He was found guilty of 76 of 77 counts.

I received an interesting statement purporting to be from someone close to the case. I am working on confirming its authenticity.

UPDATE: Yup, it’s authentic. Read the statement — and much more — here.

Leave them on Justin’s post. The comments were turned off before; I have turned them on. Go here to comment.

Posted by WLS: 

Thomas Edsall had an interesting piece in the HuffPo discussing some of the suppositions about why Clinton doesn’t quit the race since every methody by which she might receive the nomination is now pretty much foreclosed to her.

In addition to merely losing the nomination, she is now beginning to suffer the indignity of seeing long-time political allies line-up behind her opposition — one can only imagine the reaction behind the scenes yesterday when the Clinton campaign learned that NARAL was going to endorse Obama.  Superdelegates previously pledged to her are seeing the writing on the wall, and beginning to dump her.

Why suffer through this?  Edsall catalogues a few of the theories, and I think the combination of a couple of them will be borne out to be the truth — and while not-quite-so revealing of the Clintons, how the next 7 months play out will be quite revealing of the dimocrit party.

My take is that there are three issues at play here.

1.  The Clintons never expected to be here so much of what they are doing is a daily ad hoc version of “What should we do next.”  That has manifested itself in a “stay in the game” kind of attitude, waiting for a potential melt-down of the front-runner a la Howard Dean.  But the reality has now set in that he’s not going to be nicked up by DEMS for anything like Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers.  The DEMS are along for the ride.

2.  The Clintons have a strong sense of entitlement to the levers of the party apparatus.  Go back to them being abandoned by the likes of David Geffen, and his harsh words regarding their attitude.  The Clintons believe they rescued the party from political oblivion following the Jimma/Walturd/Dukaka trifecta, and now they own it until they give it up.  Party apparatchiks have tolerated the Clintons so long as they felt the Clintons were useful in raising money or getting Dems elected.  Obama changed all that for the party, while the Clintons see him as an interloper on their turf.  They will not concede to him because to do so is to cede their position atop the party to a non-Clintonista.  Obama means the Daley machine will ascend to the levers of the party apparatus, with the Clintonistas on the outside looking in. 

3.  She wants to wound Obama fatally because 4 years of John McCain with a Dim congress is a small price to pay for being the nearly certain candidate of an even more power-starved party in 2012.   A loss by Obama will bring Move.on and the rest of the far leftwing to heal, and go back to taking directions rather than giving them.   Bill beat a one-term Bush 41, so why can’t Hillary beat a one-term McCain given the difficulties abounding and the likelihood he’ll get little cooperation from a Dim congress.

I don’t think she is staying in now for the purpose of securing the 2008 nomination.  Given the way it has played out, I don’t think the 2008 nomination has any value to her.  If she was to wrestle it away at this late date through some sequence of catastrophic happenings, the psychic damage those happenings would cause to the party would pretty much ensure a McCain win in Nov.  Obama is the only Dem who has a chance of winning in Nov. because the late-date nomination of Hillary would fracture the party to its core.

And she will not be the VP nominee.  The only thing worse for Obama than losing the general election to McCain would be winning the general election with Billary as his wing/she/male.  I think the conceit in the Obama camp is such that they don’t think they need her, so why pack up and take along the baggage and drama that selecting her would bring.   

So, if the nomination has no value to her now, and she’s not a likely VP, what is she campaigning for? 

2012 Baby.  2012. 

Update 5/15:   Bob Beckel has a very interesting piece up today over at RealClearPolitics where he makes the case that Clinton can force her way onto the ticket as the VP, whether Obama wants her or not.

Most people, myself included, assume its up to the nominee to pick their running mate, and the convention would approve by acclimation.  The fact that it has been done that way forever doesn’t mean that’s the only way it can happen.  Beckel points out that there are separate roll call votes for the Presidential nominee, and then for the VP nominee. 

Clinton is going to go to the convention with around 1550 pledged delegates and 250-300 superdelegates.  It will take about 2025 delegate votes to secure the nomination. 

Obama is going to get the nomination for President.   And he’s going to have a hand-picked VP selection.  But if Clinton’s pledged delegates stick with her on the VP roll call, she would only need to turn around about 75-100 superdelegates — which would create a 150-200 vote reversal — to win the VP nomination. 

As Beckel points out, Clinton will be the closest 2nd place finisher in the history of the Dem party.  She is also the first legitmate female candidate for Pres. in a party that is dominated by females.  And, from the speculation so far, there seems to be interest on Obama’s part in picking a middle-aged white guy as his VP  — maybe a governor.

So, how would Obama gameplan out this potentiality in order to head-off a Clinton insurrection designed to get her on the ticket over his objection???

Hold John Edwards close — he’s got independent support among the delegates and some superdelegates.  His convention support may be Obama’s hole card to keep Clinton off the ticket.  

[posted by Justin Levine]

It is a lengthy [PDF] decision. Vote was 4 to 3.

The majority decision goes well beyond the narrow question of gay marriage. It also holds for the first time that sexual orientation is a “suspect classification” under the California’s Equal Protection Clause. Therefore, any law in the state that discriminates against homosexuals will be subject to “strict scrutiny” by the court – essentially treating it the same way as laws that discriminate against racial minorities. [This part of the ruling can be found in Section V-B of the decision PDF, starting on pg. 95.]

Since California has already passed numerous legislative statutes protecting homosexuals in terms of housing, workplace, etc., this broad holding probably won’t change the practical legal landscape in the state all that much. However, this ruling indicates that even if those legislative statutes were somehow repealed, the anti-discrimination rights of homosexuals would still be retained constitutionally.

As with other court decisions on this issue (both in California and many other states), the dissenting opinions make for interesting reading and are sure to inspire another round of debate over the broader issue of judicial activism (apart from the specific political debate over gay marriage).

Updated note: The City of San Francisco performed marriage ceremonies for roughly 4,000 gay/lesbian couples, before being enjoined by the courts. The state Supreme Court originally invalidated those marriages without ruling on the constitutionality of gay marriage itself. [It merely held that San Fransisco had no power to unilaterally offer gay marriage ceremonies before the courts had ruled on the question.] As Justice Kennard’s concurring opinion underscores [starting on pg. 122 of the PDF decision], those 4,000+ marriages do not suddenly become valid with this decision. Those couples will have to go through the ceremony process again, presumably resulting in a double-dip windfall for the state in marriage license fees….

Second updated note: While I have no problems with the result of this decision as a matter of social policy, it remains problematic in terms of the judicial activism debate. In addition to the dissenting opinions, you might want to pay particular attention to footnote # 52 in the majority’s decision (starting on pg. 79 of the PDF document) which underscores the problem. Ironically, the majority doesn’t seem to grasp the obvious contradictions and tensions in their reasoning that footnote 52 presents. Merely citing past court decisions is not a valid substitute for reasoning in this instance, nor is it adequate to explain the blatant double standards in social policy (beyond the personal whims and political preferences of the Justices).

[Justin Levine]

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Comments are now enabled. I don’t know why they were turned off before.

I’d like to thank DRJ for keeping the site afloat during the past 3 1/2 weeks, at a time when I was personally too busy to do much writing at all. I think things will lighten up a bit at work for the immediate future, and I should be able to return to some semblance of regular blogging.

Meanwhile, DRJ is welcome to keep submitting posts as often as she wishes. She announced last night in a comment that she doesn’t intend to keep posting, but that’s her decision and not mine. If I could, I’d keep her posting here forever.

UPDATE: I guess this means I’m going to start having to pay attention to the election again. Anything important happen during the last, say, 3 1/2 weeks that I should know about?