onegoodmove

I usually find Hitchens to be a worthy read, even when I think he's totally wrong. His piece on Michelle Obama is the most polemically impotent thing I've ever seen him publish.

Could it possibly have anything, I wonder, to do with Mrs. Obama? This obvious question is now becoming inescapable, and there is an inexcusable unwillingness among reporters to be the one to ask it.

Are we supposed to hear the sinister flourish of a piano keys being pounded down the scale?

I don't need any condescending liberal to explain to me why black Americans are inclined to be touchy about the way their forebears were treated any more than I require a patronizing former Harvard law student to guide me through the anxieties of the gun-owning and hunting community.

Yeah, right. And I don't need a drunken, patronizing sot urging reporters to descend even further into their cesspool of superficiality, Then comes a link to Michelle's tedious undergraduate thesis! What's next? An exposé on Michelle's 11-grade term paper on the Cosby Show?

Hitchens has never written a less convincing, less interesting article than this one.

I am wondering about the autism article. Can it be that people who are diagnosed with mental health issues are more likely to see such issues in their children? I'm not talking about people seeing things that aren't there but just being that much more aware of mental health. I used to work in the mental health industry (actually it was a county job) and there was always a lot of talk about mental health awareness and how so many people go through life suffering from mental illness but never go see a doctor about it.

Indiana: Obama +2

North Carolina: Obama +6

Indiana Clinton plus 6

Obama North Carolina Plus 5

Indiana: Clinton +4 Carolina: Obama +9

Although I have my lucky shirt on today, so Obama still has a chance in Indiana.

Indiana, Clinton plus 4 Carolina, Obama plus 10

Clinton +3 in Indiana Obama +2 in Carolina

Unlike most political creatures, Hitchens is a man who picks and chooses the ideas he ascribes to by there individual merits. He does not squat upon a dogma or a policy or a party and blindly defend whatever nonsense his partisanship requires.

Thus we find a complex individual who is able to make remarkable sense on some topics (religion for instance) while being completely wrong on others (the war in Iraq for example).

Here he has taken one point from a single paper out of context, notably without examining what that presumably hateful point is, to establish some doubt upon Mrs. Obama's sensibilities and thereby her husband's.

The same argument is NOT made about Bill. He's been out embarrassing himself for months, trashing his legacy of sagacity and reason and showing himself, as much as Hillary, painfully desperate to say anything at all, everything at once, to tear down an ideological ally in order to gain the White House.

fp

IN: Clinton +6 NC: Obama +12

NC Obama 8 IN Clinton 4

Buying obama's book with my winnings.

IN: Clinton by 4. NC: Obama by, uh, 6.

(checks everyone else)

yeah, that hasn't been called yet.

Keeping my eye on the prize.. from the AP today..

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (AP) - Republican John McCain criticized Democrat Barack Obama for voting against John Roberts as Supreme Court chief justice, reaching out to the Christian right on one of their chief concerns: the proper role of judges in government. Conservatives believe federal judges have upset the constitutional balance of power among the courts, the Congress and the presidency by making far-reaching decisions, such as one in 2005 that let cities seize people's homes to make way for shopping malls. "My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power," McCain said Tuesday in a speech at Wake Forest University. McCain, the eventual GOP nominee, promised to appoint judges who, in the mold of Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, would interpret the law strictly to curb the scope of their rulings. While McCain didn't mention abortion, the far right understands that such nominees would be likely to limit the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. Obama, on the other hand, voted against Roberts and Alito. So did Obama's rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, but McCain stayed focused on Obama.

Which is why I'll vote for any democrat.

IN: Clinton +5 NC: Obama +7

BTW, Norm, you should make your method of calculation of the "cumulative difference" clear (it is so important!). Are you going to add the votes together for both states and get the difference as if their popular votes are combined - then figure the percentages? Or are you going to just sum the percentages? (The first method weights NC more because of its greater population, obviously.)

IN: Recount NC: Obama +6

Hmmmm.... I think I misunderstood what you meant by cumulative difference ... never mind!

One prediction I got right was that Norm wouldn't post this clip from last night's Daily Show: Hillary's Pandering

Indiana: Clinton by 8 North Carolina: Clinton buy 1

I would suggest taking guesses on net Delegates and Popular vote shifts today but the turnout is so remarkable that I would have no Idea where to start.

Wow - Panderer's Box. Jon has never been better.

IN: Clinton by 5 NC: Obama by 9

Indiana: Clinton by 2. North Carolina: Obama by 9.

Regarding Hitchens: for me it's not so much that his analysis is wrong, it's that he (like most of us) despises the reality that politicians have to make astounding compromises/peaces with religious asshats. To this end, the whole Wright controversy should really be beneath him to write about, and were it not related to religion, I think his piece probably would have been about excoriating the media for focusing on this, and not the real issues.

Indiana: Clinton by 2

North Carolina: Obama by 7

cheating

cheating

Having Poll watchers is perfectly legal.

Having a sign about getting help if you are having trouble is perfectly fine, and in fact is really fucking good considering oppressive new laws in Indiana.

Having a small Obama symbol at the bottom of the page is likely a minor violation, that an election judge should ask them to cover up.

Indiana: Clinton by 5

NC: Obama by 10

@ALTERNET:

Tallibi is a much better writer than he is a speaker, as shown on Bill Maher. Some parts were grating, but the last half of the story was fascinating.

People article with John and Elizabeth Edwards.

I am incredibly surprised and supremely disappointed that all they could come up with are the nightly cable news talking points. If they can't even muster up more depth, what hope do we have for our nation's journalists?

"More substance behind the rhetoric" - Blah - heard it too many times - it's not true, ever, if you just listen to Obama - or read something past the headlines.

"Proves she is a tough fighter" - Blah - what choice does she have? - at the very minimum our president has to be tough - who cares!

"I like here health care plan" - Blah Blah Blah - we need a single payer system - nothing else will work!

"Obama will actually bring about real change" - What? you just criticized Obama for saying "Change" and "hope" too much and then you cite that as a reason you like him! Come on John - use your brain - try to say something intelligent!

I'm surprised neither one mentioned flag pins!

I'm tired of it all!

Norm?

Clinton by 8 in Indiana? Obama by 2 in NC?

What polls are you looking at?

I think, perhaps, you've got your numbers reversed.

Hmm... thinking about your decision rule for the winner, Norm:

When you say you'll use the cumulative difference, do you mean that you'll add the final margins together from the two states to get a single number, and the person closest to that single number would win?

For example, someone who says Clinton by 10 in IN state and Obama by 10 in NC is really just saying zero overall margin (and would win if their margins are right, but reversed by state, or even if the final outcome is, say Clinton by 30 in NC and Obama by 30 in IN)?

I don't think this gives the desired outcome, since in the above scenario (IN: Obama +30, NC: Clinton +30), someone guessing IN: Clinton +10, NC: Obama +10, would win over someone who said IN: Obama +29, NC: Clinton +30....

Maybe that's not what you intend though?

Maybe what you meant is the following, which I would advocate:

A person's score is the sum of the absolute values of their individual discrepancies, so a guess of (+10, -10) in the face of an actual outcome of (-30, +30) would get a score of 80, whereas the guess of (-29, +30) would get a score of 1. Lowest score wins.

Indiana: Clinton by 2

North Carolina: Obama by 11

Indiana: Clinton by 1 (or less -- a close one), Obama by 11 in NC

Panderer's Box is a great piece by Jon.

On Sam Harris: On philosophical grounds I distrust someone who advocates torture when it comes to any moral or religious issue.

we got exit polls

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/06/exit-polls-indiana-north_n_100447.html

Is it too late to make a prediction? I wasn't sure when the polls were opening...

Anyway, I'm going with Clinton by 3 in Indiana and Obama by 12 in NC.

Indiana Clinton +6

North Carolina +8

That should be Indiana Clinton +6

North Carolina OBAMA +8

my bad

Indiana

Clinton by 8.7%

North Carolina

Cinton by 3.2%

Indiana. Clinton +11 NC. Obama +1

I think I'm coming in after the polls have closed but I don't see any returns anywhere. I'm reversing Norm's numbers, going with

IN: Clinton +2 and NC: Obama +8

But I'll hedge a bit and say that Obama has some nice things going for him in IN. The Ohio river valley is prime HRC country, but he has some key endorsements down there. Plus the Gary area, Indy, and the Michiana area could be good for him. Probably not good enough, thought.

"Recount": There's no need to recount an election with proportional representation. If they are that close, you can assign delegates without getting down the exact margin.

Tim: "Hitchens has never written a less convincing, less interesting article than this one."

A self-proclaimed Marxist is now patriot-baiting peace candidates' wives. People should finally start realizing that there's really no intellectual core to Hitchens at all. Leaving completely aside the whole disheveled lush thing. Gore Vidal he is absolutely not.

"On Sam Harris: On philosophical grounds I distrust someone who advocates torture when it comes to any moral or religious issue."

Then you probably don't want to hear what he's written about nuking the middle east....

to everyone who said Clinton would win NC:

EPIC FAIL

to everyone who said Clinton would win NC: EPIC FAIL

Yep. Unless CNN has totally screwed up, it'll be very solid for Obama in NC - they have already projected him the winner. Exit polls:

Male: 57-39 Obama Female: 54-42 Obama

If that's anywhere close to representative, it'll be Obama in the double digits in NC.

Although I will admit that it currently looks like many of us did not expect Senator Clinton to win by double digits in Indiana.

Although I will admit that it currently looks like many of us did not expect Senator Clinton to win by double digits in Indiana.

Rightly so it seems...

On Sam Harris: On philosophical grounds I distrust someone who advocates torture when it comes to any moral or religious issue.

Have you actually read the circumstances under which he advocates it though? How could you disagree on anything other than purely emotional grounds? Is there actually an ethical argument against his?

On another note, I also wholeheartedly agree with his piece that Norm linked to.

Obama set to win by 14 points in North Carolina?!

My prediction, numbers notwithstanding:

Barring a catastrophe of some sort for Obama, it's over for Clinton, and I'm sure she knows it.

Tonight is a watershed night. We will see more superdelegates lining up behind Obama now.

Kudos to Hillary for fighting the good fight. She's a hell of a mechanic, and knows how to get every ounce of effectiveness out of the machine. But sometimes what's needed is a visionary.

Obama was the right man, in the right place, at the right time. If Clinton had been a visionary, she could have early on, like Obama, taken the high road and sought not just a presidential victory, but a moral victory. But in the end, she played the game she knew best, the game she's spent decades mastering. And she's damned good at it, too.

But we're tired of that game. We don't want to play it anymore. We're ready to strike out the rules that tear us down, and write ones that lift us up.

I still like to speculate on the possibility of an Obama-Clinton ticket. She'd make a hell of a Cheney.

"Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things." ---Peter F. Drucker

I don't understand your "cumulative difference" numbers at all.

Oh, now I get it. You summed the predicted percentages AND took the difference between that & reality.

A bit confusing at first.

Sweet, what do I get for third place, Norm? ;)

No need to have a Lemos pile-on, I think it's safe to say that his prediction was more about wishful thinking and just throwing something out there than having a totally accurate rendering. Granted, the polling hasn't been great, but given the number of early ballots cast, he would know that a Clinton victory in NC was not gonna happen.

Interesting aside: Kos is saying he doesn't want Hillary to drop out until after Oregon, because otherwise we have the nominee presumptive getting crushed in WV.

The media heads are saying "Let's talk about them being on the same ticket!" but that's not gonna happen, I think. So who does Obama bring in to round out the ticket, giving him boosts in OH and FL?

Red Seven: C6 O5 13

How are you figuring this?

Indiana: Clinton +4 Carolina: Obama +9

if reality is Clinton by 1 and Obama by 16.

Then I was 3 off and 7 off.

Total of 10 off.

One thing seems certain:

The future of the Clinton campaign is yesterday.

So close, and yet so far... I was at 1 with the exit poll numbers on Huffington Post when I checked... (C5 O12)

Glad we're on the same page algorithmically speaking, Tim... Has Norm privately confirmed that's what he had in mind? It's hard to interpret his original phrasing, although this does seem the most reasonable thing, barring something complicated (squared difference error functions anyone? Ooh, or Chi-square goodness of fit? Hehe...)

Actually since, with only two exceptions, everyone made predictions more Clinton-friendly than reality with both states, the rank orderings are the same whether we use Tim's and my (and Norm's intended?) scheme, or just add the two states margins together as I recommended against in my earlier comment...

It looks to me like either gypsy sister or uubuntu is the probable winner. If I'm missing someone let me know.

It looks to me like either gypsy sister or uubuntu is the probable winner. If I'm missing someone let me know.

I think forester was tied with gypsy sister - as my deleted post indicated.

Three cheers to Mr. Obama for his stunning victory today!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8lvc-azCXY

May the force be with him.

Congrats to gypsy sister and to forester -- good calls.

To those who wish it was over, who wish she would concede: according to CNN, she has added West Virginia to her campaign stops. Sorry.

Conservatives are Happier than Liberals because they don't give a damn about people who starve to death.

Pharyngula: All of theology explained in just 7 words

in yoda/miyagi speak: believe or no believe, no wish

Congrats to gypsy sister and to forester -- good calls.

Definitely

I wasn't prepared to be that optimistic, but then I guess I shouldn't have allowed emotion to be a factor.

To JJBerg -- on Sam Harris.

Initially, I only read about half of his torture "defense" before I realized the flaws in his argument -- false (but plausible-sounding) premises. He argues for torture under purely fictional circumstances -- circumstances that are not just unlikely but, without a screenwriter controlling the action, outside the range of reasonable probability, much like the existence of psychic power. In my mind, fictional circumstances like the "ticking time bomb" require fictional responses like using psychic power to ascertain the location over nonfictional responses like torture. And at least using psychic power doesn't not compromise the humanity of those performing the actions.

As to the link that Norm posted, tristero (on digbysblog) answered more succinctly and effectively than I can. Here are links to the first (short) response and after some blowback from readers of her blog, the second (longer) response where she stands by her views.

In short, I disagree with Sam Harris on torture, and I disagree with his views on radical Islam as being representative of Islamic thought or radical Christianity being representative of Christian thought. By opposing all religion he depicts all religious thought in the same cartoonish manner as do the religionists he purportedly opposes.

As a Unitarian humanist, I am pretty comfortable with atheist thought, and quite sympathetic to the discrimination atheists receive in American society. But I disagree with atheist fundamentalism as much as Islamic or Christian fundamentalism. Intolerance by Islamicists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Libertarians, Communists or Athiests, is intolerance, pure and simple.

The opposition of intolerance and fundamentalism is liberalism and flexibility. Not "different fundamentalism". The problem with radical Islamic governments is an intolerance of liberalism and liberal thought, not, as Harris implies, the religion itself. To me, Harris' atheism is as rigid and conservative a belief structure as is that of Pat Robertson. He just reads from a different book.

Good stuff, uubuntu.

I was going to mirror, flop your prediction, but was called away. Too late now.

Hitchen Post (dead horse tied thereto):

"warning Jews, "You can't say 'Never Again' to God, because when he puts you in the ovens, you're there forever.""

Farrakhan

Hitler is, was...well, God-like, when you think about it. If you let yourself think of it.

Affirmative action's a scandal. Ms. Vaughn's thesis is rife with colloquialisms, mixed, matched, with colloqiumisms. Sociology's less a Science than Psychology even. Why? Same answer as for economics, chaos/politics.

When Michelle Obama runs for president in 2016, or 2024, these onerous issues must be revisited.

In due course.

Accusing (meditative)Harris:

"as rigid and conservative a belief structure "

Come on, the Buddha says beliefs(tructures) impose (pseudo)questions not tending to edification.

Harris is NOT guilty of the crime you charge him with. Perhaps are, you are, bantu-ubuntu, guilty of grimy motives, not pure ones, cloudy ones, tending to obscure your thought maps. Harris is well-tempered in his modulation/moderation. And right (not to be so facilely conflated with righteous).

Islam, Nation of Islam, Afrocentric B.S. (or Ph. D), Dutch P.C. Tolerance of Intolerance-on-Steroids , these are ideas that have not withstood the test of mental rotation, of being looked at from many angles.

philosopher's tone as 1.22474 's posts hurt my head.

Obama won South Bend and Mishawaka. Yay! That's one of the things that likely kept it close. Those areas aren't very black at all. It's the standard mix of black-young-white middle class that Obama is going to win the nomination on.