Primary Report: Indiana and North Carolina

The Democrats

The Primaries

Hillary Clinton won the Indiana primary 51% – 49% by 22,400 votes. Barack Obama won the north Carolina Primary 56% – 42% by 232,775 votes. This has to be considered a major win for Obama, because the margin of victory in Indiana was less than anticipated for Clinton, while in North Carolina, it was greater than anticipated for Obama.

The Delegates

	Pledged	Super	Total	Pledged	Super	Total
Clinton	1415	266	1681	47.2%	51.4%	47.8%
Obama	1584	252	1836	52.8%	48.6%	52.2%
Total	2999	518	3517

Since I last reported, Clinton has added 82 delegates, and Obama 100, giving Obama a net lead of 179 pledged and 155 total delegates. With only 217 pledged delegates left to be elected, Clinton will need 193 or 88.9% of the remaining pledged delegates to catch Obama in Pledged delegates. That will not happen. I may have to adjust these figures, but the differences will be small.

The Demographics

Indiana

Indiana	Clinton	Obama
Gender
Male	51%	49%
Female	49%	51%
Education
No HS
HS Grad	53%	47%
Some College	54%	46%
College Grad	43%	57%
Postgrad	43%	57%
Income
Under $15,000	41%	59%
$15-30,000	55%	45%
$30-50,000	50%	50%
$50-75,000	51%	49%
$75-100,000	48%	52%
$100-150,000	60%	40%
Party ID
Democrat	51%	49%
Repuglican	53%	47%
Independent	46%	54%
Race
White	60%	40%
Black	10%	90%
Age
18-24	36%	64%
25-59	39%	61%
30-39	44%	56%
40-49	50%	50%
50-64	52%	48%
65+	69%	31%
Religion
Protestant	50%	50%
Catholic	59%	41%
Jewish
Other	39%	61%
None	42%	58%

North Carolina

North Carolina	Clinton	Obama
Gender
Male	39%	58%
Female	43%	55%
Education
No HS	37%	60%
HS Grad	40%	57%
Some College	44%	54%
College Grad	44%	55%
Postgrad	41%	59%
Income
Under $15,000	31%	66%
$15-30,000	35%	62%
$30-50,000	41%	56%
$50-75,000	47%	52%
$75-100,000	46%	53%
$100-150,000	42%	55%
Party ID
Democrat	39%	60%
Repuglican	61%	32%
Independent	50%	45%
Race
White	61%	37%
Black	7%	91%
Age
18-24	30%	69%
25-59	19%	80%
30-39	34%	62%
40-49	36%	62%
50-64	46%	52%
65+	57%	41%
Religion
Protestant	45%	53%
Catholic	51%	48%
Jewish
Other	27%	71%
None	29%	69%

Looking Forward

The only way Clinton can win the nomination is for the super delegates to overrule the voters. Next Tuesday is the West Virginia primary. Clinton holds a commanding 56% – 27% lead according to Rasmussen, but the state has only 39 pledged delegates at stake.

The Repuglicans

All articles cross-posted from Politics Plus

In Memory of Heroes

Kent State University will commemorate the 38th anniversary of the May 4 shootings this weekend with movies, poetry readings, a march and a ceremony, all concentrating on the question, “Where does it end?”

On May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard opened fire on Kent students protesting the Vietnam War. Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer and William Schroeder were killed; nine others were injured.

This year, a poem Miller wrote in high school, in 1966, provides the commemoration’s theme, “Where does it end?”…

Inserted from <Cleveland.com>

This tragedy occurred just a few months after I dropped out of SDS, because would not support the violent tactics the organization had adopted. I was, and remain, a believer in the nonviolence of Thoreau, Gandhi and King. While I disagree with the tactics employed by the demonstrators at Kent State and consider their destruction of property misguided, I understand the frustration they felt and admire their commitment. This was not the first time police or guardsmen had killed demonstrators. I saw it myself in Chicago (1968) and Washington, DC (1969). But it was the first time it was so obvious that the government could not cover it up. Regardless of misguided tactics, remember these four as the heroes they were, because they stood up to power and paid the ultimate price. I leave you with Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young.

All articles cross-posted from Politics Plus

Primary Report: 5/4

The saga continued yesterday with a tight race in Guam:

Democrat Barack Obama beat rival Hillary Clinton by just seven votes in Guam’s nominating contest after record numbers of residents voted in the tiny U.S. territory’s primary, officials said on Sunday.

Results after more than 12 hours of manual counting showed Obama took 2,264 votes to 2,257 for Clinton. In the last Democratic primary in 2004 only 1,500 people took part.

“Clearly, both of them are quite popular and we should celebrate that,” Josh Tenorio, Obama’s campaign manager on the territory told Reuters. “It’s a good day for Guam.”

With only four votes at the Democratic convention at stake, the contest on Guam, a Pacific island more than 20 hours by plane from Washington, will barely register in the protracted duel for the party’s presidential ticket…

Inserted from <IHT>

That should split those delegates evenly.

The real action comes on Tuesday, May 6, with important primaries in Indiana, with 84 delegates at stake, and North Carolina, with 134 delegates at stake.  At present, Clinton has a comfortable lead in Indiana and Obama, a formidable lead in North Carolina.  Both states award delegated proportionally by district.  I chose polls for both states that are a week or less old.

Indiana	Clinton	Obama
Zogby	42%	42%
Rasmussen	46%	41%
Downs	52%	45%
Public Policy	50%	42%
TeleResearch	48%	38%
Average	48%	42%

North Carolina	Clinton	Obama
Zogby	34%	50%
Rasmussen	40%	49%
Insider Advantage	44%	49%
NBC 17	44%	51%
WRAL	42%	49%
ARG	42%	52%
Public Policy	39%	51%
SurveyUSA	44%	49%
Average	41%	50%

The current delegate count is:

	Pledged	Super	Total	Pledged	Super	Total
Clinton	1334	265	1599	47.2%	52.2%	47.9%
Obama	1493	243	1736	52.8%	47.8%	52.1%
Total	2827	508	3335

Since I last reported, Clinton had increased her total by 43 delegates, and Obama, by by 42, giving Clinton a net gain of one delegate.

If the polls are accurate, Clinton should gain 45 delegates to Obama’s 39 in Indiana, while Obama should gain 74 delegates to Clinton’s 60 in North Carolina.  That would give Obama 113 delegates to Clinton’s 105, an net gain of 8 delegates for Obama, increasing his lead to 145 delegates.  While polls are not always accurate predictors, I don’t see any major surprised coming in either contest.

With only nine primaries left after this one, all fairly closely contested, and none with more than 65 delegates, I do not see how Clinton can catch Obama before the convention in delegates, popular vote, or states won, before the convention, so the only way that Clinton can win the nomination is for enough of the remaining uncommitted super delegates to overrule the voters.  I am not stating a preference for either candidate, but I stand my statement in January that voters, not party insiders, should determine the nominee

They’re After Me!

It had to happen sooner or later, and yesterday afternoon it did. I received my first campaign call in which a human, not a machine, was on the other end of the line, so I spent about forty five minutes chatting with a lady who was urging me to support Hillary Clinton. Except for interrupting me several times early on, once she got her planned talking points out of the way she was polite, respectful, and willing to settle down and talk issues.

I told her that I am an undecided voter, but that I will support whichever Democrat wins the nomination in the general election. I also told her that I am a B-list political blogger, but she did not seem to know what a blogger is.

I asked her why Hillary has not supported a single-payer health care system. She said that her brother has had problems with the VA and that she thinks it may be because government health care isn’t that good. I explained that we can leave the care private, but make the coverage public, cutting the insurance industry out of their obscene profits and coverage decisions. I told her that health care decisions should not be left to greedy corporations for whom profit trumps care. She agreed that was a better idea, and suggested that Hillary might switch to such a plan after she was elected. She went on to stress that Clinton’s plan was superior to Obama’s. I asked her in what ways it was superior. She didn’t know the details but knew that it was.

I asked her whether or not Hillary would pursue criminal charges against Bush and his minions for war crimes and other crimes while in office. She did not know. I pointed out that Obama had committed to have DOJ investigate them. She said she hopes that Clinton will too, and suggested that, although they should be tried for their crimes, it might take a long time, like it did with Pinochet. I pointed out that Pinochet had been charged, but never tried.

I asked her why Hillary had never admitted her error in voting for the Iraq war. She said that was Bush’s fault, because Clinton was going on what she thought was reliable intelligence. I told her that I knew and had documented, before the war, that the intelligence was was flawed with far less resources than a Senator enjoys. If I could find that out, why couldn’t Clinton. She didn’t know.

I told her that I was displeased with some of Hillary’s campaign tactics. She said that politics is a dirty business, and I should be glad to have a candidate who can do that well, because those skills will be needed against McCain.

At the end of each of these discussions, she kept coming back to one central theme. The party needs a candidate that can win in November, and that although Obama is a wonderful person, Clinton is the candidate who can win. After ignoring that several times, I rose to the bait. I brought up the last debate, and asked her if Clinton had not said that Obama could win too. She replied that Clinton had to say “Yes, yes, yes”, because she was on the spot, and the media would have roasted her, if she had said anything else. She repeated that Clinton really is the electable candidate, and Obama is not. So I asked, “So are you telling me that Clinton lied when she said that?” Dead silence. Then she said that it wasn’t really lying, it was just saying what she had to say at the time, and asked what she was supposed to do when put on the spot like that? I said, “Well I’d hope she would have realized that the American people deserve the truth, even if that truth is not what we want to hear.”

That undid the poor lady. I could almost hear her thinking that she wished she had never called me, as she said she had to get on to the next person she had to call. She asked me if I would vote for Clinton, and I told her I am still not committed.

I was not impressed with her knowledge of the issues, and frankly, turned off by her insistence that Obama is not electable. After Clinton committed herself publicly that both are electable, that issue should be off the table.

In fairness, I have not yet received a similar call from the Obama campaign, and when I do, I will be just as hard on that person as I was on this poor lady, who remained personable and respectful throughout my inquisition.

On the other hand, if McConJob’s people call, the crapola is going to hit the fan… big time!!

All articles cross-posted from Politics Plus

The Pennsylvania Primary

After a long layoff, voters finally became the focus of attention again as they went to the polls in Pennsylvania in the moat hotly contested Democratic campaign in my memory. Clinton went in needing a decisive victory of fifteen points or more to but a dent in Obama’s delegate lead. Obama went in needing a close result to pull the remaining super delegates into his corner. Neither happened. Clinton won, as expected, but with only a ten point margin 55%-45%, giving her only a net gain of ten delegates. How we interpret these results depends largely on whose spin you want to hear. The Huffington post has the spin from both camps plus criticism of both from the NY Times:

…The Hillary Victory Spin: Ben Smith reports that Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee at the Park Hyatt in Philadelphia said: “There’s beginning to be a subtle shift of psychology of a lot of the uncommitted supers. [They] are beginning to wonder why Obama has been unable to win this thing despite all the advantages he has.

“There’s a lot of questions that are beginning to surface about him,” he said, while superdelegates are learning that “every time she’s got her back up against the wall, she delivers.”

Here’s her victory speech, where she told a spirited rally in Philadelphia that the “tide is turning” in her nomination contest against Barack Obama.

The Spin From Obamaland: “Sen. Barack Obama was en route from Philadelphia to Evansville, Ind., when the race was called,” the Washington Post reports, “but the candidate and his advisers were all smiles when they boarded the plane, relieved that the dreaded blowout had not occurred. The news of a projected single-digit win for Clinton — a projection that might yet change — was transmitted via BlackBerrys as the campaign landed.”

“We’ve been very clear from the beginning, we didn’t come in with oversized expectations,” said David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political adviser. “We wanted to get our share.” More here.

In Evansville, the Democratic presidential front-runner told supporters that he was able to narrow the gap in Pennsylvania, register a record number of voters and rally people of all backgrounds to his campaign. After the bruising Pennsylvania contest, Obama said bickering and tit-for-tat politics obscured the great issues of the day – two wars, a recession and a planet in peril. Watch the speech:

NYT Blames Clinton For “Mean, Vacuous, Desperate” Race: The Obama campaign is sending out a New York Times editorial released tonight that blasts Hillary Clinton — whom the Times endorsed. Here’s a sample:

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.

The editorial also knocks Obama:

He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton’s bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about “bitter” voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.

… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <The Huffington Post>

I agree with both criticisms, and call on both to argue issues between themselves and save the vitriol for McConJob.

The Delegate Count:

	Pledged	Super	Total	Pledged	Super	Total
Clinton	1302	254	1556	47.1%	52.5%	47.9%
Obama	1464	230	1694	52.9%	47.5%	52.1%
Total	2766	484	3250

Since I reported delegates on Sunday, Clinton has gained eight net delegates.

Overall, the Democrats will have 4049 delegates at their convention. Of those 3,253 will be pledged delegates and 796 will be super delegates. I oppose the inclusion of the super delegates, because they give roughly 20% of the power to nominate to party insiders. They include Senators, Representatives, Governors, DNC members, and other party hacks, and they are not bound to represent the will of the voters.

As time progresses, it looks more and more like the convention will be brokered with the super delegates deciding the nominee.

The Demographics:

	Clinton	Obama
Gender
Male	48%	52%
Female	57%	43%
Education
No HS
HS Grad	64%	36%
Some College	53%	47%
College Grad	48%	52%
Postgrad	51%	49%
Income
Under $15,000	48%	52%
$15-30,000	55%	45%
$30-50,000	56%	44%
$50-75,000	57%	43%
$75-100,000	51%	49%
$100-150,000	60%	40%
$150-200,000	47%	53%
$200,000+	40%	60%
Party ID
Democrat	56%	44%
Repuglican
Independent	45%	55%
Race
White	32%	38%
Black	11%	89%
Age
18-24	34%	66%
25-59	45%	55%
30-39	13%	57%
40-49	53%	47%
50-64	56%	44%
65+	63%	37%
Religion
Protestant	47%	53%
Catholic	69%	31%
Jewish	57%	43%
Other	41%	59%
None	36%	64%

There’s plenty to analyze there. It’s clear that Clinton needs to improve her image with young people and Obama needs to improve his with blue collar workers.

As I see it, Clinton will not close the gap in pledged delegates, and Obama will go into the convention with a lead in that department. Unless Clinton wins the remaining primaries with decisive victories, I do not believe that the super delegates will tip the balance in her favor. Even then, it would be a toss-up, because deciding contrary to the popular will would thoroughly alienate African American voters, without whose support a November win would be tenuous at best. Therefore I think it most likely that Obama will emerge as the nominee.

In the interim, I call on the supporters of both candidates to reserve your attacks for McCain and support what’s good about your candidate.

All articles cross-posted from Politics Plus

Primary Report: 4/20

After primaries coming fast and furious in the early stages of the presidential campaigns, we have had a long wait for another. At last Pennsylvania is on Tuesday, April 22. There is little point in covering the Repuglicans, because their contest is over, but I shall provide a brief summary at the end. For Democrats there are 158 delegates at stake, making this one of the richest prizes in the nation. The delegates are divided proportionally, according to votes in each congressional district.

The Democrats

The Polls

	Clinton	Obama
LA Times	46%	41%
Philadelphia Daily News	46%	40%
Quinnipiac University	50%	44%
Rasmussen	47%	44%
ARG*	57%	37%
Newsweek	47%	44%
Downs	45%	50%
Zogby	47%	42%
Gallup	46%	45%
Average	48%	43%

*American Research Group is notoriously unreliable.

The Delegates

	Pledged	Super	Total	Pledged	Super	Total
Clinton	1250	248	1498	46.9%	52.3%	47.7%
Obama	1418	226	1644	53.1%	47.7%	52.3%
Total	2668	474	3142

Since I last reported these Clinton has gained 13 delegates and Obama 22.

Analysis

If the polls accurately reflect the delegate split, Clinton should win the state and pick up 83 delegates to Obama’s 75, a net gain of 8 delegates cutting Obama’s lead to 138 delegates. Because polls generally lag several days behind, and Obama has been narrowing the gap, I don’t see Clinton pulling out a win of the devastating proportions she would need to increase her chances of winning the nomination. While the fat lady has not yet sung, she is clearing her throat.

Looking Forward

The next primaries are in Indiana and North Carolina on May 6.

The Repuglicans

Wrong on Taxes!

Wrong on Social Security!!

Wrong on Health Care!!!

Wrong on the Economy!!!!

Wrong on Iraq!!!!!

Wrong on Iran!!!!!!

Wrong for America!!!!!!!

All articles cross-posted from Politics Plus

He Said, She Said

I have no doubt that both these stories from yesterday will find their way to bloggers and pundits in their respective camps and used to smear the other candidate.

Obama’s Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain both pounced on the comments Obama made last weekend at a fundraiser in San Francisco.

Video of the fundraiser, which was closed to the press, surfaced as Obama was campaigning in Indiana, trying to highlight issues of concern to working-class voters, such as job losses and rising mortgage foreclosures.

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama, an Illinois senator, said.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” he said…

Inserted from <Reuters>

Hillary Clinton spoke at a November 1993 NAFTA meeting at which 120 were scheduled to attend; participants described it as a NAFTA cheering session capped by remarks from the first lady when the push was at its peak to get the deal approved. Two at the meeting, representing textile and apparel importers, told ABC News that Hillary Clinton was the highlight of the “100 percent pro-NAFTA event” and expressed not a “hint of waffling” on the deal.

In 1996, she said the trade deal with Mexico and Canada was giving U.S. workers a chance to compete. “That’s what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about,” she said. “I think NAFTA is proving its worth.”

In a speech to the centrist Democratic Leadership Council in 2002, the New York senator said this of her husband’s record:

“The economic recovery plan stands first and foremost as a testament to both good ideas and political courage. National service. The Brady bill. Family leave. NAFTA. Investment in science and technology. New markets….

“All of these came out of some very fundamental ideas about what would work. The results speak for themselves.” It was one of several occasions when she highlighted the trade deal among Bill Clinton’s achievements.

Her campaign says listing her husband’s accomplishments isn’t the same as favoring them and her 1996 speech was noting NAFTA’s undeniable benefits to Texas, where she delivered that address…

Inserted from <Yahoo News>

On the former, perhaps Obama is insensitive to small-town, middle class workers. On the other hand, perhaps his comments were identifying with and justifying the frustration that they rightly feel.

On the latter, perhaps Hillary is lying about her former support for NAFTA. On the other, perhaps she was submerging her own view to that of the President as claimed.

The interpretations of both stories depend upon the direstion of applied spin.

As this campaign moves forward with little hope for resolution in the near future, the most positive thing Democrats can do is highlight the plusses of their personal choices and reserve their vitriol for McConJob.

Cross-posted from Politics Plus

Action Alert: Why Won’t McCain Support Our Vets?

 

Robert Lopez served 8 years in our military, fighting in Iraq as a tank commander. He was told he’d get his whole education bill paid for when he got out of the service, but like so many others, Mr. Lopez has faced the bleak reality of a government that has turned its back on its veterans.

That is why Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel proposed the new GI Bill, which would bring back WWII-style standards of providing vets with full tuition, room and board. And that is why 51 senators have signed on, including 9 Republicans like John Warner, giving this GI Bill tremendous bipartisan support.

But it isn’t enough. Faced with unprecedented filibusters, the only way to ensure Senate passage of the GI Bill is to get 60 co-sponsors. So far, John McCain has refused. The same McCain who insists he supports our troops. The same McCain who is voting lockstep with the Bush administration (who have also resisted this bill). We need to get John McCain to lead — to sign now and signal to other Republican leaders that we should be strongly behind our vets.

Robert Lopez thinks John McCain ought to stand in his shoes to know how difficult it is to be a vet and have to pay staggering education costs. THIS is your call to arms. Pass the video along and implore your friends to sign the petition.

Vote Vets, WesPAC, and Brave New Films feel passionately about giving our veterans the support they rightly deserve. Our government owes our troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan the opportunity to receive full educational benefits. These patriots have fought hard for our government; it’s time our government started fighting hard for them.

I signed it, and I encourage you to join me.

Cross-posted from Politics Plus

Theocracy: Errors and Jesus’ View

This is my second year of participation in Blog Against Theocracy, hosted by Tengrain. This article will be cross-posted there. I am proud to be a participant and encourage you to visit Tengrain’s blog to read other articles posted there by many other bloggers. Friday I defined theocracy and looked at secular reasons to oppose it in this article. Yesterday, I examined theocracy’s track record in this article. Today, for my last article in this event, I shall examine theological errors inherent to theocon dogma, and make a case that Jesus would oppose theocracy in the manner that theocons are attempting to impose it here in the US. I don’t wish to argue whether or not the Biblical passages I cite are divinely inspired. That is irrelevant to my purpose here. So if you are a non-believer, I ask that you temporarily suspend your non-belief, just for this discussion.

The chief error theocons make is their insistence that the Bible be interpreted literally, word for word. In ancient times the most common manner of teaching was through story telling. The stories needed not be true. What was important was that the story illustrate a truth. This was Jesus’ favored method of teaching, and his stories are called parables. Even the religious right acknowledges this, because the gospels often state that a story was a parable. If we can acknowledge that parables were good enough for Jesus, how can we not acknowledge that they were good enough for Moses too? To insist, for example, that the Genesis creation account must be literal rather than allegorical is irrational.

The next error is linguistic. Theocons authority for all things is the Bible, which they call the Word of God, and will happily trot out passage after passage in which “the Word” proclaims its own perfection and power. However, there are three different words in koine (New Testament Greek) contained in these passages, each with its own unique meaning:

The first and most common is Λόγος (logos) and refers to Jesus himself. For example,

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

When the theocons use passages containing this word, they are falsely assigning the attributes of Jesus to a book.

The second is ῥῆμα (rhēma) and refers to spoken (only) utterances, usually of God. For example,

Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Theocons think their Bibles are their swords for fighting spiritual warfare, but these passages have nothing to do the Bible.

The third and least common is γραφή (graphē) and refers to writings. For example,

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.

This is the only word of the three that can rightfully be used to describe the Bible, but in its Biblical context it refers to the Old Testament only.

Since the religious right either misunderstand, or, in the case of their leaders, misrepresent the scripture, to use their misinterpretation of that scripture as a basis for theocracy is irrational.

Therefore, the very basis for theocracy, from my Christian perspective, is hopelessly flawed.

If Jesus were to weigh in on this subject, what would he say? What would he think about the attempts of the theocons to impose their dogma? He made two statements to indicate that, here on earth, he would support the separation of church and state. Here they are:

Mat 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world.

Furthermore, to fully determine his position, I think it necessary to consider that there was a partial theocracy in first century Judea, headed by the theocons of his day, the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees. Like today’s theocons they concentrated on dogma, not on faith. Like today’s theocons, they used their religious position to increase their own power and wealth. And like today’s theocons, they were completely intolerant of all who disagreed with them. Jesus opposed them then and would do so again today.

And what would he say to Robertson, Hagee, Perkins, Dobson and others of their ilk?

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone.

Mat 23:24 Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!

Mat 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye cleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full from extortion and excess.

Mat 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside thereof may become clean also.

Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but inwardly ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Thank you for sharing this journey with me. Happy Easter to you all.

Cross-posted from Politics Plus

Weekly Primary Report – 3/23

I guess that the Weekly Primary Report won’t be weekly after all, given how sparse primaries are becoming as we go forward, but when there are developments, I’ll pop up with an edition. The occasion is what looks like some excellent projections from Open Left, based on current polling, analogous contests where nit available. Here are their results:

.

.

State	Date	O %	C %	P. Del	Obama Del	Clinton Del
Pennsylvania	Apr 22	36.4%	52.6%	158	66	92
Guam	May 03	–	–	4	2	2
Indiana	May 06	40.0%	25.0%	72	41	31
North Carolina	May 06	46.7%	41.3%	115	60	55
West Virginia	May 13	24.5%	49.0%	28	9	19
Kentucky	May 20	–	–	51	21	30
Oregon	May 20	–	–	52	27	25
Puerto Rico	Jun 01	–	–	55	23	32
Montana	Jun 03	–	–	16	8	8
South Dakota	Jun 03	–	–	15	8	7
Total	June 10	46.0%	45.5%	566	265	301

While I think their projections are a bit skewed toward Clinton, I also think that is the safest way to call it at present. Currently this is the most up to date delegate count:

	Pledged	Super	Total	Pledged	Super	Total
Clinton	1242	243	1485	46.8%	53.8%	47.8%
Obama	1413	209	1622	53.2%	46.2%	52.2%
Total	2655	452	3107

Overall, the Democrats will have 4049 delegates at their convention. Of those 3,253 will be pledged delegates and 796 will be super delegates. I oppose the inclusion of the super delegates, because they give roughly 20% of the power to nominate to party insiders. They include Senators, Representatives, Governors, DNC members, and other party hacks, and they are not bound to represent the will of the voters.

Now if we add in the delegates in the projection, the delegate count would look like this:

	Pledged	Super	Total	Pledged	Super	Total
Clinton	1543	243	1786	47.9%	53.8%	48.6%
Obama	1678	209	1887	52.1%	46.2%	51.4%
Total	3221	452	3673

With no changes in super delegates Clinton will need 62% of the remaining pledged delegates to pull even in total delegates. She would need 66% of the remaining pledged delegates to pull even in pledged delegates. Frankly, I do not thing either is possible, especially given the Richardson endorsement.

Therefore, Obama will win the nomination, barring completely unforeseen events of scandalous proportions, unless super delegates override the voters.

Cross-posted from Politics Plus