Tom Daschle’s name has been floated as Obama’s chief of staff. Here’s Daschle on Iraq in 2002:

Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country “to speak with one voice at this critical moment.”

Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq’s weapons programs “may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored.” However, he urged Bush to move “in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse.”

Seems like an obvious part of the story and an easy Google search to do, but… Whatever.

Great to see that when everybody gets a Unity Pony, all will be forgiven on Iraq!  Read more 

Zinsser B-I-N Shellac-Base Primer-Sealer.

Great coverage! The room is going to look much better. And the fumes, oh w-o-w ….  Read more 

Hullabaloo is losing it’s collective mind. Today we see tristero going gaga over D-Day’s “The Obama Party” post from yesterday:

Win or lose, for good or otherwise, it really appears that Obama is in a position to renovate the Democratic party. As dday mentions, this does not necessarily mean that that reform will make the party more conducive to liberal and progressive ideas. As I see it, however, by displacing the sclerotic leaders who managed, incredibly, to make both the 2004 election and the 2000 race so close that a candidate as clearly awful as Bush could steal the presidency (once if not twice), there are potential opportunities for liberals.

[…]  Read more 

Good afternoon.  Happy Friday.

First post, yay!*

One steps away, another steps in.

It’s been a wild week.**   Emotions are running high.  The spin is coming from all angles.***  Read more 

Susan Faludi thinks men are warming to Hillary because she’s mean and nasty.

Pundits have been quick to attribute the erosion in Barack Obama’s white male support to a newfound racism. What they have failed to consider is the degree to which white male voters witnessing Senator Clinton’s metamorphosis are being forced to rethink precepts they’ve long held about women in American politics.  Read more 

It’s been quite an experience commiserating and/or tangling with y’all throughout this slouch toward November 4, 2008.
 Read more 

Given that I’m pretty well convinced that Hillary doesn’t — as the MSM has self-fulfilled — “have a path to the nomination,” I thought maybe I could chill out and quietly watch this thing play out to its seemingly inevitable conclusion.

Look, I said it. Obama is going to win. But this continuing, nay escalating, triumphalist shit about how he’s transformed politics is just pissing me the fuck off. And ditto for his “we’ve got more runs in the 9th inning” bullshit. It’s no goddamned ninth inning. [Note: I see that Lambert has already expanded on the linked material in a most-interesting post here.]  Read more 

Voices From The Nursing School
ADNA Discrimination Is Illegal!

My nursing colleague, “S,” has a 50/50 chance of inheriting Polycystic Kidney Disease from her father. At the age of 28, through genetic testing, she will find out if she has the gene that will inevitably cause her body to develop cysts in her kidneys, liver and other organs. There is no cure, so why would she get screened? And more immediately, if she has the gene, will she be dropped by her health insurance company for having a pre-existing condition?  Read more 

Via scary smart Anglachel, I’m inspired to quote Federalist #10, compare:

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. … From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

And that is why we had a Constitution, a republican form of government, checks and balances, the Bill of Rights, etc.

Contrast Madison to the shallow “philosophy” of “creative class” schwarmeri like OFB Stoller, when he proclaims the triumph of his faction:  Read more 

Like you probably do, I get a lot of emails from folks who don’t, um, really understand what I think about politics but know I have an interest and want to share what they find funny. I suppose these guys are “famous;” they seem to have a lot of YouTubes and it looks semi-professional and/or backed with Republican welfare money. Anyway, I thought this was actually very interesting.

Crude as it is, I have only one thing to add: I’ve spoken with ~15 people this month on their choice of Dem candidates: my plumber, a couple of my neighbors, some folks at the grocery store. I’m chatty and curious like that, and I’m also struck by the theme I have heard from 14 of that group (yes, I have been counting).  Read more 

There’s a good reason for the recent Obamabot psyops, pundit declarations, general wailing and at times cajoling Clinton supporters have been subjected to since her recent Indiana victory was spun into a loss: Clinton still has a very good chance of securing the nomination.

What’s more, the next few days are absolutely critical for her and her supporters. The end is only here if we allow the latest round to depress morale and turnout for the upcoming WV and KY primaries.

Jay Cost at RCP lays out why Clinton’s down but not out. First some numbers and demographics:

Two things are holding me back: West Virginia and Kentucky.

—SNIP—  Read more 

Some Obama supporters have truly entered a state that is referred to in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (DSM-IV) as “Bat-shit Crazy.”

At the normally sane Hullabaloo we get this from D-Day:  Read more 

Remember this?

It really is weird. Everywhere this guy goes shit implodes. I’ve been watching him for years and it’s fucking amazing. He’s like that guy in the Stephen King Movie “Needful Things.” I mean Barry really has a gift for projection.  Read more 

I’m still with this guy.  Read more 

I prostrate myself, once again, before the Sideshow; Avedon found and quoted the study I vaguely remembered — where people will opt out of playing a game they see as unfair, even when it seems economically rational to do so:

If both monkeys got the same reward, there never was a problem. Grapes are by far preferred (as real primates, like us, they go for sugar content), but even if both received cucumber, they’d perform the task many times in a row.

However, if they received different rewards, the one who got the short end of the stick would begin to waver in its responses, and very soon start a rebellion by either refusing to perform the task or refusing to eat the cucumber.

This is an “irrational” response in the sense that if profit-maximizing is what life (and economics) is about, one should always take what one can get. Monkeys will always accept and eat a piece of cucumber whenever we give it to them, but apparently not when their partner is getting a better deal. In humans, this reaction is known as “inequity aversion.”

I actually don’t think the response is irrational at all, but related to the fact that in a cooperative system, one needs to watch what kind of investment one makes and what one gets in return. If your partners always ends up getting a greater share, this means that you’re being taken advantage of. So, the rational thing to do is withhold cooperation until the reward division improves.

This holds an important message for American society which is becoming less fair by the day.

What can I say? I’m a primate.  Read more 

Now we’ve got the goods. Via the great Avedon, this from Christine Wicker:

A Southern Baptist by birth, and still a self-described evangelical, Wicker decided to investigate conventional wisdom about the numerical strength of America’s moral majority. What she found should embarrass the secular media almost as much as it should evangelical leaders. The National Association of Evangelical’s claim to represent 30 million souls? Wicker says the actual number is closer to 4.5 million. The Southern Baptist’s Convention’s estimate of 16 million members? Try a quarter of that number.

In her own words: “The idea that evangelicals are taking over America is one of the greatest publicity scams in history, a perfect coup accomplished by savvy politicos and religious leaders, who understand media weaknesses and exploit them brilliantly,”

Well, so much for the great and powerful Christ. One question:  Read more 

[Welcome, Agonist readers!]

[Chris “Squishy Fix” Bowers endorsed Stoller’s post (below). Check it out. Please tell me this is parody! I’ll retract, I’ll do the walk of shame, but please tell me this is parody!**]

Tell me again why we say Kewl Kidz instead of Kool Kidz?*

* * *
I’ve always loved this passage from Neal Stephensen’s Snow Crash, and not just because I feel like I’m going to end up living in a shipping container. I’ll quote a huge slab of it just cause I love it so much. The relevance will become clear, I promise:

And finally, there is a guy that Y.T. dubs the High Priest. He’s wearing a formerly white lab coat, bearing the logo of some company in the Bay Area. He’s sacked out in the back of a dead station wagon, but when Y.T. enters the area he jumps up and runs toward her in a way that she can’t help but find a little threatening. But compared to these others, he seems almost like a regular, healthy, fit, demented bush-dwelling psychotic.

“You’re here to pick up a suitcase, right?”

“I’m here to pick up something. I don’t know what it is,” she says.

He goes over to one of the dead cars, unlocks the hood, pulls out an aluminum briefcase … “Here’s your delivery,” he says, striding toward her. She backs away from him instinctively.

“I understand, I understand,” he says. “I’m a scary creep.”

He puts it on the ground, puts his foot on it, gives it a shove. It slides across the pavement to Y.T., bouncing off the occasional rock.

There’s no big hurry on this delivery,” he says. ’Would you like to stay and have a drink? We’ve got Kool-Aid.”

“I’d love to,” Y.T. says, “but my diabetes is acting up real bad.”

“Well, then you can just stay and be a guest of our community. We have a lot of wonderful things to tell you about. Things that could really change your life.”

“Do you have anything in writing? Something I could take with me?”

“Gee, I’m afraid we don’t. Why don’t you stay. You seem like a really nice person.”

“Sorry, Jack, but you must be confusing me with a bimbo,” Y.T. says. “Thanks for the suitcase. I’m out of here.”

Yes, it’s always nice to have a “graceful” way out of these situations.

But why do the words “Matt Stoller” suddenly come into my mind?  Read more 

Problem:

I’m tired of seeing the same damn people on the teevee.

Solution:  Read more 

A special joint post from Obama supporter Jason Chervokas and Clinton blogger Tom Watson has some good stuff (via TalkLeft). I’ve always been taken with the idea of Clinton as Obama’s Cheney.* But I focused on this paragraph:

Frankly, our hope for a fusion ticket probably requires the full run of the primaries and the last accounting before many prominent Democrats realize – all at once, perhaps – that there’s a happy and obvious solution to a potentially disastrous split. Both candidates have proven themselves to be realists, despite that many of their followers shout at each other. We think they’d take the deal, in order to guarantee victory. We also don’t buy two rampant themes among the bloggers – one, that Hillary is somehow posturing for 2012 by taking Obama down now, and secondly, that Barack would never accept “the Clintons” as partners in his presidency.

These are two extraordinary, big-time politicians with complementary talents and networks of supporters. Both have displayed determination, stamina, and guts. Beating John McCain in November is the primary goal of this primary season. A single path offers the greatest chance for victory.

The corollary here would be that things in the blogosphere might get — if this is possible — even more shrill, as each side jockeys for position. For example:  Read more 

… but I just can’t bring it to mind. Edsall, HuffPo:

Big Rewards Await Clinton If She Ends Campaign Now
She has ruled it out, but a prompt withdrawal from the contest for the Democratic nomination offers Sen. Hillary Clinton the prospect of major rewards.

One of the most inviting is the near certainty that the Obama campaign would agree to pay back the $11.4 million she has loaned her own bid,

All class, these guys.  Read more 

Campaign reform.

Not just that, but it’s high on my list. We need to fix a broken system.

Some required fixes:

1. End the caucuses. Secret ballot primaries only.

2. Regional primaries. Five of them, in rotation, beginning in February and ending in June. Iowa and New Hampshire can get in line with everyone else.

3. Closed primaries. Democrats should select our nominee.

4. Select the nominee by popular vote. Delegates should be used for other intra-party buisness at the convention, but let the voters select the nominee.

5. Campaign finance reform. The winner should not be selected based on who can raise the most obscene amount of money.  Read more