Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Almost half of the 46 voters in last week's poll think that Obama's opposition to the Iraq war is "One of the top 3 or 4 Obama talking points," while no one thought that it would actually hurt him come this fall. Results here:
How important is Obama's early opposition to the Iraq war?
* One of the top 3 or 4 Obama talking points - 22 votes (47.83%)
* Less important than his Iraq policy going forward - 11 votes (23.91%)
* Being against Iraq in 2002 will not matter in 2008 - 5 votes (10.87%)
* By far the most important contrast with McCain - 4 votes (8.7%)
* Equally important as the other major issues - 4 votes (8.7%)
* It will actually end up hurting him - 0 votes (0%)
Total votes: 46
This week's poll concerns John Lynch and Barack Obama. Here's a roundup, in no particular order:
* Chuck Schumer likes Amy Winehouse's Rehab. But has he heard "Su-No-No" yet?
* Beware of Vermonters landing planes on I-89 in Lebanon.
* NRSC Chair Ensign is so dispirited by election prospects that he's lowered expectations drastically. Now if the GOP loses three seats, he'll be happy. Note: some Senate rankings put the Shaheen-Sununu race in the top three, if not top four.
* Taegan Goddard thinks Chuck Todd should be the new host of MTP. I agree.
* I don't know what to make of this scandal involving Chris Dodd and Countrywide, but it looks like it could do real damage. But my first question is: is it a scandal? How do I know as a loan applicant that I am getting a better deal than another customer? All I know is that when my mortgage was sold to Countrywide from the original lender, they were awful in terms of service and accessibility. But the minute I sold my home and was about to pay off my loan, suddenly they became my best friend.
* New Hampshire is one of the 17 states where Obama's 3600 super-powered "Fellows" will be volunteering.
Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) doesn't just tick off the people of New Hampshire, but apparently likes to go after the people off New York. In this case, he accuses Chuck Schumer (D-NY) or orchestrating an anti-Gregg NY Daily News opinion piece.
Apparently Gregg called a planned federally funded rail link between Brooklyn and JFK airport a "train to nowhere" on the Senate floor recently. (Never mind that JFK is an international airport that flies to, well, everywhere.) The Daily News noted that Gregg had voted for the project in the past, and suggested his "Judd's word is mud."
Judd didn't like that, and decided that the paper couldn't have come up with that clever line of thought or turn of phrase on its own, so retook the floor and attacked his fellow Senator.
"Mr. President, I wanted to rise to respond to an attack relative to my integrity which was run today in the New York Daily News, which I presume was organized by the staff of the office of the senior senator from New York. The editorial could not have had the fact pattern had it not been fed by the senator's staff."
Well, the Daily News didn't take too kindly to this. Being a tabloid that likes to stir stuff up, they went right after Judd -- with a side swipe at the Granite State.
On the heels of neutral Nancy Pelosi's statement last week warning against superdelegates contravening the totals of elected delegates, comes more recent words from strong Clinton backers Charlie Rangel and Chuck Schumer.
Rangel:
"It's the people [who are] going to govern who selects our next candidate and not superdelegates," Rangel said last night at a dinner for the New York State Association of Black and Puerto Rican Legislators conference in Albany.
"The people's will is what's going to prevail at the convention and not people who decide what the people's will is," he added.
and Schumer:
"I don't think either candidate wants - or can even get away with - forcing their will down the throat of the other," Schumer told host Tim Russert. "At the end of the day, on June 7, for the sake of party unity, [Democratic National Committee chairman] Howard Dean and the two candidates will have to get together if neither candidate has 2,025 ... and come up with a strategy. Each candidate will have to have buy into that strategy."
...Schumer urged both sides to hammer out a pre-convention deal - and said the approximately 400 unpledged superdelegates should withhold endorsements until a clear winner has emerged.
Harold Ickes notwithstanding, I wonder if we're coming to some collective closure on this potentially party-rending possibility. A like-minded word or two of the same from a high-profile Obama superdelegate would be good too (though this is the posiition of the Obama campaign).
Update: Ask and ye shall receive (thanks Jack). High profile Obama superdelegate Sen. Durbin:
The superdelegates should not be in a position to trump the elected delegates in Denver
Another Update: Someone kindly make them stop saying things that turn people off:
"Superdelegates are not second-class delegates," says Joel Ferguson, who will be a superdelegate if Michigan is seated. "The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic."
As to the merits of that argument, I counter with this very interesting WSJ article sizing up how an Obama-McCain race could change the southern states electoral math.
After trying to strip our state of much needed infrastructure, John E. capped off an incredible day of Granite State representation by voting to confirm a guy for Attorney General who is confused about this practice:
(He was joined in that vote by Judd Gregg and leading Democrat Chuck Schumer.)
Civil Liberty John E. is being entirely consistent. When he voted to confirm the worst Attorney General in US history a couple of years ago, he made explicit mention that the rule of law was no longer necessary for some humans:
Judge Gonzales advised the President that all detainees should be treated humanely, but as a legal matter, al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are not considered "legal combatants" and are not covered by the Geneva Convention.
Jeanne Shaheen, Jay Buckey, what say you about this? Voters like choices.
Saturday Update: Jay Buckey firmly against confirmation.
(Submitted by me using my admin superpowers since Chaz is having log-in issues. The diary is his, and I added some tags. - Dean)
This quote from New York Senator Charles "Chuck" Schumer, the Chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is the single most tone deaf statement I've heard from a Democrat all year.
"Jeanne Shaheen will be a great candidate and a great Senator. We are excited that someone who represents the best of New Hampshire and American values is our candidate for the Senate."
Senator Schumer, In New Hampshire "our candidate" means the one who gets the most votes in OUR primary.
I've been preaching peace and love amongst Democrats since last year and usually think the world of Senator Schumer, but he blundered badly this time.
I'd like put this into perspective because there is much more here than meets the eye. This is also a thorny issue to write about publicly. Guaranteed, I'll end up in more than one dog house, but I just can't ignore it.
I'd like to start with a disclaimer. I have neither endorsed nor worked exclusively for any candidate in either the presidential primary or in the eventual U.S. Senate Primary races. New Hampshire's year in and year out political cycles can eat you up if you don't take a break and I'm taking mine now. I've made myself available to everyone, my phone rings constantly and I accept invites to meetings and events. I'm peaceful and happy with that arrangement. Amen.
That said, I've been following Steve Marchand, Katrinna Swett and Jay Buckey's campaigns for John Sununu's Senate seat with great interest. I've met them all and have heard them all speak on a number of occasions. Like a lot of NH Democrats this year I've felt blessed with our line up. And like almost everyone, I expected Jeanne Shaheen to jump in and she did. Already Steve Marchand has dropped out and the whole dynamic has changed in an instant.
Since Jeanne Shaheen's announcement I've been hearing a lot of grousing from progressives that she is an "annoited" candidate. Frankly I've been pushing back hard against that accusation. Kathy Sullivan lead the "draft Shaheen" effort. As a matter of record I talked with Kathy early on and urged her to "go for it." Everything has been public and fair in my opinion.
There's also been a National Blog making the rounds that is portraying the Shaheen Candidacy as an insider deal and an afront to the net roots who still want all the credit for winning in 06. The author lives in Pennsylvania. I guess he doesn't know that Bill Shaheen helped upstart Carol Shea-Porter after she won last years primary. Bill Shaheen and Jim Craig became co chairs of that campaign. They were a class act. I watched Bill Shaheen crunch numbers on election night. He was into it. Can we please give credit where credit is due?
So, I didn't buy into that one completely either. I voiced my opinion on e-lists and not all of my friends are happy with me. (I dunno-maybe I like the dog house.)
So this morning all this was a dead issue for me. Then I read Chuck Schumer's quote.
It was almost forgivable that Representative Rahm Emanuel blew it so badly when the DCCC ignored Carol Shea Porter and endorced Jim Craig last year. He just didn't know what he was getting into. Its one thing to toss money at a candidate, but to make believe another doesn't even exist can backfire. Rahm Emanuel energized the heck out of Carol's supporters and it just about killed Jims chances. The newpapers were all over that story too. It was big news here. Rahm Emanuel is a good man and a relentless worker for Democrats and I know he now "gets it."
That's why Senator Schumers miscalculation is so jarring.
I'm not sure what Katrinna Swett is going to do in the next few days, but I do know that Jay Buckey is staying in the race.
But regardless of what happens Senator Schumer's statement is an insult to Katrinna Swett and her supporters and to Jay Buckey and his supporters.
But the worst insult is to every Democrat in New Hampshire.
Our esteemed Senators John Sununu and Judd Gregg have been very busy doing the People's business playing petty and spiteful games as the illustrious infamous 109th Congress comes to a close.
I'll start with Judd Grinch, who went out of his way (via a parliamentary procedure) to kill disaster relief for farmers and ranchers.
"A lot of my neighbors are going to be gone because we have had such an extraordinarily unusual weather cycle in North Dakota," he [Senator Kent Conrad] said. "If we do not pass this, then tens of thousands of farm families are going to be at their bankers in coming weeks, and they're going to be given the grim news that they're done, that they're finished."
Just Judd being his cold, heartless self, you say? After all, this is the guy who voted against increased home heating relief for New Englanders on the same day that he won the Powerball lottery.
Well, I actually think it's even worse than that. You see, Gregg is the current Chairman of the Budget Committee, and the sponsor of the amendment is Kent Conrad, the incoming Budget Chair.
Our Senators couldn't be that petty!, you say. To that, I present Exhibit B, Johnny Sununu, who, since he is the younger of the two, may be forgiven for being honest about putting party over country. Here's how he explained why New York City won't be getting it's expected rail project:
"I don't think there was any sentiment for a special interest provision that benefited one particular city - particularly when the person pushing hardest for it was the chairman of the political committee [Chuck Schumer] that worked against Republicans all year long," said Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.).
Nice. Our two Senators spent their last moments in the majority playing schoolyard bully games, games unlikely to be noticed by the local media since they affect other states. The Granite State is currently being represented by a pair of spiteful sore losermen. All the more reason to replace them.