Over the Line

The Clinton campaign is trying to get the discounted Dem votes in Michigan and Florida re-instated. I agree with what Ezra says about this.

This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart. In an attempt to retain some control over the process and keep the various states from accelerating their primaries into last Summer, the Democratic National Committee warned Michigan and Florida that if they insisted on advancing their primary debates, their delegates wouldn’t be seated and the campaigns would be asked not to participate in their primaries. This was agreed to by all parties (save, of course, the states themselves).

With no one campaigning, Clinton, of course, won Michigan — she was the only Democrat to be on the ballot, as I understand it, which is testament to the other campaign’s beliefs that the contest wouldn’t count — and will likely win Florida. And because the race for delegates is likely to be close, she wants those wins to matter. So she’s fighting the DNC’s decision, and asking her delegates — those she’s already won, and those she will win — to overturn it at the convention.

See also Josh Marshall.

Update: See also more Josh Marshall and Emptywheel.

Update 2: The Talking Dog.

When “Bipartisan” Means We’re Screwed

At the Washington Post, if it’s “bipartisan” it must be righteous.

Baker and Weisman’s article reveals a House of Representatives oozing with self-congratulation.

President Bush hailed “the kind of cooperation that some predicted was not possible here in Washington.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) used the words “bipartisan” and “bipartisanship” 10 times in a brief appearance. “Many Americans believe that Washington is broken,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). “But I think this agreement, and I hope that this agreement, will show the American people that we can fix it.”

Paul Krugman has another opinion.

Specifically, the Democrats appear to have buckled in the face of the Bush administration’s ideological rigidity, dropping demands for provisions that would have helped those most in need. And those happen to be the same provisions that might actually have made the stimulus plan effective.

So what else is new?

Aside from business tax breaks — which are an unhappy story for another column — the plan gives each worker making less than $75,000 a $300 check, plus additional amounts to people who make enough to pay substantial sums in income tax. This ensures that the bulk of the money would go to people who are doing O.K. financially — which misses the whole point.

The goal of a stimulus plan should be to support overall spending, so as to avert or limit the depth of a recession. If the money the government lays out doesn’t get spent — if it just gets added to people’s bank accounts or used to pay off debts — the plan will have failed. …

…Yes, they extracted some concessions, increasing rebates for people with low income while reducing giveaways to the affluent. But basically they allowed themselves to be bullied into doing things the Bush administration’s way.

In his blog, Krugman explains why this is a problem.

Update: See also David Sirota, “The Stimulus Swindle“; Michael Mandel, “How Real Was the Prosperity?