I vetted thee to the depth and breadth and height
My staff researchers can in investigate, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of Being and ideal Grace.
I vetted thee to the level of everyday's
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.
I vetted thee freely, as men strive for Right;
I vetted thee purely, as they turn from Praise.
I vetted thee with a passion put to use
In my old griefs, and with my childhood's faith.
I vetted thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints, --- I vetted thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life! --- and, if God choose,
I shall but vetted thee better after  . .. I had to boot you off the ticket and admit I made the biggest colossal f---up in electoral historty!

G@$%^&* F$#%^@#!!! Dammit!!!!

yours in verse,

J McCain

On the The American Prospect's blog, Adam Swerwer noted that the Plain choice is "not very different from running Alan Keyes against Barack Obama in 2004."
 (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tappe d_archive?month=08&year=2008&bas e_name=the_party_of_political_correct#10 8727)

Like Keyes, Palin is a diversity head-fake. Her gender aims at nullifying Democratic claims to being the party that looks like America, while her beliefs are to the right even of mainstream Republicans.  Also like Keyes, what at first blush sounds like a bold category-busting move that will bring home the swing votes, turns out not to fool anyone but the GOoPers who like to kid themselves about their multiculturalism.

It's worth remembering that in 2006 the Republicans sent several non-white male candidates up for high office and almost all of them tanked. Ted Strickland beat Ken Blackwell (Ohio gov.), Ben Cardin crushed Michael Steele (Md Sen), Bill Nelson defeated Katherine "recount" Harris (Fla. Sen), Rod Blagojevich beat Judy Topinka (IL Gov), and in Massachusetts Deval Patrick won over Kerry Healey (gov).  

Some incumbent Republican women, like Kay Bailey Hutchison in Texas,  won re-election, but Palin was the only non-incumbent Republican woman to win either a gubernatorial or senate race (Palin's opponent was also female). Maybe she'll beat expectations again this year, but it's doubtful.

I see by the diaries that we've got some nostalgia for the Feb-June primary wars at MyDD, and I think now is a good time for a tribute to those days of glory and those who made them possible.

The primary diary battles on this site were special, wonderful, and unlikely to be replicated unless there's another big rift among progressive Democrats.  The diary wars were gut wrenching for those worried about the ability of Democrats to unite in November, but very entertaining as the political blog equivalent of reality TV dating shows like "I Love New York" or "Rock of Love". Initially I found the whole thing disturbing as it took MyDD off its course as a clearing house for progressive politics.  But after awhile the diaries became addictive, not unlike watching the next elimination of a love-seeking doofus by a badly damaged pseudo-celebrity.

Was the primary calendar and the general nomination system stacked in Obama's favor? If there was some DNC tilt for him in the way the race was structured, and I don't think there was, Hillary Clinton had managed to take command of the institutional advantages in 2007.  On New Year's Day 2008 she had the institutional edge in the four early states and in key national indicators.  The calendar worked in favor of the frontrunner, and on 1/1/08 Clinton was the frontrunner.

During 2007 Hillary Clinton led in money raised.  The Polls also favored Clinton.  Throughout 2007 she held a lead of at least 20 percentage points over her nearest rival, and the rival more often than not was Al Gore, who had repeatedly said he would not run, rather than Barack Obama.

Clinton also held the lead in endorsements by Democratic officials, especially in the early primary states.  In Iowa, Clinton claimed more endorsements from state Democrats than did Obama and she wracked up the endorsement of the state's leading newspaper, the Des Moines Register.  In Nevada, Clinton's backers included Rory Reid, Harry Reid's son who served as the Clinton campaign's Nevada state chairman. H. Reid never endorsed, but this was a "leading indicator" of where he leaned. The same was true for John Lynch, Governor of New Hampshire.  Susan Lynch, a pediatrician and the wife of the governor, served as Clinton's national campaign co-chair.    Even in South Carolina, a state where Obama doubled Clinton's vote total, the former First Lady claimed public support from more elected Democrats than did her challengers.  

In 2007, the year before the voting started, Hillary Clinton raised more money, garnered more endorsements. And led in every poll of popular support over her challengers for the nomination. She had by all measures won the first round of the race for the nomination, and she was the decided favorite for the Democratic nomination.  

I'm curious to read the other side of the equation.  Have at it.

The primary is doing something the netroots had been able to avoid since their origins in the early 2000s, and that is spark an internecine war.  I have not checked the diaries at MyDD in awhile, and I'm surprised by the attacks on Olberman, the Dailykos, Talking Points Memo, and by implication anyone who supports Obama.  One can find similar attacks on Clinton supporters elsewhere on the blogs.  

I can't be persuaded that Obama vs. Clinton is a debate that merits the kind of "write them off as traitors to the cause" arguments that are being made (today's  Olberman diary was the one that caught my attention but it's not the only one in this vein). I write that because the end result of the Clinton-Obama race is less important than building the progressive movement, which is what Chris Bowers blogged about a lot here around 2004-05.  

Since 2002, the success of progressives, not the Democratic Party but progressives within it, has been amazing.  Between 2000 and 2006, when progressives were more beleaguered than they are now, no one thought the main issue was not Clinton or Obama, it was Bush and the Republicans.  Right now we're picking a nominee, and it's hard not to see the choice as the over-riding concern, but it's not.  The primary field winnowed out candidates to the left and to the right of Obama and Clinton leaving  two center-left politicians who agree more than they differ.  While there's a case to be made by either side that their candidate is the true progressive, progressive strategy should not include a civil war over nominees who are as close to each other as Obama and Clinton, and it's hard to understand how trashing their fellow progressives is a winning part of either the Obama or Clinton victory strategy.  

I was for Edwards and am neutral right now on the nomination, and I realize that what I'm writing sounds lame to some of those committed to either Clinton or Obama (they probably think I'm for their opponent), so flame away if you must. I may learn more about what's happening here in the process.