It's happening again.
You know what I mean- the bold predictions that Hillary Clinton will in the end come out on top of the polular vote, along with analyses that states she will not. As much as I respect Chris Bowers and his analysis at the latter link- this falls into what we know is a false narrative.
There is no such thing as the "popular vote" as a measure of support for the Democratic nomination.

From Chemistry World:

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is again being accused of caving to pressure from the chemical industry after letters obtained by an environmental lobby group revealed that the agency dismissed toxicologist Deborah Rice from a scientific review panel following protests from the American Chemistry Council.

Snip.

In response, EPA not only removed Rice from the panel in August 2007 but also deleted her name and her comments relating to all four PBDEs from the panel's report, which was released last year.

Moreover, the agency will not consider the input of Rice - a former EPA toxicologist now with the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention - when drafting its final report on the chemicals, due on March 28.

More follows the flip...

Crossposted at One Million Strong...

My father once ran for state office, and that was my first experience in perceiving politics as something with personal influence as well as something influenced by personality. You see- one can't help but be influenced as a young teen when a mob of well-meaning donors descends upon your home and sanctuary for a fundraiser, or when a pile of letters lies strewn underfoot across the living room waiting to be licked and stamped. Moreover, I was the most competent computer operator in the house.

...I was also the most politically disaffected in the house, having little reason to be that way, given that I couldn't even vote for a lost cause yet. I asked my father, once, whether he couldn't have greater influence as a teacher than as a solitary member of the state legislature. Over time, I've become somewhat more inclined to believe his answer...

...and hopefully among the last you read. Those who have picked apart and parsed Obama's recent comments have not only excluded the necessary context of the full statement but also the context of Obama's fundamental character. They have neglected his statements from the past in word and writing, when it is fairly simple to pick up a copy of The Audacity of Hope and observe how little Obama sympathizes with Reagan policy. The notion that Barack Obama has spoken out in "praise" of Ronald Reagan is absurd on its face, given these two men who take the fundamental question "what to do with government that does not work for the people," and receiving two antithetical answers.

1. Take it apart.

2. Make it work.

Interwoven with his rhetoric, Obama has always referred to the shortcomings of government as an opportunity to build up those neglected segments of society. That is the central theme of his candidacy... to build a popular, progressive majority towards issues which speak to the poor and the middle class.

Who is hip deep in financial ties?

From the category of ironic arguments... TPM reports on a radio attack ad the Clinton campaign has put out against Obama in Nevada:

And Barack Obama? The Las Vegas Review Journal said Obama was, quote, "hip-deep in financial ties" to one of America’s biggest Yucca Mountain promoters ...nuclear giant Exelon.

So if you want Yucca Mountain shut down for good, there’s only one choice ...the one the Sun called – quote – "the best prepared, best qualified Democratic candidate."

Yesterday I wrote a detailed diary discussing the Clinton campaign's misrepresentation of Barack Obama's opposition to Iraq. Today, Bill Clinton appeared on Al Shapton's radio show and continued the historical revisionism... from TPM:

or: How the Democratic Party is Ceding the Anti-War High Ground

Since the original authorization there has neither been a vote to invade Iraq nor a vote to take back that decision made for us by the president and a congressional majority. If there had been such a vote- many of those who made the wrong decision back then have learned better or have been replaced by those whom knew better... so I am not particularly worried that we will somehow choose to invade Iraq all over again. I am worried that those who have learned of their error do not realize it was the wrong decision based on what they knew at the time, rather than what they know now. You do not only need to know the Iraq war was wrong, you need to know why.

This (pdf link) is why the Iraq War was wrong in October of 2002:

The insanity of "experience"

In recognition of the message’s success in Iowa, Hillary Clinton adopted a "change" message both before and after the caucus:

I am so proud to have run with such exceptional candidates. I congratulate Senator Obama and Senator Edwards. I thank Senator Dodd and Senator Biden and Governor Richardson and Congressman Kucinich. Together we have presented the case for change and have made it absolutely clear that America needs a new beginning.

Similarly, her campaign has begun to reach out to younger voters in New Hampshire, recognizing their failure to capture that demographic on the 3rd. However, this makeover doesn’t appear to mean that Clinton is anywhere near abandoning the too-often repeated experience meme

Dennis Kucinich
Your embrace of progressive policy is a persistent challenge to other Democrats, no matter their standing in the polls, to respond to issues that matter to those of us on the left. This is not an election of a candidate in stasis, but a candidate tested by the primary to be more representative of the massive impetus towards a new party in presidential office come 2009. Anyone who can push that eventual nominee towards the left belongs in this race.

That doesn't mean I think Obama walks on water. Far from it. The guy is going around idiotically attacking Paul Krugman, dancing with homophobic preachers, and while his rhetoric is beautiful upon first listening, an hour later you're left wondering if he said anything of substance at all (and the answer is usually "no").

...not that he is alone in doing so or that the transgression solely targets a particular candidate. I refer, of course, to his casual dismissal of Obama supporters, who apparently believe their candidate is flawless, antiprogressive, homophobic and substanceless all at the same time. You could accept this or, alternatively, you could simply ask Obama supporters frankly what they have to say on each subject, or look back in the past and learn something of it.

I attended talk by John Marburger, Presidential Science Advisor, Monday evening at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union on the subject of climate change. I joked with a friend of mine earlier in the day that Marburger's is a thankless job- placed in the position of defending George W. Bush's science policy to such an audience. I suggested the task would have his hair white, but then he's of an age where that would be expected (particularly of scientists), and my friend suggested a better test would measure how much hair was remaining. Coincidentally, Marburger made the same joke at the beginning of his talk, and so began an hour of subtle appeals for the scientific community to be somehow exceptionally understanding and tolerant of the administration's representative. This was not entirely necessary- the audience listened attentively and gave polite applause- yet, judging by the sentiment of those around me and the tone of the Q&A session, my two notes jotted down around the midway point were not uncommon feelings:

Willful ignorance of the role policy assumes in driving public consciousness.
Willful ignorance of the role policy assumes in encouraging or discouraging science.

My first diary here on DailyKos called attention to the questionable diplomacy and foreign policy of the United States with respect to the unrest of Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia. The State Department threatened to add Eritrea to its list of state sponsors of terrorism based upon an unremarkable report of a U.N. authority monitoring the Somali arms embargo that Eritrea had been arming Islamic militants in opposition to the Ethiopia-backed Transitional Federal Government (TFG). The decline in diplomatic relations between Eritrea and the U.S. continues. In early September Somali opposition groups met in Asmara, Eritrea's capital, in symbolic contrast with an earlier conference among TFG leaders. Eritrea has made clear its blame of the U.S. and the international community for not enforcing the decision of an independent commission demarcating the border between the two countries following their '98-'00 war. Today the border commission expires, with a whimper of international concern and consternation.

Or, as an alternative title: "Mixed Messages"

We begin in December of 2003, when Senator Clinton was still speaking of Iraq in the following manner:

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

Emphasis added.

Crossposted at One Million Strong

Or, as an alternative title "Barack Obama Had it Right (Again)"

There's an excellent diary up on the rec list now concerning Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf and his exploitation of the Bush administration's foreign policy as it focuses so myopically on its "War on Terror." We may sit here and observe that what is happening in Pakistan now is perhaps a predictable consequence of designing a foreign policy in Pakistan that relies solely upon bolstering the existing government against our archetypal mutual enemy off in the mountains at the Pakistan border. We might further believe that the present turmoil - the suspension of democracy, is a logical extension of the militarism we fostered supporting the conflict in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 80s, or an extension of our tacit acceptance of the military rule and spreading of Sharia law under Zia-ul-Haq beginning in '77. However, while we sit here drawing those historical threads I would like to remind us of a discussion we had, here and elsewhere, some three months ago.

Barack Obama earlier this week promised us a new, comprehensive Iraq policy, foreshadowed his statement with his questioning of Petraeus and Crocker at yesterday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, and today released excerpts of his prepared remarks in advance of his speech. When he delivered the promised update of his Iraq policy position earlier today (h/t Adam B for full text) -- in revision of his plans laid out in January -- John Edwards and Christopher Dodd had received ample opportunity to prepare responses, clarifying anti-war credentials. They obliged.

Jon Stewart: "Do you feel like you're stuck in a narrative now...?"

-an apt question asked of Barack Obama this past Wednesday on a Daily Show interview. We haven't wholly escaped the narrative that had been constructed earlier in the race and attained prominence at the YouTube debate, where we were precipitously informed that Obama is naive and inexperienced. The narrative implies the inexperienced Sen. Obama has outlandish ideas concerning diplomacy and foreign relations, and if anything is to blame for the foreign policy debacle of the past several years, it certainly wasn’t "inlandish" ideas...     [/irony] Here and elsewhere analysts poked holes in the narrative even as it attempted to seize upon remarks concerning Pakistan, Afghanistan and Cuba.

I have had the extraordinary fortune in my life to have learned from and befriended several Eritrean-Americans, and I write this not out of unique insight but mainly out of concern for a country and a people who I have found more than worthy of that concern. In the past couple weeks the U.S. has conducted some heavy-handed diplomacy that has only carried limited staying power in the press, in light of the accusations being made. The diplomatic pressure demonstrates questionable judgment concerning regional conflicts in East Africa as well as an overbearing implentation of its war against terrorist groups.

-Presented in the most favorable light, the administration's actions seem to constitute a misuse of the State Sponsor of Terrorism designation to a regional conflict.

-Diplomatic pressure exerted in this matter reflects inadequate appreciation of regional background.

I will be defending these two statements below...