This response from the McCain camp wasn't finally about foreign policy. It's yet more guilt by association, which is all the Republicans are likely to have this year.

What would Senator Obama talk about with such a man?

Subtext: "such a man" = Ahmadinejad, Ayers, Wright, Rezko . . .

Posted at May 16, 2008 2:41 PM in response to McCain Responds: Americans Have "Every Reason To Doubt" Whether Obama Can Keep Us Safe

I agree with RobbyLove. I think it was appropriate and useful to bring it up briefly. But the point has been made and doesn't have much life beyond that.

The moral side of it isn't clear-cut enough. The patriotism part is tough to go with because Obama runs the risk of suggesting that attacking him is like attacking the country. Beyond that, it starts to look like procedural nitpicking.

After today, I would let that part of it go. Obama himself, at least. The policy differences and the outing of neocon foreign policy as empty and ineffective are what you want people to take away from this finally.

Posted at May 16, 2008 2:25 PM in response to Obama Hits Back: Debate With McCain And Bush Over Foreign Policy Is One "I Will Win"

Your country disagrees with you:

"Democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule, coupled with individual and minority rights. All democracies, while respecting the will of the majority, zealously protect the fundamental rights of individuals and minority groups."

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/what.htm

Maybe take a look at Article XIV of the U.S. Constitution while you're at it.

Posted at May 16, 2008 12:54 AM in response to Obama Reaffirms Support For Same-Sex Unions

Yep. This gives Obama yet another topic he can start by saying, "John McCain and George Bush think . . ."

Posted at May 15, 2008 5:23 PM in response to McCain Blasts Obama As Unfit To Defend America

As others have said, this isn't about Obama vs. Clinton. It's about Obama vs. McCain. More and more groups and people are recognizing the reality that Obama will be the Democratic nominee. When are they allowed to stop waiting for Clinton, who as of last night is still talking about delegates changing their minds at the convention, to recognize it?

Posted at May 15, 2008 11:44 AM in response to NARAL Affiliates Question Mothership's Endorsement Of Obama

No name-calling, but I will point out that your logic here basically precludes anyone who previously advocated for one or the other candidate from transitioning, once a winner is clear (now), to advocating for party unity.

We're not going to get very far like that.

Posted at May 15, 2008 11:20 AM in response to NARAL Affiliates Question Mothership's Endorsement Of Obama

Concerning the guy with the boxing gloves in particular, HuffPo had a story today with pictures showing the same guy in both PA and WV, so he must be a campaign volunteer or something.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/logan-nakyanzi-pollard/whos-that-boxer-in-the-pi_b_101753.html

They do all do this to some extent. But I couldn't help but notice the guy with the bowling pin last night, too.

Posted at May 15, 2008 2:28 AM in response to A Mathematical Challenge

I don't think she would have any problem with that. It's the only way she can win at this point and she's been setting the stage--arguing for a while now that perceptions of electability should the final arbiter in the process.

This is also a good example of the sort of doublespeak she's been doing starting with her speech the night of the NC and IN contests.

On one hand, she's saying what the party seems to want to hear: We'll have all this sorted out and be unified in a few weeks, etc.

On the other hand, she's also slipping in that "they can go to the convention and change their minds," etc., which kind of belies her seeming conviction that it'll all be worked out in a few weeks.

So this makes me wonder what her intentions would be between June 3 and the convention in August, even if she "suspends" her campaign. It just sounds like she hasn't resigned herself to truly stepping aside once Obama clinches the nomination (which looks like a certainty the way things are going), even though she's suggested she would.

Hopefully it'll just end up being a lot of sound and fury.

Posted at May 15, 2008 2:09 AM in response to Clinton admits she's ok with overturning the will of the voters

an unprecedented rout

You mean WV? How was this unprecedented? Just in this primary race Obama has won by this or greater margins in several states.

It had nothing to do with the numbers

It had everything to do with the numbers. It became even more evident that Clinton couldn't catch Obama in the pledged delegate count, most obviously.

The press has never driven a candidate out like this before, regardless of how long a shot

Seriously? The press runs candidates out every primary election cycle. Howard Dean would be a recent example. Some (Kucinich, for example) they never even let in in the first place.

If the press is so invested in Obama, how do you explain the relentless beating they gave him on the Wright and "bitter" flaps? It takes a really short memory to make a claim like this of overwhelming media bias towards Obama.

Posted at May 14, 2008 11:49 PM in response to I Will Dispute It

As U.S. News demonstrates, there are scenarios you can concoct that give Clinton the popular vote lead. There is disagreement about whether or not those concocted scenarios are realistic (I'm not sure they are), but they can be arithmetically concocted nonetheless.

And it's true that superdelegates carry just as much weight when it comes to the hard math as pledged delegates. And it's reasonable to think (based on anecdotal evidence taken from the comments of at least some undeclared superdelegates) that one of the variables that could factor into superdelegates' decisions of whom to endorse is popular vote. (Or at least some version of counting the popular vote. It's credibility as a factor arguably is compromised by the subjective aspect of the various ways of estimating it in this primary process.)

So I agree that the fact that the ultimate measure of victory in this primary is delegates doesn't yet invalidate the argument that the question of "popular vote" is still relevant to the question of who will ultimately have more total delegates.

But, recognizing that, I think many suggestions or implications that Clinton should drop out could be considered at least reaonable because the odds for Clinton have become sufficiently remote that folks have a sense that most reasonable candidates wouldn't persist in the face of them. That's a reasonable position based on an assessment of the lion's share of historical precedent, even if Clinton's defeat isn't an absolute certainty quite yet.

So I think any calls for her to drop out at least deserve to be recognized as reasonable, while admitting they're not irresistable. I think a call to get out, at this point, is in fact more reasonable than Clinton's justification for staying in. But I'll admit that view is based in part on some of the subjective assessments still at play here.

Posted at May 14, 2008 10:55 PM in response to I Will Dispute It