Do we think the Obama campaign has a product placement deal with Abercrombie & Fitch? How else to explain the backdrop on this rally?
I’m not sure I understand the emphasis — from both the pundits and from the Clinton campaign itself — on money at this point. Didn’t we just learn that the Clintons have a fortune of over $100 million? Surely insofar as her campaign thinks it’s actually the case that money is what stands between her and the White House the family can afford to spend the necessary cash whether or not her fundraising revives.
This week, Robert Coughlin, a former DOJ official, was accused of having a “criminal conflict of interest” with jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Today, Coughlin admitted in federal court “that he accepted meals, concert tickets and luxury eats at sporting events from a lobbyist,” facing “up to 10 months in prison under a plea deal with the government.” “The lobbyist was not named but Coughlin was lobbied during the period in question by Kevin Ring, a member of Abramoff’s lobbying team who also is under investigation,” the AP notes.
Over my (relatively mild) objection, the copyeditor of the Salon piece on renaming Earth Day (here) changed one letter in the final paragraph:
We have fiddled like Nero for far too long to save the whole earth or all of its species. Now we need a World War II scale effort just to cut our losses and save what matters most. So let’s call it Triage Day. And if worst comes to worst, at least future generations won’t have to change the name again.
I had sent in “if worse comes to worst.” Salon said they were following their style book. Fine. Can’t argue with that. But I had looked it up online at The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, which says (quite reasonably, I think):
I have to say that I’m getting really tired of this. All the superdelegates should just say who they’re voting for and bring this to the end. If they want to back Hillary Clinton despite Obama’s majority in elected delegates, they should say so. Or if they want Barack Obama to be the nominee, they should say so. The idea that in two weeks we’ll have another inconclusive primary, then another, then another, then another and then the superdelegates make up their mind is inane — everyone else who follows politics can decide.
Clinton wins . . . it’s a question of margins and delegates now. As Jon Chait says, this seems to basically leave things unchanged.
Fox News is reporting that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has won the Pennsylvania primary election. Neither CNN nor MSNBC have declared the contest yet.
MSNBC and CNN have now joined and projected that Clinton will win the primary.
They’re not calling it yet, but it seems clear from the exit polls (Clinton wins 55 percent of white men, for example) that Clinton will prevail. Less clear is the shape of the delegate count. Obama’s managed to carry Philadelphia and the Philly suburbs which, thanks to the apportionment rules, are where the bulk of the delegates come from.
To his credit, Sen. McCain has begun to talk about the need to address America’s “forgotten places” that have been “ignored for long years by the sins of indifference and injustice.” But what would Sen. McCain’s agenda mean for these forgotten places?
Sen. McCain has proposed more than $300 billion in tax cuts and said that, unlike President Bush, he will pay for these tax cuts by “cutting spending.” But he has “failed to give details about what, exactly, [he] would cut.” According to an analysis released today, he would need to cut more than $250 billion from spending, above and beyond the spending cuts he has already identified.
Sen. McCain could cut approximately 20 percent from all discretionary programs. Alternatively, he could protect defense spending and cut 40 percent from domestic programs. Either scenario would result in massive cuts in key anti-poverty programs.
Of course, it may be that no president and no Congress would make such dramatic cuts. But if Sen. McCain campaigns on massive tax cuts for the wealthy, he should also acknowledge the enormous harm to “forgotten places” that these tax cuts would ultimately cause.
Russert just said that in a general election, Obama needs to shore up his support with working class white women. Fair enough. He speculated that you might do that by focusing on the economy. Sounds plausible. He then speculated you might do that by picking Mike Bloomberg as VP. So put it all together, and Russert thinks working class white women are looking for . . . New York City’s billionaire Jewish mayor? Really?