From reading a variety of articles on this issue, I'm convinced all the head-counting on the Credentials Committee misses the point: if HRC is determined to get a floor vote on this issue, she can (a 20% threshold is just not going to be out of her reach). Politically, however, a floor vote on the minority report would put BO (through his delegates, of course) in the awkward (to put it mildly) position of being officially opposed to letting Fla. and Mich. participate.

Thus, what's really happening here is a game of threat and counter-threat: BO's supporters are telling HRC to drop out now so she doesn't destroy the party in the fall, and HRC is countering that if she doesn't get her way on Fla. and Mich., she'll insist on a floor vote that would probably destroy the party in the fall.

This problem has two potential solutions that do not require a negotiated agreement (which is not going to happen): 1) BO wins enough pledged delegates and superdelegate endorsements to let Fla. and Mich be seated as is; 2) HRC runs out of money, and throws in the towel.

I'm betting (and hoping) one of them happens long before any floor vote.

Posted at March 31, 2008 5:30 PM in response to What Is This Thing Called The Credentials Committee?

"It cannot be argued that the "risk" of litigation costs or damage awards is a "new" concern in 2008. The question is why the telecom General Counsels did not incorporate this risk, and demand immunity or contrat language which would shield them from suit at the outset. Oh, that's right: Such a "thing" is called a warrant."

Not so fast: a commenter over at Kevin Drum's claims that he is familiar with telco practices and that there is no way they failed to get an indemnification agreement. For the non-lawyers out there, that's basically a contract saying if you get hit with damages, I (the U.S., in this case) promise to pay the bill. So the whole "telco's must get immunity or they won't cooperate in the future" argument is probably a charade; what's at stake for the Admin is killing the trials off before any discovery takes place.

Posted at March 4, 2008 5:47 PM in response to The Telecoms and The Big, Bad Lawsuits

"This poll actually looks like good news for Clinton . . . which suggests that she might manage to hang on to a narrow lead until next Tues."

Depends on whether you focus on winning the popular vote or catching up in the delegate count. Although the Clinton campaign would no doubt try to spin a six-point win as a vindication, the truth is it would be more like the end: she cannot come close to catching up in the pledged delegate count with such victories.

And there really isn't any good argument why the remaining unpledged superdelegates would all come out for Clinton now, based on a relatively narrow win in Ohio. Those who wanted to get on the Clinton bandwagon had plenty of opportunity to do so long ago.

Posted at February 26, 2008 2:57 PM in response to SurveyUSA: Hillary Ahead By Six Points In Ohio Primary

Well, there may be more to the Paxson/McCain story than that. Check out
http://www.techliberation.com/archives/043365.php
(from Yglesias' site) for some interesting events in 2004. Whether or not there's anything to the McCain/Isemann relationship -- and whether or not it had ended by then -- McCain seems to have changed his position on a key issue in a way that was critical to Paxson.

Posted at February 21, 2008 6:08 PM in response to What Did McCain Actually Do for Iseman's Clients?

The fact that she's only got 44% of the vote looks like a real danger sign (for her) to me. Conventional wisdom says that an incumbent with less than 50% in a poll is vulnerable. Given HRC's prominence, she is, effectively, the incumbent in a poll taken this far in advance of actual in-state campaigning. Assuming the race gets that far (which is doubtful, really), she could well lose Pa.

Posted at February 21, 2008 12:39 PM in response to Poll: Hillary Up By 12 In Pennsylvania, Obama Catching Up

"Bradbury, the Justice Department official who heads up the Office of Legal Counsel, is testifying before a House Judiciary subcommittee this morning. And he made an unexpected argument when Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) asked him whether waterboarding violated the law against torture."

Anybody who didn't see this argument coming just hasn't been paying attention. The crew over at Balkin's blog has highlighted the Admin's emphasis on the claim that physical suffering must be "prolonged" (which finds no support in the statutes, by the way) for quite some time.

And as for these supposed "strict time limits," "safeguards" and "restrictions," anybody want to bet whether the videotapes -- which have, for some reason, been destroyed -- would show those limits and restrictions being ignored?

Posted at February 14, 2008 3:51 PM in response to Justice Dept. Official: CIA Waterboarding Was Subject to "Strict Limitations"