Thank you Paul, and good luck with your new job. I'm still in shock to see that you are leaving. Josh pulled a Bushie with this - announcing sad news late on Friday. It is sad news too, but in the long run it will, I'm sure, be good news for ProPublica. (One more place to be sure to monitor.)

Posted at May 16, 2008 9:14 PM in response to Thank you, Paul Kiel, and good luck!

The national democratic committee did not unilaterally determine the order of the primaries or their dates. The committee negotiated with all of the state democratic committees and got their unanimous agreements to a compromise proposal that resulted from the negotiations. Every single state democratic committee approved the resulting rules. It was then their responsibility to abide by those rules, or petition successfully to get the rules changed. A few states did petition for changes and were approved. Michigan and Florida didn't do that. Worse, they essentially gave the upraised finger to the national committee and laughed as they went their own way for their own reasons.

Furthermore, all of the Democratic presidential candidates agreed to abide by the decision of the national committee to enforce the agreed upon rules. Only Clinton, of the serious candidates, violated that pledge by refusing to withdraw from the Michigan race. Neither Clinton nor Obama could withdraw in Florida since state law prohibits that. But, both agreed not to campaign in Florida.

Posted at May 16, 2008 12:17 AM in response to Clinton admits she's ok with overturning the will of the voters

Political parties are us. At least this is true for the Democratic Party. We vote for local "Democratic Central Committees", which in turn vote for state Central committees. And, the state committees vote for national committees. Anyone who wishes to do the brutally hard work required can run for and get elected to any of those committees.

Posted at May 16, 2008 12:08 AM in response to Clinton admits she's ok with overturning the will of the voters

No. Most delegates are selected by the different campaigns. They are as solidly in favor of their candidate as is humanly possible. The chances of even one of them changing his/her vote is minuscule. Further, I do believe most states insist that their delegates honor their pledges for the first vote at the convention, and some insist that they honor the pledge even longer. This subject is discussed during every broadcast of the convention and is always explained the same way.

The super delegates can vote for whomever they please, for whatever reason they want. But, all of those are elected to some extent, either by their state party committees or by the people, so they are answerable to those people. Don't expect to see an uprising by super delegates.

Posted at May 16, 2008 12:05 AM in response to Clinton admits she's ok with overturning the will of the voters

Well, George W. has settled the argument about whether a President needs to be able to speak while short of sleep. First, George W. is never short of sleep, and second, he never speaks well, neither on the campaign or in office. So much for that.

We have endured almost a 6 month run of primaries now. I have seen, at a distance, and I'm not even certain it was him, Obama, but not Senator Clinton or Edwards, so seeing the candidates isn't a concern either.

I feel I know the candidates as well as I ever will - I don't know them at all. And, they could do an Iowa campaign here in California for the whole 6 months and that wouldn't change. It is foolish to expect 150 million people to "know" the candidates.

Skeletons belong in the ground with the rest of the remains.

Posted at May 15, 2008 12:41 PM in response to Five Reforms for the Democratic Party's Primary Process

Bingo! Israel is good for making money for our armaments industry. Thus, a great ally. Who cares if people die - as long as money gets transferred fast enough to the wealthy elite here. And, it is our money being transferred.

Posted at May 15, 2008 12:41 AM in response to Iran: What's the Game?

Traditionally the vice president does nothing beyond helping get the president elected. And, any experience that candidate has will likely be unknown to the average voter. So, I think, still, that the VP candidate needs to be someone who puts another couple of states in play.

Richardson may be that person, or Napolitano, except for giving bigots two reasons to vote against Obama. Wes Clark is a classic example of a VP, but I don't know what states he puts in play.

After long, hard thought, I decided to allow Obama to make this choice.

Posted at May 14, 2008 10:14 PM in response to Jim Webb for Not VP (the veepstakes parlor game continues)

No one seems to have thought of the most obvious reform - eliminate the party conventions as the means for selecting the candidates. As it stands now, it is those conventions that decide who becomes our candidates, and all we do in the primaries or caucuses, is select the delegates to the conventions.

If we add restrictions or dictate the manner of selecting the delegates, including who goes first, we might as well just use democracy, which our nation claims to love so much, to select the candidates.

The office of the presidency is a national office, and all citizens need to have the right to vote for that person. That means we get rid of the Electoral College, substitute a national primary, or series of primaries, without regards for parties, and have a run-off election in November. But, perhaps our universal love of democracy is more a matter of PR than reality?

Posted at May 13, 2008 9:26 PM in response to Five Reforms for the Democratic Party's Primary Process

I find it extremely embarrassing that I/we used to make jokes about the "trials" in the USSR, and condemn their legal process. Now I find I can't see any differences between what we found so funny, in a black humor way, and so disgusting about the USSR system and our own "justice" department.

President Obama will need a million gallons of bleach to disinfect that "Justice" department next year.

Posted at May 12, 2008 3:43 PM in response to Politicizing Gitmo: A Timeline

If Senator Clinton is on the ticket with Obama, the ticket might win New York by 55% to 45% instead of 52% to 48%. So what? In either case Obama gets all of NY's electoral college votes. The same is true for California, etc. What a vice presidential candidate might be able to do is change Nevada from 49% Obama to 51% Obama, or Florida from 48% Obama to 50.1% Obama, etc. Senator Clinton can't do that. Her support came from strong Democratic voting states by and large.

I don't think Kansas will go for Obama if Gov. Sibelius is VP candidate, so that isn't of value either. My problem is that I have no idea who could make the needed difference and bring in a couple more states for Obama - possibly Arizona's governor? That is the question Obama needs his staff to work hard on.

Posted at May 11, 2008 10:02 PM in response to Obama - Clinton ticket. Why it isn't nuts.