Sen. Clinton, You Have Gone Too Far

by: Shaun Stewart

Fri May 23, 2008 at 20:54:08 PM EDT

Via HuffPo:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

I don't know about you, but this has put me into such a state of shocking anger that I'm having trouble choosing polite words to express it. I have not felt this angry about something political in a long time. As an early and involved Obama supporter, I have certainly had moments of frustration with Hillary, even moments of anger. But never like this.

First, I had never imagined that Sen. Clinton would stoop to a level of desperation so deep that she would raise the specter of Sen. Obama being assassinated to make a political point. This is worse than, for example, Huckabee's  stupid and tastless assassination joke because while Huckabee is moron, Sen. Clinton is very intelligent. Maybe she misspoke? But this is not the first time she's made RFK-Obama assassination comparisons. This is deliberate.

To me, even worse than raising the spectre of Sen. Obama being assassinated is using the tragic and untimely death of Bobby Kennedy to score a cheap (and by this point meaningless) political point. My grandfather knew Bobby Kennedy, and some of my earliest political memories were of my grandfather telling me what a great man and a great leader RFK was.

It tarnishes everything RFK stood for to use his assassination to insinuate that anyone, but especially a fellow Democrat, a fellow Senator, and a good public servant, will be assassinated.

Politics can be rough and tumble. You take everything the other side says with a grain of salt, and don't get too mad about them. But this is in a league of its own.

It's just not right.

Obama +5 vs McCain in NH

by: Mike Hoefer

Fri May 23, 2008 at 13:39:36 PM EDT

5/21/08 500 Likely Voters: McCain43, Obama, 48

Clinton is polling above McCain for the first time since February as well. A 13 point swing gets her +10 over McCain.

There are a couple of other interesting things in the poll. Twice as many feel Clinton should drop out than Obama. 40% v 20% (question 11 & 12). And in who would do better against McCain it is Obama 41%, Clinton 42%, 17% Not Sure.

I feel a bit better than I did last month when I proclaimed We need a nominee. We do still need a definitive nominee, but at least it seems we are trending the right way.

Veterans for Obama

by: Jack Mitchell

Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:40:04 AM EDT

America's Veterans have joined together to support Barack Obama for President. We are neither affiliated with nor paid for by the Obama campaign. We are a volunteer group of America's veterans - men and women who have served America in uniform - from every rank and every conflict and from every service, in war and in peace, from all walks of life, from every creed and color, and from all parts of our nation.

We support Barack Obama because he believes as we do. Barack Obama believes the highest calling for each American is service to others.

Senator Obama shares our values, he honors our sacrifice and he cares about our country's future. Barack Obama cares about veterans, but he goes beyond veterans' issues to talk about what we care about the most: our love of country, our concern for others, our dedication to making this nation and our world a better place for all of us. Veterans know the truth of their love of country: this is not just about us, about what we are owed as veterans - it is about how the tradition of service that we showed in uniform lives on in the testimony of the lives we live. It is about what we give to others every day of our lives.

Our effort is about providing true national security: about binding up the wounds of war and caring for the widows and orphans of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. But it is also about working for peace.

We, the creators of Vets For Obama, are volunteers. Each of us has spent many hours examining Barack Obama's background, experience, qualifications, record, and policy proposals. We deeply believe that Barack Obama is the right leader for America. Please join us in this noble effort - to elect a President who can bring pride back to the White House. Help us to elect a man who will finally do something besides just pay lip service to our sacrifice, but who has through a lifetime of service testified to our highest ideals.

Help us to elect Barack Obama President of the United States.

If you share our calling and honor the sacred trust, please join us.  

The Democratic Party Going Forward

by: jbd

Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:04:03 AM EDT

Most agree that this primary race, along with major dissatisfaction with Bush and his party, has galvanized more people than ever to participate in the Democratic primary, especially the young and so-called minorities. The youth vote is very important because research shows people tend to stick with the party they chose as young adults, whether Democratic or Republican. I know more than one elderly Republican whose views tend more Democratic these days, but will not change party registration.

There is a real chance, in my opinion, for the Democratic party to lose the potential for new members, fresh ideas and new energy if there is a "coup" of super delegates or some other smoke filled room scene a la 1968. The story is as old as Chronos eating his own children for fear they will usurp his power.

But what of the youth, many of whom are involved in their first political campaign? Will they stay with "the party" if they perceive the nomination being stolen somehow? Do they accept the "politics ain't beanbag" meme?

There's an interesting take on this from Elizabeth Drew on Politico.com

Drew cites three reasons why super delegates will not be rushing to abandon Obama:

(a) Hillary Rodham Clinton is such a polarizing figure that everyone who ever considered voting Republican in November, and even many who never did, will go to the polls to vote against her, thus jeopardizing Democrats down the ticket - i.e., themselves, or, for party leaders, the sizeable majorities they hope to gain in the House and the Senate in November.

(b) To take the nomination away from Obama when he is leading in the elected delegate count would deeply alienate the black base of the Democratic Party, and, in the words of one leading Democrat, "The superdelegates are not going to switch their voter and jeopardize the future of the Democratic Party for generations." Such a move, he said, would also disillusion the new, mostly young, voters who have entered into politics for the first time because of Obama, and lose the votes of independents who could make the critical difference in November.

(c) Because the black vote can make the decisive difference in numerous congressional districts, discarding Obama could cost the Democrats numerous seats.

Furthermore, the congressional Democratic leaders don't draw the same conclusion from Pennsylvania and also earlier contests that many observers think they do: that Obama's candidacy is fatally flawed because he has as yet been largely unable to win the votes of working class whites. They point out something that has been largely overlooked in all the talk - the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries were closed primaries, and, one key congressional Democrat says, "Yes, he doesn't do really well with a big part of the Democratic base, but she doesn't do well with independents, who will be critical to success in November."

"We may have to go to June, and whoever ends up with the most delegates wins," a key Democrat says. "Meanwhile, the attention will be on the battle she can't win, so why is she doing this - from here on out she's only bleeding the party. The right way to put it is, 'This is a war of attrition and it's obvious that the numbers aren't going to add up, so what's the point?'" He added, "The hope is that at some point the superdelegates will get frustrated and join the Obama bandwagon."

The question is why doesn't this happen sooner rather than later?

Another perspective on the same theme from a Daily Kos blogger.

That's why Obama is the right nominee for Democrats in 2008.  Not just because he is winning by all real measures, including actual delegates and the popular vote, nor because he is just as electable as Clinton if not more so.  All of these are true, but it wouldn't matter if they were not.

Obama is the nominee who can literally lock in structural advantages for Democrats for the next forty years (to say nothing of Obama's downballot advantages today).  Clinton is the nominee who will wage an increasingly futile battle to bring back the lost Democratic coalitions of yesteryear.

Win or lose in November, the right choice for the Party and the country is obvious: Barack Obama is the candidate who will secure the future of the Party--win or lose.  Just don't expect pundits, prognosticators and consultants still stuck in the realignment patterns of 1968 to understand that.

They just don't get it--and they probably never will.

This primary is more than just to see which candidate gets the nomination. It is for the future of the Democratic party. I believe there are times in history when a window opens and real change can occur. If that window shuts, the opportunity may be lost for another generation.  

The Math of Politics

by: EqualityPress

Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:32:14 AM EDT

Here's a test, tell me if you pass

54.6 - 45.4 = ?

Obama and "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

by: michael57

Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:19:28 AM EDT

Here's what he said, reportedly in response to a questioner who said he was going to canvass for Obama in rural Pennsylvania, and wondered why Obama's "message of hope" had not always generated support in those areas: "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." So the distinction was drawn between hope and bitterness.

On its face, this remark is perfectly true. The only problem is that it's inelegantly phrased, and can easily be spun into something that it isn't: an expression of elitism.

But the remark is inarguable. The success of the Republican party over the last 40 years has hinged on its ability to convince rural voters to ignore their own economic and social best interests and vote instead on so-called "wedge issues"--guns, gays, race, appeals to religious fundamentalism, anti-immigration sentiments, etc.--so that what was once known as the party of class privilege and big-business boosterism, the Republican Party, has instead been identified as the party of regular folks, rescuing the republic from latte-sipping elitists who look silly sitting in a tank or trying to bowl. The only way I would suggest for Obama to amend his remark is to say that these people are manipulated into having these sentiments, rather than that they cling to them, but that's a minor quibble.

The best diagnosis of the situation came in Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas, a funny and compelling look at the last 100 years in Frank's home state of Kansas and in the country at large. It's a vivid portrait of an upside-down world where blue-collar patriots recite the Pledge while they strangle their own life chances; where small farmers cast their votes for a Wall Street order that will eventually push them off their own land; and where a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs has managed to convince the country that it speaks on behalf of the People. It's the history of a backlash against a Left that doesn't exist anymore except in the fever dreams of right-wing radio.

In addition to plugging Frank's book, I would also like to make an argument in favor of elitism.

First, let me say that none of the presidential candidates made it to where they are without being exceptional. They are all part of America's elite, in any meaningful sense of that term. Being part of an elite is only a problem if you look down on other people; otherwise, it's desirable.

Second, why shouldn't America have the best? Do you want a president who can bowl or toss back shots with the boys, or do you want a president who might actually be great at the job? If you're hiring a plumber or a painter, you don't quiz them on when their daddy taught them to hunt. You quiz them on their professional abilities. Should we not have the same standard when it comes to choosing the Leader of the Free World?

The problem is that in suggesting we hire the best for the job, the idea becomes twisted into "he thinks he's better than we are." ... Well, I am perfectly willing to concede that Obama is a better constitutional scholar and has far greater political skills than I. I'm perfectly willing to concede that Hillary Clinton has a firmer grasp of foreign affairs than I do, and that John McCain would be better at pushing legislation through Congress. Does all this make me bitter? Nope. I don't want to do my own plumbing either.

(This diary cross-posted from the Gibson's Bookstore blog)

Forty Years in the Desert

by: jbd

Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 17:34:32 PM EDT

The Israelites were being punished for their worship of the golden calf after being freed from Egyptian slavery. God wanted a generation of them to pass before the new generation would be allowed to enter the Promised Land. And it cannot be a mere coincidence that precisely forty years after Martin Luther King Jr. stated, "I see the promised land." Barack Obama has emerged as the first credible African American candidate for President of the United States. The possibility of Obama's presidency is the fulfillment, in part, of King's vision that someday we will judge a person by the content of his character, not the color of his skin.
Skin color is still in the mix, but much less than  in King's time. The youngest among us are the in the vanguard. Will the "millenials" be the ones who bring the highest aspirations of the older generation to fruition? Is Barack Obama Joshua to King's Moses? Joshua is not as powerful as Moses, but it is he who is charged with leading the Israelites home, to the land of "milk and honey," their birthright. Moses had the inspiration and introduced the Law; Joshua took it and made it happen.

Here are some excerpts of Martin Luther King Jr.'s April 3, 1968 speech.

The Clinton Theory: Updated

by: Shaun Stewart

Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:24:55 AM EDT

To reiterate, I'm still not sure whether I believe this or not, but it's easy to see why many people believe this based on the deluge of recent news.

Aside from more of Bill Clinton complimenting McCain, the first recent piece that caught my eye was from Newsweek. Jonathan Atler writes that many big-time Clinton backers want her to take the Governorship of New York as a consolation prize should she not win the nomination. Okay, but then this paragraph caught my eye:
Via Newsweek:

Under the scenario sketched out by the insiders, serving two years as governor would give Clinton the executive experience to become the prohibitive favorite for the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination. Clinton believes that Barack Obama may well lose this year to John McCain, who would be 75 in 2012 and a possible one-term president. Clinton would arguably be better positioned to replace McCain in the White House as a governor than as a senator.

Hmmm...this suggests that the Clinton camp is seriously thinking about 2012. Then, from Slate comes a dispatch that Obama's favorability ratings, once astronomical, are lowering. Some polls even show them lowering to near-Hillary levels.
Via Slate:

However, a new SurveyUSA poll shows the two candidates' unfavorables to be much closer. Obama and Clinton have similar numbers in this poll, with Clinton polling unfavorably among 42 percent of voters. He is viewed unfavorably by 40 percent of the voters.

While this is only one poll (and from the sometimes-unreliable SurveyUSA, to boot), it shows that the prolonged primary battle, which most observers acknowledge Clinton has little chance of winning, is dragging Obama down.

So what could possibly make Obama lose in November? Lowered favorability ratings, for one.

Again, I'm not prepared to say that this is definitely what the Clintons are doing, but it's getting harder to dismiss the theory. Thoughts?

McCain: George Bush Not American

by: Mike Hoefer

Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 20:22:30 PM EDT

McCain's first Slogan is:

"John McCain: The American president Americans have been waiting for."

I guess, George does not qualify?

I wonder what some of the rejected slogans were?
"John McCain: The American president True Americans have been waiting for."
"John McCain: The White president Americans have been waiting for."
"John McCain: The American president White Americans have been waiting for."
"John McCain: The American president Americans have been patriotically waiting for."
"John McCain: The American American, Americans have been waiting for."

I am reminded of David Cross's "Patriot Pack"
(4:00 Caution: Strong Language, Caustic Satire)

The internets are atwitter with chatter. Most seeing it as a slam against that American with the funny sounding name... maybe he should have stuck with Barry.

I am biased for sure, but Barack's story will resonate as authentically American. I proclaim McCain's slogan a loser for sure.

Hillary Can't Win (The Latte Primary)

by: Mike Hoefer

Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 22:22:28 PM EDT

What would the race look like if you looked at Starbucks outlets by state, and awarded  "Lattes" on the basis of vote percentage in the state? Well wonder no more, as I have indeed done the math.

The race for "Lattes" stands at 4544 for Obama and 4165 for Clinton, a 379 Latte lead for Obama. This does not include the contested Michigan and Florida contests. The heavily caffeinated "Sunshine State" is worth 606 Lattes, whereas chilly Michigan only has 277. Including these controversial cups in the tally would reduce Obama's lead to 235 Lattes

While all eyes are currently focused on Pennsylvania and the 260 Lattes available there, those following the Latte Primary know that Oregon with 320 Lattes is to be the decider. Many see OR as a safe, if not convincing win for Obama.

Unfortunately for caffeinated Clintonites the Latte math is not on Hillary's side. To win, Clinton would need to have MI and FL included and win more than 60% of the remaining Lattes to squeak out the thinest of claims to the Latte Title.

At this point many are saying it is only the Baristas that are benefiting (and profiting!) from the continuation of the race.

Let's just hope a clear winner emerges so we do not need to worry about the "Venti Lattes" over rulling the will of the people.

---
For the record I don't like the Latte sterotype that surfaced during the 04 cycle by the Anti-Dean "Club for Growth". By winning CA Clinton took the state with the most Sbux outlets (2438!) She is every bit the Starbucks candidate that Obama is.

Speaking of ridiculous generalizations, I had to smile on Town Meeting Day as one of our towns bigger Ron Paul supporter drove up with a bumper sticker on her Volvo. And no, it was not a circia 1960 model. Someone else can do the analysis of votes per Volvo Dealer ;-)

Proud of a "More Perfect Union"

by: Garth Corriveau

Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 20:07:17 PM EDT

The issue of race was not the elephant in room back on January 8th, but thanks to insensitive remarks in the South Carolina campaign, the foolish comments by Geraldine Ferraro and video clips of some of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's inflammatory sermons, race - America's orginal sin - moved to the front and center of our political debate.

There is so much each one of us, no matter how educated or enlightened, can never understand about the neighborhoods and hospitals, the schools and churches, the opportunities existing or lacking outside of our own immediate communities ... but we can try.

For Americans, in fact, have a national creed - e pluribus unum ... out of many, one.

NH Superdelegates: For Your Consideration

by: Jack Mitchell

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 15:03:29 PM EDT

From what I can gather, fund raising and such in NH is kinda "stalled" while the national thing sorts itself out.

Hope the "freeze" doesn't hurt too bad.
Cold is good for a burn. Isn't it?

The Clinton civil war
by kos
Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:25:22 AM PDT
-snip

Clinton hasn't just rejected a 50-state strategy, she has openly attacked it. CTG has a great quote from former Virginia Governor and future senator Mark Warner on this very topic:

The Democratic Party is in the upswing in the Mountain West and the South, in places like Montana and Virginia, because Democrats there have made a serious effort to compete for votes everywhere, rather than make a nominal effort to be an "also-ran" outside the Democratic-density areas. As [former Virginia Gov. Mark] Warner asks, how many more times will the Democrats run presidential campaigns where they abandon thirty-three southern and western states and "launch a national campaign that goes after sixteen states and then hope that we can hit a triple bank shot to get to that seventeenth state?"

Well, given Obama's map-changing 50-state mindset, it's clear that the answer to Warner's question is "one more time" if Clinton is the nominee, and "never again" if Obama is the nominee.

Open Thread: Jedi Mind Tricks Edition

by: Jack Mitchell

Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:43:49 AM EDT

via Ben Smith

Gary Hart "Beaking the Final Rule"

by: JonnyBBad

Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 23:04:49 PM EDT

Breaking the Final Rule
   By Gary Hart
   The Huffington Post

   Friday 07 March 2008

   It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned.

   By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.

   As a veteran of red telephone ads and "where's the beef" cleverness, I am keenly aware that sharp elbows get thrown by those trailing in the fourth quarter (and sometimes even earlier). "Politics ain't beanbag," is the old slogan. But that does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters.

   Senator Obama is right to say the issue is judgment not years in Washington. If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.

Gonna buy 5 copies for my mother!

by: Jack Mitchell

Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:25:29 AM EST

-snip
We have a deeply divided nation, driven apart by economic policies that have deliberately created the largest income disparities in our history, with stunning tax breaks for the wealthiest and subsidies for giant industries. The income of the average citizen is stagnant, and his quality of life continues to slowly erode from inflation.
We are embittered and hobbled by the unnecessary and failed war in Iraq. We have been worn down by long years of fear- and hate-filled political strategies, assaults on constitutional freedoms, and levels of greed and cynicism, that - once seen for what they are - no people of moral values or ethics can tolerate.
A new president must heal these divides, must at long last face the hypocrisy and inequity of unprecedented government handouts to oil giants, hedge-fund barons, agriculture combines and drug companies. At the same time, the new president must transform our lethal energy economy - replacing oil and coal and the ethanol fraud with green alternatives and strict rain-forest preservation and tough international standards - before the planet becomes inhospitable for most human life. Although Obama has been slow to address global warming, I feel confident that his intelligence and morality will lead him clearly on this issue.
We need to recover the spiritual and moral direction that should describe our country and ourselves. We see this in Obama, and we see the promise he represents to bring factions together, to achieve again the unity that drives great change and faces difficult, and inconvenient, truths and peril.
We need to send a message to ourselves and to the world that we truly do stand for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And in electing an African-American, we also profoundly renounce an ugliness and violence in our national character that have been further stoked by our president in these last eight years.
Like Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama challenges America to rise up, to do what so many of us long to do: to summon "the better angels of our nature."

You Gotta Love Maureen Dowd

by: JonnyBBad

Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:07:13 AM EST

Channeling her inner Cheney, Hillary Clinton dropped a fear bomb, as Michelle Obama might call it, implying in a new ad that if her opponent is elected, your angelic, innocent, sleeping children could die in a terrorist attack.

The clean up woman is demure looking...but what's the point ?

It's hard to discern the message of the ad. The scariest thing is not the persistently ringing phone but an Andrea Yates-looking mother who's creeping up on the sleeping babes in the dark. The point can't be that Hillary is superior to Obama in international crisis management, because she's done no more of it than he has. She's only done domestic crisis management, cleaning up after Frisky Bill.

I hope Barack rolls over her today

Obambi-No-More briskly dismissed Hillary's attempt to cast him as a global ingénue. "Senator Clinton may not be aware, but we already had a red phone moment," he said at an outdoor rally here, with the crowd of 8,000 booing at the mention of Hillary's ad. "It was the decision to invade Iraq. Senator Clinton picked up the phone and gave the wrong answer. And John McCain picked up the phone and gave the wrong answer. And George Bush picked up the phone and gave the wrong answer."

Senior Edwards Economic Advisor Endorses Barack Obama

by: JonnyBBad

Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 20:30:40 PM EST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Posted March 3, 2008 | 10:00 AM (EST)
Huffington Post

Why I'm Endorsing Barack Obama

I was privileged to be presidential candidate John Edwards' Senior Economic Policy Advisor, but today I am just as honored to endorse Senator Barack Obama. And I do so for precisely the same reasons I long and enthusiastically supported and helped John Edwards.

This expresses my sentiments, and the ease I felt endorsing(?) Obama when John Edwards exited the race. Johnny we miss ya, but I have a feeling we'll be seeing you around...

We Are The Ones

by: JonnyBBad

Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:07:44 AM EST

Nearing the End: Dems Ohio Debate Airs Tuesday 9-10:30/Open Thread

by: JonnyBBad

Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 13:03:39 PM EST

MSNBC will telecast a debate between Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama Tuesday, Feb. 26, live from Cleveland State University in Cleveland, Ohio, 9-10:30 p.m. ET.  NBC's Brian Williams will moderate and be joined by "Meet the Press" moderator and NBC News Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert. It will be streamed live on msnbc.com.

NH CD 2 push poll ...

by: Tony Schinella

Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 19:29:17 PM EST