After reading another letter to the editor in our college newspaper defending California's proposition 8, discussing how gays have the same rights as we do because they can also marry people of the opposite sex, it occurred to me that common sense was not in high supply for these folks. So, rather than use empathy to explain how they wouldn't be very happy with that argument if the shoe was on the other foot, another approach occurred to me: show where their silly argument breaks down—not for gays, but for women (or men).

Men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't. Women are allowed to marry men, but men aren't. That sounds like gender discrimination to me. Does this argument stand a chance of breaking through that dense wall of willful ignorance?

I was disappointed when the fifth district (which includes Charlottesville) was prematurally called for Goode Tuesday night, hopeful when I saw the margin narrow to less than 100 votes, and then cautiously optimistic when I heard that Periello was up by 31 votes. I'm recklessly optimistic now that I've found out he's leading by 648 votes. (CNN has it at 646.) No, Goode hasn't conceded yet, and there probably will be a recount, but I think this House seat is belatedly going our way as well.

Update: The VA state board of elections has it at 745. Periello has declared victory, and Goode has declared irregularities. Don't expect Goode to concede any time soon, and with the margin being only 0.24% (assuming the 745 number will be official), if Goode asks for a recount (they're never automatic in Virginia), he wouldn't have to pay for it.

I'm sure many of us can relate to this XKCD comic strip:



Click on image to go to XKCD and see larger version. (And if you're not familiar with XKCD, you should always hover over the image to see the "easter egg".)

I just got back from voting at Venable Elementary School here in Charlottesville, VA. I got to the polling place at around 6:!5 and didn't get out until around 7:25. I've voted in this precinct several times (including the last presidential election), and I've never had to wait more than 5 minutes before to vote. The enthusiasm was strong, and the number of young people was inspiring. They're not letting us down this time. One of the election workers said that she was pleasantly surprised that despite the very unusual waiting times, she hadn't encountered a single dour person yet. In Charlottesville, the vast majority are so happy to be voting for Obama, an hour+ wait is nothing to them. Many of the kids were whipping out their digital cameras after leaving the voting place in order to capture this momentous occasion for posterity. There were also a few leaving in their cars, honking their horns and shouting "OBAMA!"

I have a really good feeling about this election. (Not that I was worrying prior to this.)

Democrats frequently disappoint me on environmental issues. Republicans rarely do. The reason for this isn't that Democrats are worse than Republicans on environmental issues—far from it. The reason is that I expect most Republicans to have no regard for the environment, so it's impossible for them to disappoint me.

We see similar apparent double standards on other issues such as hypocrisy and women's issues. The press and many of us have learned not to expect much out of Republicans, so it's hardly news when they vote against women's issues or are caught in another hypocrisy. Dog bites man vs. man bites dog and all that.

Of course, pride comes before the fall.

Judging from past voting histories in this nation, much of the voting public doesn't seem to understand this built-in bias of the media: why would they report on another violation of women's rights or another instance of hypocrisy when it's hardly news?

What's the answer to this? One answer is to make sure Republican friends and family are aware of each of these instances. Of course, it's important to do so in a way that doesn't turn them off, which will vary from person to person. Most of my friends and family members are quite willing to listen to my points without getting upset, but not all of them, so I tailor my message to my audience. That's the advantage of one-on-one conversations, and we need more of them.

So, next time you notice the double standard, accept it as a compliment to the Democrats, but fight against it nonetheless.

Does it matter who we vote for? Obama and McCain are practically two peas in a pod. Consider their view points on various issues:

* Civil rights: Obama voted in favor of a recent FISA bill that had telecom immunity in it. Sure, he voted for the amendment that would've stripped that immunity which McCain surely would've voted against had he bothered to show up, but that doesn't count for anything. Also, ignore McCain's stance on habeas corpus. That's latin for something, so it can't be that important. Oh, and that torture thing? Fuggeddaboutit.

* Abortion: Obama is in favor of allowing states to prohibit third-trimester abortions to women unless there's an actual physical or psychological need for it (mental distress does not count), just like McCain is in favor of allowing states to prohibit all abortions.

* Iraq: Obama has admitted that an unforseen disaster might cause him to adjust his 18-month timetable in Iraq, making him no better than McCain and his 100-year timetable.

* Faith-based initiatives: Obama wants to make sure these funds are only used in a manner that does not support proselytizing, but he doesn't want to end faith-based initiatives, so he's no better than McCain.

* Death penalty: Obama has said that he thinks the death penatly should be allowed for child rapists, just like McCain. Ignore that Obama has fought legislatively against the death penalty while McCain has actively supported it. They both agree on the child rapist thing, so they're the same here, too.

* Environment: Hey, McCain's also said that he thinks global warming is real! (Ignore McCain's score of 26 from the League of Conservation Voters compared to Obama's score of 96. It's irrelevant I tell you!)

For more information on how the two are exactly alike check out where McCain and Obama stand on the issues.

(Warning: the above should not be read by the sarcasm-impaired.)

There are (at least) two big issues of justice that separate the liberals from the conservatives when it comes to The Global War On Terror™.

The first is impeachment. Many of us would like to see Bush and Cheney impeached for their actions over the last 7 years. Even so, most of us who feel that way don't believe this to be a realizable wish. We might applaud Kucinich acting as Don Quixote, but ultimately realize that it's just not going to happen. We are very eager to forgive Obama (and/or Clinton) for not pursuing this.

The second is telecom immunity. Remember that immunity is about forgiving past criminal actions and not about preventing future ones, although with all questions of justice, these are related. Again, most of us are against telecom immunity (both civil and criminal). However, many of us (myself included), aren't quite as eager to overlook Obama's differing stance on this one. Why is that?

I think that most of us who feel this way (i.e., with the contrasting opinions on impeachment vs. immunity), it really boils down to whether we think this was a necessary compromise. Most people who are defending Obama think that it was. Most of us who aren't so quick to defend don't think that it was. So, whether than it being so much a question of ethics (else, why would we be so ready to forgive his lack of support for impeachment?), it really boils down to a question of pragmatism. Was it really necessary, and how sure are you of it?

I don't think it was necessary, even on the civil side (as I understand it, criminal prosecution is still open), but I can't say I'm even 80% sure of it.

So, although I think he made the wrong call here, it's not the same crushing blow to my opinion of him that it seems to be for some people who also think he made the wrong call here. As usual, part of my purpose in posting this is to find a middle ground where we can at least agree to disagree without getting lost in hyperbole.

Censorship.

It's an ugly word, isn't it?

I would argue that self-censorship is not only not ugly, but desirable. Otherwise, we might as well be suffering from Tourette syndrome.

Nevertheless, I've read from other posters here about how trying to be nice to others (or heaven forfend trying to avoid using vulgar language) amounts to self-censorship and is implicitly therefore a bad thing.

Yet, anyone who has studied child psychology can tell you that self-censorship is a skill that is a vital part of growing up.

That doesn't mean you can't cuss. It doesn't mean you can't be sarcastic. It definitely doesn't mean you can't speak to harsh truths. It does mean you should be mindful of what you write, and possibly even re-read what you write before pressing the Submit button. (If I did that more often, perhaps I'd have fewer spelling/grammatical errors in my comments.)

Preachy rant over, for now.

It's been suggested that we should share some of our tips and tricks for "working around" some of the limitations inherent in TPM's UI. So, I'll share mine here, and I'll encourage others to add theirs in the comments.

1. Avoid using an apostrophe (AKA single quote) in either your user name or in your blog titles. That is the reason this blog was not titled "A User's Guide for TPM". Using an apostrophe in your user name means that people can't reply to you. Using an apostrophe in your blog title means that the previous and next feature won't work. There used to be a problem with double quotes as well, but that's now been fixed. So, er, great—we can now reply to "Present".

2. Want to know if someone has responded to your comments? Trying to get back to what you were last reading? [Ctrl]+[f] is your friend. In most browsers this will bring up a find dialogue that allows you to search for your name or some other phrase. (On Macs replace [Ctrl] with [Open Apple].) Sometimes I search on just "Ben" in case someone's posted a comment down below due to the reply feature not working properly. Of course, hrbendorf provides false hits when using that search. Luckily, I don't mind reading what he's written. :)

3. Trying to look for old posts? There are two tactics for dealing with this. First, if you know ahead of time that a post will likely be one you'll be returning to, bookmark it. Get to know how to organize bookmarks in your browser as you'll probably want to put these in one or more folders for easy access. Second, if you're looking for one that you didn't bookmark, try using Google's site feature. If you add site:talkingpointsmemo.com to your search criteria, it will limit its search to only this site.

4. Recommend those posts that you want to show up in the most recommended list. ;)

I wrote about this once before, but it seems that people are still arguing (without intent of irony) that what we post here just doesn't matter. (Note: I've singled out one instance of it, from someone I respect, but he's certainly not alone.) We're only one voice, after all.

Well, by the same logic, our vote doesn't matter either, but we still feel that it's our civic duty, don't we? Why is that? I'd argue that it's because although each individual vote doesn't matter, collectively those votes are what decide the election, of course. There are a lot of actions in life that are like that. You touching that priceless piece of history won't do any real damage, but if everyone were to do so, it'd be destroyed far too quickly.

So, yes, what you write here does matter. I'll avoid getting preachy (yeah, I know, too late) and telling you how I think you should comport yourself, but don't think that what you write doesn't matter. Each comment by itself is like a vote—it has little impact by itself, but collectively we decide the very atmosphere of TPM as well as how some people perceive our favored candidate.

So, up on TPM Election Central is a story about a new ad for Sen. Clinton that fails to mention Obama. Of course, Obama has had several ads that fail to mention Clinton as well. So, here's the question: can they use funds for the general election on these, and how much do you think that factors into their decision to not mention their primary opponents in these ads?

So, I'm wrestling with an ethical question. I've got Republican friends who aren't exactly thrilled with McCain, but who can't bring themselves to vote Democratic. It seems like a bit of a cheap shot to encourage these people to vote 3rd party when I've discouraged all of my Democratic leaning friends from doing so when they're not thrilled with the Democratic candidate. On the other hand, I'm convinced that it actually is in their best interest since I think that a Democratic president will help almost all of us. (Those earning more than $250,000 might reasonably disagree, depending on their priorities.)

So, what do you think? Is it ethically wrong to encourage them to "throw their vote away"?

Putting aside your feelings about including MI & FL, I think it's interesting to look at the total delegate count as it stands now if you include them. Including MI & FL gives us the following pledged delegate math:
Total pledged delegates: 3566
Needed for a majority: 1783.5
Number Obama has outright: 1725.5
    including uncommitted: 1780.5
    and Edwards' dels: 1800.5

Including the uncommitted and Edward's delegates is not unreasonable considering that Edwards has endorsed him, and (I believe) every Edwards pledged delegate that has changed so far has gone to Obama. The uncommitted delegates were also almost all undoubtedly intended for either Obama or Edwards, so that just continues the point. Even just giving him Michigan's uncommitted delegates would put him within 3, which I think it's safe to say he'll get in any one of the remaining contests, let alone all of them.

This doesn't answer the question about whether to seat and MI & FL (and if to seat, how many to seat), but it does change the context somewhat. Really, the only concerns now are setting a bad precedent vs. upsetting two states that we really want to vote for us.

Since I was quite surprised to discover this, I thought I'd point this out for the rest of the TPM community. John Edwards is not a superdelegate. He's no longer a Senator, and obviously never achieved Democratic Party Leader status, but he's also not one of the DNC superdelegates, either.

On the upside, as others have already pointed out, he does have a few pledged delegates that will most likely drift Obama's way (in fact, this has already begun to happen).

Although I think it's important for each of us to make up our own minds about who to vote for in November, few of us really have the time (and/or inclination) to learn every relevant factor about our voting options. A convenient shortcut is to find one or more groups that we agree with and look at their scorecards for the candidates in question. Along those lines, I'm including the scores from a few groups and encourage commenters to include those I've omitted.

League of conservation voters (lifetime): Obama: 96, McCain: 26
LCV (110th): Obama: 100, McCain: 29
NARAL: Obama: 100, McCain: 0
Planned Parenthood: Obama: 100, McCain: 0
National Right to Life: Obama: 0, McCain: 82
ACLU (lifetime): Obama: 82, McCain: 25
ACLU (110th): Obama: 89, McCain: 17
NRA: Obama: F, McCain: C
NAACP: Obama: 100, McCain: 7
NOW: Obama: 91, McCain: 13
Children's Defense Fund: Obama: 100, McCain: 10
National Education Association: Obama: 100, McCain: 0
National Farmer's Union: Obama: 100, McCain: 0
AFL-CIO: Obama: 93, McCain: 7
United Auto Workers: Obama: 85, McCain: 9

Note: Presumably most of TPM will be voting for Obama in November. This information is intended not just for your consumption, but also for sharing with your friends and family.