FBI's 9/11 timeline released under FOIA

The Raw Story has a disturbing article about a major FOIA release - an FBI timeline which the 9/11 Commission relied on heavily in preparation of its report. Kevin Fenton, a translator, obtained the 300-page timeline under FOIA earlier this month. The documents suggest that a Saudi government employee living in California had much closer connections to some of the 9/11 hijackers than previously reported, and according to the article, there was an intense debate between Commission staffers over whether to include this information in the final 9/11 Commission Report (it was redacted). The whole article is worth reading:

"FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission report" [The Raw Story]

Did Clinton's plagiarism charge backfire?

Another primary, another instance of the Clinton campaign trying to use the "drop a bombshell the day before the primary" strategy. Monday's attack was arguably the worst - accusing Obama of "plagiarizing" a speech by his friend and supporter Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (who defended Obama and laughed off the plagiarism claim in an interview with ABC News).

In a column in The New Republic, David Kusnet, former speech writer for Bill Clinton, agreed that Obama's speech could not be considered plagiarism. Obama's double-digit Wisconsin win last night suggests that at best, the tactic failed to win Clinton any new support, and at worst, may have even bolstered voters' negative perceptions of her campaign's tone. By the end of the day Tuesday, a seemingly embarrassed Clinton was claiming that her campaign had not started the controversy, despite incontrovertible evidence in the form of a conference call and press release.

This is just the latest in a series of missteps by the Clinton campaign, and the overall mismanagement of her campaign seriously undermines her claim that she's the candidate with superior managerial and administrative experience. Joshua Green's must-read article "Inside the Clinton Shake-Up" provides a good overview of the Clinton campaign's financial and organization problems.

"Deval Patrick: I asked Obama to use my words" [Raw Story]
"Former Clinton Speechwriter Weighs In On Plagiarism-Gate" [The New Republic]
"Obama turns tables on Clinton" [Politico]
"Inside the Clinton Shake-Up" [The Atlantic Monthly]

Is Lawrence Lessig running for Congress?

Rumor has it that tech visionary Lawrence Lessig may be running for Congress. Lessig lives in California's 12th Congressional District, which was represented by Tom Lantos from 1981 until his death earlier this month.

I think Lessig could make invaluable contributions to Congress. First, during the last decade or so, technology policy issues have taken on an increasingly significant role in Americans' lives, and in the National political debate. Technology companies, copyright holders, and other interests already have a seat at the table on these issues, with lobbying presences on Capitol Hill; Lessig could join the debate as a unique voice for the public interest.

Second, Lessig recently announced that he was broadening his academic focus from technology law/policy issues to also include government corruption. One can easily imagine a Representative Lessig championing programs that use technology to promote government transparency (like the 1996 Coburn-Obama act, which created usaspending.gov), and working to improve governmental processes.

"Draft Larry Lessig for Congress!" [BoingBoing]
"Cyberlawyer 2.0" [The Economist]
Unofficial Draft Lessig website [DraftLessig.org]

After all, the guy IS running for president!

So I got into an argument with a conservative blogger this morning. What made it unique is that I was arguing with Instapundit, one of the biggest bloggers in the universe.

In a post titled Where's Barack?, Reynolds criticized Obama for failing to condemn an anti-Semitic flier that was handed out by a black preacher in Memphis. That the flier is anti-Semitic is undeniable; it's also unprofessionally designed, oddly convoluted, and overall, it comes across as the ravings of a lunatic.

What I disagreed with about the Instapundit post was that Reynolds was employing a tactic that is increasingly common on political blogs: taking some example of offensive behavior (often an isolated example, like some local activist saying something extreme), and then criticizing a public figure, or even an entire political group, for not publicly condemning that behavior, and implying that a failure to publicly condemn the behavior equates to tacit approval.

In this case, the implication was that Barack Obama, currently the front-runner in the Democratic Presidential primary race, is somehow remiss in failing to make a public statement about some low-budget flier a preacher in Memphis has been handing out in limited quantities. Was the offensive flier promoting Obama, you might ask? No, it had nothing to do with Obama or his campaign, whatsoever. So why would anyone suggest that Obama has to condemn it? I'm not sure, but perhaps it's because Obama and the candidate the flier promoted are both black Democrats. Representative Cohen, who the flier targeted, has actually endorsed Obama, and no one has alleged any link between Obama and the preacher/pamphleteer.

Anyway, you can read the post, with my comments, here. After Reynolds posted my complaint about the post, he explained that he was trying to illicit a response from Obama, and I responded that that was fair enough. That's one of the reasons I read Instapundit - even when I disagree with him (which is a majority of the time when he's talking about politics), I appreciate that he takes a logical, intellectually honest approach to things. Here, there's nothing wrong with soliciting a response from a candidate.

But before bloggers equate a non-response on this local flier with tacit approval, I would ask where they place the flier on the list of challenges facing the country. Personally, I would prefer for our candidates not to waste their time addressing garbage like this flier.

"Where's Barack?" [Instapundit]
"Jewish Rep. Cohen Battles Antisemitism and Racism In Re-Election" [Wash. Post]

Obama's best wins yet

I worked as a voter protection attorney for the Obama campaign in Richmond today. Due to the weather, it took five hours to get from Richmond back to DC (it's usually about an hour and forty-five minutes). Interstate 95 resembled REM's "Everybody Hurts" video, but with freezing rain, and without all the song and dance. It was so bad that I ended up taking a detour through part of Maryland just to get from Northern Virginia to DC.

Anyway, Virginia and Maryland might be Obama's most important wins yet, because they represent the widest range of support he's received across the demographic spectrum. The Washington Post elaborates:

Obama won among men, among women and among union voters. He won big among the affluent, educated voters in the District's suburbs, but he also won convincingly among rural voters and small-town Democrats.

Celinda Lake, an independent Democratic pollster, noted that the class divide that once demarcated the Obama-Clinton battle lines was obliterated in Virginia and Maryland. In Virginia, Obama carried the vote of those earning less than $50,000 by 22 percentage points. In Maryland, the gap was 24 percentage points.

Clinton still pulled more votes from white women, but that advantage was neutralized by Obama's popularity among white men. Even Latinos, who helped deliver Nevada and California for the senator from New York, sided with Obama -- although the number of Hispanic voters was much smaller.

"Shifting Loyalties" [Washington Post]

Counting uncontested primaries would bring boycott

I'm glad major media outlets are finally starting to weigh on the Clinton campaign's attempt to count the results from the unsanctioned Florida and Michigan primaries. Over the last few weeks, I've spoken to several people who were either Clinton supporters, or were on the fence, and had no idea that her campaign wanted to count results from uncontested primaries, in states where all of the Democratic candidates had pledged not to compete.

Last Friday, The New Republic - which has not endorsed a Democratic candidate yet - weighed in with an editorial titled "Stop Thief!":

The back story is simple: The Florida and Michigan legislatures moved their primaries forward in the calendar to exert greater influence on the nominating process. But, by scheduling their primaries before February 5, they broke rules set by both the Democratic and the Republican parties. The GOP punished these scofflaw states by stripping them of half their delegates to the Republican National Convention. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) took them all away--and, so, the Democratic candidates did not campaign in these states.

Without ads and stump speeches--Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan--the actual primary votes in these states were meaningless beauty contests, and perhaps not even that. Knowing that their ballots meant nothing, many voters stayed home. And, as everyone expected, Hillary romped to victory on the basis of her brand name and voters' lack of familiarity with the alternatives.

You can certainly debate the merits of the DNC's move. What is beyond debate, though, is that all the major Democratic campaigns accepted this move without complaint. Clinton, along with her rivals, signed a pledge not to "participate" in the Michigan and Florida primaries.

But as soon as it became clear, in the wake of Iowa and on the eve of South Carolina, that Clinton potentially faced an extended battle for delegates, she began to demand that the rules be changed in the middle of the game . . .

. . . There is a perfectly cogent case to be made that Floridians and Michiganders deserve their say. (Some of our best friends and elderly relatives reside in those states.) The way to address this complaint is to schedule new elections so that candidates can advertise, make speeches, organize voters, distribute yard signs--you know, do "democracy," a concept Clinton seems not to understand . . .

. . . The New Republic hasn't endorsed any candidate in this race. Our staff is divided, like the Democratic electorate.

But neutral observers can't stand idly by as one campaign openly discusses stealing the nomination at the convention. Democrats need to recognize this potential gambit for what it is: a cynical, selfish hijacking of the democratic process. Clinton would not be laying the groundwork for this ploy unless it was potentially decisive. And the damage to Democrats (and democrats) would be profound. If Clinton is truly willing to trample so many institutions she professes to care about in pursuit of victory, she will have proven her enemies correct. [The New Republic]

I agree with this column completely. While I'd like to see Florida and Michigan's primary voters' voices heard, it is totally irresponsible for the Clinton to claim victories in states in which she pledged not to campaign (and, in Michigan's case, where neither Obama nor Edwards was on the ballot!). This is kind of stuff we've come to expect from the Bush crowd, and if the Democratic Party counts these unsanctioned primaries, it think it will face a boycott that could threaten its future. In the meantime, as more Democrats (and democrats) come to understand what Clinton is trying to do, we can expect her campaign to start losing support at an even faster rate than it has been.

"Stop Thief!" [The New Republic]

Verdict: Obama is a legit national candidate

I thought last night was a huge success for Obama. Beforehand, I figured he'd probably end up with about 45% or so of the night's votes/delegates, and that even that would be a strong showing, given the fact that he's made up so much ground in such a short time. According to the latest calculations from CNN, Clinton got 582 delegates last night, and Obama landed 562, roughly a 51%-49% split.

The wins in states like Missouri, Kansas, Utah, and Georgia were particularly impressive, and a key factor in many of the states was Obama's ability appeal to white male voters. This demographic has been a problem for the Democrats for the last several election cycles - and that's one reason I've been very skeptical of Hillary Clinton's chances as a nominee. Does the Democratic party really want a candidate who will do worse among men than Bill Clinton, Gore, or Kerry did? This demographic would be especially relevant if the Republican nominee is a likable candidate with strong crossover appeal, like McCain.

More on my problems with Clinton and McCain in the next week; for now, I'm excited that Obama has shaken almost every tag pundits have tried to give him. Someone who is strictly a "black candidate" doesn't win in places like Kansas, Utah, or Idaho. A "youth candidate" doesn't take in $32 million in a one-month period. And a "flash in the pan" doesn't split the Super Tuesday delegate count with a former First Lady.

Last minute Super Tuesday links

On the eve of Super Tuesday, a CNN poll has Obama leading Hillary nationally. Slate has an interesting article explaining the complexities of delegate process, using California as a case study. And Marc Ambinder has been posting last-minute projections for both parties' primaries.

"National Super Tuesday poll shows dramatic Democratic shift" [CNN]
"Super Tuesday: Which Districts Matter?" [Slate]
"Feb 5 Projections: Revised" [The Atlantic]