A century and a half ago in Internet time, during the first flowering of political blogging, I found myself devouring a lot of outstanding writers and thinkers. Some have now burned out, or departed the scene for sadder reasons, but many have continued, growing in stature and skill. At the top of my list from the beginning was (and is) digby. Clever, original, provocative, refreshingly unclichéd, and progressive to the marrow, she has epitomized the benefits of this new form of media and offered a moral center. Even when I disagree with her take on some subject - not all that often - I've been able to count on her to spur me think, to look at an issue or person or political history in a new way.

Most of all, she makes me - everyone who regularly reads her, I believe - ponder the big picture. No matter which presidential candidate you support (she and I disagree on this), or what your specific point of view is on a particular imbroglio, or where you stand on any one of the panoply of issues progressives have been talking about for the past several decades, digby has a record for hitting the bullseye more often than anybody in wwwLand. She resonates.

Her Hear Ye, Hear Ye piece Wednesday morning provides a perfect example. I'm going to break the rules and quote her at length:

So I hear that Village High Commissioner Tim Russert declared that we have a Democratic nominee. The Town Crier, Drudge, immediately followed with an official announcement The real leadership of our nation --- the punditocricy -- have handed down their decision. Hallelujah! ...

Look, I have the same analysis of the outcome of the elections in Indiana and North Carolina that most people have this morning. Clinton's best argument --- which was essentially that the voters were taking a second look at Obama and showing some buyers remorse --- didn't pan out last night. And there's nothing wrong with political junkies sitting around the virtual pot-bellied stove and saying the race is "over" or exhorting her to drop out. We're citizens and, in some cases, political players. There is, however, something unbelievably distasteful about a handful of powerful, millionaire, celebrity pundits "declaring" such a thing and having the paper of record breathlessly report it as if it was decisive and meaningful.

Who the fuck anointed Tim Russert as the final arbiter of anything? His job is to analyze the political landscape not declare the decision as if he were some kind of Roman Emperor giving a thumbs up or thumbs down. It's bad enough that these gasbags put those thumbs on the scale as hard as they do, but actually taking the initiative to say when the race is over is even worse. To coin a favorite Village phrase, "it's not their place." ...

But if it is the end, as I think many of us suspect, it's for Senator Clinton to be the one to declare it, not Tim Russert or any other fatuous overpaid Village gasbag who is no more insightful or informed than any of you.

The idea floating around, even in the blogosphere, that once Tim Russert "says it" it's true is so galling that I can hardly keep from projectile vomiting. Giving him that power will come back to bite us hard down the road. ...

I think we all see the writing on the wall. Obama has plenty of money and there is no great problem if this thing goes on for a couple of weeks. I think everyone should relax about the campaign and start regrouping around the ideas that brought us here --- one of which is the fact that the mainstream media are tools, that Drudge is a Republican pimp and that our nation is not well served by a bunch of corporate whores who all sit around sipping mojitos on Nantucket playing with our politics like they are a rousing game of cribbage.

Indeed. Political blogging has come a long way in the past half decade. Some people have gotten famous for it. Quit their day jobs. And some already-famous folks - journalists and pundits and others - have become become bloggers, at least as supplements to their regular gigs.

But this transformation and legitimization ought not to obscure progressive bloggers from our roots.

We emerged because the megamedia - the oligopress, the pundithugs, the corporatist whoredom of propaganda - were lying to us, and when they weren't lying, they were omitting the truth. Not that there weren't and aren't a few truthseekers embedded in the megamedia, folks who actually take their role as reporters and investigators seriously and behave accordingly. But, as a whole, the megamedia were and continue to be conduits for ideological reinforcement. In short, brainwashers. Doing the job prescribed to them by the powers-that-be, even if they think they are doing something else. Not every pawn realizes it is one. The writings of Antonio Gramsci are relevant in this regard, but save that for another time.

Keep what digby says in mind. Even when they agree with us, smile at us, quote us, invite us on their shows, the megamedia moguls are not our friends nor the friend of the politics we espouse. They never will be. We ignore this at our peril.

+ + +

The Overnight News Digest is posted.

This evening's Rescue Rangers are Unitary Moonbat, watercarrier4diogenes, jennyjem, YatPundit, TruthOfAngels, and joyful with vcmvo2 as editor.

The Diaries up for rescue tonight are:

The Use & Abuse of Information

• daytonpundit examines the curious amount of hard-drive scrubbing - and violations of the Presidential Records Act of 1978 - that seems to be taking place these days in White House War Emails 'MIA'. (Unitary Moonbat)
• In McCain Voting Record Contradicts Maverick Myth dkos diarist, Avenging Angel reports that the Senator's home state newspaper has begun to unravel the Senator's "maverick" myth. Will the rest of the MSM pay attention? (vcmvo2)
• What do you do with a problem like McCain's pastor? If you're dogemperor, you write a brilliant diary detailing just who John Hagee is - and what he's all about. (joyful)
• If you remember the inherent inequity of ye olde Bell Curve, you'll quickly see sgoya's point in "Good" Schools Need "Bad" Schools. (watercarrier4diogenes)
• David Kroning wants hate-speech in the media investigated, but first he'd like to know who is on the Commission. His post, Investigating our US Commission on Civil Rights explains this community effort. (jennyjem)

Our World

• First-time diarist zawmoo discusses the latest natural disaster and suggests a Possibly better way to help Burma's cyclone victims. (YatPundit)
• Mentarch writes that the billions of dollars spent and the precious lives lost in Afghanistan: All For Absolutely Nothing. (joyful)
• deepfish shares some lovely thoughts on the importance of Hope while Dreaming of Better Days writes lyrically on the prospect of Going Home - The Changing Tides. (joyful)

Politics & Environmental Policy

• A Siegel suggests that the Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act now has as much support in Congress as does a feeble One hand clapping ... (joyful)
• Blue America '08's Dennis Shulman for Congress tells us why The Ramapough Reinforce My Decision to Run for Congress.  He's engaged in a tough fight against corporate polluters and their hack Rethuglican stooge. (watercarrier4diogenes)

The Power of Snark

• DCLaw's opening line says it all: Can the mighty-but-aging Newtman face down this political plague, led by the venal, shadowy Dr. Baracko? Find out in Republican Superfriends, Go! (Unitary Moonbat)
• Kodiak54 has a modest suggestion (and perhaps a hint of snark) for your vice-presidential consideration: Obama/Kodiak54 '08. (Unitary Moonbat)

jotter has High Impact Diaries - May 7, 2008.

sardonyx has Top Comments: Steve Soto on Daily Kos, part 1.

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this Open Thread.

::

Guys, I'm heading out with Eli to El Salvador tonight to bid my final farewells to my ailing grandmother. With some luck, we'll get there in time for her to see her 18th great-grandchild, who she still hasn't met.

I should be back early next week, but well see. You'll be in good hands with Susan and the gang running the joint. If I have the chance, I might even check in with some West Virginia predictions, though perhaps I should quit those while I'm ahead. And really, right now I don't give a shit about that anyway.

See you soon.

To: U.S. Representative Steny H. Hoyer
     U.S. Senator John D. Rockefeller

Honorable Gentlemen --

I see from the news that the telecom industry efforts to receive blanket immunity for violation of this nation's domestic surveillance laws are still quite active. Their campaign to place pressure on the Congress via the placement of industry funded, faux-grassroots ads, their willingness to draft proposals for how, exactly, their own immunity should be phrased, the continuing refusal to actually describe what it is they are asking immunity for -- all impressive efforts. And they have what can only be described as a true champion in the Bush Administration, which has acted nobly to protect the interests of these fine companies. So it seems only natural that right-thinking legislators such as yourselves would want to go along, so as to not rock the boat.

It seems, then, we are at a bit of an impasse. You want to provide the industry immunity for still-unknown years of illegal surveillance, immunity the industry is adamantly demanding. But at the moment, you cannot rouse sufficient support for the act because it would make you all look like cheap, easily bought corporatophiles in the pocket of some of the highest paid lobbyists in the land -- mere legislative hacks who can be bought off with trinkets, or threatened with bullying advertisements, or who believe laws are negotiable things, depending on how much money you have or how powerful your friends are. This is because he public, against all expectations, is actually paying attention.

Fear not: I have a bargain to strike. I would like to announce that we, the slovenly and ignorant public, would be willing to drop our unreasonable outrage over corporations in this nation being given blanket retroactive immunity for violating both federal law and our own personal privacy... for a price of our own. A quid pro quo, if you will -- and certainly, I expect you are well familiar with such arrangements. We simply want a little payback, in order to make sure that you in Congress are asked to live according to the same rules as the rest of us.

Here is my proposal. We, the public, should be allowed to spy on you, and all those you come in contact with, with similar promisees of amnesty.

For each member of Congress, I propose we set up a collective internet site. This site will allow interested members of the public to, in realtime, monitor your every activity to assure ourselves that none of you are committing illegal or terrorist-enabling acts at any given moment of the day.

The primary feature will be the ability to listen in to any conversation you may be having, whether it be on your work phone, your home phone, your cell phone, text messages, email -- whatever. These conversations will be streamed to the internet, so that they may be monitored by responsible members of the public. The contact information of whoever it is you are talking to at that moment at time will also be displayed and tracked -- whether it be your wife or husband, child, doctor, secret mistress, whoever -- so that we can monitor them as well. You know, just to be safe.

You can trust us, as members of the public, to be discreet. We will only listen and watch, and will not abuse the information. After all, what could any of you possibly have to hide? Only someone intent on criminal acts objects to being monitored proactively. On the contrary, you should be grateful to us: by listening to your every phone call and reading your every communication, we can only help you to prove that you have nothing to hide. I am unfamiliar with the vagaries of American law these days, but my understanding is that this ongoing surveillance will make you even more innocent than you were before. Perhaps you will even be twice as innocent as before, or four times as innocent -- what patriot could resist?

This, though, is still not quite the proper balance between your privacy and our needs as citizens. We need more of a total information awareness into your doings -- you know, just to be sure you are not terrorists, or at the very least secretly drug dealers or ethnic or something. You will therefore have all your personal bills posted to the same website: credit card bills, mortgage statements, monthly electricity usage, bank statements, etc. You need not worry, of course, about doing this yourself: there are companies already tracking all of this information, and government projects dedicated to sweeping it up to look for suspicious patterns.

Again, there is nothing you could possibly have to hide... unless, perhaps, you have taken any trips abroad lately? That could cause some problems. Or if you have eaten at the same restaurants as other people being investigated... or have an unusual pattern of travel within the country... or have moved, recently. Oh -- or have bought more than one bottle of cough syrup in the last few months, or have acquaintances with suspicious-sounding names, or own your own business. Aside from that, you should be in the clear.

I admit, this at first sounds intrusive. Consider this, though: what if one of your fellow Congressmen turned out to be -- and I pause, here, for dramatic effect -- a terrorist sympathizer? Sure, you consider the possibility unlikely, but if there was even the slightest, slightest chance that someone surrounding you was a secret Jihadist, would you not be willing to give up any amount of privacy, in order to prove your own innocence and help the authorities (in this case, we watchful members of the public) narrow down the list of subjects by conducting surveillance upon each of you, one by one, to ensure you are not planning something criminal?

There is, of course, one small detail that ruins all of this. Surveillance of American citizens without due process or cause is, sadly, illegal. In order for us to do it, then, you will have to grant us, your own constituents, the same immunities that you have been struggling so valiantly to provide to the telecommunications industry. I am sorry to report we have no lobbyists. We have few people willing to type up the laws for you, in order to deliver them onto your desks. We do, however, have the advantage of being voters -- one of the few remaining perks of being a citizen of this nation that is not yet shared by corporations -- and so one can certainly presume that we would look favorably upon any grant of immunity for our own illegal acts, come your next election. And I cannot help but point out that while the Bush administration and telecommunications companies conspired to do something illegal, then demand immunity after the fact, we mere citizens are following a much more responsible path of asking you up front to let us do the deed. Surely, that shows far more respect for the laws of this great nation than either Bush or his compatriots have deigned, does it not?

So, what say you? Can we citizens be granted these extra-legal powers that the telecommunications companies have been demanding, lest they have to face civil suits for violating the laws of the nation? Can we be granted the same illegal powers of espionage that the Bush administration has squeezed from you with barely a squeak, on your parts? Can we violate your privacy with abandon, ignore the laws and the courts, listen in on your most personal phone calls, thumb through your monthly purchases, follow your movements, spy on those that contact you, and if ever caught doing anything that does violate existing law, simply receive immunity from all unfortunate laws that might apply?

You are looking for a deal to be struck in order to condone the violation our privacy and make the illegal legal. Fine; these are our terms. Unless you are terrorists, I think you will find our requests not only fair, but truly patriotic.

There is another matter that needs addressing, which is that it may be necessary at some point to torture one or two of you, just to make very, very certain that you do not know something about terrorists that you perhaps might be hiding. No need to worry about that now; we can address that in separate legislation.

   Your humble citizen,
   Hunter

Time has come up with a list of the top five strategic mistakes Hillary Clinton made during her unsuccessful bid for the White House, and while in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter why she went from inevitable to also-ran, there is one point in the article that deserves some attention:

As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all.

It should be noted that Penn denies the story, so we'll just have to take him at his word that he isn't that stupid.  But if it's true it does raise the question, was this the stupidest thing said or done by a Clinton surrogate over the course of her campaign?   Because Penn had some stiff competition.  Who could forget:

• Geraldine Ferraro's claim that Obama has an unfair advantage because he was black.
• Bob Kerrey's happiness that Barack Hussein Obama attended a madrassa and had all that experience with Muslims.
• Billy Shaheen's concern over Obama's use of drugs and possible questions on whether he was ever a drug dealer.
• Andrew Cuoma saying that "You can't shuck and jive," in reference to Obama.
• And of course the First Surrogate, Bill Clinton, comparing Obama's win in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's wins in the 1980's, and then being shocked at the suggestion that he was trying to paint Obama as "the black candidate."

Let's throw Mark Penn a lifeline here and prove that he wasn't the worst of the Clinton surrogates. Share your favorite (for lack of a better word) "worst surrogate moment," of the campaign.    

After my previous diary on the Women's Voices Women Vote robocall/voter confusion issues in which spokesperson Sarah Johnson responded to a series of questions, I was invited earlier this week to submit additional questions to WVWV President Page Gardner.

Ms. Gardner was able to answer some of my questions, but not all of them.  As a lawyer myself, I am loath to draw any inference from any non-answers.  Given the ongoing NC Attorney General investigation (PDF) and NAACP complaint, WVWV has every right to be cautious in what it says until it is confident it has determined what happened (among other reasons for restraint).  So while I'll note the non-answers below, I'm going to confine my commentary afterwards to the substantive responses.
::
::
1. Your latest press release states that "We do not believe that people who are in fact registered to vote jump to the conclusion that they can't vote simply because they are offered another opportunity to register." Given that there were published news reports and statements from elections officials in multiple states that already-registered voters were in fact confused by hearing phone calls and receiving new registration applications which suggested that without filling out new forms they couldn't vote, what was the basis for that belief?

Every state's Department of Motor Vehicles is tasked under the so-called "Motor Voter" law with providing registration for anyone coming in for a driver's license or other DMV service. They do that every day they are open for business. They don't have a voter file there to look up whether or not you are registered when they offer you the opportunity to register and they offer the opportunity to everyone that comes in. We do not believe this confuses people that are already registered to vote. Moreover, this occurs whether the primary is more than 25 days away or less than 25 days away. Similarly, when people are approached at a shopping center and offered the opportunity to register, they are offered the opportunity whether they are already registered or not, and the groups conducting these registration efforts are not generally accused of confusing those people that are already registered to vote.

2. After Virginia, WVWV promised to stop placing robocalls anonymously and didn't.  Your spokesperson said this was a "mistake".  How did this mistake occur?

[No response.]

3.  When was the Board made aware of the complaints as to voter confusion and the anonymity of your robocalls?

[No response.]

4. How did you arrive at your list of target states?  What criteria were used?  And on what dates were voters in each state called?

Target states were arrived at using criteria that included the number of unmarried women in a state that were not registered to vote or were registered to vote and had not voted compared to the same criteria for married women. In other words, what was the marriage gap in electoral participation between married and unmarried women in the state. We also wanted states from every region of the country, as well as states that have same day registration and states that do not. We also wanted some states with women elected officials at high levels (governor, US Senator) and states without. All of the pre-calls drawing people's attention to our mail and its voter registration form were delivered on the same two days, Thursday and Friday, April 24 and 25.

[According to her 5/5 diary these states were Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.]
5.  Your April 24 letter to Gary Bartlett (NC Board of Elections) speaks exclusively of your work with unmarried women, not men.  Why is that?

[No response.]

6.  After the NC situation became public, what steps did WVWV take to inform NC voters (a) that if they were already registered, they could vote without a problem and (b) if they were not registered, they could still register and vote in person via the one-stop process?  If no such steps were taken, why not?

[No response.  However, in her May 5 diary, Gardner stated, "WVWV offered to make corrective follow-up calls, but upon further consideration and consultation with individuals in the state, concluded that additional calls should not be made."]

7.  Are African American males the only group covered by the Voter Participation Center not already covered by WVWV?  In what states has VPC (or WVWV) attempted to register male voters?

The Voter Particpation Center attempts to register under-represented demographics including African American men, African American married women and married Latinas so these are the other targets for our voter registration other than all unmarried women regardless of ethnic or racial background.

The Voter Participation Center attempts to register these under-represented demographics in every state that WVWV operates, so in the most recent mailing that meant 24 states from coast to coast.

8. For how long has VPC been involved in registering male voters? Are there print materials, or materials sent to (potential) contributors, reflecting this?

The Voter Participation Center was created as a project of WVWV by the Board of Directors in 2007 following the testing of using our direct marketing techniques to register other under-represented demographics in 2006.

9. How is VPC funded?

As a project of WVWV, the VPC is not separately funded. It is funded out of WVWV funds.

10.  Was your husband's company involved as a vendor for these projects?  If yes, through what kind of process was this contract awarded, and was the Board made aware of the potential conflict of interest and involved in approving such contracts?

[No response.]

WVWV also released a statement this week offering an account what what has transpired.
::
::
Reaction: I have tried to extend to WVWV the benefit of every doubt, but I have trouble accepting its answer to the first question.  There's a difference between making registration available to people at public sites, versus anonymously contacting them in their homes and suggesting that they've been specifically identified as folks who need to take additional steps in order to register to vote.  

This is especially the case with regards to the "Lamont Williams" calls to African American male voters.  Unlike the VPC calls to married women which stated "Hi, just a reminder: your voter registration form is in the mail and on its way to you. Your voice counts, and your vote makes them listen. Sign it, date it, and send it in. Thanks," the calls to these men was much more insistent on the need to take action with phrases like "need to do" and "then you will be able": "All you need to do is fill it out, sign it, date and return your application. Then you will be able to vote and make your voice heard."  Then, as in you can't yet.

Moreover, of course, WVWV was on actual notice that voters found the calls to be confusing, via the complaints and media articles in previous states.  So on the whole I just don't find this explanation plausible.

Here's a story I would find plausible, though I must stress that this is only my conjecture, based on what we know publicly and my private conversations with voter targeting professionals:  suppose WVWV's primary goal was not to register as many new voters as possible, but the slightly different goals of (a) reaching out to as many targets as possible and (b) generating as many voter registration forms being filed as possible.

Both goals would generate impressive-seeming statistics which can be used to impress funders as well as the board of directors, both of which are crucial as to the group's overall viability.  Assume it's true, as others have claimed, that you can generate a lot of responses from a call for registrations post-deadline, pre-primary.  But if that's the case, what WVWV was also generating was a number of false positives -- registered voters being contacted who don't need to re-register, but who will do so anyway because now they believe they have to.  Making robocalls and sending materials that looked official, that did not clearly disclose their source as non-governmental (certainly not the calls), and which did not make clear that already-registered-voters need do nothing ... well, that ends up furthering the goals -- if "boosting the number of forms sent in" supersedes voter confusion as a priority, and especially if boosting those numbers generates higher revenues to WVWV vendors with significant ties to the Board and leadership team.

In other words, voter confusion may have become a recognized, but undisclosed cost, accepted as necessary to maximize certain overall metrics  -- and to be fair, we have no idea just how extensively voters were confused here.  It could end up being a very small number -- or one which WVWV underestimated -- and we can certainly debate how much confusion might be an acceptable cost based on the number of successful new voter registrations generated.

I want to be clear about two things: (1) that's only a theory, so please don't treat it as proven; and (2) voter registration is hard, unglamorous and difficult-to-fundraise-for work.  Regardless of what may have happened this year, WVWV's past successes are undeniable, and it is incumbent upon all of us to support those groups like Project Vote and Rock the Vote which do this necessary work on the ground level.  This is especially true in the wake of the onerous voter ID laws now approved by the Supreme Court (with immediate dire, bizarre consequences).  I hope that Women's Voices Women Vote again gives me the confidence to include them again on such a list of righteous organizations, but they've got a lot of work to do first.

I don't know what a search of Politicians and their Crazy Pastors on traditional media would come up with. But without seeing the results, I'm willing to speculate the double standard in play on progressive Vs. conservative crazy pastor problems is just breathtaking:

Ed Brayton -- And did you see one article anywhere in the mainstream media about it? I've not seen one that even mentions that on May 2nd, the former president and father of the current president, George HW Bush, was paid by the world's most prominent fascist cult leader to give yet another speech on his behalf, with Moon on the same stage. And it happened right in Washington DC, where the media has no excuse for not knowing about it.

Although tons of ink have been devoted to the demise of the Democratic Party's New Deal coalition, remarkably few analysts seem to have noticed that the net decline in support for Democratic presidential candidates among white voters over the past half-century is entirely attributable to partisan change in the South. It is equally notable, in light of the alleged abandonment of the Democratic Party by working-class cultural conservatives, that white voters in the bottom third of the income distribution have actually become more loyal in their support of Democratic presidential candidates over this period. Republican gains have come not among "poorer folks" but among middle- and upper-income voters--and even those gains have been concentrated entirely in the South.

--Larry Bartels, in Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, to be reviewed this coming weekend in Sunday Kos.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 5/5-7. Likely voters. MoE 4%  (9/24-26/07 results)

Cornyn (R) 48 (51)
Noriega (D) 44 (35)

That is nothing short of astounding. And lest anyone worry that it's an outlier, these numbers confirm a Rasmussen poll from earlier this week:

Rasmussen. 5/1. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines)

Cornyn (R) 47
Noriega (D) 43

I also pitted McCain against both Obama and Clinton, and here, the results are a little less encouraging:

McCain (R) 52
Obama (D) 39

McCain (R) 53
Clinton (D) 38

Crosstabs below the fold.

Does John McCain have the experience it takes to be President of the United States?

Who cares? His wife has the chutzpah it takes to piss on the little people, and that's good enough for her:

Cindy McCain: I'll never release my tax returns

WASHINGTON (AP) — Cindy McCain says she will never make her tax returns public even if her husband wins the White House and she becomes the first lady.

"You know, my husband and I have been married 28 years and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate," Cindy McCain, wife of Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting John McCain, said in an interview aired on NBC's Today on Thursday.

Thanks for carrying the story, USAToday. When can we expect you to chime in on this issue the way you did four years ago?

Transparency doesn't come easily to politicians. Though Kerry has released his tax returns, he continues to resist releasing those of his wife, ketchup heiress Teresa Heinz. And though no one should be shocked that an administration headed by two former oilmen might seek energy-policy advice from Bush's and Vice President Cheney's oil-patch buddies, the White House has refused to disclose who met with Cheney's energy task force. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on whether Cheney must release meeting details.

Candidates should know by now that playing hide-and-seek with parts of their past just keeps the issues alive, fuels charges of a coverup and deflects attention from their desired message.

Voters are entitled to accountability and openness. Candidates who recognize that help raise democracy to a higher standard.

And USAToday is by no means alone in having found fault with Teresa Heinz Kerry, who in the end did release critical tax information, while giving a pass to Cindy McCain. The Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Newsday all editorialized on the subject in 2004, but have been curiously silent this year.

Surprise!

And that doesn't even begin to touch on the expected silence from the usual Republican suspects: National Review, The Weekly Standard, etc.

Remember all that talk -- mostly coming from the panicked and dying traditional media -- about how they'd learned their lesson from becoming distracted and easily misled by the Bush team, both during the elections and in the run-up to the Iraq invasion?

Does it look like they were sincere about that to you?

UPDATE: Want the juicy bits of those NRO and Weekly Standard articles without sending them the traffic? Stop by at Nitpicker for his sardonic take on this travesty.

NE-Sen: Scott Kleeb now sports an endorsement from the Lincoln, NE Journal-Star. mcjoan has more on Kleeb, who is opposed by millionaire Republican-turned-Democrat Tony Raimondo in the Democratic primary. Raimondo rather cynically switched parties last year, figuring it was his best opportunity to buy a U.S. Senate seat, and he seems intent on doing just that, having dumped $450,000 of his own money into this race.

We're looking to raise $20,000 via 450 donors for Scott Kleeb, by the end of the day Friday. Contribute here!

MA-Sen, MA-05: Having lost a 2007 special election by a relatively narrow six-point margin to current Rep. Niki Tsongas, Republican Jim Ogonowski is making everyone's lives easier by waging a quixotic U.S. Senate run against John Kerry, rather than try again at the 5th District seat.

As a result, everyone is safe. Tsongas' only Republican challenger dropped out of the race, and Kerry is slaughtering Ogonowski, who can't raise enough to be a viable Senate candidate, in all polling so far. Kerry isn't even all that popular, considering how blue Massachusetts is, but the MA GOP is so pathetic that it's tough to imagine them waging a decent Senate challenge anytime soon. They haven't, since 1996.

Speaking of Massachusetts, CQ has a good roundup of House races in the Northeast.

House Races

NY-13: In case anybody missed it earlier, Vito Fossella is in a world of trouble, with Republican leaders having "lost all faith" that he can recover from this scandal.

If Fossella should retire, a Republican replacement might have an institutional advantage over Democratic candidates Domenic Recchia and Steve Harrison; geography. Recchia and Harrison are Brooklynites, while the bulk of the district is based in Staten Island. The New York Daily News reports that the DCCC, perhaps anticipating that this dynamic will play a role in the race, is attempting to recruit NY State Assemblyman Michael Cusick, a Staten Islander.

IL-18: I have seen the future of the GOP, and it is obsessed with the past of the GOP. Meet Aaron Schock, Republican candidate for the U.S. House and just a few weeks shy of his 27th birthday. On his website, our man Schock salivates breathlessly over the fine achievements of the old, Gingrichian Republican Congress:

The accomplishments of the Republican Majority in Congress since 1994 are astonishing and every American lives a better life today because of those changes made with that historic majority. Yet, beginning a few years ago, our congressional leaders and our majority who led so valiantly for over a decade, began to get tired, lose their way, get ground down, and run out of energy.

Last year, the public overwhelmingly came to believe that the Republican Majority had lost its way and strayed from Republican core principles.  

He's got stellar backing in DC, too...with guys like Eric Cantor, Dennis Hastert, and the youthful slug from Florida, Adam Putnam:

Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia is the House Chief Deputy Whip (the Number Four Republican leader) and has hosted events for Schock’s campaigns and said, "Aaron Schock is the role model for what our party needs to do to win back the voters we have lost in recent years. He will re-energize our party in Congress and I strongly support his election."

The House Republican Conference Chairman, Adam Putnam of Florida, also has endorsed Schock and offered to help, as has former Speaker Dennis Hastert, who has said, "Aaron Schock is one of the most exciting Republicans in the nation today."

Aren't Cantor, Putnam and Hastert the same guys who were leading the party over the last couple years...around the time that the Republican Party "lost its way", according to Schock? Curious choice of endorsements to boast about, then.

AK-AL: Jake Metcalfe is dropping out of the race for the U.S. House, after one of his political advisors was caught trashing Democratic opponent Ethan Berkowitz on various attack websites. This leaves Berkowitz and 2006 nominee Diane Benson in one of the most exciting races of this cycle.

IN-09: With the primaries over, it is now official: Rep. Baron Hill (D) and former Rep. Mike Sodrel (R) will meet for a fourth consecutive time this fall. Hill defeated Sodrel in 2002, lost narrowly in 2004, won his seat back in 2006, and will defend it again this fall. It should be quite a race to watch, especially as there's no love lost between the two:

Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and former Rep. Mike Sodrel (R-Ind.) are facing off in what likely will be their fourth distinctively negative campaign in as many cycles. And with Wednesday marking the first official day of the general election, this cycle is so far proving to be no exception.

"There’s a great personal dislike between the two of them," said one well-placed Washington, D.C., GOP source, who declined to be named. "I think it’s residual effect from multiple campaigns."

-The DCCC has filed a third FEC complaint against Republican shadow group Freedom's Watch.

The DCCC filed a complaint today with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against Freedom's Watch, a shadowy outside group, for failing to report its spending on television ads it's running against Democratic candidate Travis Childers (MS-01) and ran against Congressman Don Cazayoux (LA-06).

Freedom's Watch is operating as the cash-strapped NRCC's de facto independent expenditure campaign.  

"Clearly, Freedom's Watch thinks they are above the law," said Jennifer Crider, Communications Director at the DCCC.  "Freedom's Watch is trying to hide their spending on attack ads against Travis Childers and that's illegal.  As the NRCC looks to Freedom's Watch to save them, the NRCC, Republican Members, and Republican candidates need to decide whether it's worth it to return to the hay days of Republicans' culture of corruption by being tied to a group that regularly breaks the law."  

The DCCC has done a fine job watchdogging this sort of thing this cycle, and should be commended for it.

UPDATE: OK-Sen: Check out the Andrew Rice campaign's recent diary; the DSCC is now committing resources to Oklahoma, impressed by the strength of Rice's candidacy to this point.

Rice is running a strong race against one of the worst Senators in the land, noted climate-change denier James Inhofe.

MS-01: mitch2k2 has the latest DCCC ads on behalf of Travis Childers' campaign, both here, and at  The Thorn Papers. Check them out!

The pollster calls hogwash on Hillary's claims of being the only candidate who can deliver white voters in November:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama's current level of support among white voters in a head-to-head matchup against John McCain is no worse than John Kerry's margin of support among whites against George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election.

Much of the talk following Tuesday's Indiana and North Carolina primaries has focused on just how electable Obama -- now the highly probable nominee -- will be in the general election. The Clinton campaign has argued that Obama's weaknesses among white voters and blue-collar voters will hurt him against McCain in the fall.

But it appears that the way Obama stacks up against McCain at this point is similar to the way in which Kerry performed against Bush in 2004 within several key racial, educational, religious, and gender subgroups.

One talking point down, six zillion to go.

What the f--?

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

How is that not race-baiting?

Are African Americans not hard working? Are Americans with college degrees not hard working? And this obsession with race!

And she's wrong, too. Look at Obama's support in these relevant categories over the last six contests, spanning eight whole weeks.

              TX   OH   MS   PA   IN   NC

White         44   34   26   37   40   37
No College    42   40   58   42   46   56
College Grad  55   51   62   49   50   57
Over $50K     51   47   52   45   49   60
Under $50K    47   42   66   46   50   54

So let's see what Clinton is claiming again -- that "Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

• Obama's support among whites is actually increasing compared to Ohio, Mississippi and Pennsylvania. She lied about that.
• Obama's support among "hard working Americans", which is code for poorer Americans, has also increased over those in previous contests, save for Mississippi, where the under-$50K vote was overwhelmingly black.
• Obama's numbers among college grads is static to increasing. We don't have exit poll breakdowns for education by race, and we can assume North Carolina's huge numbers with "no college" are due to the large African American percentages in the state. But what about Indiana, a state that is whiter (83.9%) than Pennsylvania (82.1%), Ohio (82.9%) and Texas (48.3%)? Despite the demographic disadvantage, Obama actually increased his support among voters with no college degrees.

So how can Clinton be so wrong? Because she's citing an AP-Yahoo News poll from back on May 3rd. Rather than cite actual voter data, she is basing her claims on an old poll taken before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

Yup. That's what Hillary Clinton has been reduced to. Ignoring actual votes and cherry picking polls.

Which really, shouldn't surprise anyone. She's already ignored and belittled every state and voter demographic that doesn't support her. So it only follows that since in her world, the only things that are important are things that support her, she'd ignore election results in favor of the one (outdated) poll that confirms her manufactured reality.

I was googling around for something when I came across this oldie, but goodie, from June 26, 2003:

Barack Obama will not be carrying the Democratic Leadership Council’s baggage in his race to become the second Black person to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate. The state senator and professor of constitutional law has told The Black Commentator that he is acting to have his name stricken from the "New Democrats Directory," a list of several hundred DLC-affiliated elected officials.  

"I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC," said Obama, in a statement that substantially reflects a telephone conversation with   Associate Editor Bruce Dixon, this weekend. "It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC...listed me in their ‘New Democrat’ directory," Obama continued. "Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention."

Compare to his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Scott Kleeb made a great impression with the Lincoln Journal Star editorial board:

Nebraska Democrats should choose Scott Kleeb as their nominee for the U.S. Senate race.

Kleeb offers an appealing blend of intelligence, drive to get things done and thoughtfulness on the issues....

The other major contender for the Democratic nomination is Columbus industrialist Tony Raimondo, who recently changed his political registration from Republican. Raimondo also is a strong candidate who has a track record of creating jobs. Raimondo would be especially effective on business and economic issues.

Kleeb, however, has the ability to inspire. Smart, focused and talented, he has great growth potential. The Journal Star editorial board believes Kleeb is best suited to carry the Democratic banner in the general election race for the U.S. Senate.

Anybody who had the opportunity to meet Scott in Chicago at the Yearly Kos convention last summer will recognize the man the Journal Star editors describe. He would be an asset to Nebraska, to the party, and to the nation in the Senate.

The primary is next Tuesday. You can help send a real Democrat to the Senate.

We're looking for $20,000 and 450 donations (one donation for every $1,000 of Raimondo's personal loan of $450K to his own campaign) by the end of the day tomorrow. Send the message that people power can compete with big money by contributing to Scott's campaign.

On the Web:
Kleeb for Senate
Daily Kos for Scott Kleeb ActBlue page

Poblano, who has wowed Kossacks with his detailed election analyses and in-depth background Diaries like this one at Daily Kos and at his own FiveThirtyEight.com blog, got some well-deserved attention today from the  National Journal.

As Mark Blumenthal writes:

Over the last week, an anonymous blogger who writes under the pseudonym Poblano did something bold on his blog, FiveThirtyEight.com. He posted predictions for the upcoming primaries based not on polling data, but on a statistical model driven mostly by demographic and past vote data. His model predicted a 17-point victory for Barack Obama in North Carolina and a 2-point edge for Hillary Rodham Clinton in Indiana.

Critics scoffed. Most of the public polls pointed to a close race in North Carolina. Looking back at Poblano's efforts in Pennsylvania, pollster Dick Bennett decried the models as "stepwise regression run amok." Slate's Mickey Kaus predicted failure for "a sophisticated model that ignores... what's been happening in the campaign. Like Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright."

But a funny thing happened. The model got it right. ...

Moreover, the predictions were more accurate than any of the pollsters' results, as indicated by the graphic below (modified from a chart created by Brian Schaffner of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies).

Poblano is just another example - albeit an exemplary one - of how a blogger with a brain and an obsession  benefits us all. We don't know if he does this from a basement in his pajamas, but who cares? Kudos to you, sir.

Embattled New York Congressman Vito Fossella (R)'s political career has gone up in smoke in just one short week.

It was bad enough when Fossella, the last remaining Republican Congressman from New York City, was arrested last week for DWI. "Vino" Fossella, as the New York Daily News has seen fit to dub him, blew a .17 into the Breathalyzer, twice the legal limit, and apparently had some trouble with his ABC's:

Mr. Fossella, who was driving a white Honda Civic, was stopped about 12:10 a.m. on Thursday, and told a police officer he had had two or three glasses of wine about two hours earlier. Mr. Fossella was asked to recite the alphabet between the letters D and T. “The subject immediately started and said ‘A, B,’ ” the officer wrote in his report.

After the officer explained the test again, Mr. Fossella started: “D, E, F, H, G, H, I, J, L,” and then was able to finish.

If found guilty of drunk driving, he faces a mandatory five days in jail, at the minimum. Frankly, that is now the least of his problems. Seems that the good Congressman, married with three kids, has a daughter from an extramarital affair. The mother of his daughter, Laura Fay, was the woman who provided bail for Fossella after his arrest, after Fossella had told the arresting officer that he was "picking up his daughter", and listed the street where Fay lived as his destination. After several days, Fossella has now publicly admitted the affair and his paternity:

“I have had a relationship with Laura Fay, with whom I have a three year old daughter," Fossella said in a statement.

"My personal failings and imperfections have caused enormous pain to the people I love and I am truly sorry.

"While I understand that there will be many questions, including those about my political future, making any political decisions right now are furthest from my mind".

It is pretty clear, however, that Fossella's career is in serious trouble. Already facing a significant Democratic challenge from New York City Councilman Domenic Recchia and attorney Steve Harrison, Fossella is now extremely unlikely to run for reelection. From the Washington Post:

GOP political insiders say Fossella, whose blood-alcohol content was more than twice the legal limit when he was busted at 12:15 a.m. last Thursday, stands little chance of running for reelection at this point, and their Democratic counterparts agree. Buzz on the Hill and around town Wednesday was that Fossella would be announcing sooner rather than later that he won't seek another term in what has quickly become a hotly contested seat for embattled Republicans. Fossella was not voting in the House Wednesday.

The local press agrees:

But one of the state's top Republicans told The Post, "He's not going to be able to win re-election if he is the father."

Sources said party officials have privately discussed who could best hold onto the seat for the GOP should Fossella end up in deeper trouble.

Names being bandied about include Staten Island DA Daniel Donovan and city Councilman James Oddo.

In a slightly Democratic-leaning district (D+0.8), this is yet another potential open-seat nightmare for Fossella's party. After his admission, the biggest question remaining is whether Fossella will finish out his term.

If he does resign before July 1st, New York Governor David Paterson could call a special election in which the state parties would be responsible for picking the candidates, which could lead to all manner of backroom deals brokered behind closed doors. In particular, it's possible that one faction of the state Democratic Party could lobby for a candidate from Staten Island, Fossella's home and the population center of the district. That could leave Recchia and Harrison, the current declared candidates, out in the cold.

But that's all speculation. For now, we know that Fossella is in unimaginable trouble, his political career is sunk, and we have another top-tier race for November.

This doesn't sound good:

Telecom companies have presented congressional Democrats with a set of proposals on how to provide immunity to the businesses that participated in a controversial government electronic surveillance program, a House Democratic aide said Wednesday....

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday a FISA deal is "still in flux" but he described the latest developments as "promising" and said he hoped to have a solution soon.

House officials declined to discuss the specifics of the proposed immunity language by the telecoms.

Although it remains to be seen if congressional Democrats will accept the telecom companies' proposal, the communication between the two sides signifies that progress is being made.

Have Dem leaders really moved in the discussions from whether to provide amnesty to how to provide it? Beyond that, why in the hell do the telcos have a seat at the negotiating table on this issue at all?

I doubt Congress invited the Mafia to the table when it wrote the RICO  Act. Seems pretty unlikely that there were any drug kingpins at the table when Congress wrote the Continuing Criminal Enterprise statute. But AT&T gets to write this one?

The telcos participated in illegal, warrantless spying--not a "controversial government electronic surveillance program"--in illegal spying. They broke the law. They should have their day in court along with the plaintiffs in the cases against them. But they shouldn't be writing the damn law that lets them off the hook.

Then there's this:

Meanwhile, Senate Select Intelligence Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) has begun circulating a proposal on the FISA bill to all key stakeholders, hoping to break the deadlock, several members and aides also confirmed on Wednesday.

With Hoyer and Rockefeller on the case, it's looking more and more like the Protect AT&T Act is back in business.

When last we left the Federal Election Commission, the lights were on but no one was really working.  Four of the six commissioners' nominations expired at the end of 2007, leaving the the Commission shy of a working quorum as Democrats remained steadfast that odious nominee Hans von Spakovsky receive a separate up-or-down vote, which Senators on both sides of the aisle recognize would sink his nomination, which is why Sen. Mitch McConnell refused to go along with it.

[A full FEC has six Commissioners, with no more than three allowed from any political party.  It takes four votes for it to do anything.]

Time marched on.  The FEC has been unable to investigate important complaints which have been filed, but it has also been unable to release John McCain from the public financing limits per his request.  It would also be difficult for McCain to then receive public financing for the general election come September should there not be a functioning Commission to administer the program.  

And, in the meantime, former FEC Chairman Bob Lenhard, a Democrat who'd have no trouble being re-confirmed, withdrew his name from re-nomination last month because of the delays.

The solution would seem simple: have Bush replace von Spakovsky with an acceptable nominee, end the logjam and move on.  But, of course, that's not how it works.

Instead, the White House has kept von Spakovsky's nomination and located two new Republican nominees for vacancies on that side of the aisle -- NRCC lawyer (and former lawyer for Rep. Tom DeLay) Donald McGahn and Caroline Hunter, who has sat on the Election Assistance Commission despite having no relevant experience previously.

This, however, required jettisoning Commissioner Mason,