D. Aristophanes, in an extremely classy gesture, apologizes and asks:

…what do Obama and his supporters need to do today to get you into this car?

One answer is pretty simple: don’t be jerks about it. That and more progressive policy positions.

The worst possible downside to the thousands of hours we have all spent paying attention to this campaign is that democratic voters who supported the losing nominee will be so pissed off that they won’t show up to vote in November.

All it takes is a few percentage points in a few battleground states to lose this thing. Half of Americans don’t vote and a lot of them just because they’re too pissed off about something or other.

Another question:

why are you doing this?

Lambert and Vastleft can defend themselves. My impression of their reasons follows.

The good reasons:  Read more 

Today’s slew of “Democrats In Disarray” columns offer yet more proof of the time-honored axiom: there is nothing a Dem can do to avoid being attacked by the Right Wing and the Beltway punditocracy.

Even the candidate that has embraced the Unity Pony (the absolute fabrication that the problem with Washington is excessive partisanship) doesn’t get a pass:

Mr. Obama’s call for postpartisanship looks unconvincing, when he is unable to point to a single important instance in his Senate career when he demonstrated bipartisanship.

But also the candidate whose family has been attacked relentlessly for the past 15 years:

Clinton had seeded doubts about her own character long before this campaign began through her record as a polarizing figure, her secrecy and her obvious prevarications.

That’s right, the oft-referenced Mr. Whassammatta You, Kansas? himself, in his first column for (!) WSJ:

But I know one thing with absolute certainty. The media flurry kicked up by Mr. Obama’s gaffe powerfully confirms an argument I actually did make: That as they return again to the culture war, what the soldiers on all sides are doing is talking about class without actually addressing the economic basis of the subject.

In this whole breathless debate, few have talked about the causes of the decline of the US middle class, and what should be done about it.

Read the whole thing, it has a great punch line.

Also, Kathy G. looks at the significance of a populist intellectual’s column appearing in Rupert Murdoch’s paper.  Read more 

Perhaps. If you live in the San Francisco Bay Area there are a couple of upcoming opportunities to explore the subject: a BARBARian drinkfest Saturday, April 12 in Bezerkeley and a first time Bay Area SadlyNo fest in Our Fair City tentatively scheduled for Friday, April 18. After all, movements are made up of strangers who get to know each other.

In anticipation of Petraeus’ testimony this week, it might be helpful to have some reality-based talking points about recent events in Iraq to bulwark against the inevitable flurry of right-wing BS and journalistic laziness soon to come:

Juan Cole breaks most of them down very succinctly, referring also to Frank Rich in today’s NYT (more on that later):

1. The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the Da’wa Party, which back Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, are closer to Iran than the Sadr Movement.

2. It was al-Maliki’s parliamentary coalition that sought the cease fire by asking their Iranian patrons to broker it.

3. The main motivation for the attack on Sadrist neighborhoods in Basra was to ensure that ISCI wins the elections in that key oil province in October.

[paragraph broken into bullet points by me]  Read more 

Bobo Brooks goes to Memphis, takes a trip down memory lane and laments how well-behaved black people used to be:

Martin Luther King Jr. at least left behind a model of how to repair the social fabric. He was scholarly, formal, assertive and meticulously self-controlled in public.

The life’s work of a great man and 40 years of historical facts, economics, sociology, politics and policy are washed away with a facile narrative about proper behavior and civility. That is the gist of Brooks’ article. It’s the The Santa-Clausification of Martin Luther King Jr.

The reason for everything that’s happened in the intervening 40 years?  Read more 

Respect the Medium Lobster!

Fafblog is back

Remember: every time you donate to a blogger you love, a Beltway media consultant sheds a tear.  Read more 

Just in case you missed it, there is excellent liveblogging of the Eschacon panels by Sinfonian. H/t: DCblogger

peterboy just asked Krugman what his reaction is to being called “The Shrill One.”

Krugman’s answer: “The shrillness … boy …” “This is the age of the anti-Cassandra. She was always right and never believed, and now government is dominated by people who are never right and always believed.” Just like the war, this is true for economics.

A brilliant concept. Is there no reward for accurately predicting the future? It seems to me that this would be valuable information to a society.

Perhaps Lambert will have a report soon, if he’s not partying too hardy.

Click here to listen.

A little background, then the skit starts around 3:40. Wait for the punch line.

This has been Friday evening super-lo-fi blogging.  Read more 

From the Naomi Klein article referenced by Lambert earlier today:

Many argue otherwise. They say that if we want to end the war, we should simply pick a candidate who is not John McCain and help them win: We’ll sort out the details after the Republicans are evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Some of the most prominent anti-war voices—from MoveOn.org to the magazine we write for, The Nation—have gone this route, throwing their weight behind the Obama campaign.

This is a serious strategic mistake. It is during a hotly contested campaign that anti-war forces have the power to actually sway U. S. policy. As soon as we pick sides, we relegate ourselves to mere cheerleaders.

It’s not just a mistake in this election, it’s always a mistake for citizens that want policies that benefit them.

Politicians are experts at getting you to work your ass off to get what they want (win elected office) while they neglect to fight for what you want (single payer health care, ending the war, etc.).  Read more 

Very roughly speaking. According to this Harris poll, 46% of Americans read blogs. Not just any blogs but political blogs, specifically. So I took the US Population, multiplied it by 46% and got 139,632,428.

The Harris report however seems to work really hard to downplay their own numbers. You can compare my post’s title to theirs.

But are people really reading these blogs? The answer is no, as over half of Americans (56%) say they never read blogs that discuss politics.

Only 22% read political blogs on a regular basis, but that is still a huge number. It’s a lot higher than I thought. With the same math above that works out to over 66 million people. It’s a massive audience for a non-broadcast, (largely) non-corporate medium.  Read more 

F*cker Tarlson is the latest victim as the Wingnut Welfare financiers hedge their positions in an increasingly reality-based market.

Who would have known that investing in massive airtime for an annoying, screechy, conservative prick would not garner any kind of significant audience following?

The lefty bloggers could have told you, and they were right about the mortgage thing too. But they don’t wear fancy bow ties on the Teevee so nobody should pay attention to them.

Is the propaganda value of unbearably crappy right-wing pundits worth the expense of propping them up financially?  Read more 

Jane nails it:

Rather, I think we’re seeing the evidence that the media has decided that Obama is now the presumptive nominee, and having built him up he must be taken down to make the way for St. John McCain

The strategy is pretty obvious if you look at the big picture over the last year rather than the daily details:  Read more 

Matt Gonzalez almost almost won the San Francisco Mayor’s race in 2003 as a Green Party candidate. I blogged about his campaign at the time, it was teh awesome.

Besides being a bonified Progressive, Matt also holds a JD from Stanford so he’s not exactly a lightweight, dude.

Via Jeralyn, he writes today examining Obama’s voting record and past speeches.

I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I’m glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.  Read more 

Get ready for some sternly worded letters from the Dems.

But Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) disclosed during a hearing yesterday that the RNC has now said it “has no intention of trying to restore the missing White House e-mails.”

“The result is a potentially enormous gap in the historical record,” Waxman said, including the buildup to the Iraq war.

Mmmm. Taste the good oversight. But is anyone going to jail?

Nah, that would cause “partisan gridlock”!

“Things” (like Republican lawbreakers getting off scot free) wouldn’t “get done” in Washington.  Read more 

Asking to be attacked by right-wingnuts. She is also guilty of providing Rush Limpballs with an excuse to fall in love with The Mack.

Have folks learned nothing from the past 20 years? The Right Wing will attack any news story, news outlet, journalist, politician or individual citizen they feel is a threat to them. No amount of journalistic or personal integrity will prevent these attacks.  Read more 

Don’t miss Sadly, No!’s intrepid (and by intrepid I mean cojones the size of volkswagens) reporter Mister Leonard Pierce liveblogging from CPAC.

The crowd gives Dick a standing o, and, as a gang of bull-veined dudes in front of me start chanting “FOUR MORE YEARS!”, I get the sensation for the first time all day that I’m at something that could easily turn into a fascist rally. When the applause finally quells, Dick chuckles evilly. Can that be done? Is a chuckle even feasible as the delivery vector for evil? If it is, Dick Cheney is the man capable of pulling it off with finesse.  Read more 

So I’m having Super Tuesday Super Fun, watching The Coverage on NBC and they have Howard Dean in the satellite box.

Olbermann asks all the wrong questions, trying to work some gossipy angle about the Kennedy endorsement. Howard doesn’t bite and starts with the litany of policy issues to get his point in.

Then Tweety Matthews steps in to ask Howard a question. Out of nowhere, something they haven’t even mentioned before, Chris starts reading off “demographics” from exit polls that say most Dem voters have college degrees.

His point, which he stated explicitly,

“the Democratic party used to be the party of Unions, the working class, but now it’s all.. gentrified, isn’t it? What do you think about this gentrification of the Democratic party?”

What Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee should have said at this point is  Read more 

Ok, so I’m 2-3 days late but I would be remiss if I did not send out mad props to my San Francisco Bay Area blogpeeps.

For a Northern California perspective on all things national and local, there is no better collection of bloggers than the BARBARians (Bay Area Bloggers And Readers).

Just to name a few: Chuck Dupree, Generik, Paperwight, Tom Hilton, Scaramouche, The Freewayblogger, The King of Zembla, The Poorman AKA The Editors, Kvatch, You Forgot Poland, Dr. Laniac, PovertyBarn. If I have forgotten anyone I owe you a beverage.

As a group, I would wager we can drink any other progressive blog gathering under the table.  Read more 

Because I hate shit sandwiches. Having to choose the lesser of two evils, even in an effing primary, does not sound very Democratic to me.

I thought this year I would break my longstanding tradition of “protest votes” [I call it voting my conscience] so I switched from the Green Party to Democratic so I could vote in the CA primary. Then, just a couple of days later, John Edwards “suspended” his campaign. Thanks, dude!

The realization started building, and then I read something Lambert wrote: the fucking corporate media decided the election. By the time I am allowed to make my selection, in this our land of freedom and choice, the choices have been made for me.  Read more 

Just goes to show, if you want to know something, ask a (trusted, reality-based) blogger. This succinct explanation just in via email from Brian Leubitz of Calitics.com :

Here’s what I know. Edwards votes will count, but unless Edwards gets 15% in either the congressional district that you are in or the state as a whole, those votes won’t be counted for the delegate count. So, say in your congressional district Obama gets 47%, Clinton gets 45% and Edwards gets 8%, if you have a 3 delegate district (districts get between 3-6 delegates) 2 delegates will go to Obama, and one to Clinton, none to Edwards. Similarly at the state level, unless Edwards gets 15%, he won’t get any of the statewide delegate pool.

So, the votes will officially count, but they just won’t have a lot of meaning unless a lot of people vote for him.

For much more detail, see The Junkie’s Guide To The California Primary.  Read more 

[UPDATE: next installment in this series, specific to California]

Thank you alert reader Bringiton for finding an official source to explain at least part of the Edwards Primary Conundrum. You have won 5 free drink tickets redeemable at the Mighty Corrente Building’s Wet Bar.

Here’s the link to the relevant section of the Delegate Selection Rules For The 2008 Democratic National Convention:

13. FAIR REFLECTION OF PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES

A. Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants.

B. States shall allocate district-level delegates and alternates in proportion to the percentage of the primary or caucus vote won in that district by each preference, except that preferences falling below a fifteen percent (15%) threshold shall not be awarded any delegates. Subject to section F. of this rule, no state shall have a threshold above or below fifteen percent (15%).  Read more 

[UPDATE: see this post for official rules and continuing thread.]

Will votes for Edwards in the primaries be counted? Will they be thrown out? Will delegates be assigned to Edwards anyway? Will votes for Edwards be reassigned to the winner?

It seems to be different from state to state but I’m having a really hard time finding a definitive answer on State Democratic Parties’ websites.

I’ve started a thread on the John Edwards blog.

Xan posted a link to this site which seems to say that almost all States’ Dem primaries will assign delegates proportionally.

Does anyone else have a link to official info or to someone who has spoken to a named party official?

Glenn Greenwaldian UPDATE: Posted this at Big Orange as well, although at a low traffic time. Some more clues but nothing definitive yet.

Camper Van Beethoven covers Black Flag:

…if he gets the endorsement of ALL the Pointer Sisters AND the dude with the headphones in this video. Forget Ted AND Caroline Kennedy.

This one goes out to the farmer: