Much as I hate to disagree publicly with my cobl-ogger, circumstances have forced me to admit that Adrian Belew actually kind of sucks.
Wait, no no, wait, that’s not what I meant. “Circumstances” should be “Jon Chait”, “have forced me to admit” should be “makes a reasonably good case”, “Adrian Belew” should be “Hillary Clinton”, and “actually kind of sucks” should be “would do us all a favor if she knocked it off”. To wit:
Clinton’s path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama’s elected delegates might break off and support her. [blah blah Hitler something something thanks Jon]
Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn’t necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton’s kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost–to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months–uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. [blah blah Dooooooom! Doooooom!]
Unlike Mr. Chait, I don’t think Hillary’s continued candidacy means the end of the world (also unlike Mr. Chait, I can call Marty Peretz a crazy racist shithead: the advantages to being me? Endless!), but given that there’s no particularly plausible way for her to win the nomination that doesn’t involve giving a giant middle finger to a massive, newly energized activist core that had until quite recently not been part of the Democratic party at all, given further that she’d be giving a merely average-sized middle finger to the Democratic nominating process as we have so ineptly imagined it, and given finally that (were she to (however unlikely said outcome might be) win (by (no okay it’s not actually) cheating)) she’d have a knock-down drag-out fight with Sky Captain Andy Rooney on her hands — a fight in which she would have preëmptively ceded to her opponent the values of wisdom, commander-in-chiefiness, and maverickaliscitude — hey, listen, maybe we Democrats should find a way to work together this election?
No? Okay. Back to my coma. Good luck in September, seniors!
March 7, 2008 at 2:36 am
Sources tell me you both hate Belew, even on or perhaps especially on, “Thela Hun Ginjeet”, “Matte Kudasi”, “Sleepless”, and “Three of a Perfect Pair.” So that means that you agree.
March 7, 2008 at 3:16 am
Try the 1984 filmed “Absent Lovers”, KC live from Montreal on album or DVD, youtube, etc.
March 7, 2008 at 5:13 am
The longer this goes on, the more I feel like McCain is going to win after all.
If McCain can win after 8 years of Bush/Republican perfidy, I’m not sure if I’ll be able to see the point of voting in future elections.
March 7, 2008 at 6:22 am
As a lone rhinoceros, I can tell you there aint one hell of a lot of us, left in this world.
March 7, 2008 at 7:26 am
Latest word is that as Michigan gets closer to announcing a caucus to seat its delegates, Hillary is saying that a caucus is not “acceptable” to her. But seating the delegates she “won” in an imaginary primary, one she agreed would not count but in which she nevertheless, against agreed procedure, left her name on the ballot, while all others withdrew their names – that would be hunky-dory.
The Michigan-Florida debacle is going to get very ugly. Dean has already told Bill Nelson (FL-Hillary) that the DNC is not going to pay for a do-over primary in Florida. Given that primaries in each of the states are expected to cost in the neighborhood of $20 million, it’s highly unlikely that we’ll see a do-over primary in either of them. The DNC flat out doesn’t have the money, and it’s hard to imagine either state funding a primary. But both states have a right, or should have a right, to seat a delegation to the convention – Hillary has been saying this for weeks now. I guess she only believes their voices should be heard if they support her as the result of imaginary primaries.
Caucuses not “acceptable”? Fine, Hillary, then let your campaign foot the bill for the do-over voting. Or accept that the results aren’t going to count, as you agreed before it became clear that you had no chance to win without them.
Disenfranchising the voters, it turns out, is really not that big of a deal if it will get Hillary what she wants.
If the nomination was “won” by gaming the system to count imaginary primaries in which other candidates were not on the ballot…that would be the one thing that would keep me home in November. I just can’t see the point in showing up to vote for someone who has used Bush tactics to win. In that situation, we might as well let the Republican win, given that his only agenda will be dealing with the fallout from the Bush years.
March 7, 2008 at 7:39 am
She just said that only she and McCain have the experience to be commander-in-chief. WTF? Must be a sign of desperation. No Democrat should ever say anything good about any Republican. What if that experience involves fucking up over and over?
March 7, 2008 at 7:43 am
But what if actually more Democrats vote FOR Hillary than vote for Obama? Does that mean nothing? To Democrats? OTOH you could say, yes, but we have electoral colleges and all that rot. 3 electoral votes for Wyoming, even.
Fine, then decide primaries JUST LIKE the general election – winner take all.
March 7, 2008 at 7:47 am
And Adrian Belew may suck in some ways, but not as a guitarist.
March 7, 2008 at 8:02 am
secondharmonic – the only problem with that calculus is that everyone knew going in that some states have primaries and others have caucuses, and that primaries/caucuses are not winner take all. What we have here is an attempt to change the rules of the game after the game has been played. I’m sure a lot of Super Bowl and World Series losers would love to have the opportunity to change the rules after the fact, too; the problem is that rules that don’t mean anything can never produce a clear winner.
As for the “more democrats voted for Hillary than Obama” since 1) non-Democrats don’t turn out or participate in Democratic caucuses and 2)primaries are conducted by secret ballot, you’d have a hard time proving that “more Democrats” voted for Hillary than Obama.
The bottom line remains that it would probably be best to leave things as they stand, ie don’t count Michigan or Florida, much as that may suck for the voters in those states. Those were the rules going in. In lieu of keeping the status quo as it now stands, though, I don’t see where Hillary has the authority or a leg to stand on in demanding that caucuses are not “acceptable”, unless she’s willing to put up the cash to run primaries.
March 7, 2008 at 8:49 am
No actually the Rules committe changed the rules to keep Fla in line. The standing rules were if the state changes the date of the primary, THEN 50% of the delegates get seated. Those are the facts, ma’am. The DNC rules committee changed the standing rules to keep Iowa and NH so far in front.
Now when I say Dems, I mean ‘voters in Dem primaries’. IOW – the total number of voters. IF Clinton ACTUALLY receives more votes than Obama — are you just going to say tough shit, lump it, just like in the general? I am talking about what is FAIR what is ETHICAL, rules or no rules, which seem already to have been applied in a rather curious fashion
AND FINALLY, if you are such a stickler for rules, guess what? The superdelegates are PART of your standing rules. So WHY complain then when superdelegates will ultimately decide who wins? My argument is that , ethically, the superdelegates can either decide 1) to go with the one who has the most votes; or 2) the one who would win under electoral college (i.e. general election) rules, since that would most closely mimic the general election result.
March 7, 2008 at 8:58 am
here’s some links to the deal: from the redoubtable zenferret h/t
Florida/Clinton wants to change the rules now? Nope, they were trying to do that before the first vote was cast.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1016/p01s01-uspo.html
The lawsuit says the Republican-led legislature and GOP Gov. Charlie Crist moved the primary from its traditional March date to January after the DNC had announced the penalties for setting primaries before Feb. 5, a window reserved under Democratic rules for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.
“A suit against the state is on stronger ground than a suit against the party,” says Guy-Uriel Charles, an election law specialist and co-dean of the University of Minnesota Law School. “Because one might say that the state moved the primary up specifically to deprive these voters of their rights
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/election_2008_florida_democratic_primary
Florida’s Democratic Primary is mired in controversy. In May, a state law set January 29 as the Primary date even though national committee rules said it could not be held before February 5. The Democratic National Committee then said that Florida’s delegates will not be seated at the Party’s convention unless it abides by the rules. The national party leaders encouraged leading candidates to avoid campaigning in Florida and all the candidates agreed. However, Clinton and Obama have each accused the other campaign of bending the no-campaigning rules and local activity has generated a substantial level of early voting. Clinton has recently called for all of Florida’s delegates to be seated at the Convention and even flew into the state for fundraisers and photo ops.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2007/06/nelson_florida_.html
The Republican-led Legislature advanced the state’s primaries to Jan. 29 from their usual March placement with the support of many leading legislative Democrats, who said the move makes Florida more of a national player.
But the Democratic National Committee has refused to back down from its longheld threat of sanctions, prompting state leaders for a time to consider making the primary a non-binding vote with the real Florida contest to be decided in party caucuses at a later date.
That idea, though, was rejected last weekend by Florida party leaders who said they were sticking with Jan. 29 as the date to decide the state’s primary winner.
U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, Florida’s top elected Democratic official, said he supported the decision and that the state party’s hands are tied by law.
“The law is the law and Floridians have to obey the law,” Nelson said.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0807/Florida_primary_found_noncompliant.html
During the debate, Donna Brazile, a DNC member from D.C. who was campaign manager for Gore-Lieberman in 2000, said: “I understand how states crave to be first. I understand that they’re envious of the role that Iowa and New Hampshire have traditionally played. And I understand that they would like to see if they can get the candidates to come down and … spend all of their time and the resources and fill their bars – oh, sorry, not the bars! – fill their farms and their barns up with people. But the truth is is that we had a process. … That vote will stand … and send a signal to the people of Florida – which includes my sister, who had to show not one, not two, but three forms of ID in 2000.”
This is where the DNC admits it changed the rules it had
already established to punish Florida worse than the DNC’s
own rules established:
http://florida-delegates.com/pages/dnc-position/senate-statement.php
Under the DNC delegate selection rules, if a state party’s plan violates the rule with respect to timing, the number of its pledged delegates-those delegates awarded proportionally to candidates based on the primary or caucus results-is automatically reduced 50% (without any action by the RBC or DNC); no member of the DNC can attend the Convention as a delegate; no Member of Congress can attend the Convention as a delegate; and if applicable, the state’s Democratic governor can not attend the Convention as a delegate. In addition, any presidential candidate who campaigns in the state for the event in violation of the rules cannot receive any pledged delegates from that state. In addition to these automatic sanctions, the DNC RBC has authority under the rules to impose additional sanctions, including further reductions in the state’s delegation.
At its meeting on August 25, 2007, the DNC RBC found Florida’s plan in noncompliance with the DNC rules, and voted to increase the sanctions against Florida by reducing the state’s delegation by 100% unless the state party, within the 30-day period allowed by the Committee’s regulations, submitted a plan for an alternative, state party-run process on or after February 5 that would be used to allocate delegate positions. To date, the DNC’s efforts to enforce the rules have been, except as to Florida, successful in preventing other states from scheduling events prior to February 5 in violation of the rules, thereby preserving the calendar as adopted by the Party, maintaining order in the primary and DNC Written Testimony to Senate Rules Committee on S. 1905 caucus schedule and preventing those states allowed to hold events prior to February 5 from moving their events even earlier. The DNC remains fully committed to enforcing its rules as adopted and to achieving the goals set by the Price-Herman Commission in recommending, for 2008, the primary and caucus schedule adopted by the DNC.
March 7, 2008 at 9:01 am
Count: Y’all don’t like Adrian Belew.
Pointercount: Frank did:
Game, set, and match to Mr. Belew.
March 7, 2008 at 9:18 am
I also think that McCain needs a lot more attention focused on him, and soon. I don’t believe that he is really fighting for the spotlight. Rational republicans know that he’s much better outside of the spotlight. Because the idea of mccain is a helluva lot better than the reality of the angry, rather feeble, imprecise, emminently unimpressive white guy.
March 7, 2008 at 9:53 am
Does NOT suck:
Clucks, yes, but not suck.
A swarm of 40,00 missile-tipped helicopters approaches, vengeance in mind.
Saying Adrian Belew sucks is like calling Geddy Lee Canada’s premiere basso profundo.
Like Geddy Lee giving lecture denying the existence of the doppler effect.
Oh look! A Flock of Seagulls!
Seagulls can’t suck, though. But a flock of them…
March 7, 2008 at 10:00 am
Paul McCartney likes him too:
Hillary WHO?
March 7, 2008 at 10:13 am
What happens when you don’t center your heli-dragon plot around AirWolf:
http://io9.com/363878/dragons-vs-helicopters-+-who-wins?autoplay=true
AirWolf is THE SuperDelegate.
March 7, 2008 at 11:57 am
Don’t give too much credence to the raw number of primary votes Hillary received. Here in Texas a large number of Repubs voted as Dems this week because they feel McCain can beat Hillary, whereas against Obama Mcain can only tout his age and lack of melanin.
There are some rich Dem donors . . . why can’t several of them get together and agree to underwrite REAL primaries in FL and MI?
March 7, 2008 at 11:58 am
secondharmonic – all of that is well and good and does nothing to refute what my point was, which was: both Florida and Michigan primary dates rolled around, came, and went with 1)the state parties being fully aware of the DNC sanctions and 2)the agreement of the candidates that those states’ delegates would not be recognized. Those were the rules on game day, fair or not, and they were agreed to by all the candidates.
The die was cast long before the first vote was cast in either state, and the “will of the voters” will no more be reflected by retroactively changing those rules and seating the delegations based on the voting in those pseudo-primaries than if the delegations are not seated at all, for obvious reasons already discussed.
So the options are: stick with the rules as they stood on primary day in both states (do not seat the delegations) or hold a do-over primary or caucus. Primaries are not likely due to the cost and Clinton says caucuses are “unacceptable”, though why one person should be able to dictate expenditure of some $40 million for primaries simply due to a perception that she will benefit remains to be explained. In reality, if both states held do-over primaries, it probably will not change the outcome, since Clinton will probably take Florida and Obama will probably take Michigan, and in both cases, delegates are awarded on a proportional basis anyway.
Not to mention that Michigan usually does a caucus for delegate selection.
So there is no “fair” solution. Seating the delegations when one candidate flouted the agreement and had her name on the ballot in one state when all other candidates did as they said they would do and removed their names is not going to fly. One candidate says that the most economical solution – caucuses – which is how one of the states usually chooses the delegates anyway – is “unacceptable”. And it’s hardly fair to raid either state’s treasury for $20 million that could go to schools or other needs to satisfy the desires and ambitions of one person. Not seating the delegations at all deprives the voters of both states of having a say in the nomination.
So which one of these unfair solutions are you advocating? Because that’s the only point that I’m not clear on, given that we’re not discussing the issue of superdelegates here.
March 7, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Don’t forget The Lone Rhino also got the thumbs up from The Talking Heads…
and David Bowie…
ADRIAN RULES!
March 7, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I agree with much of what you are saying Tristero. Though I think y’all are getting a little far in the weeds about this stuff about the rules.
I want Hillary to stay in. I also wish she would sling even more mud.
Obama need to be able to deal with constant unfair and dishonest attacks on his character, his ideas, and his family. If he can’t deal with that then he doesn’t have any business running for the nomination.
Do any of you seriously think that what Hillary is doing is even a patch on what the Republicans will do to Obama in the general?
March 7, 2008 at 1:18 pm
secondharmonic–
Florida/Clinton wants to change the rules now? Nope, they were trying to do that before the first vote was cast.
I had no idea that the Clinton campaign and the Florida party are the exact same thing. To see how that might be the case, I followed the link you provided: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1016/p01s01-uspo.html
Oddly, nowhere does it mention the name “Hillary Clinton.” It is almost as is Florida wanted to change the rules then, but Clinton only wants to change the rules now. Now, why would someone conflate those two? Could it be to trick those who don’t follow the links? Well, my guess is that this is indeed the case. So you will excuse me for not going beyond that part of your comment: I don’t much care for following deceptive premises to their logical conclusion.
March 7, 2008 at 1:29 pm
1. Belew doesn’t suck, though his joining King Crimson marks the decline of that band, IMO. Fripperonics is the peak of Prog Mountain; you’ve got nowhere to go but down.
2. Otherwise, more-or-less what secondharmonic said, and what Frank said, times like fifty. Hillary is a longshot. Obama appears to have the votes and mojo to win. If Hillary can kneecap him at this point – among Democratic voters, no less – this is the kind of weakness I’d like to see exposed now, as opposed to November, when it will suck a lot more. I don’t like Hillary – I find her pandering especially irritating, and I think she’s used her position for remarkably little positive good for the country – but I respect her willingness to be absolutely awful in a fight. Everytime she is compared to Karl Rove and/or Machiavelli, I like her a widdle bit more. David Carr’s got all the tools and gives great workout and he’s a number 1 draft pick and all that, but David Carr can’t win NFL football games, because David Carr blows. Do not favor the David Carrs of the world over somewhat annoying sixth-rounders who can win tough games.
March 7, 2008 at 2:21 pm
With the exception of what Jennifer said. Hillary may well get screwed by this (get fewer votes than she would have had those 2 states not decided to fuck themselves), but rules is rules.
March 7, 2008 at 2:49 pm
“rules is rules.”
Which was Jennifer’s point, no?
March 7, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I was reposting from zenferret, but the link says that Florida Legislature changed the rules w/o the Party having much say about it. And with the voters — Democrats I presume — getting screwed. Digby agrees with me that 50% of the delegates should be seated as is. She is FOR Obama. I just want to point that out as she seems to be a reasonable person, unlike those who call Paul Krugman shrill.
Now, as for whether more Repubs are crossing over to vote Hillary or vote Obama, you don’t know and I don’t. But a lot of the exit polling BEFORE Texas suggests to me that if they were doing so, it was for Obama. Maybe by the time Texas rolled around the GOP changed strategery… I don’t know, and unless you have access to the GOPs supersecret blastfax to their stooges at Freerepublic and elsewhere… you don’t either.
March 7, 2008 at 3:05 pm
And ‘rules is rules’ also implies that superdelegates are going to decide this. Given the facts on the ground.
So then, it does boil down to either arguments about fairness (ethics), or arguments about practicality. In which case delegates ought to be apportioned about like electoral votes, in my opinion.
March 7, 2008 at 3:10 pm
c.a.t. the point is sarcastic, zenferret asks: “Clinton /or Florida) are changing the rules? ” — and he gives the link as his reply that the Dem Party was trying to get an exception (because of what the legislature which is GOP did) already before the first vote was cast. He doesn’t believe HC was trying to change the rules. And neither do I. Perhaps I should have quoted the whole post further. But you misunderstand his and my point completely.
March 7, 2008 at 3:12 pm
The DNC rules being that 50% ought to be seated. Now the DNC can change this, and did so, as a punitive measure. But why punish people who weren’t responsible for it?
March 7, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Florida screwed us in 2000, so what’s new? And no one who plays for the Bears sucks. Remember, ‘Fear is Never Boring.’
March 7, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Big Electric Cat was indeed cool, youse guys.
And the video was *acid*.
March 7, 2008 at 3:33 pm
secondharmonic – the primary date set by the Florida legislature was also voted upon by Florida Democratic state legislators, a majority of whom voted in favor. I agree it sucks for the voters, but at this point in time, there’s no way to seat any of their delegates based on the non-primary without it stinking of a fix. And certainly you know as well as I do that if Obama’s had been the only name on the ballot in Michigan he would have “won” the non-primary, and if Obama had “won” the most votes in the Florida non-primary, Clinton would be arguing that those delegations should be excluded.
Look, I have no problem with Clinton as the nominee – if she wins. And that means without applying new metrics to decide who the winner is, such as your suggestion w/r/t “who the most Democrats voted for”, by which I assume you mean “let’s tott up the popular vote totals nationwide and nominate whoever comes out on top.” We didn’t do that in 2004, 2000, etc etc etc, because that’s not the way the nominating process is set up. And again, those are the rules we had on game day. If you want to change the rules, you have to do it before the game gets underway. Otherwise, you have the refs changing the rules halfway through to throw the game one way or the other, and again, that stinks. I’ve had about my fill of the DLC and would not at all be sorry to see their candidate go down, though I would vote for her if she won the nomination fair and square by the rules set before the process got underway. But if the “win” was only accomplished by gaming the process and bending the rules to produce the desired outcome? I would stay home in November.
March 7, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I have completely lost the ability to say what I mean. This is frustrating. Maybe I can still make charts:
point ————- agree —- disagree
Frank ————– X
2ndH ————– X ——————– X
2ndH, let the –X
voters decide
2ndH, let HC ————————– X
have MI & FL
Jennifer ——– X
One way or the other, this seems inevitable. But what I mean by ‘rules is rules’ is that you can’t change the rules now. Arguments about ethics v. practicality are essential, but are not appropriate discussions to bring up in the 4th quarter, to labor the NFL analogy. Yes, whatever the result, somebody’s not going to be happy, and they’ll have a decent argument. The party will have to do some amount of work to smooth that out. Maybe they will decide on a less absurd system for 2012, though that’s not how its trending. Changing the established rules now won’t help things.
March 7, 2008 at 3:40 pm
No, I guess I can’t make charts, either. Anyway, when in doubt, what Jennifer said.
March 7, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I am not saying HRC should have Mcihigan and Fla, just 50% as — which was the status quo ante, or the rules as they were before the rules committee went back and decided to screw FLA and Mich. Or even just 50% of FLA, and let Michigan do its own thang.
But as I seme not to be able to make clear. The superdelegates will decide this. Ergo some arguments must be made to them. You can choose ‘will of the voters’ as an ethical stand. If there is some other stand that is ethical, I would like to hear it. Becaus eotherwise it is the ‘will of the pledged delegates’ which is a little less than the will of the voters, being a different and more cumbersome and more insidery process. In other words, plurality of pledged delegates doesn’t cut it as an argument for me. Leading at the beginning of the fourth quater doesn’t entitle you to declare the game a victory. Especially when the score is 30-28.
You can choose ‘the most likely scenario to get us a victory in November’. Then you have to look at the electoral patterns. And you might see that Obama won a lot of states that are not going to go blue.
If you tote up the electoral votes, and I have seen a lot of maps Obama where supposedly does better. Well, we’ll see what the polls look like in August, shall we?
March 7, 2008 at 4:09 pm
And the bill to move up the date in FLA? The moving of the daate was a rider attached to a bil allowing for a paper trail in voting that yes the Dems wanted and had to vote for, don’t you think? The rider the amendment was attached by the GOP leadership in committee and not part of the original legislation. A poison pill.
March 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Frippetronics is the peak of Prog Mountain
[elven tea spew]
What time signature is that in then?
March 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“what Jennifer said.”
Jen-ni-fer! Jen-ni-fer! Jen-ni-fer!
Clap-clap-point! Clap-clap-point!
March 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm
If I wanted Clinton to win, I would make just that argument, and be careful to elide the fact that Clinton’s popular vote lead is due to Obama – and everyone else but Clinton – withdrawing their names from consideration in Michigan and did no campaigning in Florida, in deference to the DNC’s right to make their own – admittedly rather stupid – rules. If I were dedicated to getting Obama in, I’d emphasize and conceal the opposite facts. If one or the other argument carries the day with the SD’s, then one or the other candidate wins easily. If it’s a wash, then Obama likely wins by a small margin. I’ve got no ethical problem with either outcome, or if there is a general agreement to follow some other course, like a ‘do-over’ in FL and/or MI. My only objection is to one party changing the understood rules after play has ended, and seating delegates which it had already been determined would not be seated. This screws the people who abided by the process, and undermines the – again, admittedly already compromised – integrity of the process. This would be the worst possible outcome.
March 7, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Let’s see if the new KC with Levin, Fripp, Belew, Gavin Harrison, and Pat works out before we bury the King.
This election is over. Hillary isn’t the opposite of David Carr, she’s like someone who didn’t get drafted showing up for practice in a self constructed foil helmet.
Given:
1.) The SD’s aren’t going to overturn the plurality of voters. There’s too much risk for too much cost.
2.) This doesn’t reveal any major weakness in Obama’s proverbial armor, only in Hillary’s psyche.
3.) Jennifer is beautiful and I love her.