Return to Sender.

“The (pro-Clinton) Florida Democratic Party leadership has floated a mail-in primary as the best-case-scenario for its candidate (after all, senior voters are less transient will receive mailed ballots in higher numbers than student, youth and minority voters), and the Obama campaign seemed even willing to go along with that proposal to allow Floridians a legitimate say. But, alas, there is the sticky wicket of The Law.“

Rural Votes‘ Al Giordano explains why the mail-in plan for a Florida revote is illegal. “At this late date, time is running out. The continued gaming of the system demonstrates that they don’t really want a solution, mainly because the results would certainly be different than those of the January 29 beauty contest. But scratch the surface, and this is really about some Democrats now using GOP style voter-suppression tactics…That’s not only ethically indefensible. It’s stupid politically, as it takes away the state party’s moral standing to contest the inevitable GOP voter-supression tactics coming to a Sunshine State near you next November.” Update: Florida’s House Dems nix a do-over.

Where there’s smoke?

“‘What is the holdup?’ said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that tracks the role of money in politics. ‘She hasn’t exactly made it clear as to what process is making it so cumbersome to just release them.” Campaign finance watchdogs wonder aloud why Sen. Clinton still hasn’t released her tax returns for the past seven years. “‘This is a level of disclosure the American people have come to expect and deserve from those in the White House, or those who aspire to the White House,’ said Mary Boyle of Common Cause, a government reform advocacy group.” And let’s remember, we’re not talking about her 2007 returns, which may not yet be complete. We’re also talking about the previous six years, which should just be sitting on file, and would take all of five minutes to release to the public. That is, unless there’s something shady therein…

Sex, Race, and Videotape.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” I saw this yesterday and was going to leave it well enough alone, but since it’s growing into a full-fledged dustup today, and since Team Clinton recently made a point of calling for Samantha Power’s scalp: former veep candidate and Crossfire host Geraldine Ferraro makes some rather unfortunate remarks about Sen. Obama. To quote Ambinder (whom I generally find irritating, but he pegged this one): “Because running as a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama is soooo easy.” At any rate, if the door is now open to playing this ridiculous identity game, I think it’s rather obvious to all that if Ferraro herself was a white man, we’d never have heard of her, since her gender was basically the sole reason for her inclusion on that historically terrible ’84 ticket. Similarly, if Sen. Clinton wasn’t the spouse of a former president, it’s hard to imagine her still in this race, particularly given her virtual mathematical elimination and all.

Perhaps, before Ferraro makes any more dubious claims about an easy road for black males in our society, she should read Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson’s editorial today in the NYT, where he examines the old-school racial fears stoked by Clinton’s infamous 3am ad: “I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image — innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger — it brought to my mind scenes from the past. I couldn’t help but think of D. W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,” the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society.” Some pundits argue that Patterson is over the top here, but I actually think he’s on to something (and, note, I’ve recently defended the Clinton ad people on charges of intentional racism.)

As Chris Orr notes, this wasn’t just a warmed-over Mondale/LBJ Cold War leadership spot. Team Clinton explicitly turned it into an old-school home invasion ad, the kind that’s so passé that even Slomin’s Shield has moved on. The Clinton campaign still could’ve forestalled any possible racial subtext by changing the race of the family, but, as it is, you’d have to be willfully naive not to see a problem with the Clinton version of “Barack Obama is a menace that will harm your sleeping (white) children in their beds” as it came out. At the very least, the ad gurus at Camp Clinton are guilty of willful ignorance about racist cultural tropes in American history, and perhaps a good deal more. Update: In response, the Clinton campaign points to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-her African-American child in the ad, although, given the lighting, that wasn’t immediately obvious, to say the least.)

Update 2: Ferraro blows a gasket, now claiming: “I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?” Well, if it’s any consolation, Rep. Ferraro, I’m sure your fellow national embarrassment, Sean Wilentz, agrees with you. (Patterson rebuts Wilentz here.) Update 3: Ferraro’s done this before, back in ’88: “If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.“

Update 4: “It wasn’t a racist comment, it was a statement of fact.” Ferraro can’t seem to stop digging herself deeper. At this point she’s either dogwhistling to Pennsyltucky or just completely off the rails. Either way, Keith Olbermann’s disbelief about Ferrarogate last night is worth watching. Update 5: She’s gone, and not very gracefully.

Spitzer Self-Destructs.

How about a good, old-fashioned Democratic sex scandal? In a political shocker today, New York Governor, rising Dem star, and purported ethics champion Eliot Spitzer appears to have an affinity for prostitutes. More to come after Spitzer’s press conference, but, really, what was he thinking? Spitzer was no Jimmy Walker — He’s cultivated his squeaky-clean public persona as a moral crusader since day one. That was his whole cachet. And given the enemies he’s made, there was no way on God’s green earth he was going to be able to keep that sort of thing quiet. It’s sheer idiocy on his part. Update: “I am disappointed that I failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself.” Spitzer makes a brief statement, and word comes out of a wiretap. Stick a fork in him, he’s done.

Update 2: Within an hour of the story’s leak, Gov. Spitzer gets unpersoned by Team Clinton, with all traces of his existence removed from Clinton’s website. (He endorsed her back in May.) Which makes it as good a time as any to note that, if he resigns this evening as some expect, Sen. Clinton loses a superdelegate. His likely successor, Lt. Gov David Paterson, would be the Empire State’s first (and America’s third) black governor, as well as New York’s first blind one. He is already a Clinton superdelegate (although, according to some reports, potentially a wavering one.) While on the subject, Obama picked up two more supers today regardless. Update 3: It doesn’t seem Spitzer is resigning tonight.

Obama: Step off.

“If I’m not ready, how is it that you think I should be such a great vice president?’ Mr. Obama said. ‘Do you understand that?’” Sen. Barack Obama probes an obvious fault line in the Clintons’ kitchen-sink attack. “‘With all due respect, I’ve won twice as many states as Senator Clinton,’ Mr. Obama said, speaking over the applause of nearly 2,000 people who rose from their seats. ‘I’ve won more of the popular vote than Senator Clinton. I have more delegates than Senator Clinton. So, I don’t know how somebody who’s in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who’s in first place….I’m not running for vice president. I’m running for president of the United States of America.’” Well put. (See it here.)

For what it’s worth, Clinton goon Howard Wolfson tried to square the circle this morning with this gem: “We do not believe that Sen. Obama has passed the commander in chief test. But there is a long way between now and Denver.” Uh, that clearly doesn’t make a lick of sense. Why does the Clinton campaign continue to assume that we’re all morons? It’s infuriating.

And the Horse They Rode in On.

So, if you’re of the mind that GitM has degraded in quality and become obsessively single-minded since the election season began in earnest, and that I should really just head out to the movies and chill, I apologize. There’s a link about the The Dark Knight just above, and I’ll try to keep the coverage somewhat broader in the weeks ahead. Alas, although the electoral math would seem to make it clear that the race is over — former Clinton flunky Dick Morris is the latest to call it — it would also seem the Clinton campaign is not getting the message, and they’re more than willing to commit the party version of fratricide out of pique. Case in point, this new interview with Newsweek, in which Hillary Clinton actually floats (again) the nuclear option: stealing Obama’s pledged delegates. (“Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to.“) Uh, what? (And caucus delegates are elected delegates, but nice try.)

So, I’ll be the first to admit that the election season has become more than a little tiring and draining at this point, and the idea of at least seven more weeks of this until Pennsylvania does not bring a smile to my face. But, it’s apparently time to take Fight Club up a notch. When Hillary Clinton and her campaign lie incessantly about her experience, cozy up with hatemongers for cash, try to change the election rules in mid-stream, spew forth readily disprovable idiocies in what seems at this point to be an attempt to hide some ill-gotten gains, and begin pushing John McCain over the presumptive Democratic nominee, she’s going to get called on it. When a guy like Joe Conason, who made a career out of arguing (correctly) that there was really nothing much to Whitewater, then turns around and tries to use the exact same pattern of half-assed insinuation to smear Obama with Tony Rezko (a media tic his Salon colleague Glenn Greenwald had savagely picked apart just two days before), he’s going to get called on it.

And this talk — by the candidate herself! — of stealing pledged delegates is the last straw. In short, these people need to go. Since the Clintons are not going gracefully, since they seem hell-bent on refusing to respect the rules in this contest, and since, in the naked pursuit of power, they have effectively decided to obliterate their legacy in the Democratic Party and salt the earth around its smoldering remains, there’s nothing else to be done. It’s time to cry havoc, and let slip the blogs of war.

The Reject and Denounce Double Standard.

As Ambinder notes today, the Clinton campaign dropped a $100,000 donor over the weekend, one Mehmet Celebi, apparently upon discovering he’s been making anti-semitic movies (about Jewish doctors harvesting organs from Muslims.) Said Clinton flunky Ann Lewis two days ago: “We were unaware of Mr. Celebi’s involvement in this film and we obviously do not agree with it.” That would seem to be a bit less forceful than Clinton’s “reject and denounce” blathering regarding Farrakhan at the Ohio debate, wouldn’t it? In any case, Ann Lewis is lying. The New York Post contacted the campaign about Celebi over a month ago, when they had no comment.

As for Farrakhan, WP columnist Colbert King notes that the Clintons were singing a very different tune on him until very recently. “Post-White House Clinton found no fault with Farrakhan’s leadership. There was no mention of Farrakhan’s ‘malice and division’ during the interview. [in 2005]” As always, the rules would seem to change whenever it fits the Clintons’ convenience.

FMLA came first.

“By now, we all know how over-hyped are Hillary claims about her foreign policy experience – including her claims that she negotiated peace treaties and opened borders. But there’s also hype in her claims about domestic policy.” Some enterprising dKos’ers look at the timeline and find Sen. Clinton had basically nothing to do with passing the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The bill, originally penned in 1986 by Sen. Chris Dodd, had already been passed and vetoed twice under Papa Bush. It was then set up to go by the Democratic Congress upon Clinton’s entering office (it was HR.1 and S. 1 respectively), and was signed into law, as a fait accompli, only sixteen days after inauguration day.

Update: Former House member William Lacey Clay notes: “‘She never had anything to with it. I just don’t think you ought to play games with that kind of stuff.’“

Stupid Vote Tricks.

“The momentum is shifting to us right now. If we are the leader in the popular vote and we have closed the gap in pledged delegates, that’s a very persuasive argument.” In a revealing piece in the Sunday Times, the Clinton campaign seems to concede it has lost the delegate race, instead placing their hopes on the popular vote. (At the moment, they’re down 600,000, not counting rogue states Florida and Michigan.) This is basically akin to the New England Patriots arguing they should be given the Super Bowl trophy because, even if they lost the game, they got more yards. (They didn’t, but you get what I mean.) Of course, since getting that lead looks hard for them, the Clinton campaign reserve the right to try to change the most-important stat again if need be. (“The argument is being made privately as winning the most votes still presents a formidable challenge. She might, in the end, have to rest her case on her ability to win key battleground states.“)

The Times piece is also notable because it has Bill Bradley calling the Clintons out (again) as liars: “‘The bigger the lie, the better the chance they think they’ve got. That’s been their whole approach,’ he said. ‘She’s going to lose a whole generation of people who got involved in politics believing it could be something different.’“

Meanwhile, the sinking Clinton campaign finds a lifeline in this front-page WP story on undecided superdelegates, which states that [a] many undecideds seem to be planning to wait for now and, more troubling, [b] at least a few undecided super-delegates are comfortable with overturning the pledged delegate count. Says Oregon super Bill Bradbury: ““If the pledged-delegate total is within 100 votes or whatever, I don’t think there’s a great deal of significance in that.’” Hmm. Well, I’d be more concerned about this statement if all the data didn’t suggest Obama is a stronger national candidate with bigger coattails (see also tonight’s Foster win), so I’m guessing supers would be more inclined to back Obama in the end anyway. That being said, I’m absolutely positive Bradbury here significantly understates what the reaction would be if the supers reject the pledged delegate leader en masse. It would mean clear defeat in November, if not a lasting party schism. Fortunately, whatever Bradbury’s personal opinion, this scenario isn’t at all likely, particularly given that super-supers with more pull — Pelosi, Biden, Richardson, etc. — have all specifically argued against Bradbury’s position.

Giddyup, Cowboy State.

The math just got even harder. Sen. Obama wins the Wyoming caucuses 61%-38%, meaning he’s picked up three more delegates on Clinton (7-5 + 1 add-on UAD), i.e. 75% of her ostensibly game-changing 4-delegate victory last Tuesday. Next stop, Mississippi on Tuesday.