In an office discussion today, the question came up: if the Democratic primary delegates were assigned winner-take-all, like in the Republican race, would the race be as close as it is now?

Here's the current delegate count, using FleetAdmiralJ's spreadsheet numbers (which include preliminary WI numbers):

Actual Delegates (as of 19 Feb)
Clinton	1,022
Obama	1,173

But if each state awarded all of its delegates to the winner of the popular vote (or the candidate with the largest caucus representation), the current delegate count would be...

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) announced in his weekly newsletter that he's opening the door for de-authorization.

This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so.

It's an interesting strategy for the long-shot Presidential candidate.  

McJoan's front page article, Reid-Feingold Defeated, lists 19 Democratic Senators who voted against the amendment. The comments thread reflects my own surprise: among those voting against it were Jon Tester (MT), Jim Webb (VA), and Claire McKaskill (MO), three freshman Senators who defeated incumbents in 2006, in no small part because of their opposition to the Iraq war.

The disappointment expressed in the thread was no surprise. What was interesting to me, though was the amount of guessing and speculation.  For instance:

"I have no idea what Webb, Tester, and McCaskill are thinking." (Odysseus)
"I guess that I will just have to wait and see if there is a response." (Jeffersonian Democrat)
"However I want an explination as to why. [...] Go into details - Tell us WHY!" (illusionmajik)

Why do we have to wonder? Why, in 2007, do we not have immediate access to a Senator's reasons for voting on every single bill -- through their official Senate website?

This is inconsequential, but in light of the uproar surrounding CNN's "mistake" in labeling a photo of Senator Obama earlier this month, I thought this mis-matched photo caption on Yahoo! News Photos was amusing.

From the Billings Gazette: Conrad Burns gets snippy.

In a brief interview at the U.S. Capitol, outgoing Senator Conrad Burns appears to have gotten rather pouty. He claimed that the media mistreated him, that they were not honest with him, and that unspecified things were going on in his campaign without his knowledge. Always a showman, on his way out the door, he encouraged the reporters to read Psalm 109.

Psalm 109 is the lament of a poor righteous man who has been falsely attacked and accused. Coming from Conrad Burns, it just sounds delusional.

So what does Psalm 109 say, and how well does it fit Conrad Burns in defeat?

When it comes to Conrad Burns this year, Montana Republicans are sounding like Democrats in 2004: they're actually saying "hold your nose and vote."

It's time to face the facts: Sen. Conrad Burns is an embarrassment to Montana. A foul-mouthed, self-promoting buffoon, a prince of fools in the college of clowns we know as the United States Senate, Burns is held in such contempt by his colleagues that in 18 years he hasn't been given a single committee assignment of importance or considered for a serious post in the leadership.

And this is from a supporter! The litany continues.

The Burns campaign is trying to use Jon Tester's words against him. They've started a campaign pretending that the Patriot Act, which Tester has publicly opposed, is good for fighting terror, and therefore that Jon will be "weak on terror."

This is the letter that I included in with the contribution I'm sending to Jon Tester's campaign today.