Burning Down the House

With today's buzzin about the Sunday Shows going around the internets, I've decided to re-post our SupaSecret Campaign Memo we obtained earlier in the Month of March.

Here it is:

7 Steps for Successful Close to the Campaign, March 5th edition:

(1) Run out the Clock. No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed until it is ripe for execution. Do not discuss the end game but merely state that things are either going as planned or better than expected. Hillary can’t catch up in the pledged delegates so the race is all about momentum now. Reduce his while creating it for her. Winning states is preferable to losing but losing is still OK. Remember the Clinton campaign is the underdog and Obama is a magic media darling. So if Obama can’t knock Hillary out, he’s a loser for failing to close the deal. Play to the end and dismiss any talk of the delegates because the delegate count is irrelevant. And never let them see you sweat (I’m talking to you Wolfson).

(2) Attack. A new ruler must determine all the injuries that she will need to inflict. She must inflict them once and for all. The only path to the nomination is to win ugly. To that end you must do whatever is necessary to bring Obama’s positives down and drive negatives up. The Obama is a Muslim rumor plays well. So does the Obama as lightweight meme. Create a negative narrative about Obama (preferably about a perceived strength) and push it.

(3) Work the refs. You must propel the propaganda. Aggressively push the media to present your narratives. Criticize the media as biased when they fail to play along. Chris Matthews is your friend if you feed him right. He’s also a fool you can bash and claim victim status if he fails to play along. This is a win-win.

(4) Win the message of the day. Political chaos is connected with the decay of language. There is a story of the day every day – write it, control it, spin it, and push it relentlessly. If an Obama campaign worker gets a parking ticket, imply that Obama is a scofflaw, if that’s your narrative. If the narrative is that Obama is a lightweight empty suit, say if he can’t even control his staff, how’s he gonna be the leader of the free world. It does not matter how trivial the issue is, fit it into your narrative and push it relentlessly.

(4) Get Inside. It is better to appear virtuous than it is to be virtuous. Ensure that loyalists and double agents are placed on the key committees that set the rules at the convention. Delegates can be challenged, denied the vote, and the game can be rigged. It has been done before, notably at the 1912 republican convention when party insiders denied the nomination to the popular vote winner, Teddy Roosevelt. This is a delicate maneuver so the appearance of fairness should be maintained whenever possible.

(5) Change the rules. The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present. HRC won the vote in two states (MI – FL) that are prohibited from allocating delegates to the nomination convention. These states violated party rules and lost the right to send delegates to the convention. It does not matter that the candidates did not campaign there or if Obama’s name was even on the ballot. The Voters cannot be disenfranchised by their party, especially the Florida voters who were disenfranchised in 2000. Obviously, the rules must be changed (see step 4, above) and these delegates must be seated.

(6) Embrace the Smoke Filled Room. The Automatic Delegates (formerly known as Super Delegates) need to understand the consequence of their support or lack thereof. Appeals to virtue should be embraced and appeals to vice should be tacitly extended. There are always deals to be made and arms to be twisted whether they involve the carrot, the stick or both. And remember .....there is something on everybody. Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption. He passes from the stink of the dydie to the stench of the shroud... There's ALWAYS something. There should be no doubt in the mind any Automatic Delegate on the consequences of their conduct.

(7) Burn the Damn House Down. Politics have no relation to morals. Winning isn’t everything, it is the only thing. If the steps above have failed to secure the nomination you must be prepared to sacrifice the Party for the greater good. Great accomplishments require great risk. Here, division will be our ally. We are prepared to divide the party, shatter it along racial, sectarian, and demographic lines. Then we claim the bigger half. And from the resulting chaos, we will conquer and claim HER rightful place. In the end, Hillary is running against John McCain one way or another whether it is in 2008 or 2012, after McCain has beaten a fatally damaged candidate…....so leave no stone left un-cast. Al Gore is not our role model; there will be no Al Gore Style Concession Speeches.

With our new insight to upcoming delegate de-credentializing debaucle, here is the rest of the strategy, all laid out.

The Tonya Track

The Tonya Track is going the wrong direction












The Source.

Update: What ever happened to Tonya?

Last I heard she got arrested for beating up her boyfriend with a hubcap.

A New Axis

An Interesting Alliance has formed between Clintonites, the Talk Radio Right and the Conservative Elite. These parties and their wingnut footsoldiers form an Axis, I suppose.

All speak the same talking points and share a similar goal. These days it can be virtually impossible to distinguish a Red State Wingnut from a Clintonite by their respective use of rhetoric when reading the comment boards on the internets. Since these groups have combined forces, maybe there is a new group of people who qualify to be labeled as wingnuts. Perhaps they are all wingnuts now.

Right now, we have a new name for this alliance of Clintonites, Wingnuts and Conserva-gensia.

The Big Three are now named:

THE AXIS of the INCOHERENT.

UPDATE: Turns out the axis of incoherence has already been penned; I'll have to think up a new name. Until then we'll just reconfigure it a little.

More Retrospection

Remember when the airwaves were full of Jokes about France? Here are a couple circa 2003:

"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get Hitler out of France either." --Jay Leno

"The last time the French asked for "more proof'' it came marching into Paris under a German flag." --David Letterman

CPA Order Number 2

Some Retrospection at the 5 Year point in the war.

Boy this one was a doozy. And to this day, nobody knows who approved the order to disband the Iraki Army.

That's right. Nobody knows, .... including the President.

The Tonya Harding Option

Today we learn about Hillary Clinton and The Tonya Harding Option, which is another way to describe The Burnin Down Da House Strategy we have talked about before here. So now Hillary is cast as the new ............ Tonya Harding?

First Sinbad and now Tonya. Ouch.

UPDATE: Turns out a new source lends some confirmation to the Bosnian Adventure Tale.

Book of the Day, Question of the Day

I read Nicholas Lemann’s book, Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War, about a year ago after it was published. And I’ve been thinking about the book’s central points and the situation we find in Irak since then.

Redemption is set mainly in Mississippi directly following the Civil War. We learn the violent realities of the Reconstruction Period, seeing newly enfranchised African Americans, exercise political power for the first time in coalition with a fledgling Local Republican Party and pro-reconstruction Whites. This “fusionist” coalition faces a backlash from groups of former confederates and white supremacists.

With a large black population within the state and with federal troops to keep the peace, the Fusionists are initially successful at the Ballot Box electing Republican candidates. But eventually through a combination of terrorist tactics, time, and withdrawal of Federal Troops, the former confederates coalesce around the Democratic Party and eventually win control of the levers of government. “Redemption” is thus achieved. And the South has now overturned the War's results war just 12 years after the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse. What follows: jim crow, segregation and the like, are history.

Depending when and where you went to high school, this is not a new tale. But where I found it new and informative is in the documentation of yearly declining precinct vote tabulations in response to successive acts of organized violence. Remember recent “Vote or Die” marketing campaigns designed to get young voters to the polls? Well, back then it was “Vote AND Die” in some areas. And you can see this pattern unfold, as Republican Party vote tabulations in some heavily African-American precincts fall from, say the 1300 votes from 2 years prior to just 3 votes during the next election.

But anyway back to Irak. And the point is this: our nation spent 12 years nation-building within our own borders and failed. This all occurred in a nation with a shared history, a somewhat similar economy and common language. The only force that held the Mississippi together during Reonstruction, was the presence of Federal Troops and a tenuous respect for order. And after the troops left, order broke down along the old lines. It would take almost another 100 years, before African Americans were set on the path to equality. Compare this history to the situation we find in Irak, with its differences in ethnicity, religion, tribal loyalties, language, shared histories, culture, geopolitical rivalries and other factors not listed here.

The moral we can take away is that it is exceedingly difficult to transform culture by bayonet point. It is rather the dynamics on the ground and the slow march of time that ultimately determine the outcome. So what's next for our involvement in Irak? We all know who screwed up it the past. But determining the path forward, is the real issue requiring a meaningful national dialogue.

Our government ultimately failed in its nationbuilding in Dixie. Is Irak a difficult but achievable long term project or is planting a liberal democracy in Irak merely a "fools errand?" This is your Question of the Day.


C-SPAN has an hour long interview with the author here.

A new breed of Wingnut???

I've been thing about the Dem race lately and Obama's insurmountable lead with the elected delegates and this scene keep coming back to me. Courtesy of Animal House (the movie):

D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: [whispering] Germans?
Boon: (also whispering) Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough..........................................the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! [runs out, alone; then returns because nobody follows]

What the fuck happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer -

Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
D-Day: Let's do it.
Bluto: LET'S DO IT!! [They go out and reek havoc.]

In real life, however, Hillary is not a Delta House Member. I can more readily picture her hanging with Dean Wormer and that crowd. Marmalard, anyone? The problem now is that Hillary's fans (they gotta be reaching wingnut classifications) have decided that they are gonna be the ones to decide when "its over."

Anyway, when you hear some Clintonite saying in a serious tone that the Victory is Around The Corner, or that there is light at the end of the tunnel ..... you don't gotta take em seriously. They are either going to destroy the party to win the nomination or bow out .

Kubler-Ross

With Hillary mathematically eliminated in the delegate count, and absent a Macaca Moment or a shenanigan at the Convention, this race is over.

One thing that keeps coming back to me when thinking about the Hillary campaign is the Kubler-Ross Model of the Five Stages of Grief in response to a tragic situation. In the current instance it is the death throws of the Clinton campaign.

The stages are in this order:

• Denial - Hillary can't lose!
• Anger - Shame on you. Shame on you Barack Obama!
• Bargaining - If we can just win landslides in every state from here on out.... also Michigan! & Florida!
• Depression - We dooooomed. McCain will win.
• Acceptance - oh well, hopefully there's still 2012

It seems to be getting closer to stage 5 with every day. But will there be a shenanigan?

Honesty Gap

Apparently there is such a thing as an honesty gap.



The Source.

Be careful of what you wish for.....

The Burning Down the House Strategy may present a new opening for a flagging GOP initiative.

Now it has been an ongoing initiative of the GOP to carve away portions of the Democratic Party’s Base. As an example we can look at the Social Security Privatization Initiative. This initiative was designed as much as anything as an attempt to reduce the loyalty of current and pending social security recipients to Democratic Party. As it was planned, privatization would create future retirees who would become dependent and loyal to the magic of the market place, money managers on Wall Street and their backers in D.C., i.e., the GOP. So the Privatization Initiative was really a three for one: over turn a big part of the new deal compact, hobble the Democratic Party and create a whole new generation GOP voters.

Turning back to the Burning Down the House strategy and its potential side effects. As recently as 2005, then GOP chairman Ken Mehlman initiated various outreach efforts attempting to woo African American community leaders to reconsider their relationship with the Democratic Party.

During these outreach efforts, Mr. Mehlman would note that the “Party of Lincoln” has not always acted like the Party of Lincoln. He would also play up various GOP initiatives such as commitment to family values, improved student test scores, and increased home ownership as issues that the African American Community may find appealing. Historically, when allowed access to the ballot box, there have been periods where the Black vote was split between both parties and that competition for the Black vote now is healthy for the nation.

In remarks before the NAACP in 2005, Mehlman noted that about 90 percent of blacks vote for Democrats in most national elections. And he said Republicans themselves were partly to blame. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mr. Mehlman told his audience. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong." Alluding to the rise of the Republican Party in the South since the civil right movement nearly a half-century ago, Mr. Mehlman said that "if my party benefited from racial polarization in the past, it is the Democratic Party that benefits from it today."

OK, Mr. Mehlman is not telling us anything new. So there are a variety of reasons why African Americans don’t support the GOP at the polls, some of which Mr. Mehlman touches upon. As a matter of fact it is axiomatic that the decision to implement the Southern Strategy to benefit from racial polarization makes voting for the GOP a nonstarter for many, not just African Americans. See, you can’t capture all the old time segregationists in your coalition then expect to bring in African American voters at the same time.

But here is the rub. Underlying this whole issue is, that in the marketplace of ideas, in the political area, competition for YOUR vote is ultimately beneficial (relative term, I know) to you and your demographic group. The theory goes that if there are multiple parties competing for your vote, the more likely that those candidates will be inclined to implement policies that you believe will inure to your benefit.

So what to make of this? The GOP can say they want your vote, but can they offer any incentive to pull the lever for the GOP? Well two convergences are lining up that may give a portion of the African American community a reason to give the GOP another look.

FACTOR ONE – BURN THE DAMN HOUSE DOWN

We’ve learned by studying the Math that Hillary has a statistically improbable chance of catching up to Obama in an above the belt fight. But say Hillary is successful and manages to wrest the nomination from the hands of the candidate that won the most states, won the most votes and won the most pledged delegates. Would she suffer any negatives effects after taking the nomination away from a popular Black Candidate?

From the PPP yesterday, we start to get a picture of the potential effects. Polling Data in Florida indicates that Hillary manages to pull only 51% of the African American vote against a potential match against McCain. Remember Mehlman’s statement, above, that there is a routine 90-10 split of the African American vote between the D and the R in a presidential election? So either something strange is going on here or it appears that Hillary’s decision to go negative is having a real impact on African American voters. Continued dishonest attacks and mudslinging will make it increasingly difficult to improve these numbers. Increasing use of Reverend Wright will also not help. But increasing negative attacks are actually part of her Burn Down the House Strategy.

Of course in politics one does not have to fight fair. Winning dirty and winning ugly is still winning, but winning ugly can begat its own negative consequences. HRC polling at 51% with African Americans in Florida is not a good sign for her.

FACTOR TWO – REBRANDING OF THE GOP

Now this Rebranding has not started happening yet on a meaningful scale. But it’s gonna happen one way or another because the GOP brand is a tainted brand and has to be re-tooled in some manner. The key will be the direction the rebranding goes. Conceivably it could go toward a Western - Socially Moderate - Fiscally Responsible - Don’t Fence Me In - brand of Republicanism. Or the alternative is to go the Stay the Course Route, but now fortified with competence and personal responsibility. This is a tough one, but, hey, Rush Limbaugh has said nominating John McCain will destroy the party as it currently exists. So maybe he’s on to something. The GOP brand can’t get much worse off than it currently is.

That aside, the nomination of John McCain as the GOP standard bearer brings an opportunity to clean out some of the crazies who been calling the shots and serving as the public face of the party. First McCain can distance himself from Bush somewhat (yes I know Irak is still there). But remember he and Bush only have a marriage of convenience. And he has to do this if he is to have a chance of winning. He can sack the remaining Southern Strategy folks from the Party leadership roles, a lot of them are passing way with the passage of time anyway. He can push the Party to a show Public Face that is more socially moderate and less draconian and in the process move the image of the party closer to the center.

Ya, I know it’s hard to turn a battleship. It takes some time. And there are entrenched interests and movement conservatives to deal with. But do you think the party activists will cut McCain some slack, if the alternative is President Hillary? Republicans usually fall in line. There is no reason not to expect the same this year.

So with these factors converging, a Candidate McCain with a reputation of candor with an assist from the Mehlman wing, can present a case to dissatisfied African American voters to give him a second look. And no, he does not have to win the African American Vote, but if Hillary only pulls 51% or 61% or 71% of the vote with some folks defecting and others staying at home, she’s doomed.

We know that saying, promising and doing are different things. But the door is opening a bit here due to an unlikely source, i.e.,……HRC.

Quote of the Day

Today marks the 5th anniversary of the War in Iraq.

And in recognition of this day we check in with Ronald Reagan for this blast from the past: "Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root."

And while Ronnie is talking about the pending fall of Communism, the lesson we can take away from this quote is that the US cannot alone be the impetus of the new and democratic Iraki state. A State established without the consent of the governed will either not stand for long or will not become a liberal democracy. It is only the actions of people of Irak that can bring about an open and inclusive democracy.

Some folks have told us it may take 100 years to assist (best case scenario that is) the Iraki people as they transition Irak into a liberal inclusive democracy......... and their estimate may well be right.


In other news today: President Bush declared "a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror."

Just Speeches

I couldn't watch the Obama speech today but just finished reading it.

Wow.

That's it. Can't say much more now.

UPDATE: The Video:

LATER UPDATE: The vibe I got some of while reading the Obama speech, was the Cooper's Union Speech. Course I read teh Cooper's Union speech long, long ago and should do it again sometime some for perspective sake.

Interesting Radio Interview

When Opportunity Knocks.

After Rush Limbaugh endorses Hillary Clinton in the Texas Primary guess who calls in for a "surprise" interview on the Rush Limbaugh Radio Program (guest host that day) on the very day of the Texas Primary.

Headline of the Day

The Wall Street Journal headline today: Markets Jittery Following Bear Deal, Fed Move.

Sub-Headline: Bush: ‘On Top of the Situation’ in Markets.

The WSJ also reports that Bush is open to more government action if needed stating: “...'When need be, we’ll act decisively' to bring order to financial markets."

I think we all feel reassured now.

Delegate Updates

Today, Obama increased his delegate count from Iowa caucuses by seven. This comes as a result of the switch of 7 Edwards delegates to Obama.

Adding to the 16 on Caucus night, Obama's delegate haul from Iowa is now 23. Clinton remains at 14 and while seven held for for Edwards, with one yet to be decided.

Yes, I know math is an overrated discipline. But since the Clinton Campaign threw down the Texas-Ohio Big Time Delegate Catch Up Gauntlet, Obama has increased his delegate lead by 16. I think this is the opposite of what the the Clinton camp predicted they needed to do to win.

But MoJo is now her strategy. She's gotta burn down his, because she can't raise up hers. This is another example of the straits the Clinton camp finds its self in. So their path to win the nomination is apparent.

They gotta burn down the house.

Update 3/16/08 - Media Reports now put the number of delegates that Obama has gained in Iowa at Ten (10) . This shifting in Iowa erases the nine (9) delegate advantage that Clinton gained over Obama in Ohio. Obama has gained a net 19 delegates since the Texas-Ohio Gauntlet.

On Math, On Facts, On BS

Facts can be stubborn. We notice this from the posts below discussing the relation between delegate math and the need to burn down the house. But let’s look at another situation where math gets in the way of one’s belief system.

For most adherents of supply-side economics, math is an unserious subject. It is to be eschewed at all cost and replaced with platitudes. Among the adherents who most strongly eschew math, we find members of the Professional Political Class and their disciples. To this sectarian group of adherents, there is firm and faithful belief in the precept that reducing the amount taxation that taxpayers send to the government results in the government actually receiving more tax dollars from these same taxpayers. Simply put, when taxes are cut, tax revenue always increases. The adherent will go on to advocate that as a result of the tax cut, more revenue becomes available for important spending priorities such as roads, infrastructure, government programs and the like.

Sounds pretty good, right? The Government can give everybody a tax cut and at the same time this tax cut fills the country’s coffers. So in troubled times say these adherents, such as structural budget deficits, the solution would be to cut taxes to raise revenues and get the budget back up toward balance. But we have a problem here. How can reducing tax revenue result in a corresponding increase in tax revenue? To demonstrate this fallacy, let’s say that taxes were cut to ZERO. Would Tax Revenues BOOM and the budget be balanced with in the blink of an eye? Of course not. The math does not work. By way of example, five (current tax revenue) minus one (thee tax cut) does not equal six as some of sect claim. It is clear, however, that for every dollar in taxes cuts, tax revenues decrease by some factor near or under one dollar.

But I have mentioned there is a sectarian chasm separating Supply Side adherents into differing camps. This sectarian split is well documented here. But the Chasm can be quickly summed up as a conflict between the Professional Political Class, their disciples against those in Academia, the business community or those who otherwise do not want to be laughed at if they ever publish a text book. Those from this camp, e.g., Academia, will tell you that cutting taxes can result in some positive gains in economic productivity and produce a corresponding level of revenue growth. They can give many reasons to support certain tax cuts for differing circumstance. But they will not tell you that tax cuts per se raise tax revenue.

Now I have not said that it is wrong to cut taxes. In fact, there are instances where cutting taxes is both beneficial and responsible. I leave this subject for those who practice the art of economics to debate. In this post, I have merely stated the obvious, i.e., that those who argue that cutting taxes always produces miracles are not to be believed. And those who advocate such miraculous tax magic are intellectually dishonest, in many cases, or under/mis-informed in others. So when you listen to arguments in favor of cutting taxes you always have to consider the source.

This all leads up to some important news regarding The Lair......maybe an Award ceremony is coming soon. More to come on the later.

UPDATE: Still working on the award of the first Willard Award. The Willard is an award not lightly achieved, so I have to be extra diligent in its rightful award.

Victory Strategy, Again

The dilemma the Clinton camp has, is that is has to DESTROY Obama. But if they go too far, they get screwed too.

Here is the way one GOP Insider has called it:

"If the Clinton people knee-cap Obama, it would be like killing Santa Claus Xmas morning in front of the children. The children won't forget or forgive."

So all the 'children' i.e., the young voters, independents and disillusioned Republicans will have a grudge to hold HARD against HRC. Add in any discontent among members of the African American community and she's gotta general election problem against McCain.

If Obama still wins the nomination, this is ultimately OK with team Hillary, too. See, after making Obama unelectable, they have 4 years to make up for this mischief and still challenge McCain in 2012. But will the children ever forget her Xmas morning mischief?

Victory Strategy

From a top shelf super duper inside source (that you can access via the internets using the google) we learn the inside dope from the HRC campaign.

At a donor call yesterday, the HRC campaign laid out its Victory Strategy: Swinging the SupaDelegates. The HRC campaign reassured their donors by presenting a three prong approach for swinging the Superdelegates. According to the internets, the three prongs are spinning:

• The pledged delegate count,
  
• The popular vote totals, and
  
• The specific states won by each candidate.

We'll see how this plays out. HRC has a long way to go with the first two bullet points, but ahhh, the third bullet point is subjective. So if this is the legitimate HRC strategy, (or maybe just talking points to separate more $ from the donors) expect to hear surrogates extolling the virtues of Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania. Also expect surrogates to tell us which states (and their voters) are unimportant.

UPDATE 3/13/ 08: Clinton Surrogate Ed Rendell tells us today at the Clinton Conference Call that: "............. superdelegates have always had the responsibility for fielding the strongest candidate...And we've got to get the strongest candidate. And if she wins Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida on top of all the other big states she won, if she wins the key states that are going to decide the election, let's go with our strongest hand because the issues are too important to risk losing."

Ya. This one was not hard to predict.


FURTHER UPDATE 3/13/08: HRC announced on Morning Edition that some states (and their voters?) really are unimportant. She bravely named names and called out North Dakota and you too, Alaska.

Number(s) of the Day

161 . Obama's elected delegate lead.

566. Number of elected delegates left.

71%. Number of the remaining elected delegates HRC has to win to catch up.

More Math

Remember back to February when Obama was ahead in the delegate count by about 152 pledged /elected delegates.

During this time frame HRC advisers Wolfson and Singer threw down the Big State Ohio/Texas March 4th gauntlet. According to Wolfson, after the vote from Texas and Ohio, Hillary would have made up substantial ground. There were plenty of delegates to be had on March 4th, she'd grab the lions share and and take the BIG MO. Victory would be just around the corner from there on out, but especially going into the Big State of Pennsylvania. The Clinton campaign was so certain of this strategy, that Bill42 said all was over if they couldn't pull it off.

Well CNN has released an updated delegate count (adding MS and TX Caucus results). Since March 4th there have been 6 contests (TX, OH, Vermont, Rhode Island, Wyoming and Mississippi) . As a result of these 6 contests, Obama has won and additional 208 delegates, while Clinton has added an additional 207 delegates. Yes that's right. Not only has Clinton failed to make up substantial ground, Obama has actually increased his delegate advantage.

To make matters, yesterday California released its final delegate allocation which resulted in a net gain of 8 delegates going to Obama. And to pile on further, Hillary's lead in superdelegates has steadily declined from over 100 to 30 today.

Obama's elected delegate lead is now at 161. To catch him Hillary needs to win 71% of the remaining elected delegates.

Normal Ordinary Math

Well these numbers from Kos are not derived from you normal ordinary type of math. There are some assumptions, including the TX caucus numbers, but they look persuasive enough to post.

And Kos shows a 833,000 popular vote margin in favor of Obama.

Using your normal ordinary math you get a margin of 700,000 +.

Add in the fact that Obama has won twice as many states as Hillary and has a nearly insurmountable lead in the delegate count shows that the handwriting is on the wall.

Of course that is where the Burnin Down the House Strategy comes into play.

So look for more comments like these. And expect more mud to be slung.

This Ain't good

Fallon gone.

Note: This is the guy who threw the cold water on launching Military strikes on Iran.

Say it ain't so

Mittens says he'd take Veep if offered. Thought they hated each other.

Guess he's hoping Johnny Mac will die or become incapacitated in office. Just saying.

BREAKING NEWS

This just in. U.S. Military Concludes No Saddam Link to Al Qaeda.

This study found no direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Apparently Saddam was interested in self preservation, not Global Jihad.

And then there is this Bombshell in the report:

"The primary target, however, of Saddam's terror activities was not the United States, and not Israel. The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq." Saddam's primary aim was self preservation and the elimination of potential internal threats to his power."

Saddam's number 1 concern was looking out for Number 1.

Quote of the Day

From time to time we'll drop in on an old friend, Donald H Rumsfeld, and unpack some of his wit and wisdom. It is fashionable to beat up on Rummy these days, after all we now have a fall guy for the Irak War. But at this blog, we'll take a new look at some of these clever sayings and make a call - balderdash, bullshit, bluster, brilliance or baloney. Maybe we can rehabilitate him to some minor extent. Maybe we cannot.

Here's our bit of Rumfeldian Wisdom:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don't know we don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld from a Department of Defense news briefing, February 12, 2002.

Now this Q&A is going down right after the take down of the Taliban and a corresponding shift in focus from Afghanistan to Irak.

After taking some questions about the President’s shift in rhetoric toward Iraq, i.e., specifically that Clinton-style containment ain’t cutting it and regime change is the big new idea because Irak could arm the terrorists and the terrorist could harm the US……... Rummy remains somewhat non-committal toward shilling for Regime Change meme. According to Rummy, he just works here and does as ordered. He is not the Decider.

But then a reporter brings up a question about the links between Sadaam, al Qaeda and Iraki WMDs or more specifically reports that there are no such links.

Rummy responds by saying :

“Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns ……………………..But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones”

And then the conversation goes like this:

“Rumsfeld: And so people who have the omniscience that they can say with high certainty that something has not happened or is not being tried, have capabilities that are -- what was the word you used, Pam, earlier?

Q: Free associate? (laughs)

Rumsfeld: Yeah. They can -- (chuckles) -- they can do things I can't do. (laughter)

Q: Excuse me. But is this an unknown unknown?

Rumsfeld: I'm not --

Q: Because you said several unknowns, and I'm just wondering if this is an unknown unknown.

Rumsfeld: I'm not going to say which it is.

Q: Mr. Secretary, if you believe something --

Rumsfeld: Right here. Right here. Right here.”

He deflects discussion of the issue with humor until he manages to change the subject by cutting off follow-up questions and calling on a new reporter with a new Q. So it looks like he is not denying the existence of such reports. He is not really addressing the veracity of any reports but rather he is belittling the probative value of any report. It is hard to label this as Bullshit or Baloney because he may believe that such reports have little value or a low degree of reliability. This is a known unknown. But at the same time he does not take the opportunity to shill the “we gotta get Saddaam before the terrorists get us meme” either which could firm up the Case for Bullshit. But ultimately, after having been asked "(if the links between Saddam and UBL)... are an unknown unknown", he declines to answer the question by stating I'm not going to say which it is.

While the quote shows some clever Brilliance in a snarkish sort or way, and is close to Bullshit, I’m eventually labeling it as Bluster in its relation to the question answered because he bails on the question

Just when I thought that.........

..............the only way we'd have Willard "Mitt" Romney to kick around anymore was by awarding "The Willard" for shameless feats of hypocrisy,that his name pops up for the Veep slot.

On Awards

We’ll be handing out some Awards from time to time at The Lair.

The first award we are designating is “The Willard”. The Willard is named in honor of one Willard “Mitt” Romney aka Mittens. One can win A Willard by "Pulling a Romney," i.e., shamelessly bashing an opponent for holding the same view that you hold (or once held the day before in the case of Mittens).

For a prime example of “Pulling a Romney” we turn to the awards' namesake himself.

As you may recall, Mittens was an outspoken critic of Hillary Clinton’s Healthcare Proposal. During stump speeches, Mittens would mock the Clinton Proposal, label it socialized healthcare among other things and imply pending doom should it be enacted. But there was a problem here. You see the Clinton Healthcare Proposal was largely the same as the Healthcare Plan implemented by Mittens himself when he was Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Thus we award “The Willard” to those individuals who exercise shameless hypocrisy when judging the conduct of others and/or are just plain brazenly deceptive in exercise of public rhetoric. I anticipate awarding A Willard in the near term. But if you have a nominee for The Willard, please feel free to let me know. The next award to be named, will be in honor of Douglas Feith, so if you wanna propose a name for this award, please feel free.

On Bubbles....of a diferent sort

Here is your primer.

SubPrime Housing Mess for Dummies

Check it out.


Hat Tip to Balloon Juice.

On Bubbles

We've all heard about the Bush Bubble. And I think we all know that life in the Bubble Ill-Served GWB43 and the country at large. For an Example: the response to Hurricane Katrina will do. Here key presidential advisers had to make a DVD showing a compilation of stories broadcasted on television news to burst the bubble. But this was toooooo late.

Today in the paper of record we get an article on the Clinton Bubble. The account tells the tale of a campaign run amok by a cadre of loyal insiders. After failing to live up to her predicted SuperTuesday knockout, we see a campaign nearly bankrupt and totally caught off guard. The result is 11 consecutive losses to a young whippersnapper.

Now this is not to say all Bubbles are equal. Nor is a mismanaged response to a Cat 5 hurricane barreling down on New Orleans the equivalent to Hillary's mismanaged $200M primary campaign. But often times, voters pick a president with markedly differing qualties than the one before. After all GWB43 ran on restoring honor and integrity to the Presidency (in response to a well known sordid tale) and rode it all the way to the Whitehouse.

Coat tails, does anybody got em

Just thinking about the down ballot effect on candidate nomination with yesteray's special election in IL.

McCain is every Blue state Republican's first choice to campaign with come election time. In elections of Old you'd see Johnny Mac crisscrossing the country shilling for this guy and that. It must help or they would be standing line waiting for Johnny to come marching on in for the photo op on the local news. Don't know how this effect plays nationally, but historically Johnny Mac has been the closer.

In 2006 it was Obama that every Dem in a tough race wanted by his side. With Yesterday's results, we have an example of Obama going into a Republican District (Fmr Speaker Hastert's no less) and helping a political novice across the finish line. And we don't have to mention that the Red State Superdelegates have been flocking to endorse him. So I see some coat tail potential with Obama.

As far as Hillary is concerned I think her campaign MoJo probably goes the other way. With her I'm seeing negative coattails.

If its Hillary at the top, look for campaign commercials showing the face of your ordinary democratic candidate morphing into Hillary. The general rule, in the election fight is that the ordinary average Democrat will get a fraction of Hillary's friends to watch his back. But he'll inherit all her enemies and they'll be tying him to her.

So now in the weeks and months ahead let's look at what Nancy does as this Democratic Nomination drags on. Is she gonna be watching out first and foremost for her bright shiny new toy also known as the House of Representatives? Or will she roll the dice and hope she can hold the house for a couple of cycles?

Question of the Day

Why does Arkansas still celebrate Robert E Lee's birthday on Martin Luther King Day? The year is 2008 after all.

One would think that someone with Juice and Pull in Arkansas would have changed this during the last 35 years.

UPDATE: Some more background here

Burnin Down Da House

Got the first Post going on today.

With that said let's kick it off. Think I'll share a little Inside Info on the Race for 08.

The state of the RACE

Obama is ahead in elected delegates. If Clinton is to catch up to him in elected delegates, she needs to win the rest of the contests by comfortable margins or selected contests (PA, NC, TX, KY, IN) by overwhelming margins.

On the morning of March 4th, HRC needed to win each and every remaining 16 contests by an approx 58-42% margin to catch up to Obama. She won TX (51% of the vote), OH (54%), and RI (58%) but lost Vermont.

On the morning of March 5th, HRC needed to win each and every one of the remaining 12 contests but now she needs to win all the remaining contests by a margin of 62-38%.

On March 8th Wyoming holds caucus and on March 11th Mississippi holds a primary. Both states are small and Obama has won similar states in the past. It is unlikely that these states will help Mrs Clinton catch up. So on the morning of March 12th, HRC will need to win the remaining 10 contests by a margin of 63-37% in order to just catch up in the elected delegate count.

By way of further example, let’s assume that Obama wins a couple of the remaining states, say Oregon and North Carolina. If Obama wins North Carolina which is similar to states (SC and VA) he has already won by a margin of 51-49% then HRC will have to win the other 9 contests by a margin of 65-35%. If Obama wins Oregon by the same margin he won the Washington primary (not the caucus), Clinton will need to win the other 8 contests by a margin of 69-31%.

The math tells us that it is exceedingly unlikely that HRC can catch up to Obama in elected delegates. Yet she has not given up on the nomination.

So what is the path to a Hillary nomination?

The Commander Guy has obtained a supersecret tip from a source I believe to be in the know. The foregoing strategy sheet is a prediction of the Clinton Endgame Campaign Strategy (tip obtained back-channel style). Here it (the prediction) goes:

7 Steps for Successful Close to the Campaign, March 5th edition:

(1) Run out the Clock. No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed until it is ripe for execution. Do not discuss the end game but merely state that things are either going as planned or better than expected. Hillary can’t catch up in the pledged delegates so the race is all about momentum now. Reduce his while creating it for her. Winning states is preferable to losing but losing is still OK. Remember the Clinton campaign is the underdog and Obama is a magic media darling. So if Obama can’t knock Hillary out, he’s a loser for failing to close the deal. Play to the end and dismiss any talk of the delegates because the delegate count is irrelevant. And never let them see you sweat (I’m talking to you Wolfson).

(2) Attack. A new ruler must determine all the injuries that she will need to inflict. She must inflict them once and for all. The only path to the nomination is to win ugly. To that end you must do whatever is necessary to bring Obama’s positives down and drive negatives up. The Obama is a Muslim rumor plays well. So does the Obama as lightweight meme. Create a negative narrative about Obama (preferably about a perceived strength) and push it.

(3) Work the refs. You gotta propel the propaganda. Aggressively push the media to present your narratives. Criticize the media as biased when they fail to play along. Chris Matthews is your friend if you feed him right. He’s also a fool you can bash and claim victim status if he fails to play along. This is a win-win.

(4) Win the message of the day. Political chaos is connected with the decay of language. There is a story of the day every day – write it, control it, spin it, and push it relentlessly. If an Obama campaign worker gets a parking ticket, imply that Obama is a scofflaw, if that’s your narrative. If the narrative is that Obama is a lightweight empty suit, say if he can’t even control his staff, how’s he gonna be the leader of the free world. It does not matter how trivial the issue is, fit it into your narrative and push it relentlessly.

(4) Get Inside. It is better to appear virtuous than it is to be virtuous. Ensure that loyalists and double agents are placed on the key committees that set the rules at the convention. Delegates can be challenged, denied the vote, and the game can be rigged. It has been done before, notably at the 1912 republican convention when party insiders denied the nomination to the popular vote winner, Teddy Roosevelt. This is a delicate maneuver so the appearance of fairness should be maintained whenever possible.

(5) Change the rules. The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present. HRC won the vote in two states (MI – FL) that are prohibited from allocating delegates to the nomination convention. These states violated party rules and lost the right to send delegates to the convention. It does not matter that the candidates did not campaign there or if Obama’s name was even on the ballot. The Voters cannot be disenfranchised by their party, especially the Florida voters who were disenfranchised in 2000. Obviously, the rules must be changed (see step 4, above) and these delegates must be seated.

(6) Embrace the Smoke Filled Room. The Automatic Delegates (formerly known as Super Delegates) need to understand the consequence of their support or lack thereof. Appeals to virtue should be embraced and appeals to vice should be tacitly extended. There are always deals to be made and arms to be twisted whether they involve the carrot, the stick or both. And remember .....there is something on everybody. Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption. He passes from the stink of the dydie to the stench of the shroud... There's ALWAYS something. There should be no doubt in the mind any Automatic Delegate on the consequences of their conduct.

(7) Burn the Damn House Down. Politics have no relation to morals. Winning isn’t everything, it is the only thing. If the steps above have failed to secure the nomination you must be prepared to sacrifice the Party for the greater good. Great accomplishments require great risk. Here, division will be our ally. We are prepared to divide the party, shatter it along racial, sectarian, and demographic lines. Then we claim the bigger half. And then from the resulting chaos, we will conquer and claim our rightful place. In the end, Hillary is running against John McCain one way or another whether it is in 2008 or 2012 after he has beaten a fatally damaged candidate…....so leave no stone left un-cast. Al Gore is not our role model; there will be no Al Gore Style Concession Speeches.


So there it is, all laid out. Whadaya Think? TCG is out for the Night. Gotta visit the Ballet tonight.

UPDATE: I got some culture tonight. But if you gonna get some culture, do it w/o a culture war.