The one the mighty Kos himself says "was no accident."  You know, the one where:

There was a concerted effort by Clinton's ad people to make Obama look darker, more sinister, and with a wider nose. The evidence is indisputable.

This is the ad that has people so upset:

and here is the original shot, from the MSNBC debate:

Pretty damning, don't you think?  Look at that dark skin, that wide nose, it practically screams at you, doesn't it?

First, the good news.  The diary on this subject at MyDD, the one that says Obama says neither he nor Hillary have the experience to answer the phone, is wrong.  But his answer is really not much better, and we can be guaranteed to see it played a thousand times by Republicans if he wins the nomination.

What am I talking about?  I am talking about an interview on CNN.  Actually, two interviews.  Both candidates were asked if they had the experience to "answer that White House phone call."  Obama actually said he did not, but then went on to say Hillary didn't either.  Hillary answered differently.  They are CNN videos, so I can't link them directly, but the links to find them are below, along with my own transcript.  If you find a mistake tell me and I'll fix it. I cut out the "you knows," and the "uhhs," because it makes them both look inarticulate, and neither are.

Okay folks, it is time for some serious retrospection. Last week CTV broke a story that Obama was playing both sides, telling Ohio he would renegotiate or quit NAFTA, but telling Canada "don't worry, be happy, it's just politics."  Here on Daily Kos, though, nobody could believe Obama was actually a politician, rather than a new honest perfect phenomenon.  So how did you all respond?  By attacking the messenger.  Well, folks, the messenger was right.  The AP, you see, has the Canadian Government memorandum laying out what happened.  So what happened, and what happened here?  And what does it mean?

Yes, this is a response diary.  But it will be long enough to stand on its own.  Every here is going crazy for a diary entitled I Refuse to By Into the Obama Hype.  It purports to compare Hillary's Senate record to Obama's and concludes Obama's is superior.  Why? Two reasons. First, in the diarist's opinion his bills are better.  Second his bills have more sponsors than hers, and that demonstrates "leadership."   Excuse me, but, well bullshit.  "Leadership" doesn't come from getting people to join you.  "Leadership" comes from getting people to FOLLOW you, to DO things.  As in, pass laws.  Can we look at what they both actually achieved?  

I remember Daily Kos.  I remember a place where people actually thought, used their brains, remained pretty internally consistent, and wrote thoughtful and thought-provoking diaries and comments.  That day is gone, but I hope it will be again after the primary wars.  This morning, though, brought home to me just how completely inane it had all become.

Why?  Because hypocrisy, once our greatest charge against Republicans, is so rampant this place has become a cartoon of its former self.  

There is a tremendous amount of information floating around here, much of it wrong, a lot of it right, about Florida and its primary. One very good, but incomplete, diary by RenaRF can be found HERE, entitled "Not Like This."  I agree with many of RenaRF's sentiments, but am discouraged by a few missing facts, and by the MANY misunderstandings in the comments.  I will attempt, as dispassionately as possible, to add a bit of information to the conversation.

First, Florida's actual LAW, as it stands today.  F.S. 103.101 actually sets the date of the Presidential Primary for both parties.  To have a new primary would require an act of the Legislature and the signature of the Governor, and both are Republican.

How is this all going to end?  Well, that's easy.  The superdelegates will decide.  How, though, will they decide?  Obama supporters say- they MUST vote the "will of the people," and we define "will of the people" to mean "whoever has the most pledged delegates." But there is a problem with that.  Pledged delegates come from weighted primaries and caucuses, created not to reflect the "will of the people," but to encourage voting in rural areas.  The other problem, of course, is that it is really blackmail, demanding that the rule the superdelegates vote how they see fit is changed, either formally or informally.  And Obama fans don't like rule changes (see Michigan and Florida).

Clinton supporters, on the other hand, say "keep the rule just like it is, and let them vote however they want."  This, though, is really politico-speak for "I think people owe my husband and me enough favors that we can steal this thing."  Also, that whole "follow the rules" thing sounds just a bit odd given her position on Florida and Michigan, eh?

Do I have your attention?  Good. Because I'm burning my daily diary with nothing more than a link to this diary, The "Rosa Parks Act" in Florida, which really does talk about a proposed law.  That law would return civil rights to people convicted under segregation laws, people like Rosa Parks.  Republicans are fighting it for obvious reasons- those are just the sort of, well, uppity n*****s they don't want voting.  And in case you forget just the sort of people we're up against, and to make this a real diary, I will regale you with some appropos original cartoons on the flip.

Hillary wants five more debates.  What the fuck? I mean, seriously, how many have they already had. As so many people here have said before:

More after the jump

Okay, the thesis is simple, the "common wisdom" that where Obama campaigns he wins is wrong.  Here are my observations from last night, but before you look at them, let me tell you something.  I'm going to explore the hypothesis, and if I can find sufficient information to prove it OR TO DISPROVE IT I will post this diary.  Fair enough?

Okay, here goes:

A. Where Clinton and Obama campaign, and there is a very large number of African American primary voters, Obama wins- South Carolina, Georgia.

B. Where only Obama campaigns, Obama wins- Alabama, Alaska.

C. Obama wins caucuses

D. Where both candidates campaign, and there is not a larger number of African American voters, Clinton wins.  California, New Jersey, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Massachusetts.

If this is true, then Clinton should be favored, with Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania still to come.  Analysis and predictions to follow.

Much has been made of Obama's statements about health care insurance in the debate the other night.  Krugman, who clearly is not an Obama fan, wrote yet another column about it today.  Krugman is wrong.  SusanHu, a long time diarist here for  whom everybody once had great respect, wrote a diary today that many are describing as yet another hit piece on Obama.  SusanHu, too, is wrong. People are talking about "penalties" in Obama's plan, as compared to "garnished wages" in Hillary's.  What is this all about?

Well, at the debate, Wolf Blitzer asked Obama about what some perceived as a flaw in his plan, that people could go uninsured, then go to the most expensive treatment available, the emergency room, to be seen.  Obama responded:

If people are gaming the system, there are ways we can address that. By, for example, making them pay some of the back premiums for not having gotten it in the first place.

Some have called that a "penalty."  Others describe it as  "reverse mandate."  Is that fair?  No.

Yesterday I posted a diary entitled Who wins the Electoral College?.  It got a fair number of comments, with a LOT of criticism, some critique, and even a nice thing or two said.  The premise was pretty simple- this election will be won in the Electoral College, not a national poll, so we should look THERE if we really want to identify our strongest candidate.

My analysis was in 3 steps.  First, which States just plain aren't in play, absent some cataclysmic and unforeseen event.  Second, who is strongest in battleground States and why.  Third, and here is where I clearly fell on my face, I picked the winner by the likely primary winner.  So I'm going to try again.  I'll still start with steps one and two, because they remain valid.  Then I'll try three again, because if we really do want to throw "MY candidate can win and YOUR'S can't" diaries at each other, we should start with what "win" really means.

In a comment below, Irishkorean links us to electoral map maker, so you can continue to play along until November.

We keep hearing about how Obama will energize the youth, or Hillary leads nation-wide.  Interesting?  Sure.  Relevant?  Not really.  Remember, the President will be selected by the Electoral College, not by national referendum.  Therefore, any analysis must go State by electoral State.

Full disclosure- if I actually got to vote in a relevant primary (I live in Indiana) I would vote for Hillary.  That said, I will post this diary no matter how it comes out.

I will start with the 2000 results, not 2004, because I really believe "the war" skewed the results.  As a nation, we just don't "change horses in midstream" when our soldiers are taking fire.  Also, that was the last contest without an incumbent.  Other methodology- if we won, or lost, in 2000 by 10% (55-45 or more) it goes in the "no contest" column. Electoral votes are by 2008 count, though analysis is from 2000 election numbers for the first step "is it a contest" analysis.

Letters Tuesday Editor was always a regular feature of The Daily Pulse. It has always been my favorite, because it gets closest to the real "pulse" of the nation.  Your national papers, like the New York Times, only publish high-fallootin' letters from muckety-mucks.  But your RightHereburg Times Advertiser really posts Letters to the Editor. Sometimes they are brilliant.  Sometimes they are hillarious.  Sometimes they are terrifying.  But they always seem to be real.

One consistent note shining through is how much people "HATE" Hillary Clinton.  Why?  Mostly because FAUX News and Rush Limbaugh spent a decade demonizing her.  What makes you think they won't do the same to WHOEVER our nominee might be come November?

So, with little more ado, The Daily Pulse - Letters Tuesday Editor.

into which people pour their dreams.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?  Well, that depends upon how long he can sustain it.  If he can keep it up through November 4, then it works.  But I suspect that when the scrutiny focuses on him the house of cards, the everything to everybody, the having it both ways every time and running on little more than a verb of hope, will collapse.

Right now, Obama is doing an AMAZING job of "bringing people together."  More than any politician I can remember.  My fear?  Somebody will pull back the curtain, and the wizard will be exposed.  Being everything to everybody will be exposed and everybody will feel betrayed.

I will vote for Obama if he is our nominee, without hesitation.  I will contribute to Obama if he is our nominee, without hesitation.  I will write about him and draw cartoons for him.  I will drive from Indiana to Ohio and knock on doors on election day, just like I did in '04, without hesitation.  But I do not think he is our best, or strongest, candidate.

This story at TPM Cafe got my attention.  Are Jews really turning against Obama, and if so, why?  Do they disagree with his policies, or are they buying into the "Obama is a Muslim" slurs.  

Well, if you follow the links there it turns out to be false.  Of the three links, one says Jewish organizations are fighting the false emails, and the other two give entirely unrelated reasons to oppose Obama. That said, it seemed like a good time, what with Florida, California, New York and New Jersey primaries in the offing, to look at Jewish newspaper editorials.

With no more ado, The Daily Pulse - Jew News

Letters Tuesday Editor was always a regular feature of The Daily Pulse. It has always been my favorite, because it gets closest to the real "pulse" of the nation.  Your national papers, like the New York Times, only publish high-fallootin' letters from muckety-mucks.  But your RightHereburg Times Advertiser really posts Letters to the Editor. Sometimes they are brilliant.  Sometimes they are hillarious.  Sometimes they are terrifying.  But they always seem to be real. So, with little more ado, The Daily Pulse - Letters Tuesday Editor.

Florida is the next big test for the Democratic candidates.  Yes, I know we are supposed to pretend it's not going to happen, because Florida is being punished for trying to be relevant, but it DOES matter.  It matter for two reasons.  First, even if the delegates are not counted, Florida will be the big story leading into Super Tuesday.  Second, there WILL be some sort of compromise and Florida's delegates will count.  It would be utter suicide to piss on the biggest swing state of them all.  Face it, the entire general election could be decided by picking 11 random voters along the I-4 corridor, because if the race is close it will be decided from St. Pete to Daytona Beach.  

So with little more ado, The Daily Pulse leaves frigid (6 degrees) Indianapolis and flies off to the Sunshine State.