http://www.mrsuper.org/2008/05/florida-michiga.html

The history of the Florida/Michigan problem.

"I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running."- Bill Clinton today

Given that the Obama campaign continues to acknowledge the nomination is not decided and has not called for Hillary Clinton to drop out, wouldn't it be more disrespectful for them to simply ignore her and pretend the nomination was wrapped up? They would have precedent on their side though. Some presidential candidate in the past completely ignored his opponent prior to clinching the magic number for the nomination....

From the May 11, 1992 New York Times: "Aides to Mr. Clinton say that in most of the remaining primaries he will ignore the former Governor of California, Edmund G. Brown Jr., and will try to give voters a clearer sense of his own personality and his positions on major issues, in preparation for a general election campaign against President Bush."

To top it off, Clinton threw in another lie....

"She is winning the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence," Clinton said.

Fivethirtyeight.com has them both winning, mydd.com has them both winning, RealClearPolitics' national poll average has Obama beating McCain by more than Clinton is beating McCain. Don't let the truth override a good quote though.

How have gender and race affected the primary results? Are sexist voters costing Hillary Clinton this nomination? Using CNN exit polls, I determine how gender and race have influenced primary results. Of course, this isn't definitive because people can lie but since there is no reason to believe people lie more about one than the other, it seems like a pretty fair measure. Using data from 20 states, 11 that Clinton won and 9 that Obama won from different areas of the country, the results are:

Summary of results:
-Gender helps Clinton. In 18 of the 20 states, she got more of the vote among those who said gender was an important factor compared to the population at large. The only 2 states where she did worse were Alabama and Mississippi. In 9 of the 20 states, Clinton does 25 or more points better among those who said gender was an important factor.
Average Gender Benefit among Gender voters compared to Population at large: Clinton +21.7

-Race also helps Clinton not Obama. In 11 of the 20 states, she got more of the vote among those who said race was an important factor compared to the population at large. Obama did better in 8 of the 20 states. In Arkansas, voters who said race was an important factor had the same margin as the population at large. Obama did not do better than 15 points better among those who said race was an important factor in any of the 20 states. In Kentucky, Clinton did 30 points better among those who said race was an important factor compared to the population at large, her biggest increase.
Average Race Benefit among Race voters compared to Population at large: Clinton +2.05

**If you don't care about the details, don't bother reading below this point.**

Oregon Baseline: Obama 59 Clinton 41
Gender was important factor in vote (17% of voters): Clinton 55 Obama 45
Gender bump: Clinton +28
Race was important factor in vote (10% of voters): Obama 53 Clinton 47
Race bump: Clinton +12

Kentucky Baseline: Clinton 65 Obama 30
Gender was important factor in vote (16% of voters): Clinton 79 Obama 19
Gender bump: Clinton +25
Race was important factor in vote (21% of voters): Clinton 81 Obama 16
Race bump: Clinton +30

North Carolina Baseline: Obama 56 Clinton 42
Gender was important factor in vote (21% of voters): Obama 54 Clinton 43
Gender bump: Clinton +3
Race was important factor in vote (18% of voters): Obama 64 Clinton 35
Race bump: Obama +15

Indiana Baseline: Clinton 51 Obama 49
Gender was important factor in vote (16% of voters): Clinton 59 Obama 41
Gender bump: Clinton +16
Race was important factor in vote (16% of voters): Clinton 53 Obama 47
Race bump: Clinton +4

Pennsylvania Baseline: Clinton 55 Obama 45
Gender was important factor in vote (20% of voters): Clinton 72 Obama 28
Gender bump: Clinton +32
Race was important factor in vote (19% of voters): Clinton 59 Obama 41
Race bump: Clinton +8

Mississippi Baseline: Obama 61 Clinton 37
Gender was important factor in vote (28% of voters): Obama 69 Clinton 29
Gender bump: Obama +6
Race was important factor in vote (31% of voters): Obama 62 Clinton 36
Race bump: Obama +2

Ohio Baseline: Clinton 54 Obama 44
Gender was important factor in vote (17% of voters): Clinton 60 Obama 40
Gender bump: Clinton +10
Race was important factor in vote (20% of voters): Clinton 59 Obama 39
Race bump: Clinton +10

Texas Baseline: Clinton 51 Obama 47
Gender was important factor in vote (23% of voters): Clinton 60 Obama 40
Gender bump: Clinton +16
Race was important factor in vote (19% of voters): Clinton 52 Obama 47
Race bump: Clinton +1

Vermont Baseline: Obama 59 Clinton 39
Gender was important factor in vote (17% of voters): Clinton 67 Obama 33
Gender bump: Clinton +54
Race was important factor in vote (13% of voters): Obama 58 Clinton 42
Race bump: Clinton +4

Rhode Island Baseline: Clinton 58 Obama 40
Gender was important factor in vote (21% of voters): Clinton 75 Obama 25
Gender bump: Clinton +32
Race was important factor in vote (18% of voters): Clinton 65 Obama 35
Race bump: Clinton +12

Wisconsin Baseline: Obama 58 Clinton 41
Gender was important factor in vote (15% of voters): Clinton 63 Obama 37
Gender bump: Clinton +43
Race was important factor in vote (13% of voters): Obama 50 Clinton 46
Race bump: Clinton +13

Louisiana Baseline: Obama 57 Clinton 36
Gender was important factor in vote (24% of voters): Obama 54 Clinton 39
Gender bump: Clinton +6
Race was important factor in vote (25% of voters): Obama 53 Clinton 38
Race bump: Clinton +6

California Baseline: Clinton 52 Obama 43
Gender was important factor in vote (23% of voters): Clinton 70 Obama 26
Gender bump: Clinton +35
Race was important factor in vote (17% of voters): Clinton 61 Obama 38
Race bump: Clinton +14

Georgia Baseline: Obama 67 Clinton 31
Gender was important factor in vote (18% of voters): Obama 54 Clinton 42
Gender bump: Clinton +24
Race was important factor in vote (21% of voters): Obama 72 Clinton 24
Race bump: Obama +12

Tennessee Baseline: Clinton 54 Obama 41
Gender was important factor in vote (22% of voters): Clinton 59 Obama 33
Gender bump: Clinton +13
Race was important factor in vote (21% of voters): Clinton 52 Obama 42
Race bump: Obama +3

New York Baseline: Clinton 57 Obama 40
Gender was important factor in vote (25% of voters): Clinton 81 Obama 19
Gender bump: Clinton +45
Race was important factor in vote (18% of voters): Clinton 56 Obama 42
Race bump: Obama +3

Illinois Baseline: Obama 65 Clinton 33
Gender was important factor in vote (23% of voters): Obama 56 Clinton 42
Gender bump: Clinton +18
Race was important factor in vote (23% of voters): Obama 72 Clinton 27
Race bump: Obama +13

New Jersey Baseline: Clinton 54 Obama 44
Gender was important factor in vote (20% of voters): Clinton 72 Obama 25
Gender bump: Clinton +37
Race was important factor in vote (19% of voters): Obama 49 Clinton 47
Race bump: Obama +12

Alabama Baseline: Obama 56 Clinton 42
Gender was important factor in vote (28% of voters): Obama 56 Clinton 41
Gender bump: Obama +1
Race was important factor in vote (29% of voters): Obama 62 Clinton 35
Race bump: Obama +13

Arkansas Baseline: Clinton 70 Obama 26
Gender was important factor in vote (19% of voters): Clinton 71 Obama 23
Gender bump: Clinton +4
Race was important factor in vote (18% of voters): Clinton 68 Obama 24
Race bump: No change

And yet more proof that the Clinton campaign doesn't give a shit about Michigan and Florida and are only pushing for them out of self-interest. Bottom line is 4 years ago, Terry McAuliffe, as DNC Chair, took the exact same position on Michigan that Howard Dean and the DNC have taken this year yet this year, as a member of the Clinton campaign, McAuliffe has been vehemently calling for the exact opposite. It's a complete sham, typical of the Clinton campaign. Of course, this adds to the fact that Hillary Clinton was quoted AND signed a document saying that Michigan and Florida will not count and she will not participate in their primaries.

An excerpt from Terry McAuliffe's book:

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

A post by Michael Scherer on Time.com's Swampland blog...

"On Thursday afternoon, political reporters across the country received a gushing email from the Republican National Committee, with a big picture of Barack Obama next to the words “Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007.” It was a reference to the National Journal, Washington’s big-deal political trade magazine, which released its annual bipolar rankings of the Senate. The results: Hillary Clinton was the 16th most liberal member of the Senate. Barack Obama was #1.

For those Democrats who still have nightmares from the 2004 election, the importance of this fact is unmistakable. Back then, Republicans repeatedly tarred nominee John Kerry with the fact that he had been ranked as the #1 most liberal member of Senate in 2003. Could it all be happening again? If Obama is the nominee, you can bet on it. In point of fact, both Obama and Clinton are relatively liberal members of the Senate. But “most liberal”? That sounds a bit like being the drunkest guy at a Superbowl party—not something to be proud of in a general election.

The more interesting question, though, is, Does this “most liberal” ranking actually mean anything? And the answer, once you look at the National Journal’s methodology, is not really. I say this only because I got an email from Dave Meyer, a researcher here in DC, who is one of the many usually-unnamed people who toil behind the scenes in Washington brokering in information. Here is what Meyer wrote:

I actually browsed through the scorecard National Journal used to determine the ranking. There are precisely two scored votes where Obama took the liberal position and Clinton took the conservative. The first was Joe Lieberman's S.Amdt. 30 to S.Amdt. 3 to S.1 The Amendment was "To establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity." Here's the roll call of the 27-71 vote. Joining Obama on the "liberal" side -- meaning the side in support of Joe Lieberman's amendment -- were Republicans Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe Chuck Grassley, and John McCain.

The second was Jeff Bingaman's S.Amdt. 1267 to S.Amdt.1150 to S.1348, the Immigration Reform bill. The Amendment was "To remove the requirement that Y-1 nonimmigrant visa holders leave the United States before they are able to renew their visa." Here's the roll call of the 41-57 vote (60 votes needed to pass, so it failed by 19). Joining Obama on the "liberal' side were Richard Shelby, Chuck Hagel, and Tom Coburn.

So there you have it. Obama is more liberal than Clinton because he voted with John McCain, the most likely Republican nominee, and Tom Coburn, one of the Senate's most conservative members. Ain’t political rankings a wonderful thing."

Very little has changed since November. I guess it makes sense that my opinions of the candidates would stabilize after so many months of campaigning. I would still only endorse the top 4 candidates so anything after 4 is somewhat insignificant. The toughest decisions are from 5-8. Fred Thompson and Chris Dodd seem to benefit a lot from process of elimination.

1(1). Barack Obama (D)
2(2). Joe Biden (D)
3(3). John McCain (R)
4(4). Ron Paul (R)
-----------------------------------------
5(7). Chris Dodd (D)(tie)
5(6). John Edwards (D)(tie)
5(5). Fred Thompson (R)(tie)
8(8). Hillary Clinton (D)
9(9). Bill Richardson (D)
10(10). Mitt Romney (R)
11(11). Mike Huckabee (R)(tie)
11(12). Dennis Kucinich (D)(tie)
13(15). Mike Gravel (D)
14(13). Rudy Giuliani (R)(tie)
14(13). Duncan Hunter (R)(tie)
16(16). Tom Tancredo (R)

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/index.html

Net Worth of the Major Presidential Candidates:
Hillary Clinton- $34.9 million
John Edwards- $54.7 million (24 million in hedge funds)
Rudy Giuliani- $52.2 million (2 4+ million dollar homes)
John McCain- $40.4 million (surprising)
Barack Obama- $1.3 million
Mitt Romney- $202 million (18.7 million in homes)
Fred Thompson- $8.1 million

I think I've found the other America that John Edwards is always talking about. Does he really have 24 million still in hedge funds? That's just brutally bad.

What the hell is CNN talking about? I never bought the whole Clinton News Network thing but they are on fire tonight kissing Hillary's ass and knocking Obama.

Critique 1- Obama waffled on the licenses for illegals.

False. He gave a concise one word answer, YES. He said other things too and stressed the need and possibility of reform, that's not waffling. He never once said anything but that he supported it. Waffling is Hillary's nonsense from last debate.

Critique 2- Obama didn't admit the surge was doing well at all. (David Gergen, former member of the Clinton Administration)

False. He did cite the fact that the violence is down due to the increased number of troops in certain neighborhoods. He did (correctly) state that that was not enough though because we're supposed to getting political progress, not just less violence.

They also have made absolutely no mention of Hillary's huge error claiming that people who make over $97,500 getting a payroll tax addition would be a tax increase on the middle class when only 6% of people make that much which he called her out on.

I guess the media, or at least CNN, has decided that the narrative for this debate is the return of Dominant Hillary. What a joke.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani Friday criticized fellow White House hopeful Joe Biden for a lack of foreign policy experience and later denied making such an accusation.

The Republican front-runner was interviewed by South Carolina radio host Andy Gobeil. “You would say Sen. Biden doesn’t have foreign policy experience?” Gobeil asked.

“Has he ever been in the State Department? Has he ever been an executive?” Giuliani replied. “It’s one thing to speak about what you want or even pass laws about it, it’s another thing to actually do it. Foreign policy experience to me means being an ambassador, being in the State Department, being a law enforcement official, dealing with foreign countries.”

At an event later Friday morning, Giuliani denied saying Biden, a Democrat who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, lacked foreign policy experience.

“I didn't mention foreign policy,” said Giuliani. “I said Joe Biden fit into the category along with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and they were all questioned about this at the debate, but he wasn't, and here is the situation. They have in a very strange way - they have never run a city, never run a state, never run a business. Never run anything.” 

This has become the new battle cry for, not surprisingly, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. I guess John McCain is somehow not qualified to be President because he was only in the military and then in Congress for decades. I feel like this is becoming a "Rudy Giuliani said something stupid, let's talk about it" blog, but I promise he just does more things to bother me than any other candidate with Romney coming in a close 2nd.

In an unrelated story, I'm disappointed to hear that Obama has missed 80% of the votes in the last few months including the one on the Kyl/Lieberman act. Dodd, Biden, and Clinton have all missed 60-70% as well. Their current jobs should take priority over their campaign trips but it would be nice if a policy was instituted to let individuals campaigning for President vote away from Washington so they can do both.

-Not surprisingly, there was way too much pandering to organized labor. It's funny how they're so fierce in their criticism of lobbyists and corporations while discussing how wonderful unions are. Let's face it, unions put in their share of unreasonable self serving behavior. That's the major problem, the adversarial system of labor vs business. Also, I know the crowd didn't want to hear it, but sometimes comparative advantage does cause some jobs to move. Maybe companies should do more to help workers that they're screwing over but it's overreaching to stay that these companies should be held hostage by workers who would abandon them in a minute if they had a better opportunity.
-I wonder if the applause that Obama got/boos that Hillary, Dodd, and Biden got on Pakistan translate to the rest of the country.
-Lots of these people have great ideas, but sometimes I think they're being unrealistic with all of their promises. You can't just say "Well, we're going to leave Iraq and that'll save a ton of money." The fact is that the money spent on Iraq is not money that was shifted from other noble causes, it was money that probably never should have been spent in the first place. You can't criticize the deficit and say you'll divert all of Bush's spending to other forms of spending at the same time. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I think they're overestimating the power of the president to push anything through to make their plans sound better.
-It's time for Hillary to stop the "Why are we arguing? We all hate Bush" comments. I know she's the frontrunner and that's her strategy but it's becoming annoying.
-Only John Edwards even attempted to answer the question posed about what if Al Qaeda takes over Iraq. I guess they don't even want to say the words but they should be mature enough to admit that if Al Qaeda takes over Iraq, we might have to go back in. The point is that they don't believe that is going to happen and you make policy weighing the costs and benefits of what you think will happen not just the worst case scenario. Clearly they don't think Iraq is going to fall to Al Qaeda if we leave and that's why they're willing to withdraw some/all troops. They pretty much all ducked the question to give more Iraq rhetoric.
-Having regular people asking questions is a waste of time. Considering that virtually all of the audience questioners asked questions that were equivalent to standard moderator questions and did it in triple the time (they speak like they're looking at a broken teleprompter), it's not worth it. They have less than 90 minutes and they're using it to have people meander through their questions at a snail's pace. Just let Olbermann read the audience submitted questions.
-Speaking of audience questions, I was appalled how many candidates totally disrespected the questioners by ignoring their questions and talking about other subjects that they wanted to mention. I recall Biden and Clinton specifically and I think a few others might've as well. You wait all this time and have to build up the nerve to ask a question in front of thousands of people and they won't even answer you, that's just bad.
-It's time for the mics to be cut when candidates exceed the time limit. If you can't follow simple rules, maybe we shouldn't trust that you'll follow the Constitution and laws when you don't feel like it either. I know it's an exaggeration but seriously, follow directions.
-Without Mike Gravel stealing his thunder, Dennis Kucinich shined as Underdog.
-Another underwhelming night for Bill Richardson. I'm not a fan of any of the bold ideas he offers.

A good post by Tom Bevan on the RCP blog that pretty much encapsulates the whole Pakistan situation and last night's developments. I haven't watched it yet, I'll make some comments later.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/08/common_sense_vs_strategic_ambi.html