The Pennsylvania Primary: Results (CONTINUOUSLY UPDATED)

Tonight’s outcome won’t change the election, but the margin of victory will determine how the delegates are distributed.

From CNN.com, 8:37 PM EST:

1,649
66%
838
34%

_________________________________________________

UPDATE: From CNN.com, 8:51 PM EST:

34,724
55%
28,310
45%

_________________________________________________

UPDATE II: MSNBC and FOX News are both calling it for Clinton. A Clinton win is expected, but what matters is her margin of victory–if she doesn’t get at least 60% of the vote, PA’s delegates will be split nearly evenly, leaving Clinton more than 150 pledged delegates behind Obama.

UPDATE III: CNN has also called it for Clinton, but the gap is narrowing.

From CNN.com, 9:04 PM EST:

76,544
52%
70,881
48%

____________________________________________________

UPDATE IV: Now we’re back to where we were 20 minutes ago.

From CNN.com, 9:12 PM EST:

112,145
55%
93,488
45%

___________________________________________________

UPDATE V: From CNN.com, 9:22 PM EST:

169,044
53%
149,783
47%

___________________________________________________

UPDATE VI: From CNN.com, 9:39 PM EST:

248,905
53%
220,301
47%

___________________________________________________

UPDATE VII: Up then down and up again…

From CNN.com, 9:49 PM EST:

465,521
55%
385,483
45%

__________________________________________________

UPDATE VIII: From CNN.com, 10:05 PM EST:

587,373
55%
488,242
45%

___________________________________________________

UPDATE IX: From CNN.com, 10:17 PM EST:

699,573
54%
586,963
46%

____________________________________________________

UPDATE X: From CNN.com, 10:29 PM EST:

833,630
54%
703,784
46%

___________________________________________________

UPDATE XI: From CNN.com, 10:59 PM EST:

1,014,228
55%
825,222
45%

____________________________________________________

UPDATE XII: From CNN.com, 11:27 PM EST:

1,110,776
55%
904,685
45%

____________________________________________________



Stop. It. Now.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos 

This post isn’t an attack on Senator Clinton, but her campaign’s latest attack on Barack Obama is just beyond the pale.

The Clinton campaign is saying that Obama doesn’t have the experience to be President; they’re saying that both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have the experience to be President, while Barack Obama doesn’t. They’re basically saying McCain would be a better President than Obama, which is going to come back to haunt us if he ends up being our nominee.

It’s a foolish attack–plenty of great Presidents came into office without any foreign policy experience (Bill Clinton and John Kennedy come to mind) But not only is it a silly attack, it also puts us Democrats in a lose-lose situation; no matter who wins the primary, this line of attack will come back to hurt them

If Obama wins, this attack is going to become the centerpiece of McCain’s campaign; he’s going to contrast his foreign policy experience with Obama’s relative lack of experience, and he’s going to try to use terrorism, the war and fear to win votes to his side. It’s a typical Republican attack, but it’s typical because it works.

If Clinton wins, then this attack is going to backfire on her. Clinton doesn’t have very much foreign policy experience to speak of–as First Lady she held no security clearance, couldn’t attend NSA meetings or even read Presidential daily briefings on intelligence. All she has on foreign policy is one and a half terms in the Senate, which isn’t very much. If she makes this election about experience, she’s going to lose to John McCain–he has more experience than she does, and I bet you he’s going to use her own words against her.

And that’s why this attack is beyond the pale–it’s lose-lose. Some people say that these attacks aren’t bad, that they’re going to be launched by the GOP anyway, so we should face them now. There’s some validity to that, but remember that attacks like these are more damaging when they come from fellow Democrats. People expect Republicans to attack us, to go over the top and say outrageous things. But when it’s a Democrat, it gives validity to Republican attacks; it gives them political cover, being able to say “Hillary Clinton agrees with us” or “Barack Obama believes this, too.” Isn’t that why Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are so infuriating?

Remember, this primary isn’t about picking the only candidate who can beat John McCain, because both candidates can beat John McCain. Remember this story on Daily Kos yesterday? Yeah, it’s just one poll, but right now there’s every indication that both Clinton and Obama can beat McCain. Think about how phenomenal that is–months before the election, before we’ve spread our message or scrutinized our opponent, both of our potential candidates are already beating the incumbent.

I know how easy the mental progression is–from “I like this candidate” to “My candidate can do better against John McCain” to “My candidate is the only one who can beat John McCain.” The process is helped by the escalation between the two candidates, but the conclusion is completely wrong. We don’t live in a world where only one of our candidates can win, so everything hangs on the primary; we live in a world where both of our candidates can win.

Our goal is to pick the candidate who would be the best President; none of us can deny that either Clinton or Obama would be far, far better than John McCain. So it’s okay for them to criticize and scrutinize one another. It’s okay for them to criticize each other’s health care plans, since both of their plans are better than McCain’s. And it’s okay for them to criticize each other’s economic plans, since both of their plans are better than McCain’s. And it’s okay for them to quarrel over the war–how they would end it and when–because both of them want to end it, while McCain doesn’t. But it’s not okay to launch attacks that will kneecap our candidate in the general election.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying we should all join hands and sing kumbaya. Politics is a blood sport, and there’s a war going on. Lives hang in the balance. Livelihoods hang in the balance. People’s jobs and health and education and futures hang in the balance. Our constitution hangs in the balance. Our country’s security hangs in the balance.

But this isn’t a war between Clinton and Obama. It’s between Democrats and Republicans. Right now, we’re deciding who our General will be, who will lead us into the next great battle. But no matter who we pick, we’re going to have to back our leader, we’re going to have to stand shoulder-to-shoulder as brothers-and-sisters-in-arms again.

And the farther we go down this destructive road, the more likely it is that people on our own side are going to throw down their weapons and walk away. If we can’t unite ourselves, if we can’t stand and fight together again, John McCain will destroy us and destroy this country. We can’t take 4 more years of Republicanism; we couldn’t take 4 more years of this back in 2004, and we’ve seen the disastrous consequences of that failed election.

So see those long knives you’re holding there? Put them away, or at lest point them in the right direction. Remember who the real enemy is, and remember what’s at stake. Remember that we have a country to fix; we have a nation to rebuild. And remember that, whenever and however the nominee is decided, we’re all going to have to shake hands and work together. We’re on the same side; we believe in the same things; we want to see this country go in the same direction. Don’t let this fight change that for an instant.

So let’s just stop it now, before there’s nothing left to stand in McCain’s way. Because this country has far too much at stake for us to lose. Far too much.



Democrashield.com
February 20, 2008, 8:24 pm
Filed under: Meta | Tags: ,

Today, I’m pleased to announce that you can now find this blog at Democrashield.com.

You can still access this site through the old Democrashield.wordpress.com address (since I’m still blogging through WordPress) but it will redirect you to Democrashield.com from now on.



Long Days
October 10, 2007, 12:06 am
Filed under: International, Iraq, Meta

Sorry for the lack of an update on Tuesday–it was an incredibly long day, and I didn’t see my apartment between 7:30 AM and 11:30 PM. I have an idea in my head about the greater implications about the O’Reilly-Limbaugh scandals, I just need to get it typed up and fleshed out.

For now, though, here’s a good post from Think Progress on the damage Iraq has done (and is doing) to the American military. A real eye-opener:

Gen. David Petraeus has repeatedly stated that he would like the U.S. to be in Iraq for 9-10 years. “[T]he average counter insurgency is somewhere around a nine or a 10 year endeavour,” he said in July.

But in a press conference yesterday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey indirectly dealt a blow to Petraeus’s plan, stating the Army would continue to be “out of balance” as long as U.S. troops occupy Iraq.

Casey reemphasized that that the “current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply,” leaving the U.S. unable to handle future threats. He elaborated on the long-term commitment it will take from the U.S. to restore our forces to peak capability.

It’s going to take us three or four years and a substantial amount of resources to put ourselves back in balance.

Under the current strain, the Army must “reset,” or restore forces “in a period of persistent conflict.” These resets require a substantial commitment from the U.S. “It takes about $13 billion dollars to reset a 15 brigade size force plus their enablers every year,” he said.

Casey’s “three to four year” time frame, however, depends on the rate of withdrawal from Iraq. Responding to a question about how long after the war would the Army need to continue paying for reseting its forces, Casey stated:

We’ve said two years. And that’s right. The question is, when does the conflict end? … As forces begin to draw down, there’s still going to be a need to reset those forces.

[...]

Casey also said he would like to increase dwell-time between deployments and “come off a 15-month deployment” for U.S. troops. Such a measure was proposed by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) last month, but conservatives blocked the amendment, buckling to pressure from the administration.

Ironically, while Petraeus is pushing for a decade-long occupation, he has “agreed the military was stretched too thin, and the Army likely would not be able to respond if trouble arose in another part of the world.”



Tuesday
September 4, 2007, 3:00 pm
Filed under: Meta

I’m back to blogging after a three-day hiatus, in honor of the long weekend.  I’ll put up a post later today–probably sometime in the evening.

Enjoy the rest of your day, and check back in a few hours.



Updating
August 15, 2007, 11:42 am
Filed under: Meta

Updating the site throughout the day. Possible changes/disruptions expected.



We are live
August 8, 2007, 12:51 am
Filed under: Meta

Testing