking for him: “hi, Senator McCain is a real conservative…” and then choking. Going door to door would be even better; my guess is that the typical Repuke voter would probably call the INS on me. I can’t do it…

The Real Unity Ticket

Geekesque’s diary is here.

Looking at the bright side

Burnt Orange Report has some good rehashing of Texas and contains this graph:

We came from way down, but couldn’t quite close the deal toward the end (in the primary); we couldn’t overcome the Rush Limbaugh Clinton voters.

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh led a campaign to have his Republican followers in Texas cross party lines and vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the state’s open primary last Tuesday. Why? Because Limbaugh thinks Republicans can defeat Clinton in a general election. Plus, watching Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama bloody each other in a nomination fight is pure sport for Limbaugh conservatives.

According to exit polls, Clinton won a notably higher number of Republican voters than she has in past open primary contests. Of the 9% of voters who identified themselves as Republicans in the Democratic Primary, Obama still edged Clinton 53%-46%. However, that margin is significantly slimmer than earlier contests. In Wisconsin’s open primary, for instance, Republicans broke 72%-28% for Obama. Similarly, in Virginia’s open primary, Obama was favored 72%-23%.

Clinton unquestionably secured a Texas victory, but some locals are convinced it was a false win bolstered by dirty politics. Laura Jean Kreissl, an accounting professor at West Texas A&M University, served as an election official in Canyon, Texas on Tuesday. She contacted the Wall Street Journal to report the hijinks she observed at the four precincts that voted at her polling location.

Of the 181 voters she personally dealt with, 70 offered that they were “Rush Limbaugh voters” who were there to cast ballots for Clinton. “I’m here to vote for Hillary Clinton, I want to see the Democratic Party implode,” one voter told Kreissl, she recounted in an interview. “I was just stunned,” she said. “As an election official we can’t say anything. We just jot them down and let them vote.” [...]

Kreissl worked a 19 hour day to also help organize the caucus event later that night. Similarly, she said she personally checked in 20 Obama supporters and 17 Clinton supporters. Of Clinton’s 17, 10 identified themselves as Rush Limbaugh voters, she said.

She’s convinced the Limbaugh voters turned the tide in favor of Clinton. “I don’t think we were an isolated case by any means,” she said. “I think it was very widespread across the state.”

The grassroots group, Republicans for Obama, agrees. “Hillary Clinton owes her political life to Rush Limbaugh,” they wrote on their web site Wednesday.

Rush Limbaugh is also convinced. “Don’t Doubt the Limbaugh Effect,” he boasts on his web site.

Clinton won Texas 50.9%-47.4%, earning roughly 100,000 more votes than Obama. However, Texas’s two-part system of a same day primary and a caucus is expected to end up netting Obama more delegates when the caucus delegates are allotted.

That speaks well of having the extra caucus! Of course, as the votes are carefully counted, the actual delegate allocation might change by a few delegates (2-3?). Example.

The National Election:

I don’t have a clue as to what the national ticket will be. But Survey USA has done some state by state polling and has come up with projected maps:

(for larger versions of the maps, go to Kos’ article)

Sure, at this point in time, these maps are, well, like reading a horoscope.

[...]It’s amazing how many non-swing states will suddenly be, well, swing states this year, like Texas, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Some of these states become competitive depending on the candidate, like Arkansas and Tennessee for Clinton, and just about everything west of the Mississippi for Obama.

And you may be wondering why I included states like Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho in this list since both candidates get crushed. Well, because we’ll have important races in those states at the House and Senate level, as well as state-level races. It’s clear that in those states (and many others like it), Obama will be a dramatic help at the top of the ticket versus Clinton, who will play the traditional role of top-of-the-ticket albatross.

In all, Obama outperforms Clinton in 33 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Clinton outperforms Obama in 15 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

They are even in: Kansas and Ohio.

Now New Jersey, Washington, and maybe even Pennsylvania are teases to the GOP. They seem to consider flipping, then never do. Obama getting North Dakota is so implausible that I’d never count on it.

Ohio gives Obama and Clinton even numbers, so the notion that her victory there makes her “more electable” there is pretty silly. The same way that Obama winning Missouri doesn’t make him “more electable” in that state. [...]

Again, at this point, such an exercise is little more than entertainment.

Obama to start hitting back!

Workout notes 1800 yard swim (ok), 1 hour yoga class (Cathy is pretty easy), then 5 miles outside in the brisk air. The redwing blackbirds are back but it isn’t dive bombing season yet. I may look into buying a hard hat for my early summer walks.

The Democratic Primary Obama has had to take a hard look at his campaign. He is doing that; maybe he will start hitting back.

Barack Obama’s campaign up to this point has been refreshing. He seems almost too nice to be running for political office. His message has been about hope and change and a future filled with the hard work of restoring the greatest nation on earth to its rightful place as a beacon of hope for the rest of the world.

And it’s a strategy that has propelled him to the front of the race for the Democratic nomination. But his failure to seal the deal this week in Ohio and Texas may bring change.

Hillary Clinton landed some body blows in the hours leading up to Tuesday’s voting. An ad about a 3am phone call that preys on women’s fears for the safety of their children. Questions about indicted real-estate developer Tony Rezko and Obama’s position on NAFTA didn’t help either.

Now Obama is starting to reciprocate, questioning what kind of foreign policy experience Hillary Clinton actually has and pointing out that she wasn’t negotiating treaties or handling crises.

Obama has dubbed Clinton the “most secretive politician in America today.” He’s criticizing her for not releasing her income tax returns after saying she would do so “earlier,” and calling on her to release records about her years as First Lady. She hasn’t done that either, and Obama says that voters deserve to know why Clinton is hiding information.

The Clinton campaign doesn’t seem too happy that Obama is starting to fight back. Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson was whining that Obama is acting like Kenneth Starr, the special prosecutor who investigated the Clintons.

KEN STARR?????

Thereisnospoon at the Daily Kos sets the record straight:

Ms. Clinton, you are not a victim–nor are you a champion of beleaguered women’s rights.

When you jumped ahead of far more deserving women like Barbara Boxer to run for president, simply on the basis of having been First Lady, you were not a victim, but rather a setback for the millions of deserving women who make their way on their own names rather than those of their husbands. [...]

When you elbowed out other deserving Democrats to run for New York Senate despite not being from New York, and used your influence with your husband to trade four corrupt pardons for votes in a community where women are to be unseen and unheard, you were not a victim, nor a proponent of women’s rights in chauvinist, fundamentalist communities.

When you chose to use your position of influence within the Democratic Party to vote to allow Bush to send thousands of young women and men to die in the sands of Iraq and create widows and orphans of countless Iraqi mothers and children, simply so that you could look “tougher” on national security, you were not a victim.

When you inexplicably voted for Kyl-Lieberman to allow Dick Cheney to create even more widows and orphans by bombing Iran, you were not a victim. [...]

When you used fearmongering and potentially racist coding by accusing your opponent of not having been “vetted”, in spite of your campaign having raked him over the coals for anything and everything you could, you were not a victim.

When you reserve the right to overturn the will of the majority of voters and pledged delegates to steal the nomination with insider superdelegates, you are not a victim.

And now that you are lying by saying that you’re just too busy to release your tax records before April 15, all while claiming that your opponent isn’t sufficiently vetted, you are NOT a victim.

You and your husband are masters of making vicious attacks and engaging in scurrilous behavior, all while painting yourselves as victims of an anti-Clinton bias or even conspiracy. You are not victims; you are perpetrators. You are not advocates for the battered and under-represented; you are the batterers. You are not the ones standing up for the oppressed; you are the oppressors.

Bill Bradley (the former Senator, Rhodes Scholar and former NBA star) jumped into the fray as well.

Starting with you, Senator Bradley, do you believe that both Clinton and Obama are viable candidates and both should go on from this point on?

BILL BRADLEY: I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband’s unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library.

And the reason that is important — you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed.

These are important questions. The people deserve to know. And we deserve, as Democrats, to know before a nominee is selected, because we don’t want things to explode in a general election against John McCain.

JIM LEHRER: But as a practical matter, based on what happened yesterday, winning three out of four and where the delegate count rests right now, do you think she still has a really good — there’s a real good possibility she could win the nomination, Senator?

BILL BRADLEY: No, I really don’t…

JIM LEHRER: You don’t?

BILL BRADLEY: … because, mathematically, even if she won 60 percent of the rest of the races, she’d still be behind in pledged delegates. And that would mean that the super-delegates would end up making the decision.

And I think increasingly super-delegates are going to go with Barack Obama, particularly in districts that he won substantially.

I don’t think you’re going to find congressmen, even congresspeople that are behind Hillary early, go against their district, because if they go against their district, they’re going to find that they could very well have a primary challenge the next time

Oh yes, the Obama campaign isn’t exactly going to let itself be used for a punching bag either:

As we know the Hillary campaign has said some derogatory things about Mississippi and Red states in general. As a result, in the ad former Governor Mabus explains why Obama is the better of the two Democratic candidates because he can unite the nation and win in November.

Here is the ad:

“You know, now that Hillary Clinton is campaigning here in Mississippi, she likes to say how important we are,” Mabus says in the ad. “But just a few months ago when she was campaigning in Iowa, she told them she was shocked Iowa could be ranked with Mississippi on anything. And her campaign even called voters in states like Mississippi ‘second class’.

“Obama will unite not divide”, Mabus continues. “He’ll take on special interest and not take their money. And he’ll practice his Christian faith by respecting us.”

Wow, this is one very tough ad.

Original source: here.

Hey Pennsylvania: don’t fall for this “I am going to make invisible people visible” line.

Oh the line sounds wonderful:

Sounds good, right? But what is she like, in real life?

Different story. If her campaign owes you money, you might be very invisible:

More on this by icebergslim:

Yes, Hillary, instead of screaming about, “Shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s not what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio — let’s have a debate about your tactics.”

Why not, shame on you for bailing and not paying for services, Hillary? Yes, we will see you in Ohio, with your new Mark Penn attitude.

* icebergslim’s diary :: ::
*

It was just $2,492.63, a pittance, really, alongside million-dollar television buys and direct mail drops.

But with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination enduring a rough patch, Peter Semetis, the owner of a deli and catering business in Lower Manhattan, had been following the news and growing increasingly worried that he was not going to be paid for the assorted breakfast trays, coffee, tea and orange juice he had provided the campaign for an event in mid-December.

“I’m afraid of her dropping out of the campaign and me becoming a casualty,” Mr. Semetis said.

Yes, I would be concerned, TOO. She can drop out, walk away and straight up STIFF Mr. Semetis. And if it is happening to him, do you think he is the only one?

So on Thursday, he went to small claims court and filed suit.

Do you think that anyone want to deal with going to court, filing fees, for 2K? This man has more and better things to do, but if you keep contacting a campaign and get the run around, what do you expect? [...]

p.s. Here is a list of unpaid bills, thanks to leevank.

p.s.s Another list of unpaid bills, thanks to cookedchicken08.

Of course, there is this wonderful incident in New Hampshire:

A Portsmouth, N.H., landlord says he finally received his check for $500 for a five-day stay by volunteers for Hillary Clinton’s campaign in January.

But the ordeal — which included leaving his warehouse property trashed with campaign signs – left him sore, so he’s donating the cash to Barack Obama’s campaign.

“It was the last straw for Hillary Clinton for me,” Terry Bennett told the Portsmouth Herald.

Click here to read the full report in the Portsmouth Herald.

Bennett’s missing reimbursement wasn’t the only one, the Herald found. An Iowa businessman told the paper he’s owed more than $7,000 by the campaign.

The campaign — which recently revealed it was strapped for cash in January but has since made fundraising strides — told the paper all money owed will be paid, but there have been a few “isolated delays,” and the New Hampshire campaign director said she regretted the condition in which Bennett’s property was left.

So, you in Pennsylvania: if you want to rent to the Clinton campaign, get a big deposit first. When it is over and the bills come due, you might be plenty invisible to them.

Of course, if you still have money to give the Clintons, then you’ll be very visible indeed!

The former wife of the fugitive financier controversially pardoned by President Clinton on his last day in office had donated $450,000 to his presidential library fund, according to reports in Washington.

Citing “sources familiar with the contribution”, the Washington Post said Denise Rich made three donations from July 1998 to May 2000, before she became active late last year in the successful lobbying campaign for Marc Rich.

The pardon freed one of the world’s richest men from prosecution on more than 50 counts of racketeering, wire fraud, income tax evasion and illegal oil trading with Iran.

Her lawyer had told a house committee probing the pardon that Denise Rich donated an “enormous sum of money” to the fund.

Politics as usual.