BY TAYLOR MARSH

via The New Yorker

Let’s just call it an inconvenient church.

Timing is everything, baby. Besides, let’s face it, he doesn’t need them anymore.
He joined. Solidified his place in Illinois politics. Then shed it today like
skin off a snake.

Obama quits his church following Father Michael Pfleger’s sermon ridiculing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) from the Trinity pulpit last Sunday, reigniting stories about Obama’s associations with the inflammatory Trinity pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who stepped down from his role as senior pastor to hand over the top job to the Rev. Otis Moss III. Obama’s move comes as Moss praised for his "message" after Pfleger a scorched Clinton. Obama resigns from Trinity United Church of Christ.

This is really a remarkable moment.

Obviously, as Senator Obama gets closer to the nomination, he’s shoring up
his foundation, which doesn’t include anything associated with Trinity Church.

Jesus doesn’t live under a single steeple. …or something like that.

Share

Guest post by Scan

Pretty amazing that Pat Robertson’s network has the best reporting on the Puerto Rico primary that I’ve seen thus far. But very little about this season has made sense…so whatever. Hillary is making stops in nine Puerto Rico cities on the eve of the election, by the way. Not too shabby.

This sounds like a lot of fun.

While the DNC meeting over the fate of Florida and Michigan goes on in the nation’s capital, Hillary Clinton is now in her third hour of an old-fashioned Puerto Rican caravan, winding her way through the streets to rally as many supporters as she can before tomorrow’s primary. It’s get-out-the-vote like we haven’t seen in the States, as the campaign now tells us the entourage has swelled from the dozen cars that gathered in Cataño to nearly 300 going through the outskirts of San Juan. “This is a very traditional way of campaigning in Puerto Rico,” said Kenneth McClintock, president of the Puerto Rico Senate and a co-chair of Clinton’s campaign here. “We know it’s not done in the states. But Hillary is learning to campaign borriqua-style.” … Clinton has remained outside for all but 10 minutes of the ride, even during a quick tropical shower. “It’s a way that you can see a lot of people in a relatively short period of time and cover a lot of territory,” McClintock said, adding that he has seen far fewer negative reactions than usually par for the course. “She’s exhilarated.”

Beautiful scene.

Open thread.

Share

Guest post by Scan

Results:

[6:40pm] Alice Huffman’s motion to fully seat the Florida delegation has failed 15 to 12.

Room breaks out in cheers and boos, followed by chants of “DENVER! DENVER! DENVER!” from many in the crowd.

Wow.

[6:48] Motion to seat Florida’s entire delegation with a 1/2 vote each passes unanimously.

[7:00] Harold Ickes strongly disagreed with the 69/59 compromise, and stated that Senator Clinton has instructed him that she reserves the right to take this to the credentials committee.

You read that right. Amazing speech by Ickes.

[7:10] Motion to seat 69 delegates for Clinton and 59 delegates for Obama with 1/2 vote each passes 19 to 8.

Loud, disruptive protests erupt in the room.

All superdelegates from both states also get 1/2 votes.

[8:00pm] New delegate threshold for victory is 2118, according to CSPAN.

Statement from Clinton camp:

“This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our party… We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.”

Share

Guest post by Scan

President John Kerry on election night

We all remember how close it was in 2004. It appeared that John Kerry was falling short in the vote totals in Ohio and was on the verge of conceding. However, since the exit polls suggested him doing better than the actual vote totals, the numbers were adjusted and the state’s 20 delegates were eventually awarded to Kerry.

Following that example, Carl Levin and Mark Brewer came out in support of a “compromise” plan that would award Hillary Clinton 69 delegates and Barack Obama 59 delegates in Michigan, based not solely on actual votes, but also on exit polls from the January 15th primary.

Seems fair…awarding delegates based on exit polls is an established precedent. Just ask President Kerry, now winding down his first term.

Yep, Florida is looking good, but Michigan looks like a train wreck.

We shall see. The meeting continues, but the liveblogging is now do-it-yourself. The arguments will simply be too crazy for one person to keep up with.

Open thread. Lots to talk about.

Share

Guest post by Scan

Is it lunchtime yet?

DAVID BONOIR: Presents Obama’s case. Went over how Michigan got itself in this situation. Rolled out the Hillary Clinton quote that Michigan “doesn’t count”. Twice. Delegates should be split out of “simple fairness” – lots of cheers and boos. Says the idea that Obama blocked a revote is incorrect and an insult to the Michigan legislature. This was not a fair election…and the only way to be fair is to split the delegates. Again, lots of cheers and boos. Seeks equal reinstatement of unpledged superdelegates.

Elizabeth Smith: Troubled that they are considering overriding the vote, which should be the final say. Wonders why names were removed from the ballot. Points out that caucus contests are also flawed. Again casts doubt on exit polls as a method to award delegates.

Mame Reiley: We should honor the integrity of the vote, and let the uncommitted delegates naturally go to Obama. No reason to meddle with delegate allocation further.

Tina Flournoy: When people go to vote, they expect their vote to be respected. No right to go in and change their choice after the fact. If that’s the way this works, why not call off 2012 and simply split the delegates? Powerful point.

JIM BLANCHARD: Candidates took their name off, and it was their choice. Not a flawed election, but flawed candidate strategy. Brings up the organized campaign to have voters vote uncommitted. Wants the delegation seated as 73 for Clinton and 55 for Obama. Delegates must honor the voter preference. It does not make sense to punish the voters of Michigan. Does not want this committee to be cast in the same light as the Supreme Court in 2000. The Clinton campaign does not support the compromise put forth by Brewer and Levin.

Says rules are great, but not those that disenfranchise voters. Huge response from crowd.

Don Fowler: Allocation by anything other than looking at the votes is not even authorized in the charter.

Allan Katz: Supreme Court decision in 2000 is not equivalent to what’s going on here. Blanchard disagrees because the vote is sacred.

Donna Brazile: “My momma taught me…” Oh boy, here it comes. “Play by the roolz – when you change the roolz, that’s referred to as ‘cheating’”.

This is not helpful. What a joke. I’m not even sure what rules she’s talking about.

Blanchard: Hillary Clinton DID play by the rules. Went along with no-campaigning pledge and did not have anything to do with how the election occurred.

Lunch break, finally. This afternoon is going to be FUN.

Share

BY TAYLOR MARSH

Still watching the live RBC meeting, which you can watch live here, but it’s time for a little mind break.

Die hard supporter Lanny Davis lays it out today.

The final argument for Hillary comes down to three points – with points one and two leading to the third. First, Sen. Clinton is more experienced and qualified to be president than is Sen. Obama. …. Second, Sen. Clinton’s position on health care gives her an advantage over Sen. McCain. … Third and finally, there is recent hard data showing that, at least at the present time, Sen. Clinton is a significantly stronger candidate against Sen. McCain among the general electorate (as distinguished from the more liberal Democratic primary and caucus electorate). … But there is one possible scenario that avoids disappointment and frustration by passionate supporters of both candidates, that combines the strengths of one with the strengths of the other, and that virtually guarantees the election of a Democratic president in 2008: A Clinton-Obama or an Obama-Clinton ticket. Stay tuned. The Argument for Nominating Hillary

Open thread.

One note on Michigan, there is no way Barack Obama, who voluntarily took his
name off the ballot, deserves delegates. He’d be rewarded for a campaign tactic
that backfired. That makes no sense.

Share

Guest post by Scan

Michigan presentations are beginning.

MARK BREWER, Chairman, Michigan Democratic Party: Pushes the compromise allocation of 69 delegates for Clinton and 59 for Obama. States that supporters, independent from the Obama and Edwards campaigns, organized the uncommitted vote of 40%. This assertion will hopefully be challenged. Says that since Obama’s supporters seemed to make up the bulk of these uncommitted votes, so Obama should get all of these delegates and then some. Sites exit polls that Clinton’s support was overstated.

This, in my opinion, was a very weak argument. Even the crowd seems to sense it. The committee is rightfully skeptical.

Tina Flournoy points out that exit polls have been flawed in the past, so why should delegates be apportioned that way?

Don Fowler: If exit polls were used to determine elections, John Kerry would be president right now. Huge response, and well stated.

Harold Ickes: Did these candidates choose to remove their names by their own choice, and was this not done partially to curry favor with Iowa? Brewer agrees, but says it’s unfair to the voters. (Shouldn’t the candidates have thought of that, though, before they removed themselves from the ballot and took away that choice? Would have been a nice follow-up.)

SENATOR CARL LEVIN: Supports the “unity” plan put forth by Brewer. Obama and Clinton will offer different proposes. Michigan decided to move up its primary they believed that no two states should always have the right to always go first. He brings up some grievances in the early primary process, particularly his state’s battle with New Hampshire. If New Hampshire gets a waiver, then Michigan should get one.

Powerful words on why Michigan is in the position it finds itself in. I agree with him on Michigan’s argument. But as far as the compromise he supports on delegate allocation…that’s going to be trouble. This will be ugly.

Michael Steed: What kind of precedent would it set if we apportioned delegates based on something other than the vote totals? And why should the person who chose to remove his name from the ballot be rewarded with delegates from the person who left their name on the ballot? Levin says they have an agreement already.

Harold Ickes: Fair reflection is absolutely fundamental. A group of candidates removed their name from the ballots and uncommitted has the same status as a named candidate, as has been for decades. To convert these uncommitted slots to one candidate would cause enormous damage. Exit polls have been off again and again. Believes that the committee does not have the jurisdiction to consider the compromise.

Levin asks: You want a fair reflection of a flawed primary? Keep us unified, vote for our proposal.

Obama supporter David Bonoir up next…

Share

Guest post by Scan

Take note of Jon Ausman’s wrap-up: “Florida has been well and truly punished. We are responding to a Republican game and it needs to stop.”

SENATOR BILL NELSON: Committee should seat the delegation, and do so without penalty. Almost two million FL voters showed up, and violated no rules, yet they are the ones being punished. They deserve to be heard. Florida is sensitive about our votes being taken away. Democrats voted in record numbers and the it was certified by the state. Gave examples of Florida Democrats fighting for their voices to be heard despite being told that their votes would not count.

Question regarding those who did not turn out because they heard their votes would not count. Reminded committee of record turnout that occurred anyway, and that these voters are needed in November and should not be ignored. Powerful moment. Pointed out that Republicans control Florida on the state level, and the Democrats tried to change the election date.

A serious attempt was made to redo the election. Mail-in election was proposed, and money could be raised. Parties could not agree, however, despite repeated attempts. Voiced support of Ausman challenge.

ARTHENIA JOYNER – FLORIDA STATE SENATOR: 1.75 million Florida Democrats went to the polls. We cannot ignore the will of these voters. Voters came out because they knew in their souls that their votes would go uncounted. Committee has the ability to restore the full delegation now, joined together and focused on victory in November. Dean’s fifty-state strategy does not work if two states are left out. Taking away the delegates amounts to theft of their vote. Count every vote so we can win in November. Remarks were very well-received in the room.

Obama supporter on panel agreed with almost all of what she said, but asked if turnout would have been higher if candidates campaigned there. Joyner said yes. Supports 100% seating of delegates, not the 50% proposed by Ausman.

Donna Brazile introduction was met with both applause and jeers. She seemed nervous while speaking…and I’m not sure what she was getting at, personally. The right of those who did not vote?

REP. ROBERT WEXLER: Florida voters did not know Obama as well as Clinton. Says Obama did not hinder revote in Florida. As representative of the Obama campaign, he supports the Ausman petition – the full pledged delegation restored with the 50% penalty. However, he disagrees with Ausman on the superdelegates, and says they should also get the 50% penalty. Points out that Obama is basically giving Clinton 19 delegates here so the process can move forward. Stresses unity in going forward.

It appears that we may be headed for the pledged Florida delegation seated with a 50% penalty. The superdelegate penalty is less certain.

Tina Flournoy asks if he supports the seating of the the full delegation. He dodges the question and gets some jeers from the crowd. Stresses unity again. Interesting moment.

In a question from Harold Ickes, Wexler said 19 delegates from Florida is fair to Clinton because she earned that many from Ohio and Pennsylvania. That made no sense, in my opinion. She netted 38, period. If she ends up with 19 because of the 50% penalty, Ohio and Pennsylvania have nothing to do with it. Weird argument.

Fiery exchange between committee member Alice Huffman and Wexler. Asked why penalizing the voters equals unity. Doesn’t really answer the exact question, but is certainly a passionate guy when it comes to voting rights. I remember his efforts in 2000 well.

Michigan coming up…

Share

Guest post by Scan

Will we be able to retire this graphic after today?

Watch the meeting live on the cable news networks and CSPAN, or online at CNN.com.

Arguing the case for Clinton will be former Michigan Governor Jim Blanchard and Florida state Senator Arthenia Joyner. Former Michigan Congressman David Bonior and Florida Congressman Robert Wexler will present the case for Obama.

A handy guide to the committee members can be found here.

Meanwhile, the protest has begun outside.

The scuttlebutt this morning is that a deal is close on Florida, but not Michigan.

The meeting has begun…

HOWARD DEAN: Either the first woman or the first African American will be the nominee, and will win in November. 35 million people have come out to support Democrats in all states and territories. The long campaign has made our party and our candidates stronger. Lays out examples of Democratic strength across the country. Disagreements make the Democratic Party strong, and we will come together.

This is not about Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, it’s about our country. Great story about speaking with Al Gore as his 2004 primary run was coming to an end. Criticized sexist(!) and racist comments, saying there was no place for it in the Democratic Party. Stresses the respect needed for the candidates, the voters, and the states who followed the rules.

I thought his speech was impressive. Let’s hope the committee is as respectful to both sides as Dean was just now.

ALEXIS HERMAN: Laid down reasons for the Florida and Michigan sanctions. Chose to impose 100% maximum penalty mainly to send a strong signal to other states not to break the rules, though 50% penalty was what the rules called for. It was also thought that stripping by 100% would allow the candidates to campaign there. This is an argument I haven’t heard before, and I’m not sure what to make of point.

JAMES ROOSEVELT: Florida appealed, saying they were forced into the January 29th primary by the Republican legislature. Appeal was rejected. Revote was encouraged, money was offered to run it, but could not be arranged.

Florida challenge begins…

JON AUSMAN- DNC Florida: Appeals for full seating of Florida Superdelegates, half-seating of pledged delegates. Superdelegates not subject to the primary timing rules, they should be fully seated if going by the rules.

Rule with specific penalty (50%) for pledged delegates is of greatest authority. They should not have been stripped by 100%. There is not unanimous agreement with all of his points, it appears.

His final, powerful point was that Florida Democrats have suffered at the hands of Republicans. Hard to argue there.

Bill Nelson up next.

Share

BY TAYLOR MARSH

graphic by TM.com reader esand

It starts tomorrow at 6:30 a.m. CNN.com will stream it live.

As I told a Boston Globe reporter yesterday, the bottom line is count the votes. I simply find it impossible to comprehend that the Democratic Party is going to stand for the disenfranchisement of voters. That is incomprehensible to me.

Obviously, there’s lots of talk about what could happen tomorrow. The New York Times has a Q & A up to explain a few things to people. A post touting the “Briarpatch” strategy is getting some attention. Earlier on David Gregory’s show, Rachel Maddow and Patrick J. Buchanan both chimed in and believe strongly that Clinton’s going to the convention. Frankly, nobody knows what she’s going to do. We’ll find out soon enough. I just don’t see Clinton taking this to Denver. I know that ticks people off when I write it and I’ll absolutely support Clinton whatever she does, but she’s facing a real wall if Obama’s numbers top the requisite needed. Clinton has amassed a serious coalition that she needs to protect, while also thinking long-term. Who knows what could happen going forward.

I’ve also said recently that I don’t think there’s any evidence that superdelegates are paying attention to Clinton’s poll numbers against McCain. I think this exchange gives further evidence of what Hillary’s facing, even as hard as it’s going to be to read. From a Washington Post chat a couple of days ago:

Washington: Looking at the most recent Rasmussen daily polls, I see that Hillary manages a tie today against McCain, but Barack is down by five points to McCain. What piqued my interest was that while Hillary had a “highly unfavorable” rating of 32 percent (i.e., as I see it, people who never will vote for her) Barack was at 35 percent. On Jan. 30, as we entered primary season’s main show, Barack’s “highly unfavorables” were 20 percent and Clinton’s were 35 percent. Is this something superdelegates may be watching? Paul Kane: I’ve spent the past several months talking to as many super-delegates as any reporter in America, I’d guess, since I cover on a day-to-day basis about 280 of them here on Capitol Hill. I hate saying this, because all the Clinton people are going to flip out and say, You’re biased, you’re biased, you’re biased. So go ahead and flip out if you want, but the simple basic truth is that the super-delegates stopped paying attention to the Clinton-Obama race about a couple days after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. They’ve stopped paying attention to the primary, and instead they’re focused on an Obama-McCain matchup in November. That’s the basic, simple, definitive reality that has happened in this race. The “undecided” super-delegates at this moment are not going to “decide” any time soon, because to them the race is over, they’re just waiting for Clinton to drop out.

Sobering, I know.

I will say one thing. I believe Father Pfleger showed up at the worst possible moment. Since Obama’s electoral challenges haven’t made a dent, you’ve got to imagine that regardless of what Paul Kane, the Post reporter, said, the latest nut job out of Obama’s church certainly couldn’t have gone down well at all. What in the world could be next?

It will be some day tomorrow, followed by Puerto Rico on Sunday, which Salon.com analyzes, then the last two primaries on Tuesday.

Whatever happens, I’ll be at the Democratic convention, because we’re one of the credentialed blogs.

Historic times any way you look at it.

Share

Guest post by Grey

Get your groove on, Marshans!

Share

Guest post by Grey

Linda Chavez on “Picking Judges:”

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are graduates of Ivy League law schools, Harvard and Yale respectively, and Obama taught constitutional law for a decade. Both approach the Constitution as a “living document,” which they believe must constantly be interpreted anew depending on changing circumstances, mores, and values. The literal meaning of the words themselves are no more important in their eyes than the judge’s interpretation of what is right and just. Thus, the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law without regard to race or color can be interpreted to permit discrimination against whites if it benefits blacks or Hispanics because, as a group, the latter have faced discrimination in the past and remain, on average, economically disadvantaged.

Was Carrot Top not available to completely mangle the meaning and purpose of the Equal Protection Clause?

Take it away, Marshans. Open thread.

Share

BY TAYLOR MARSH

Oops.

“I can tell you that it [the Surge] is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it’s succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr City are quiet.” — John McCain, Town Hall meeting, May 28, 2008.

Congratulations John McCain. You were just awarded three Pinocchios! The bad news is that he had only two, but once they started spinning about “verb tenses” they were awarded a third.

Tactics on Iraq, McCain won that round against Obama. On the facts, which matter too, not so much.

John meet reality.

The United States has 155,000 troops in Iraq and is in the process of cutting the number of brigade combat teams from 20 to 15 through mid-July. – Reuters

Pre-surge is around 135,000 troops. Got it? Sheesh, talk about challenged. Shia – Sunni silliness, and now he can’t get the number of troops right.

Gaffes galore from McCain and Obama. If this is the match up, which we’ll likely know soon, the general election is going to get silly.

Open thread.

Share

BY TAYLOR MARSH

One of the things I will do going forward until a nominee is picked is talk about the battle brewing between McCain and Obama, looking at it with an analyst’s eye, even though I’m a Democrat who will not support McCain no matter what happens. It’s a credit where credit is due approach on strategy and tactics, as these two men begin engaging each other, regardless of the fact that this nomination battle is not over. Obama may come out ahead at times, but other times it may be McCain. I’ll try to offer a fair analysis, regardless of my own ideological prejudice, which will always be Democratic. With that in mind…

You can bet if Senator Clinton is the nominee Senator McCain would not have
let fly the statements he’s recently made about Senator Obama on Iraq. In fact,
last hour when asked about Obama’s church and Rev. Pfleger’s horrific comments about Hillary,
Senator McCain went out of his way to talk about his respect for her and defend Senator Clinton, while making a
point to say that the comments made by Pfleger were reprehensible. That’s more
than Senator Obama has done to this moment, even after Howard Wolfson made his
statement that he should.

Point to McCain.

But the real harm to Obama recently has been McCain’s deftly honed tactic of
hitting Obama on Iraq in a way that has not only boxed Obama in, but has him
in a position that whatever he does he is reacting. McCain obviously knows he
will have trouble winning the Iraq argument on the merits alone, especially
given the public’s mood, but also the stirring of the pre-war intelligence pot
by Scott McClellan’s bombshell book. So instead, McCain and his team have decided
to go at Obama on what appears to be a lack of knowledge about the real facts
on the ground, coupled with a blistering rhetorical swipe that may be ridiculous
on the merits, but nevertheless comes off as a zinger that uses a favorite Republican tactic to hit Democrats.

Via
The Page we get Obama’s reaction to McCain’s Iraq taunt:

Q: Can you respond to McCain saying you’re more willing to meet with Ahmadinejad than with General Petraeus? BO: You know, I don’t have a — you know, that’s just a, you know, a typical sarcastic comment that doesn’t have anything to do with the substance, and is patently untrue since I just saw General Petraeus when he was testifying in Washington. Q: He’s saying outside of those meetings on the Hill, you would not set up your own meetings with General Petraeus, never attempted to meet with him? BO: And I haven’t – look, it’s just a flippant comment, it’s not designed to actually talk about substance. It’s a political comment that doesn’t get anywhere.

This just won’t cut it.

Like Obama’s lack of interest in convening a hearing on his foreign relations
subcommittee, which paints a less than engaged persona on matters of national security, he’s allowed McCain
and the Republicans to define him further, not on policy, but on an issue that is meant
to reveal weakness on foreign policy by virtue of storyline, image and appearance. It also managed to take a McCain and Republican weakness, the war in Iraq, and turn it against Obama. Brilliant political tactic. You know, the stuff on which general elections are won… or lost. McCain is saying that Obama is making his judgments based on ideology instead of facts on the ground, which includes a willingness to talk to our enemies, but not the soldiers. It’s absurd, but it gets the job done, because it puts Obama on the defensive. In other words, they set him up. Obama and his team have aided the Republican machine, because his message of “hope” and “change” does nothing to define his character, which has taken hit after hit lately because of his horrific judgment on the company he keeps.

Point McCain.

Now if Obama goes to Iraq, which I said he’d be forced to do after this whole
back and forth was begun by McCain, I can hear the Republican response, which
was written the minute the challenge left McCain’s mouth: It’s been years
since he went to Iraq, so I’m glad Senator Obama took my advice to actually
go to Iraq to see for himself what is happening instead of reading about
it in The New York Times.

Advantage McCain.

Tactics matter. Reacting is a loser.

Share

BY TAYLOR MARSH

An email from John McCain the other day came in with the above beauty of a picture attached. Marc Ambinder has the full text of the email up, so I won’t reprint it.

The Department of Defense is quite specific about these things (pdf via email).

Section 4 of this directive states that the policy behind this directive is to remain “[i]n keeping with the traditional concept that members on active duty should not engage in partisan political activity[.]” … .. 4.1.2.2. Use official authority or influence to interfere with an election . . . solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others . . . .

Here’s the response from the McCain campaign:

UPDATE 2: McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers says using the image of Petraeus is not at all contrary to the spirit of Mullen’s directive. “We’re not suggesting General Petraeus has endorsed anyone in this race. I’m sure you’ll find (attached is one example) that Senator Obama has used pictures of himself with troops in the course of this campaign.”

McCain’s email message is obvious: General Petraeus is all in for John, whether he states it or not.

I’m on a call with the Clinton campaign about tomorrow’s RBC meeting. It began like this: The January results should count. The preferences expressed in those votes should be honored. The full delegation should be seated. … Full votes, period, no half votes… .. “Those are our goals.” I’ll report more in the comments if something interesting pops up.

UPDATE and Breaking… “No, it won’t happen again,” John McCain said during a press gaggle when asked about the appropriateness of the email above that had been sent out in a fundraising plea. You could tell by McCain’s response he was not happy about either having to answer the question or the fact that his staff blew it.

Share

Have a laugh. Pay tribute to a true talent. Harvey Korman.

Night owl thread.