"What did I do to deserve this, Mr. Obama?"

"[Obama is] making something worse than a mistake. It is a continuation of a war crime against the suffering people of my country."
--Malalai Joya

The Man

Two-fer Tuesday

Chicago Tribune, founded 1847

"This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president."

It's Time To Go

If you're nice, maybe President Obama will make you Ambassador to Bosnia.

UPDATE: Chris Bowers asks this trick question:

I have a simple question: why is it that the Democratic nomination was decided tonight? What happened tonight that hadn't happened before?

Why a trick question?

The reason is simple: the established media was never covering the Democratic nomination campaign. They were, instead, covering some form of kabuki theater where reality is ignored and liberals are ritually gutted on the public stage for the pleasure of elite, rich, white, male pundits everywhere.

Mor[e]on Media Make-Believe

"Story behind the story: The Clinton myth" [via DHinMI at Kos]:

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet. * * * In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics. * * * One reason is fear of embarrassment. * * *

One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race — it’s more fun and it’s good for business.

Abracadabra REDUX

One more time:

Yet the mainstream media continues to promote Clinton's strategy of coup-by-superdelegate.

Even the lefty media can't quite get it right: The Nation begins an otherwise spot-on editorial with this erroneous statement:

Hillary Clinton's commanding Democratic primary victories in Ohio and Rhode Island and her narrow win in Texas....

(sigh)

Abracadabra: Loss = Win

From: Jason Guthartz
To: New York Times
Subject: correction to "Obama Wins Wyoming Caucuses"

I am writing to correct the second sentence in the above-referenced article, published on March 9, 2008:
"The [Wyoming] victory, while in a state with only 18 delegates, was welcome news for the Obama campaign as it sought to blunt any advantage Mrs. Clinton might gain from her victories in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday."

This statement regarding Clinton's "victory" in Texas is inaccurate. While Clinton won more delegates from the Texas primaries, neither candidate can be said to have won Texas, since -- as the Times' own "Election Guide" shows -- the state's caucus results are not final. Indeed, most informed opinion expects Obama's gain in delegates from the caucuses will give him the overall delegate "win" in Texas.

The Times is not alone in conjuring up a Texas "win" for Clinton:

Clinton scored campaign saving victories in Ohio and Texas last Tuesday after 11 straight losses to Obama.

To recap:

Last Tuesday night, mainstream media bandied about the story that Hillary Clinton had won Texas; but it wasn’t true. Responsible journalism would have necessitated qualifying the Texas call, given the partial results of Tuesday night; but they didn’t. Texas has a two step contest- a primary and a caucus- much like a few other states. And now the Texas democrats have given a preliminary account of both the primary and caucus results, which shows that overall: Obama won at least three more delegates than she did. And also, that he won at least 100,000 more votes when both contests are combined. She won the primary in the day and he won the caucus in the night. This is a fact, and yet mainstream media perpetuates the myth that Hillary won Texas. What could be their motivation here?

It seems to me that the mainstream media, having generated the conventional wisdom that they themselves have "taken it easy" on Obama, now feel obliged to prove themselves "fair and balanced" by conjuring up a false "Clinton comeback" narrative. As if this primary contest weren't dramatic enough.

Markos Moulitsas brings us back to reality:

As Clinton gears up her efforts for coup by super delegate, threatening civil war within the party, it bears noting that in her best week of the campaign since her New Hampshire victory, she actually lost ground in the race.

[It was] a +6 delegate week for Obama officially, +7 unofficially.

Keep one eye on the math, the other on the shenanigans. (see prior warning)

UPDATE by Markos:

My list was incomplete. ...officially, Obama has a 13-delegate advantage for the week even before Mississippi votes tomorrow. Throw in the unpledged delegate in Wyoming who will certainly be an Obama delegate, and unofficially, Obama notched a 14-delegate gain in this "week from hell" for him. ...

A few more "bad" weeks like this and he'll have the nomination nicely sewed up.

In any case, we need to work for every vote in the upcoming contests.

On Its Ear

Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson on The Machinery of Hope:

...the Obama campaign has succeeded not by attracting starry-eyed followers who place their faith in hope but by motivating committed activists who are answering a call to national service. They're pouring their lifeblood into this campaign, not because they are in thrall to a cult of personality but because they're invested in the idea that politics matter, and that their participation can turn the current political system on its ear.

In reality, it already has. "We're seeing the last time a top-down campaign has a chance to win it," says [Joe] Trippi. "There won't be another campaign that makes the same mistake the Clintons made of being dependent on big donors and insiders. It's not going to work ever again."