nifty gadget!

Check out my nifty new java gadget from electoral-vote.com! (top of the sidebar to the left)

It gives you the daily predictions of the electoral vote totals (what really matters) based on the most recent state polling data.

Lindsay Lohan

First post in a while. I have a lot to say but will reserve the majority of it and say only this:

When Lindsay Lohan is urging you to stick to the issues... you've gone too far.

Thank you.

offered without comment

hipsters, here it is: barackobamaisyournewfixie.com

entertain yourselves with that while I'm on vaca for a coupla weeks.

Drunk History:

For the record, I think that this is awesome. Basically the premise is get somebody who knows a lot about an historical event three-sheets drunk and get them to retell the stories in all their slurred, drunken glory.

The beauty, though, and the hilarity come in the form of the reenactments. The players mime the dialog as presented by the drunk historian - hiccups, profanity and all - in a way that brings history to life!

As an example, here is episode #3 in which Jen Kirkman gets drunk on wine and recounts the tale of Oney Judge, a favorite slave of George and Martha Washington...



NSFW language... also, I've chosen #3 because several of the others involve vomiting, etc.

Good day.

McCain's first attack ad

As Barack Obama is preparing for his first foreign trip as his party's nominee for President, John McCain launches his campaign's first attack ad. However, as TPM notes while he is attacking Obama's positions, both McCain and still-President Bush are also realigning themselves behind Obama on a number of issues:

1. increasing troop presence in Afghanistan
2. declaring victory and the promotion of a "general time horizon" (note: NOT a timetable) for troop withdrawl in Iraq
3. and the beginnings of diplomacy with Iran with a top-level State Dept official meeting with Tehran nuclear agents this week

While McCain & company are trying their damndest to paint Obama as a flip-flopper on these issues, ultimately it is the McCain campaign that is changing their policy the most over the past few weeks.

The rhetoric is still there, though. A member of McCain's "truth squad", Bud Day (best remembered for his role in the 2004 'swift boating' of John Kerry), has recently proclaimed that

"The Muslims have said either we kneel or they're going to kill us.''

ooga booga booga! Be affraid... be very affraid!!

Meanwhile, McCain may have just thrown a logistical wrench in Obama's travel plans for the next week. He indicated that Obama may be in Iraq over the weekend, which for security reasons is typically information that is kept pretty secret. So despite the fact that McCain's criticisms were the ostensible impetus for Obama's current trip abroad, lately he has been:

• complaining that Obama's trip is getting more media coverage
• criticizing Obama's plans to speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate in while in Germany (the plans have been rearranged since)
• leaking Obama's potential itinerary, making security for the trip an added concern/restriction
• criticizing Obama's travel plans overall

Oh... and by the way... after a week-long hiatus, Phil Gramm is back to his advisory role in the McCain campaign (per Robert Novak, so salt grains suggested)... yes, the "nation of whiners" Phil Gramm. This time, though, he's lost his "surrogate" credentials and will merely be an advisor. So McCain was being truthful in his repudiation of Gramm when he said "Phil Gramm doesn't speak for me... I speak for me". True, Senator, but Phil Gramm does speak to you... concerning economics... which you profess to know little about... and he certainly doesn't have the economic interests of the vast majority of Americans in mind, just the vast majority of American corporations.

Good luck hearing any of that from the mainstream media though...

here we go again...

catchy little tune, actually...

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

war crimes

This is probably a little too much like reading tea leaves to be believed, but this report indicates that some individuals in the current Bush administration are getting worried about being prosecuted for war crimes, especially in relation to torture violations.

So hot is the speculation that war-crimes trials will eventually follow in foreign or international courts that Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, has publicly advised Mr. Feith, Mr. Addington and Alberto Gonzales, among others, to "never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel."

It would be nice if Bush & Co. were held accountable for their various crimes over the past 7+ years in power. However, given:

• the tepid reaction to the articles of impeachment of both Bush and Cheney that have been raised by Dennis Kucinich
• the inability of Congress to hold anyone in the administration accountable (Karl Rove has yet to testify under oath as he's been subpoenaed to do several times, and continues to dodge contempt of congress citations)
• and the fact that the U.S. Senate just voted to grant retroactive immunity to the telecom companies (and, by association, the administration) for their roles in domestic spying
  

I think holding anyone in the administration responsible for their misdeeds is but a pipe dream...

ouch...

The McCain campaign has had a rough go of it over the past couple of weeks in terms of economic policy. The big news last weeks was that one of his top economic advisers, former Senator Phil Gramm, indicated that America's is a "mental recession" and then quipped that America is a "nation of whiners"... turns out that's probably not going to poll well.

With the Economy becoming one of the biggest issues in the campaign this year, it's surprising that McCain hasn't made more of an effort to come up with a coherent message conveying what his approach will be.

Would you like some salt in that wound?:

viral marketing

It seems that viral marketing has even made its way into marketing for biotechnologies. First there was the PCR song:


now this:

FISA, the 4th Amendment, and YouTube...

The recent declaration by Barack Obama that he would be supporting the latest "compromise" legislation (read: capitulation legislation) on the FISA courts created a massive uproar. Many of his supporters are crying foul and claiming that he is pandering, moving to the middle, and abandoning his previous positions - he professed that he would not support the 'Protect America Act' last summer.

One of the most interesting aspects of this "new campaign" built and run on new technologies - including social networking - is how they would handle the inevitable people-powered backlash. It came this week in the form of a group organized in the Obama campaign's mybarackobama.com which is a social networking site built within the campaign's overall website. His supporters can sign on to form groups, organize events, raise funds and gives the campaign a flexibility and people-powered base that has never been seen before in politics. Truly a new monster: campaign 2.0.

In response to Obama's announcement about his imminent support of the new FISA bill a group formed on mybarackobama.com called "Senator Obama - Please Vote No on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right" - and it quickly became the biggest on the site. Just this afternoon Barack Obama responded to his supporters (which he would have had to do eventually) with this statement. This is a glimpse of how the web has given a rebirth to democracy. Fascinating.

Oh, and those Fourth Amendment rights... you wont really have those for much longer because the FISA legislation will pass (after the Independence Day recess).

As a side note, check out this decision that a federal judge has just handed down. Apparently YouTube is going to be giving Viacom a list of all of the users who watched videos on their site, and... uh... which videos they watched. (YouTube and Viacom, remember, are in a legal battle right now over the whole Daily Show/Colbert Report, copyrighted materials appearing on YouTube thing).



Enjoy your 4th of July with everybody watching what you do... just don't do anything illegal (or that might be illegal) because they're watching.

Good day.

VP-stakes

I've been making the case here for Wes Clark as Obama's running mate. Then this happened earlier this week and the fallout has been tremendous (not to mention blown WAY out of proportion).

Wes Clark defends himself in (from?) his own words:


Whatever I may think about all of this is kind of irrelevant. Wes Clark essentially took himself out of contention for the VP slot on the ticket with these comments (with a little help from the McCain campaign and a real-life Swift Boat Vet for Truth, Bud Day... the hypocrisy runs deep, my friends). The McCain camp is probably relieved to have knocked off Clark and, as I noted earlier, if anything was to be Clark's downfall it would be his lack of experience on a national stage. He just fell through the trap door and landed square on the third rail.

So where does that leave the VP-stakes?... Are we back to Jim Webb? Wherever it is now, the NYT notes that given the Olympics and the packed convention schedule in August, the timing of the revelation of a running mate will be tricky business for the candidates this summer.

raw sewage?

Well, that's a pretty good monument to what it's been like in George W. Bush's America... but I bet we can do better. (some good suggestions in the comments section from that slog post)

blog catch-up...

I've been derelict in my duty as a blogger of late. (blogging is hard work during the summer!) So, other than the longer posts that I will disseminate forthwith, here are some of the (perhaps) interesting points that I've been meaning to share with you all over the past week:

• Now that it's summer, I've started to wonder why Seattle doesn't have more outdoor seating establishments... why is that?
• Ah ha! - here's an explanation.
  

• Do you like optical illusions? Of course you do! - here's a new one.
  

• They're on to you... and they know what you did with your 'stimulus' money.
  

• I don't have a car, so this whole expensive gas thing isn't hitting me too hard. Ultimately I think it will be an overall good thing. I mean, it's already made people appreciate public transit even more (as noted before). I'm reminded of how good (and cute) a healthy appreciation of public transportaion can be by this story, though I doubt gas prices are at the root of the kids' enthusiasm.
  

• The only reason I would consider becoming vegetarian/vegan is right here... and it's compelling. Animal cruelty is up there (for background see: a recent episode of 30 Days), but the cruelty-free meats and products are available.
  

• Speaking of animal cruelty... check out a story from my hometown paper describing recent antics at my alma mater, Colby College. It involves a pot bellied pig terrorizing a town and a hapless police force driven towards drastic measures... (spoiler: taser) [disclaimer: may actually be somewhat amusing, despite "animal cruelty" lead-in]
  

• For anyone who ever wanted to win a debate with a creationist, here's a blueprint. This follows up on the publication of a pretty remarkable set of experiments that demonstrate strong support for Darwin's theories. 149 years and counting...
  

Bush's War on Science continues

This time through sheer neglect. For anyone who hasn't heard about this... here's Jon Stewart of the Daily Show who sums it up quite nicely:


AMAZING!

John McCain: "aware of the Internet"

You don’t necessarily have to use a computer to understand, you know, how it shapes the country. … John McCain is aware of the Internet.

--Mark SooHoo, McCain aide

well I feel better... now we just have to convince him that it isn't a series of tubes that Al Gore invented and we'll be halfway there!

I want to see:

the new Coen brothers film "Burn After Reading". It seems (from the trailer) to be less "No Country for Old Men" and more "The Big Lebowski". Check it:

pretty cool

sailing simulator (flash)

new coldplay video:

at least it's not my fault...

... it's because of the gays:

offered without comment

story here

Presidential politics in the YouTube era...

The past few years have restored my faith in the democratic process. Overall it seemed as though politics (on a national scale) was so beholden to a corporate media, and the media was so beholden to the politicians, that it was a never-ending cycle and self fulfilling prophecy whenever there was an election.

Then, in February of 2005, a group of former paypal employees came together to create YouTube. I, for one, didn't appreciate the political impact it would have until the summer of 2006 when VA Senator George Allen referred to one of his opponents aides (who was videotaping the rally) as 'macaca' and the video spread around the internet (thanks, in part, to YouTube). Because of the interest on the web it hit the mainstream press and before Allen could think of a way to excuse the whole incident away, Jim Webb was being sworn in as the freshman Senator from VA.

Now it seems as though the real power of YouTube isn't in waiting for 'gotcha' moments (such as Allen's 'macacalypse') but for exposing the truth behind the rhetoric. McCain's going to have an especially tough time over the next few months if he doesn't learn the power of this new medium really quickly (which might be difficult given his admitted technical ineptitude). It almost reminds me of the Kennedy-Nixon race in 1960 when Kennedy wore makeup for the first televised debates and Nixon chose not to. Those who listened on the radio thought Nixon won the debate whereas those who watched on television gave an overwhelming victory (in the debate) to Kennedy. Hence the power of controlling the medium of the day.

Here are some examples of McCain's inability to shape the argument as in the days of old because of the power of YouTube:

another benefit of $4/gallon gas?

It appears as though gas prices are going to stay in the stratosphere for the foreseeable future (or indefinitely). While everyone is focusing on all of the negatives of this current energy situation, there is as always a silver lining. Among the benefits is the fact the politicians and the citizenry are finally getting serious about public transportation (aka the 'light rail') in the Seattle metro area. This is something that Seattle has needed for a long time, and it has consistently been tripped up by the crazy Washington state politics (as recently as November '07) - all it took was a trumped-up war, the fall of the Dollar, the rise of China, and people being ridiculously selfish.

all in the past

if the past were the future, then this would be a relevant analysis... meanwhile, I'm still going to fight tooth and nail until Obama takes the oath of office on 1/20/2009.

exhibit B.

send your baby to Barack!

Obama's a busy guy these days, having locked up his party's nomination. With so many babies out there in the world to kiss, there's no way he can get to all of them - I mean he's good, but he's no Santa Claus.

That's why you should send your baby to Barack! Here's a shipping form for you to fill out:

(My favorite part is the "what would you like Senator Obama to do with your baby?" question. The options: kiss, hug, give hope...)

VP

Over at The Huffington Post there's a story up that (indirectly) outlines why I think Wes Clark would be a great VP nominee choice for the Obama campaign. He would fit in nicely with the Obama message, is smart and not reactionary about foreign policy, and is credible to attack John McCain on one of his biggest perceived strengths: foreign/military policy. As soon as Obama starts attacking McCain directly, the McCain campaign can point to his lack of experience and military service (as they have with the debate over the 'new' GI Bill of Rights). That's a sticky situation, but in reality McCain is vulnerable on this issue given the right position for attack, which makes a retired general with progressive political views and a dedicated netroots base a great choice for Obama.

To understand what I'm getting at, I highly recommend you read the HuffPo article.

let the market decide...

Add another site to track for political junkies and people who just wanna know the future.

There's SUSA, Rassmussen, Zogby and the rest actually doing the polling. Then there's aggregate sites such as here, here, and here (last one is the very user-friendly USA Today, but not frequently updated and not very in-depth). THEN there's RealClearPolitics and Pollster that average the aggregate data...

Now add one more layer on top of that. ElectoralMap.net is a site that makes state-by-state predictions based on Intrade - a website that facilitates 'investments' that internet-people make on certain events happening or not. Basically people wager money on what the outcomes of certain events will be and there is money to be won (or lost). The idea being that people take a look at the polls, the history, and all of the other confounding variables... and then put money on what they think the outcome will be state-by-state. This is then tabulated by ElectoralMap.net and the future (as it is seen now) is right in front of your eyes:

An interesting aspect of this map is that it is updated (weekly, according to their description), so you can see how the states are trending. Obviously this map looks very good for the Dems. Another positive note, though, is that all of the movement over the past 2-3 weeks has been around the Republicans. The Democrat has been solid at 289 since 5/24 and since then some states have been opening up from the Republicans (notably VA) or solidifying around the Dem (PA, for instance).

I'd say keep an eye on this site because it will probably offer a tremendously processed, but fairly accurate prediction of how things will transpire.

"I'm voting Republican..."

(via slog)

this sums it up nicely

(via Greg A.)

I've waited my whole life...

... for e-cards like these. The folks over at someecards.com have tapped in to the use of wacky captioned clip-art to communicate heart-felt truths about the human condition. Observe:

you'll all receiving these cards from me on the anniversary of you being expelled from your mother's uterus.

$4 for a gallon of gas...

$5/gallon can't be too far off.

And there's an analysis of who's getting hit the hardest by the squeeze at the pump: rural America. This doesn't really come as a surprise (rural = everything is spread out, urban = everything is close together, public transportation, etc.) but still, I wonder if this will have an effect on the "What's the Matter with Kansas" phenomenon.

From the NYT today, a map showing county-by-county the percent of household income spent on gasoline:

Because of this, McCain's back to pushing the much maligned (by just about every credible economist) 'gas tax holiday' idea.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will people buy into the smoke & mirrors of the gas tax holiday? Or will they see the charade for what it is and flip the "What's the matter with Kansas" idea on it's head? Something tells me that this will (a) be the central issue in the campaign this summer and (b) be an indicator as to whether Obama's new, 'honest' politics will work to convince the good people in Kansas (and other areas) what's actually wrong - Republican leadership and corporate special interests.

black president

There's a new song out there about the 2008 Presidential Election. Nas takes a crack with a song that samples Tupac's Changes -

"although it seems heaven sent, we ain't ready to have a black president"

- and flips it on it's head. This song's theme isn't as blindingly hopeful as the will.i.am song from February (it's also better, imo), but I think it does capture the feeling of what's going on - cautiously optimistic. Have a listen below:



This also reminds me of the hilarious Chappelle Show skit from a few years ago where Dave plays "black Bush". For laughs:

lately I've been listening to:

I've had Dead Prez - Hip Hop going through my head a lot lately... "It's bigger than hip - hop - hip - hop..."

unh! 's good:

John McCain: debating himself (and losing) on Iraq

wow... 'To Die in Jerusalem'

this looks amazing...

270 to win

Now that each party's nominee has been selected (though not yet made official by their respective conventions), it's time to turn our attention to the general election.

I think everyone knows by now how the general election works: each state has a set number of electoral college delegates that are committed to each candidate based on who wins each state and the candidate who garners the majority (i.e. over 270 electoral college delegates) wins. So it now comes down to a state-by-state battle between John McCain and Barack Obama over the next 5 months to determine who will be the 44th POTUS.

To help sort out how the state-by-state contest is going, I'd like to point out this website (270towin.com). You can generate your own swing state predictions, analyze historical results, and keep track of the latest polling data. My first crack at an electoral college map for 2008 is below (it assumes Obama's able to nab NC and MT away from the McCain and also carries CO, PA, WI, MI, MN, OR, and WA which have all been listed by some as swing states).

Have fun!

well done.

Clinton winding down...

Though Clinton didn't officially concede the nomination last night, she's been making all the motions that she's going to. And now it comes out that Clinton may well officially concede on Friday in NY. She and Obama are likely to meet between now and then as well (probably to discuss the terms of her concession, what she wants in return, etc.). All of this comes as the reality is setting in for everyone that Obama is the nominee of the Democratic party for 2008.

The NYT has an interesting postmortem on the Clinton campaign today - a kind of "where do we go from here" perspective on the choices that the campaign and it's supporters are facing.

Meanwhile, the Obama camp has formed their official VP search committee (the group tasked with doing the research on potential running mates for the candidate). Included on the committee are:

• Caroline Kennedy - Obama supporter, daughter to JFK, new to this whole politics game
• Eric Holder - Deputy AG under Bill Clinton and one of Obama's lead lawyers
• Jim Johnson - former Fannie Mae CEO and on the VP committee of former candidates John Kerry and Walter Mondale

A good group who will (likely) have Hillary on one - if not several - lists. However, it will ultimately be the candidate (Obama) who makes the final decision.

sidebar RE: 8/28/2008

Interesting things that will/may happen on Thursday, August 28, 2008 (8/28/2008 - nice ring to it):

1. Obama's* acceptance speech in Denver (see below)
   
2. U.S. Open Finals in NYC
   
3. pre-season finale/Super Bowl rematch: Patriots v. Giants in NY
   
4. the final game of a Red Sox-Yankees series in Yankee stadium
5. the world's biggest mall will open in Dubai
6. Some other completely random, yet somehow meaningful event somewhere else in the world
   

Let me know if there are any others that pop up... this could be an historic day in many regards. Weird how the universe ties all of these events together

interesting note

I'm sure that we will all be brow-beaten with this historical point over the next 12 weeks, but I came across this today and found it interesting. The nominee of the Democratic party - almost certainly Barack Obama - will be delivering his convention acceptance speech on the last day of the DNC Convention on August 28, 2008 in Denver, Colorado. That will happen to be exactly 45 years (to the day) from when Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his "I have a dream..." speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963.

Exactly 45 years after King shared his dream, Obama will (likely) accept the nomination of the party that has helped make King's dream more of a reality. We're not there yet, but wouldn't that be something...

remember when...

Hillary Clinton was the Democratic Presidential nominee front-runner? A year ago all anyone could talk about was how Clinton was solidly out front and Obama was making the gaffes of a political neophyte. Now, however, it seems we are 180 degrees from where we were a 365 days ago (i.e. a political eternity). Obama was still on message though, even back then:

"What we've seen over the last six years is the effort to replace bluster and belligerence and saber-rattling for solid diplomacy and strategy and foresight." — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois

Nobody was shouting 'appeasement' from the rooftops then as they are now, though... probably because then he trailed Clinton by 17 percentage points nationally among Democrats where today Obama holds the clear delegate lead and will likely achieve the (newest) threshold for nomination: 2118 delegates.

How times have changed... in some ways... but not in others.

pretty good slog comments...

There was a slog post about Obama's offer to meet with Clinton at "a time and place of her choosing" to discuss the future of the Democratic race/party/civilization/etc. - it was funny. I think the best part are the suggestions from the commentators about 'when and where' Clinton might choose...

Vegetable harvest times

a handy chart from King County mapping out when various vegetables get harvested in the Puget Sound area - buy local/buy fresh.

Al La Spada on UWTV

Al La Spada gave the Laboratory Medicine Grand Rounds and it is now on UWTV, for those interested in what goes on in my professional life.

effing cool (windmill edition)

what have you done lately, this guy's making it happen:

veepstakes

Now that each political party's presidential candidate is all-but decided, comes the speculative, tea leaf-reading season of the veepstakes. Who will each candidate choose to be #2? What are the driving factors? Will it be Obama/Clinton as has been the buzz since Clinton first seemed bested by Obama in late February?

The Politico's Jonathan Martin wrote a piece about it today. Over at the TPMCafé they've got a speculative comments section to which every joe-schmo is posting their choice(s). MSNBC even has a bracket (similar to those employed in the NCAA tourneys) - though, presently only for the Republican VP spot, since the Dem race isn't 'officially' over yet.

Want my thoughts? Of course you do, that's why you're here:

The goal for each candidate in choosing a VP candidate is to minimize potential electoral weaknesses. One of John McCain's biggest political liabilities in this election cycle is his close relationship with George W. Bush. Therefore he's going to have to alienate his base and choose someone more moderate/liberal/critical of the Bush administration to round out the ticket and distance himself from President 27%-approva-rating (lowest in recorded history). Who do I think that could be? I'm going to float the four potentials that (IMHO) would be the most beneficial to the McCain ticket:

• Bobby Jindal (LA governor) - major up-and-comer in the Republican party, likely nominee in 2012 or 2016, though his age (almost 37) might highlight one of McCain's bigger weaknesses - his age (almost 72)
  
• Condoleezza Rice (Sec. State) - would be another link to the Bush WH, but she is seen as strong on foreign policy and would be an interesting choice for the McCain campaign
  
• Joe Lieberman (CT senator, Dem) - Lieberman has been 'campaigning' with McCain this spring and has echoed (almost) everyone one of the McCain talking points (especially those criticizing Obama), in addition a choice of a noted Dem (and one that was on the Dem ticket in 2000) would be seen as a 'bipartisan' move, though Lieberman has been all-but excommunicated from the Democratic party at this point; this potential choice is one that scares me the most
  
• Mike Huckabee (AK governor) - would consolidate the religious right around McCain (finally), though probably doesn't bring much more than that
  
• Colin Powell (fmr. Sec. State) - Powell would be an interesting choice as he wouldn't help to distance McCain from the Bush WH very much, though Powell has been a dissenting voice to the Bush administration and might (oddly) help draw that distinction more clearly; it could also completely backfire on McCain
• Other names are out there (FL gov Crist and Mitt Romney, for example), but these are the ones that I think might give McCain the best shot... though I don't really understand the Republican party as well as I understand the Democrats...
  

On the Democratic end of things, people have been clamoring to get Hillary as the VP choice for Obama. Clearly she's demonstrated herself to be a very effective candidate, though I doubt she'll be the Obama campaign's choice on this one for several reasons - including potentially upstaging the candidate, the political liability that has become Bill Clinton, and the fact that the Clinton and Obama campaigns differ (fundamentally) on how to run campaigns of this nature (from the 50-state strategy down to the overall tone of the campaign - 'kitchen sink' etc.). No, I doubt the Obama campaign will offer the VP nomination to Clinton unless their hand gets forced (which is likely). In addition, when considering Obama's potential political weaknesses up against McCain - 'inexperience' (esp. wrt foreign/military policy), and the 'working-class' voters - Clinton doesn't really bring as much to the table as some other potential names that are out there. Here's my list of potentials and how they'd beef-up Obama's chances:

• John Edwards - not going to happen, pipe dream; strong ticket but with his wife being ill I doubt Edwards is willing to campaign.
  
• Jim Webb (VA senator) - tough to pull a D out of the senate, strong military background and 'straight shooter' image; potential negative is that he's seen as a bit of a misogynist by some which wouldn't help unify the Clintonites with the rest of the party (true or not)
  
• Tim Kaine (VA governor) - as with Webb, would help in VA (a potential battleground state) but doesn't have the downside of losing a strong D senator
  
• Kathleen Sebelius (KS governor) - again, pluses are that she's a governor, an up-and-comer, and a woman; she doesn't help much on the foreign policy front
  
• Janet Napolitano (AZ governor) - similar pluses as Sebelius, though she doesn't bring geography (with McCain expected with win AZ pretty handily)
  
• Joe Biden (DE senator) - strong candidate with lots of experience, he'd take a strong voice away from the senate where some are thinking he could be majority leader come 2009
  
• Bill Richardson (NM governor) - again, that he's a popular governor in a potential battleground state is a huge plus, also he's Hispanic (thus potentially helping Obama with a demographic that he's had trouble with), and he's got lots of 'experience' (serving in the Clinton WH), though little in foreign policy.
  
• Wes Clark (ret four-star general) - Clark is my current favorite among this list; he's about as strong as the come in foreign and military policy (having been the Supreme Allied Commander in the Kosovo war in the 90's), he's also been a staunch opponent of the Iraq war since the beginning (like Obama), he's a Clintonite (and could be seen as a move to unify the party); the only real downside is that he hasn't been through many campaigns and so is a little more wet-behind-the-ears to be on a national ticket, but I think that the Obama campaign can groom him to be quite successful, given their track record over the primary season

Others? Thoughts? I welcome suggestions and a discussion of these potentials. Also, I'm sure it will morph over the next month or so as each of these choices gets vetted. Ultimately it may wind up being McCain/Lieberman v. Obama/Clinton, but I don't see this as a strong match-up for the Dems and I hope the Obama campaign has the political liberty to choose someone else.

Recount

Lately I've been watching a lot of the The West Wing - it's been refreshing and hope-instilling, reminding me of what effective, open, honest governance can yield. It is also a fascinating show about politics and how political processes and governmental processes in this country operate.

Another bit of fictionalized politics that is coming out is Recount, HBO's movie that forces us all to relive the days after the 2000 Presidential Election to remember what happened in Florida, consider the motives and tactics in play, and think critically about how things resolved. From all accounts it is a fascinating take on recent political history - that is, if you can detach yourself from the subject matter enough to appreciate the story they are telling. Here's the trailer:



It premieres Sunday Night - I wish I had HBO... and a blanket to hide under.

Clinton's rationale

I spent a while last night crunching some numbers related to the Democratic primary campaign. I was curious to see where things stand, where things could go (mathematically) over the next few weeks, and why Clinton might be in the race.

My analysis shows Obama is presently leading Clinton by 154 pledged delegates (not including superdels). Now, over the next 11 days a series of events are going to happen that are going to spell the last official battlegrounds for the Clinton and Obama campaigns before the convention in Denver this August.

1) Saturday, May 31st: the DNC rules committee meets for the final time before the convention to decide what to do about the delegations from Michigan and Florida whose state parties broke the rules and held their contests early. If (and this is a big if) the rules committee decides to seat the entire delegation of each state as allocated by the rule-breaking elections that were held, Clinton stands to net 36 delegates from Florida and anywhere from 18 delegates up to 55 (*very* unlikely) from the Michigan contest, depending upon how the 'uncommitted' delegates are allocated (since Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan). Thus, the Clinton campaign could net anywhere from 56-91 delegates from this, best-case scenario for them.

2) Sunday, June 1st: Puerto Rico holds their nominating process with 55 pledged delegates at stake. Giving Clinton a 2-1 margin of victory, in line with her successes in WV/KY (i.e. being very generous to Clinton) she could pick up 17 delegates from this contest.

3) Tuesday, June 3rd: Montana and South Dakota hold their nominating elections, with a total of 31 delegates (16 from MT, 15 from SD) at stake. Assuming Clinton wins 2/3 of the vote in both of those contests (being very, very generous to Clinton on this point), she could net a max of about 11 delegates from these two states. Thus she has the potential to net 28 delegates over the last three remaining contests, maximum, and that's probably being very generous to her chances in Montana and South Dakota.

Let's assume that all three of these events play out in an absolute best-case-scenario for the Clinton camp: she nets 28 delegates from the remaining contests and picks up 91 delegates by the seating of the in-violation MI and FL delegations. That's a potential pick up of 119 pledged delegates to Clinton which is not enough to catch Obama's lead of 154 pledged delegates. So, what is her endgame.

Some have suggested that she might be trying to force the Obama campaign's hand on a VP offer:



This has potential, and Obama would have to consider it (perhaps begrudgingly).

HOWEVER, in my opinion the events of today have changed the landscape a bit. Today, in an interview with a SD newspaper editorial board, Clinton suggested that Democratic nomination contests have stretched into June before. She cited (as specific examples) the campaign of her husband in 1992 and the campaign of Robert F. Kennedy in 1968. Here's the clip:



Now, Clinton's remarks are probably an unfortunate campaign gaffe. Rather than stating that RFK's nomination fight extended into June, she brought up his assassination. This is unfortunate for Clinton because a) political assassination has become a touchy subject on the campaign trail this spring and b) Ted Kennedy has been in the news lately for his poor health and also his support of Obama's candidacy.

(here's the analysis of a couple of other blogs)

People have been (unfairly) reading into Clinton's statement that her rationale for staying in the race is that Obama could be assassinated. This is in line with her statements of "as far as I know" Obama is not a Muslim. In addition, when called to clarify/apologize for her statements, she apologized solely to the Kennedys without a mention of Obama. It seems like a gaffe - and probably is a gaffe - but for a political machine as shrewd as Clinton's, this kind of thing gets heavily scrutinized. (Apparently this isn't the first time she's made comments that recall Kennedy's assassination and linking it to the length of this nomination campaign - to me, this smacks of Mark Penn).

Ultimately I think this diminishes her leverage with the Obama campaign over the whole VP issue. However, it remains to be seen what the fallout from her statements today will be and how that will play upon the events of the next two weeks. I hope that through the rules committee meeting and other discussions between the campaigns in the near future a suitable resolution is achieved that allows:

1. The contested MI & FL delegations to be (at least) partially seated so that 'disenfranchisement' doesn't become synonymous with the Obama campaign
2. Clinton to gracefully exit the race
3. Obama to be seen as the candidate unifying the party, healing wounds, and choosing an appropriate VP candidate (and not having one foisted upon him)

time waster for nerds

so if you're a nerd (like me) this website could wind up being a sinkhole for your time - fair warning.

It's called swivel.com and it's a forum to which people can upload, analyze, and discuss data. ALL KINDS of data - sociological, political, scientific, sports-related, etc.

I can see myself spending a lot of time thinking about random bits of data related to subjects I had not even considered before... this could be dangerous(ly fun).

I want to see:

Righteous Kill, the new Deniro/Pacino movie that's coming out this year. It looks AWESOME!

Here's the trailer:

Senator Jim Webb (D-Va) on Letterman

Seeing Webb on Letterman gets me thinking about a possible Obama/Webb '08:



Thoughts?

making computers 'smarter'

I came across a site on the internet the other day that has an interesting premise - you play the games on the website to help computers get "smarter".

It's called gwap.com and I'm curious about the CS behind it for all my CS-type friends. Anyone?

more experiments...

with performance enhancing drugs.

Kennedy has brain tumor

Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Ma) was rushed to Massachusettes General Hospital over the weekend after what were reported to be seizures and stroke-like symptoms. All seemed well at the time as he was apparently recovering in the hospital and well enough to carry on conversations with family, Barack Obama, etc. Now comes news (via the AP) that the senator has been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. This is terrible news because the prognosis is generally not good - 1 to 5 years. It remains to be seen how aggressive Kennedy's cancer is, but sad news indeed.

Kennedy has been a senator for 46 years (since 1962 - the year before his brother was assassinated) and is presently holds the second-longest tenure of any current sitting U.S. Senator. He has been called a lion of the senate, a senior statesman who has striven to work in a bipartisan way to achieve many liberal goals including health care and the minimum wage.

why did no one tell me

That Death Cab for Cutie's new CD (Narrow Stairs) is out?!?

It was released on the 9th and I've seen/heard nothing about it! KEXP? Music blogs? Russ? Beth? Claire? maybe it's because I've been sick.

Anyway, I've heard the iTunes snippets and they sound good, but I'm gonna try to find full songs somewhere on the internets until I can go find the CD for my own self.

in other words, a typical Friday night

The Lede blog (NYT) has an interesting piece up about a modern courtship ritual called "numbering", i.e.:

chasing cars containing young girls and trying to give the girls their phone numbers via Bluetooth, or by holding written phone numbers up to their car windows.

Apparently, though technically harassment, this illegal activity is popular with Saudi Arabian boys.

“I’d say that maybe 3 out of 10 nights of numbering,we have some success,” Fahad explained.

“You mean that 3 out of 10 nights you get a girl to talk to you?” I asked.

“No, no,” Fahad laughed. “Maybe 3 out of 10 nights we get one phone number. Getting a girl to actually talk to you on the phone is much rarer. But it happens, so we’re always hoping.”

Been there, man. Seriously, this is a rough life, suppressing natural urges to this extent. In addition the actual description of it sounds quite dangerous, not to mention misogynistic:

I looked around. We were surrounded by several other cars, all containing young men and all trying to get the attention of the figures in the GMC, while simultaneously trying to edge each other off the road at high speed.

“Isn’t this getting a bit dangerous?” I asked.

“Yeah,” said Fahad. “Sometimes the girls get really scared, there are so many cars chasing them. Sometimes they’re in their car, crying and screaming for us to go away. It’s fun to make girls angry.”

neuroscience vs. religion

very interesting NYT article about the coming (present?) conflict between religion and the revolutions in neuroscience and genetics that are currently underway.

Bush: good for two things after 8 years

a) the defense industry (aka military-industrial complex)

and

b) the advertisement industry

Colbert & O'Reilly: two peas in a pod

History Lesson: American Imperialism

Howard Zinn's take:

sad kermit

poor guy:

oh snap!

Geuss the genome!

I just ran across this website where they've initiated a competition (of sorts). The basic premise is that you reconstruct a person's identity based on genomic information provided by the site - this is a real person whose genome these people have sequenced. The contestant's goal: figure out as much information about the person as possible (ancestry, medical conditions, what have you) and the person who comes the closest (subjectively, based on the judges), wins!

What do they win, you ask? Well they win their own genome! Yes, you best describe this woman based on the information they provide (pretty much a guessing game) and they'll sequence your genome - PRETTY SWEET!

brilliant!

clearly an ad for some sort of energy drink... but, I say to thee dear advertiser creators, bravo!

The (new) numbers

The NYT Caucus Blog has an updated tally of where the Democratic nomination race stands. Per their calculations:

Popular vote (including Florida & Michigan totals, bunk or not):

Barack Obama: 17.1 Million
Hillary Clinton: 16.7 Million

Total Delegates (pledged + super; total needed = 2,025):

Barack Obama: 1,847
Hillary Clinton: 1,686

Obama needs to acquire 178 delegates to clinch it and Clinton needs 339. In other words, Obama has 91.2% of the delegates needed to become the party's nominee while Clinton has 83.3%. In the six contests that remain there are 217 pledged delegates at stake and there are still approximately 223 superdelegates who have not yet made their preference known.

This thing is (as everyone else besides Hillary Clinton has surmised) all but over. What remains now is to end it with grace, dignity and unity in the party and move on to putting together a unified message on why Obama is the better candidate for America and why John McCain shouldn't be the 44th President of the U.S.

(oh, and figure out a way to dull the evident smear campaigns that are gearing up anti-Obama - unpatriotic, Wright, etc.)

oh boy... this needs to spread around the internets like wildfire!

(via slog)

another reason why Obama's my candidate:

“Where’s my beer?” [Obama] asked, loud enough for the reporters to hear.

What’s your pleasure, Mr. Candidate? He eyed an array of mighty fine micro brews on tap, from the loverly amber Maharaja IPA to the “naturally cloudy” Blanche Bruxelles. He zeroed in on the mass market.

“PBR [Pabst Blue Ribbon, for the unitiated],” he said.

The man recognizes a winner when he sees one... it is an award-winning beer, by the way. (NBD)

Arrested Development

I've been going back in time lately and re-discovering the grooves of Arrested Development, exhibit A:

Frank Miller, you visionary...

Frank Miller (of 300 and Sin City fame) has a new movie coming out sometime soon... and, you guessed it, it's based on a comic book.

It's called THE SPIRIT and it stars Gabriel Macht as a film noir-ish cop/superhero who 'mysteriously' comes back from death to watch over his city and protect it from the likes of villains - none other than Samuel L. Jackson, thank you very much - and a who's who of leading ladies - including Scarlett Johansson and Eva Mendes. The trailer has definitely whetted my whistle.

Exactly.

Bill Moyers breaks down the Wright media debacle of the past month plus and gets it - in my opinion - exactly correct.

Note particularly the double standards that the media, and many others in their tread, are employing:



I've been fascinated by the way everyone and their cousin condemns Reverand Wright's words and ideas, but everyone tacitly accepts the bigotry and hatred contained within Hagee and Robertson's words.

a little dose of musical theater...

in honor of the first day of the lusty month of May! :)

fun test

This is a fun little awareness test that's been around the internets for some time now... still worth posting on the blog:

yes, please...

Ed Norton is... The Incredible Hulk.

At first I was a skeptic, then I saw the trailer. Now I'm intrigued. I mean, Ed Norton.

'lessons learned'

This is up over at the dailykos and I think it sums up quite nicely where things stand now that we're 7 months away from the general election in November:

Things I have learned during this campaign season:

In a race that includes a former First Lady of the United States and a multimillionaire Republican senator rumored to share up to eight residences with his wife, the black guy from Chicago is unforgivably elitist.

Racism in America is caused primarily by black Chicago preachers.

The guy who keeps getting confused over the relationship between Iraq, Iran, and al Qaeda is the foreign policy expert.

The guy who goes to campaign stops on his wife's private jet aircraft is the most down-to-earth.

The guy who changed his stance on tax cuts, Roe v. Wade, immigration, gun control, the confederate flag, torture, public financing, and his own anti-earmark rhetoric is the "straight talker".

People in the heartland don't like it when you call them bitter, but they do like it when you explain to them that they're too dumb to understand issues more important than whether or not they like to be called bitter.

Arugula is the measure of a man.

Bowling is the measure of a man.

Orange juice is the measure of a man.

Flag pins are the measure of a man.

Success in Iraq consists of any reduction in violence, except when violence increases that's good too.

A recession is only a recession if you call it one.

Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove, Maureen Dowd, David Brooks, David Broder, Charles Krauthammer and Bob Novak are all intensely interested in giving advice to the Democratic candidates because they just want to be helpful.

There are people in this world dumb enough to believe every one of these things.

Obama in 30 seconds

MoveOn.Org has put together a cool campaign. They've solicited 30-second advertisements from the general public to introduce the general election crowd (those who haven't fully tuned in to the primary season, though it's tough) to Barack Obama, the probable Democratic nominee. It's a pretty cool campaign and they have some nice entries. Here are a couple I like, but you should check out the rest of the finalists on MoveOn.org's website and vote for which one best represents the message of the Obama campaign.

they said he was unprepared...

join me

playground politics

Scalia on torture

before the race

For perspective on just how long the Democratic contest has gone on, consider that gas was $2.20 a gallon, Eliot Spitzer was a rising star and neither Manning had won a Super Bowl in October 2006. (NYT Caucus Blog)

but it was all part of the intelligent design, right?

I started flashing back to the "Jurassic Park" days of my youth when I read that scientists were able to extract DNA from a (surprisingly) preserved piece of Tyrannosaurus soft tissue. What did the scientists conclude when they did the phylogenetic analysis on that DNA? That the closest living relative of the Tyrannosaurus Rex is... the chicken.

Just another prediction made by using Darwin's crazy theory proven to be correct... almost 150 years later!

Science is cool, man...

the Clintonite hypocrisy runs deep

The Daily Kos has done a bit of digging into Terry McAuliffe's past. Apparently this whole scrap about Michigan breaking the DNC rules isn't a first, McAuliffe had to deal with it back in 2004 when he was the chair of the DNC.

From McAuliffe's book "What a Party":

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

[Source: McAuliffe, Terry. What A Party!, p. 325.]

That's Terry then... let's see what he thinks about this whole mess now that his candidate's potential nomination rests on seating delegates from a state who broke the rules set out at the beginning of the process:

Terry McAuliffe: I'm saying they've already voted, let's count the votes. I’m saying that the state parties in those states need to work with the national party and figure out how we count the votes that have already been voted.

Sometimes it's downright painful.

Obama and Faux News

So, I'm not sure how many of you have been tuned into the whole Obama vs. Fox News thing over this past election cycle. Here's a brief rundown:

Obama, rightfully claiming that Fox isn't at all 'fair and balanced', has repeatedly denied invitations to appear on any Fox News programs. This is much to the chagrin of Fox News which, due to the growing national disapproval of the Bush administration and their policies(69% disapproval, the highest in history), has seen a not-so-bright future. And since January, when the Obama started hitting the fan (so to speak), Fox has been drooling to get a piece. They've also been attempting to tear him to shreds since he so soundly discredits them and their "news" organization. They've hit the "OMG his middle name is Hussein!!", the "didn't he go to a Muslim school as a child?", the "is he too black/black enough?", and the "is he patriotic enough because he doesn't wear a flag pin/have his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance?" buttons often and hard. And since the whole Jeremiah Wright flap and Weather Underground associations broke, they've been lapping it up!

(To clarify the above points, in order: so what?; yes he did - for one year while living abroad; what does that even mean?; it was the national anthem, not the pledge!)

Then, five weeks ago (or so) came this - Chris Wallace (host of Fox News Sunday) initiated what they started calling an 'Obama watch', complete with '24'-style clock. Ultimately Wallace's problem is that Obama (in 2006) had agreed to appear on his program, and then after the network attempted to politically smear him he didn't really feel like giving them a ratings boost.

Now, today, comes word that this Sunday Obama will appear on Wallace's Fox News Sunday. This has upset a lot of people on the blogosphere (and elsewhere) who were hoping Democratic candidates would continue to snub/boycott Fox News. However, I imagine that the candidates realize that this is a politically untenable scenario and so we, as liberals, must face our demons head on.

However, this doesn't mean complimenting them up and down (as Terry McAuliffe, senior Clinton advisor did Tuesday night - so much so that they turned it into a promo!). Rather, they must be challenged to report the unbiased truth, without resorting to smear jobs. Someone must hold them accountable. Apparently that's Obama's goal. One of Obama's advisors was in communication with a blogger over at TPM and claimed that Obama plans to "take Fox on" when he appears on the program:

We are clear-eyed about Fox’'s role in the dissemination and amplification of Republican talking points this election. They have been the tip of the spear when it comes to repeatedly broadcasting some of the most specious of rumors about Obama. He is going on their Sunday show to take Fox on, not because we have any illusion about their motives or politics in this election.

If this is true, it ought to be fun to watch. If not, it'll be another sad day of pandering. I'm excited to find out which it is...

SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAY!

Conan's on a roll!

Not only did he have Grizzly Bear on earlier this week (doing an awesome version of their new song), he also got She & Him (featuring M. Ward and Yo La Tengo accompaniment) and Radiohead - check it! (via Yellow Stereo)

War on Science: Part II

So this is not the first case of a scientist working for the EPA reporting political pressure regarding his/her scientific findings... just the latest.


Oh... and btw... look at what NOAA has to say about CO2 emissions in 2007... I'd say that's the opposite of improvement. Good work Bushie, you're doin' a heckuva job!

sad but true...

A study by UNC recently found (and UPI reports) that most U.S. women have disordered eating.

"~40% report concerns about what they eat or weigh interfering with their happiness..."

We need to seriously take stock of what (about our society) drives so many people to this state.

ho... ly... shi...

Talk about "working on my roar!":


(effing cute baby videos always get me... I couldn't wait until Caturday!!)

Wired readers respond

When Wired did a story about the Nature article in which it was reported that 20% of researchers use 'performance enhancing drugs' (such as ritilin, aderall, etc.), apparently they got quite the response. There's even a handy how-to...

I think I'll stick to my coffee...

Jon Stewert breaks down the Clinton logic

nice.

Fascinating!

I look forward to watching all of this when I've got an hour to spare... for now, it's on the blog!

slick willy

Bill Clinton has some amazing political abilities. I remember the phrase "slick Willy" from the 90's, but perhaps didn't appreciate it at the time. Here's a late-breaking iteration of it.

Yesterday on a PA radio station (WHYY), Bill Clinton was interviewed and had this exchange about the fallout after his comments comparing the Obama campaign strengths to those of the Jesse Jackson campaign in '88:

Ms. Phillips: Do you think that was a mistake and would you do that again?”

Mr. Clinton: “No, I think that they played the race card on me. We now know, from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it along.”

…If you go back to what I said at the time. There was a conversation that I engaged in that included two African-American members of Congress who were standing right there …. and I said that Jesse Jackson had run a good campaign with overwhelming African-American support and white supporters. And this was started off because people wanted to act like — for reasons i didn’t understand — that Senator Obama didn’t have his African-American support or they thought his white support was better because Jesse Jackson had blue-collar working people and most of Senator Obama’s support was upscale cultural liberals. And it was like beneath them to be compared to Jesse Jackson….

Ultimately it really doesn't matter. There was a small bit of a backlash to the comments at the time (back in January), but in political terms this is ancient history. The memos to which he's referring were generated within the Obama campaign in an attempt to compile a list of all of the racially charged attacks Clinton surrogates (and others?) had made on Obama at the time.

Here's where the political double speak comes out. This morning Bill Clinton was asked by a reporter about the comments he made on air yesterday and this is what he had to say:

Mr. Memoli: “Sir, what did you mean yesterday when you said that the Obama campaign was playing the race card on you?”

Mr. Clinton: “When did I say that, and to whom did I say that?”

Mr. Memoli: “On WHYY radio yesterday.”

Mr. Clinton: “No, no, no. That’s not what I said. You always follow me around and play these little games, and I’m not going to play your games today. This is a day about election day. Go back and see what the question was, and what my answer was. You have mischaracterized it to get another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us, and I choose not to play your game today. Have a nice day.”

Mr. Memoli: “Respectfully sir, though, you did say …”

Mr. Clinton: “Have a nice day. I said what I said, you can go and look at the interview. And if you’ll be real honest, you’ll also report what the question was and what the answer was.”

While this may be a diversion from the important issues, it's the latest example of how effective Bill Clinton is as a politician... for better or worse. Amazing.

(via the NYT blog The Caucus)

it's official...

grad school is turning me grey.

Grizzly Bear on Conan