Do Spouse's Share Copyright?

I guess you can't plagiarize your own spouse.... A funny youtube posted in the comments section on about the new '3 AM' spot Hillary rolled out in Texas.



Thank you Sarge1.

** UPDATED** Game Changing

**UPDATED**
I am no computer whiz. I screwed up the html at the bottom of the post and cut myself off.
**UPDATED**

Clinton's campaign is threatening to challenge the Texas Democratic Party on the way they run their dual primary-caucus this March 4th. This, despite the fact that Bill Clinton helped to develop those rules, those rules have been in place since at least the early 90s, and Texas is very happy with them.

From the AP via Yahoo:

Aides to Clinton said earlier this week they were alarmed at the lack of clarity about many of the caucus rules and expressed their concerns on a conference call with Obama's staff and state party officials. Texas has a two-step voting process, with a
primary and then caucuses shortly after the polls close.

Specifically, Clinton aides questioned a provision allowing caucus attendees to vote to move the location if they choose to do so, and whether people who had cast so-called "provisional ballots" in the primary would have their votes counted in the caucus.

They also expressed concern about the automated phone system precinct chairs would use to call in the results of each caucus, saying the party hadn't yet trained anyone to use the system properly.

Clinton political director Guy Cecil said he asked party officials to spell out the rules in memo form and to send them to both campaigns.

"We want to see the results in writing, and we reserve the right to challenge something if we don't believe it reflects something that was discussed on the call," he said, insisting that if there were clear problems with how the caucuses were being run, "you are allowed to say something about it."

I get frustrated by all the yammering from this campaign. Instead of strategizing, they run against obstacles and not only want to change the rules of the game, they want to change the game itself -- in this case, it's no longer about who can build the better campaign apparatus, who has the stronger message, the best track record, is the most inspiring, or looks better on paper, now it's about who is best at wrecking havoc on the alliance of the various Democratic state parties and intimidating them into falling in line.

I hope voters of Texas and Ohio walk away from this campaign and all its rhetoric of fear. Hillary Clinton has never made me feel safer and tactics like this buttress the argument that she doesn't know what the hell she's doing and is copying someone else's homework (Karl Rove, anyone?). Come up with your own campaign slogans, stop market-testing your policies, and PLAY BY THE RULES. Might do something to convince folks you recognize what the RULE OF LAW means and have REJECTED your husband's own fast-and-loose truth-telling that ushered in GWB and the "compassionate conservates" all over the country.

Style Points

One thing that annoys the hell out of me is hearing Tucker Carlson say Obama is winning because he's cool. Let's face it, the man has two Ivy League degrees, has held public office for a decade or so, was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, taught Constitutional Law at one of the most prestigious schools in the world and knows the proper use of denounce versus reject. Unless I'm missing something and smart is the new cool, WTF????

The Truth Outs

Bill is at it again, Daily Kos has a post up here with a very funny, and telling, slip-up.

I've never been a big Clinton fan (either of them), and after this election cycle, I'm completely done with them. The soft bigotry during Bill's time in office turned me off to the Democratic Party -- Don't Ask, Don't Tell the least among the many well-intentioned (I hope) but misguided compromises they made while in office. I was disgusted by Hillary's treatment of the women her husband cheated on her with, while she ferociously defended him, and I wish they'd accept their shame and go quietly into the night.

I hope the Dem's continue the swing back to the left, but I fear the general election magic will work its wonders once again and we'll find ourselves back in the land of socially conservative compromises designed to keep the religious fundamentalists happy. OK, I'm going to cuteoverload to cheer myself back up.

Karl Rove

A blogger I'm not familiar with named Larisa Alexandrovna has a post up on Huffington about a mysteriously timed black out of 60 Minutes on stations in Alabama. Having toiled under the vagaries of the satellite feed system, I know how very possible it is to lean against the wrong switch, go to the bathroom at the wrong time or just plain turn the channel from the station you are working at to check the Oscar-cast. It is a might strange that the segment that WASN'T broadcast involved a former AL Governor who is currently imprisoned on bribery charges that are looking more and more bogus.

I'm not such a conspiracy theorist that I believe Karl Rove's fat little fingers had a hand in this, however, it wouldn't surprise me either.

And Like That... It Was Gone

Just as I suspected, the woe-is-me Clinton cash-strapped story has been laid open.  ABC News is reporting the whole thing may have been a stunt.  Really?  You think so? 

Money Talks

Everyone is reporting the same thing -- Hillary Clinton lent her campaign $5 million last month, senior staffers and campaign managers are going without pay this month and she's tapped out her major donors. Aside from the fact that this story in no way impacts the nomination, afterall, it's all free press and a non-story story way for her to stay on the news without having to run campaign ads, can we talk about the fact that Bill Clinton, just last month, criticized the way the campaign finance system favors wealthy individuals who are capable of self-financing?

From Politico:

And he implied that he would not use his own funds to support his wife's candidacy. “For example, they say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary’s campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform,” he said.

Two of his top aides (Carville and the other guy whose name I can't remember right now) went so far as to propose a hard ceiling on the amount of money that could be spent campaigning and proposed a campaign finance "tax" from which candidates could run. Clearly this was in preparation for a Bloomberg run which ended up not materializing (or, at least, it hasn't yet).

So, what's the story? Apparently money talks. I don't see how the DNC can ignore the fact that there is a groundswell of support for the Senator from Illinois. The types of donations he's received over the last few weeks, the fact that a substantial number of them are coming from atypical donors, and that he's attracted entirely new voters to the polls, should tell senior leadership they have lightening in a bottle and they shouldn't let it be squandered with a messy race for delegates, and under no circumstances should this race be decided by Super Delegates.

At this point, I don't think it's clear if Hillary's supporters are loyal and will stay the course with her, or if Obama's momentum is real and will continue to grow, but I do know that for the sake of the party, whoever is at the helm better look out for Icebergs. We can't afford another dispirited fall with people confused about who to support and why and either not voting or voting for the other guy.