Ed, I agree, take a look at her other posts. She is even singing the praises of Cindy McCain in her previous comment.

That demonstrates a somewhat remarkable degree of flexibility. One minute dissing Obama for not being hardline enough on withdrawal and the next puffing the warmonger party.

I really do not see any inconsistency between Obama's statement today and his earlier pledge to begin a withdrawal in 16 months.

There is clearly nothing that Petraeus can say to Oabama that is going to cause him to change his mind and decide that it is in the interests of the US to occupy Iraq for 100 years. It is not Petraeus' place to make such assessments, they are political considerations, not military.

If Petraeus tells Obama that there is no way that the US can withdraw under any circumstances the next questions are going to be how fast he can clear his desk after the inaugural.

But that is not going to be what Petraeus says to Obama.

Posted at July 3, 2008 5:31 PM in response to No, Obama has not shifted on Iraq

The problem with what Clark said is that it is highly offensive to POWs to imply that getting caught by the enemy makes you less of a soldier.

The reason it is so offensive is of course that it is essentially true. We don't make Presidents out of Generals who lose battles or captains who lose their ships, so why make one out of a fighter pilot that lost three planes, only one of which was in combat? McCain was never on track to be a flag officer at any point in his career.

I think the McCain people have seriously lost the plot here. By returning to this again and again they merely remind voters that regardless of how brave McCain might have been, he got caught by the enemy. That isn't a disqualification as President, but it isn't a recommendation either.

One has to wonder if McCain's warmongering (bomb, bomb, Iran) hasn't got something to do with wanting to redeem his sense of personal failure in the military.

Posted at July 1, 2008 7:11 PM in response to No Apologies From Obama For Wes Clark's Comments

I disagree, I don't think they are gaming the system. Drug addicts with a history of pilfering drugs from their own charities like Cindy McCain are not exactly renowned for attention to detail.

Posted at June 29, 2008 6:09 PM in response to McCains Delinquent On Tax Bill

I think its a calendar issue. HRC was still in with a chance up to the Texas and PA votes. If she had been defeated then it would have been easy to withdraw. But she won, and the problem is that she won at least one contest on each of the days they were held since.

Winding down a campaign is not as easy as the net-roots imagine. Obama has to win the nomination, a concession would be an anti-climax.

The question now is how to manage the final choreography. The problem with HRC giving a concession speech today is that it would tread on Obama's victory lap. So they have to play it carefully.

What happens this week is going to be choreographed and managed between the two campaigns.

Posted at June 3, 2008 1:21 PM in response to Why Does Hillary Continue? Because It Strengthens Her Emotional Grip On Her Supporters

Even the 'non-elected' delegates are subject to intra-party election. But I suspect its the fact that they are not directly elected that makes less willing to commit before the race is over.

Given the idiocies of the system I don't think that anyone could really criticize the Senators, Congressmen, Governors etc for tipping the election one way or the other if the pledged delegate count is close. Some folk would huff and puff about it being a travesty but it really is no worse than the process in the caucus states.

Its the unelected DNC membership who are under real pressure here. They can tick off either side by moving ahead of the base.

Posted at June 2, 2008 12:43 PM in response to The Obama Countdown, should be over Tuesday

Well bang goes Hilary's last remaining hope for winning the nomination: if Obama had accepted McCain's invitation of taking a Baghdad stroll.

Posted at May 27, 2008 5:55 PM in response to Obama Says No To Baghdad Stroll With McCain

I suspect that this is a troll. But no, bashing AIPAC is not bashing Israel. The AIPAC position is supported by at most 25% of Israelis they are frequently well to the right of Likud.

It works both ways, AIPAC want Israel to be dependent on them as well. It is a minority position but there are some Israeli politicians who argue from time to time that US foreign aid comes with too many AIPAC strings attached.

Posted at May 27, 2008 8:38 AM in response to Obama's 'Jewish problem' is not being dependent on AIPAC

This is wishful thinking on the part of the TPM team. There is no reason to give any quarter here. Obama has no real choice but to give in on this point.

Greg's argument is that the Clinton folk have to bend because the outcome would be disastrous for the party otherwise. On the contrary, that is why the party leader has to compromise. At this point that would be Obama.

You don't play brinksmanship unless you know you will win if they pull the trigger.

There never was a chance to keep the delegations out of the convention. Outside the Obama camp there really is no belief that excluding two critical states is a matter of principle, its just shooting the party in the foot.

So maybe she of the pantsuit wants a symbolic victory before quitting the race. Let her have it. The race will be won or lost with the superdelegates at this point. Obama has them locked up unless he makes a blunder. Even with the two states and Puerto Rico, Clinton cannot make up the difference.

Posted at May 21, 2008 6:57 PM in response to Hillary: I Might Take Fight Over Florida And Michigan To Convention!

So the DNC made a silly request and one of the candidates recognized it as idiotic and responded appropriately. The other made a mistake.

The DNC does not make the rules for seating the delegates. The convention does. Those are the rules. They always have been the rules.

The DNC cannot disqualify any delegation, every decision by the DNC is subject to being overturned at the convention.

If team Obama want to be rules wonks than they need to actually read and understand the dynamics of the convention.

The delegation was always going to be seated. Obama's refusal to participate in MI and FL was no great act of moral courage either, he knew Hilary would win those states and wanted to do whatever he could to disenfranchise those votes.

The rules are the rules and the rules are that any candidate with 15% on the rules committee can bring a minority report to the floor and there is no way that the convention is going to block a motion to seat delegates elected in a democratic contest that both candidates had an equal opportunity to participate in.

The dynamics of the process are that Obama does not need to exclude the delegates. Ergo there will be an agreement to seat the delegation. But even if that put him behind in the pledged delegate count it would still be a mistake to resist.

Hilary's only real chance at winning the nomination would be if there was a floor fight over seating the delegations. Obama would then loose that fight because superdelegates are not going to vote to deny seating the delegations just to give NH and Iowa their happies. The superdelegates have political reasons to court FL and MI independent of this contest. Besides which they get to split their ticket and claim they backed both sides.

Hilary might just be able to carry the momentum from that win to carry the convention.

Its a long shot but its the only one she has.

Posted at May 21, 2008 5:34 PM in response to The DNC asked candidates to remove their names from MI and FL ballots

I think you are way off base here Greg. The rules committee is going to seat the FL and MI delegations precisely because it does not matter. At this point there is no real reason for the Obama camp to oppose.

While people are going on about 'the rules' as if they are sacrosanct here. The fact is that the rules make it abundantly clear that there can be no final decision on the matter until the conference. Those are the real rules, not what the Obama camp or the blogosphere claims. All it takes to bring the issue to the floor is a 15% minority of the rules committee willing to vote to report it to the floor.

Since a divided convention is clearly a disaster and since Clinton certainly has the 15% necessary to force the issue the only real choices Obama has are to accept seating the delegations and put a happy face on it, or attempt to delay the decision to a point when they can tell if it would matter.

Obama cannot oppose a motion to seat the delegations at the convention without causing harm to his own position. Once it goes to the convention it becomes an up/down vote, no ammendments.

The priority for the party at this point is not to protect the unjustified position in the nomination process of Iowa and New Hampshire or pander to the factions in the blogosphere who are going to vote the same way regardless. The group that Obama has to win over now is the Clinton demographic.

There are three more contests either way and Obama is almost certain to come out on top in terms of pledged delegates either way.

Posted at May 21, 2008 1:26 PM in response to Obama Campaign's Post-Oregon Tally: We're 62 Dels Away From Nomination