Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
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
I had a rather horrifying experience the other day. There is a "gentleman" who lives in our town, who is, I believe, registered as a Democrat. He was a Hillary supporter in the primary. I saw him casually recently and he asked me how my day had gone. I told him I had worked in my garden (this was a Saturday), and also sent off my first LTE in a while, about how pleased I was about Obama's trip overseas, how wonderful it was to see an American greeted with such enthusiasm after all the years of cringing when Bush opened his mouth, or gave someone a shoulder rub!
Today, while campaigning in South Dakota, Sen. Clinton had this to say about why the contest should continue:
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.
You may have read my post a few days ago about my dad's theory about the Clintons' current strategy. Basically, he believes that they know Hillary won't win the nomination this year, so they are tearing down Obama so that he loses and she can run in 2012 (instead of waiting until 2016).
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?
My dad has had a theory for a while now that Hillary knows that she can't win the nomination, so she and Bill are tearing down Barack Obama so that he loses the general election and she can run again in 4 years (instead of waiting until 2016). I thought it was pretty out there when I first heard it, but then I see things like this:
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.
Between this story about Starbucks "Returning to its Roots" and this Democrats are divided along coffee lines in the B.Globe, I thought I would unleash my latest bit of electoral analysis (electrolysis?) on the unsuspecting public.
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 ;-)
I assume many of you just got the e-mail from Dr. Dean looking for anti-McCain shekels, regardless of eventual nominee. Sounds OK to me. Comments? Pros and cons of shelling out to DNC vs. individual candidates, etc.?
Some of my independent friends have indicated in no uncertain terms that they are in a quandary over Obama vs. McCain, but such is not the case if the Dem nominee is Clinton. They say if that happens, say hello to President McCain.
A few fringy friends a focus group does not make, but the gist of the discussion has me worried. Is this recent huge Dem turnout going to persist in November? Anybody feel like calming my nerves?
I converted to Obama four days prior to the NH Primary. The voters of Iowa helped me make that choice by eliminating my original preference, Joe Biden. Including Election Day, I spent 5 days knocking on doors and calling.
That experience made me think that the major reason Clinton won is that her basic strategy proved sound. The unique aspects of Clinton's campaign were that she would be the first woman president and had the experience to return us to the more secure, more prosperous days of the previous Clinton administration.
An Obama staffer told me that throughout the campaign, the voter identification effort discovered the Clinton support to be committed early and holding solid. This makes sense, as she was originally the best-known candidate in the race. A lot of people knew her, agreed with her basic selling points, and never considered another choice. The unidentified Clinton vote may have started early to hide behind their caller ID service.
Going door-to-door repeatedly on two routes (about 120 doors) I saw one voter, who was "undecided", declare for Clinton. No big swing. Not a lot of undecideds declared, but the small amount of activity was mainly between Obama and Edwards. This pattern held through Monday, Election Eve.
Over the last weeks of the '04 Presidential Primary, Wesley Clark gained rapidly. You could tell from the new yard signs and the responses at the door and on the phone. None of that happened for Hillary in '08.
I'm in a small liberal college town which Obama won by 10%. Judging by the final results I should have had 9 Clinton voters for every 10 Obama voters. I did not have many Clinton supporters listed on my walk lists. Almost everywhere I did, there was a Clinton yard sign. This indicated that the Clinton campaign had the same limited info I did.
My guess is the a large part of the last minute turn-around occurred because the Clinton vote that already existed was not picked up by the polls or for that matter by the campaigns. I believe it may have been hidden behind the majority of doors that did not open and the majority of phones that did not answer.
Whatever the reason, the Clinton vote had not revealed itself in anyway near it's real proportion. She seemed to be running slightly better than Kucinich.
On Election Day, the Edwards, Clinton and Obama field efforts seemed equal. All had their door-hangers out. The listed "undecideds" would be awarded three hangers.
This is an effort at helping to solve a puzzle, not an effort to discount the importance of women rallying to Clinton's candidacy. I have no problem believing there was a last minute surge as well.
On my routes the big news was: HOPE ! Checking to see if people had voted, I got hugged; I got high-fived; I was told stories of how they had rounded up votes on their own; smiles were wide. I've never produced that much enthusiasm in voters before. Must have had something to do with Obama.
Dramatic as the turn-around was, the most important Democratic news was not the Hillary turn-around or the Obama 3% loss. The big news was the record turn out, the record number of new registrants, and the fact that the Democratic field pulled 10% more votes than the Republican field. I don't care which candidate or what message inspired it: hope is in the air.
When asked how she gets up in morning and also how she does her hair, this is what Hillary had to say.
The ABC News article:
Clinton Gets Emotional on Campaign Trail
http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...
January 07, 2008 12:34 PM
ABC News' Kate Snow Reports: Campaigning in New Hampshire one day before the first-in-the-nation primary, Senator Hillary Clinton got emotional and had tears in her eyes as she spoke with voters about her passion for the country.
The Senator from New York was sitting at a big table in Cafe Espresso in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with 16 undecided voters, mostly women, warmly and calmly taking questions from the voters.
Then she took an unexpected question from a woman in the group.
"My question is very personal, how do you do it?" asked Marianne Pernold Young, a freelance photographer from Portsmouth, New Hampshire. "How do you, how do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?"
Clinton began responding, jokingly: "You know, I think, well luckily, on special days I do have help. If you see me every day and if you look on some of the websites and listen to some of the commentators they always find me on the day I didn't have help. It's not easy."
Then Clinton began getting emotional: "It's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know I have so many opportunities from this country just don't want to see us fall backwards," she said.....complete story
First, let me state a couple of facts: this is a diary, so it's just a reflection of my thoughts and impressions and not meant to convince anyone of anything; and secondly, I am not "against" any candidates, although I do support John Edwards in this primary. Those are the facts, what follows is purely opinion.
My cranky primary-eve observations, thoughts, and other random notions which I am sure will make an impression on absolutely nobody:
(continued below the fold)
My closing argument is a combination of some new material and lots of stuff I need to say again. I hope you'll forgive me as time is limited here in New Hampshire where 6 hours of my Sunday have already been spent canvassing for Hillary. Tonight I go back to the office at 9 to help with data entry.
This is my final argument for Hillary. Final because I have no time to waste in the next 2 days.
I will be out where it matters trying to save this wonderful woman from the trophy room of political history.
I'm am working hard for Hillary just as she has worked hard for us for 35 years.
I volunteer for Hillary in Londonderry and unknown to the campaign, I put out a few hundred signs the other night. We covered the entrances and exits of I 93 exit 4 and 5 as well as major intersections in town.
This morning as I got off at exit 4 northbound here is the scene I was presented. I grabbed the quick photo and also called WMUR who said they would go look. If the Highway guys had done it they would throw the signs in the dump truck.
Now, I don't know which campaign did this but it is the lowest of low life campaigning. It is my assumption that it is rogue, young Obama supporters who have yet to learn the niceties and civility most of us follow with each other. I have friends on every campaign and we respect each other's work and we listen to each other's candidates. Edit Sat. 11:30ish PM: I do not know if it was Obama's people but I do know that there was only one other group of signs in the area. Obama and they were still standing. Today most signs by all candidates in the same stretch of road were gone. Probably taken by highway folks and dumped. The signs I spoke of were not taken they were thrown.
The second part of this diary addresses the Rudeness and theft of the 100 Club Dinner.
(Slightly reformatted before promotion - promoted by Laura Clawson)
Tomorrow's editorial will endorse Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire's Democratic primary. Here is an excerpt:
Clinton's ambitious to-do list for her first few weeks in office gives us confidence that her priorities are right and that she would act swiftly to make a positive difference. She is the Monitor's choice in the Jan. 8 Democratic primary.
New Hampshire Democrats and independents are blessed with a strong field of presidential candidates at a time when a change of course is desperately needed. We have been impressed by Joe Biden's pragmatic foreign policy and by John Edwards's insistence that we pay attention to the poorest Americans.
Barack Obama, more than most, has the power to inspire. The positive tone of his campaign is not a gimmick. He is a serious candidate with sober ideas. For reasons symbolic and substantive, he would also be a nominee Democrats could feel proud to vote for.
But Hillary Clinton's unique combination of smarts, experience and toughness makes her the best choice to win the November election and truly get things done.
Update. The full endorsement is here: Clinton Endorsement
Mrs. Clinton largely sat on the sidelines when it came to Wal-Mart and unions, according to board members. Since its founding in 1962, Wal-Mart has aggressively fought unionization efforts at its stores and warehouses, employing hard-nosed tactics — like firing union supporters and allegedly spying on employees — that have become the subject of legal complaints against the company.
A special team at Wal-Mart handled those activities, but Mr. Walton was vocal in his opposition to unions. Indeed, he appointed the lawyer who oversaw the company’s union monitoring, Mr. Tate, to the board, where he served with Mrs. Clinton.
During their meetings and private conversations, Mrs. Clinton never voiced objections to Wal-Mart’s stance on unions, according to Mr. Tate and John A. Cooper, another board member.
“She was not an outspoken person on labor, because I think she was smart enough to know that if she favored labor, she was the only one,” Mr. Tate said. “It would only lesson her own position on the board if she took that position.”
Mr. Tate, a prominent management lawyer who helped stop union drives at many major companies, said he worked closely with Mr. Walton to convince workers that a union would be bad for the company, personally telling employees when he visited stores that “the only people who need unions are those who do not work hard.”
Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) got a potential boost to her anti-war credentials this week when she won the endorsement of Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a co-founder of the Out-of-Iraq caucus and one of the vehement anti-war voices in Congress.
For those who don't know, the Clintons' NAFTA not only impoverished American farmers and textile workers and their families, but also wiped out the Mexican corn-growing economy and the lives of 15 million people. About 5 million of those have illegally crossed into the US -- just because of NAFTA allowing cheap subsidized corn from the US into Mexico, dropping the corn price there 70%.
Next year NAFTA fully kicks in, meaning an additional 500,000 economic refugees that we ourselves caused. The former corn farmers and unemployed workers don't come because we are great, they come because the policies of both governments is starving their children.
And the Clintons pushed NAFTA through without the safeguards wanted by the Democrats. Hillary touted NAFTA to no end in the 1996 campaign and for a decade thereafter. Remember Hillary chuckled and said it didn't work out the way we wanted!
NAFTA Will Boost Mexican Emigration to US
Mexico, Dec 16 (Prensa Latina) Mexican emigration to the United States will increase as of January 2008, when the tariffs on corn and beans will be lifted within the framework of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), expert Steve Suppan said on Saturday.
In statements to Prensa Latina, the experts from the Institute of Agricultural and Commercial Policies, based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the United States, described rural migrations caused by NAFTA as the migration crisis that broke out in 1994, when the first NAFTA adjustments were made.
"There are many Mexican workers with little options and they resort to the hard march to the North seeking higher wages to help their families in their communities of origin," he noted.
Suppan noted that the situation will worsen as 300,000 farmers and 200,000 people from Mexican cities are expected to emigrate, due to the lack of development opportunities.
Experts are concerned at a forced economic exodus to the United States, a situation that will increase food insecurity in Mexico, he said.
The big economy will flood the small economy with its products and tragedy will mostly affect indigenous groups who had guarded their basic resources for humankind but are starving at present.
The governments of the United States, Canada and Mexico could renegotiate the NAFTA if they took into account the harm they are causing to the disposed, because only the big private consortiums will benefit instead of farmers and small businesspeople.
Suppan referred to the world campaign in favor of preserving food resources, especially corn, as a human right of economic use, and pointed out that the campaign could even be taken to the United Nations if there were political will.
MARION, Iowa — Senator Barack Obama is accusing Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of waiting until she was a presidential candidate to suggest that the North American Free Trade Agreement -– enacted during her husband’s administration -– was a mistake.
“I think it’s important to note that Senator Clinton was a cheerleader for Nafta for more than a decade. As of a year ago, she was calling it a boon to the economy,” Mr. Obama told reporters here today. “It seems to me that the only thing that has changed in the last year is that it’s now election time.”
Mr. Obama opened a two-day Iowa campaign swing in this city outside of Cedar Rapids. As he delivered his criticism, he glanced down to his printed notes, which rested on a podium.
“As some of you probably heard at the debate the other night, Senator Clinton called Nafta a mistake,” Mr. Obama said. “I was pleased to hear her say that because, as more than 10,000 jobless Iowans know, that’s exactly what Nafta has been.”
