Please, let’s all tell Hillary Clinton to shut up with her false claims to be ahead in the popular vote (forgetting for the moment when she was ahead in delegates, she consistently said that the popular vote didn’t matter). If you believe her rhetoric, please do yourself a favor and read Jonathon Alter on The Problem With Clinton’s Popular Vote Math. In brief and in rough, it goes like this.

Obama is 450K votes ahead not counting caucus states, 560K ahead if you count them. He is 63K behind if you count FL and MI where he was not on the ballot of course. If you count the uncommitted votes from Michigan, though, that brings him up by almost another quarter million voters. Leaving those votes aside, if the expected settlement happens - FL and MI get 50% of their votes/delegates counted - O is still ahead 325K in pop vote.

Meanwhile, Clinton is keying her people up to say the nomination was “taken away”. For reasons I’ve discussed ad nauseum, I won’t support Clinton because of past votes, but for a while in the middle of the campaign, I was starting to warm to her. Recent events such as claiming a popular vote lead and positioning herself as the candidate of white workers who think the black dude is a Muslim are just so crass it suddenly makes me understand the Clinton haters of the 1990s (when I was partly out of the country and never really got it). In short, they will do anything for power, no matter how damaging to the causes they believe in.

Before these last weeks I had nothing particular against Hillary Clinton except my commitment to not vote for any senator who voted in favor of giving Bush unlimited war power. Now I actually fear seeing her in the White House.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Four Nobel-winning economists and over 280 other economists just posted a letter arguing that the best studies suggest that the gas-tax holiday is a bad idea that will lead to windfall profits for the oil companies, will encourage consumption and provide little relief to consumers. One thing I didn’t hear on the news report or on their site, that I also object too, is that it provides a tax break to everyone, whether they need it or not. Bill Gates gets the same break as Joe Schmoe. Why should Bill get a break on gas? Makes no sense.

Hillary Clinton just denounced the Nobel-winning economists’ advice as elitist talk and said she won’t be throwing her lot in with economists. Bill Clinton was criticized as a closet Republican because he hired the best economists he could find and tended to follow their advice whether it fit his ideology or not. Some people say he went too far, but one can make a good argument that part of the reason that the economy was so strong under Bill was because, less than most presidents, he didn’t play politics with the economy. Apparently, Hillary would rather adopt ill-advised policies that will do little or no good for working people rather than taking the tough road and doing what makes sense.

By the way, if you have a car that gets 20mpg and commute 40 miles per day, the gas tax holiday will save you 36 cents per day. Most people could save that much by using cruise control and checking tire inflation. For the people who can’t afford gas, this won’t fix it. If you really want to help working class people, give them a transportation subsidy, which can be used for gas or mass transit, and phases out as income rises, so that people who make more than a certain amount don’t get the subsidy. That way, unlike Hillary and John, my plan does not give a tax break to Bill Gates. Nothing personal Bill, I just don’t think you or Steve Jobs (or The Ranter for that matter) need the $0.18 per gallon tax break (assuming the oil companies don’t just skim that profit).

Popularity: 9% [?]

I recently said that race wouldn’t hurt Obama, unless it was the racism of the North. Then I got a shock in South Carolina. Despite Obama’s landslide victory, he came in third among whites. THIRD! I should say that I meant that race wouldn’t hurt him in a general election when up against a Republican, because any Democrat is likely to lose the South (unless Obama gets 80% of the black vote as he did in the SC primary; Clinton has no such advantage).

So then I looked at the real breakdown of the SC results and found them not as discouraging as one might think.

• Clinton beat Obama by one percent among white males. Edwards trounced them both among white males (45%) but even that is not that discouraging. Obama got 80% of black males. So we’ve progressed to the point that white males are more willing to vote against their race and gender. Clinton won among white females by an even smaller margin (42% to 36% for Edwards and 22% for Obama).
• Things are getting better. Only 15% of non-black voters 60 and over voted for Obama. 52% of non-black voters 29 and under voted Obama. That suggests that race is becoming a less significant lense through which to see the world. Maybe we’ll see the Confederate flag disappear from South Carolina some day (why are Confederate flags allowed on government property in America, but the Nazi flag is not allowed anywhere in Germany?)
• Obama won among poor people, which is no doubt a result of the fact that blacks tend to be poor, but it suggests that the Edwards agenda of looking out for the poor will have to be on Obama’s agenda too. Edwards did best among those earning over $200,000/year, which suggests that his war on poverty message fell on deaf ears.
• 49% of Democratic voters who identify themselves as conservative voted for Obama. That bodes well for the general election.
• Obama polled 64% of those who go to church more than once a week. That is likely partly because of black religiousity (always undercounted when talking about the “religious” vote), but still bodes well for going up against a Republican in November.

Source: CBS Exit Polls

Popularity: 14% [?]

I keep hearing that the Obama candidacy is a test of whether or not America is ready to elect a black man. The first presidential candidate I ever supported was Shirley Chisolm, both black and female and not very successful, so I’ve been ready in one way or another to support a black or a woman since 1972. I must say that Obama excites me less than Chisolm did and Clinton is not even in the same league (suffice it to say that it is virtually inconceivable that Chisolm would accept at face value administration pronouncements on weapons of mass destruction and then turn around and give a right-wing president carte blanche to make war at his whim and pleasure). Thirty-five years later, I find the whole “electability of a black man” canard laughable, especially when people say “The South will never vote for a black man.” Wake up people! It makes no difference in the general election what the South thinks of Obama’s race. If Obama wins the nomination, the only thing that will matter with respect to race is whether or not Northern racism will keep Obama from the White House; Southern racism, real or imagined, is irrelevant. The reasons for that are today’s history lesson:

(more…)

Popularity: 11% [?]

1. Yes vote on Public law 107-40 authorizing the use of military force anywhere and against anyone closely or remotely associated with the September 11 terrorists. The text says that this law does not supercede any requirement of the War Powers Resolution, limiting the president’s ability to use military force, but it effectively gave a blank check to the president, allowing him to attack anywhere he pleased. This is an unforgiveable breach of the public trust in the legislative branch to maintain a system of checks and balances and no less so because not a single senator had the backbone to stand up and say that the resolution was too broad and too vague.

(more…)

Popularity: 9% [?]

I do not need a politician to stand up for civil rights, the rule of law, international treaties signed by the US and the US Constitution when it’s popular. I need them to stand up for those things when it’s difficult.
(more…)

Popularity: 11% [?]

This is an interesting one from Compete.com. They really know who liberals and conservatives like among the current crop of candidates. Compete.com have some sort of web tracking software and they are watching YOU. Okay, maybe not you, but they grab information from ISP, volunteer panelists and people who install their toolbar (and why would you do that?). They say their data is “normalized” which I’m guessing means that they use the ISP data to correct for the bias inherent in the other sources. Anyway, what they have been able to do, apparently, is find out what percentage of visitors to websites for candidates read liberal blogs and which ones read conservative blogs. Then they calculate a ration of liberal/conservative to see how liberal or conservative the visitors to a candidates website are.

The interesting thing here is not that Dennis Kucinich has the highest ratio (most liberal), or that Fred Thompson has the lowest ratio (i.e. most conservative). The telling stat is that Hilary Clinton has the lowest score (most conservative appeal) of any Democrat and, scores even lower than Ron Paul, the ultra-libertarian fringe candidate. What does this tell us? Probably not much that we couldn’t predict, but it is a fun chart to ponder. Have a look at it at:
Compete Candidate Analysis

I have to say, having heard Ron Paul interviewed, even when he’s spouting some ideas to which I am deeply opposed, he is the only candidate who seems to say what he really thinks. That will, of course, ultimately count him out (never say what you really think), but it’s nice to hear, agree or not.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Government by organized money just as dangerous as government by organized mob

– Franklin Roosevelt, October 31, 1936, quote in Michael Beschloss, Presidential Courage, p. 87

Popularity: 6% [?]

I just want to do a scientific poll of how interested voters are in actually voting. The question is whether or not your non-vote can be bought. In other words, how much do you value your right to vote. If I were to offer you something really good, like a Snickers bar or a Starbucks latté, would you forego your right to vote in the 2008 presidential election?

Popularity: 7% [?]

The current field of candidates has me so depressed. I must admit that the prospect of a woman or an African-American is compelling, so much so that the first presidential candidate that I ever supported was Shirley Chisolm, who would have killed those two birds with one stone. The problem is that, unlike Shirley Chisolm, I don’t really admire Clinton or Obama (okay, I hate Clinton and am uninspired by Obama).
(more…)

Popularity: 5% [?]