PA
My baseless prediction is Clinton 53, Obama 47, slightly closer than most are predicting.

For a while there I really thought Obama would catch her and win even in this Hillary haven. A state couldn't be much more perfect for her. The worst part is that a modest victory - and far cry from the 20-point lead she had a few weeks ago - will do nothing to improve her chances of somehow rising from the ashes and grabbing the nomination. Her only longshot possibility is a catching him in popular vote, based on a hope that huge turnout and a massive win in Puerto Rico will garner hundreds of thousands of votes in June. Yep - that's the plan. Puerto Rico, to claim the popular vote lead. Even then, she has to convince superdelegates, and lots of them, that a popular vote lead is worth supporting her over.

The number I'm looking at is 200,000. If she can't gain that many votes on Barack in PA, catching him would seem just about impossible. He's ahead by about 700,000 now. If he holds her closer to 100,000, it's a huge victory and even her popular vote plan will be in shambles. If she gains closer to 300,000, it will still be possible to pull off.

Don't even think about pledged delegates. She is behind by at least 161. She will have to win 364 of the remaining 566 pledged delegates to be selected to catch him. That's more than 64%. There is no real chance of catching him in pledged delegates.

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been listening to, reading, watching?

PBS Watch
Bill Moyers' Journal is usually worth watching, but maybe especially so this coming weekend.

Standard Operating Procedure
You can watch the trailer to Errol Morris' new documentary here. And a NYTimes review is here.

Definitely Felt the Earthquake This Morning
In my half asleep stupor I convinced myself it was just a train going by or something like that. Not until I woke up did I remember that I don't live near a train. It was a very slight vibration, like what I used to feel during the spin cycle of my old washing machine, or like when my family used to live under the roller coaster at Coney Island (no, wait, that wasn't me. That was Radio Days.)

Kinda crazy to find out on the news this morning what it really was. I assume our Illinois friends felt it much more profoundly - hope everyone is ok and everything stayed on the walls and what not.

Did I Mention...
...that a guy has invented a machine that purports to kill cancerous cells?

It seems worth repeating. And, although this isn't evidence that it will actually work, it occurs to me that this is exactly the kind of step forward described again and again in Bill Bryson's history of science, in which someone without the "proper background" applies what he nonetheless knows and intuits and solves a problem that nobody else could figure, or even knew was a problem to be solved.

We can always hope.

P.S.
Oh yeah, while you're waiting for the game to start (see post below), or during the intermission, read this. Some guy with a couple of radios and a hot dog pan has gone and cured cancer. No, really. (maybe)

via Kos.

Why Watch the Debate?
Here's what I've decided, for the good of my health - and it has the benefit of being true: the Democratic nomination is over; one of the candidates is just taking a little time coming around to the reality. So, trying not to obsess over the process of getting there, knowing that really no matter what happens in PA, or in NC or IN for that matter, Obama's lead in pledged delegates is simply insurmountable.

So, really, why bother yourself with this torturous debate, which could have you variously cringing or throwing things at the TV, as Hillary continues to pile on with GOP-style attacks designed to cripple out assured nominee?

Intead, watch an underdog with at least a mathematical chance of victory: the Nashville Predators, taking on the Red Wings in game 4 of their playoff series, trying to even things up. I have my doubts that the Preds can actually come up with a second win in a row over the best team in the NHL, but - as opposed to Hillary's postseason effort - at least they are still in the race, one win from tying things up; and even a loss tonight does not knock them out just yet.

The game is on the Versus Network around 9 Eastern/8 Central. I'll be in section 330, wearing the same lucky underwear I wore for the thrilling game 2 victory (kidding, mom).

Salmon Crisis
A NYTimes editorial today builds on a piece from last month I read showing the collapse of the West Coast salmon population. The development caused the Fishery Council to "cancel all commercial salmon fishing" this season.

The warning signals of the collapse came last fall. Among the adult salmon that return from the ocean to spawn in the rivers of their birth are immature ones that have spent as little as a year in the ocean. The quantity of these younger fish, called jacks, is a reliable predictor of the abundance of the next year’s run. Last fall, the count of the fall Chinook jacks from the Sacramento River was less than 6 percent of the long-term average.

Two factors are suspected. One is federally sanctioned diversion of water from the Sacramento River into the irrigation system used by farmers in the Central Valley of California. The other is a climate-driven change in the normal upwellings in the ocean that could have deprived the young fish of food.

In today's opinion, the NYTimes says:

This decision is necessary if there is to be any hope of salmon recovery. It will mean even more if it shocks Congress into a serious investigation of the West Coast salmon crisis, exposes the politically driven policies of the Bush administration and persuades a new president of the need to rebuild wild salmon populations and the economies that depend on them.

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been listening to, reading, watching?

Film Recommendation
During the last week I saw The Illusionist, with Paul Giamatti and Edward Norton. Surprisingly good! When a plot is essentially predictable but still compelling in the execution that's a pretty impressive accomplishment.

Turning Off -- Sunday Edition Deep Thought [UPDATED--Must Read]
I haven't watched one of the Sunday talk shows in about a month, and I seem to be a generally happier person.

I have no interest in enduring an hour of Russert's smile while he bounds through this complete nonsense passing as a new Obama scandal as if it raises a completely legitimate, important point.

I wish Obama would make (would have made) one tweak in his statement. It's not that people are bitter in general (though maybe they are). It's that they're bitter *toward the Democrats* for failing to govern in a way that looks after their interests.

[UPDATE: via Kos, Read Robert Reich. The whole post is powerful and on point.

UPDATE 2: Here, by the way, are Obama's remarks in question with a bit more context.]

Nice Response by Obama
SusanG at DailyKos runs down the latest Obama scandal. Apparently, he said some voters are angry and frustrated at the fact that Washington has consistently failed to successfully address their economic challenges. I know....who could say such a thing? Click through to read the hysterics of the Clinton and McCain campaigns, who called him "elitist" and "out of touch." But more importantly, click through *and scroll down* to watch the response of Obama later in the day speaking in Indiana.

Perception Versus(?) Reality [UPDATED]
Today's NYTimes Blogs includes the second post in a series by documentary filmmaker Errol Morris. They are both a great read, especially if you have seen his amazing and haunting film, "The Thin Blue Line." Here he is focused on the issue of perception and reality, and deception - either from within, or without - as well as the nature of re-enactment. This is the way the first part of the series ends.

The brain is not a Reality-Recorder. There is no perfect replica of reality inside our brains. The brain elides, confabulates, conflates, denies, suppresses, evades, confuses and distorts. It has its own agenda and can even work at cross-purposes with our conscious selves. Consciously, we may think that we see all and know all, but our brains may be “blind” to much of what is going on around us.

Many people believe they have found a way around the eccentricities of the brain by substituting a camera, but this only defers the problem. It does not solve it. Even photographs have to be perceived. They have to be seen. There is no shortcut around the Cartesian riddle of separating reality from the appearance of reality. There is no shortcut to reality. The brain is all we have.

I really recommend both pieces.

[UPDATE: Love the Internets. Why do I not visit Morris' blog regularly to make sure I catch every post? Scrolling through his previous writings, I stumbled upon another series; this one has 3 parts, and it's even more fascinating. Here's part one, part two, and part three. Can you tell Friday afternoon has already started my weekend?]

Are There Any Commercials..
...more annoying than those FreeCreditReport.com commercials?

McCain Pastor Interview
Those handful of you who are familiar with the Baptist world may be interested in this little inside baseball tidbit.

A little background first: John McCain has been rightly criticized for his pandering to the Religious Right this time around. It's been painfully obvious, to the extent that one wonders why the panderees aren't more uniformly insulted by his sudden advances (It's as if only James Dobson sees clearly here...). You'll remember that back when reasonable, straight-talking McCain was running for President in 2000, he considered fundamentalist leaders to be something of a scourge on the Republican party, and he said so - "agents of intolerance", he called them. Fast-forward 8 years later and he's speaking to Falwell's crowd at graduation, begging for Hagee's endorsement and oh yeah, he's not Episcopalian anymore. He's Southern Baptist. (Or, at least he attends a Southern Baptist church in Arizona - not technically a member) Has there ever been a more unconvincing attempt by a politician to be accepted by conservative religious Southerners, (who generally view Episcopalian as another word for Catholic, which is to say, only grudgingly American)? But, I digress.

McCain's new Sunday stomping ground while home is mega-church North Phoenix Baptist, a member of the very right-wing Southern Baptist Convention. But here's the thing. Apparently, McCain's conversion to the far-religious-right just couldn't quite stomach a full-fledged fundamentalist doctrine once a week. The church he joined is actually quite the moderate congregation, in Baptist terms. (In normal parlance, that means it's only woefully mainstream conservative.) As one former Baptist leader who would know said to me, "If you were looking to appear like you're in league with the fundamentalist, politically ambitious crowd, that's not a church you would join."

Getting around to actual news of the day, and the reason for this post, McCain's Arizona pastor, Dan Yeary, has been quite the sought-after interview lately, what with Hagee's controversial endorsement and Jeremiah Wright's unfortunate ascendance on the national political scene. But Yeary has been reluctant to put his name out there, and respectably so, I suppose. Still, the demand may have gotten to him, or else the need to address an issue or two weighed too heavily, and so he decided to seek a reasonable religious outlet for an interview after all.

If you were a far-right conservative Baptist in bed with the Southern Baptist movers and shakers, you would grant this interview to the Convention's "news" arm, Baptist Press. Instead - and what's interesting here - Yeary dialed up their direct competitor, Associated Baptist Press, which was in fact created to offer a moderate, journalistically sound, Baptist alternative to the overtly political, one-sided, PR-machine-masquerading-as-a-news-organization that Baptist Press became after the fundamentalist takeover of the denomination. This interview is quite the get for ABP, really. And, as if to send a little tweak in BP's direction, the ABP article includes this (my emphasis):

Yeary has been reluctant to talk to the news media about the McCains or his relationship with them. He has turned down many media requests in order to protect his relationship with the family and their privacy. But he initiated an interview with Associated Baptist Press in an attempt to quell continued journalistic curiosity about McCain’s faith, saying he trusts the independent national news organization’s reputation for fairness.

I don't know how this interview came about. The McCain camp's idea? Yeary on his own? Either way, if the SBC poobahs are paying attention they are a bit insulted, as well they should be. ABP primarily serves the kind of Baptists the SBC calls liberals and heretics, the kind they ran out of their Convention 20 years ago--the Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Moyers, church-state separating kind of Baptists. Our own Kenny B was the original Washington Bureau Chief for ABP - that kind of Baptist. For whatever reason, Southern Baptist exiles are where McCain's pastor felt comfortable. One reason is, clearly, Yeary is right: ABP is fair and reasonable and a respected news organization. They're decidedly not political. Still, considering the politics of it all, it's an interesting choice.

Petraeus-Blogging
Wonder what happened in committee hearings with Petraeus today? The NYTimes liveblogged the action. In true liveblog fashion, if you want to read the events chronologically, scroll to the bottom first, and make your way toward the top.

Some Day...
...we might get word that the climate crisis is not as bad, and not moving along as fast, as we have been fearing, but not today.

One of the world's leading climate scientists warns today that the EU and its international partners must urgently rethink targets for cutting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because of fears they have grossly underestimated the scale of the problem.

In a startling reappraisal of the threat, James Hansen, head of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, calls for a sharp reduction in C02 limits.

Hansen says the EU target of 550 parts per million of C02 - the most stringent in the world - should be slashed to 350ppm. He argues the cut is needed if "humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed"....
...
"If you leave us at 450ppm for long enough it will probably melt all the ice - that's a sea rise of 75 metres. What we have found is that the target we have all been aiming for is a disaster - a guaranteed disaster," Hansen told the Guardian.

Does This Mean I'm a Hockey Fan?
I understand there's some kind of basketball game on tonight? Some sort of championship or whatever? But I'm skipping it so I can watch the draft lottery and playoff previews on the NHL Network. (Heck, I might have even skipped a really juicy committee hearing on C-Span for it.) I'm still learning the finer points of the game, and don't know too many of the players outside the Central division - besides the ones everyone knows - but playoff hockey is becoming one of my favorite TV times of the year. Rooting for the Canadiens and the Pens in the East, and the Preds (of course) and the Avs in the West. Crosby, Malkin and the Pens drop the puck at 6 on Wednesday!

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Article 19 Film Recommendation
I saw 2 good ones over the weekend: Paranoid Park, Gus van Sant's newest, and finally saw last year's Eastern Promises which was really great - pretty graphically violent a time or 2.

Weekend Assignment
It's the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's assassination. If you haven't read his final speech lately, do yourself a favor. Read the whole thing. Or better yet watch the video.

Lovely Symbolism
I suppose it wasn't likely the campaign's decision to have a black man holding McCain's umbrella for him while he apologized for consistently opposing the Martin Luther King holiday (in front of an audience that wasn't thrilled with him, by the way). But still...

Appalachia
Was talking this over with Kenny B, and also Kenny T. An interesting DKos post looks into the problem of Appalachia for Obama, which would explain why he was never close in TN, lost OH, and will likely lose WV and KY and PA. I'm not sure I understand his struggles there especially, but it would seem to be true. Personally, I think Obama will make it pretty close in PA, if not win. But WV and KY will be tough. If he pulls off a PA stunner, we probably wouldn't even make it to those states anyway. Do I have any evidence, you ask, that PA is within reach? Yes I do. [UPDATE: and there's this.]

The Fantasy Life of Teachers
Involves things like this. Note the "3-chamber barrel", and the promise of twice the endurance.

Kudos to Olbermann
If you have been following his show, you know he has waged a week-long campaign against Walmart for its treatment of an ex-employee who's been on the receiving end of some serious personal tragedy. I won't go over details here but worth passing along that CNN reports Walmart has relented. I love stories like this, not just because it's the rare example of the greedy corporation brought to account, but because it puts the lie to their primary argument here: our hands are tied. The policy simply won't allow any flexibility. I guess that's just not true.

But even beyond that, I'm sure that Walmart was right. That probably *is* the policy everyone deals with. So now they've made an exception and hopefully opened themselves up to challenge from many others.

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Weekend Box Office

1. 21
2. Horton Hears a Who
3. Superhero Movie
4. Met the Browns
5. Drillbit Taylor

I need some new music. Whaddya got?

Happy News of the Week
Your cell phone is killing you.

From the Guardian: "Mobile Phones 'More Dangerous than Smoking'."

I don't spend lots of time talking on mine, but do have it with me most of the time. Probably too late - I'm doomed - but maybe worth thinking about turning it off more often.

Are You Going Dark?
A loyal Canadian reader (is there any other kind?) emails a story about Earth Hour tomorrow, when environmentally conscious folks - and even some cities and corporations - will turn off all the lights for an hour at 8 pm Saturday. I can't seem to get my American-shaped computer to fit into the Canadian Internet tubes to read the Globe and Mail piece he sent, but here's Time Magazine.

I Don't Understand Ultimate Fighting
But I really don't understand this. I can imagine the arguments for it, I guess. But none of them really work for me - not one bit. Can any of you who maybe took karate as a kid (that's the closest respectable activity I can imagine) explain why ultimate kid-fighting might be an acceptable way to corral (encourage?) the physical aggression of an 8-year-old? Whatever happened to pillow fights?

McCain
Gave a big foreign policy address yesterday. And, as Kevin Drum says, "the pandering for the independent vote has now started in earnest." The Republican primary is officially over. Indeed most of that speech is a good hopeful read. And maybe he wouldn't still be making that "maverick" label so laughable if it weren't for his Bush-hugging Iraq plans and tax promises. In other words, if it weren't for his actual foreign and domestic policies, he might just be reasonable.

Final Rev. Wright Deep Thought
E-mailing with an especially brilliant Article 19 reader (is that redundant?), about why it's somehow ok for Republicans to be associated with hate-mongering religious figures like James Dobson, John Hagee, Pat Robertson and the like, while Obama's minister is not allowed to question the country, I had a thought along these lines:

For a Republican, it's better to love the country and hate many of its people than it is to hate the country for not properly loving all of its people. For them, loving the abstraction releases you (requires you?) to loathe the particular.

But that's the final thought on this subject, because I am giving this whole episode the official Article 19 seal of *The Weathered Storm.* Obama is catching up in PA, surging in NC, and it is only a matter of time before we can get about the business of uniting around the necessary defeat of Iraq-war-loving, economy-misunderstanding, confederate-flag and religious-right-pandering, torture-flip-flopping John McCain.

Will My Team Make the Playoffs?
If you ever ask yourself that question, no matter which sport, you will agree with me that this is an incredibly cool site.

Getting Too Cute?
Bill Clinton, ever the argument-framer, on how nice a race between McCain and his wife might be:

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country," said Clinton, who was speaking to a group of veterans Friday in Charlotte, N.C. "And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

An Obama adviser thinks we might as well jump to the harshest possible interpretation:

Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is trying to clarify comments by former President Clinton that seemed to question Barack Obama's patriotism - comments an Obama aide likened to Joseph McCarthy.

Clinton's campaign said the comments were being misinterpreted and quickly posted a clarification on its Web site. But retired Air Force Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak said he was disappointed by the comments and compared them to those of McCarthy, the 1950s communist-hunting senator.
...
"It's a use of language as a disguised insult. We've seen this before, this little clever spin that's put on stuff," McPeak said. "I have no idea what his intentions are, but I'm disappointed in the statement. I think Bill Clinton is, or ought to be, better than that."

When I first read this, I thought Bill was probably getting a raw deal. He doesn't of course think that Obama doesn't love the country enough. And it would be a foolish thing to say, even if he did. But the more I think about it, it seems like he might be once again (think SC Jesse Jackson comment...) trying to hint around at a criticism without having to say it, a bit of subliminal campaigning. If a debate on issues is really what he wants, and not a distraction, wouldn't it be nice if he actually tried to set a better example?

So I Had a Pretty Good Seat...

...at the near-historic Duke-Belmont basketball game last night - amazing seat actually, as you can see. It doesn't get much better than 5th row, courtside.

As for the outcome, I didn't need another reason to get annoyed with Duke. With 4 good opportunities (and one long-shot) in the last minute, Belmont just needed to have one of them go right to pull off the upset: 3 chances to score, one chance to defend, and a half-court heave. It couldn't have been more exciting though. Our small contingent of Belmont fans were standing and cheering throughout, but in the last 5 minutes the whole building full of mostly West Virginia fans woke up and got behind the underdogs. Atmosphere-wise, only hockey playoffs compare. Oh well.

As for other teams I'm watching, the Cats were dismissed without fanfare by a mediocre Marquette team (if next year is a disappointment, the coach is in trouble?) and the Predators suddenly can't win at home. They probably have to win out the last 7 to make it in the playoffs. Even then it might not be enough. All of these mini-dramas masquerading as disappointment, of course, are why they play next year. And really, so long as there is next year, who cares?

Tourney Brackets
Who ya got? I'll be cheering on Belmont tonight. When they beat Duke, it will be the biggest upset in tournament history, right?

Obama Speech Reaction
I rarely get to say this, so here goes: I agree completely with Andrew Sullivan.

I don't frankly understand why, much less how, anyone could hear the speech any differently, unless encrusted with a cold cynicism that is intractable. But alas, many do. My Hillary-supporting friend, no cynic she, who once claimed merely that Obama supporters were blinded to our deep-seated sexism, now has a more anti-Obama slant. I believe the exact quote yesterday was "He's a black separatist and he's lying through his teeth. You don't sit cheering in that church for 20 years without feeling the same way." So, there you go.

Somehow, he's got to overcome this. His speech was thoughtful and unprecedented. But what he needs now are some positive poll numbers (I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that a large group of potential voters have now simply struck him from the list) and a bit of a change of the subject. The line he is trying to walk in this race discussion is a fine one. He wants to acknowledge some difficult truths, but doesn't really want to make the discussion central to the campaign, as you can see by the end of the speech, when he encouraged us to show that we were moving forward by focusing on other things: the economy, the war, health care.

So, yes let's talk about race finally, and let's demonstrate our progress by not talking about race so much. I understand what he's saying, but it's a tough balancing act.

Why Phil?
I wonder what my Governor is up to? He has an op-ed in today's NYTimes urging a June superdelegate convention to settle the nomination well in advance of the August Dem convention. Makes sense, I guess. But why is he the one out front? I believe he could be Hillary's VP, but not Obama's. Would he put TN in play? Or could he be angling for a cabinet post? HHS?

Early Morning Deep Thought
Because of their calling - or perhaps their ego (we'll talk later about whether the one leads to the other) - many members of the clergy like to take ideas further than our comfort level, or for that matter a reasonable level. The flock generally accept what they can or will and dispense with the rest. I even know a few Catholics who are not completely opposed to contraception, for example. Failing to leave the Church over such disagreements doesn't make you a reprobate or a bad parent. It makes you a normal church-goer. At the risk of offending my ordained readers (for whom of course this deep thought does not apply), the minister and his/her preaching content is not the only reason folks go to church; nor is the sermon usually even that person's biggest selling point, much less the church's. I would say it's not even in the top 5.

I say we hold our elected officials more accountable for the wars they start than the preaching they endure. But maybe that's just me.

Idiot Box
I have never heard commentary any stupider than the blather in these minutes waiting for Obama's address on race and, presumably, the Rev. Wright story. Geez people, he has a fiery pastor, he didn't get caught with teenage prostitutes. I really don't see why people are freaking out about this.

We'll see what he has to say.

[UPDATE: Here's the speech.]

MEDIA MONDAY
What you been reading, listening to, watching?

Completely out of the arts loop this week. Help me.

Michael Kinsley
Yeah, I was offended by the Ferraro business, but can still appreciate that this new piece by Michael Kinsley gets it about right:

Let me be absolutely clear where I stand on all of this. There is no room for sexism in a modern political campaign. There is no room for racism either. There is no room for remarks that could reasonably be interpreted as sexist or racist. In fact, given the history of sexism and racism in this country, there is no room for remarks that could even be willfully misinterpreted as sexist or racist. There is no room for rudeness, or for the appearance of rudeness. There is no room for comments of any sort by anybody a candidate might have met under any circumstances in the course of his or her life, unless they have been vetted for sexism, racism, rudeness, or the appearance of these qualities by the campaign's senior staff. There is no room for unfair accusations that the opposition candidate has engaged in sexist, racist or rude remarks, or that anyone he or she has ever met has engaged in such remarks. And of course there is also no room for perfectly fair accusations of this sort, which can be misinterpreted, and usually are.

Delegate Math Update[UPDATED]
With MS and WY settled, and a better idea of the final delegate counts in OH and the TX caucus, a revised CA count, and final results certified in CO, all the pledged delegates from states already voting have now been alloted by some news organization or another. The current pledged delegate count on that score has Obama up by 154 160, 1414.5 to 1254.5. With 566 pledged delegates still remaining, Clinton would have to win 63.5% 64.1% of them to catch him in that category.

Adding superdelegates who have endorsed, Obama's lead is cut to 117 124 125, 1623.5 to 1498.5. There are 342 341 of those yet to endorse. To catch him in the overall count, Hillary will have to win 56.4% 56.8% 56.9% of the remaining 908 907 delegates, pledged and superdelegates combined.

All of that contingent on whatever they do with FL and MI.

[UPDATE: First of all, when an update gets updated, you know that the original suffered from bad timing, which this one did. Here's what happened: Iowa's county caucuses took place on Saturday, and in all of the hullabaloo Obama gained 1 of Clinton's delegates (don't ask me how that happens. I don't know.) and 8 of Edwards' for a net gain of 10. Meanwhile, that revised CA count got revised again but in Hillary's favor (net O loss of 2), and DC may have moved from 12-3 Obama to 11-4 (another loss of 2). Overall a net Obama gain of 6. Numbers updated above to reflect.]

Science Friday
EPA scientists recommended new and slightly more limiting ozone restrictions in conjunction with their mandate under the Clean Air Act. From the Washington Post:

Under the Clean Air Act, the federal government must reexamine every five years whether its ozone standards are adequate, and the rules that the EPA issued Wednesday will help determine the nation's air quality for at least a decade.

Ozone, which is formed when pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and other chemical compounds released by industry and motor vehicles are exposed to sunlight, is linked to an array of heart and respiratory illnesses.

Sounds good, right? Except of course when your President is George W. Bush. He stepped in and significantly crippled the ozone standards suggested by the EPA scientists. That's against the law, of course, but hey he's the President and on his way out anyhow, so who cares?

EPA officials initially tried to set a lower seasonal limit on ozone to protect wildlife, parks and farmland, as required under the law. While their proposal was less restrictive than what the EPA's scientific advisers had proposed, Bush overruled EPA officials and on Tuesday ordered the agency to increase the limit, according to the documents.

"It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference for the president personally to override a decision that the Clean Air Act leaves exclusively to EPA's expert scientific judgment," said John Walke, clean-air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The president's order prompted a scramble by administration officials to rewrite the regulations to avoid a conflict with past EPA statements on the harm caused by ozone.

Oh, and while on the subject of Bush, did I mention yet today that he is a monumental, hypocritical, embarrassment?

Ferraro Flap
I have lots to say about Ms. Ferraro's rather vile dismissal of Obama, but little to no time to type it. In short, I think she's essentially saying he's nothing but his race - nothing of substance underneath. And it's only a short walk from there to the idea that he's nothing *because* of his race. It's not just a crass, divisive, hateful, Republican style of politics, it's effectively a denial of his humanity. He's just an empty black suit.

It really pissed me off, obviously.

What say you?

[UPDATE: Keith Olbermann's passionate statement on the issue is here.]

Stupid Questions
The answer to this is no.

If You Care About the Torture Issue
Read this.

The Important Spitzer Question
All evening I haven't seen anyone explain what the heck kind of federal investigation is it that goes after a prostitution ring? ABCNews is on the case and through TPM comes the story: the feds were called in because of the suspicious money transfers. They thought they had the Gov in a bribery or money laundering case, but after some investigation and a wiretap they figured out where all that money was going: seriously over-priced sex.

What an idiot.

And for a guy who spent his career prosecuting white-collar cases that involved similar kinds of evidence, the stupidity is that much more pronounced.

I have lots of sympathy for all kinds of personal indiscretion. You know, people make mistakes, and have issues. But this is so profoundly dumb, and shows such incredible hubris, it's a bit hard to fathom. You don't get to that level of public service by yourself, but on the backs of lots of people who pour their hearts and lives and pocketbooks and reputations into helping you get there because they believe in you and what you can do for the public good. To then - after all that - be willing to risk throwing it all in the toilet for something so asinine, and throw your wife under the bus with it (she surely held down the family while he was out being Eliot Ness and running for Governor) in public humiliation...it pretty well boggles the mind. There's gratitude for you.

All that being said, if Senator Craig and especially Senator Vitter didn't have to resign, I don't see why Governor Spitzer should have to. After all, he didn't in fact launder public money or engage in a bribery scheme, like they thought. He paid for sex, just like Vitter. And went so far out of his way to hide it, that he was caught. Would have done better to go out Hugh Grant style. But then, wouldn't we all.

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been listening to, watching, reading?

Film Recommendation
The Bank Job is actually pretty good. A little worried at first, but it warmed up. Also saw Waitress over the weekend. Funny in spots, a little trite and caricaturish in other spots, but overall thumbs up.

More Books About Food
I hear from a well-read (and good lookin) loyal blog follower that Michael Pollan (Omnivore's Dilemma) has a helpful follow up book called "In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto"

What Are Baptists Up To?
The front page of the Tennessean ran a story today, as did the NYTimes, on a declaration signed by several Southern Baptist bigwigs - including the current President of the fundamentalist convention - which says essentially this: global warming is likely real and likely a problem and so we should address it as a moral imperative. Since the religious right has pretty well been front and center of the global warming denier's caucus, this could be a significant development. The signers here include not just high ranking officials but influential poobahs as well.

I have to assume, frankly, that they are up to something, but what's the angle? The NAE's Richard Cizik has been trying to move conservative Christian groups in the direction of, well, conservation, for a while now and has been practically drummed out of the club for it. What's changed?

Reasonable Baptist Robert Parham seems to think they are inserting wiggle room by refusing to acknowledge that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. Yes, that's a problem of logic (how are we supposed to address it if we aren't the ones that have been contributing to it?), but I don't see a real strategy there. I can think of 3 possibilities:

1) They sense drift in their membership, especially young people. Are member churches letting leadership know that their congregations want to see action on global warming? Honestly, I don't think that's it. Without being too insulting about it, the Southern Baptist churches that have clung to fundamentalist rule aren't exactly ones for stepping out against the leadership and forming a grassroots push-back.

2) Trying to bigfoot the New Baptist Covenant meeting on Wednesday? The leaders of the recent New Baptist Covenant meeting in Atlanta are getting together Wednesday to discuss next steps. It wouldn't shock me if they are intending to come out in full support of policies aimed at the climate crisis. By releasing this declaration today, the SBC can claim to be leaders and not look like followers here.

3) The McCain Factor. This is where I'm leaning. Whichever President we have after the November election will not be a global warming denier. McCain's not as good on the issue as Obama or Clinton, but he's not completely anti-science about it, and ackownledges it is a problem to be dealt with. So, I'm thinking the SBC sees the writing on the wall. As (even crazier) nutjob John Hagee is endorsing him, it could be that Convention strategists, keen on maintaining a high level of political sway, want to get ahead of the curve and move in a way that will help McCain embrace them back. Together, fundamentalist Christians and reasonable Republicans may believe they can shape policy and make the defeat of global warming a conservative triumph (surely, looking to addressing the issue in a way that keeps oil companies happy as well) rather than fighting the wave of public sentiment.

They support him on global warming and he will support them on, what, judicial appointments? gay rights? And the SBC jumps ahead of some other perennial Religious Right powerhouses like James Dobson, the Family Research Council, etc. in White House influence?

I've Got Nothing Today
Nor, obviously, yesterday. It's a Friday in March and afer a tease of spring on Monday, we're supposed to get 3-4 inches of snow overnight tonight. Everyone's freaking.

Most of my thoughts lately are toward various races: Will Obama win enough to take the nomination? Will Kentucky win enough hoops games (maybe just one more?) to make it into the NCAA tourney? Will the Predators win enough hockey games to sneak into the playoffs? Can my alma mater Belmont win 2 more games this weekend and go to March Madness for the 3rd straight year?
My predictions are: yes, probably, probably not, and I'm afraid they're due for an upset.

Obviously, I'm in a win-or-lose frame of mind. I'll depend on you for substance and nuance. What are you reading or thinking about out there heading into the weekend?

State Projections Look Pretty Good {Edited to Fix My Screwup KennyB Caught}
In my delegate obsession update below, part of my calculation is a 3-poll average of upcoming states, plus allotting the leftover to Clinton 2:1. That ended up pretty close to the actual results last night. Below are the popular vote results, with the projection in parenthesis.

Vermont Obama 59 - Clinton 39 (59.3 - 40.7)
Ohio--Clinton 54.3 - Obama 44.0 (54.4 - 45.6)
Rhode Island--Clinton 58 - Obama 40 (54.9 - 45.1)
Texas--Clinton 50.9 - Obama 47.4 (51.8 - 48.2)

The delegates are a little different story. From the looks of it, Hillary gained maybe 5 in RI, 4 in TX and 11 in OH. Obama gained 3 in VT and will likely gain a few in the TX caucus as results come in the next few days. Let's just say that Clinton gained somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 for the night, reducing Obama's pledged delegate lead to about 135.

There are 338 left to come. To gain 135 and take the pledged delegate lead, she will have to win them 247-91, 73% of the remaining delegates. And there's this: she's not going to win WY or MS this weekend, so that number will go up.

{That was wrong - way wrong. Here are the real numbers:
There are 611 left to come. To gain 135 and take the pledged delegate lead, she will have to win them 373-238, 61% of the remaining pledged delegates. As it is not looking likely that she can gain during the 45 coming up this next week, she will have to win at least 62% of the delegates in states beyond that. She has only captured 62+% of the vote in 1 state thus far: Arkansas.

Her chances are better than I credited earlier when I typed the original version, but I still believe she can't win the pledged delegate vote without re-opening FL and MI and getting some big wins along the way. Maybe it's fair to make him prove he can close the deal, but it seems selfish and hurtful to the party, given that she insists on praising McCain's experience in comparison, and play coy about Obama's religion.}

March 4 Predictions
Based on very little:
Clinton wins RI and OH 53-47, and TX 51-49, but Obama gains more TX delegates, and gains more in VT delegates than he loses in RI, so delegate picture stays roughly the same after tonight. She'll gain less than 20, and as Jonathan Alter points out, the race is over. Will Hillary be the last to acknowledge it?

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Homage to the Heist Movie
Terrence Rafferty in the NYTimes ahead of the upcoming "Bank Job." I think he leaves out some pretty good ones, but it's a nice piece. What are your favorite robbery flicks?

Monster Cables: Not All That Special
from BoingBoing

A reader forwarded us a post from the Audioholics Home Theater Forum... He says his brother ran an experiment on him and four other audio aficionados listening to a new CD from a new group blindfolded. Seven different songs were played, each time heard with the speaker hooked up to Monster Cables, and the other time, hooked up to coat hanger wire. Nobody could determine which was the Monster Cable and which was the coat hanger. The kicker? None of the subjects even knew that coat hangers were going to be used.

Article 19 Movie Warning
Don't see Vantage Point.... you have been warned.

Delegate Obsession Update [UPDATED Thurs 5/1. 2 PM]
It will take 2,024 delegates to win the nomination. That number goes up and down slightly as superdelegates are added and removed for various reasons.

Article 19 Delegate Projection (current pledged count + superdelegate projection + projection of upcoming states that have been polled)
Barack Obama--2053
Hillary Clinton--1955
(John Edwards--19)
Obama +98

Details below...

Current Pledged Delegate Count [UPDATED Sat. 4/26 3 PM to reflect PA results.]
Obama 1490
Clinton 1336
Obama +154

Current Superdelegate Count (and superdelegate projection, supposing the remaining split evenly)[UPDATED: Thurs 5/1 12 pm]
Obama 244 (389)
Clinton 260 (405)
Clinton +16 (+16)

Projection of upcoming states which have been polled (based on average of 3 recent polls, plus assuming undecideds break for Sen. Clinton 2:1) [UPDATED Thu 5/1 2 PM to reflect new polls in NC and IN.]

NC (115): Obama - 51.2 - 48.8 (59-56) O +3 [O +36k of 1.5m]
WV (28): Clinton - 67 - 33 (19-9) C +10 [C +134k of 400k]
IN (72): Clinton - 55.8 - 44.2 (40-32) C +8 [C +104.4k of 900k]
KY (51): Clinton - 69.9 - 30.1 (36-15) C +21 [C +199k of 500k]
OR (52): Obama - 54 - 46 (28-24) O +4 [O +48k of 600k]
SD (15): Obama - 52.6 - 47.4 (8-7) O +1 [O +4.2k of 100k]
PR (55): Clinton - 58.7 - 41.3 (32-23) C +9 [C +156.6k of 900k]

Obama 174
Clinton 214
Clinton +40
Clinton +505,800

Total (current pledged + projected superdelegate + projected polled states)
Barack Obama--2053
Hillary Clinton--1955
Obama +98

What's left to consider[UPDATED Mon 4/26 3 PM to reflect polling in PR, SD, OR]:
That still leaves 20 pledged delegates yet to be assigned from those yet to vote for which there are no polls: Guam (4) and Montana (16).

Calling Stevie T
If you are a longtime reader of this blog, you know that a common topic here relates to childhood development - even though I gots no children. I don't know how it got to be that way (a common topic that is, not my lack of children - that, I understand). Maybe it's fascinating because it's so darned perplexing, and because we do all have that in common: we once were children. Maybe it's because we all know that it's the one thing we really can't afford to screw up badly, I dunno. Anywho, a story on NPR's Morning Edition yesterday highlighted one (new?) philosophy toward what kids need and aren't getting so much these days: focusing on something curiously called "executive function."

Of course, everyone, chime in with your reaction. But I'm hoping our resident expert Stevie T will give us the scoop. Specifically, are these ideas new, this "Tools of the Mind" curriculum? Do they conflict with current standard ways of thinking? How does it comport with approaches like the Montessori school (not that I really know what that is)? What's up with this "executive function" lingo? Is that standard and old? Or a new buzz-phrase? I'm not giving any specifics here I know. You actually have to click through and listen to the story, or read it, but you can do it.

Only 326 Days
Until Bush's last. It can't get here soon enough.

The House on Wednesday approved a bill to extend more than $17 billion in tax credits and other incentives to encourage the production of energy from solar, wind and other renewable sources, and to promote energy conservation. The bill would be financed by ending tax incentives for oil and natural gas producers.

Democratic leaders in the House hailed the legislation as a step toward energy independence and a moral victory for protecting the environment, by encouraging production of clean alternative fuels. But the White House threatened to veto the bill, saying it would be a mistake to increase the tax burden on American oil companies.

Wouldn't want to do anything to burden the oil companies...

Does Prozac Work?
Maybe not.

When all the data was pulled together, it appeared that patients had improved - but those on placebo improved just as much as those on the drugs.
...
"Given these results, there seems little reason to prescribe antidepressant medication to any but the most severely depressed patients, unless alternative treatments have failed," says Kirsch. "This study raises serious issues that need to be addressed surrounding drug licensing and how drug trial data is reported."

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Oscar response
What did you think? I was most glad that the song from Once won, and Daniel Day-Lewis, though really he couldn't have lost.

Hillary
No longer believes in a "place called Hope." Sure does seem like a strange campaign strategy - uniting America around a shared sense of pessimism. Frank Rich has more on that subject, and says it much better than I could.

Sunday Deep Thought
Whichever Democratic candidate wins the nomination had better win the general. If not, the supporters of the spurned will be pretty well insufferable.

Debate Watching
Who saw it? What did you think? I missed it myself. From the sounds of it, they both did well, and Hillary impressed all with a moving closing statement. I find it a bit humorous - if not, dare I say, ironic - that the Clinton campaign is now pinning its hopes on this one rhetorical debate moment turning around all the momentum in the race, when their major complaint about Obama is that he's all rhetoric and no substance. Even if those 10 seconds somehow changed the dynamics of the race in her favor, it will not be because of some substantive policy position or credential, or any of the things she is arguing should be the reason for choosing her.

But like I say, I missed it. Somebody who saw it, speak up.

McCain Scandal [UPDATED]
The NYTimes is reporting tonight - and MSNBC interrupted into its regular programming to announce it as breaking news - that John McCain had a friendly relationship with a female lobbyist that was troubling enough to his staff that they confronted both the Senator and the lobbyist in an attempt to to "save him from himself," during the 2000 presidential campaign. Most of the story frankly is not about the relationship, it's about the ongoing allegations that his relationship with lobbyists generally - from the Keating 5 on - belies his image as a staunchly ethical reformer.

Mr. McCain’s confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.

The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain’s commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.
...
He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.

In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron.

Mr. McCain’s aides released all of his letters to the F.C.C. to dispel accusations of favoritism, and aides said the campaign had properly accounted for four trips on the Paxson plane. But the campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain’s advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers dispute that.

As a sex scandal, this is a bunch of crap. The scandal here is that Senator McCain is as vulnerable as the rest of them when it comes to lobbyist influence, and always has been.

[UPDATE: McCain just conducted a press conference to answer questions. In the pantheon of great sex-scandal-driven press conferences this one had to be the most boring ever]

Random Links
Not too much time to post lately. Here are some things I've been reading and thinking about though. Pick one and tell me what you think.

Law professor and author Larry Lessig is considering a run for Congress to fill the seat left vacant by recently deceased Tom Lantos. As I said to a friend about this, what if congressional races were filled with brilliant honorable forward-thinking people? I hope he runs and wins one for the nerd set. A nice 10-minute video at the website introduces the idea behind his candidacy.
----------
Don't look now but our year-to-year inflation rate is as high as it's been in decades.
----------
Obama gained somewhere around 20 delegates last night with big wins in WI and HI
----------
Bush's Presidential approval rating has plunged to 19%. How low can it go?

Pakistani Progress?
Military rule has been voted down, and Musharraf sounds willing to concede defeat, and for his party to become the opposition.

A key factor in the relatively smooth election was the decision of the new chief of the army, Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, to ensure that the military stayed out of the campaign and did not interfere on election day, analysts said.

General Kayani, in turn, appeared to be a promising partner for the United States, according to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph P. Biden, Jr., who also met with Mr. Musharraf on Tuesday.

Mr. Biden, who has criticized what he called the “Musharraf-centric” policy of the Bush administration, said that the new head of the army was a “rational man who understands the obligations and limitations of the military.”

One of the implicit arguments of the Bush administration has been that - his love of freedom fries not withstanding - military rule in Pakistan might not be such a bad thing because we need tight reins in such proximity to nuclear weapons. Hopefully a new coalition government there will bring more stability and not less. With things like that and news that Castro has resigned, it makes you wonder what the world will look like in 10 years or so. And which Bush will be President then?

For some insight and good questions, read Steve Clemons today.

MEDIA MONDAY
what have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Weekend Box Office
1. Jumper
2. Step Up 2 (God help us..)
3. The Spiderwick Chronicles
4. Fool's Gold
5. Definitely, Maybe

Article 19 Film Recommendation
I finally saw the film Winged Migration (2001) last week, a kind of documentary (nominated for an Oscar) showing the yearly travels of birds around the world. This will sound strange, but the footage of flying is astonishing. I know you think you know what it looks like - that you've seen birds fly before, but not like this, trust me. Here's the thing: as amazing as the pictures are, what you really have to see is the "making of" documentary in the DVD special features. As soon as I finished with the actual film, I was thinking "How the hell did they do that?" So, I flipped through to the extras and watched the background story. The answer was much more amazing than any I imagined.... one of the damnedest things I have ever seen, actually. It may have been more interesting than the film itself.

Any new podcasts worth listening to?

Article 19 Exclusive! The Most Complete Delegate Projection on the Internets [UPDATED Thurs. 2/26.--2 pm]

Barack Obama--1,868.5
Hillary Clinton--1,804
(John Edwards--26)

[Updated most recently to reflect: the latest superdelegate count, and the latest polls in RI, TX and OH. Obama's gains in polls in OH and especially TX makes the math virtually impossible for Hillary if they hold up on Mar. 4, even in this assume-things-goes-her-way scenario. All the trends - polls and superdelegate endorsements are trending Obama.]

So here you have it - the absolute best, most complete, most up to date, most rational delegate projections on all the Intertubes. If you're not into pointless number-crunching and obsessive displays of statistical fantasy, this is the part of the post where you may want to step away.

My starting point is this handy chart at demconwatch. There they have compiled current delegate counts by major news organizations. Some of those organizations are behind in projecting some states, and ahead in others, and some are just plain behind in keeping up with facts. For example, Tennessee has already made our delegate allotment basically official - we had our county conventions last week with firm delegate numbers in place - 40 for Clinton and 28 for Obama. As you can see though, on their list, only CNN has kept pace with that development. But CNN is behind in other states like Maryland, where The Green Papers has projected all delegates. So I'm adding each state with an eye toward whichever news org. has projected the most delegates - hoping that their projections might be based on something actually real.

CBS has alloted the most pledged delegates overall, 2,188 (Obama 1175, Clinton 1013) for an Obama lead of 162). When I add to that the states for which other organizations have projected more delegates (CO, DC, IL, MD, TN, WA, HI, WI, DA) - hopefully properly - that adds 28 for Hillary and 18.5 for Obama, giving Obama a lead of 152.5 pledged delegates to date, 1193.5-1041. (In CA and WA, where 2 different orgs. project all the delegates, but differently. I chose the total more beneficial to Hillary.) There are still l1.5 delegates not yet projected by any news organization: 9, for some reason, in CO, and 2.5 still to be allocated by Democrats Abroad.

Summary: Current pledged delegate count
Obama 1193.5
Clinton 1041
Obama +152.5

Looking Ahead: Poll-Based Speculation
Polls have been published for these upcoming states: VT, RI, TX, OH, NC, and PA. For the sake of argument and pointless speculation, let's assume the delegates shake out according to the average of the 3 most recent polls in each (if there are that many) with the leftover undecided number breaking to Hillary 2:1 to make things interesting. The results looks like this [percentage (delegates)]:
VT (15): Obama - 62.0 - 38.0 (9-6) O +3
RI (21): Clinton - 58.8 - 41.2 (12-9) C +3
OH (141): Clinton - 55.0 - 45.0 (78-63) C +15
TX (193): Clinton - 50.7 - 49.3 (98-95) C +3
PA (158): Clinton - 56.1 - 43.9 (89-69) C +20
NC (115): Obama - 52.3 - 47.7 (60-55) O +5

Those poll averages, plus sending the undecideds Hillary's way 2:1, would give her a net delegate gain in those 6 states of 33 (338-305), cutting Obama's overall 152.5 pledged delegate lead to 119.5, 1498.5 - 1379.

Summary: Delegate Projections for Upcoming States Based on Poll Averages, Assuming Undecideds Break for Clinton 2:1

Obama 305
Clinton 338
Clinton +33

Summary: Current Pledged Delegate Count PLUS Projected Pledged Delegate Count in Upcoming Polled States
Obama 1498.5
Clinton 1379
Obama +119.5

That still leaves 349.5 pledged delegates yet to be assigned - the 11.5 in the section above from CO, plus 338 from those others yet to vote for which there are no polls: Wyoming (12), Mississippi (33), Guam (4), Indiana (72), West Virginia (28), Kentucky (51), Oregon (52), Montana (16), South Dakota (15) and Puerto Rico (55).

What's Left? Can Hillary Win the Pledged Delegates?
If Obama keeps her that far away (119.5) after the 6 states above, as the polls suggest she could, overtaking Obama in pledged delegates would require a Clinton win of the remaining 349.5 delegates by a count of 235-114.5, a margin of 67.2%-32.8%. That would put her ahead in pledged delegates 1614-1613, with only the Edwards 26 delegates left out there to account for the total 3,253 pledged delegates in the whole process (absent FL and MI). The problem for her there is that 128 of those remaining are in states (WY, MS, OR, MT, SD) that would seem to favor Obama, given the way others have gone. If she even managed to tie him in those, she would have to win the rest 171-50.5, a margin of 77.2%-22.8% to accomplish that gain and take a pledged delegate lead heading into the Convention. Impossible.

She will have to significantly outperform current polls in TX and OH to have a chance at the pledged delegate lead.

That's why she faces such a tall order in the pledged delegate count, and why her strategy to ignore smaller states has been such a disaster. Even giving her the benefit in the close calls, and if she wins OH by only 10 and TX by only 5, it won't matter if she crushes PA 60-40 and splits delegates in those later states that seem to favor Obama. She still has to dominate what's left.

Back to the Present: Add in the Superdelegates
Back to our status now - with Obama leading by 152.5. DemConWatch has the most open count of the superdelegates anywhere. They give Hillary a superdelegate lead of 54, 239-185. If we add those in, that cuts Obama's current lead to 98.5. As things stand now, combining pledged delegates and superdelegates who have endorsed, Obama leads by that margin, 1377.5-1278

Summary: Current Pledged Delegates + Current Superdelegate Endorsements
Obama 1377.5
Clinton 1278
Obama +98.5

Superdelegates have been trending slightly Obama lately. By the time of the Convention, there will be 795 total. If the 379 left to endorse split evenly - no reason to think they won't - 186-185, for Hillary let's say - the superdelegate total would be 425-370, Clinton +55.

Superdelegate Projection Summary
Obama 370
Clinton 425
Clinton +55

Add it all together
Add that superdelegate projection to the current pledged delegates count (1193.5-1041, O) and the poll-driven projection of 6 upcoming states above (338-305, C), that would have Obama in the lead 1,868.5-1,804 in the official Article 19 Delegate Projection. Separated by 64.5 delegates. First one to 2,025 wins.

That leaves us essentially tied with the 349.5 other pledged delegates yet to be determined, as described above. Plus John Edwards' 26. But it requires an awful lot of things to go Hillary's way to get her just to tied. She has to hope that a huge win in March goes hand-in-hand with a surge in superdelegates to create momentum allowing her to dominate the late states and get close, then make the case that the primary participants across the country have narrowly made the wrong decision for the party. He has to not screw up, and hold on to his superdelegates.

If Hillary doesn't gain at least 40-50 delegates in OH and TX combined, her hope of gaining the pledged delegate lead before the convention is virtually nonexistent, barring a major change in the dynamics of the race.

A couple of notes:
1. Assuming Obama maintains a pledged delegate lead heading into the convention, there will be plenty of pressure on superdelegates to not overturn that decision. I don't know that Hillary could count on an even split of the remaining superdelegates in such a case.

2. There's something funny about Puerto Rico, which has 55 pledged delegates, the last to be determined, in June. In the Wikipedia article I read for help with the numbers, there is this note:

Puerto Rico issue

Journalists at several news outlets have indicated that in the tradition of the island's party politics, Puerto Rico's 63 delegates will all be awarded to a single candidate and not necessarily follow the majority of the popular vote. This would give Puerto Rico Democratic Party leaders the greatest single influence in the 2008 primary, with a 43% greater disparity than the California primary produced. In contrast, the party's Delegate Selection Plan states that delegates are to be allocated in a manner similar to other state caucuses.

I don't know what that means exactly. If it means the PR caucus can be counted on to result in a unanimous, or near unanimous selection, it would end up being one of the largest prizes of all, which may be why Hillary has opened a campaign office there, despite its late date.

Democrats in Congress
Showing some backbone. We might as well take notice and applaud to reward good behavior. The White House's anger here is illogical to the point of stupidity. Bush is basically saying Democrats are failing to protect Americans - actually endangering lives - by letting recent changes to the FISA law expire, but he can't possibly give in on telecom immunity, which would restore those changes. He's essentially saying that protecting telecom companies is more important than protecting the lives of supposedly endangered Americans. Good for the House for calling his bluff.

The sad part is, usually that would have worked for him.

John Lewis
Switches to Obama.

Bio-fuel Won't Help
The Washington Post yesterday reported on a study looking into the ramifications of using ethanol and other bio-fuels as a tool in the fight against GHG-induced global warming. Their finding? By the time you clear off all the land necessary grow the crops , you might as well just burn gasoline.

One study -- written by a group of researchers from Princeton University, Woods Hole Research Center and Iowa State University along with an agriculture consultant -- concluded that over 30 years, use of traditional corn-based ethanol would produce twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as regular gasoline. Another analysis, written by a Nature Conservancy scientist along with University of Minnesota researchers, found that converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas or grasslands in Southeast Asia and Latin America to produce biofuels will increase global warming pollution for decades, if not centuries.

Tim Searchinger, who conducts research at Princeton and the D.C-based German Marshall Fund of the United States, said the research he and his colleagues did is the first to reveal the hidden environmental cost of producing biofuels.

"The land we're likely to plow up is the land that we've had taking up carbon for decades," said Searchinger, the lead author. Estimating that it would take 167 years before biofuel would stop contributing to climate change, he added, "We can't get to a result, no matter how heroically we make assumptions on behalf of corn ethanol, where it will actually generate greenhouse-gas benefits."

The climate change problem needs a bold set of solutions. Ethanol has always been presented as a kind of half measure. Now we know it's worse than that. Like Kevin Drum says, now that the Iowa caucus is long gone, maybe we can get away from pandering to the corn crowd with policies that won't work.

Momentum
Election talk is getting tired, I know. So much more out there and all. Still, as a junkie it's hard not to focus on such a fascinating and close race. Today, I'm wondering this: after Super Tuesday, Clinton folks were saying that they knew Obama had an advantage in February and would win delegates, and that she would have the advantage after that with bigger states worth more. Hard to argue with that analysis, looking at the states in question. But now that he's winning those February states as predicted, they're freaking out. What gives?

As Giuliani found out, the bad vibes of a string of losses over several weeks can be pretty damaging, even if numerically that was your plan. More problematic in this case, however, may be that math. Hillary's path to victory may work to perfection. Clearly, though, she'd like to enter the superdelegate hunt with a lead in pledged delegates. Obama is ahead in that category by some 75-80 right now, depending on the count. If he wins big again today, and gains in Wisconsin next week, his lead could be 125 or 130, even more heading into March. There are big states left, but after February, only 1,195 delegates are still up for grabs. If he's ahead by 130 going in, she has to win the remaining delegates 55-45. If he were to be up by as much as 150 - which seems feasible to me unlikely but possible judging from polls and the last weekend - she would have to win 56-44 the rest of the way. And if you consider that some of those remaining states - MS, MT, SD, WY - should be good ones for Obama, that squeezes the window further.

So far, she has only won 5 states with a 12-point margin or greater: AR, TN, OK, NY, MA. But she may have to do that in PA, TX, OH and NC just to keep going. The margin today - and the outcome in WI coming up - will be a big factor in considering where we are. But I don't think the Clinton plan included losing those recent states as soundly as she has. More of the same today will start to make the math look a bit tough. Of course, the superdelegates can come along and save her. But I'm sure she doesn't want to win that way.

On Superdelegates
I have to admit my thinking on superdelegates is evolving the more I consider it. I have lots of sympathy with Chris Bowers' point of view (which Donna Brazile has also voiced) - that if Democratic superdelegates vote in a nominee that is not the one leading in pledged delegates based on the voters' selection in the primaries, it would be a huge travesty, worth leaving the party over. I wouldn't do that, of course. But I understand the sentiment. I also see the benefit of Tad Devine's similar position in today's NYTimes, that all superdelegates should "back off" and not announce a position until the convention, and then only to move in to affirm the choice of voters.

I think there's a strong one-person, one-vote principle at stake that the Democratic Party should stand for. But there's also a long-term political calculation that should come into play. If pledged delegates favor one candidate, but superdelegates choose the other, the party risks alienating either African-American (and young) voters, on the one hand, or women voters on the other, for a generation. We can't afford the perception that the shenanigans of insiders thwarted the will of the party to make whichever historic choice they do.

On the other hand, my indignation instinct is a little tired here, isn't it? I mean who are we kidding? There are problems with all of these complaints. For starters, is anyone paying attention to the strangeness of the delegate allocation process? In a congressional district with an even number of delegates, it's difficult for either candidate to get enough of a majority to gain a delegate advantage. In districts with an odd number, only one vote more translates to a delegate lead. In Nevada, Obama earned more delegates even though Hillary had more supporters. In Alabama, Obama won 56%-42%, but because of the way the districts panned out, he gained only 27-25 in delegates.

So, what is a superdelegate committed to democracy supposed to do? If you prefer Clinton and you're a Nevadan, and the pledged delegates after this convoluted system favor Obama slightly, which choice honors the voters? If your state went for Hillary, but your congressional district went for Obama, which allegiance is more honorable? If the delegate count favors Hillary, but you believe she can't win, or that her name on the ballot will hurt other Democratic candidates in your state, which choice better fulfills your duty to the Party? And after all, these aren't governmental elections, really, they're Party operations.

As for waiting until the Convention, that's not simple either. Why not make clear your preference when your state votes so everybody knows where we stand? What will make it appear that superdelegates swoop in and take control more than if they all announce their preference right at the end en masse?

I don't know. Maybe it's not so bad for elected officials - who stick their necks out with the party name - to have a little extra say in who their figurehead is vying for the White House. Maybe it's a decent test of a candidate's ability to work with and persuade exactly the kind of leaders they will need to to be successful. Kenny B will notice that this is the exact opposite position from what I was taking over the weekend, but like I say I'm thinking about it. If there was one simple way to "honor the voters" and if the system itself "honored the voters" more clearly, then I would think all of these hysterics might be more warranted. But it is a bit complicated, at the very least.

Saturday Deep Thought
Supporting Obama over Hillary doesn't make you a sexist, any more than supporting Hillary over Obama makes you a racist.

Friday Fun
Maybe only Deb and I would enjoy the "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks, but that still makes it worth a link.

Late-Night Multiple Choice
Now that Republicans have decided on McCain as their candidate, the rest of the primary season...

A) Independent voters in states yet to be decided will no longer have to choose between McCain and Obama, and will vote for Barack.

B) Mischievous Republicans will cross over and vote for Hillary, thinking her general election chances are the slimmest, with the best chance to unite their own Party against a hated foe.

C) Mischievous Republicans will cross over and vote for Obama, because they can't pass up the chance to vote against their nemesis Hillary in hopes of ending her national political career.

Mark all that apply.

Just a Thought
I may be a little biased here in TN. But I have an idea for the Obama campaign. His supporters have done an extraordinary thing in response to the news that Hillary loaned $5 million of her own money to her campaign. After a request from the campaign, asking them to match Hillary's money in 24 hours or so, they did that and then some.

My suggestion - to demonstrate real desire to follow Obama's lead and serve the needs of the country - is for the campaign to shut off the online contribution mechanism for a day, and ask supporters to donate to tornado relief and rescue efforts instead, maybe promote the American Red Cross' efforts. Perhaps even challenge Clinton, McCain and Huckabee's campaign to join in. This shows leadership, a spirit of volunteerism and American unity over something besides politics, and acknowledges that we know we can't depend on the current Administration to address this kind of calamity effectively. It also would build on Obama's reasonable claim that government alone can't solve these kinds of problems.

Money is rushing into campaign coffers the last day and a half, and that's as it should be. Democrats are excited about this election and I'm one of the first to argue that a political donation is an important way to help serve your country with your money, if you believe that institutional change is the best and most needed way to better the lives of Americans. But that alone isn't enough. It strikes me that re-directing that energy for a day or so is good politics too, as well as maybe even helping some people that - trust me from seeing the reports here - could really use it. Without actually shutting down the online fundraising effort though, just asking doesn't really amount to much of a statement.

Momentum and Coast Bias
The closer I look at the numbers, the better yesterday looks for Obama. You'll remember, I was expecting a 70-delegate loss, not because of team Obama's expectations spin, but because of the real average of the recent poll numbers in each state. For weeks, keeping Hillary's gain to less than 100 seemed like a worthy goal. Now, not only did he not lose 70 delegates yesterday, it is looking like he actually expanded his slim delegate lead. Obama won more states, and won more delegates yesterday than Hillary did. The margin was slim, indeed. But a win is a win. After 5 big days of Democratic voting, Obama has won the delegate battle now in all but one - New Hampshire - and that one was something of a shock.

I do understand Kevin Drum's feeling of let-down:

[A]lthough Obama obviously made up a huge amount of ground over the past two weeks, what it felt like to me was disappointment. He seemed to be coming on so strong that it seemed inevitable he'd win one or two of the big Hillary states — or at least make them into close races — but he didn't. In the end, Hillary won California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts by double digit margins. It really seemed to take a lot of wind out of the Obama surge.

Still, I think he's off the mark, because we did indeed see that wave of momentum yesterday - and it put Obama over the top into a surprising delegate victory for the de facto national primary. It's just that the wave didn't crash the coasts like we had anticipated. Hillary's the one that matched or beat expectations in NY, NJ, MA and CA.

But look at what happened virtually everywhere else. While the bright lights of the media focused on her solid win in 93-delegate Mass., Obama pounded her 2-1 in 72-delegate Minnesota. Yeah, she opened up a 10-percentage point lead in 107-delegate NJ, but he turned an expected win into a 30-pt. rout in 87-delegate GA, and an anticipated nailbiter (according to the polls) into a double-digit victory in 52-delegate AL. The size of his homestate win in IL neutralized hers in NY. And while she was winning big in Ark and Ok, the size of his victories in UT, ND, ID, CO, AK and KS were even more astonishing. I know, I know, many of those are caucuses and, somehow, Obama's supposed to have a bizarre advantage in the caucuses (??). My feeling is - no matter what the voting method is, when you beat someone 80-20 like he did in Idaho, you've got a wave of overwhelming support. And the 12 delegates he gained in that 18-delegate state count every bit as much as, indeed 20% more than, the 10 he lost in 68-delegate Tennessee.

The truth is the Clinton campaign thought they could play to the coasts, sell out give up on black voters, split the rest, and wind up with a 100-delegate win and momentum. Frankly, the coasts did their part, but a wave surged in much of the rest of the country. So, yeah part of the story is Obama's momentum stopping short in those few big states. But an equal story - if not bigger - is the absolute thumping he gave her in DE, GA, IL, AL, UT, ND, ID, KS, AK, CO to widen his earned-delegate lead, if only slightly.

If he had won MA, NJ, and CA but only 5 or 6 others and wound up with the same slim delegate gain of 9 or so overall, wouldn't the media be crowing about his momentum surge and huge unexpected victory? They think those bookend coastal states are the only real ones. I cry big-state bias!!

Delegate Counts
Are slow in coming, which I don't really understand. And many of the counts being thrown around include the superdelegates, which I don't think is right. DemConWatch is a good site for all things delegate-related. They have Clinton gaining 20 so far in Tueday's voting, 670-650, with 361 still to be alotted. I'm thinking that will put the total pretty close to my projection earlier of of 70 to 80 delegate gain for her, which will inch her ahead in the earned delegate count. (Obama went in to yesterday ahead by 15).

2 other thoughts:
What the hell is wrong with MSNBC, which claimed victory for Hillary in Missouri, allowing her to claim that in her speech, when Obama in fact went on to win. Have we learned nothing from FL, 2000? I guess not.

I'm surprised he couldn't come any closer in MA and CA, but equally surprised he beat her handily in places like Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Alabama, and especially GA which turned into a blowout. Those wins almost overcame the losses in the big states. A little close there and he could really claim victory for the day. As it is, about tied, with her inching forward.

List of Poll Closing Times
Here

Hillary Surging in Last Day?
I hope not, but it's looking like it. That 100 delegate threshold is looking pretty tough right now, but is how I'll gauge Obama's success. The closer it is to even, the better it is for Obama. If Hillary's advantage heads upward of 100, it could be a tough night. If I have time I'll put together an Obama-centric Super Tuesday Watching Guide later.

Super Tuesday Delegate Projection
Ok, it's Tuesday now, and here are my delegate projections. (I don't teach on Tuesdays, so I have some extra time on my hands tonight.) The newest polls suggest this: Hillary has stemmed the Obama rush in the last 24-48 hrs and turned things back her way. If you average the last 3 polls for each of tomorrow's states and assign those percentages to delegates - using the latest 3 national polls for states that don't have 3 recent polls - below is what you come up with. In parenthesis, I assigned the leftover/undecided vote proportionally based on the same percentages to arrive at a total.

Hillary wins 10 states. Obama wins 6. 3 are tied, another 3 essentially tied. I'm giving Obama a win in American Samoa for no reason other than the current natl poll avgs which give him a slight lead. Following this crazy formula, which is my official prediction, in terms of delegates, Clinton wins 768. Obama wins 704, with 211 undecided. If you split each state's undecided delegates proportionally, that's a total of 877-804, a gain of 73 delegates for Super Tuesday Hillary. Obama was leading 68-43 coming in. So, totals would be 945-872 Clinton, before the superdelegates. I think that would add up to a decent-to-good night for Obama, to be within 100 earned delegates when the night is done.

It's worth remembering that only the Nevada polls so far have been close to the outcome. Iowa and SC polls underestimated Obama by a sizable margin. NH polls underestimated Clinton. Still, here's what the polls basically predict about tomorrow, on average.

Alabama - Clinton 23, Obama 23, Undecided 6 (26-26)
Alaska - Clinton 6, Obama 6, Undecided 1 (6-7)
American Samoa - Clinton 1, Obama 1, Undecided 1 (1-2)
Arizona - Clinton - 24, Obama 21, Undecided 11 (30-26)
Arkansas - Clinton - 17, Obama 9, Undecided 9 (23-12)
California - Clinton - 178, Obama 154, Undecided 38 (199-171)
Colorado - Clinton - 22, Obama 23, Undecided 10 (27-28)
Connecticut - Clinton 22, Obama 21, Undecided 5 (25-23)
Delaware - Clinton 6, Obama 6, Undecided 3 (7-8)
Georgia - Clinton 29, Obama 43, Undecided 15 (35-52)
Idaho - Clinton 8, Obama 8, Undecided 2 (9-9)
Illinois - Clinton 48, Obama 88, Undecided 17 (54-99)
Kansas - Clinton 14, Obama 15, Undecided 3 (15-17)
Massachusetts - Clinton 49, Obama 37, Undecided 7 (53-40)
Minnesota - Clinton 30, Obama 30, Undecided 12 (36-36)
Missouri - Clinton 35, Obama 30, Undecided 7 (39-33)
New Jersey - Clinton 52, Obama 45, Undecided 10 (58-49)
New Mexico - Clinton 11, Obama 12, Undecided 3 (12-14)
New York - Clinton 124, Obama 84, Undecided 24 (138-94)
North Dakota - Clinton 6, Obama 6, Undecided 1 (6-7)
Oklahoma - Clinton 18, Obama 8, Undecided 12 (26-12)
Tennessee - Clinton 36, Obama 24, Undecided 8 (41-27)
Utah - Clinton 9, Obama 9, Undecided 5 (11-12)

MEDIA MONDAY
Plenty of time to obsess over Super Tuesday tomorrow. Be sure and come around often tomorrow for updates of polls, plans, concerns, numbers, goals, etc., from a pro-Obama perspective. I'll be in pure nervous, neurotic, election nerd mode. In the meantime, let's have some talk about the arts. There is, as they say, more that unites us than divides us, right? Like the need for great movies, books, music, etc. What have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Keeping it Fresh (Sort Of)
To combat the dearth of new TV material thanks to the writers' strike, major networks are importing popular shows from their cable sister channels. NBC will start airing USA's Monk, and more interestingly, CBS will run the entire first season of "Dexter," whose central character you may recall is a somewhat lovable serial killer with an honor code to take the place of a general lack of conscience. They also may run "Weeds" about a suburban mom who makes ends meet by selling pot.

My prediction? One of two things will happen. Either network TV audiences will discover how much more interesting cable shows are, and realize what crap they're routinely fed, or the shows will be ruined by the editing that will be necessary to fit both the time slots and the mores of commercial television.

Weekend Box Office
1. Hannah Montana (jeez, there's a movie?)
2. The Eye
3. 27 Dresses
4. Juno
5. Meet the Spartans

I have a question. I notice plenty of movie parodies coming around the last few years, including this Meet the Spartans. I haven't seen any of them, but they look dumb as hell. Am I missing something worthwhile?

Polls Are Here and There
Gallup shows Obama closing to 2 in national polling, Rasmussen has Hillary surging to 11 up. Zogby has Obama up 4 in California and close in Missouri, McClatchy has Obama close in AZ but down 9 in California. Hard to know what will happen. They are all over the place. All the early voting that has already happened in Tuesday's states will benefit Hillary. I think Obama has to do this: win big enough in GA and IL to offset delegate gains by Clinton in CA, NY and NJ. Then, find a way to win a couple of other states -- maybe from CO, AL, AZ, MO -- to cut into gains she makes in TN, MA, OK, and keep everything else close enough so the delegate gain is minimal for Hillary. If she gains less than 100 on him Tuesday, it would be a dramatic victory for him.