progressive involvement

Oh Lawdy, there's nothing sorrier than a political party trying to be "hip"

This was actually posted at Dailykos, which purports to be politically astute.

Culturally, the Democrats are a center-hip party, while the Republicans are an extreme-unhip party. The Republicans are so extreme as to be beyond compromise. Remember, their vision of culture and entertainment is so extreme that at the 2000 Republican convention in Philadelphia, their musical headliners included Chubby Checker, Bobby Rydell and Fabian.  Their revered entertainers and cultural figures include Chuck Norris, Bo Derek and Tanya Tucker. 

Pro-Obama blogosphere dreaming again

Ben Smith made the case at Politico today that Hillary will find it difficult to get more popular votes than Obama.  The popular vote, keep in mind, is a symbolic number.  It doesn't decide anything.  Whoever wins it, however, will have significant bragging rights--supposedly--and can use it to make a case with the superdelegates.

Citing the numbers at realpolitics.com, Smith says Hillary is behind by 700,000 votes.  That total does not include Florida or Michigan.  With Florida and Michigan--with a real number, in other words, one that represents over two million voters in two of the largest states--Hillary is only behind by about 80,000 votes.  She'll make that up in Pennsylvania alone--easy.

This is infrequently remarked upon as well:  Hillary leads right now, if you count only Democrats.  Before Ohio and Texas, she was ahead by 600,000 among Democrats who had voted.  The margin would be over a million now.  Obama's current margin is based on Independents and Republicans.  Are Democratic Party superdelegates going to vote against the choice of Democrats?

The Obama campaign sabotaged a re-vote in Florida and Michigan precisely in order to fight off a Clinton lead in the popular vote, while also avoiding a narrowing of the difference in delegate votes as well.  Taking two of the largest, most important states out of the process, the Obama campaign, leading by about 80-78 with ten minutes to play in the second half, is clearly going into its stall game.  Will Democratic superdelegates vote for the guy who "won" by running out the clock?

Dailykos cited Smith's story twice in one day--here and here, which is not surprising.  Kos ought to change the name of the site to the DailyObama.  They also tweaked it each time to say that Hillary is done and ought to get out, which is not quite what Ben Smith said.  Josh Marshall chimed in twice too, once to wonder if the press should be more vocal about the fact that Hillary clearly doesn't have a chance, and once allowing that Clinton staffers probably also really knew she was done.

Josh, however, was kind enough to post this message from MR which expresses my feelings very nearly exactly:

I have to say that I disagree with your entry stating that Clinton supporters have thrown in the towel and accepted that Barack Obama will be the nominee. Let me be clear, we will never back down until the fat lady sings. And that performance, which will be for the better, will be on the convention room floor. It will be an all out brawl!

We're not backing down! The fight has just begun!!!! Pennsylvania is around the corner and a large victory is excepted. Polls in West Virginia also strongly favor her. Polls in North Carolina that have favored Obama are now virtually tied. There will be big surprises in North Carolina.

It's not over. And I might also point out how inaccurate the Politico article that you quoted/linked to really is. If the superdelegates support Clinton there will be "a backlash of historic proportions"!?!? THEY WOULD BE DOING THE JOB THEY WERE CREATED FOR, JOSH. The superdelegates weren't created to add fluff to the popular vote, but to make the educated decision that voters sometimes can't. They're there for the same reason the electoral college is. For example, picking a glorified motivational speaker over an experienced leader (good example, eh?). The SD's are there to put the better qualified and more electable candidate in charge. And in poll after poll, that's Hillary.

I'm sorry Josh, but you have it wrong.

Clinton supporters at DailyKos on "strike"

DailyKos is the big dog on the blogosphere block.  Markos Moulitsas started it a few years ago as a place to rally liberals and progressives, and it took off like crazy.  They get something like half a million hits every day.  (Compare that to the circulation figures for any daily newspaper in the United States.) 

PI is also, however, "complete b***s**t"

DailyKos front-pager, DMinMI, says Your Blogger posts "complete b**s***t" "day after day."  (In my defense, I have only a few posts in the comments section at DailyKos, and only a handful of them are "complete b**s**t.")  Another poster--a lesser-light--called me a "lying a**h**e."

But hey, it's always good to be in touch with supporters of the hope and unity candidate.

(Note to Synod Office and my Mom:  Progressive Involvement is very nearly profanity-free.) 

Progressive Involvement called "erudite"

Says Tom Watson in a post titled "The Few, the Proud...the Clinton bloggers." 

"Save room there for the elegant Democratic Wings and the erudite Progressive Involvement blogs."

OK, what's "erudite"?

"Neutral" TPM Cafe drops writer who doesn't embrace Obama

Linda Hirschman has had her TPM Cafe posting privileges yanked.  TPM Cafe grew out of Talking Points Memo by Josh Marshall.  Talking Points Memo is officially "neutral" in the presidential race--like DailyKos--is basically a pro-Obama site.  Hirschman writes:

I must admit I was a little surprised. I have not been fired in a long time (decades, really), and I think I'm having a pretty good run in the crowded precincts of political commentary. True, my last few postings at TPM Café were not in keeping with the overwhelming majority of their articles, making and making the case for Senator Barack Obama. I questioned the value of an Idaho caucus victory. I criticized Maureen Dowd's column suggesting that when a perfect female candidate came along, the media would be delighted to support her. I suggested that "Josh" might have waited to get more survey results before he posted his video embracing the ultimately erroneous Zogby predictions for the California primary the afternoon before the primary. But I thought that the new media of the blogosphere was actually established in part to offset what they considered the tendency of the MSM to cut its coverage to suit its preexisting, largely establishment, predilections. So I was blithely oblivious to the possibility that my dissenting views on the inevitability and divinity of the Obama candidacy might cause a problem. Never bashful, I thought I'd press the messenger.

The blogosphere has lost its mind, part deux

Mark Halperin of Time magazine lists some of the characteristics of the Obama campaign that he believes are unique.  One of them--number four--is:  "A coalition no one has ever put together before in a Democratic nomination fight – the most loyal Democrats (blacks) and the least loyal ones (Volvo suburbanites)."

I agree that African-Americans are the most loyal Democrats.  They have supplied a weight and depth for Obama that has been invaluable to his campaign.  I would argue, however, that "Volvo suburbanites" are not the "least loyal" Democrats.  They've been around for awhile now.  Clinton started bringing them over in 1992, and they've hung in there pretty well with both Al Gore and John Kerry.

No, the "least loyal" Democrats supporting Obama are those in the hard-core anti-war faction.  They've been a rather vaporous presence ever since 1968--here one minute, with their "more-progressive-than-thou" selves, then vanishing as soon as their candidate du jour falls short. 

They saw "no difference" between Nixon and Humphrey, sat out the election, and Nixon was elected.  In 1972, they flooded party caucuses and nominated McGovern--I know;  I was one of them.  In 2000, they again saw "no difference" between Al Gore and George W. Bush, so they either didn't vote, or voted for some fringe niche candidate.

I suspect that it is these folks who are flaming the blogosphere with anti-Clinton diatribes.  Check the comments section on any A-list blog.  You'll think you've wandered into Rush Limbaugh world.  In fact, in my brief foray into right-wing sites, I generally find a more charitable assessment of Clinton there than at "liberal" sites like DailyKos or TPM.

You'll search high-and-low before you can even find a Clinton-friendly A-list blog anywhere.  Kos and TPM say they're neutral, but every Obama move is touted and every Clinton move is dissed.  (Kos burbled "Huge night for Obama" on Super-Tuesday, even though his candidate lost three of four big states and got beat on total votes and total delegates.)  Frankly, when it comes to Clinton-bashing, the major blogs have basically echoed the stance of the mainstream media.

If Sen. Obama is nominated, African-Americans and "Volvo suburbanites" will likely stick with him in November, as they will for Sen. Clinton if she is nominated.  The hard-core anti-war faction likely won't.  If Sen. Obama is the nominee, and doesn't continue to meet their litmus test on Iraq, they'll flake.  If Sen. Clinton is the nominee, they'll probably write in "Nader." 

The blogosphere has lost its mind

Daily Kos proclaims:  "Huge night for Obama"  TPM says:  "It's a Draw"  Huffington Post leads with:  "Obama Wins Most Super-Tuesday States"

Hillary Clinton wins three of four major states, including the prize of California, which she wins big.  Obama picks up a state in the northeast--Connecticut--but Hillary wins Massachusetts easily, dashing Obama hopes for an upset.  The Latino vote holds for Clinton in the southwest.  Hillary does well in the south, Obama in the intermountain west and upper midwest.  Markos has lost all objectivity.  TPM is just wishing, and Arianna apparently thinks that what really counts is real estate.

It's going to be an interesting race to the nomination.  Hillary scores well with women, lower income people, working people, and Latinos.  Obama scores well with African-Americans and a mix of new-estranged-borderline-potential (but fairly wealthy) "Democrats"--the beer drinkers and the wine drinkers, the traditional and the (potentially) new.  Those are the makings of a powerful ticket, but also the makings of a battle royal.

Post of Genius

Atrios today, in a post titled "Shorter Candidates."

Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.

Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.

Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.

Nice to see that Gene Lyons reads the same blogs I do

Gene Lyons is an Arkansas columnist and author, with Joe Conason, of the definitive commentary on the Clinton impeachment circus.

It’s no exaggeration to say that the establishment media’s initial response to the blogosphere was panic. The idea of mere citizens talking back to the press was unsettling to Washington media celebrities. Pundits who’d exhibited no qualms about the sordid imaginings of, say, American Spectator or The Wall Street Journal editorial page recoiled in horror at online mockery.