What's with Dominic Recchia? Tonight he was supposed to attend a Candidate's Forum at Brooklyn Democrats For Change. This Forum was originally scheduled for March but Mr. Recchia cancelled at the last minute because his daughter was ill.

Tonight, again he was a no show. I don't even know if he gave a reason for not attending but this isn't going to look good on his resume.

Steve Harrison did speak and was warmly received by all members. After he spoke the members were able to ask Steve questions and many of them took full advantage of the opportunity.

MSNBC has just assigned the 9 remaining delegates from Texas that were still up in the air. Seven went to Obama and two to Clinton. Plus, they reassigned one Mississippi delegate from Clinton to Obama.

Their current total of pledged delegates is 1,416-1,252. With 567 pledged delegates left to choose, that means Clinton now needs:

366, or 64.6%, to pass Obama,
341, or 60.1%, to get within 50,
316, or 55.7%, to get within 100.

The odds are she won't get even 316. Here's why:

Let's say she actually gets 58% of Pennsylvania's delegates. It's unlikely, since her recent 16% seems to be fading, and also the areas where Obama is strongest are the more "Democratic" areas and will count for more delegates, but let's give it to her anyway. That's 92-66 for Clinton. New total: 1,482-1,344. And that's just the start.

Brownsox at Daily Kos posts the DCCC's 2008 target list in its entirety here; the DCCC, of course, is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the party body charged with electing Democrats to the House.

The list for New York is long, grand, a thing of beauty.

NY-03 Peter King
NY-13 Vito Fossella
NY-25 Jim Walsh*# (Dan Maffei opposing)
NY-26 Tom Reynolds*
NY-29 Randy Kuhl# (Eric Massa opposing)

We're going to be very busy this year, because there's no reason why we shouldn't win all of those races. Get busy raising money, candidates.

Another one bites the dust. Liz:

GOP sources confirm that Rep. Tom Reynolds, a Western NY Congressman since 1999 and ex-NRCC chairman, will announce around noon tomorrow in Buffalo that he will not seek re-election this fall. Reynolds spokesman LD Platt did not return an e-mail seeking comment. [...]

But the recent NRCC fraud scandal - some of which took place on his watch - has made his re-election effort that much more difficult in an already tough year (increasingly Democratic state, presidential election etc).

That makes things a lot easier for this guy:

The question now becomes whether Jack Davis, the guy who ran for the seat last time - and couldn't defeat Reynolds despite the latter's role in the Foley scandal - will now run as a Democrat in a primary against Jon Powers, or as a republican against likely contender George Maziarz.

Another bit of irony: if Reynolds is retiring over the NRCC scandal, it will prove once and for all that while you can get away with molesting underage boys in the GOP, you had better not lose their money, or you're toast.

On the web: Jon Powers for Congress

Per email, Senator Obama's speech as prepared for delivery.

[Update]: There's video.

"A More Perfect Union"
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
Constitution Center
Tuesday, March 18th, 2008
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

As Prepared for Delivery

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

The New York Times is now reporting that Clinton supporters are demanding that their donations to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) be returned. This is merely the latest cheap tactic, straight out of the “divide and destroy” playbook of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, that Hillary Clinton and her campaign have resorted to in a desperate attempt to pull victory out of certain defeat. Or perhaps it’s her way of ensuring a Democratic loss this fall so that she can run again in four years.

Whatever her reason, she should be ashamed of herself. She isn’t, of course, because she, like her husband, never gave a damn about the Democratic Party. All either of them cares about is their own personal power. Maybe, 35 years ago, they actually cared about making things better, but somewhere along the line they lost sight of that goal.

Today, March 15, is Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 75th birthday. Next month, John Paul Stevens will turn 88. Chances are, the next president will get to name their replacements. Do you want a right-wing-controlled John McCain to be the one?

Yup -- I'm playing the fear card, and I'm fine with that.

On the street corners of many a black congressional district, you would often hear soul-folks saying: “no big thing but a chicken wing”. This can be heard whenever there is a fuss about something or the other that soul-people think is being overblown. On corners of white congressional districts (and by white and black, I am only alluding to where the majority of the residents are of that color; that’s all), you may hear the same sentiments expressed this way: “much ado about nothing”. Well that’s how I feel about all this super-delegate noise, coming out from many tense corners of hot and heavy political competition; like the kind taking place between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama- as they compete for the Democrat’s presidential nomination.

Look people, rules are rules. That’s it; period. Once you agree to play by the rules, then ethics dictate you are bound to abide by said rules. So here we have both camps talking all kinds of “stupid shit” about the super-delegates, in attempts at chicanery; they ought to be ashamed of themselves. And this goes for both campaigns. Both campaigns need to chill.

There's a primary brewing the 26th Congressional District that Democrats should avoid.

The contenders are Jon Powers, an Iraq War veteran and teacher, and Jack Davis, a local businessman who ran for this seat in 2006, narrowly losing to republican incumbent Tom Reynolds. Some background on the race is sketched out by Robert Harding of The Albany Project, here.

The reason this primary should be avoided is this: it would take away resources better used elsewhere, would damage the Democratic brand, and might result in an outcome, a Davis victory, that would likely lead to defeat in November.

Why, over the fold.

One of Hillary Clinton's arguments that she should be the party's nominee is that she is winning all (or almost all) of the "big states." Fortunately, this argument is falling flat, because it is a sure recipe for continued Democratic failure.

Those small states that Barack Obama is winning are exactly those states Democrats have ignored for decades, to the party's detriment. Many of us enthusiastically support Howard Dean's "50-state strategy" for gaining and maintaining a long-term Democratic majority. We believe that the answer to "you fight the fights you can win" is "you can only win the fights you fight."

Democrats have made significant gains in the mountain states, and now have five governors (out of nine states), and a few state legislatures. Both U.S. Senators from theoretically "red" states like Montana and North Dakota are Democrats, and Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico could soon join that club.

There's a thoroughly remarkable piece in today's Albany Times-Union that New Yorkers interested in the reform of our notoriously un-small-D-democratic state government should read.

When Paul Newell and Luke Henry were toddlers just learning to talk 31 years ago, a young trial lawyer from the Lower East Side of Manhattan named Sheldon Silver was cutting his political teeth as a freshman assemblyman.

This year, Newell and Henry are challenging Assembly Speaker Silver, now one of state government's three most powerful politicians. It marks the first time in more than two decades that Silver has faced opposition in a primary.

Beautiful, but here's the real meat:

While Newell and Henry admit they're at a financial disadvantage, they think there's a desire for change in the district that will benefit them.

"I feel like change is in the air," Henry said. "I feel like I'm part of a citizenry that is saying to ourselves that we need more from our government, and we actually have the means to effect it."

Both argue Silver has been in Albany too long. They say he's lost touch with his electorate.

Newell believes the Legislature needs a 12-year term limit. This would give legislators enough time to develop expertise but not enough to become entrenched, he said.

Nothing, one can imagine, sends as chilly an air of discomfort through the enbalming chamber that is the state legislature than that horrific idea of term limits, implying as it does that seats in that body should not be lifetime sinecures. Blasphemy.

If you look up the word “mulligan” in the dictionary, you would find that it is a re-taken golf shot; or better still: a shot that- against the rules- a golfer allows an opponent to take again. Bill Clinton is known to take many mulligans when playing friendly games of golf; his wife (Hillary Rodham Clinton) seems to have learned this bad habit quite well. It is all about changing the rules in mid game, especially when things aren’t going their way. It’s about refining techniques that give them an unfair advantage in any competitive event. It is cheap, low and crass.

If Billary were to go to any toy store to purchase a device for their pleasure, what they would find is that in near all devices sold: “batteries are not included”. So after Tuesday’s primaries (Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont), all rational Democrats need to emphatically make the case- to both Bill and Hillary Clinton- that mulligans (just like batteries) are not included in the rules of this year’s primary elections.

I must admit that I have been having big fun during this election cycle. I have been amused when watching the many “Clintonistas”, running around the talk shows, spinning deluded tales of audacious hopes for best case scenarios, while seemingly oblivious to the harsher reality: Billary’s candidacy is dead; long live the dead.

It was probably inevitable that a major Presidential candidate with an Arabic name would, sooner or later, be confronted with questions about the relationship between the United States and its closest Middle Eastern ally. Equally inevitably, after five years of war in an Arab country and seven after a terrorist attack carried out on this country by an Islamist terror network, that discussion will touch on America's fractured relationship with the Islamic world in general and our posture towards the Jewish state in particular.

A look back is in order. In 1820, New York State's Grand Island was proposed as the location of a new Jewish homeland, understood as a gathering place for Jews before aliyah to Zion became possible. Emma Lazarus, author of The New Colossus, was an agitator for proto-Zionist and proto-feminist ideas in New York's 19th Century Gilded Age. The connection between New York and the idea of Zionism is long and deep.

The United States was one of the first countries to recognize Israel itself, somewhat to the chagrin of the British Empire; and before Washington endorsed the fact of Israel's independence, there had been a bipartisan consensus of sympathy to the Zionist experiment.

President Wilson expressed his support for the Balfour Declaration when he stated on March 3, 1919:

The allied nations with the fullest concurrence of our government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth.

After Wilson left office, his successors expressed similar support for the Zionist enterprise. "It is impossible for one who has studied at all the services of the Hebrew people to avoid the faith that they will one day be restored to their historic national home and there enter on a new and yet greater phase of their contribution to the advance of humanity," said President Warren Harding.

Calvin Coolidge expressed his "sympathy with the deep and intense longing which finds such fine expression in the Jewish National Homeland in Palestine."

"Palestine which, desolate for centuries, is now renewing its youth and vitality through enthusiasm, hard work, and self-sacrifice of the Jewish pioneers who toil there in a spirit of peace and social justice," observed Herbert Hoover.

Of course, Hoover's observation rested on one glaring error: that the Cis-Jordanian Imperial mandate of Palestine was terra nullius, an empty land awaiting settlement. The land was not empty, and the question of how to reconcile the legitimate claims of competing (and, one could argue, complementary) nationalisms has been contentious and unresolved ever since.

Following independence, the relationship between the United States and the new nation of Israel quickly cooled, responding to the patterns of alignment set in the developing Cold War. A major portion of the weaponry that secured the new state's independence came from Czechoslovakia prior to that country's complete absorption into the Soviet orbit. In 1956, President Eisenhower forced an Anglo-French-Israeli expedition force to retreat from the Suez Canal, recently seized by Egypt's Arab nationalist President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Further frost was added to the bilateral relationship by the conservative Eisenhower administration's distrust of Israel's nascent structure as a socialist economy characterized by strong labor unions, led by the labor coalition Histadrut, and a parallel internal economy of collectivist enterprises in the Kibbutzim. A rapprochement of sorts between the Labour government of Levi Eshkol and the Kennedy/Johnson administration was capped in the 1967 Six Day War, another Cold War proxy battle, when American arms shipments to Israel obviated comparable shipments to Arab combatant states by the Soviet Union and resulted in a stunning Israeli victory.

As a result of that victory, Israel became an occupying power over territories previously belonging, de facto or de iure, to Egypt, Syria and Jordan. It is the fate of these territories that ultimately will decide a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In 2004, the Democratic Party platform embraced the concept of a two-state solution for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, following in the footsteps of the Clinton administration's developing Middle Eastern policy. The current republican administration embraced the idea of two states for two peoples some time into its first term as well. Despite the overall fraying of the post-war foreign policy consensus along partisan lines, therefore, it can be considered settled American policy that the legitimate national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians, to live in peace, security, within recognized borders as fully sovereign members of the international community, are an objective of the American national interest. Firmly embedded within that consensus is the assumption that America, due to the kinship between our domestic institutions and Weltanschauung with those of Israel as a Western democracy, will continue to support Israel's security and aid that country's defense.

Barack Obama stands equally firmly within this consensus. So why the controversy?

So yeah, like I said, people aren't happy about the developing primary in the Third Senatorial District between Democrat Dahroug and republican Bodkin. At least one person was unhappy enough to sit down and go through Newsday's archives, apparently.

Which is where one can find this letter to the editor, penned on the passing of Richard Nixon, by one Christopher D. Bodkin of Islip, published on May 1st, 1994 (Nixon died on April 22nd, 1994):

I met Richard Nixon three times. Each time he was sitting behind the Mets dugout at Shea Stadium. My seats were always close by, and between innings small groups of people would go over to him to ask if he would autograph their programs or to just shake his hand and say hello. He always wore a jacket and tie, no matter how hot it was, and he was always gracious and friendly and only too happy to chat, mostly about baseball.

While I was growing up in the '50s and '60s, there was never a time when his name was not a household word.

To me, he was a man who appeared to be unexciting, yet he kept doing exciting, even extraordinary things. Nixon the politician was much like Hamlet the prince. Unexplainable character flaws created an atmosphere, an environment, that led to the tragic, needless and mysterious felony that was called Watergate. It was his undoing.

Yet, all of us are much more than the total of our mistakes. I believe that, in the fullness of time, Richard Nixon will be seen as the great man he was. In the meantime, it will be hard to think of political life in this country without him.

More immediately, it will be hard for me to go to Shea Stadium and look over to the Mets dugout and know that he will never be there again. I will miss him. [Emph. added]

Because nothing says "more and better Democrats" like paeans to Richard freaking Nixon, I suppose.

The emails started after the New York Times piece came out on February 16th. Aptly titled In State Senate, Aging Fingers Cling to Power, authored by Danny Hakim, it was a fairly standard meditation on the challenges facing Joe Bruno's caucus as the blue tide washes over New York's last republican bastion.

Problem was, in an article that started with a reference to an aging state senator, Caesar Trunzo, there was no reference to Trunzo's actual, declared Democratic candidate, Jimmy Dahroug. Instead, Hakim featured an undeclared former Nixon/Bush/McCain republican who may or may not run for the seat as a Democrat.

Christopher Bodkin, an Islip Town Board member and a Democrat, is considering challenging Mr. Trunzo, who is 21 years his senior. Mr. Bodkin likened the situation with the Senate Republicans to the United States Senate: “Look at Strom Thurmond: They just kept him going and going because they needed to hang on to a slim majority.”

“I certainly won’t challenge Senator Trunzo on his age,” he said. “He’s there and going back and forth to his district and so forth. I will run on the theme that it’s absolutely time for a change.”

The last significant change in Bodkin's life was his switch from republican to Democratic affiliation.