Cross-posted at Daily Kos

Now, there are a lot of Hillary supporters out there calling the exclusion of Florida and Michigan from the Democratic primary “disenfranchisement.” These Hillary supporters are saying they won’t vote for Barack Obama because he’s disenfranchising millions of voters. They say their opposition has nothing to do with what’s best for Hillary Clinton, that they’re taking a principled stand against voter disenfranchisement.

Alright, so I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say you are taking a principled stand against voter disenfranchisement. Let’s say this has nothing to do with your support for Hillary. Then I have some questions for you, like…

Where were you when the rules were being set?

The rules governing the primary were set by the Democratic National Committee nearly in August of 2006. Those rules said only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada could vote before February 5th; any state that voted before then would be stripped of their delegation.

Thus, the potential for millions of Democratic voters to be disenfranchised was written into the 2008 primary back in ‘06.

So, where were you guys then? If voter disenfranchisement is such a big issue to you, why weren’t you opposing the proposed rules back then? Why weren’t you doing anything back when this could have made a difference?

That brings us to…

Where were you when the states were rescheduling their primaries?

It was well known that any state holding a primary before February 5th would be stripped of its delegation. Yet, knowing this, the governments of Michigan and Florida went ahead and voted to break the rules. By changing the dates of their primaries, MI and FL’s governments disenfranchised their own voters.

So where were you guys then? Why weren’t you opposing the proposals to reschedule those states’ primaries? If this is about taking a principled stand against voter disenfranchisement, why didn’t you take action months ago when this all started?

Also,

What about Terry?

In 2004, Michigan wanted to break that year’s rules and hold their primary early. At the time, the Chairman of the DNC threatened to strip MI of their delegation if they went through with their plan. This is from the DNC Chairman’s book:

“You won’t deny us seats at the convention,” [Michigan Senator Carl Levin] said.

“Carl, take it to the bank,” I said. “They will not get a credential. The closest they’ll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it.”

[Emphasis Added]

The DNC Chairman in 2004 was Terry McAuliffe. Where’s McAuliffe now?

He’s the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign.

If Hillary is taking a principled stand against voter disenfranchisement, why is McAuliffe the chair of her campaign? Why hasn’t she fired him for his pro-disenfranchisement views? Why haven’t you, her supporters, demanded McAuliffe be fired from the campaign? Where’s the consistency?

If it’s disenfranchisement now, it would have been disenfranchisement then. If you can’t support Obama because he’s not doing enough about voter disenfranchisement, then how can you support Hillary after she appointed pro-disenfranchisement McAuliffe to her campaign?

That brings us to…

What about Jenny?

Jennifer Granholm is the Governor of Michigan. She signed the law that moved Michigan’s primary before February 5th. With a stroke of her pen, Granholm disenfranchised millions of MI voters; had she acted differently back then, millions of Michigan voters wouldn’t be disenfranchised.

Granholm is also a Hillary supporter. If this issue is about taking a principled stand against voter disenfranchisement, why hasn’t Hillary rejected and denounced Granholm? Why haven’t you all called on her to do so? Why have you allowed Hillary to benefit from the support of someone who single-handedly disenfranchised millions of voters?

Misplaced Anger

A lot of you are blaming Barack Obama for this situation. But how? Obama didn’t set the rules. Obama isn’t in charge of enforce the rules. Obama didn’t move Michigan and Florida’s primaries up. Obama had nothing to do with these decisions. He might be benefiting from the situation, but he’s not responsible for it.

If you’re going to place blame, blame the DNC. Blame Howard Dean. Blame Jennifer Granholm and Charlie Crist. Blame MI and FL’s legislatures. There are dozens of people you can blame for this situation, but Obama isn’t one of them.

So let’s not delude ourselves into thinking he’s somehow responsible for this mess that we’re in. And while we’re not deluding ourselves…

Stop the Spin

Let’s be honest. The fight over Michigan and Florida isn’t about taking a stand against voter disenfranchisement. It never was. This is a political ploy by the Clinton campaign to get more delegates. Want proof? When asked why she didn’t take her name off of MI’s ballot, even though every other candidate did so, Clinton said it was because Michigan “is not going to count for anything.”

That’s right— Hillary Clinton didn’t take her name off of MI’s ballot because she said MI wouldn’t matter. She accepted and acknowledged that MI wouldn’t play a role in the nominating process because they broke the rules.

Want more proof? Here’s a statement from the Hillary campaign, released September 1, 2007:

“We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.”

It was only after Obama started winning that Clinton made FL and MI an issue. This was clearly a political decision. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making political decisions—all politicians make political decisions. But let’s stop pretending this is about voter disenfranchisement, because it’s not— it’s about giving Hillary a better shot at the nomination.

The very day Clinton sent a letter to Obama criticizing him for not doing more to seat MI and FL, she rejected a plan to seat MI’s delegation. Why? Because it wasn’t politically advantageous enough for her. This isn’t about giving MI or FL a voice— it’s about whatever works best for Hillary Clinton.

It’s About Integrity, Stupid!

So you say you can’t vote for Barack Obama because he’s disenfranchising millions of voters (even though he’s not really responsible for that).

Well, then I say I can’t vote for Hillary Clinton because of her lack of integrity.

The DNC makes the rules for the primaries. You might not like the rules— I certainly don’t, I think Iowa and New Hampshire have too much influence and I support overhauling the entire primary system— but you have to follow them. That’s the price of trying to be the Democratic nominee— you have to follow the Democratic Party’s rules.

We just had eight years of a President who freely broke the rules. We spent eight years suffering under a President who ignored any rule he didn’t like. Yet now we have Democrats supporting a Democratic candidate who’s also trying to break the rules when it’s convenient to do so.

That doesn’t bode well for a Hillary Clinton administration— America is a nation of rules, and Clinton’s attempt to break the rules for the sake of politics speaks volumes about her lack of integrity.

So you might not like Obama. You might not want to vote for him. That’s your decision to make, and you have the right to make it. But don’t feed us this garbage about Barack Obama “disenfranchising” Michigan and Florida, because that’s nothing but spin. And for people who are supposed to be part of the reality-based community, I expect better from you.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos.

First, a disclaimer: Eliot Spitzer deserved what he got. He broke the law by soliciting high-priced prostitutes. He hurt his wife and his family with his infidelity. Most of all, he was a hypocrite–cultivating a clean image by going after the corruption of others and hiding his own. It bothers me that Eliot Spitzer had to resign while another prostitute-loving hypocrite–David Vitter–gets to stay in office, but I prefer the double standard remain intact and Spitzer resign.

With that said, there’s something fishy about how Governor Spitzer was caught. The problem wasn’t that he got caught–he deserved that, and more–but that the way in which he got caught was extremely unusual; in involved numerous exceptions-to-the-rule.

This started as an IRS investigation of Spitzer’s finances. Legally, financial transactions of $10,000 or more will automatically trigger federal scrutiny. In order to avoid that scrutiny, Spitzer paid the prostitution ring with a series of smaller transactions. The problem here was that paying someone a series of small transactions to avoid triggering a federal investigation is illegal; it’s called ’structuring.’ Spitzer’s shady transactions tipped off at least one bank–Capitol One–who in turn tipped off the IRS. So this began with Capitol One flagging Spitzer’s finances to the IRS; that’s sensible enough in and of itself.

But why did the IRS to for the DOJ? How did this turn into an FBI sting operation? We’ve been told that the feds looked at Spitzer’s finances and suspected there was bribery going on, which lead them to start a wiretap on the Governor. But that charge doesn’t make sense–Spitzer is the heir to a large family fortune, so there’s no reason for him to take bribes, particularly bribes of such small amounts. Why would a millionaire take bribes of a few thousand dollars? Plus, what raised suspicion was money moving out of Spitzer’s accounts, not into them–that means they couldn’t have suspected him of taking bribes. Did they suspect him of making bribes? To who? He’s the Governor of New York; who would he need to bribe?

So, we don’t know why the inquiry went from the IRS to the DOJ. What we do know is that once the investigation began, the feds found out that Spitzer was involved in a prostitution ring. Now, in most jurisdictions the solicitation of a prostitute is a misdemeanor; these cases are almost always prosecuted on the state level, since they’re seen as relatively minor crimes. Yet, the FBI and DOJ set up a sting to catch Spitzer in the act; only after he was caught did this story leak to the press.

This just doesn’t make sense.

Paul Campos does some digging, and he comes to the same conclusions:

Be that as it may, it’s far more probable that what happened was something like this: An IRS office is tipped off by officials at various banks that Spitzer is depositing a few thousand dollars in different accounts within a day or two. Realizing it has a potential political tiger by the tail, the IRS then contacts the Department of Justice and the FBI.

At the DOJ, the Public Integrity Section launches an investigation. This unit itself has come under intense criticism during the Bush administration for investigating nearly six times more Democratic politicians than Republicans. Furthermore, many of the section’s investigations have seemed timed to coincide with elections and the like.

With a little digging, the feds soon establish that Spitzer is seeing high-priced call girls. This is a petty misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, but the DOJ goes ahead and constructs an elaborate and costly sting operation, for the express purpose of catching one of the country’s most powerful Democratic politicians committing a petty crime.

In the course of the sting, Spitzer makes a really big mistake: He pays a call girl to travel from New York to Washington. This puts him in technical violation of an 85-year-old federal law, the Mann Act, which has a long history of being used for politically motivated prosecutions of the worst sort, such as those of the boxer Jack Johnson and movie legend Charlie Chaplin.

Only then is the existence of the investigation leaked to the media.

[Emphasis Added]

The Wall Street Journal also picked up on the idiosyncracies in this case:

It isn’t clear why the FBI sought the wiretap warrant. Federal prostitution probes are exceedingly rare, lawyers say, except in cases involving organized-crime leaders or child abuse. Federal wiretaps are seldom used to make these cases; search warrants usually suffice. Wiretap applications generally are reserved for serious crimes, such as drug, weapons and terrorism-related cases. There typically are no more than 1,400 wiretaps in use nationwide at any given time.

[Emphasis Added]

Remember, the DOJ is controlled by Republicans. And Spitzer was a thorn in the side of a lot of conservatives–not just corrupt politicians, but wealthy interests like CEOs, corporate executives and Wall Street financiers. In short, a lot of wealthy, well-connected conservatives had a high stake in taking Spitzer down.

And politically-motivated prosecutions are nothing new to the Bush DOJ; remember Don Siegelman, who was knocked out of the Governorship of Alabama because of a politically-motivated ethics investigation triggered by Karl Rove. And remember that a key part of the U.S. Attorneys Scandal was that many of the attorneys were fired for not aggresively prosecuting Democrats enough.

Simply put, this case leaves a lot of questions unanswered–why did the IRS turn the case over to the DOJ? Why did the federal government devote so much time, effort and money to investigating Spitzer? Why did they use a wiretap instead of a search warrant? And once they figured out he was involved with prostitution, why did they set up a sting instead of allowing the state to prosecute this, as they normally do? Why were there so many exceptions made in this one case?

Someone needs to answer for this. Because if any part of the investigation into Spitzer was politically motivated, then someone at the DOJ deserves to be punished just as much as Spitzer does.

UPDATE: The New York Times has more on this:

Bradley D. Simon, a veteran Justice Department trial lawyer who was federal prosecutor in Brooklyn throughout the 1990s, said that although it was rare for the department to use so many resources on the workings of a prostitution ring, the involvement of such a high-level politician must change the equation.

“If they’ve got some evidence of a high-ranking public official involved in violations of federal criminal code, it may not be unreasonable for them to pursue it,” he said. Still, he said, “I don’t think prostitution has been a high priority at the Justice Department.”

[...]

In defending their handling of the case, officials said that in the end, investigators chose to monitor his conduct but made no effort to set up a sting, or an arranged situation in which Mr. Spitzer might implicate himself. They did not surreptitiously record his activities inside the hotel or seek to obtain DNA evidence. It was not necessary, as Mr. Spitzer proved to be easy prey, according to the affidavit, which was signed by an F.B.I. agent.

It indicated that on Feb. 13 federal agents staked out his hotel in Washington, and it contained recorded conversations that amply demonstrated that he willingly had a sexual encounter with a prostitute. Afterward she was recorded on a wiretap telling an Emperor’s Club employee: “I don’t think he’s difficult. I mean it’s kind of like, whatever.”

On March 10, when Mr. Spitzer was first identified by name by The New York Times on its Web site, the affidavit was widely used by news organizations to describe graphic details about his conduct.

Several current and former federal prosecutors and prominent defense lawyers who reviewed the document said the inclusion of such salacious details about Mr. Spitzer’s encounter with the prostitute went far beyond what was necessary to provide probable cause for the arrests and for searches, the purpose of the affidavit.

The government has not accused Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat, of any wrongdoing

[...]

Mr. Simon said it was unusual for the department to bring criminal charges in a prostitution case in which there was no allegation of the exploitation of children, human trafficking or some far more serious crime.

He said that in his eight years in the Brooklyn office in the 1990s, he could not recall a single major criminal case that centered on prostitution charges. “There were a lot of serious crimes — organized crime, narcotics cases, major financial crime investigations,” he said in an interview. “Prostitution was not a high priority.”

Law enforcement officials said the F.B.I. has about 450 active prostitution cases under investigation, almost all involving enterprises and some using techniques like wiretapping. In addition, since 2005, the F.B.I. has led an initiative known as Innocence Lost, which investigates prostitution involving underage women.

Justice Department officials insist that it has a strong record of breaking up large prostitution rings around the country, but many of the cases they cite involve case brought several years ago, especially before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks; after that, the department vowed to focus its attention on national security threats.

And for years, they acknowledge, the department has rarely, if ever, prosecuted or even identified the clients of a prostitution ring.

UPDATE II: TPM brings us this piece from McClatchy:

Almost four months before Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned in a sex scandal, a lawyer for Republican political operative Roger Stone sent a letter to the FBI alleging that Spitzer ”used the services of high-priced call girls” while in Florida.

The letter, dated Nov. 19, said Miami Beach resident Stone learned the information from ”a social contact in an adult-themed club.” It offered one potentially identifying detail: The man in question hadn’t taken off his calf-length black socks “during the sex act.”

Stone, known for shutting down the 2000 presidential election recount effort in Miami-Dade County, is a longtime Spitzer nemesis whose political experience ranges from the Nixon White House to Al Sharpton’s presidential campaign. His lawyer wrote the letter containing the call-girl allegations after FBI agents had asked to speak to Stone, though he says the FBI did not specify why he was contacted.

There’s something incredibly suspicious about the investigation into Eliot Spitzer. With so many exceptions to the rule–along with the Bush administration’s history of politicizing the Department of Justice–this definitely warrants further investigation.

How can we get that to happen?

Easy–contact Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and demand an investigation into the DOJ’s takedown of Eliot Spitzer:

In Washington, D.C.
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-3976 (phone)
(202) 225-4099 (fax)

Eliot Spitzer resigns as the Governor of New York:

“I am deeply sorry that I did not live up to what was expected of me,” he said in a brief news conference announcing his intention to resign, effective Monday. “I will try once again outside of politics to serve the common good.”

With his wife, Silda, at his side, he added, “Our greatest glory consists not in never falling but in rising every time we fall.”

The announcement came as the New York governor faces allegations — but no charges — that he is tied to an international prostitution ring ensnared in a federal probe.

[...]

U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia in New York issued a statement saying, “There is no agreement between this office and Gov. Eliot Spitzer relating to his resignation or any other matter.”

Lieutenant Governor David Paterson will take over, making him the first African-American Governor of New York and the 4th African-American Governor in American history.  More on Governor-to-be Paterson:

“Like all New Yorkers, I am saddened by what we have learned over the past several days,” Paterson, 53, said Wednesday in a statement issued by his office.

“On a personal level, Gov. Spitzer and Silda have been close and steadfast friends. As an elected official the governor has worked hard for the people of New York.

“My heart goes out to him and to his family at this difficult and painful time,” the statement continued. “I ask all New Yorkers to join Michelle and me in prayer for them.

“It is now time for Albany to get back to work as the people of this state expect from us.”

[...]

“The public is hoping for that replacement to redeem the office and to redeem their faith in elected officials in general. So David Paterson, in a sense, walks into a great opportunity,” said Steve Kornacki of the New York Observer.

Paterson is legally blind, and although documentation is scarce, it is widely believed that he will be the nation’s first blind governor when he takes office Monday.

Unfortunately, Republican Joe Bruno, the Majority Leader of the New York State Senate, will take over as Lieutenant Governor.  Bruno is a partisan hack, a right-wing Republican who has blocked progressive reforms like gay marriage  and campaign finance reform, while pushing for greater use of the death penalty and for anti-choice parental notification laws.  Now he’ll be able to bring his brand of extremist, obstructive conservatism to Albany, where he’s sure to do all in his power to trip-up David Paterson.

It’s a sad time for my home state of New York. Hopefully we’ll be able to move past this scandal; hopefully Paterson will continue the reformist spirit Spitzer had before his fall from grace; and hopefully New York Democrats will be able to limit the damage Joe Bruno is hoping to do to our great state.

The New York Times thinks so:

Top aides to Gov. Eliot Spitzer said Tuesday morning that they expect the governor to resign his office, although the timing of the resignation remains uncertain.

Lt. Gov. David A. Paterson and his staff have begun laying the groundwork for him to take over as governor and are reaching out to members of the Legislature, the aides said.

[...]

As the governor pondered his decision, Assemblyman James Tedisco, a Republican and the Assembly minority leader, said he would begin moving to have Mr. Spitzer impeached if the governor did not step down within 48 hours.

[...]

Mr. Spitzer has not been charged with a crime. But one law enforcement official who has been briefed on the case said that Mr. Spitzer’s lawyers would probably meet soon with federal prosecutors to discuss any possible legal exposure. The official said the discussions were likely to focus not on prostitution, but on how it was paid for: Whether the payments from Mr. Spitzer to the service were made in a way to conceal their purpose and source. That could amount to a crime called structuring, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.

We’ve been hearing rumors about Spitzer’s resignation since the story broke yesterday, but so far nothing has happened. It’s likely that Spitzer is using his office to bargain for a more lenient penalty, offering the prospect of resignation as part of his punishment.

While he hasn’t yet been indicted, it’s possible that he will be–not for hiring or transporting prostitutes, but for structuring his payments to the prostitutes in a way designed to avoid federal scrutiny of his expenses.

Once again, I can’t help but make the comparison to David Vitter–both men contradicted their clean public images by cavorting with prostitutes; the only difference is that Spitzer’s cost more. The double standard is a major issue here–the GOP (and, to some extent, the media) turned the other way when David Vitter got caught with prostitutes and shrugged it off, yet they’re going into an apolopectic rage and threatening impeachment when Spitzer does the same thing. And while I think stepping down is the right thing for Spitzer (and Vitter) to do, the double standard still bothers me a lot.

More as it comes…

UPDATE: CNN brings us this headline:

A top legislative staffer says N.Y. Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who is linked to a prostitution ring, is holding transition meetings

UPDATE II: Congresswoman Kirsten Gilibrand, a freshman Democrat from upstate New York, has released the following statement:

“This is very grave and sad news. My heart goes out to the governor’s family…if these serious allegations are true, the governor will have no choice but to resign.”

Gilibrand campaigned with Spitzer in 2006.

Breaking, from The New York Times:

Gov. Eliot Spitzer has informed his most senior administration officials that he had been involved in a prostitution ring, an administration official said this morning.

Mr. Spitzer, who was huddled with his top aides early this afternoon, had hours earlier abruptly canceled his scheduled public events for the day. He is set to make an announcement about 2:15 this afternoon at his Manhattan office.

I was an early fan of Eliot Spitzer, who made a name for himself as New York’s Attorney General, protecting New York’s citizens by going after corporate corruption. As the Bush administration weakened regulatory policies and refused to go after corrupt corporations, Spitzer took it upon himself to enforce the law and protect consumers.

I gladly voted for Spitzer in 2006; I had faith he would do a great job as Governor, cleaning up corruption, protecting regular people from corporate & government abuses, and finally ending the massive legislative logjam in Albany.

A press conference is coming soon; I’ll bring you it as it comes…

UPDATE: Spitzer endorsed Hillary Clinton for President back in May; I would imagine that she will release a statement on this and, in all likelihood, renounce his endorsement.

UPDATE II: New York’s Lieutenant Governor is David Paterson, the former NY Senate Minority Leader. He’s New York’s first African-American Lieutenant Governor; he is also legally blind.

UPDATE III: I wonder if the media is going to treat Eliot Spitzer the same way they treated David Vitter.

In light of the news that Republican Senator David Vitter was involved in the D.C. Madam prostitution scandal, the media treated him with kid gloves. Vitter said that he made peace with God and his wife–never admitting that he did anything wrong, despite the evidence–and right went back to the Senate. That scandal hasn’t hurt his standing in Louisiana or among the GOP–despite the fact that his behavior contradicted his ‘family values’ image. In addition, neither the media nor the GOP rally called for him to step down, despite his hypocritical law-breaking.

In light of this, will the media treat Spitzer the same way? Will they allow him to shrug off his involvement and go back to doing his job? Or will this be another case of the media holding Democrats to a higher standard than Republicans?

We’ll have to see…

UPDATE IV: Here’s Spitzer’s public statement from earlier today:

I have acted in a way that violated the obligations to my family and that violates my — or any — sense of right and wrong. I apologize first, and most importantly, to my family. I apologize to the public, whom I promised better. I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals. It is about ideas, the public good and doing what is best for the State of New York. But I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard that I expect of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family. I will not be taking questions. Thank you very much. I will report back to you in short order. Thank you very much.

Nothing about resignation; he’s probably going to wait to see what the political fallout is before making a decision for sure.

UPDATE V: More on the investigation that snared Spitzer:

According to an affidavit by an FBI agent filed for a search warrant in the case the investigation, led by the FBI and IRS criminal investigators, began in October of last year and focused on the ring itself for prostitution and money laundering charges. The Emperors Club ring allegedly used more than 50 prostitutes and set up dates all over the country and international cities like London and Paris, and had more than $1 million in proceeds through its front company, called QAT.

The feds intercepted more than 5,000 telephone calls and text messages used by the company’s alleged managers and 6,000 emails in the course of their investigation. The wiretaps lasted from January 8th through February 7th, when it expired, and then were renewed on Februrary 11th. As you can see from the excerpt from the affidavit posted below, investigators intercepted calls involving “Client 9,” who is reportedly Spitzer, starting on February 12th and into February 13th.

And more about what triggered the investigation to begin with:

The federal investigation of a New York prostitution ring was triggered by Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s suspicious money transfers, initially leading agents to believe Spitzer was hiding bribes, according to federal officials.It was only months later that the IRS and the FBI determined that Spitzer wasn’t hiding bribes but payments to a company called QAT, what prosecutors say is a prostitution operation operating under the name of the Emperors Club. …

The suspicious financial activity was initially reported by a bank to the IRS which, under direction from the Justice Department, brought in the FBI’s Public Corruption Squad.

“We had no interest at all in the prostitution ring until the thing with Spitzer led us to learn about it,” said one Justice Department official.

The ABC report goes on to say that Spitzer will be charged with structuring, according to its source. If I’m remembering my white collar crime law correctly, structuring is basically trying to avoid triggering the federal reporting requirement for any cash transaction that exceeds $10,000. So a series of $9,000 payments to the same person in a short period of time would raise suspicions, for example.

And Hillary Clinton says she’s going to wait and see before she does anything about Spitzer’s endorsement of her:

When asked whether Gov. Spitzer could survive politically she said “let’s wait and see what comes out of the next few days. Right now I don’t have any comment. I think it’s appropriate to wish his family well and see how things develop.”

UPDATE VI: To be fair in the Vitter-Spitzer comparison, Spitzer is facing an indictment, whereas Vitter was never indicted for his conduct.

Of course, Vitter and Spitzer’s offenses are nearly identical, in that they contradicted their clean, moral public image by cavorting with prostitutes.  Spitzer’s indictment is related solely to how he paid for the prostitutes–he paid for them through a series of smaller payments in order to avoid triggering federal scrutiny of his finances, which is in and of itself illegal.

The indictment could prove to be a sticking point, but the fact remains that Spitzer and Vitter both contradicted their clean public images by hiring prostitutes on the side.

[Bumped]

The polls have closed in Texas, Ohio and Vermont. In TX, those who voted in the primary are now taking part in a caucus–Texas’ system chooses some of the delegates through a primary and the rest through a caucus.

Results via TPM, 8:35 PM EST:

___________________________________________

Obama is currently the projected winner of the Vermont primary.

UPDATE II: McCain is currently the projected winner of the Vermont primary.

And there’s some heartening news, via Daily Kos:

According to CNN, the McCain campaign is all excited that if they can close the deal tonight, that Bush will endorse him tomorrow.

They’re excited about it.

So am I.

The image of George Bush and John McCain on the stage together will come up over and over again in this campaign. Bush was the man who took the Republicans from a permanent majority to a sold minority; he was the man who took our country from years of peace and prosperity to years of war and impoverishment.

If John McCain wants to be associated with the failed Bush legacy, let him. It just proves that John McCain hopes to act as Bush’s third term.

UPDATE III: Results via TPM, 8:48 PM EST:

__________________________________________

Hotline On Call is reporting that Mike Huckabee is planning to drop out tomorrow:

A Huckabee senior aide tells NBC/National Journal that Mike Huckabee tonight will congratulate John McCain and will be in touch with the McCain campaign tomorrow from Little Rock to coordinate a concession.

“The handwriting is on the wall,” the aide said, and indicated that was the plan whether or not McCain officially reaches 1,191 delegates tonight.

The aide said that Huckabee wants to have contact with McCain tomorrow in Little Rock before deciding what next to do.

UPDATE IV: ALERT: CNN is reporting that Barack Obama has filed a lawsuit to keep 15 polling stations open in Ohio until 9:00 PM. A federal judge complied with this order, citing factors such as the weather as significant impediments to voting. More as it comes…

UPDATE V: CNN has just projected that John McCain has won Texas and Ohio, thus winning him the Republican Presidential Nomination.

It was a nearly-unthinkable outcome months ago: the McCain campaign, who went from being the front-runner to being near the rear of the pack, ended up coming out on top.

Of course, McCain was chosen because none of the other candidates were palatable; make no mistake, tonight he becomes the GOP nominee by default.

And now he inherits a ton of troubles: McCain inherits a fractured GOP, parts of which have refused to support his candidacy; he inherits the Bush legacy; he inherits a campaign run by special-interest lobbyists; he inherits more than disappointing fundraising. In short, McCain has a lot to overcome, and I’m not sure if he’ll be able to do it before November.

UPDATE VI: Results via TPM, 9:10 PM EST:

_________________________________________

UPDATE VII: CNN has confirmed with campaign manager Ed Rollins that Huckabee will drop out tomorrow. We are awaiting a concession speech from Governor Huckabee.

UPDATE VIII: Results via TPM, 9:32 PM EST:

__________________________________________

Networks are projecting that Hillary Clinton has won Rhode Island, breaking Obama’s 12-win streak but not surprising anyone, considering the polls.

UPDATE IX: Results via TPM, 9:49 PM EST:

__________________________________________

McCain is currently addressing supporters in Dallas.

UPDATE X: McCain’s speech is long and drawn out, laced with a slew of right-wing talking points and warmed-over Republican rhetoric. He’s advocating for unpopular policies (like the war in Iraq) and comes off as angry and tired.

If this is the best McCain has to offer–tired talking points and empty talk about ‘principles’ (despite McCain’s penchant for lobbyists)–McCain is going to have a lot of work to do.

UPDATE XI: Results via TPM, 10:12 PM EST:

________________________________________

UPDATE XII: Results via TPM, 10:24 PM EST:

__________________________________________

CNN’s John King is reporting that, even though Clinton has a large lead in Ohio, Obama’s strongholds haven’t begun to report in yet.

Keep in mind, Obama filed a lawsuit to keep 15 voting sites open until 10:00 EST, meaning much of his stronghold’s polls closed not too long ago.

UPDATE XIII: Results via TPM, 10:51 PM EST:

________________________________________

Many of Obama’s Ohio strongholds are still outstanding. And on Texas, there’s this from Marc Ambinder:

Many of the early vote “precincts” in Texas have largely been counted, and the election day precincts are beginning to allow Hillary Clinton to close the margin with Barack Obama. But a lot of the bigger counties haven’t counted their early votes yet, so the margin could widen in Obama’s favor again.

CNN and MSNBC are projecting that Hillary Clinton will win Ohio.

UPDATE XIV: Results via TPM, 11:05 PM EST:

____________________________________________

UPDATE XV: Texas is tightening up again; Clinton is now only up by 20,000 votes.

Clinton is addressing supporters in Columbus. The thrust of her message: We were down and out, but we got up and came back, and we’ll continue to fight.

UPDATE XVI: Nearly half of the precincts have reported in the Texas primary; we haven’t gotten any of the results of the caucus yet.

As it stands now, Clinton has a razor-thin 2% lead, with 30,000 more votes than Obama, out of 1.83 million already tabulated.

UPDATE XVII: Obama is addressing supporters in San Antonio. The thrust of his speech: We still have the same lead we had before. It’s time to turn the page of history; it’s time to work together and look out for one another; it’s time to band together for the good of this country. You can’t call this hope empty, and we won’t stand for the politics of division anymore.

FINAL UPDATE: It all comes down to Texas. With 55% reporting, Clinton has 50% and Obama has 48%. She’s leading by 50,000 out of nearly 1.98 million cast. And that’s to say nothing of the Texas caucus, which we haven’t heard anything about yet.

In addition, be sure to keep the margin of victory in Ohio in mind–Obama’s strongholds are still mostly out, and even though they may not overcome Clinton’s lead, it may eliminate any delegate advantage she may have there.

I’ll bring you more on the results tomorrow, if they’re known. As I said before, even if Clinton wins tonight, she’ll still be behind by about 150 pledged delegates, a deficit she will be hard-pressed to overcome no matter what.

FINAL UPDATE II: I found this excellent diary on Daily Kos, and had to share; the author crunches some numbers and finds that, no matter what, Clinton can’t make up her current deficit in pledged delegates:

 Below, you can see that she can only get to 92 delegates behind even if she wins in every single district and state by 16.5%.  And this is an important principle to clearly understand in the post-Mar 4 period.

[...]

I ran the numbers for winning all 82 races (70 CDs + Guam + the 11 statewide splits) by a whopping 24.9%.  Her gain?  Only 110 delegates.  Obama still leads by 50.

In other words, even if she wins every remaining district in this race by a whopping 24.9% margin, she’ll still be a full 50 delegates behind Obama.

As I said, tonight doesn’t matter; in terms of the pledged delegate count, this race is over.

9:16 PM EST: Opens with a baseball analogy: says he didn’t want to hit a grand slam in the bottom of the ninth to win a game or the World Series; instead, he wants his last play at bat to hit an easy shot to the second baseman and get tagged out; he wants to go out running as hard as he could.

9:17 PM EST: Called the McCain campaign, offered congratulations and wants to unite his party and his nation for future generations. McCain has run an honorable campaign because he is an honorable man; the two campaigns that have been most civil have been the Republican campaigns.

9:18 PM EST: We must unite on the principles that have brought many to this race and politics in general. He thanks his wife, who has been through so much and was a fantastic first lady of Arkansas.

9:20 PM EST: Thanking his family, staff and supporters for rolling up their sleeves and working hard; jokes that he has the smallest staff of anyone running for President. Nobody has gotten as far with such limited resources, but his staff worked as if they were each four people.

9:21 PM EST: He says he’s also mindful that the real story of the campaign is in the faces of the people there in the audience and of the people who never made it into the news, but who were the backbone of the campaign. He gives a quote about fighting the good fight and finishing the race; he would have liked to finish first, but he stayed in and kept the faith. Would rather lose than lose the principles he believes in [a dig at McCain?]

9:22 PM EST: We started with little recognition and few resources; finished with slightly more recognition and few resources. Quotes from Isiah; I know the Earth from which I come. Talking about his family and his background, trouble making ends meet, his father and mother, parents who wanted their kids to have a better life. They couldn’t imagine that better life would involve running for President.

9:23 PM EST: Though the establishment didn’t feel I belong, my followers did. There were people in the campaign who gave me a voice; he’s citing stories of various people who helped and donated to his campaign.

9:25 PM EST: Says his campaign was for the unborn children, the soldiers, the workers, the conservatives who want less government and more efficient government, for the people who believe we need to implement the [completely unworkable and gimmicky] FairTax.

9:26 PM EST: We’ve stood at rallies and I looked into the faces of amazing people who love their country and families and work hard and worship God, even though it would be easier for them to keep their time and money to themselves. We’ll go home tonight and hopefully bring our team together. We’re going to help McCain and everyone running for House and Senate.

9:27 PM EST: There are many battles we have to win for our country. Sometimes we have to hit the reset button–gives an [awkward] computer analogy. We’re not going away–we’re keeping the issues alive we believe in. Many thought we wouldn’t make it to March 07, let alone March 08. Neither his wife nor him can give thanks enough, so hopefully they can thank their volunteers through their work.

9:28 PM EST: Until our country is everything we want it to be, we can’t walk away. He’s making a historical reference to the Alamo; “victory or death.” Tonight, I hope our battle wasn’t about us, but our country and it’s liberty. Now we join with McCain to continue that fight, not for who gets elected but for what we do to protect liberty and freedom. Someone in the audience calls him a great American; he calls them a great American back.

Thank you, goodnight, God bless.

Wisconsin results via TPM, 9:38 PM EST:

DEM (7% reporting)

_________________________________

Barack Obama and John McCain have won the Wisconsin primary.

UPDATE: Barack Obama is currently addressing supporters in Houston, Texas

UPDATE II: More WI results via TPM, 10:01 PM EST:

DEM (22% reporting)

_____________________________________

Obama’s gap is widening. Going into this, Pollster showed him with a 7-point lead; right now he has a 13-point lead. Will it affect the eventual delegate count, or is the margin too close to matter?

As for John McCain, there were no surprises here tonight. Paul and Huck may hold out until the convention, but neither will be the GOP’s standard-bearer this year.

So, let’s roll up our sleeves and get ready to take on the GOP’s flip-flopper-in-chief.

UPDATE III: Washington results via TPM, 1:30 AM EST:

DEM (53% reporting)

___________________________________

The polls are closing in Hawaii; we should have more information soon.

UPDATE IV: Hawaii results via TPM, 3:05 AM EST:

DEM (8% reporting)

____________________________

Less than 10% reporting, but looks like another blowout for Obama.

CNN brings us this headline:

Mitt Romney will endorse John McCain as the GOP nominee for president, CNN has learned.

Mitt Romney is prepared to throw his conservative cred in the garbage by jumping on the McCain bandwagon, all because the possibility of “Vice President Romney” was too alluring to pass up…

Yesterday brought a momentous–but expected–set of victories for Barack Obama and John McCain, who swept the Beltway Primaries to win Maryland, Virginia and D.C.

On the Republican side, there really isn’t much left to say. McCain is winning in a landslide, and he’ll probably end up with the nomination. Ron Paul is–and always has been–a joke, and he’s basically given up to focus on keeping his Congressional seat. Huckabee is loved by the Christian conservatives but hated by everyone else, and his window to the nomination has already closed. Unless there’s some major, unforeseen change, we will be running against John McCain.

On the Democratic side, Obama has overtaken Clinton in the delegate race, making him the undisputed front-runner. This spells major trouble for the once-dominant Clinton campaign.

There are a lot of factors working in Obama’s favor; first is the dominance of John McCain. In an open primary–which allows anyone to vote in any party’s primary, though they can only vote in one–independents often play a major role. In this race, independents prefer Barack Obama on the Democratic side and John McCain on the Republican side. Since McCain is strongly favored to become the GOP nominee, independents aren’t wasting their vote in the Republican primary–instead, they’re opting to vote in the Democratic primary, giving Barack Obama a boost. This headline from CNN says it all:

Exit Polls: Independent voters break for Obama and against McCain

Second, Clinton is running a traditional campaign–she’s focusing her efforts on just a handful of influential states. Thus, she wins major contests like Massachusetts and California, but loses the majority of states–in fact, out of the 35 primaries that have been held, Obama has won 25. Hassan Nemazee, a national finance chair for the Clinton campaign, says it best:

“If we had won Iowa and New Hampshire, as we had anticipated, projected, et cetera, you would not have been in a situation in which you are losing all of these small states—because we didn’t put any resources in those small states,” he said. “Obama, on the other hand, put resources in these small states.”

[...]

“You needed to have a Plan B, and Plan B was just doing what we are doing right now rather than having resources in the small states,” he said. “We basically ceded every one of these small red states that he has racked up victories in. And the reason that he has racked up victories at this level isn’t because he was so much more well received, or because his message was any better; it was because we didn’t put any resources in there. We weren’t campaigning there. We didn’t have anybody in Utah, in Idaho, in the Dakotas. In Alaska.”

Nobody predicted the primary would turn out this way, but the Obama campaign was prepared–they were ready for a drawn-out battle across a number of states. Clinton, on the other hand, banked on winning the nomination early on, and thus didn’t plan after Super Tuesday.

Clinton’s focus on a handful of states represents the old way of campaigning, and it won’t bode well if Clinton wins the nomination–Presidential campaigns have to be waged everywhere, not in just a few swing states; we can’t cede any ground to the Republians.

Meanwhile, Obama has been implementing a 50-state strategy, focusing his efforts on as many states as he can. That’s the way that the eventual candidate has to campaign, and that’s the way we’re going to beat John McCain–by fighting in every single state, by not giving up anywhere.

In the wake of Obama’s streak of victories, there have been several developments. Despite Clinton’s threats to boycott NBC debates over NBC’s David Shuster saying that Chelsea Clinton was “pimped out” by the campaign, Clinton has agreed to a February 26th NBC debate in Ohio. This reversal seems to represent Clinton’s latest strategy–she has a TV ad in Wisconsin hitting Obama for not agreeing to more debates (ostensibly a reference to his refusal to engage in a FOX News debate Clinton signed on to).

Talking Points Memo’s Greg Sargent has this to say about Clinton’s ad:

The ad would seem to cement Obama’s status as the race’s front-runner. Key line from the narrator: “Maybe he’d prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions.”

The Hillary camp is hungry for as many debates as possible with Obama, in the belief that it plays to her advantage to have them go head-to-head over the issues, rather than letting him largely frame the race from the stump with his superior oratory. This line seems to reflect that.

Clinton’s strategy is risky–I can’t imagine that spotlighting her willingness to work with FOX News will help her among primary voters, donors or activists. In addition, every negative attack she launches against Obama plays into his strategy of portraying Clinton as engaging in–as he calls it–”the politics of personal destruction.” Finally, Obama is well-liked overall; if Clinton attacks him too much, too hard or over something frivolous, it could backfire and hurt her (see South Carolina).

Clinton’s troubles have been exacerbated by an exodus of staffers from the campaign–Mike Henry, the Deputy Campaign Manager, has left, as have Kevin Thurman and Crystal Patterson, two key members of Clinton’s internet team.

Overall, Clinton needs to start gaining ground, and fast–while this is nowhere near over, Clinton’s window to the nomination has grown somewhat smaller. Clinton’s firewall is Ohio and Texas, which go to the polls on March 4th.

If Clinton loses both states, there will be huge amounts of pressure on her to cede the primary to Obama; a brokered convention would be disastrous and–with John McCain sewing up the GOP nomination–Democrats will need a candidate to rally behind. Even if Clinton wins one contest and loses the other, it’ll be a clear sign that she’s struggling and she might not be able to pull out enough victories after that to become the nominee. If Clinton pulls it out and wins both contests, there will be a long, hard fight to the finish, and whoever wins the most pledged delegates will probably win the nomination.

I don’t mean to be overly down on Clinton–she’s run a strong campaign, and she’s withstanding an opponent who would have overwhelmed anyone else. Nor am I counting her out–this primary is far from over, and Clinton could end up winning this thing handily. But it’s undeniable that she’s in a bad position right now, especially if you consider the position she was in at the beginning of this race, or even the position she was in before Super Tuesday. Clinton will have to work hard to make up the ground she’s lost, but it’s certainly possible.

Before Ohio and Texas, though, Wisconsin and Hawaii will go to the polls on the 19th. Obama is expected to win HI–since he spent several years of his childhood there–while WI is still up in the air. If Obama sweeps those elections, though, look to Ohio and Texas to be the deciders in this election.

Virginia results from TPM, 8:42 PM EST:

(71% reporting)

______________________________________

Barack Obama and John McCain are projected to win the Virginia primary. No word yet from D.C., where the polls have already closed.

UPDATE: More results, from CNN:

Maryland (96% Reporting)

Obama: 60%
Clinton: 37%

Virginia (99% Reporting)

Obama: 64%
Clinton: 35%

District of Columbia (98% Reporting)

Obama: 75%
Clinton: 24%

And for the Republicans:

Maryland (96% Reporting)

McCain: 55%
Huckabee: 29%

Virginia (99% Reporting)

McCain: 50%
Huckabee: 41%

District of Columbia (98% Reporting)

McCain: 68%
Huckabee: 17%

_____________________________

FINAL UPDATE:

John McCain and Barack Obama have swept the Beltway Primary, winning D.C., Maryland and Virginia.

Today Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. all go to the polls in the Democratic and Republican primaries.

On the Democratic side, Barack Obama is expected to win all three contests handily–Pollster shows him with a significant lead in both MD and VA, while a Constituent Dynamics/RT Strategies survey shows him winning D.C. with 63% of the vote to Hillary Clinton’s 27%.

With 168 delegates at stake tonight, there’s a chance Obama may overtake Hillary’s lead in pledged delegates. Take a look at the current distribution of delegates (according to various news outlets):

CNN: Clinton 1,148, Obama 1,121ABC: Clinton 1,149, Obama 1,127

NBC: Obama 958, Clinton 904 (Not counting super-delegates.)

CBS: Obama 1,139, Clinton 1,132

AP: Clinton 1,147, Obama 1,142

Obama is trailing by an extremely small margin, and tonight’s contests may erode or eliminate that lead. And though Clinton still have an overall larger number of delegates in her corner–due to support from Democratic superdelegates–Obama will be able to claim that he has more pledged delegates, and thus he has the support of the voters.  Expect him to use that argument to win over undecided superdelegates.

To some extent, it appears that the Clinton campaign is writing off a lot of upcoming states, assuming that they’re going to lose those contests. And while it’s easier for Clinton to brush those losses if they didn’t campaign there, it means that she’s ceding a lot of delegates–and possibly her lead in pledged delegates–to Obama.

Matt Yglesias has this to say:

What seems to be going on here is that Clinton feels that she can’t maintain the pretense that Maryland and Washington and Virginia and The Other Washington and Maine and Nebraska and the US Virgin Islands and Louisiana “don’t count” if she bothers to campaign in these places. But thanks to the way Democrats allocate delegates, there’s a substantial difference between “losing” a jurisdiction and getting blown out in that jurisdiction. My guess is that Clinton’s lackluster campaigning is creating a situation where she’s leaving delegates on the table.

That’s a bad strategy on Clinton’s part–she’s ceding current states to focus on later states, which puts her on the defensive and forces her campaign to establish a firewall. This is the same strategy Giuliani used in his failed campaign–after it became clear he wasn’t going to win early states, he invested everything he had in Florida; when Giuliani lost, he was forced to bow out.

Right now, Clinton is campaigning like she has a significant lead and can afford to lose ground; in reality, she doesn’t have that much she can afford to give up.  If she wants to pull this around, she should be campaigning like she’s the underdog, not the undisputed front-runner–because she isn’t, anymore.

The narrative that’s emerging is that Clinton’s firewall will be Ohio and Texas, which vote on March 4th.   If that’s true–and she’s ceding all of the states between now and then–Clinton’s in trouble; as she loses state after state, it’ll become harder and harder for her to prove her viability to those two crucial states. It will be a difficult strategy to pull off, regardless.

On the Republican side, Pollster shows MD and VA in the McCain column; though Huckabee has shown some positive movement in VA, it’s unlikely he’ll pick up enough ground to win there.  As far as DC goes, there isn’t a lot of reliable polling data coming out of here, so we’ll have to wait until tonight for answers.

Meanwhile, in a basically-unpublicized move, former Presidential candidate Fred Thompson has endorsed John McCain, a move that probably won’t make any difference in the Republican primary. In addition, former McCain detractor and disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has also put his reservations aside to endorse the Arizona Senator.

While much of the conservative base is coming around to support McCain–now that he’s the presumptive nominee–there are still a lot of McCain opponents in the GOP.  Meanwhile, Huckabee’s fiscal policies rub much of the GOP the wrong way, which is preventing him from winning the support of the anti-McCain coalition, which includes former Romney supporters.  If Huckabee can’t begin winning their support–and fast–then he won’t be able to rival McCain’s significant delegate count.  At this point, despite the reservations of the conservative GOP base, it will be hard to stop McCain from seizing the nomination.

The polls close in a few hours, and I’ll bring you results as they come in. Make sure to check back once the polls have closed.