Open Thread: Ickes Workaround Edition

by: Jack Mitchell

Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 13:22:03 PM EST

Democratic Donors Plan to Bypass Obama

Frustrated by what they see as President Obama's weakness in battling Republicans, "leading Democratic donors and tacticians have begun independently plotting their political recovery -- including building a network of outside fundraising and campaign organizations to compete with those formed this year by Republicans," McClatchy-Tribune reports.

A dozen prominent Democrats -- led by longtime Bill Clinton adviser Harold Ickes and labor leader Andy Stern -- will meet next week "to discuss whether to form a new operation to combat the many outside groups launched this year by Karl Rove and other Republican strategists, according to multiple participants."

"Such a move by Democrats comes despite Obama's long-standing opposition to political spending by outside groups, particularly those that refuse to disclose their donors, and underscores the deep dissatisfaction with the White House's strategy on several fronts."

We already have a homespun version:
The "Big Difference" is It will be "Fact-Based".

Please take the poll and then proceed to maximizing the opportunity to explore a tasty Open Thread.
_

Tiny Little Footnote To US-Iran Relations

by: Blue Granite

Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:46:53 AM EDT

Saberi was originally arrested for buying alcohol and the charges escalated from there. She was ultimately convicted of Espionage and sentenced to Eight Years in prison.

Then it got interesting. Obama made friendly overtures to Iran while Clinton was rattling the sabre on Saberi's behalf. Ahmadinejad publicly asked the court to review its finding. Saberi got an appeal and the spy charges were dropped.

What really jumped out at me was this little footnote at the end of a story in the Times:

In the appeal, Mr. Nikbakht argued that the espionage charge should be lifted because the foreign ministry and the judiciary had previously said that there was "no hostility between Iran and the United States." The judges accepted the defense, he said.

Find the entire article here:  Iran Releases Journalist Convicted of Spying for U.S.

No hostility? Definite progress being made in the Middle East. Now if we could only accomplish the same thing with Laura Ling and Euna Lee...

A Dramatic One-Two Punch on Climate Change

by: gradysdad

Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 13:34:09 PM EST

This morning the President signed a Memorandum requesting that the EPA take a second look at a waiver sought by the State of California to have tougher fuel-efficiency standards than what is required by federal law.  

A video of the President's comments may be found here.

Obama told a White House gathering "America will not be held hostage to dwindling resources." He said that the government must work with the states -- not against them -- on tougher fuel standards for cars and trucks.

Already, we hear dissent from the auto industry:

"I am fearful that today's action will begin the process of setting the American auto industry back even further," replied Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, in a written statement. "The federal government should not be piling on an industry already hurting in a time like this."

On The View From Egypt, Part Four, Or, Gaza, We Have A Problem

by: fake consultant

Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 13:36:44 PM EST

Before the recent holidays and an immoderate amount of snow buried me in things that could not be done on the computer we had been having a conversation about the strategic importance of our relationship with Egypt. Within that series of discussions we explored the influence of the political opposition, and we considered the fragility of President Mubarak's hold on power.

We also noted the immediate proximity of Egypt to the Gaza Strip.

Today we're going to tie all of that together-and the end result of all that tying is that we better keep a close eye on Egypt, because trouble in Gaza has spilled over into trouble in Cairo....and that's one more Middle Eastern problem we don't need.

Open Thread: Fast & Furious Edition

by: Jack Mitchell

Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:14:12 AM EDT

This is an open thread.

Nick Clemons

by: Judy Reardon

Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:33:43 AM EDT

After Nick successfully ran Hillary's campaign in New Hampshire, he was tapped to run New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania and South Dakota, all tough states, all wins.

Nick is not a self-promoter, so he doesn't get the credit he deserves for being one of the best political operatives in the business today.

In addition to being an expert on field and getting out the vote, Nick's developed into a darn good stategist. And he's a leader.

I saw his leadership abilities first hand in 2003 when he was the field director for John Kerry's New Hampshire primary campaign. In the very dark months of August through November 2003, when the outside world thought Kerry's candidacy was doomed, Nick kept his young field staff motivated to press on.

I first met Nick in early 1997 when he began working as a constituent services staffer in Jeanne Shaheen's Governor's office. Being able to see Nick develop his skills and advance these last 12 years has been one of the pleasures in this very tough and often heart-breaking business.  

I'm really proud to be able to say I knew Nick when he was just starting out.  

Quote of the Day: Reconciliation

by: Mike Hoefer

Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:09:44 PM EDT

And let's hope-and let's demand of ourselves and other Obama supporters-that we recognize that unifying the party won't happen only by Clinton supporters coming to us, but by us embracing the Clinton supporters.  We must all recognize that reconciliation and banding together isn't something demanded only of our primary opponents, but is something to be demanded by, and of, all Democrats.  

Please consider this a mid-day open thread.

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.

The Democratic Party Going Forward

by: Jennifer Daler

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.  

Clinton: Kinder, Gentler Neoconservatism?

by: Jack Mitchell

Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 23:00:20 PM EDT

She said:
I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
You know, we are at a very dangerous point with Iran.

I found this position startling, especially in connection to Clinton's rightward leanings as illustrated by her unflinching support for Kyl/Lieberman.

Then I saw this segment on Olbermann's Countdown featuring Rachel Maddows. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21...

Ms.Maddow wondered; "Why would something like this advance American interests?"
Later stating; "This is a huge reorientation of America's foreign policy and America's role in the world."

Hampsters, I dare say I may be one of the most hawkish diarists on this blog. I don't like the sound of this, at all!

I have put them in full context below the fold.

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?

The Clintons: A Theory

by: Shaun Stewart

Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:23:24 AM EDT

Via First Read:

And, in a move that's becoming more and more common, he [Bill Clinton] favorably aligned his wife with the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain.

"We now have a bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate, bipartisan, to do something about global warming and do more buildings like this," Clinton said, "because she and John McCain took reluctant Republicans all over the world and showed them how the planet was changing. She will work with anybody, go anywhere, do anything to move America forward."

B.t.w: The name of the post is "Bill: Praising McCain"

I'm not saying anything one way or the other, but it's getting easier and easier to believe the theory.

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.

The Truth Shall Set You Free - St. Patrick's Edition

by: Kathy Sullivan 2

Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:54:16 AM EDT

Someone recently posted a diary claiming that Hillary Clinton was not truthful with respect to her role in the Irish peace process. Below is an unedited story from the Irish Times with a more complete and objective story.  

Since Ireland is somewhat near and dear to my heart, and since the Clintons did a lot to help in bringing about peace in the old country, I thought it would be appropriate, five days before the celebration of St. Patrick's Day, to provide a more complete picture.  Enjoy with objectivity! And have a most excellent St. Patrick's Day next Monday.

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.

Would Clinton prefer McCain over Obama?

by: Northwoods

Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 18:48:55 PM EST

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."

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.

Candidates Vie For Super Dupers

by: JonnyBBad

Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:30:44 AM EST

http://www.unionleader.com/art...
By PETER NICHOLAS
Los Angeles Times
7 hours, 7 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Before the telephone rang in her Philadelphia home at 10:03 a.m. Saturday, Carol Ann Campbell was inclined to use her position as a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention to make Hillary Rodham Clinton the party's presidential nominee.

By the time she hung up, Campbell had been persuaded to throw her support to Barack Obama.

On the other end of the line was Michelle Obama, the Illinois senator's wife. In that call, which lasted an hour and 27 minutes, the would-be first lady made the sale.

and now for some plagiarism...