Obama on the verge

If you want to know where the Democratic race stands right now, do not pass go, do not collect $200, just head straight over to TPM Café and read FlyOnTheWall's latest post. I was going to quote excerpts from it, but then I realized I'd end up blockquoting the whole thing. Just go read it already. :)

(Also read his follow-up comment. Money quote: "I expect the superdelegates to coalesce [around Obama] remarkably quickly after March 4" -- even if Hillary wins reasonably big in Texas and Ohio.)

Oh, and if you're still worried about Hillary's potential superdelegate shenanigans, you might want to read this, too. It'll get you all fired up, if you're an Obama supporter -- or a supporter of small-d democracy in general, or for that matter, truth, justice, the American way, etc. :) But Fly's math and logic are persuasive: it appears unlikely that Hilldog can even get the pledged-delegate count close enough to make such shenanigans plausible.

IMHO, the only way Hillary wins this nomination now is if, under the increased media and public scrutiny that comes with being the clear-cut frontrunner, Obama seriously stumbles in the next three weeks. He and his campaign have been so disciplined and on-message to date, it seems unlikely he'll commit an unforced error (knock on wood), so really, it's all about the debates. She's got two chances to trip him up. All he has to do is not fall flat on his face, and he'll be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. Which is pretty damn remarkable.

P.S. Fly predicts that Obama will be rolling out a bunch of superdelegate endorsements over the next three weeks. I hope that's true. Given the media's unholy obsession with the grossly misleading "total delegate count" -- lumping the pledges and the supers together into an undifferentiated mass -- it would help Obama immensely in the perceptions game if he can pull as close to even in the superdelegate count as possible before March 4. That way, even if Hillary wins big in Texas and Ohio (which, frankly, I doubt will happen; I think Giuliani syndrome is going to take hold between now and then, again barring an Obama gaffe), Obama will still be able to maintain a sizable, obvious lead in both delegate counts: the one that actually ought to matter (pledged delegates) and the one that the media is obsessed with (total delegates). The less ambiguity about who's "ahead," the better Obama's chances to wrap this thing up.

Comments

[Shaun]

today, i'm gonna go apply for the position of CEO of my large company. i've only been with the company for a year and a half, and that's the extent of my experience in the industry as well, but i'm hoping that the way i speak will be pleasant enough that they'll give me the job anyway. i just hope they don't ask me what i've accomplished so far with the company, cuz there's nothing of much significance. wish me luck!

[Joe Mama]

the only way Hillary wins this nomination now is if, under the increased media and public scrutiny that comes with being the clear-cut frontrunner, Obama seriously stumbles in the next three weeks. He and his campaign have been so disciplined and on-message to date, it seems unlikely he'll commit an unforced error (knock on wood...

He might want to minimize things like this. Of course, there are probably too few people knowledgeable or concerned enough to care about such a display and what it portends, while there are plenty of morons enthralled by radical chic. This is why I had to hold my nose when I voted for Obama yesterday, and why I won't vote for him in November.

[yea]

shaun,

too bad corporations arn't a democracy, otherwise you might have a shot! actually, you still might have a shot because corporations often promote rising stars, who work/get along realllllly well with others, instead of old guard dinosaurs. anyway, good luck! i hope you get the job!

[yea]

joe,

he said it was innappropriate. it was a volunteer/unofficial office. dont know what else you could really expect to be done about it.

this is another irrelevant hit piece aagainst obama, like the muslim emails and the picture where he supposedly doesnt salute the flag. some volunteer supporters in an unofficial office are far-lefties. lets all get scared!

[Brendan]

Joe Mama, there are some serious, substantial, legitimate arguments to be made against Barack Obama becoming the next president of the United States. However, the fact that some idiots put up a picture of Che Guevara in an unofficial, volunteer-staffed Obama headquarters is not one of those arguments.

Do you really want to get into a debate about what "some of [a given candidate]'s supporters think he has in mind"? Because I'm betting that McCain will get the vast majority of the anti-black racist vote, the kill-all-Muslims vote, the God-hates-fags vote, etc., in November. Likewise, Obama will get the vast majority of the blame-America-first vote, the Bush-is-Hitler vote, and yes, the Che-Guevera-chic vote. So what? This tells us NOTHING about the candidates.

Fail.

[Brendan]

P.S. "This is why I had to hold my nose when I voted for Obama yesterday, and why I won't vote for him in November"? Really? This -- the fact that "there are plenty of morons enthralled by radical chic" -- is the reason you don't support Obama? How idiotic, and beneath your usual standards of logical argumentation.

I might remove Powerline from my blogroll for that post, actually. As yea said, it's a total, substanceless hit job. It would be different if Obama hadn't made a statement about it, and they were demanding that he do so (much like I did with the race-baiting stuff a while back). But he's already said it was inappropriate, so there is no legitimate issue here, unless we're going to play the guilt-by-association game. And as I said, that's a game nobody wins.

[Joe Mama]

No one is saying you should "all get scared," but thanks for making my point.

[Aaron]

The Che flag incident is utterly trivial, though I have no doubt that it will score points with, well, people like Joe Mama, apparently. Sign me up for the not "knowledgeable [sure... whatever] or concerned enough to care about such a display and what it portends" club.

[Joe Mama]

Fair enough. I don't want to play the guilt-by-association game either, for the reasons Brendan states. However, the "this" I inartfully referred to as the reason I don't support Obama is not that there are morons enthralled by radical chic, but that Obama is a typical leftist who is not serious about taking the necessary measures to combat the very real threat of terrorism, such as extending immunity to telecom companies that cooperate with law enforcement to identify terrorists (say, like Che).

As for Che, well, that's long been a pet peeve of mine because Che is no different from murderous radicals like Stalin, yet somehow Che has been romanticized in the zeitgeist. We know Obama can use stronger terms than "inappropriate" when he wants to, just ask the "hypocrites" who had the nerve to wear an American flag on their lapel. If some idiots in a McCain field office had a picture of Fred Phelps on their wall, I'd likewise expect more than the perfunctory "inappropriate" from McCain.

[Joe Mama]

(And yes, I know Stalin killed a bazillion more people than Che...that's not the point).

[yea]

if the telcome companies did nothing wrong then they wont get in trouble. retroactive immunity is exactly what it sounds like. it means even if we find out that they've broken the law, they are still immune from punishment. lets find out exactly what these companies did before deciding whether to let them off the hook or not.

personally, id be more concerned about an administration that spends billions of dollars daily in iraq, when bid laden and his cronies are still hiding in afgahnistan/pakistan. that seems to me like "not serious about taking the necessary measures to combat the very real threat of terrorism".

only a few more months until this disaster of an administration is over. thank goodness.

[Joe Mama]

Yes, "lets get all scared!" about the big bad telecom cos. who may have broken the law in cooperating with law enforcement trying to catch terrorists trying to kill you.

[JT]

The fact that they were trying to help catch terrorists justifies breaking the law? I'm reminded of a line from "A Man for All Seasons" when Thomas More is asked if he would give the devil the benefit of the law.

"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? "

[denverdem]

This irrational fear of anything/everything lurking in the shadows by the far right (Joe Mama) is what makes me constantly ponder how they can bear the mantle of being tough in the face of our enemies.

Folding the Constitution up like a cheap suit in the face of danger is not strength. It is the very definition of weakness. If someone breaks the law, they should face the consequences. FDR must be spinning in his grave.

[Joe Mama]

This irrational fear of anything/everything lurking in the shadows by the far right (Joe Mama) is what makes me constantly ponder how they can bear the mantle of being tough in the face of our enemies.

Likewise, the irrational fear of anything/everything the gov't does to fight terrorism by the far left (denverdem) is what makes me constantly ponder how they can bear the mantle of being tough in the face of our enemies.

Folding the Constitution up like a cheap suit in the face of danger is not strength. It is the very definition of weakness. If someone breaks the law, they should face the consequences. FDR must be spinning in his grave.

If taking liberties with the Constitution in the face of danger is under discussion, FDR probably shouldn't be your go-to guy.

[denverdem]

I'm not being irrationally afraid of what the government does. I'm just not in favor of granting immunity to corporations that may have broken the law. How does that possibly help our fight against terrorists? You effectively want to bend the Constitution to allow illegal activities to go unpunished. All in the name of safety and security. It is truly pathetic seeing you people curl up like a frightened kitten whenever the word terrorist is mentioned. You will cede any freedom we have to the government if they say it relates to that subject. Isn't the far right supposed to be the party of LIMITED government???

Touche on the FDR bit. I obviously was thinking of his "nothing to fear, but fear itself speech", but his incarceration of Japanese-Americans was the height of fear acting out. Truly a horrible Supreme Court decision that upheld that travesty. At least, he ostensibly implored the American people to show strength in the face of our enemies. Present day Republicans show nothing but fear and use it to frighten up votes, because obviously, if someone sues a telecom company for violating the Fourth Amendment, the terrorists have won.

[Joe Mama]

The fact that they were trying to help catch terrorists justifies breaking the law?

Of course not. But there is the question of where one's priorities lie. Faced with a proposed measure that would help catch terrorists who were definitely trying to do great harm and kill many, but that would also allow for the possibility that, say, a telecom co. might break the law (most likely in a manner that would be invisible to those whose information was compromised), what is your bigger concern? What should be POTUS' bigger concern?

[Joe Mama]

And I'm not being irrationally afraid of everything "lurking in the shadows." I am, however, legitimately concerned about terrorists doing great harm and killing countless numbers of people by, say, setting of a nuclear bomb or dirty bomb in an American city. Think it couldn't happen? Did you think the WTC could ever come down the way it did before 9/11?

It is truly pathetic seeing you people curl up like a frightened kitten whenever the word terrorist is mentioned.

Please. The criticism of "us people" by "you people" has always been that we tend to favor overpursuing terrorists using military as well as law enforcement means. The "frightened kitten" bit is just silly.

You will cede any freedom we have to the government if they say it relates to that subject.

No, just the "freedom" not to be killed by terrorists because of the squemishness if "you people."

[denverdem]

I do not underestimate the terrorist threat and I do believe it is very real. I don't think that going outside the bounds of the current law is the way to fight them. I still have not heard a cogent argument from the conservative side about why FISA was insufficient for dealing with the current threat. And even if it was, why couldn't the executive branch gone to Congress and asked to have it changed?? Going outside the bounds of the law goes against the principles this country was founded on and is an overreaction similar to the internment of the Japanese in WWII, the Alien & Sedition Acts, etc. Not saying that listening in on conversations is the same as imprisoning thousands of innocent people based on fear, but guided by the same misplaced fear.

I'm all for using every military and law enforcement means available to fight terrorists. That is why I opposed the war in Iraq, it diverted our means to do just that.

I still fail to see how opposing retroactive immunity to these companies for violating the law will weaken our defense against terrorists or why it makes a politician weak on national defense.

[yea]

I think more US citizens have died in iraq than on 9/11 at this point. iraq was not responsible for 9/11. most military stategists would agree that we are under-manned in afganistan, specifically on the afgani/pakistan border. i'm not sure if keeping troops in iraq for another 100 years like mccain suggested was possible is the best long-term strategy for combating terrorism. obama placing elimination of dependency on foreign oil at the top of his campaign platform seems like a better idea to me to secure america for the long term as opposed to perpetual occupation of iraq.

denverdem,

logical well-thought out post. i wish i such a crappy writer and could make out points/arguments like that. you're getting at an important point. some people make it out like we essentially have 1 of 2 choices. either (a) fight terrorism and allow illegal acts by giving retroactive immunity (b) terrorists win.

i believe we can fight terrorism while not eliminating civil liberties and breaking laws. i'll vote for a candidate who feels the same way. this either/or stuff is for the birds.

[Joe Mama]

The arguments for why FISA was inadequate to the task and/or why the administration's actions didn't actually violate FISA have been hashed out on this blog many times before by myself and others, so I'm not going to restate them now just because you weren't there. The interwebs doesn't start and stop at your convenience.

As for why extending immunity to telecom companies that cooperate with law enforcement and intelligence authorities in identifying int'l terrorist communications might help our defense against terrorists (and weaken our defense if opposed), well, explaining it to you would likely be a waste of time because I can't comprehend it for you.

[Joe Mama]

But I'll give you a hint: Google "Flying Imams" and "John Doe"

[Joe Mama]

A warning though: You may have to draw a logical parallel.

[Joe Mama]

some people make it out like we essentially have 1 of 2 choices. either (a) fight terrorism and allow illegal acts by giving retroactive immunity (b) terrorists win. ... this either/or stuff is for the birds.

But you'll never find such black-and-white thinking among those who insist that either either (a) Saddam was flying the plane on 9/11, or (b) Iraq posed no terrorist threat. Nope, no irony here . . .

[yea]

you can argue that 100 different countries pose a threat to us in different ways. i think you use of the word "terrorist" here is misguided.

my point was more about efficient resource allocation. we have finite resources. wasting billions of dollars and thousands of american lives on a country that posed little threat to us, when much bigger threats are being underadressed does not seem like good policy. of course when you look at the no-bid oil contracts given out, and you look at the donations these companies made to bush/cheney, the policy makes a little more sense. obama '08.

[denverdem]

Umm...Saddam played no part in 9/11. He is/was hated by bin Laden and his organization as much as the US hated him. bin Laden's grand plan included toppling Saddam to establish his grand Caliphate. Not to mention that although despotic, ruthless, and a mass murderer, Saddam was not completely stupid. Playing any part in 9/11 would have invited his downfall and he wasn't about to do that. al-Qaeda was the target after 9/11. Iraq changed all that. Iraq was in no position to harm the US or any of its allies in the fall of 2002.

And I read the article that appeared after Googling your suggested terms. First of all, it is completely ridiculous, but that is not the point. Retroactive immunity to telecoms has nothing to do with immunity for citizens reporting suspicious behavior. These companies were not seeing suspicious behavior and then reporting it to the government. They were complicit in violating the 4th Amendment and invading the privacy guaranteed to American citizens by the Constitution with absolutely no suspicions whatsoever. If not granting immunity to them retroactively would chill their behavior in violating US law, then so be it. We can fight terrorists w/o violating the Constitution. This is not a question of having security or freedom. We can have both. And I relish seeing this distinction hashed out between Obama and McCain this summer. I have a feeling that McCain's constantly dour, depressing speeches and his constant scare tactics will wear thin.

[Shaun]

yea,

u're right... corporations aren't democracies. the reason they wouldn't end up with someone like my current self as CEO is because the decisions are made by intelligent people.

on the other hand, in a democracy, there's always the possibility that the election can be won by someone who has no related accomplishments. there are a lot of voters who are either not intelligent or ignore all logic. it's a negative aspect to what is otherwise a good thing.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Joe Mama-

You are an idiot. You work in a law office? People also get sued for shooting other people (yes, even in self-defense). That hasn't hurt the number of guns purchased every year in this country.

People also get sued for running over other people in cars. That would explain why there are no longer cars on the road. Or doctors treating patients. Or lawyers giving bad legal advice!

As for the telephone companies helping the Feds, many of their own legal counsel advised against it and they did it anyway.

Not every action is based on the odds of getting sued.

[yea]

shaun,

im curious to see how well the "long-term experience in washington d.c. is a great thing" angle plays up in the general election. considering we'll be 9-12 months into a recession at that time, and 8 years into a highly unpopular bush administration, im sure it'll work real well with the american public. hopefully that'll be mccain's strategy.

one thing obama did do is vote against this debacle in iraq from the beginning. sure beats causally talking about staying 100 years in iraq. since the vast majority of the country opposes this war(see the 2006 election), i think it'll serve him well in the general should be get the nom. i'll take intelligence and good ideas over institutionalized d.c. insiders. mccain will need to do better than quasi-"its my turn because ive been a senator for 12349081902312348098 years" arguments.

[Shaun]

yea,

who are u talking to?! cuz none of what u said actually responded to anything that i've said. when did i say "long term experience in washington dc" is the necessary experience?

thank you for strengthening my point regarding difference between intelligent people making decisions and possibly dumb or irresponsible people casting votes. intelligent people know that economies go in cycles. based on your argument, you must give Bush full credit for turning around the falling economy that he inherited back in 2001.

also, why do u suddenly bring McCain into the argument? although it is true that McCain is an infinite percentage (literally) more qualified for the job than Obama, i never said anything about McCain being better. keep going with your talking points, and u'll continue to prove that u can't make a logical argument.

as for the war, i'm happy u support a guy who wouldn't have allowed us to get involved in either of the 2 world wars. i ask you 1 question: would u have preferred to be currently speaking German or Japanese? going into those wars wasn't exactly unanimously popular either. i'd rather have someone who leaves open the possibility of being in Iraq for another 100 years (look at Germany, Vietnam, Japan, etc right now... we're there

no wait... i have 1 more question for you: did u watch the many focus groups following debates during which Obama supporters couldn't name a single thing that he's accomplished? whether or not he's accomplished anything, it is sad that so many people support a guy that they know nothing about.

finally, i refer u back to my previous post... not sure if u've read that one yet...

[yea]

shaun,

please provide links to the focus groups that you mention. otherwise i will assume you are lying.

please provide a link that shows that obama would not have gotten involved in world war ii, otherwise i will assume you are lying or assume you are an idiot for comparing iraq to world war ii.

i bring mccain into the argument because he is running for president. i figured that would be obvious to understand but apparantly not.

all your posts on this thread were attempts to attack barack's experience. i replied by talking about how i felt mccain's longterm experience in washington wasn't really that big of an asset. not sure why that confuses you.

when did i blame the economy on bush? yea wasting $4 billion a day in iraq, and running the deficit up so high by cutting taxes for the wealthy (tax cuts that mccain exposed but now supports in a desperate attempt to sure up his base LOL!!) causing inflation to get out of control is certainly contributing, at least to some degree, to some economic problems we are having, but i dont think i ever blamed it on bush. my argument that was in a recession voters will be looking for change from the current group running things since they have done such a horrendous job. since over a 75 year+ period the stock market has done better with a democratic in the white house (http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/index.htm), i don't think its an example of "possibly dumb or irresponsible people casting votes" when voters hope a democrat can turn things around.

[Derek]

Given the media's unholy obsession with the grossly misleading "total delegate count" -- lumping the pledges and the supers together into an undifferentiated mass -- it would help Obama immensely in the perceptions game if he can pull as close to even in the superdelegate count as possible before March 4.

Brendan, you're infuriatingly contradictory in your Obamafatuation. You've indicated at numerous points previously that it's "all about the superdelegates," stated how vital they are to the contest and to perceptions, and have included them in delegate tallies previously (here and here among others).

Suddenly, now that it's more beneficial to Obama's "perceptions" to exclude the superdelegates, you'd begun lambasting the media for doing precisely what you've done, on your own blog, within the last month.

As of right now, at least 232 superdelegates, who "could" change their minds, have come forward and said, "Yes, I support Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination. I intend to vote for her at the convention."

There is no basis for your baseless assumption that their votes are somehow less worthy to be counted in the general tally. It's certainly the case that they "could" change. But Clinton "could" die before the convention. Or Howard Dean "could" seat the Florida delegate. Or the Supreme Court "could" compel the Democrats to seat the Michigan delegates.

Essentially, you're reviewing this matter taking all inferences in the light most favorable to Obama. Which is fine for your blog, but you can't expect the media to bow to your baseless and favorable spins on each matter thus far. At present, the FL and MI delegates are excluded, both candidates are alive, and 232 superdelegates have pledged support for Clinton.

Why don't you wait until some of those superdelegates stop supporting Clinton and withdraw their support before concluding that they'll, of course, coalesce around Obama.

And, as discussed elsewhere previously, the currently-pledged supers have almost nothing to lose. They've already picked Clinton as their horse. If they switch to Obama, they're not going to get any favors in the spoils system, they're not going to be committing a loyal or heroic action, they're just going to be going with the flow and trying to find the "winner," which won't give them a thing in the next administration. If anything, it's better to stick with Clinton to say that they were "there in the hard times," and then look foward to the plum administration jobs if it ever happens. If Clinton loses, well, they're still DNC members, and they'll go along with the ordinary business at the end of the day.

[Derek]

yea, I assume Shaun was citing this clip.

I think Shaun's attempting to extrapolate Obama's position on war generally to WWII, and I don't think that's correct or accurate (but I'm curious if Shaun has a citation).

[Derek]

yea, it's not entirely true that Obama has "vote[d] against this debacle in iraq from the beginning." He campaigned for the Senate promising that he would oppose any funding for the war (which is a rare check Congress has on the President's Commander-in-Chief power), but voted to fund the war every single time it has come up for a vote.

Admittedly, Obama's in a sticky political situation--a vote against funding is seen as a vote "against our troops" and "not giving them the support they need," which is politically unpopular (people want to be "against the war" but "for the troops," which apparently means funding it endlessly). But cutting off funding is the only way Congress can end the war, and Obama has refused to do so, repeatedly. Folks like Whitehouse, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Dodd, and Feingold have taken that position. Obama has not (at least to my recollection).

[David K.]

Derek, its really very simple. Superdelegates CAN change their mind, pledged delegates can't (for the first two rounds atleast). So including Superdelegates in counts of who is ahead is misleading. However this in no way contradicts the idea that the Supers will have an important role in the final determination. You are setting up a false equivalence.

[Derek]

David K., Clinton CAN die, the FL and MI delegates CAN be seated, and the Supreme Court CAN dictate the outcome.

There we go. Why aren't those disclaimers on the delegate counts?

[David K.]

Because they aren't even remotely relevant. How about discussing the issues at hand instead of going off on a pointless tangent?

[Joe Mama]

Max,

Yes, I work in a law office. Part of my job is finding flaws in the other side's arguments. My job is made easy when the other side argues by way of inapposite examples to make a point that has no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand, as you do above. You cite the following to prove the point that "not every action is based on the odds of getting sued":

1) People still buy guns despite lawsuits by people who get shot;

2) People still buy cars despite lawsuits by people who get run over;

3) People still see doctors despite there being medical malpractice suits; and

4) People still retain lawyers despite there being legal malpractice suits.

You don't have to be the editor of the law review to realize that each of those examples has nothing at all to do with whether a telecom co. would be willing to cooperate with law enforcement to track down terrorists if they were likely to get sued for doing so. For starters, in each of your examples, the party being sued is the gun owner, car owner, doctor and lawyer, whereas the party being sued above is the telecom co. Comparing the interests of potential civil plaintiffs and whether they would still buy a gun, buy a car, see a doctor, or see a lawyer (presumably based on the risk of suffering a tort) to the interests of the hypothetical defendant telecom co. and whether it would open itself up to potential litigation (civil or criminal) by cooperating with law enforcement and/or intelligence authorities is completely absurd. Surely someone as brilliant as you are, Max, can understand the difference between potential plaintiffs that still have an interest in owning a gun or car, or seeing a doctor or lawyer, despite the risks involved (however small), and a potential defendant that would have no comparable interest whatsoever in cooperating with law enforcement if it meant risking litigation with no possible upside.

So while your conclusion is almost certainly correct that "not every action is based on the odds of getting sued" -- however horrendously you went about supporting it -- that is of no moment here.

But your lack of self-awareness in calling me an "idiot" is precious.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

"You don't have to be the editor of the law review to realize that each of those examples has nothing at all to do with whether a telecom co. would be willing to cooperate with law enforcement to track down terrorists if they were likely to get sued for doing so."

You don't have to be the editor of a law review to see that you are an idiot for raising concerns that the threat of lawsuits might prevent telecom companies from cooperating with law enforcement because they might get sued when they already did cooperate with law enforcement with the understanding that they might get sued!

Did you not read the rest of my post? The telecom companies lawyers told them not to cooperate because they would be sued. They did it anyway!

Talk about a big fucking strawman argument. As I said, you work for a law firm?

[Derek]

Whether a candidate is alive, whether the Supreme Court intervenes, and whether FL and MI are seated are relevant. You just think they're less important.

And I'm distinguishing between things present (as they are) and things that could change. I think we ought to live in the present, the way things are. You're suggesting that we should remove all things that could change (e.g., superdelegates that could change). If so, I don't understand why "change" (to co-opt the expression) is limited to superdelegates.

[David K.]

Neither are relevant to whether or not there is a difference between pledged delegates and super delegates. You can go around coming up with other examples that MIGHT effect an election, but the superdelegates WILL affect this one, and unless you can demonstrate that changing ones position as a Superdelegate is some exceptionally rare occurance, it is relevant and important to consider them seperately. You have yet to come up with any such evidence or argument why they should be counted as equivalent to regular delegates other than that they both have the word "delegate" in their name.

[David K.]

Neither are relevant to whether or not there is a difference between pledged delegates and super delegates. You can go around coming up with other examples that MIGHT effect an election, but the superdelegates WILL affect this one, and unless you can demonstrate that changing ones position as a Superdelegate is some exceptionally rare occurance, it is relevant and important to consider them seperately. You have yet to come up with any such evidence or argument why they should be counted as equivalent to regular delegates other than that they both have the word "delegate" in their name.

[David K.]

Joe Mama, No one is going to be able to sue a teleco for helping track down a terrorist when they follow the established law (i.e. law enforcement has a warrant). But they should damn well be sued when they provide private data to the government without a warrant, especially when there is no evidence to gather that data in the first place. What right does the government have to listen in on a conversation between me and my mother? NONE. If they have evidence we might be doign something shakey or be involved in terrorism, or whatever, there is a court they can go to to get that warrant. Beyond that the telecoms weren't even providing targeted information, it was vast amounts of who called who that the gov't claimed they needed to hunt down terrorists. The trouble is, in order to notice a pattern that might link someone to a terrorist, you'd need a starting point, i.e. a known or suspected terrorist, whom you can ALLREADY get a warrant for and target their conversations. Random data mining is a pointless invasion of our privacy. If the gov't wants to change the law, they can do so, but they have to put forth an argument on why such an invasion should be allowed, the default answer to such a question should always be no. It should not be up to the people in a free society to have to defend their rights, it should be the governments job to convince those entrusted with the power to change the law that giving up that right is necessary. Since they did not do so, and the telecoms worked with them, they should be sued, they broke the law.

[Joe Mama]

you are an idiot for raising concerns that the threat of lawsuits might prevent telecom companies from cooperating with law enforcement because they might get sued when they already did cooperate with law enforcement with the understanding that they might get sued!

Did you not read the rest of my post? The telecom companies lawyers told them not to cooperate because they would be sued. They did it anyway!

I read the rest of your post, Max. I was just too busy laughing to respond right away.

At least you’ve dropped those ridiculous examples you turned inside out. Now you rely on the fact that telecom companies cooperated with law enforcement with the understanding they might get sued as proof that the threat of lawsuits is not a valid concern. Putting aside the obvious question of whether each company the gov’t asked to cooperate did so, and whether each company’s attorneys advised their clients the same way, why do you think those companies went ahead and cooperated with law enforcement? Just for shits and giggles, let’s assume they did so against the wishes of their attorneys on good faith in the assurances of the president — backed by legal opinions of the Justice Dept. — that the surveillance programs were legal and necessary in the war on terror. Now what do you think will happen if Congress refuses to honor those assurances by providing immunity, Mr. Wizard? Will all those companies continue to be good corporate citizens and cooperate because, well, “not every action is based on the odds of getting sued”?

But maybe you’re right, Max, and the threat of lawsuits isn't really be a valid concern because, after all, it’s not like protracted litigation would really impair, say, the competitiveness of the telecom sector, right? And surely we can take it as a given that those companies will always cooperate with the gov’t no matter what, right? Increased litigation couldn’t possibly risk inhibiting future private-sector cooperation with any other vital gov’t programs, could it? And of course, from the gov't's perspective, there’s no chance whatsoever that the intentional or inadvertent disclosures of sources and methods of intelligence gathering through civil litigation could damage nat’l security . . . that’s just crazy talk.

You gone from precious to adorable, Max. I'd ask you to stop calling me an idiot, but I have a soft spot for anyone who strokes my ego...

[Brendan Loy]

Derek, what you perceive as "inconsistency" is actually just a variance caused by the fact that not everything I blog falls into the same category of commentary. Off the top of my head, there are three major "types" of election-reated observations that I frequently post:

1) Predictive or analytical posts (what I think "is" happening or "will" happen)

2) Substantive/normative opinionated posts (what I think "should" happen)

3) Gleeful celebrations of chaos (where my proceduralism-junkieness comes to the surface, distorts my predictions and overwhelms my actual substantive opinions)

My earlier posts about superdelegates fell into categories #1 and/or #3. I don't think you'll find any examples of me actually stating my opinion that the superdelegates ought to override the will of the elected delegates. I have never said that because I don't believe it, and wouldn't believe it regardless of who's in the lead. You may find examples of me sounding giddy at the prospect of superdelegates deciding everything, but again, that's the chaos-loving proceduralist in me; saying "wheee!! chaos!! superdelegates!!" is by no means the same thing as expressing a considered opinion about their proper role.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. Perhaps more to the point, I also don't think you'll find any points where I'm saying that media ought to treat superdelegates and pledged delegates as an undifferentiated mass in their tallies. I did previously believe that the media wasn't paying enough attention to the potential role of superdelegates in deciding the nomination -- something that has changed drastically in the past week; now they are paying attention -- but if you think about it at more than a surface level, saying then that "the media isn't paying enough attention to superdelegates" isn't actually inconsistent with saying now that "the media shouldn't be counting the superdelegates the way they are." In both cases, my point is that the media needs to take note of the important differences between supers and non-supers. Earlier, they weren't really grappling with the mathematical reality that it was impossible to achieve a majority without the supers. Now, they've started grappling with that, but they still aren't focusing on the distinction between the two very different types of delegate counts that are going on. The two points are actually intimately related to one another; far from being contradictory, they are complementary. In both cases, my point is that the media ought to be do a better job of informing the public about the actual state of the race, vis a vis both sets of delegates.

I do want Obama to win. But that fact isn't driving my opinion of the delegate math issues. In light of the bloggy hissy-fit I threw over the unjustified race-baiting against the Clintons with regard to the MLK and "fairy tale" comments last month, I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt that I can separate my principles from my political opinions of the moment.

[Brendan Loy]

P.P.S. I'll concede, however, that I haven't always done a great job of explaining the evolution of my thinking about this stuff, and the differences between post-types #1, #2 and #3. Frankly, it's all I can manage to keep up my torrid election-blogging pace with everything else that's going on in my life, so I don't have the time to be as thorough in my explanations of what's going on in my head as I might like. :) So I admit that there's some cause for confusion with regard to what I'm getting at. If you really think about it, though, and try to be charitable (or at least not uncharitable) in interpreting my motives, I think you'll find my positions entirely consistent at a substantive level.

[Derek]

It's hard to sound faux-outraged and charitable simultaneously, but I'll do my best.

[Brendan]

LOL

"If some idiots in a McCain field office had a picture of Fred Phelps on their wall, I'd likewise expect more than the perfunctory "inappropriate" from McCain."

Will not happen because Phelp, Nazis have not endorsed a candidate. Only Che Guevera has.