Black Box Report

"Support the troops." It's a well-worn phrase the president and Republicans love to admonish war critics with. To them, it's metaphorical, meaning to cheer the troops on in their mission; right or wrong, for better or worse. But when we ask our soldiers to risk the ultimate sacrifice, "support the troops" should mean something more, like making sure they have the vehicle armor they need to stay alive:

Hundreds of U.S. Marines have been killed or injured by roadside bombs in Iraq because Marine Corps bureaucrats refused an urgent request in 2005 from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, an internal military study concludes.

Of course, as usual, up is down, black is white, etc.:

Our president is once again calling Democrats soft on national security and at the same time an internal Defense Department study says that the Bush administration's malfeasance killed and injured 100s of Marines unnecessarily.

Marine Corps officials actually cited "cost" as a reason for refusing MRAP vehicles...like we're not already spending enough money on the war. But the administration's "support for the troops" doesn't end there:

The Bush Pentagon placed a $74 million contract for helmets from Sioux Manufacturing – as the company was being sued for making Kevlar that wasn’t up to military standards, and had covered it up. Tapes during their trial showed that even the quality assurance officer at the company was well aware of what they were doing.

Seems that $74 million could've been better spent. In fact, most of it could be better spent - or at the very least kept track of. On the other hand, maybe the problem isn't with the definition of "support," but with the word "troops." Apparently, to Bush, "troops" means contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater and the military-industrial complex:

The bloated, outsized defense budget is being propped up by wars and threats of wars. It's how the Air Force can claim that $144 billion is not enough of a budget and that they need more for things like "dorm furnishings"...
......
It's not that the military doesn't require funding and equipment, especially after years of war. It's that the expenditures are completely misplaced, going to contractors who police themselves and outdated weapons systems instead of what the troops need to save their lives.

But it's not just equipment. In his State of the Union address, Bush wanted a good crowd pleaser to "show" he "supported the troops," so he called on Congress to allow U.S. troops to transfer their unused education benefits to family members. Everyone cheered and a good time was had by all, but when government analysts later told him it would cost $1-2 billion a year, he left it out of his $3.1 trillion dollar budget:

How despicable is that? He wanted to make a dramatic announcement, but he didn't want to bother actually developing a policy to announce…Bush wants $170,000,000,000 more for the Iraq War, next year, but helping educate the families of those fighting the war is too expensive. All Bush can do is to cynically use the idea as an applause line, before a national television audience, but when the cameras are off, the families of the troops no longer matter.

"Support the troops" means nothing if you don't put your money - and your equipment - where your mouth is.

With solid support in the Hispanic community, Texas is one of Hillary Clinton's "firewall" states, a contest she expected to help close the delegate gap with Barack Obama. But her campaign has just recently "disovered" a "new obstacle," some convoluted rules about how Texas districts apportion their delegates that could water down her support. But this really shouldn't have come as a surprise:

When I read this, I dissolved in giggles after the first sentence. It was that part about the Texas delegate selection rules "creating a new obstacle for her" that got me. In what sense are the Texas rules a "new obstacle?" Were they only recently passed? Not as far as I can tell -- here, for instance, is a pdf about them from August 2007, which should have given the Clinton campaign ample time to get up to speed. While I was having fun thinking of possible analogies -- would I describe the existence of the Pacific Ocean as "creating a new obstacle" for my plan to walk from Baltimore to Beijing?...

Note to self: If I ever run for office and base my campaign on the idea that I am ready to lead from day one, I must remember to actually run an effective campaign.

And the highly-touted Clinton Machine is having trouble not only in Texas, but in Pennsylvania as well:

HRC was unable to put together a full slate of delegates for the Pennsylvania primary. In practice this doesn't matter (they'll be assigned later if necessary), but it demonstrates once again just how unprepared the Clinton team was for a campaign that extended beyond Super Tuesday.

On top of all that, the Politico reported a high-ranking Clinton camapign official said they intended to go after not only the Superdelegates, but Obama's pledged delegates from the primaries he's won as well. Clinton already caught heat for the idea of letting elite Superdelegates snatch the nomination for her, even if that goes contrary to the popular vote and pledged delegate counts, but this seems positively suicidal (not to mention reinforcing the perception that the Clintons will do anything to win, no matter how sleazy or undemocratic). Not to mention that, practically speaking, it's a really bad idea:

Yes, it's true that a delegate who arrives as a pledged delegate for Obama is not bound by the rules to actually vote for Obama…Delegates can do whatever they want, but before they are chosen as delegates, the campaigns get to sign off on who will represent them as delegates at the convention…The people who end up as pledged delegates for Obama will be among his most rabid and trusted supporters…among the least likely people in America to switch their allegiance…Why would the Clinton campaign even float out the idea…? God only knows. You'd think they might have some work to do trying to actually earn pledged delegates.

Both candidates have since vowed not to poach each others' pledged delegates, but it was still a mouthful of stupid for that "unnamed Clinton official." Team Clinton, renowned for its political savvy and discipline, stepped in it up to their collective hips. And it's hardly the first time they've done so. And in the end, that could be Hillary's biggest problem:

My biggest problem with Clinton isn't Clinton - I like her! - it's some of the people she surrounds herself with. Aren't they supposed to be the ones who know what they're doing?

Ignoring polls that don't show you data you like; insulting voters in "insignificant states"; failing to do the most basic due dilligance on and preparation for primary contests beyond Super Tuesday...For a fraction of what she's paying Penn, Ickes, Wolfson, et al, I could've not done all those things for the Clinton campaign, and she surely wouldn't be any worse off than she is now, with several million dollars left in her pocket to boot.