From "Born to Be Wild", a work to showcase the lead male dancers of the ABT.
Mark Morris' choreography is engrossing and smart, without being taxing. The Schumann was a good choice. I wonder if he knows some of the Schubert works?
[pic-link, because embedding disabled by request. Not sure the filming of this was the greatest, but it's good enough.]
Almost all of the series is available via youTube.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Sunday Tea Dance
Nonsense Quotes of the Week
How to talk without saying anything:
Hillary Clinton - and the Venn diagram of the non-voting voters to date:
“I’m very proud that, as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anybody else,”
Barack Obama - we'll win by winning:
"The way we're gonna close the deal is by winning. And right now we're winning," he said. "And you know what we'll do is keep on campaigning in Indiana and North Carolina and Oregon and these other states. And at the conclusion of all these contests, people will go back and take a look and say, 'Who's won?'"
John "Ba-Ba-Bomb Gaza" McCain - a "nightmare" for political groups that the US pushed Israel to allow in elections and who were supported by Secretary Rice:
I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare
The "long-term truce" with HAMAS
I've been thinking about this innovation, that was highlighted by Carter's recent visit. The Hamas suggest a 20 year "truce" as part of a "deal" for "final" settlement.
I think Israel ought to seriously consider "accepting", if the truce is long enough, to intensify the political pressure on Hamas.
Why?
1. For one thing, Israel has never offered more than contingent agreements, de facto. Even Rabin, peacemaker extrodinaire, told Israelis that they'd just reverse it, if it didn't work out. (Sure it was "informal", but ...).
2. A verbal acceptance might be all that is required to keep pressure on Hamas.
3. It might be possible to reach a formal agreement via Abbas, and a "separate peace" with Hamas. Why not "work" all angles.
n.b. this is all different than the short-term hudna that is being talked about presently.
Liveblogging FOX Trash
THE FRAME
"[Obama] recently suffered some big losses"
"Hillary's big win in PA - what are her chances"
HELLO AGAIN
Obama watch: 772.
1. Electibility: "Your defeat in PA raises new question about your candidacy" "Why are you having such trouble convincing white, working-class voters that you are their guy?"
closed 20-pt lead. PA was familiarity.
2. "You come off as a former law professor ... want to know what you are going to do for them. ... Hillary Clinton seems tougher than you do."
2a. "losing 70% to 30% you are not troubled by that. Do you think you need a new message..."
Ans:
We've done well among every group.
"Chablis-drinking, limousine-liberals" <-- there goes the "elitist label" [Buuttt, does Barack drink Chablis ...?]
We've always been the underdog in this race. "I'm running against the best brand in Democratic Politics"
3. PA "...12% of Whites admitted race was a factor and went for Clinton 3-to-1. ...isn't there a divide that is going to make it very difficult for you to become President?
Ans: "Is race still a fact in our society?" "Will it be THE determinative factor?" No.
4. "...blacks are furious at him [Bill]. Is there a deliberate effort to make race an issue."
Ans: "I don't think there has been a deliberate effort. I take the President at his word." "Everyone is fretting now ..."
People will come together. <--Out of touch
5. Jeremiah Wright "Public campaign to redeem his reputation." [video] "Do you think that Rev Wright is just the victim here?"
Ans:
"I got to the Church not to worship the Pastor, but to worship God."
6. "Did you talk to Rev Wright about making public appearances?" "Did you try and discourage [him] ..."
Ans:
"I don't think I did that." ... rest.
7. "Which comments...[of Wright]?"
Ans:
Some things in sharp relief. "Only catalog the bad, not doing enough to lift up the good."
7a. "Did you ever go to see him afterwards ..."
"It's not as if his sermons were constantly political"
8. "You say that things like Flag Pins are a distraction" For an unknown, isn't it fair to ..."
Ans:
"How do people come to understand my values." My work. How I speak about my children.
"On flag pins. I've worn in the past. I will wear in the future." DNC speach was patriotic.
9. William Ayers You said ... Tom Coburn" Do you really see a moral equivalence between the two?
Ans:
"Because I'm interacting with people does not mean that I endorse what they say."
"Mr. Ayers is a 60 y.o.. in my neighborhood who did something I deplore 40 years ago when I was 8. I met him when he was a professor...." long list about Ayers
*Wallace moves to cut off talk about the list, fast.*
BREAK:
notes: Obama is talking too fast and at one pace. He's letting himself be interviewed ... how ... amateurish. Still, he's getting his points across, without tripping at this speed.
10. "As a President - can you name a hot button issue that you will be willing to Buck, where Republicans have a better idea."
Regulation? Cap-and-Trade
Education: "We should be experimenting"
11. "Do you really want ... [partnership with Republicans] or do you want total surrender."
Ans:
Mentions dailkos ...
"Here's my philosophy: I want to do what works for the American people. Both at the State level and at the Federal level."
Senate votes - liberal: Well, because the issues are set-up to polarize.
Partial birth abortion: "The State can properly restrict late term abortion. All I've said is we need a provision for health of the mother."
"Democrats do not have a monopoly on wisdom" <- wow
12. "Taxes" Payroll tax, Increase Capital Gains. "Classical Liberal tax-and-spender"
Ans: "I'm going to go after John McCain." "It's irresponsible and the irony is that he said it was irresponsible." "Somewhere along the line his conscience took flight, because he is look to get along as the Republican nominee." Goes after McCain on fiscal responsibility.
BREAK:
notes: interesting. His "pitch" to Republicans is 100% positive here. He doesn't mention George Bush, once.
13. David Petreaus appointed to Centcom. "Will you vote to confirm his nomination?".
Ans:
Yes. A good tactical job.
It's sad the administration wasn't listening more to Admiral Fallon.
14. "I want to ask you about Presidents and listening to Generals". "If he says your idea to get out of Iraq is a mistake, will you listen?"
Ans:
Replay of Philly debate answer.
14a "Would you replace him? What would you do?"
Ans:
"I want you to tell how best to meet this new assignment." Will not let Iraqis put US foreign policy on ice. <--Cute phrase Will not stand by while they dither.
15. "why duck another debate with Hillary"
Ans:
2 wks, 2 big states
"We are not going to have debates between now and Indiana"
16. "Hillary as VP"
Ans:
Punt on that question until I'm the nominee
17. "First time voters ... upset if you don't get the nomination?"
Ans:
"Democrats are going to be unified." <-Out of touch
18. First privately financed campaign since Watergate [did I hear that right?]
Ans:
RNC, swiftboats - no
With that agreement, very interesting in public financing.
19. What have you learned? Mistakes. Learned about running. About yourself.
Ans:
I have the right temperament. Not too high and not too low. [The Goldilocks Candidate]
Mistakes: Me talking too much, not listening
How much I miss my family - the biggest hardship of this campaign. [Very strong finish!]
END: HIllary Clinton's "convincing win" in Pennsylvania [oh brother, if you thought Chris was credible, suddenly he comes up with this rubbish.]
FOX commentators hate that Obama didn't give them particulars to chew apart.
Apparently, they are worried he's just like Reagan on "the details".
Brit Hume, headlessly: "She needs to draw an inside straight about three times ... But it is not impossible."
SuperDay+4: Update
WAITING TO EXHALE
I've revised the tables, showing that there is nothing left to contest except the margin of Hillary's defeat, for clarity and to fix a sum.
Points of interest.
If you believe the AP's tally of where supers stand in the upcoming races, there are more uncommitted supers in the states where Obama is favored to win. If they follow their constituencies, Obama will be picking up more supers "along the way". [All observed with the normal caveats that delegates do not always get apportioned according to the vote or vote alongside their constituents...]
Many in the media continue to call it a "close race". Heh. Not quite. It's a Clinton charade from here on out, mainly ...
Update: n.b. These tables supersede the prior calculations. Changes to the calculation have altered the "must do" percentage covering all remaining delegates.
Update2: MSNBC's count of remaining supers is quite a bit lower than this tally. They say only 292 remaining. The net impact is to bump-up the Hillary "must-do" margin among all remaining by about 2% at each step along the way.
Table 2a. Remaining delegates and Hillary's must-do margins (or Obama's break-even margins, because he is ahead). "Winner take all" projection allocates all the uncommitted supers in each state according to who wins the contest.
| Projection: Winner takes all of State's remaining "supers" | Days Until | All Remaining | Elected Remaining | Supers Remaining | Clinton "Must Do" Margin All Remaining | Clinton "Must Do" Margin Among Remaining Elected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | -4 | 715 | 411 | 304 | 17% | 35% |
| Guam | 6 | 708 | 407 | 301 | 16% | 35% |
| Indiana | 9 | 632 | 332 | 300 | 18% | 43% |
| North Carolina | 9 | 506 | 217 | 289 | 27% | 71% |
| West Virginia | 16 | 472 | 189 | 283 | 26% | 78% |
| Kentucky | 23 | 416 | 138 | 278 | 26% | 99% |
| Oregon | 23 | 355 | 86 | 269 | 35% | shutout |
| Puerto Rico | 35 | 298 | 31 | 267 | 37% | shutout |
| Montana | 37 | 277 | 15 | 262 | 42% | shutout |
| South Dakota | 37 | 260 | 0 | 260 | 46% | n.m. |
Table 2b. Background on running delegate totals based on projections of the spread (margin) for each race and "winner takes all" among the state's uncommitted supers.
| Projection1: Winner takes all remaining Supers | Days Until | Projected Margin Clinton over Obama | Clinton Net Pickup (Loss) Pledged | Clinton Net Pickup (Loss) Supers | Obama Lead / (Trail) | Obama Pledged Lead / (Trail) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | -4 | 0% | 119 | 143 | ||
| Guam | 6 | 2% | 0 | 3 | 116 | 143 |
| Indiana | 9 | 2% | 1 | 1 | 114 | 142 |
| North Carolina | 9 | -10% | -11 | -11 | 136 | 153 |
| West Virginia | 16 | 20% | 6 | 6 | 124 | 147 |
| Kentucky | 23 | 20% | 11 | 5 | 108 | 136 |
| Oregon | 23 | -10% | -6 | -9 | 123 | 142 |
| Puerto Rico | 35 | 20% | 11 | 2 | 110 | 131 |
| Montana | 37 | -10% | -2 | -5 | 117 | 133 |
| South Dakota | 37 | -10% | -1 | -2 | 120 | 134 |
| Total: | - | 9 | -10 |
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Clinton Donors Pay To Send Bill to Oregon to Campaign Against Dem Nominee
It's true.
1. They've paid.
2. He's going for a concerted, hard-hitting tour of Oregon.
3. Obama is going to be the nominee.
So, ask yourself, if you are a "super", did you ever think that you'd see the day when Bill Clinton would actively go out and campaign against the nominee of the Democratic Party.
By the time Oregon votes, there will not be enough elected delegates for Hillary to catch up, even if she gets ALL the remaining ones, including Oregon's! In other words, if Obama died just before Oregon votes, and she got everything, she still would be behind.
#3 is not an exaggeration. The math is here (and here). It's compelling. So far, I've seen nothing from any commentator or news organization to point out how that computation is completely incorrect.
As for #2, here they are:
Marc Aronchick, Clarence Avant, Susie Tompkins Buell, Sim Farar, Robert L. Johnson, Chris Korge, Marc and Cathy Lasry, Hassan Nemazee, Alan and Susan Patricof, JB Pritzker, Amy Rao,
Lynn de Rothschild, Haim Saban, Bernard Schwartz, Stanley S. Shuman, Jay Snyder, Maureen White and Steven Rattner
Like others, they simply need to do their grieving for HIllary's loss, so that the party can get on with it.What's on Roger Ailes Mind?
It's hard to guess what is in the mind of The Committee at FOX.
My best guess is that they expect that Obama would not have accepted if he were not ready for the "regular questions", the ones that everyone has been throwing in the past weeks.
Sensing also that the Reverend Wright story is about to blow-back up their noses, they are going to want to break new ground.
I'm sensing that they are going to play the abortion card, as strong as they can nail him on it, and a bunch of constitutional law or Terry-Shiavo-like "law" cases. I'm betting, at this stage, that Roger is still hoping to fire up the base, who are moving ahead without McCain, even, this cycle (LOL - it's true).
Wallace really, really likes National Security questions. They will press Obama on any AIPAC-related concerns, would be my guess, because McCain really, really likes the support he got in Florida and the GOP really likes Freedom's Watch dot org.
Update:
One real test will be whether they go after immigration. As many have remarked, that could be this cycle's "hot button" issue. My guess is still that they will go with abortion first, and bank the immigration questions.
McCain's Tax Return
McCAIN, TECHNICALLY DISABLED
Readers here have been through this.
Recap: He gets two, one from the Navy (tax-free) and one from Social Security.
Now get this.
The Navy one? It's a disability pension. Yup. The GOP nominee is collecting State dollars on disability ...
Before they boil all the Hope out of him ...
One last photo (I really like this one, for some reason):
The next nominee of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama, April, 2008.Given the math, a vote for Hillary is just a sentimental vote.
/f
Before and After
Gothca! (with our hooks)
Stabbed by his own Party
Wickerson Brothers
SuperDay+3: Logan's Run
Looking at the tables below, you see why dragging the race out is just like making Obama do Logan's Run.
To illustrate, with detail, why all that is left to decide is a margin of defeat for Hillary, start with a table of the upcoming races.
The table below has 411 pledged delegates remaining (the prior estimate has 408), good enough for government work.
Table 1. Remaining race prizes. Delegates breakout from Green Papers. "Supers" breakdown from the AP.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
For this projection, it is assumed that the candidate who wins the primary takes all the "supers" that have not already declared themselves. This "winner takes all" strategy is based on the loose assumption that "supers" could be pressured to vote in the manner of their constituencies, at least those who have not already put a public face against doing so by committing aloud.
The margins of victory I've just taken from Todd at MSNBC, except for Guam and Puerto Rico, where I just made something up. As before, this assumes that all FL and MI delegates, super and plain, get apportioned by her electoral margin in each state.
You can see that, to catch up, Hillary already needs a 35% spread among delegates to be won through (expensive) campaigning. This will jump to 71% in just 10 days. This is true, even if she ekes out a small margin of victory in Indiana.
All the way to the end of the race, Obama has room to spare.
Expanding the pool to her of all potential delegates to be garnered, both super and pledged, you can see that even big wins in KY, WV, and Puerto Rico do not help her, for the same reason - just a bigger piece of a pie that his shrinking faster than she is winning. At the end, she would need 56%, more than half, of the yet undeclared "supers". It seems unlikely, even in a fight, she would get that level of support from within the party, yes?
Update: Table 2 has been superseded. Find the first update here.
Table 2. A projections "winner takes all" of the remaining, undeclared "supers" along the way. If they win the race in the state, they get all the supers who have not declared as of today's AP tally. Starting point assumes Obama "gives" Clinton delegates in FL, MI in proportion to her vote in those states.
| Projection1: Winner takes all remaining State supers | Days | Margin Clinton over Obama | Clinton Net Pickup (Loss) Pledged | Clinton Net Pickup (Loss) Supers | Obama Lead / (Trail) | Clinton Must Do Margin All Left | Obama Pledged Lead / (Trail) | Clinton Must Do Margin Among Remaining Pledged |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | -3 days | 119 | 17% | 143 | 35% | |||
| Guam | 7 days | 2% | 0 | 3 | 116 | 17% | 143 | 35% |
| Indiana | 10 days | 2% | 1 | 1 | 114 | 19% | 142 | 43% |
| North Carolina | 10 days | -10% | -11 | -11 | 136 | 29% | 153 | 71% |
| West Virginia | 17 days | 20% | 6 | 6 | 124 | 29% | 147 | 78% |
| Kentucky | 24 days | 20% | 11 | 5 | 108 | 29% | 136 | 99% |
| Oregon | 24 days | -10% | -6 | -9 | 123 | 39% | 142 | shutout |
| Puerto Rico | 36 days | 20% | 11 | 2 | 110 | 44% | 131 | shutout |
| Montana | 38 days | -10% | -2 | -5 | 117 | 51% | 133 | shutout |
| South Dakota | 38 days | -10% | -1 | -2 | 120 | 56% | 134 | n.m. |
Voter Registration
AS finds the Obama campaign's voter registration drive "smart".
Suppose we imagine that "continuing the race" is beneficial to the party, on this oft-cited basis (once, including yours truly).
For each 1% rise in Obama's national negatives, how much does that cost him at the polls versus McCain?
In that way, we have a hard-numbers cost-benefit of this worn assertion.
SuperDay+3: Objective Math
Chris Bowers, who I like to read, has an interesting post on OpenLeft about delegate math. I decided to do some.
He has two tables. I'll start with one that is as close to consensus on where the race stands now and then do projections. There is no difference about "consensus" on the supers on his tables. I'll take the table that shows totals in Clinton's favor, among those pledged, to yield an estimate that ardent Clinton supporters would accept.
Table 1. Consensus tally of where the race stands now, base on Chris's sources and CNN breakdowns of number of delegates for FL, MI.
| Type | Total | Obama | Clinton | Lead/ (Trail) | Edwards | Remaining |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| To Date (consensus) | ||||||
| Pledged | 3408 | 1491 | 1336 | 155 | 18 | 408 |
| Super | 772 | 234 | 256 | -22 | 0 | 304 |
| Subtotal | 4180 | 1725 | 1592 | 133 | 18 | 712 |
| MI & FL | ||||||
| Pledged | ||||||
| MI | 128 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 128 |
| FL | 184 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 184 |
| Supers & Add-Ons | ||||||
| MI | 28 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 20 |
| FL | 26 | 4 | 8 | -4 | 0 | 14 |
PROJECTING CLINTON MUST-DO AND OBAMA BREAK-EVEN
Assume that Obama is generous, and "gives" Clinton seated delegates in proportion to the vote-spread she got in Florida and Michigan. She got 55% of the vote in Michigan and 50% in Florida, according to CNN.
Next, back-into a figure for the remaining elected/pledged delegates and remaining supers to get a "must do" and a "break-even" number for the campaigns.
You can see that Clinton needs to break 58% among all the remaining races and the bid to persuade the remaining supers. There is no precedent in the race that suggest she could achieve this. She is effectively shut out.
Table 2. Clinton's "must do" hurdle effectively shuts her out
| Must Do & Break Even Projection | Total | Obama | Clinton | Lead/ (Trail) | Edwards | Margin Obama | Margin Clinton |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pledged | 408 | 171 | 237 | -66 | 18 | 42% | 58% |
| Super | 304 | 128 | 176 | -48 | 42% | 58% | |
| MI | |||||||
| Pledged | 128 | 58 | 70 | -12 | 45% | 55% | |
| Super | 28 | 13 | 15 | -2 | 45% | 55% | |
| FL | |||||||
| Pledged | 184 | 92 | 92 | 0 | 50% | 50% | |
| Super | 26 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 50% | 50% | |
| GRAND TOTALS | 2200 | 2195 | 5 | 18 | |||
Put in your own numbers. Play around with it, pledged dreams and super wishes. It's pretty compelling.
John Edwards’s supporters are flocking to Sen. Obama
The GOP's Triple-twist, Double-Flip Dismount on Environmentalism
ONE OF THE BIGGEST POLITICAL FLIP-FLOPS IN 50 YEARS?
It's just stunning to see various GOP hacks and luminaries walking around and talking as if there were not 50 years of two-steps-short of
completely whoring the environment in their political legacy.
Could be at least even-odds that we are "too late" on global warming (the effects are cumulative and self-reinforcing and there is no known way to reverse them).
They seem oblivious to the realization that there is a non-zero probability that the GOP's past political choices will have fried the planet, no matter what their pandering on the issue today ...
And it is pandering. When they controlled all levers of government, they did nothing. Now, at the advent of a Democratic Administration, they join hands to ask Americans for "sacrifice" and "putting difference aside". How cheap-suit is that?
Stunning.
"Shut it down"
Wonder if there is the long-hand of the military behind this factoid this week:
"From FRONTLINE’s editors: The men in Bad Voodoo platoon are unable to provide any new video at this time. -April 23rd"
Bush Policy Has Radicalized Our Ally Israel
More of the Bush Administration's inability to generate more progress than backsliding:
On a related note, so many Democrats here are getting so tired of the Obama-Clinton battle that we almost forget the miserable state of progressives in other countries.
Pity the poor Israelis. The head of the Labor party (once the proud home of Yitzhak Rabin) is now led by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak who is, on matters of war and peace, well to the right of the incumbent Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In fact, Barak is doing everything he can to thwart Olmert's attempts to reach an agreement with Palestinian President Abbas.
In other words, we ought to consider ourselves lucky. There are worse things than choosing between Clinton and Obama. Ask any Israeli.
Quote for the Day : Hello To All That
The boomer wars are over?
"Bill Moyers is a hard-left sympathizer for anyone who dislikes America"
- Newt Gingrich, to O'Reilly, 4/25/08
Let's see if we cannot "enrich" the political dialog that is our inheritance of the Reagan Devolution, with a contemporary flair:
"Newt Gingrich is a lock-step right-radical whose unpostured ideas for change don't amount to more than flushing his toilet daily."
Rice - State Sponsor of Terror?
The right-wing rhetoric over Hamas has come absolutely unhinged, on the heels of Jimmy Carter's visit to see the unsavories in Gaza and Syria. Go Jimmy! (Vive la Resistance! as AS might say) Thy must be feeling vulnerable.
Here is Rice, back when:Rice, speaking to a pro-democracy forum, made the point in arguing that that the United States should not retreat from its advocacy of democracy abroad when elections do not turn out well from the US point of view. Referring to Hamas, Rice said, "I am not so sure that it is better to have these groups running the streets, masked, with guns rather than having them have to face voters and having to deliver."
....
She added that the international community should do more to convince Middle East groups that enter politics to give up terror.
- The Guardian, 11/06/06
McCAIN'S COMMENTS ABOUT HAMAS AND BARACK
So, what is McCain's attitude about Hamas? Has he simply repudiated the entire Bush policy, without even batting an eye?
MORE BACKGROUND
Keep reading. This Bush-era farce just gets more and more unreal.
"I've asked why nobody saw it coming," Ms. Rice said, speaking of her own staff. [Got that? It's the fault of the staff!] "It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse."
Immediately after the election, Bush administration officials said the results reflected a Palestinian desire for change and not necessarily an embrace of Hamas, which the United States, Israel and the European Union consider a terrorist organization sworn to Israel's destruction. But Ms. Rice's comments seemed to reflect a certain second-guessing over how the administration had failed to foresee, or factor into its thinking, the possibility of a Hamas victory.
Check out this tidbit. Whenever we read the name Elliot Abrams, aren't we free to assume the worse? Who the hell knows what happened (this doesn't particular fit with my recollection of events, but I sure don't feel confident):
Wurmser resigned his post in the vice-president's office in July 2007, only weeks after bloody clashes in Gaza between Hamas and Fatah that led to the Islamist organisation taking total control of the territory. "It looks to me that what happened wasn't so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen," he said.
-Guardian on plan (or actual plot?) to remove Hamas
The Bush administration plan sought to undo the results of elections in the West Bank and Gaza in January 2006 which, to the chagrin of White House and State Department officials, saw Hamas win a majority of seats in the Palestinian legislature.
The project was approved by Bush, Rice, and Elliott Abrams, the hawkish deputy national security adviser.-Guardian on plan (or actual plot?) to remove Hamas
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)