Weekend Spin Patrol

The casual bullshit was the first time I realized, many months ago, that Hillary Clinton is just George W. Bush with Democratic policy positions.

- ejbenjamin

March 7, 2008 at 6:00pm

Sadly, we have recent experience with this, not just in politics but in governance.

This activity, and the desire to rise above it is a big reason why Obama took off.

- jemerk

March 7, 2008 at 6:01pm

ejbenjamin-

I agree: the parallel between Hillary and W is rather striking. Indeed, I made this parallel myself earlier today, in a post in response to Jonathan Chait's very fine article elsewhere at TNR, "Go Already!," in which he writes: "Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves. . .kneecap[ing her opponent]. . .(meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness). . ."

I would argue (and did in that earlier post) that HRC's ruthlessness is not exactly Nixonian (her campaign hasn't, as far as we know, engineered a break-in of her opponent's offices), but Rovian, in that her campaign has repeatedly employed the kind of big-lie smear tactics we have seen the Bushies employ over the past seven or eight years, smears that have no basis whatsoever in reality, smears that are more apt descriptions of the candidate (Hillary, Bush) whose campaign has manufactured them, smears that--in their overheated language, their ad hominem attacks, their hyperventilating irrationality--seem to have originated with a drunk, or a psychopath, or the Mad Hatter's tea party.

In short, listening to Hillary or one of her surrogates--Ickes or Wolfson or Mark Penn--is like accidentally tuning into a segment on the Fox News Channel.

- JosephCuomo

March 7, 2008 at 6:06pm

Exactly. I've been saying for months, Hillary's campaign boils down to, "Yes, she's as bad as George W. Bush. But dammit she's _our_ George W. Bush."

And the truth is that there is a lot of Bush envy among Democratic Boomers. They want payback on Bush's terms, not turning a new page. I have a lot of sympathy with this mindset; I'm mad as hell about the harm the Bush-era Republicans have done to my country. But the truth is that repairing that damage is going to require the kind of leadership that a Rovean approach precludes. Clinton 44 might be very good at sticking it to Republicans in Congress. But that can only be done at the expense of engaging in the urgent work of repairing the nation.

In short, the Republicans may deserve a Hillary presidency. But the country needs better.

- rhubarbs

March 7, 2008 at 6:26pm

Audacious, sure. But then Obama's been promising the same thing for a long time and he sure as heck isn't going to end attack politics either

"I think Obama and his staff say things they at least believe to be essentially true."

Nice high standard there. You're probably right, which explains the persistent ad-hominem attacks on Clinton. Of course it couldn't be true of Clinton and her staff, because the things that they say disagree with the way you and your high-punditry pals interpret the world. They must be soul-deadened.

- newdex

March 7, 2008 at 6:52pm

It's Ari Fleischer time all the time with Hillary's team. Either that, or she's the new Joe Lieberman.

Isn't this how the cycle of abuse works? The victim becomes the victimizer? Maybe Obama is smart enough to deal with that dynamic. I wouldn't know where to start.

- chrismealy

March 7, 2008 at 6:55pm

Chait et. al. --- what is wrong with you Obama fans? Democrats have been losing -- elections, in Congress, etc. because they've been rolling over and playing dead. House leadership had no business taking impeachment "off the table." Rolling over on Patriot Act and related issues. Etc. WTF is wrong with a Dem candidate who's ready to kick ass?

PS: not an argument for Clinton -- just frustrating that you Obama types seem to think politics is fuzzy-feely, and that people in it are supposed to be nice. They're not. Get over it. And by the way, as much as the Clinton crew can kick ass, they ain't Rove....

I still want Joe Biden.

- LISAH

March 7, 2008 at 6:59pm

I think the only thing Obama needs to do is call her out on this and keep his cool while doing it. "There she goes again..."

He's got this thing wrapped up; all he needs to do is maintain his aura of viability and repeatedly make the case to the superdelegates that handing Clinton the nomination would be the disaster it no doubt would be.

- aeromonas

March 7, 2008 at 7:41pm

Take the gloves off. The Clintons are as dirty as pigs in shit. Time to do a little excavating on Bill's dealings since leaving office. They want to play rough, play rough. It wouldn't take a month of sifting to find enough to ruin her campaign. It's out there, just find the surrogates to float it to the press.

- mpatrickhendri

March 7, 2008 at 8:02pm

come on, Mark Penn sold his soul a long time ago.

- blackton

March 7, 2008 at 8:13pm

Lisa,

The Clinton crew should kick ass by kicking ass. Right now they're kicking ass by lying, distorting and smearing a fellow Democrat.

Anyway, whose ass, exactly, is HRC ready to 'kick' in relation to what you say about Congressional Dems rolling over and playing dead? Right now she's out there praising John McCain's experience and readiness for the White House.

- WoodyBombay

March 7, 2008 at 8:26pm

She's W reborn.

- dbhuff

March 7, 2008 at 8:38pm

Jonathan,

You're right--it's sust terrible. It's as bad as TNR's paid bloggers putting up five posts in 30 seconds to attack Clinton for having been called a monster.

- Eos

March 7, 2008 at 9:17pm

Speaking of spinning--it is very hard to avoid the impression that the election is slipping through Obama's hands and that his moment has passed.

The problem with idealizations is that they cannot endure, and when they begin to crack they crumble quickly. Obama's facade is cracking.

A key element in the fading of Obama is the string of gaffes and missteps that have made him the butt of jokes and that make his campaign seem like amateur hour--the Not Yet Ready for Prime Time Players.

It is only a mattter of time before the press begins to raise the issue of Obama's competence as an issue. After years of Bush, no one is going to support another incompetent president.

When people begin to question Obama's competence, it's all over for him.

- Eos

March 7, 2008 at 9:29pm

Re McCain: Chait, you might have mentioned that McCain also said this: "I sent two of my children to Catholic school. I categorically reject and repudiate any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic, both in intent and nature. I categorically reject it, and I repudiate it. And we can't have that in this campaign."

Which seems rather stronger.

Re the Dems: I dunno, *can* Obama hit back by playing rough? It seems to me there's two difficulties with that. The first is his whole change-the-tone schtick; some of his independent voters are likely to be turned off the minute he retaliates and starts looking like a normal pol, however unfair that may be. (I'm suddenly having flashbacks to Bush vs McCain in SC in 2000. Poor Obama.) The second, though, is that I'm not sure it's actually possible to lower anyone's opinion about the Clintons' moral character. Maybe this is just me, since I hang out in red-state land, but doesn't everyone already know that the Clintons have a million skeletons in the closet? And when I say "everyone," I mean, including her supporters? I mean, is anyone voting for Hill under the impression that she's a beacon of moral probity? I always figured that her fans must have made the "Yes, but she's *our* SOB" calculus. (Or else they're delusional, in which case there's still not much Obama can do to change their minds.) In short, his going negative seems more likely to hurt him than her. YMMV.

- Ivanova

March 7, 2008 at 10:04pm

blackton--wouldn't Penn have had to have a soul in the first place to sell it?

- cspencef

March 7, 2008 at 10:28pm

The McCain stuff is a bit of a reach. He's making a theoretical statement -- he's talking about repudiating "any comments that are made," IF those as-yet-unknown comments are anti-Catholic. He's not just condemning Hagee's words but any such similar comments out there. Or I read it that way, anyhow.

- TrappedinTO

March 7, 2008 at 10:42pm

Just for you Obamaites:

www.youtube.com/watch

- Ivanova

March 7, 2008 at 10:43pm

Jon Chait: You are losing it, man. Chill out! Get away from politics for a while before you use the 'monster' word in heat of the moment and get canned! With an election this close on just about every measure, you'll never get your wish to see Hillary drop out. She is, in fact, doing exactly what Obama would be doing if he were trailing by just 2% in delegate count: define your opponent! The GOP would do the same thing in November to who ever gets the nomination; are you going to ask McCain and Co to just stop the attack politics? If Obama cannot take the heat, HE should drop out.

Get out, Jon. Go get some fresh air before you get a massive coronary..

- dcshungu

March 7, 2008 at 11:20pm

One way out for Obama: bring back Newt's "Hard enough!" slogan from 2006, but this time apply it to Hillary and "the Karl Rove politics of the past." The general principle is to define her as fear-mongering and willing to do anything for her own personal gain.

Imagine him riffing on Newt's line at his rallies. "Have you had enough of democrats doing the republicans' dirty work for them? (crowd's response: "Had enough!") Have you had enough of democrats cannibalizing their fellow democrats?" (crowd's response: "Had enough!")

It's a perfect call and response tool for him, and it packs a nice punch. I think the current media narrative about Obama losing his momentum would change overnight.

- ralphnelle

March 7, 2008 at 11:40pm

I know it's not earth-shaking, but I really get tired of Hillary thrusting the interjection "uh" in between every 6th or 7th word. Shouldn't her years of experience and her education have prepared her to speak extemporaneously with more fluidity?

- epackard-02

March 8, 2008 at 12:20am

does jonathan chait believe the crap he writes about hillary?

- sprechs

March 8, 2008 at 12:31am

I believe the crap he writes about Hillary. I've come to the point where I believe just about any crap about Hillary that anyone so much as mentions. It always sounds "truthy" because it is so consistent with what we already know about her. The "yuck" factor just keeps rising.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2008 at 3:17am

Samantha Power was right about Hillary, and I'm sorry she resigned.

On McCain, should he have to "reject and repudiate" Martin Luther too? It's a perfectly legitimate historical fact that the Catholic Church has on occasion been compared to a famous Babylonian lady of the evening, with much the same sort of supporting evidence Samantha Power has for her remark.

- Robert Powell

March 8, 2008 at 4:53am

Why stop there Jon? Surely the people who vote for Hillary are monsters too. After all, they must see how evil she is and how good Obama is -- the only possible explanation for their vote is that they are racists. Or maybe you'd allow that some of them are just too stoooopid to see the truth.

Then the comments -- I don't know why I expect TNR readers to be smarter and/or less bombastic than, oh, some college freshman Green Party type. Then I read these comments comparing Hillary Clinton to George W. Bush and Karl Rove. Um, has Hillary's campaign called Obama a pedophile? Have they sent the U.S. attorney after then on trumped-up charges? Have they accused him of hating a family member who has cancer because of an anti-pork vote? That was Karl Rove -- got anything to compare for Maggie Williams and Mark Penn?

- Lymon1

March 8, 2008 at 6:45am

Wishful thinking from pcostello: ''Speaking of spinning--it is very hard to avoid the impression that the election is slipping through Obama's hands and that his moment has passed.''

Do the math. Your candidate is, as Chait posted prematurely back in January, toast.

- aeromonas

March 8, 2008 at 7:26am

Speaking of the income tax issue (I saw it on another thread but thought I'd post here since this entry is about Clinton and still near the top of the list), I heard a clip from Hillary before the TX/OH vote implying that she'd release those. Has she done so? I haven't heard that she has, but I've been a bit busy.

lymon -- My own take on Hillary vs W. is that, like W., Hillary is very controlling of her environment and the release of information about herself. Bush has nothing on her in that regard.

- epackard-02

March 8, 2008 at 9:24am

This is a cross post, but I have a hunch the Cohn thread is dead, and it relates to the ''math'' I cited above.

Jon Cohn, you're too kind to Clinton vis a vie her chances of catching Obama in the popular vote.

Here’s a rundown of the states, not counting Florida and Michigan who have yet to vote with my guess as to the likely winner.

March 8, 2008

Wyoming caucus-O

March 11, 2008

Mississippi primary-O

April 22, 2008

Pennsylvania primary-C

May 3, 2008

Guam caucus-O

May 6, 2008

Indiana primary-O

North Carolina primary-O

May 13, 2008

West Virginia primary-C

May 20, 2008

Kentucky primary-C

Oregon primary-O

June 3, 2008

Montana primary-O

South Dakota primary-O

You should pay special attention to North Carolina. Of the remaining states, Carolina is the second most populace behind Pennsylvania, and it’s a close second with a population of almost 9 million to PA’S 12.4 million. What’s more, NC’s population is 21.7% black as compared with PA’s 10.7%, so there is every reason to anticipate an Obama blowout in North Carolina every bit as large as in its less populace neighbor to the south. If we assume Clinton will do about as well in Pennsylvania as she did in similarly populous Ohio, she’ll pick up about 200K votes there, but if North Carolina even partially mirrors its neighbors South Carolina and Virginia, that will more than balance Clinton’s PA gains. Obama bested her by 150K and 300K in those states respectively, neither of which is as populous as NC.

So that brings it back to Florida and Michigan. In Florida she was up by less than 300K votes. You have to be pretty optimistic to think she’d do as well a second time around. With the first vote, Obama was looking like a flash in the Iowa pan, and with a revote he’d outspend her 2 to 1. And Michigan, well, we don’t really need to say much about that do we? Her 300K margin there amounted to every single vote she received. Unlikely with people actually voting for Obama she’d be able to repeat.

- aeromonas

March 8, 2008 at 9:33am

And there's more reason still to think Obama will win big in Carolina. Besides the black vote, which accounts for about half the Democratic electorate, the white Democratic vote in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill triangle and to a lesser extent Charlotte, is exactly the kind of educated, upscale population that put Obama way up in northern Virginia.

- aeromonas

March 8, 2008 at 9:46am

Obama wins this. The only thing left open for discussion is how ugly Hillary wants to make it. She should continue to struggle if there's some substantive purpose, i.e. one more important to the country at large than her personal need for approval. But the differences on the issues are insignificant, and all the competence indicators are going his way. The only thing really on the table now is how the Dems either pull together behind Obama and win, or perhaps reprise their characteristic Chinese fire drill. Apologies to the Chinese Volunteer Firemen out there.

- Robert Powell

March 8, 2008 at 10:00am

I am again in complete agreement with Robert Powell. Hillary cannot win, she can only poison the well -- which she appears entirely disposed to doing.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2008 at 10:50am

ejbenjamin: You refer to Hillary's "casual bullshit". I like that word. It seems odd that even people trying to be straightforward use the word "spin", which is spin for bullshit.

There's a terrific little book, "On Bullshit", by the moral philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt. I wish he'd go to work for the Obama campaign, and everyday he'd give us a bullshit update. Or maybe he should become a fixture on Colbert.

What a week for bullshit. Listening to Hillary in Mississippi with that frog cooking in the pot story was positively Kubrickian.

By the way - Is this site exclusively for employees of TNR? Clearly everyone seems to know each other. If I'm intruding, let me know.

Thanks.

- fougasseu

March 8, 2008 at 11:17am

Frankly, I haven't heard anything yet that even approaches ad hominem language from either candidate. Except, it seems to me, the charge that Obama or his campaign are guilty of ad hominem. There are many language tools politicians and campaigns employ to attack an opponent: exaggeration, ridicule,, caricature, distortion of an opponents position or views, quoting without context, etc., that are fair game. Ad hominem language, on the other hand, seeks to diminish or question a candidate's moral character or behavior. It is a gross distortion and a deliberate falsehood, imputing sinister motives. criminal activity and the like. The distinction isn't a semantic one in the usual sense, it's the scurrilousness of the charge itself.

Word mavens, correct me where I'm wrong, but I think I have the general idea straight.

Accusing someone falsely of ad hominem is itself an example of ad hominem, if their is no clear evidence for the claim.

- tomeg

March 8, 2008 at 12:15pm

Anyone see Bill Maher's interview with McAuliffe last night? Not a good night for McAuliffe:

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../maher-vs-mcauli.html

- ralphnelle

March 8, 2008 at 1:50pm

dschungu "if he were trailing by just 2% in delegate count" 2% Wow, what bizarre math. Obama has 1,366 and Clinton has 1,227. Hillary has about 90% (rounded up) of Obama's count. I guess the Hillary camp has no basic ideas of numbers. 2%??? I just don't see how people can go online and so willingly make themselves look like a fool.

dschungu, if Hillary were behind by 2% no one would be having an argument that it is basically tied, but it isn't. You need to go back to grade school and learn your basic math man. 2%? I mean really, where do you come up with that figure? I am genuinely curious. Are you counting total delegates and superdelegates too? including the ones unpledged for elections that haven't happened? To reach 2% she would have to run the table big. just bizarre.

- blackton

March 8, 2008 at 2:15pm

Well to the Clinton camp's credit, the 2 % number is entirely consistent with other notions coming from that side. For instance, HRC claims 35 years of experience that prepared her to be Commander and Chief? Really? Working as a corporate lawyer and being the first lady? I mean damn, do they expect us to be that stupid? Maybe we will even believe that she helped broker peace in the Ulster. Sigh. What a joke.

- mpatrickhendri

March 8, 2008 at 3:17pm

Patrick Hendri -- so if you had to be president in 12 years, which would you pick: Hillary's job as a high level insider at the white house where she not only saved (with David Gergen) the 1993 budget deal from ruin but got to run a major task force and could observe nearly everything going on in the Executive branch for 8 years, then onto the senate for another 4, or Obama's as a junior state senator under the supervision of Emil Jones and 3 years as a U.S. senator. Those are your only two options -- pick.

- Lymon1

March 8, 2008 at 3:51pm

Regarding the McAuliffe interview on Maher. Strange comments. For example, he said Bill Clinton doesn't drink. That's not in sync with what has been reported about Bill in Denver not long ago, when he was in town for fund raising. Now that McAuliffe put it out there, shouldn't someone dig a bit into it? Does he drink, or doesn't he? The chairman of the campaign says he doesn't - why lie about that?

And where is that donor list for the Clinton library?

And what happened to the story about Mark Rich's wife?

Can the media do anything beyond parsing polling data?

- fougasseu

March 8, 2008 at 4:43pm

I don’t give a shit about the Clinton library donor list or about Mark Rich’s wife, and I certainly don’t give a shit about whether Bill Clinton does or does not take a drink. But when Clinton makes an issue of the Rezco real-estate deal and touts herself as the most thoroughly vetted candidate, it makes me want to puke.

My take is that the Ken Starr investigation is the single most psychologically damaging experience of Hillary Clinton’s life, and that it has left her ever so slightly mad. The special prosecutor’s evil deeds—and I would go so far as to characterize Ken Starr as evil—has left Hillary Clinton paranoid and more sickeningly self-righteous than, by the evidence of her Wellesley valedictory address, she was already prone to be from an early age.

I imagine she believes what she says when she says she’s the most thoroughly vetted; she sees the Starr Report as the most thorough vetting that anyone could ever receive. What she’s forgotten is that ten years have passed since the Starr report, ten years during which she and her husband’s wealth have increased from zero to greater than $100 million, and that there are legitimate questions about what services she and her husband may have offered in order to obtain such remarkable gains.

- aeromonas

March 8, 2008 at 5:40pm

This is hilarious, and frightening. :-)

Hillary Queen of the Monsters

www.youtube.com/watch

- AaronBBrown

March 8, 2008 at 7:16pm

Obama does need to sharpen the knives, but he needs to let a tough, high profile surrogate do his dirty work, at least for now. Edwards would be perfect. The guy could shred Hillary overnight. Talk about a way become relevant all over again.

- ralphnelle

March 8, 2008 at 7:29pm

lymon, why do you refuse to acknowledge that virtually no high level White House operatives have ever gone onto the White House. The highest any has ever gone is Dick Cheney. I don't know why you seem to think that really matters. Would Karl Rove make a great President? How about Erskine Bowles? John Sununu? How about Ehrlichman or Haldeman? Obviously the American people have always chosen the representative, Governor, Senator, or Vice President (even VP's have been very rare). No one has ever run on being a White House staffer as unique qualifications. Cheney was a Representative, and Sec. Def. in addition to being Chief of Staff. The first Bush also ran on his resume in 80, didn't win, but none of it was White House experience but was Executive experience (Dir. of CIA, quasi Ambassador to China, UN) and he was also a Representative.

I am sorry, but that argument is so weak I suggest you give it up.

From your two options of course I would pick the non White House operative. It is almost a no brainer. Now if you believe Hillary's 4 more years in the Senate makes her more qualified, than fine. That is a different issue.

And you do ignore Hillary was not a high level staffer, she was First Lady, and her first two years were a disaster, after that is was mostly tea with the Queen and micro initiatives that all First Ladies have.

Is she qualified? Of course, 7 years in the Senate is worth a hell of a lot.

- blackton

March 8, 2008 at 8:13pm

oh, and lymon, your high level insider was so out of the loop that she had no idea that the President was getting oral sex in the Oval office. You think if anyone would have had the freedom to show up in the Oval office without getting an appointment first it would be her, the fact that Bill felt absolutely unimpeded leads me to believe there was far less advising going on as you think. I have to believe Bill's secretary and staffers just outside of his office (and through the grapevine probably more) knew about it. Presidents lives are managed to the minute, but he had time for a private meeting with an intern, and nobody suspected anything?

Listen, I am not bringing up this except to blow a hole in your high level advisor theory. I am not saying they didn't discuss things over dinner, but operationally most daily decisions were made during the day, and Bill was the one making them based on input from his people in the West Wing.

So please drop the "choose this option" bit. It is even weaker upon close examination.

- blackton

March 8, 2008 at 8:27pm

pccostello, you always bring a smile to my face. The Obama campaign has its first relatively bad week in months, and now he's incompetent. That's so completely over the top, well, it's just breathtaking. You, sir or madam, are a peach.

Never mind that even in his 'bad' week, Obama mined more delegates in Texas than HRC, won Wyoming (I know, I know - Wyoming doesn't count! It's a boutique, latte-sipping state if ever I saw one.) and saw, after California certified its vote, he took another four delegates away from HRC. Would that all our bad weeks were that 'bad.'

Anyway, you'd better cease and desist with your 'incompetent' smears on Obama, and whatever else you've got lined up. Apparently he's at the top of HRC's list for veep picks. And don't you tell me Bill and Hillary are being disingenuous about that. They mean it!

- WoodyBombay

March 8, 2008 at 8:50pm

"Ad hominem language, on the other hand, seeks to diminish or question a candidate's moral character or behavior. It is a gross distortion and a deliberate falsehood, imputing sinister motives. criminal activity and the like. The distinction isn't a semantic one in the usual sense, it's the scurrilousness of the charge itself.

Word mavens, correct me where I'm wrong, but I think I have the general idea straight."

Ad hominem language doesn't have to be defamatory or inaccurate. Ad hominem is the logical fallacy of saying that an argument is wrong because of something about the person making it. "Bush is an idiot, so his immigration reform plan must be bad" would be an example. Offhand, I can't think of many ad hominem attacks in this campaign. The closest would be the Clinton campaign's "Obama is acting like Karl Rove/Ken Starr, so he must be wrong" but it's debatable that that's really the argument they're making.

- AlanSP

March 8, 2008 at 9:38pm

The ultimate one-liner for Obama to use in the next debate: "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

- ralphnelle

March 8, 2008 at 11:09pm

"Anyway, you'd better cease and desist with your 'incompetent' smears on Obama, and whatever else you've got lined up. Apparently he's at the top of HRC's list for veep picks. And don't you tell me Bill and Hillary are being disingenuous about that. They mean it!"

Is this sarcastic? 'Cause I'm pretty sure they are being disingenuous. I don't think Hillary wants to have a vastly more charismatic and popular VP. At most, they might make that offer later down the road, if they think they absolutely have to, but I don't think this is a serious offer now -- it's just meant for the next news cycle. Makes her look magnanimous, or something.

- Ivanova

March 8, 2008 at 11:09pm

Amazingly, it looks as if Hillary and company are stirring up the perfect storm to guarantee Democratic defeat in the general election.... Millions of dollars to fund a scorched-earth campaign against Obama, as she attempts to fight her way to the party's nomination. It seems a very reasonable possibility that by the time the dust settles in June, there will be so much damage done and so much rancor, that if she manages to secure the nomination, Hillary --already an incredibly polarizing figure -- will not defeat John McCain, no matter what her tired, hackneyed spin doctors say. In recent weeks, it seems that for the Clintons, it has become their way or no way. Those of us who voted for Bill twice in the 1990s now have to just sit back and watch in disgust as she jeopardizes chances for a Democratic victory in November. She has hitched her claims of (non-existent) foreign policy experience and her political legitimacy to John McCain's resume, and launches daily, sneering attacks against Obama, her fellow Democrat. The voters who are/were hoping to avoid a Republican White House again, and Republican-appointed Supreme Court judges, and all else a McCain administration implies, can only wonder at the intensity of the selfishness and the raw display of ambition. Samantha Power was impolitic, but not incorrect: Watching Hillary is like watching Karl Rove's Frankenstein monster.

- darieff

March 9, 2008 at 12:37am

Darieff,

Good stuff.

- ralphnelle

March 9, 2008 at 12:43am

Yes, Ivanova, I was being sarcastic. If you see me using an exclamation point, something is usually up.

You're right - they are being completely disingenuous about it. They want to get the Obama-as-second-fiddle meme out there - let's let Obama earn his stripes under HRC's wing. And they think they can peel off some Obama supporters or folks on the fence who have qualms about the 'experience' thing, so they're holding out the "Hey, vote for Hillary now and you can for for both of them later!" carrot. It's one of the more cynical gambits they've made. It sounds like they're talking nice about Obama, but they're really not. And frankly, I don't think that, politically, it's a bad gambit at all, now that it's obvious to all that the HRC campaign is truly in "kitchen sink" mode. If you can overlook the fact that the person currently losing - and likely to lose - is talking about choosing the person currently winning - and likely to win - as the #2. That takes cojones.

- WoodyBombay

March 9, 2008 at 12:50am

Obama wins Wyoming caucus by a 23 point margin.

www.nytimes.com/.../09wyoming.html

pcostello, is this what you call slipping through one's fingers?

- aeromonas

March 9, 2008 at 12:56am

WoodyBombay,

Obama will have a chance to give a paradigm-shifting speech Tuesday night. That's part of what (i) resurrected his campaign before Iowa (Jefferson-Jackson) and (ii) launched him into his pre-Super-Tuesday momentum, Souh Carolina:

youtube.com/watch

- ralphnelle

March 9, 2008 at 1:05am

You assume that those working for her had souls to deaden.

- jwsevert

March 9, 2008 at 5:58am

No, aeromonas, Wyoming doesn't count, for two reasons:

1. Caucuses only count if they take place in states whose names begin with "NEVAD".

2. Committed Democrats support Hillary. Because caucuses only reflect the preferences of committed Democrats, caucuses are therefore unfair to Hillary. How can she possibly be expected to win contests where participation is limited to the people most likely to support her?

I don't know why you kool-aid drinkers can't get it through your heads that elections only matter if Hillary wins them.

- rhubarbs

March 9, 2008 at 8:56am

Woody,

The charge that Obama increasingly appears as incompetent is all over the national press. Given that the media are still pretty much in the tank for Obambi, this is an indication of how widespread the perception is becoming.

If the narrative of Obambi as both incompetent and deceptive continues to be confirmed by events, then this narrative will become the first view of Obama that has been defined by his actions rather than his speeches.

And tell the truth: Aren't you getting just a little bit queasy with Obama continuing to cite a speech he gave in 2002 as the main reason to elect him president?

- Eos

March 9, 2008 at 10:11am

OK, Ryan Lizza's done some actual reporting in The New Yorker that more or less bears out Chait's analysis, or rather shows that team Hillary shares in it.

Lizza reports that within the Clinton campaign its taken as a given that she'll be unable to overcome Obama's lead in either the popular vote or the pledged delegate count. Therefore they're pushing all their chips into persuading the superDs that Obama is unelectable against McCain. This is not presented as theory, but as a factual representation of the thought inside the campaign.

- aeromonas

March 9, 2008 at 10:16am

roidubouloi:

"I believe the crap he writes about Hillary. I've come to the point where I believe just about any crap about Hillary that anyone so much as mentions. It always sounds "truthy" because it is so consistent with what we already know about her." In our Guts, where true knowledge comes from, right?

Wow. Do you even see the irony in your statement? I say irony, assuming that you are a person who laughs at Colbert.

- newdex

March 9, 2008 at 10:23am

rhube,

no, wyoming doesn't add anything new to this election.

obambi wins in two situations: caucus states in very white but heavily republican states where the normal democratic vote is weak , but where there are enclaves of affluent, educated voters (in other words, a democratic mainstream is missing); and, heavy african-american states. That's it.

that is not a winning coaliton for november.

the states that clinton has won so far have 263 of the 270 electoral college votes needed for election to the presidency. obama's states only control 193 of the elctoral votes needed for election, and almost none of obama's states will actually vote blue in november.

the simple fact is that obama only does well where there are few democrats or lots of african-americans.

he would lose in an electoral college landslide in november.

- Eos

March 9, 2008 at 10:25am

From time to time I comb through my gut feelings and automatic reactions toward a particular individual, questioning myself in Devil''s Advocate role what possible prejudices may have snuck in the back door, hiding in the toilet. Specifically, I queried about possible bias taken root (actually, probable, since my assumption about prejudice is it's everywhere in the environment like cold and flu viruses so that, when exhausted from overdoing, I become infected without realizing it).

So here I was, putting lymon1's question to the test, and my "sincere" answer began with this: "Granting Clinton her due, I acknowledge that she is an enormously capable woman..." Bingo. Not senator, politician, individual, *woman.* (Shame shame shame! I admonish). Work to do, Tommaso.)

Having taken the prescribed medicine, still a little shaky, I admit in the heat of debate I have been discounting Clinton's qualifications more and more feverishly lately, gender bias having slipped through my defenses.

All right, lymon1, I admit Clinton's record of service and experience isn't to be overlooked or discounted. She is a highly capable politician, and a formidable personality. In another circumstance I wouldn't hesitate to support her. I further admit I am rooting for the insurgent candidate who likewise has great charisma, but not a whole lot more that has been demonstrated.

You know what it boils down to for me. I do not not not want her to become the titular head of the Democratic party. So not I am willing to lose in the fall with Obama and begin to reshape the party.

Is that a bad attitude to have? Maybe, but it's mine.

- tomeg

March 9, 2008 at 11:31am

pccostello,

Wow, now you're simply piling one ridiculous argument on top of another. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Colorado, Washington, Delaware, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, and Vermont are hardly "very white but heavily republican states", nor are they heavy African-American states, so the first part of your argument is pretty silly. Moreover, every one of those states is either blue or a swing state.

The electoral college argument is just as absurd today as it was when you made it two days ago. The fact of the matter is that places like California and New York are safe for either candidate, so it's rather silly to tout them as advantages Hillary. Moreover, even if one buys into your misguided premise that candidates will win and lose the same groups in the general as in the primary, you still have the fact that Obama has been handily winning the Independent and Republican votes. By your logic, then, he should do better in the states that have large Independent and Republican populations, i.e. all of them. See how silly this game is?

If you want to some good analysis of the candidates' relative strengths and weaknesses in the general election (and by "good" I mean "extremely thorough and well done," not "supports my candidate of choice"), check out poblano's analysis over at dKos. It's about as good as anything could be 8 months out (which to be fair, is inherently not all that great).

www.dailykos.com/.../470910

- AlanSP

March 9, 2008 at 11:40am

god I hate agreeing with pccostello but he is right..

Of course, winning any state, even blood red states like Wyoming is good for delegate accrual but taking comfort in this Bum State of the Week primaries is a false paradise.

Obama continues to win states like Utah, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Kansas, etc, all which are states that in the fall, a Democrat has zero, I mean zero chance of carrying. He is showing that he can win with the token democratic populations in states where the GOP outnumbers the Democrats by 2 to 1 margins, sometimes even higher,

What Obama has not demonstrated, in any big state except his home state, is that he can form a winning coalition in Deep Blue Big States and in Purple swing states. Can we infer that all HC's numbers will automatically vote for Obama if she loses and he wins? That is tricky.

Bottom line - Winning Wyoming and other podunk states is great for the incremental accrual of delegates and it is obvious better to win than to lose in these contests. But for this disappointed Obama partisan, he better win PA or I think he should step aside, let Clinton be the nominee and accept her offer to be the VP nominee. She has carried the large key Blue states all by ass kickin' margins and he has shown that he will excite Democrats all over the country and help build the overall popular vote across the country.

- thejauntyboulevardier

March 9, 2008 at 11:45am

I am convinced that not only is Senator Hillary Clinton's CFR supporting progressive policies similar to the corporate globalist policies of George W Bush, I believe Hillary Clinton is the Republican President's preferred candidate to replace him in the Whitehouse.

By publicly attaching Senator McCain to both the criminal conduct and failed policies of the Bush Administration, Bush has effectively taped all the obvious negatives to the back of the "stay the course" Progressive Liberal Republican John McCain. This is political insanity, the president has literally ensured John McCain’s eventual defeat.

Bush contrary to popular belief isn't totally retarded. He was without a doubt fully aware that the blemish of his extremely poor approval rating, reputation as a war criminal and arrogant reluctance to adhere to either the US Constitution or America’s rule of law would be a huge hole in the bottom of McCain's boat.

When we consider the kiss of death endorsement along with statements of praise that President Bush has made a number of times throughout this presidential race, he referring to Hillary as a formidable opponent and similar character assuring compliments we have to suspiciously wonder, is Bush trying to assist his girl Hillary Clinton win the Whitehouse?

Remarkably the connection between the Bush family and the Clintons dates back to the Iran/ Contra Affair, where it is alleged that the then Governor Bill Clinton protected the drug and weapons smuggling associated with the Iran/ Contra scandal at the Mena Airport in Arkansas. I guess it is only logical then that the crook in the Whitehouse, George W Bush would want to keep his family’s lucrative enterprise and legacy intact. How better to accomplish that goal then to help catapult Hillary into the presidency?

- SacrAmerican

March 9, 2008 at 11:49am

pccostello, so by your "Obama only wins in these two kinds of states" logic, Hillary actually won Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Virginia, right? I think the people of Connecticut and Vermont will be surprised to learn that they are either Republican bastions or heavily black states.

Which is to say, your argument is simply false. If Obama were as marginal a candidate as you pretend, he wouldn't be leading Hillary among states won, votes cast, and delegates pledged. I know Hillaristas cling to the fundamentally Bushian faith that you can in fact lose your way to the White House, but the plain fact is that the candidate who is in first place by all measures of victory is by definition not the marginal candidate.

The falsehood of your analysis is also demonstrated when you look at what counties within each state Obama and Hillary win. Obama wins big in the counties where Democrats need to run up big margins to win the statewide vote. This has been true in Democratic-leaning states as well as swing states. The map of counties won nationwide looks a lot like the map of counties won by Dems and Republicans in the last two general elections, except it's Obama winning the blue counties and Hillary winning the Bush counties. So, where there aren't a lot of Democrats, Hillary wins big. Where there are a lot of Democrats, Obama wins big.

Also, nice spin-jjitsu to claim Texas for Hillary and then claim that that Obama relies on states that won't vote Democratic. Hillary ain't gonna win Texas, but contrary to your claim, polls from multiple organizations show Obama leading McCain in many of the "red" states he's won so far.

Which is to say, if we embrace magical thinking, ignore reality entirely, and make up our own facts, then Hillary looks like a winner. Conveniently, those are the three Bushian flavors of kool-aid that also allow us to believe that Hillary would be an effective progressive president despite her actual record of siding with Republicans on Iraq, Iran, punitive bankruptcy, flag burning, and the Patriot Act and her past catastrophic failures when given executive authority in the White House.

- rhubarbs

March 9, 2008 at 12:01pm

rhurbarb...

It is, as you point out, a tricky set of algorithms indeed but if memory serves me, didn't HC win big in CA, MA, NY (of course), and just recently OH? Lots of Democrats in those states and I would venture to say that you could combine the number of Democrats in places like WY, UT, SC, SD, ND, you'd still not have as many Democrats compared to my home state CA.

Let me put it this way: If Obama can win in PA then he will have finally convinced me that he can win in a traditionally blue state, with lots of Democrats and electoral votes, and with a cross section of Democrats that he will need to carry to win in Nov. If HC continues to kick his boney ass in the upcoming states like PA, and FL and MI if they go again, then I really don't see how we can move forward with a national candidate who, in the primaries, lost almost every big blue state.

- thejauntyboulevardier

March 9, 2008 at 12:25pm

Rhube,

You are just not engaging the issue. You are not addressing the evidence or the arguments. But they make sense, if you don't like where they lead. See Jaunty above, or for a full and disinterested presentation of the issue (by a journalist, as opposed to an obamalist), see Mare Cocco's piece from washingtonpost.com at the following:

www.realclearpolitics.com/.../tough_math_on_the_democratic_s.html

- Eos

March 9, 2008 at 12:33pm

SacrAmerican: You're right, the Clinton machine and the Bush machiine first worked together during Iran-Contra, that was when the Clinton machine entered the big-time, demonstrating that they could play ball with the big boys.

Dick Morris' posting on "The Hill" is worth a read. As usual he gets it right: Obama has won, now it should be about how to stop Hillary from putting McCain in office.

Ed Rendell this morning on "Meet the Past" says with a straight face and in the same paragraph that Obama would be a great VP, one breath away from being President, but not competent to be President...could you run that by us again, Ed?

Ron Brownstein from the LA Times says today that the race is a tie: Let's see, Obama has won more states, more primaries, more popular votes, more delegates, and more caucuses...and it's still a tie? Is the media single-handedly keeping Hillary alive?

A Dem took Hastert's seat thanks to Obama. Who do you think every Dem House member wants to see nominated? Obama or the Betty Crocker of politics?

- fougasseu

March 9, 2008 at 1:59pm

McLaughlin and Comapny just had a totally devasting look at Obama's land deal with Rezko--showing the property and making it clear that Obama's intial claim that the land purchases were not coordinated is completely untrue.

In other words, that Obama lied to hide details of his land purchase with Rezko.

Also, that at the time Obama made the sweetheart deal with Rezko, it was obvious to everyone in politics in Chicago that Rezko was dirty.

Finally, that Rezko significantly improved the specific slice of property that Rezko sold to Obama as a way of making a hidden gift to him that was worth a lot of money.

Devastating for Obama. I don't think he has the answwers that will put this story to rest. And in the absence of good answers, the story will have very strong legs.

- Eos

March 9, 2008 at 3:21pm

cookie, cookie. again you ignore the Mondale rule of politics, winning in states you are supposed to win in the general is meaningless in the fall. Hillary will not be running against Obama in November but McCain.

The evidence of the Clintons desperation is obvious in her saying "Obama should be nowhere near the White House, but will make a great VP" Don't you realize that in order to maintain the house and make gains in the Senate we need a Candidate who can draw votes in all 50 states. People like pccostello could never understand it, but her ekeing out (and it is highly doubtful) the electoral college but losing the House and breaking even in the Senate would be a disaster for the Democrats. Goodbye solutions candidate, hello partisan hell.

McCain will point to years of working across the aisle, McCain Feingold, McCain Kennedy, etc. and eviscerate Clinton. And as I said, if he takes Condi Rice as his VP it will be over in September.

And Obama won't be VP, not if as is very likely he is ahead in the delegate count at the end. If he were to cave in such a situation than he doesn't deserve to be even VP. Let Hillary steal the nomination and let her pay the price on her own.

Hey Pccostello, isn't is insane for Hillary to mention taking a corrupt venal politician as her VP? How do you square that?

- blackton

March 9, 2008 at 3:53pm

Cookie, are you calling the 2/3rds of the states Obama has Won all podunk? Great strategy, piss on 2/3rds of the country now and hope they will vote for you in November. Don't you know this is exactly how the Republicans win again and again and again, because they put together an electoral college strategy to win.

Obama has won more popular votes, more pledged delegates, and more contests, but we should give her the nomination why exactly? This is like a football game where Obama has kicked 4 field goals and has one touchdown, and Hillary has 2 touchdowns, therefore she should win because she has more touchdowns? People in the rest of the country are not going to take kindly to being told because they don't live in a big state they don't matter. Even though I am from Pa. and it pisses me off.

Did Deans 50 state strategy work in 2006? So why abandon it now? Oh because Hillary sucks outside a handful of latin states or states dominated by old people in a declining economy. Yeah great.

- blackton

March 9, 2008 at 4:01pm

williamyard, tep, Wandrey, blackton, AaronBBrown, Rhubarbs, boneill, drdannyu, mpatrickhendri, rishy, epackard, jhildner, WoodyBombay, aeromonas, MrJauntyCookie, and all fair citizens of Talkback Nation-

I think it's high time for another contest:

THE TNR TALKBACK NATION

MERRY PLANKSTERS AWARD

for

B E S T

P A Y B A C K

for

H I L L A R Y

Please submit your own nomination here on this thread.

_____________________________________________________________________________

But just to start things off, here are a few suggestions:

1. If/when Barack Obama becomes president, he offers Hillary the position of Secretary of State, waits till she resigns from her Senate seat, allows a decent interval, then fires her white, pantsuited ass.

2. Hillary, gamely accepting responsibility for helping elect John McCain to the White House, agrees to go on pay-per-view, naked, with a cigar, knee pads, and a roofied Monica Lewinsky.

3. If payback is a bitch, and one can safely assume that Hillary is a bitch, then Hillary having to be Hillary should be payback enough.

4. After losing the last of her remaining superdelegates at the Convention, Hillary is forced to spend an entire afternoon in a stalled elevator with pccostello.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Please submit your own nominations here on this thread.

- JosephCuomo

March 9, 2008 at 4:16pm

pccostello, and where the hell is the Clinton tax returns since 2001? Or her papers from her White House years. The Clintons did not amass a 100 million plus fortune off of savvy investments. She has to release this before Tax day April 15, and when she does you will see such spinning from the Clinton campaign. You just don't realize, Hillary is a walking corpse, which is why she is desperately begging Obama to be on the ticket. Maybe she is in fact begging to be VP.

Hillary Clinton has a new book out herself. The audacity of chutzpah.

- blackton

March 9, 2008 at 4:18pm

Joe, appoint her to be Ambassador toe Kazakhstan, where she can have dinner with the thuggish dictator called a great humanitarian (for a cool 130 million dollar payout), she can also do charity work for the miners off of whose backs that 130 million came from.

Or let her do real night shift work in any Walmart as penance.

Or how about the ultimate payback. Have Chelsea enlist in the military and serve in Iraq. Let Hillary suffer the anxiety that all of the other parents of soldiers suffer due to her Iraq war vote. (I am leery of this though, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Besides Chelsea doesn't deserve to suffer for her mothers mistake, just millions of others do)

- blackton

March 9, 2008 at 4:39pm

blackton-

Thanks for your contributions, which have been duly recorded (below).

____________________________________________________________________________

UPDATED Nominees for:

THE TNR TALKBACK NATION

MERRY PLANKSTERS AWARD

for

B E S T

P A Y B A C K

for

H I L L A R Y

_____________________________________________________________________________

1. If/when Barack Obama becomes president, he offers Hillary the position of Secretary of State, waits till she resigns from her Senate seat, allows a decent interval, then fires her white, pantsuited ass.

2. Hillary, gamely accepting responsibility for helping elect John McCain to the White House, agrees to go on pay-per-view, naked, with a cigar, knee pads, and a roofied Monica Lewinsky.

3. If payback is a bitch, and one can safely assume that Hillary is a bitch, then Hillary having to be Hillary should be payback enough.

4. After losing the last of her remaining superdelegates at the Convention, Hillary is forced to spend an entire afternoon in a stalled elevator with pccostello.

5. During President Obama's first term, HRC is appointed Ambassador to Kazakhstan, where (for a cool 130 million dollar payoff) she can have dinner with that nation's thuggish dictator, call him a great humanitarian, and also do charity work for the miners off whose backs that $130 million came.

6. After her meltdown at the Convention, Hillary, accepting her blue-collar penance, applies to do night shift work at Walmart.

7. During President McCain's first term, Chelsea Clinton enlists in the military and serves in Iraq, while Hillary reconsiders whether she maybe, just maybe might have made a mistake with her Iraq war vote.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Please submit your own nominations here on this thread.

- JosephCuomo

March 9, 2008 at 5:06pm

Joe, appoint her to be Ambassador toe Kazakhstan, where she can have dinner with the thuggish dictator called a great humanitarian (for a cool 130 million dollar payout), she can also do charity work for the miners off of whose backs that 130 million came from.

Or let her do real night shift work in any Walmart as penance.

Or how about the ultimate payback. Have Chelsea enlist in the military and serve in Iraq. Let Hillary suffer the anxiety that all of the other parents of soldiers suffer due to her Iraq war vote. (I am leery of this though, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Besides Chelsea doesn't deserve to suffer for her mothers mistake, just millions of others do)

- blackton

March 9, 2008 at 5:07pm

blackie...

Let me try it again: Yes, Obama has won many states and he lost lost the most important ones. And he is behind in PA, and I suspect he will be hard pressed to win in MI and FL (is that the abbrev for Florida?). Thus, though he has many delegates he could be a nominee who has lost...

CA, OH, TX, NH, PA, NY, and perhaps PA, MI, FL. This does not bode well for the general election. Perhaps in this splintered primary, it is the best we can get but from my perspective, this points to a weak national candidate. Frankly, I feel more confident if he could win just ONE of these states. Not ALL but at least one. I don't think that is asking too damn much for a national candidate.

I like Obama and all that but if he can't win PA, and possible revotes in MI and FL, then the brutal reality is that we will be going forward with a candidate who could not win one big electoral November state. This is not comforing. I just call them as I see them.

- thejauntyboulevardier

March 9, 2008 at 5:11pm

I keep losing posts. sigh. Cookie, of course Obama will win Michigan, Jesse Jackson won it! Michigan has the highest Arab population in America and do you really think they won't go for Obama? Detroit and Ann Arbor will kill her. She barely won against uncommiteds.

Best case for her is she might gain about 30 delegates between now and the end and still be down about 100 pledged. Not good.

And she has to release her tax returns by April 15, before the primary, bad, bad bad timing for her. The press will be all over that the final week, her spinning their 100 million won't be pretty.

And don't count Pa. out by much. Yes, it is a machine state with Rendell supporting her, but the Eastern area is full of latte drinking prius drivers who commute to Philly, Jersey, and NY. That and Philly will keep his numbers up.

Things are not looking good for Hillary, hence her desperately seeking Obama as her VP.

- blackton

March 9, 2008 at 5:57pm

Read this damning take on Clinton lies:

www.telegraph.co.uk/.../main.jhtml

Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.

"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."

Mrs Clinton has made Northern Ireland key to her claims of having extensive foreign policy experience, which helped her defeat Barack Obama in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday after she presented herself as being ready to tackle foreign policy crises at 3am.

"I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland," she told CNN on Wednesday. But negotiators from the parties that helped broker the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 told The Daily Telegraph that her role was peripheral and that she played no part in the gruelling political talks over the years.

Lord Trimble shared the Nobel Peace Prize with John Hume, leader of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party, in 1998. Conall McDevitt, an SDLP negotiator and aide to Mr Hume during the talks, said: "There would have been no contact with her either in person or on the phone. I was with Hume regularly during calls in the months leading up to the Good Friday Agreement when he was taking calls from the White House and they were invariably coming from the president."

- blackton

March 9, 2008 at 6:04pm

maxblum13-

Thanks for your contribution, which has been duly recorded (below).

Below is an updated list of the Nominees thus far.

______________________________________________________________________________

THE TNR TALKBACK NATION

MERRY PLANKSTERS AWARD

for

B E S T

P A Y B A C K

for

H I L L A R Y

_____________________________________________________________________________

1. If/when Barack Obama becomes president, he offers Hillary the position of Secretary of State, waits till she resigns from her Senate seat, allows a decent interval, then fires her white, pantsuited ass.

2. Hillary, gamely accepting responsibility for helping elect John McCain to the White House, agrees to go on pay-per-view, naked, with a cigar, knee pads, and a roofied Monica Lewinsky.

3. If payback is a bitch, and one can safely assume that Hillary is a bitch, then Hillary having to be Hillary should be payback enough.

5. During President Obama's first term, HRC is appointed Ambassador to Kazakhstan, where (for a cool 130 million dollar payoff) she can have dinner with that nation's thuggish dictator, call him a great humanitarian, and also do charity work for the miners off whose backs that $130 million came.

6. After her meltdown at the Convention, Hillary, accepting her blue-collar penance, applies to do night shift work at Walmart.

7. During President McCain's first term, Chelsea Clinton enlists in the military and serves in Iraq, while Hillary reconsiders whether maybe, just maybe her Iraq war vote was a mistake.

8. Outside the Convention in Denver (the Mile-High City), Hillary is chased off a cliff by an angry mob of naked superdelegates.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Please submit your own nominations here on this thread.

- JosephCuomo

March 9, 2008 at 6:07pm

rozenson and asnevitt-

Thanks for your contributions, which have been duly recorded (below).

Here is an updated list of the Nominees thus far.