Momentum's all Obama. had the set tuned to Fox adult cartoons, good mix of spots for Obama, none for Clinton (or Repubs, Paul should have bought.)

Obama's Iraq spot was an excellent fit for American Dad.

All had a notable flaw. Type only of "Vote Feb. 19". Should scream THIS TUESDAY. For spots on shows targeting the 18-22 demographic, I'd even add "you can register at the polls. bring Photo ID and proof of address."

With no school tomorrow, everyone stuck at home due to weather, these should have been especially high viewership for the youngest eligibles. I'm presuming Obama had tghe monopoly in other Wisconsin markets.

On to the predictions...  

Just back from Bill Clinton's appearance at the historic Stock Pavilion on the University of Wisconsin Campus. When Gary Storck and I approached, we were directed across the street by the most polite pair of Secret Service agents I've ever dealt with, but, as it's a narrow street, not an unreasonable "Free Speech Zone."

Our signs referred to Bill's encounter, as a Candidate, with Jacki Rickert of Mondovi, Wisconsin in 1992. Jacki had been approved for the federal medical marijuana program, but not yet admitted when Bush I closed the program to new admissions in 1989. She caught up with Bill in Osseo on his post-Convention Mississippi River bus tour. After she explained her odyssey through the federal bureaucracy, Bill "I feel your pain" promised "When I'm President, you'll get your medicine."

Come the Inaugural, Jacki sent letters, made calls seeking fulfillment of that commitment, but got back only form letters. "If drugs were legal, my brother Roger would be dead."

You will have 5 minutes for this section. When time is up, put your pencil down and stop working.

The question for this question is to be answered on the basis of this passage:

Dear Mr. Capus,

Thank you for your call yesterday. I wanted to send you this note to convey the depth of my feeling about David Shuster's comments.

I know that I am a public figure and that my daughter is playing a public role in my campaign. I am accustomed to criticism, certainly from MSNBC. I know that it goes with the territory.

However, I became Chelsea's mother long before I ran for any office and I will always be a mom first and a public official second.

Somehow, over the past few weeks, David Obey and Christine Gregoire have lost their damn minds.

They clearly have become brainwashed automatons, worshipping hype and ignoring a plain lack of substance.

Their statements of adoration for a David Koresh-type figure below the fold.

A few months ago, I posted a diary here, titled "Mukasey Must be Blocked".  

In short, not a lot of people listened, and Michael Mukasey is now the latest stand-in for David Addington, as Attorney General of the United States.

Back then, I wrote a number of reasons why he should have been blocked.  An excerpt:

A third angle, and perhaps the most important:  a lot of people have been all "ooh" and "aah" about "Mukasey ruled against the Administration on Padilla, at the beginning of the case."  To that I say "big deal.  That's no reason to confirm - or even consider - him".

Why?  

Because that was not some "Stand up for the Rule of Law" ruling, like so many of the other observers have posited.  Look at his WSJ editorial, advertising his availability for the job - he likes torture and warrantless wiretapping.  No, he ruled against the government in Padilla for three reasons.  In reverse order of importance, these are:

1.  Precedent required it.

* *

2.  He was offended that the government spirited Padilla out from under his jurisdiction.

 ...When the Admin wanted to go after habeas, they deliberately made it easy for themselves to get as many grounds as available by taking radical positions and being offensive to the Court.

Don't kid yourself.  

Going after habeas was not some spur of the moment thing on the part of this administration.  [A]nyone with eyes should have seen that eliminating habeas' availability was a long-term objective of the Repugs.  They'd been working on it for easily as long as thirty years - since bringing in the Southern strategy.  

Padilla - and getting to appeal and make their arguments for gutting the habeas Padilla had received to courts they'd stacked - was the keystone.  ... They got time to string things out.

3.  He was protecting his own power as a judge.That was the most important part of his ruling in Padilla, but not for the reasons too many would be thinking.  It's not that he has any great appreciation for preserving the power of the judiciary.  It's that he was more interested in exhibiting that he will preserve and wield the power of whatever office he holds.  

  * *

This is about power, wielding it, and preserving it.  In the hands and office of the AG.

 * * * Now, we are expected to believe that given the unprecedented expansion of power in the AG recently bestowed by the new FISA (among other things) and the rampant power grabs of this Admin, as yet un-undone, a judge (or any other person) whose entire career has been marked by exerting power will not use those powers?  Will not do everything in his ability to preserve those powers?

* * *

Please.  

No, if in this jungle Olson was the roaring lion stalking your rights, Mukasey is the snake in the grass that you'll never see until it's way too late.  But, they're both Bush-wielded pointed sticks in your eye.  For that reason, he should be blocked.

As I've discussed endlessly (heh) in comments, I want whoever the nominee is to be the choice of democratic voters.  I don't want  a delegate win, I want a voter win.  Because it's the voters we have to get back out in November.  In anticipation of Super Tuesday, here's my calculations of the popular vote so far.  I will update it after Super Tuesday.  As expected, it's close between Obama and Clinton.

Clinton               Edwards            Obama

  70,505             71,222           89,864        IOWA+

112,610             48,818           105,007      NH++

  58,893             43,384             52,339       NEVADA+

141,217             93,576           295,214       SC

854,391           247,926           567,027       FLA++

1,237,616       504,926          1,109,451         TOTAL

By Wendy Weiser

While the country is closely following the presidential primary contests, another contest is being fought that will determine the way many Americans--and even which Americans--will vote in November and in years to come.  The contest is not about candidates but about the voting process itself.  And it won't be decided by voters but by the U.S. Supreme Court.  

Sen. Whitehouse raised the red flag that classified documents revealed that Bush's legal justification for warrantless domestic spying advocated a "legal doctrine for presidential lawbreaking." Sen. Dodd argued that Bush should allow all Senators to read the documents before voting on telecom amnesty.  Sen. Whitehouse obtained the declassification of 3 principles contained in the documents.   These 3 principles constitute general elements of Bush's unitary executive theory, which is a doctrine for presidential lawbreaking. So, how is unitary executive theory relevant to telecom immunity? One answer is that the authority and lawfulness clauses of the telecom immunity may be interpreted by Bush in a signing statement or the courts as Congress codifying into law his theory of the virtually unlimited powers of the unitary executive which trump legislation. This telecom immunity clause would then provide Bush with a nonfrivolous argument that Congress ratified his unitary executive theory, which would provide Bush with retroactive immunity.  

(Cross-posted from Executed Today)

Four presidential cycles ago today, Hillary's husband dropped a syringe plunger in the old Democratic party.

Former Durham NC DA Mike Nifong filed for bankruptcy, rather than file an answer to the civil suit against him (and a lot of others) for the wrongs done the Duke lacrosse players.

All he's really doing, as far as I am concerned, is stalling and trying to get a bit of a fresh start, so he can have something resembling a future.  I'll explain why his bankruptcy is not likely to change the result but will drag things out, below.

That said, I cannot fault him for filing.  He had to, to protect himself against the suit so he could have some hope of a future.  If he gets through the bankruptcy to a discharge, that which the discharge can wipe out, is wiped out forever.  He could hit the lottery tomorrow and it would not be subject to the discharged part of the judgment - because it would be "post-petition".  Bankruptcy gives a "fresh start" with a (relatively) clean slate, so I cannot fault him for filing, regardless.

[N.B.  AS ALWAYS, THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.  LAW, PARTICULARLY BANKRUPTCY LAW, IS FULL OF LITTLE ANGLES, EXCEPTIONS, UNDECIDED ISSUES, LACUNAE AND UNCERTAINTIES.  THIS MEANS ANYONE WITH A POTENTIAL LEGAL PROBLEM SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN AN INDIVIDUALIZED CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IN YOUR JURISDICTION.  I AM MERELY EXPLAINING THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN PLAY HERE, SO THE READER CAN GET AN IDEA AND FOLLOW ALONG AS THIS DRAMA UNFOLDS.]

[Cross-posted from ProgressiveHistorians.]

Daily Kos has recently been abuzz with speculation that the coming Presidential election will play out similarly to that of 1932 -- a dramatic realignment election that puts Dems on top for a generation.  DHinMI advanced this argument in a very good three-part series last month.  Today, New Deal democrat provides more evidence of this phenomenon by pointing out that economic conditions were similar in some ways then to how they are now.

It's an interesting, if optimistic, argument, but I disagree with one of its underlying assumptions -- particularly if Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee.  In that eventuality, I think Woodrow Wilson's campaign in 1912, rather than Franklin Roosevelt's in 1932, is more likely to serve as a useful model for the 2008 election.

Said another way:  Has HRC's campaign burn rate gotten in front of her ability to raise funds?

Or, more simply, is her campaign going broke?

The comment from Trippi, noted in this diary on another site, indicates she might be in that predicament.  Take it with a grain of salt, of course, as it comes from a rival's camp, but also step back a second and think about it objectively.  All the doings in Iowa cost some serious coin.  Hotels, parties, huge numbers of ground troops, TV.  I mean, $7 mil on TV?  I don't know, but it might be so.

I've been more sitting back and watching than anything else - all 3 of the Democrats top choices are acceptable to me, and I will support their nominee.  The back-and-forth of the various supporters has been entertaining, but more a diversion from the real issues (like the coming return to FISA and retroactive Telco immunity.  BTW - it's really more accurate to call it the Retroactive Bush Immunity and Dictatorship Enabling Act of 2008.  Go read. It's long, but worth it.  Then, call your senators and start raising hell.  But, I digress.)

Another HRC issue - the plausible thesis that Penn would have been a great fit in the Rumsfeld DoD - as evinced by his talent for cherrypicking the storyline and info to tell the policymaker what the policymaker wanted to hear, and a profound lack of proper prior planning for foreseeable events and no contingency plan in existence, leading to ad hoc improvisations and flopping around (like we've been seeing the last couple days).  There's a two-fold problem with being the front-runner:  you have only one place to go - down, and, being the beneficiary of "good" "Front-runner" press you never have any incentive to look at the weaknesses in your own situation.  Penn (and by extension, HRC) seem to have fallen victim to both of these.  The linked diary, picking apart Penn's apparent failings, is rough enough.  A few others over the past days, showing him to be either frantically spinning, or woefully out of touch with reality, lead me to the conclusion that he has ill-served HRC.  (Like the Army teaches:  P8 = Proper Prior Planning Prevents Pitifully P*ss-Poor Performance)

This leads me to a series of questions:

= Do we really need another iteration of telling the President only what the President wants to hear, regardless of reality?  'Cause that's what she's gotten from Penn, and its almost inevitable he's going to go along to the WH if she gets there.

= What would happen in the event of something sudden taking place?  A quickie poll to find out what to do, with the results (and questions) sculpted to reinforce the policymaker's inclinations?  

The problem with running an administration in the way Penn (or someone like him) would be involved (or in running a campaign in which he is involved) is that it is reactive to the core.  It does not proceed from a core principle save, maybe, "find out what the people want and give it to them with a smile".  Remember, the credo of the Bushbots - "we create our own reality, you study, discuss and judge and, all the while, we're acting and creating new realities for you to catch up to."

In a crisis, being reactive is no way to go if only because it leaves the reacting party totally in the thrall of someone else - the people acting.  WJ Clinton's reactive counterpunching - triangulation - in the 90s - with Penn close to the heart of that - was an appropriate response of a (popular) President beset by an insurgent, opposition-led Congress trying to take him down.  It was useful to wear out by slowing down a lot of the rage that had fueled the Republicans for many years (and still does, for that matter).  It is not the appropriate methodology for a President quite likely to have both houses under the control (more or less solid) of the President's party.  In that situation, much like Bushie through most of his tenure, the President has the initiative and can set the agenda, with Congress more or less going along.

Watching the news from South and Southwest Asia, I'm sure that what Deadeye and his buddies are building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq are a series of crises to kick in during the first weeks of the new Administration, designed to both clear the decks of the new Administration having any incentive to prosecute them for their crimes, and to hobble the new Administration in its policy goals by making them dance to the old Administration's tune.  

Recall, Bush I (Cheney, SecDef) spent most of 1992 ignoring the humanitarian catastrophe in Somalia despite the world (and the US media) pleading for some US leadership and a little bit of military help to get the situation under control.  It was not until right around Christmas '92 - after he'd lost the election and just in time to help cover his Iran-Contra pardons - that Bush I finally got the wheels moving to get some relief to Somalia.  And, he did it in that "bipartisan" way Republicans are so fond of, suckering WJC into it.  And, they handled it in such a way as to start the Somalian resistance festering such that it would bloom large a couple months into the new Admin., before they could get their feet under them.  (Not that choosing Gays in the Military as a first policy initiative was the mark of genius.) IIRC, it was Bush I's admin which didn't send any armor, leaving it to Les Aspin to take the fall when the almost-inevitable Black Hawk Down happened, further crippling WJC's admin.

Throw in Republicans deliberately stirring up trouble on a couple cabinet appointments (Zoe Baird, anyone?) and the Branch Davidians at Waco shortly after Reno came on board (just in time for her to be presented with questions framed by the institution and to be at fault), and you have a Republican recipe for hobbling the new, reactive administration and seizing the initiative.

And, now, Penn is going to give us reactive (it's what he knows) from Day One.  I suspect regular voting people have kind of figured that out about HRC's campaign, even if they have no idea who Mark Penn is, let alone what he does. And the average voter wants a change from Bushie - a big change.  Change requires taking and holding the initiative - not reactivity, the antithesis of initiative.

Its not outside the realm of possibility that HRC and Edwards (despite the huge imbalance in money) come in with a near-tie in NH, and she's already looking at cratering in SC and, maybe, Nev.  

If, as Edwards comes in at 20 or so and Obama (as it looks now) at or just over 40, that means in two successive primaries about 2/3 of the Democratic voters have gone against her.

HRC may survive to or even through Feb. 5, having had Spitzer (NY), most of NYC's Dems and a lot of the NJ machines giving her their endorsements and strong backing months ago (in the case of Spitzer, something like a year).

But if it comes down to it, come primary day I'll head over to the local precinct and vote Edwards.  Or Obama.  And, I suspect, that day a lot of other people may well say HRC outside the booth, but something else inside.  Her star for the WH is fading, fast.