And things only worsened when MSNBC made Olbermann, along with Chris Matthews (fratty anchorman extraordinaire ), lead anchors for its election coverage. During their reign of pettiness, the two lambasted poor Joe Scarborough on air (when they weren't consumed with crashing their own egos mid broadcast), and though I'd rather live in the third world than Scarborough Country, Olbermann and Matthews were acting like douchebag bullies.

Well, the bullying is over. Olbermann and Matthews have been demoted to analysts, and David Gregory has assumed the anchor role. Let's hope Gregory has the gumption to allot the two only as much time is needed for viewers to remember why MSNBC took away their cushy chairs in the first place.

In the company of council Chairman Vincent C. Gray and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Evans announced minutes ago he's throwing his support behind Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Evans had been a longtime Hillary Clinton supporter, co-chairing her campaign in the District. Earlier this month, he'd been elected by local Democrats to serve as an at-large delegate pledged to Clinton.

Asked to explain his move, Evans cited "just the momentum that was going behind it." He says he left a message with the Clinton campaign about the decision but was not able to speak with the senator before making the announcement today.

"It's important for the city that we have a good relationship with the next president," Evans says.

He's become Hillary's master hype man. Before and after every primary, he pops up on TV to scrub facts, chase away scary numbers, and airbrush Hillary's latest gaffs. While he hasn't quite earned any Swift Boat merit badges, he knows how to bullshit better than anyone else.

The man has probably been on TV a billion times since last fall. So it's understandable if the man has started running out of things to say. As his performance yesterday on "Meet the Press" proved, McAuliffe has finally hit a wall.

McAuliffe argued that Michigan should be counted because, well, Obama chose to take his name off the ballot. So why hurt Hillary for what was clearly Obama's decision? And then he went on to evoke the Buffalo Bills---a Russert obsession---and compared the team to Hillary's chances for the nomination. Not a good move:

"OK, but well, I'll just say it's not impossible. Did you count the Buffalo Bills out in 1993 when the Houston Oilers were beating them by 32 points in the third quarter?," McAuliffe asked.

And then later, McAuliffe moves on to declare that Russert's father would basically want Hillary to continue.

"But it's not impossible for Hillary Clinton to win. A lot of people have said that. Big Russ, if he were sitting here today, nothing's impossible. Jack McAuliffe, if he were with us today, they both--they're probably both in heaven right now, Tim, probably having a scotch, looking down and saying, you know what, this fight goes on. It's good for the Democratic Party. Millions of people coming out to vote. It's exciting."

I know Hillary does well with seniors. But this is ridiculous. Now she has the dead people vote? What's next? Will we see ads with a CGI-enhanced John Lennon endorsing Hillary?

Dear Hillary:

I am sure that I am not part of your PowerPoint presentation. I don't count in your world. I'm a marginally over-educated white boy who doesn't think much of your gas-tax relief plan, your fighter cred, nor your previous attempts at YouTube viral video. I don't buy your big-state argument, your blue-collar argument, nor any arguments whatsoever to count Michigan. I don't think you're a fighter. I think you are just desperate.

But forget all that. I need you to quit sometime today. I bet a co-worker that you would. The bet is substantial—way more than what I would gain from your gas-tax holiday—two appetizers and two beers! That's like at least $20. As you can see a lot is riding on this bet.

You're probably thinking that I'm a total fool for making this bet, that I just don't know you—that you really are a fighter. Well, I had my reasons. I figured the superdels would flock to Obama [which they are kinda starting to], that you'd tire of loaning yourself money, and that the press would turn against you. I think I'm closer to being right than you'd want to admit. I mean did you see the cover of Time? That has to hurt. I figured you wouldn't want to put up with that kind of humiliation.

Please say I'm not wrong. I really could use those two beers and two orders of nachos.

You have about 7 hours to quit. Think about all the free time you'll have tomorrow.

Please consider my plight.

Sincerely yours in 2016,

Jason Cherkis

Lake County---fondly referred to by its denizens simply as "the Region"---is where I was born and raised. And it's pretty much where I got my conception of what urban politics is all about.

If you've been watching cable TV, you've heard all about how Gary mayor Rudy Clay has promised to deliver big numbers to Barack Obama, for instance by busing high school kids to early-voting sites. What's not mentioned as much is that he's the county Democratic chairman, which means he essentially controls the election apparatus. He, have no doubt, is responsible for the fact that the vote has not been announced on time.

There's absolutely no reason to hold off on announcing returns while you count absentee ballots. But holding back the vote, in fact, is a longstanding Lake County tradition.

Why might Rudy Clay hold back the vote? Well, back in the day, you needed time to destroy ballots from "bad" precincts and stuff boxes from the "good" ones. These days, with electronic voting, it's a lot harder to tamper with the vote. But you can still be a big, swinging dick by playing kingmaker and keeping the nation on edge---and preventing Hillary Clinton from declaring victory at a decent hour.

But there's no doubt that election shenanigans aren't too far in the Region's past. For a reminder, just look at Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens' opinion upholding the Indiana Voter ID act last week. For part of his reasoning, he cites the 2003 mayoral primary in East Chicago, which is just west of Gary, as proof "that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."

That election pitted Robert Pastrick, mayor of East Chicago for decades and often cited as head of the last true political machine in America, against challenger and city councilman George Pabey. Pastrick won the primary, but courts held that enough questions were raised about the veracity of certain absentee ballots that a new election was ordered, which Pabey won. (Try to set aside for a second Stevens' reasoning that alleged absentee ballot fraud justifies showing voter IDs at polling places.)

Fun aftermath: Several East Chicago political figures (notably not Pastrick) ended up in jail for a scheme dating back to Pastrick's 1999 run that had city crews build new sidewalks for residents in exchange for votes. (For the record, my dad was a lawyer for the Pastrick administration for many years and helped argue the Pabey case. And, also for the record, Pabey isn't exactly a paragon of ethical virtue.)

Anyway, welcome to the Region, America. Enjoy it while you're here.

UPDATE, 12:42 A.M.: On CNN, anyway, they seem to have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the Region's demographics. The "north county" cities assumed to go big for Obama---Gary, Hammond, East Chicago, and Whiting---aren't the whole story. In a county of more than 480,000, those cities only account for less than half the county population; Gary's population is less than 100,000. And Hammond and Whiting, in particular, have significant white blue-collar populations that are fertile ground for Clinton, not Obama, and the same goes for East Chicago, which is half Latino--together, they're bigger than Gary. Bigger issue is that the rest of the county is more or less suburban---and even rural, down south of Crown Point and into Lowell and beyond. You've got middle- to upper-class suburbs in Schererville, St. John, Dyer, and Munster---probably pretty even Clinton/Obama; blue-collar burbs like Griffith, Highland, Lake Station, and Hobart (my hometown)---probably leaning Clinton. In other words, Obama folks---don't expect any miracles out of Lake County.

UPDATE, 1:04 A.M.: Clay is currently making an utter fool of himself on CNN. What an absolute clown. No one points out that he controls the process. Hammond Mayor Tom McDermott says "the appearance of impropriety is high."

UPDATE, 1:12 A.M.: Some poetry to cap your evening.

a Catholic church in southern Guam

I'm still looking for my amusing Christmas photos of Santas riding on Guamanian rooftops, under blue blue skies; they're around, but have gotten lost on my computer

As a former resident of that part of the world, I have sent off some emails to smart friends involved with Micronesian politics to see what they think about Obama's seven-vote victory. I'm curious what they have to say about it.

The slots filled last night were all "pledged" slots, which could only be filled by candidates who had filed papers pledging their support to a particular candidate. Three of the four slots were pledged to Barack Obama, based on the results of the District's primary vote. Only the seat Evans won was pledged to Hillary Clinton. The Clinton seat was also the only one that drew a contested vote; folks who had signed up to challenge Bowser, Hudson, and Lindenfeld all withdrew their names before the vote.

Evans' competition was Franklin Garcia, a committee member and technology consultant. His speech to his fellow members before the vote---which, according to witnesses (it happened before LL arrived), focused an awful lot on what a great candidate Obama is---failed to win him the Clinton slot: He lost 52-6.

Other than that, the drama was minor. There was a bit of uproar when Lindenfeld, a guy who has tended to stay behind the scenes over the years, stood for election by acclamation; one member declined to get with the program, saying "That's unfair....I don't know who the hell he is!" She was drowned out when the time to vote arrived.

Also there was an attempted solution to the Case of the Missing Ballots from the prior month's meeting. Committee member John Capozzi put forth a motion that would have each committee member rise and tell their votes for the at-large unpledged delegates to the crowd; it would also require the state committee to keep ballots for at least 21 says after the vote. A vote on the motion was postponed to next month.

The full list of delegates is after the jump.

Pledged Delegates

Sandra C. Allen (Clinton)
Pauline E. Chapman (Obama)
Jerry Clark (Obama)
Maria P. Corrales (Obama)
Kierra Johnson (Obama)
Keshini Ladduwhetty (Obama alternate)
Cynthia Kain (Obama)
Eugene D. Kinlow (Obama)
Anthony Muhammad (Obama)
Peter D. Rosenstein (Clinton)
Betty L. Smalls (Obama alternate)
Juan Manuel Thompson (Obama alternate)
Darryl Wiggins (Obama)

Party Leaders/Elected Officials
Kwame Brown (Obama)
Vincent C. Gray (Obama)

At-Large
Muriel Bowser (Obama)
Jack Evans (Clinton)
Jim Hudson (Obama)
Tom Lindenfeld (Obama alternate)

***

Unpledged Delegates (Superdelegates)

U.S. Congress
Michael D. Brown (Obama)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (Obama)
Paul Strauss (Obama)

Mayor
Adrian M. Fenty (Obama)

Elected DNC Members
Anita Bonds (undecided)
Marilyn T. Brown (Clinton)
Arrington Dixon (Obama)
Jeff Richardson (Obama)

Appointed DNC Members
Donna Brazile (undecided)
Anna Burger (Obama)
Mary Eva Candon (Clinton)
Yolanda Caraway (Clinton)
Larry Cohen (undecided)
Hartina Flournoy (Clinton)
Harold Ickes (Clinton)
Ben Johnson (Clinton)
Eric Kleinfeld (Clinton)
Mona G. Mohib (Clinton)
Minyon Moore (Clinton)
Elizabeth M. Smith (Clinton)
Christine Warnke (undecided)
James J. Zogby (Obama)

At-Large Unpledged
Yvette Alexander (Obama)
Harry Thomas, Jr. (Obama)

In addition to the voting delegates, another 10 members of the delegation will be announced on Monday, according to state committee spokesperson David Meadows. Those folks, though not voting on the presidential nomination, will be serving on various DNC committees at the convention.

Rhee, in a speech at Tony Cheng's Restaurant in Chinatown, referred to herself as a "card-carrying Democrat" (LL forgot to ask to see the card), yet endorsed McCain's approach based on his willingness to reauthorize the controversial "No Child Left Behind" legislation. Both Clinton and Obama have been highly critical of the law and its effects.

"I think they're pandering, quite frankly, to the teachers' unions and other folks," she said.

In comments after the speech, Rhee explained that her support for NCLB arose from her belief in accountability and the need for hard goals for school systems. She called herself as a "huge proponent" of the federal law and said she was "incredibly disappointed" with the lack of Democratic support for the law---though she did say she had a "laundry list" of things she would change with the statute.

Why might an urban school superintendent favor No Child Left Behind? Well, for a cynical view, look at the political cover it provides: Long-failing public schools are required to be "restructured," a process Rhee is going through currently with several DCPS schools. Without such a federal impetus, big changes---which can extend to the brink of privatization---can be difficult to justify to parents. "Blame NCLB" certainly is a handy refrain to bring to parent meetings explaining the need for such drastic measures.

Wired has the best stuff on the juicy scandal still percolating with D.C.-based Women's Voices. Women's Vote, which admits to being behind some high-tech "anonymous" phone calls going to primarily black households in North Carolina. The calls from a Lamont Williams imply improper voter registration and give instructions on re-registering, only the voters there have not necessarily improperly registered and the instructions to wait for a packet in the mail and send in another application would put voters well past the deadline to vote in Tuesday's primary. Virginia State Police investigated similar robo-calls before VA's primaries last February, also sourced to Women's Voices. Women Vote.

The group's president (and Duke grad, no less) is Page Gardner of Northern Virginia, who has been making the rounds in this hamster-wheel primary to talk about the impact of single women. According to the Institute for Southern Studies and OpenSecrets.org, Gardner has contributed $6,700 to Hillary Clinton in one form or another in 2005 and 2006. Her total contribution to the Obama campaign: $0.

Gardner does have a response to all of this: "We apologize for any confusion our calls may have caused." That may not be enough for the Attorney General.

City issues don't seem to come up too frequently in the presidential campaigns. Sure, policies pertaining to health care, housing, and the economy all affect urban environments. But, they also affect suburban and rural places as well. Somehow, my name got put on a media list to receive press releases from Hillary Clinton's campaign. It's a lot of Bing! Bing! Bing! all day long, which I typically ignore. But one press release from earlier today caught my eye:

At an engagement in Philadelphia this morning, Clinton discussed her plan to "cut the murder rate in big cities in half and put 100,000 new police officers on America’s streets...Hillary would also invest $1 billion competitive grant program to reduce the number of repeat offenders and the size of the population in prisons and juvenile lock-ups nationwide. In addition, Hillary will partner with states and communities to support early intervention programs that would prevent at-risk youth from engaging in criminal activity."

Now, I can't recall anything coming from Barack Obama's campaign that even compares to this city-focused initiative. I'm not on his press list. And the presidential political coverage has pretty much come down to the latest chatter about super-delegates, money, firings and resignations, and political gaffes. (Let's, for example, scan the presidential campaign coverage on the current front page of politico.com: "Taxpayers Fund Bill Clinton Spending," "Bill Clinton Defends Wife's Remarks," "Playbook: Media Mistreated Wife" (Again about Bill Clinton), "McCain Unexpectedly Moves on Housing," "Obama Would Have Fired Penn," "Dems Plan $40M Hit On McCain.")

But, as far as I know, she's ahead of the game on this. The Clinton campaign sent out an extensive press release packed with information about her proposal and national crime stats.

"I was the one who threw away the ballots." Gorman wrote in an e-mail he sent to the committee's membership this morning. "...I did so because I was unaware of the custom and mandate of the availablity of these particular election ballots. In all three years on the committee, no ballots was ever made available for review UNLESS there was a challenge made."

In his letter, Forman explains he asked committee chair Anita Bonds what to do with the ballot box shortly after the vote; "Upon reflection, I can say I did not make myself entirely clear to her that the box contained ballots [when I asked] 'what do I do with these?'" he wrote. "It is entirely reasonable that she thought I was talking only about the box and shrugged as if 'whatever'."

Gorman knocked down any rumors that there were unsavory motives attached to the ditching of the ballots. "There were no back room agreements or anything of the sort," he wrote. "None of the leadership or other persons involved Thursday night had anything to do with my decision. I made an incorrect decision based on my own three year experience as vice-chair of the Party Organization and Function Committee which assumed that ALL ballots are secret."

In a rather stunning display of accountability (or perhaps merely seizing the opportunity to slough off a thankless job) Gorman submitted his resignation from the state committee, writing, "This is a clear case of misfeasance on my part."

LL was unable to reach Gorman for comment earlier today. Full letter after the jump.

Good morning,

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Panell for his email and express my gratitude that even though he resigned as chair of Ward 8 Democrats, that he never ceased to care about the affairs of the DC Democratic Party. I am sincere and am not joking when I say I wish more DC residents were as passionately active as Phil Panell.

I was the one who threw away the ballots. In spite of my three years on the Party Organization and Function Committee, I did so because I was unaware of the custom and mandate of the availablity of these particular election ballots. In all three years on the committee, no ballots was ever made available for review UNLESS there was a challenge made. Since challenges were a frequent enough occurrance, the Party Organization and Function Committee followed a specific protocol - return all ballots back into the ballot box and secure the box.

In the absence of challenges, the results would stand and be duely "certified" when recorded by the Recording Secretary upon announcement from the dais during the DCDSC meeting. Further, whenever there were no challenges, there was no reason to keep ballots. In fact, usually the only materials kept were the voting rolls because the books had to be returned to BOEE.

As you all know, the results were announced and accepted by the DCDSC body and duely recorded by MR. Collins. There were no challenges and the results stood. I did go to Anita in the middle of the hubbub with the box and ask her what to do with it. Upon reflection, I can say I did not make myself entirely clear to her that the box contained ballots because I asked said "what do I do with these?" It is entirely reasonable that she thought I was talking only about the box and shrugged as if "whatever".

One final point. It was not until Monday that I was informed by Mr. Meadows of the tradition of retaining these particular ballots.

This is a clear case of misfeasance on my part. There were no back room agreements or anything of the sort. None of the leadership or other persons involved Thursday night had anything to do with my decision. I made an incorrect decision based on my own three year experience as vice-chair of the Party Organization and Function Committee which assumed that ALL ballots are secret.

With all due respect to all and given the gravity of my error, I am submitting my resignation from the DCDSC.

Sincerely,
Stephen P. Gorman

Now, despite the close tally, no one has challenged the results. However, because of the politiciking behind the scenes, several folks---including LL---were interested in inspecting the ballots for various reasons, perhaps to see where party members' loyalties lay or to thank members who supported a particular candidate. Having the ballots open to inspection is a practice that had been extended to the public in the past.

Well, not this year. The ballots have gone missing.

Committee spokesperson David Meadows said yesterday that the ballots "got mixed up, and somebody threw them away....From what I understand they were mistakenly trashed."

What are the rules concerning the ballots? No one seems to be able to point LL toward a particular rule mandating that ballots be kept for a particular period of time. However, several committee members are hold that the trashing violates well-established party doctrine that there be no secret ballots at any point in the delegate selection process after the public primaries.

DCDSC chair Anita Bonds denies that any rules were broken by discarding the ballots, saying there was no provision in the local delegate selection plan for preserving the ballots. "It didn't occur that we should be creating some sort of special rule for counting and handling of the ballots," she said yesterday.

In fact, she says, there's no saying where the ballots are: "The box may actually be in a corner somewhere; I don't know."

Could there be an ulterior motive? Well, those folks who didn't get with the Obama ticket and voted for Thomas over Sapiro might have been in for some backlash from the Barack camp that they can now easily avoid. (Read tomorrow's LL for more on that.)

Former DCDSC member Phil Pannell says that standard practice in the past was to keep the ballots for at least 30 days following these sorts of elections.

Pannell sent a letter to committee members decrying the loss of the ballots. The committee, he wrote, "should never be in a situation when DCDCS election ballots are not available for public review.....Democrats have a right to know how they voted....For the Democrats in DC not to have the opportunity to review the April 3rd ballots is not only unfair, it is an obscene outrage."