Thursday’s Mini-Report

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* For all the complaining we do about congressional Dems caving all the time, I just thought I’d mention that over the course of one day, House Dems didn’t back down at all on Bush’s surveillance authorities and congressional subpoena power. Maybe they’re learning.

* Discouraging assessment of the economy: “Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Thursday the economy is deteriorating and signaled a readiness to keep on lowering a key interest rate to shore things up. Bernanke also told the Senate Banking Committee that the one-two punch of housing and credit crises has greatly strained the economy. And he forecast sluggish growth in the near term. Bernanke also noted that hiring has slowed and that people are likely to tighten their belts further because of high energy prices and plummeting home values.”

* Honestly, what kind of people interrupt a memorial for a recently-deceased member of Congress and Holocaust survivor? The House Republican caucus, that’s who. Just when I thought my opinion of these guys couldn’t get any lower….

* David Shuster’s mistake was awful, but the real problem has always been Chris Matthews: “Yesterday I speculated that the Hillary campaign’s allegation of a pattern of sexist remarks at MSNBC — a charge that was made in response to reporter David Shuster’s ‘pimped out’ remark about Chelsea — was primarily driven by anger at Chris Matthews. In making these charges, the Hillary campaign has always been careful to avoid mentioning Matthews by name, but political insiders believe he is who Hillary advisers were talking about, even if it hasn’t been confirmed by them. I’ve now confirmed that this is the case. And that’s not all: Hillary’s advisers, it turns out, have repeatedly taken their grievance with Matthews directly to the network.”

* A few weeks ago, I criticized Barack Obama’s occasional use of conservative frames. In fairness, then, I should note that it’s not helpful for Clinton campaign surrogates to publicize bizarre charges that originated on right-wing blogs.

* There are a lot of myths out there about the Canadian healthcare system. Here’s a great Top 10 List debunking some of the more annoying ones.

* John McCain is now bragging that he called for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. That’s a fairly obvious lie.

* Joe Lieberman was asked about McCain’s promise to appoint conservative judges and Supreme Court justices who would undermine laws Lieberman claims to care about. Lieberman responded, “That concerns me. That’s probably the largest area of concern that I have about a McCain presidency.” But he’s endorsing him anyway.

* John McCain’s new sound-bite phrase on his website: “Ready to lead on day one.” Isn’t that word for word what Hillary Clinton usually says?

* I can’t believe Jane Fonda used the “c” word on the “Today” show this morning. The FCC isn’t going to care that at all.

* This Valentine’s Day, it’s worth noting the media’s never-ending crush on John McCain.

* More bad spin from Mark Penn: “Change Begins March 4th. Hillary leads in the three largest, delegate rich states remaining: Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. These three states have 492 delegates – 64 percent of the remaining delegates Hillary Clinton needs to win the nomination.” Um, Mark? All three distribute their delegates proportionally.

* It is the 21st century, isn’t it? “A leading human rights group appealed to Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah on Thursday to stop the execution of a woman accused of witchcraft and performing supernatural acts.”

* And finally, the award for the most offensive thing a Republican has said in a while goes to Tennessee State Sen. Doug Henry: “Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it’s simply, ‘Let’s don’t go forward with this act.'” I think he’s trying to say, sexual assault isn’t what it used to be? The mind reels.

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

The piece about the Canadian healthcare should be printed on the front page of every newspaper in America. As a Canadian, I am continually amazed by how opponents of public heathcare in the US distort the facts. Is the Canadian system perfect? Of course not, but then, is any government program? I’ll take my “socialized medicine” over America’s “every man for himself” sytem any day of the week! BTW, GOBAMA!!!!!!

  • Steve Benen:

    This goes back to a point of made here and elsewhere. The Clinton campaign is no longer trying to win the pledged delegate battle, because the math is inescapable: the task is about as close to politically impossible as you can find. He’d most likely have to finish in the 30s in something like 7 consecutive contested primaries in a row for her to tie him, given the likely outcomes in WI, HI, MS, WY, SD, NC, and OR. And lose very badly in Ohio. And lose badly in Texas in spite of the delegate allocation process heavily discouraging any one candidate piling up a big lead.

    So there best strategy now is to just kick up dust, and try to create confusion about who is actually winning and who is actually losing, try to keep the public and the super-delegates from coalescing around and rallying behind Obama in the face of attacks from McCain, continue to hammer on the supposed illegitimacy of legitimately-held caucus and the the supposed legitimacy of illegitimately-held primaries, and try to stretch the confusion all the way to a brokered convention, and then try to win it in the Senate cloak room.

    That is their only path to victory that I can see. So that means we’re gonna see a steady stream of incoherent, dishonest spin about all of those topics. The popular vote and whether or caucus-goers should be included in that metric; MI & FL; supers should go wherever they want, and shouldn’t go anywhere yet b/c nobody is winning this thing; it’s really close (no, its really not) and will be even closer after march 4th (highly unlikely); the vast majority of the United States is insignificant.

    My hope is that super-delegates and voters alike see this for the desperate, self-indulgent and self-destructive tactic that it is, reject it, and reject Hillary along with it. Hopefully, Rasmussen’s tracking isn’t an outlier, but rather the first sign that we are indeed seeing such a public backlash.

  • “…over the course of one day, House Dems didn’t back down at all on Bush’s surveillance authorities and congressional subpoena power.” — CB

    Write your representatives, tell them to stand firm, and ask if they’ve ever heard of Al Wynn.

  • Regarding our wonderful “friends and allies” in the War on Terror, the Saudis, this is just par for the course. You can read more about Saudi Arabia’s perverse justice system in “Part 2” here:

    http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

    Using charges of “witchcraft,” “apostasy” or “blasphemy,” all of which are capital offenses under Saudi Arabia’s version of Islamic law, are common tools for persecuting religious minorities in the Kingdom (especially Shia and Sufi Muslims), and for settling contract disputes with foreign workers.

    The entire Saudi “Justice System” is a grotesque joke, although, unfortunately, that is the least of our problems with the Saudis.

  • * It is the 21st century, isn’t it? “A leading human rights group appealed to Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah on Thursday to stop the execution of a woman accused of witchcraft and performing supernatural acts.”

    Well, no: In the Hijrah calendar, this is year 1428 (which would be 1382 if that calendar matched the Western one).

  • …because the math is inescapable…

    Michael… do you have any links that show various numeric scenarios? I haven’t seen the sites that run the numbers in a spreadsheet fashion. Such sites must be out there. I’d like a read to take me out of the realm of hearsay. Thanks.

    Lastly, Michelle Obama: There Will Be No Second Run:

    “We’re not going to keep running and running and running, because at some point you do get the life beaten out of you. It hasn’t been beaten out of us yet. We need to be in there now, while we’re still fresh and open and fearless and bold.”

    I couldn’t agree more. It is now or never.
    Give it your all, and if you fall short, don’t worry it again. Move on.

    How strange to have people running for president that are genuinely likable.

  • I think he’s trying to say, sexual assault isn’t what it used to be? The mind reels.

    I think he’s trying to say he has forcibly had sex with many many women but it was never rape because they were all sluts who were asking for it.

  • Does anyone else remember the Republican House Leadership talk about the “majority of the majority”?

    I thought that Speaker Hastert wouldn’t bring up a bill unless a majority of the Republicans supported it. It didn’t really matter if a huge majority of the House was in favor if a MAJORITY of the Republicans opposed it.

    It seems that the Democrats are only doing what the Republicans were doing for a long time.

    Of course, things look different when you are in the majority. That is true for both the Democrats and the Republicans.

  • I don’t know anything about Sen. Henry, but when I first read that article my reaction was that he was trying to point out that when he was growing up rape was considered a heinous anti-social act and now it’s just kind of ‘eh, whatever’ in today’s society.

    In other words, that we as a society have become so de-sensitized to the act of rape that we no longer consider it the horrible act it really is. If that’s the case, and I don’t know for sure but if it is, I would have to say I agree with him on that point.

    And if I’m wrong, well, never mind.

  • The Clinton camp is just fine with saying that Obama is a) soft on crime and b) winning because of elites. Right-wing framing isn’t limited to one camp.

  • If we are going to consider right wing framing from Clinton, don’t forget the times in which she has used fear of terror as reason to vote for her, or used 9/11 as justification for the Iraq war.

    As for Obama’s supposed Republican frames–many of us actually agree with him and do not consider some of these ideas to necessarily be “Republican” ideas. This is a reason why so many independents support Obama. Just as we support choice in matters such as abortion or marrying one’s partner regardless of sex, we also support choice in personal economic matters including the purchase of health insurance.

  • My favorite part of the rape quote is “some person who was not her spouse.” Forcible sex against a woman’s will is fine if it’s her husband. Or at least it used to be before the Femi-Nazis ruined everything.

  • New Mexico finally examined their provisional ballots. These accounted for 12% of all votes cast. There were three valid reasons for giving out these ballots: 1) Voter came to wrong site. 2) Voter not on registered voter list, or 3) Voter had requested an absentee ballot, but signed an affidavit saying he or she didn’t return it. About 11,000 of the 17,000 provisional ballots, however, were issued to people who were non-Democrats, despite the fact that it was a closed caucus (they call it a caucus, but it is actually a primary with individual non-public votes). The New Mexico Dem party simply decided to include them anyway. Fortunately, this did not significantly change the results (Clinton won by about 2000 instead of 1000), but why were the ballots handed out? And why don’t rules apply? Would the results have been different, had all people known the exclusion rule would be reversed? Someone, please remind me why we are bringing Democracy to Iraq.

  • Given those execrable comments by Tennesseean Doug Henry, perhaps we could consider him an honorary Republican.

  • Just flipped on the tube, and Chris Mathews has Ken Blackwell — the infamous Ohio Sec. of State — on as a commentator. Ken Friggin’ Blackwell.

  • I was at a hispanic site from Texas today and all I was reading was about how Hillary changed so many lives in So Texas. Even So Texas republicans were saying they were voting for Hillary. My guess is it isn’t going to be close in TX primary/caucus or not. TX is a republican state.

  • [T]hese three states have 492 delegates – 64 percent of the remaining delegates Hillary Clinton needs to win the nomination.” Um, Mark? All three distribute their delegates proportionally.

    He really *would* be a better fit as a Repub shill, no? Every time I manage to digest and swallow (without regurgitation) something that came out of that campaign, Penn crams another repulsive “bite” down my throat…

    skeptic, @15

    That was my reading of the quote, also… What’s the world coming to, if a man can’t get his wife to submit, headache or no? I suppose, if he’s 82… the idea of marital rape may have never penetrated his skull (The Forsyte Saga being only 100 yrs old)

  • A little general information…

    My girlfriend just got home from a Democratic Party meeting with the head of the Michigan Dem Party. The state party’s plan is to award Clinton her delegates that would be something like 80, and leave the other delegates pledged to “uncommitted”. How the DNC deals with this is anyone’s guess, but it sounds like the MDP is coming down fully on the side of Clinton.

    The story i got (i was still at work, which is why i didn’t go) is that Mark Brewer, the head of the MDP, was obviously pro-Clinton…and VERY anti-Obama. When people questioned the whole situation, they were yelled at pretty severely.

    My girlfriend, who was younger than most people there, had to leave because she couldn’t take everyone yelling at each other and behaving like children.

    Looks like no redo here.

  • That’s a nice site Steve. Definitely am going to bookmark it. But I didn’t quite see what I am looking for. Maybe what I am after only exists deep inside the campaigns. For example, if the election went off just as the polls are predicting right now: what would the delegate count be? Then we change the numbers. Imagine 5% bigger victories for Clinton in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. What happens to the delegate count then? That sort of thing. Those calculations have all been made of course. That engine exists on someone’s computer. Of course the site you gifted does allow me to mash up my own spreadsheet. So thanks again!

  • Hillary has drawn her line in the sand and if she loses either TX, OH or PA I feel that she will step down. Altough I don’t think it will happen. I’m flying from Tampa to Dallas on March 2 to walk the streets for Hillary and give her support. If she wins its on to PA

  • “Maybe they’re learning.”

    now if only the democrats in the senate would smarten up……

  • Jane Fonda did not use the c-word in any pejorative way. I believe the quote is something like this: “I was asked to perform a segment called ‘Cunt,’ and I said, ‘No thanks. I have enough problems.'”

    She was talking about the play The Vagina Monologues, which is, by the way, a fantastic play.

    This was the story as it was posted earlier in the day. Now I can’t find it anymore – it’s been replaced with one which makes it sound as if she said something truly offensive. The clip’s still around, though. The story’s coming from the same shameless cabal who spawned that group selling t-shirts calling Hillary Clinton a cunt. Next time you want to jump on the bandwagon, you might want to get your story straight first.

  • I’m still pissed off by your remark. Let me add: this is tantamount to calling the FCC on the carpet for listing the words they don’t like.

    FCC: We won’t tolerate the use of the words shit, fuck, dick, or cunt.

    The censors: Ooh, ooh, you said shit, fuck, dick, and cunt.

    It’s childish.

  • Chris Matthews is a piece of crap, he may as well go and join Fox noise. Unfortunately, he is only one of the many TV personalities who stomp all over Clinton for no good reason.

    Jim, give em hell in Texas, I’ll be with you in spirit.

  • No, thanks anyhow. I’ll do my part by contributing to her campaign, and when possible, helping to ensure our fellow democrats treat HRC fairly in blogs.

  • I wonder if the big dem turnouts are responsible for the uncharacteristic fortitude displayed in congress today. Could this be the start of something big? The country sure needs it. Our difficulties will require dedication and teamwork, top to bottom, regardless of party, to address. Steady incremental progress is the best way. I’m looking forward to a visionary inaugural address of epic dimensions, regardless of which democrat wins. Anything less is unacceptable given the circumstances.

  • Apparently Bush has just ordered the navy to use one or two missiles to ‘shoot down’ (shoot at?) a failing spy satellite, supposedly to protext humanity against its hazardous fuel and/ or to break it into pieces that are too small to survive re-entry.

    In what way is this not just a lame excuse to test an anti-satellite missile system?

  • A more than just a little bit explosive piece of news…

    24,000 Gitmo Interrogation Tapes

    Seton Hall Law’s Center for Policy and Research has discovered new evidence of a longstanding government practice of recording interrogations at Guantánamo Bay. In light of the national debate about the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) destruction of video recordings, the report proves that the two CIA tapes that were destroyed were only a tiny fraction of perhaps 24,000 recorded interrogations.

    A May 2005 report by Lieutenant General Kevin Kiley confirms that each interrogation at Guantánamo was videotaped. Lieutenant General Randall Schmidt issued a report the following month stating that more than 24,000 interrogations of detainees took place at Guantánamo over a three-year period.

    Regards, Cernig @ Newshoggers.

  • Senator Doug Henry must think all Tennessee women not wearing Burkas are whores.

    Lieberman concerned about the appointment of SC justices…Ha! this is one of the spokesmen for The Armageddon fanatic Hagee and their Christians for Israel group and he agrees with these nuts on how to go about making Armageddon happen. They are one of his largest campaign donors. His politics is geared toward the rapture. Jerusalem Joe has got to go….repeat.

    “…Clinton campaign surrogates …” What the hell is that and why are you mentioning something from this…group? When have you ever mentioned anything that could be construed in the least as negative toward Obama. the man who said “I didn’t say I don’t believe in war…just not this war”. the man is full of surprises…I just hope we get to hear them all before the nomination. Once again I remind you that when people refer to Obama as not being specific and speaking in generalities…they are referring to HIS SPEECHES. In HIS SPEECHES he doesn’t tell how he plans to do all the things he says he wants to do…he doesn’t give or seldom gives any specifics IN HIS SPEECHES.
    One must go to his web site to see what he claims he wants to accomplish but still no mention of how he plans to do it. These are the missing specifics…not ‘what’…but ‘how’. You keep addressing the ‘what’.

  • ROTFLMLiberal:

    I run down the whole situation here in the comments on Obsidian Wings. Shorter version:

    Basically, Hillary needs to be within 70 pledged delegates of Obama on March 5th for it to be even conceivable. For that to happen, she’d basically need to tie him on the 19th and pick up ~60 delegates on March 4th, or pick up more on March 4th to make-up for whatever gains he gets out of WI and HI.

    Now, here’s the problem with that plan. Whatever Hilary gets out of Rhode Island is likely to be largely wiped out by Vermont. She might net a delegate or two out of those two contests. So really all of her gains have to be in Ohio and Texas on March 4th. Texas is a huge prize, but it’s also set up 1) such that it’s hard for either candidate to really get a huge leg up, since so many districts allocate even numbers of delegates, and 2) the far-and-away most delegate rich districts are very Obama-friendly, which should help make up huge ground in the primary delegate counts, and 3)its a dual primary/caucus format, which plays to Obama’s enthusiasm and organizational advantages (I’m here in Houston and we’ve already run 2 caucus-training days and have them twice-a-week from here on out). Obama could conceivably lose the popular vote ~55-45 and still win the delegate totals at the end of the day on the strength of keeping it close enough to split a lot of Hillary’s favorable districts 1-1 or 2-2 or limiting her margins to 3-2…and then racking up a few 5-2 or 6-1 districts, and then beating her in the caucuses.

    So…it’s gonna be hard for her to rack up big numbers in Texas. Still, let’s just say, for the sake of argument, she nets +20 in Texas, which is, IMO, pretty generous. But whatever. And she ties Obama on Feb 19th. So now, she needs to squeeze a 40 delegate advantage out of Ohio…which amounts to winning over 64% of the available delegates. The only state in which she’s collected more than 64% of the delegates was the uncontested Arkansas, btw. Think about that.

    But say somehow she does better in Texas (now we’re pushing it IMO, but w/e) and that takes some pressure off her and she somehow gets the pledged delegate lead down to 70 March 5th, taking 60% of all available delegates between Texas and Ohio, an incredibly show of muscle (seriously, that’s nearly impossible). The situation from there on out is…12 contests, 561 delegates, at least 5 of which are heavy Obama favorites (WY-he dominates prairie and mountain-west regions; Mississippi-AA vote; Oregon-downstate Wash a good predictor, and Obama won every jurisdiction there; North Carolina-AA vote; South Dakota-Obama has been dominating that region, its sandwiched between the Obama-dominated ND and NE)

    Chuck Todd thinks that there are an additional 2 other states that favor him, but let’s just ignore that, and stick with those guys.

    That only leaves Hillary, in this amazing scenario where she dueled Obama to a draw on Feb 19th and then got incredible margins on March 4th, a pool of 363 delegates from which to draw in her attempts to catch Obama, meaning she’d need to pull in 60% of pledged delegates from all other 7 states on the calendar. You can look at the states and see plainly how absurdly unlikely that is…you basically have to be positing that Obama, who’s now leading nationally in the last 3 polls released (ARG, Gallup, and Rasmussen, tho Ras’s is the only that’s stat significant) is suddenly going to be pulling in 33-35% of the vote in something like 9 straight contests.

    It’s absurd.

    And that would be to tie him in pledged delegates, assuming they tie in all the states favorable to him, which is, to say the least, unlikely.

  • Now, here’s a situation that sounds plausible, no? Obama has a ~130-135 pledged delegate lead now. Say he gains 10 delegates on Feb 19th. That’s a 140-145 lead going into March.

    Say Obama gets a few delegates out of VT, but Clinton gets a few more out of RI, net result +2 Hillary.

    Say she wins OH and TX 55-45%.

    That’ll likely only generate for her a total net gain between 25-40 delegates (40 is getting really generous…a 55% share in Ohio only nets 15 delegates, and only 20 in TX, so she’d also have to pick up an additional 5 at the caucuses), depending on district-by-district numbers in TX and the caucus results. That leaves Obama with a lead on March 5th of ~100-120 delegates. Again, even if they duel to a draw in his strong states, OR, WY, MS, SD, and NC, Hillary would need to win the other 7 contests by such large margins that she collects between 63.7-66.5% of all available delegates. Again, those are Arkansas or Illinois numbers, not 7-no-home-court-advantage-contested-states-in-a-row numbers.

    And that’s after winning Texas and Ohio by comfortable 55-45 margins each and not losing ground to Obama in his 5 strongest states post-March 4th, to simply tie Obama in pledged delegates at the end.

    She can’t catch him. Which is why the supers are starting to defect. They’re catching on.

  • Yes, Dr brainy, why don’t we pick on some of Obama’s help?

    Your constant harping as if one candidate were different from the point you’re making about the other is insulting.

  • CAMPAIGN MEMO: Bracing for a ‘race card’ to be played? You’re decades too late – It was called Reaganomics…Capital was advantages over labor.
    Now the question is; Will Democrats risk any political capital, or just live in glorious luxury? Single-payer universal healthcare, or insurance business as usual? Tax carbon, or cap & evade? Ask the Kennedy’s; Once you attain sainthood [Hollywood aside] it can be all downhill…So again; Who does Obama battle; Muslims? No. Corporations? Doubtful. Tax the wealthy? Bingo!

  • Bad news, folks.

    Video of his actual words at the rape link concerns abortion funding.

    The clear implication is that victims of rape should not get state funded abortions because the definition of rape has broadened to include forcible sex he doesn’t consider rape.

    It IS as bad as implied.

    Time for your dirt nap, you misogynist relic.

  • Comments are closed.