You wanted to know what the hell the DNC was thinking when it gave waivers to NV and FL and let IA and NH go early?  Here's a summary of the 2006 decision:

Some highlights of the 2008 Rules:

The Party recognizes the need early in the nominating process to broaden participation to reflect the Party’s rich racial, regional, and economic diversity by including 2 additional states. Twelve states applied to conduct early primaries and caucuses. We believe that shows the energy and excitement for opening up the process.

The addition of 2 states early in the process will also open up the dialogue to engage a broader range of people to talk about a wider variety of issues. This will enable the Democratic Party to choose the strongest candidate to be our Presidential nominee.

Translation:  It's time for states with significant non-white populations to matter for once.  In other words, boxed in by IA and NH first-in-nation laws, but wanting to address the unfairness of minimizing the meaning of states with hard-working Americans who might not be white, they picked two of a bunch of states that applied for waivers.

Under this reasoning, it makes sense to give anyone other than MI and FL an early vote.  MI, at least, has an overwhelmingly white population.  Florida certainly has a number of Hispanic voters, but it's another East Coast state, and the West is becoming increasingly important to Democratic hopes--at least as much as NH, which as gone red as often as not.

I don't expect a lot of recommends.  I'm just sayin' that just about everyone on TMP is missing a significant part of the point in the MI/FL fiasco.

On your marks...get set...and get loaded for bear!  Don’t you think it’s time to find something about McCain to object to other than his lobbying staffers and stupid posturing?  If so, the L.A. Times'  Edward Humes has some great talking points for you the next time your Republican neighbor or family member confronts you about Obama's support for the troops:

McCain's Attack on Vets

Humes starts off with a very detailed critique of McBush's opposition to the new bipartisan GI bill, which would have restored meaning to subsidized education for veterans.  However, although I often roll my eyes at long quotes, I'd like to highlight some great talking points, laid out with such clarity that even I am shameless enough to include this:

. . . . From 2004 to 2006, the Disabled Veterans of America gave him [McCain] annual scores ranging from 50% to the most recent 20% when it comes to supporting the group's legislative priorities. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave him a grade of "D" in its most recent analysis of voting records. The American Legion says he is dead wrong on the GI Bill, as does the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

When Obama (who has averaged an 86% rating from the Disabled Veterans of America) criticized McCain on the GI Bill, the Arizona senator angrily suggested that Obama's status as a non-veteran rendered his opinions on military matters worthless (an odd stance, as this standard would also discount the opinions of 85% of American men, 98.8% of American women and two-thirds of Congress). Then he invited a look at his own record by asserting, "I take a back seat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans."

So let's take McCain up on his invitation. Here is how he has stood on recent legislation supported by major veterans organizations:

* On Webb's GI Bill, he expressed opposition, and he was AWOL when it was time to vote on May 22.

* Last September, he voted against another Webb bill that would have mandated adequate rest for troops between combat deployments.

* On a badly needed $1.5-billion increase for veterans medical services for fiscal year 2007 -- to be funded through closing corporate tax loopholes -- he voted no. He also voted against establishing a trust fund to bolster under-budgeted veterans hospitals.

* In May 2006, he voted against a $20-billion allotment for expanding swamped veterans medical facilities.

* In April 2006, he was one of 13 Senate Republicans who voted against an amendment to provide $430 million for veterans outpatient care

* In March 2004, he voted against and helped defeat on a party-line vote a $1.8-billion reserve for veterans medical care, also funded by closing tax loopholes.

I love our troops.  I worry about them every single day.  Every death hits me, every story of PTSD, brain injury, mayhem and the ever-increasing suicides.  I don't for one minute think we're going to be able to ship them home tomorrow, but the fact that they are abused and neglected when they do return is outrageous. 

So this is the kind of thing I plan to keep on my computer desktop and feed to my family and friends, drop by savory drop.  Link to it, share it, recommend it, I don't care; I'm starting to get pretty excited about how thoroughly the Dems are going to pulverize this imposter.  I hope you guys start in on him too.

One question for ya'll, though: what are Hillary's ratings with the veterans' organizations?

    Forget, for a moment, how outraged, hurt, embarrassed, or whatever we are at Hillary’s latest statements.  What I’d like to talk about is the recklessness of her attacks on the very people whose support she needs the most: party elders in the DNC and the more timid elected superdelegates who're afraid to take any position that might offend either candidate's supporters.   Using the A-word, comparing the DNC to Mugabe and its rules to the disenfranchisement of women and blacks before suffrage--it’s as though she were running not against Obama, but against the Democratic Party.  You can only bite the hand that feeds you so many times before you get slapped on the muzzle.

  And so my thesis:  When the DNC decides that her continued hostility will alienate its base and simply withdraws its support for her continued campaign, she'll truly become irrelevant.  Hillary may be willing to swing wildly until August, but party leaders have got to be thinking that her escalating attacks on the DNC itself will endanger their prospects in the fall, and will take decisive action to freeze her out.   

    The uncommitted SDs are the very ones who need a DNC flush with cash to support their campaigns.  They want big coattails to ride on to get a super-majority that can enact a Democratic agenda and make right the mistakes of Bill Clinton's first term.  Clinton might have a long history with the party, but right now Obama's the hot ticket: a commanding lead in fundraising, resistant to scandal, and with a steady flow of supers into his camp.  

    So, does anyone else the party turning on the Clintons?  And if so, when and how?

I don't see this posted, but it looks like news to me:

Clinton Camp Considering Nuclear Option

Hillary Clinton's campaign has a secret weapon to build its delegate count, but her top strategists say privately that any attempt to deploy it would require a sharp (and by no means inevitable) shift in the political climate within Democratic circles by the end of this month.

With at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton, her backers could -- when the committee meets at the end of this month -- try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member Florida and 156-member Michigan delegations. Such a decision would give Clinton an estimated 55 or more delegates than Obama, according to Clinton campaign operatives. The Obama campaign has declined to give an estimate.

Not knowing anything about party mechanics, I'd never heard of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, or any hint that anything but the Credentials Committee could affect whether Michigan and Florida gets seated.

Of course, this is as explosive a strategy as taking the nomination from Obama in the credentials process. 

Hit recommend if you'd like this to stay on the list.  I'm being forced offline in a few minutes, so you guys are on your own until tonight.

Al Giordano has done it again.

For anyone who cares about the primary season.  If you can't click the link, here are Al's five maxims for all of us who indulge our despair.  The last two are pleas for donations to the Field, but I strongly urge everyone to send even a few dollars to each and every site you rely on in this mad season.  

The Field leans Obama-ward, but I think that this particular blog could be useful  for all of us.

<blockquote>1. Any time you cite a “national tracking poll” as supposed evidence of your candidate’s chances of victory disappearing, you must make 25 get-out-the-vote phone calls on that candidate’s behalf. (Don’t ask me how to do that: consult the web page of your candidate for instructions!)

2. Any time you fret aloud about your candidate losing an upcoming primary or caucus, and worry about alleged grave consequences (in the face of the facts that all remaining candidates have lost some contests and yet they march on), you must make 50 calls to voters in every state you mention.

3. Any time you complain aloud about what your candidate’s campaign or staff is not doing you must give at least $10 to that candidate, to make it possible for them to do more.

4. Any time you ask me what you ought to be doing you must give $10 to support the work of The Field.

5. If I take the time to provide you with an answer, you must raise $100 from your friends and neighbors to support this blog!</blockquote>

Facts on Clinton's "tax holiday" and why Obama knows better than to support it.

Pollster.com posted Zogby Interactive's new poll.  It's an online poll, which probably carries its own issues, and ran from April 25-28.  Pollster.com commenters have already come up with some critiques.  However, I figure today is reassure-the-poor-Obamite day, so what the hay.

Numbers, numbers, who’s got the numbers?  The Votemaster, that's who.  I confess to finding the digested information at the widely-discredited DailyKos.com, but they jive with my rough addition of the Votemaster's maps.  And the Votemaster doesn't lie.  I think.

Electoral-vote.com maintains daily maps showing general election matchups by state, rated by strong, weak and slight support for the Democratic ticket.  Apparently Hillary's folks have been touting these numbers as proof that Obama loses to McCain in the general. 

Clinton's version of E-V’s April 23rd maps:

Clinton v McCain:
McCain: 239
Clinton: 289
Ties: 10

Obama v McCain:
McCain: 254
Obama: 269
Ties: 15

E-V’s rated breakdown for the same map:

                        Obama  Clinton

Strong Dem         67        74
Weak Dem         144        98
Barely Dem         58     117
Tied                    15      10
Barely GOP         76      13
Weak GOP          44      89
Strong GOP       134     137

Basically, the Clinton camp provides us with unweighted totals.  But Clinton doesn’t look nearly as great when you break the numbers down.  She does indeed have more strong Democratic support.  But if you add strong and weak, it’s 172 Clinton vs. 211 Obama.  Worse, 117 of Clinton's electors are in barely-Dem states, vs. 58 for Obama.  

Now, I know DailyKos has fallen hopelessly in love with Obama, but the Votemaster's numbers seem to reflect the range of current polls reported on TPM, and you can add up the electors yourself if you think Kos is lying. 

Hit 'recommend' if you find this interesting, and then hack away at will.  I know my avatar is ugly, but I'm not.  Really.

   http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_v_mccain_and_v_clinton_b.php

Superchimp posted this link.  I haven't read pollster's blog yet, and so I don't even know if Margie Omero says the results support my candidate.  But the whole "Clinton will win the GE because she will beat Obama in Pennsylvania" thing has been driving me batshit crazy, so I don't even care.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm Obamic.  It's a long way from hear to November, but these are the numbers we need to track, folks.