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
Know how every time we have a contest, the media says it will change everything, and then it changes nothing?
Barack Obama won today's caucuses in Guam. By seven votes (2264-2257). I say this totally changes everything and Hillay should drop out after getting a miserable 49.9% in crucial Guam.
Furthermore, while most candidates don't care about Guam because, by my guess, they don't know where it is, Hillary Clinton doesn't care because it's a caucus, and who cares, it's just activists, and as Jon Stewart says, "I mean, ACTIVISTS, those are merely the people who care the most!"
Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary:
PANSY:
"1: a garden plant (Viola wittrockiana) derived chiefly from the hybridization of the European Johnny-jump-up (Viola tricolor) with other wild violets; also: its flower; 2: usually disparaging: a weak or effeminate man or boy; usually disparaging: a male homosexual."
I don't know much about North Carolina Governor Mike Easley. I guess he's a good Democrat. Looking at his WEBSITE (good stuff, check it out: www.governor.state.nc.us/) and when one Goggles his name you see some solid accomplishments for his state and people.
But why the heck in this day and age does someone who is a "leader" come up with the words he did when endorsing Hillary Clinton for President?
With Clinton standing next to him at the podium, he commented on his own "reputation" for being a punch-'em sort of politician by saying "I've been accused of being persistent and downright aggravating." Then he added, sort of nodding toward Hillary Clinton, "But this lady right here makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy."
I try not to be overly "PC," not all the time anyway, and I try not to be overly sensitive. I've been called lots of names, quite a few of them deserving, some kind of cute. And I don't mind a little off-the-cuff remark that otherwise might be nothing more than an innocent mistake, if a "mistake" can indeed be "innocent."
Republican "leaders" often make those mistakes knowing they're not all that innocent.
Yet, when we see bashing of gays a routine in cities and towns big and small, and lots of "jokes" made about gays and lesbians in the schools and in barrooms, what we don't need more of is a high-profile Governor using what is widely considered to be an anti-gay reference when endorsing a candidate for President of the United States.
Well, I guess even Democrats sometimes are turkeys. But we get over it quickly, and remember the real elephant in the room that we have to unify against. And overall, Governor Mike Easley seems like an okay guy who probably regrets a word he used.
TURKEY:
"1: a large North American gallinaceous bird (Meleagris gallopavo) that is domesticated in most parts of the world; 2: failure, flop; a theatrical production that has failed; 3: three successive strikes in bowling; 4: a stupid, foolish, or inept person."
ELEPHANT:
"1: extremely large nearly hairless herbivorous mammals that have a snout elongated into a muscular trunk and two incisors in the upper jaw; 2: an animal or fossil related to the elephants; 3: one that is uncommonly large or hard to manage." Or: a funny Republican logo.
It gets hot down North Carolina way, right about now. You can almost here the bees a-buzzin...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...
"He doesn't want to pick the loser," the aide said.
John C. Moylan, a longtime friend and adviser who directed Mr. Edwards's South Carolina campaign, was more diplomatic.
"He thinks very highly of both Senators Clinton and Obama, and I do not think he is inclined to spend the next three months engaged in the small politics of who's the better bowler or beer drinker," Mr. Moylan said.
Many of Mr. Edwards's North Carolina supporters have been quietly pressing him to endorse Mr. Obama, and a large group of them, led by Ed Turlington, his former national general campaign chairman, came forward publicly last week to support Mr. Obama.
On the other hand, Mrs. Edwards, her husband's closest and most trusted adviser, has made it clear that she favors Mrs. Clinton; aides said she has recently tried to persuade Mr. Edwards to do the same.
Even if he remains neutral, her endorsement would carry weight, some voters suggested.
"I read in the Raleigh paper that Elizabeth likes Hillary's health care plan, so we know who she's for," said Judy Campbell, of Wilmington.
shooee I never though it would end this way...not wanting to pick a loser...well VP is not the place to be in a Clinton Administartion, right Al ?
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are becoming better and better commentators even as quickly as we lose respect for the people paid for their expertise (as opposed to those paid to be funny). On Wednesday's The Colbert Report, Stephen brought up an interesting point: the Clinton for President campaign has about as much chance for success as US involvement in Iraq. About the first 50 seconds of this video is making fun of all the Abercrombie & Fitch t-shirts behind Obama during his speech on Tuesday; the rest is pure gold, and it's at least as insightful as it is funny.
While I hope people find that video as compelling and worthy of discussion as I do, this is an open thread.
* Don't forget about our Blue Hampshire Bash in Concord on May 3rd. Should be loads of fun. More reminders as we get closer to it, and thanks, Jon.
* Grant Bosse hits "Hypocritical Horn" over her lobbyist money:
"We shouldn't be surprised that our self-proclaimed front-runner wants other candidates to return lobbyists' contributions while she cashes their checks," Bosse concluded. "Whether the issue has been taxes, earmarks, or campaign finance, so far Jennifer Horn has been nothing but talk."
* Speaking of the NH-02 follies, Laura recently wrote about how Huckabee has set up a PAC to help candidates like Bob Clegg. Unfortunately for Clegg, this is what the Huckster has in mind:
He met with NRCC chair Tom Cole and NRSC chairman John Ensign yesterday and discussed ways he could be helpful to GOP congressional candidates.
[Huckabee] said that he was going to focus on long-shot candidates, folks like him who weren't give much of a shot to win.
* The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg calls the Weather Underground question in the debate "pure McCarthyism." He's right.
* Hillary Clinton lies about MoveOn, a group originally established to help out Bill during the Lewinsky scandal. (Note: "Lie" is a strong word. But when you see a politician of any stripe trying to conflate Iraq and Afghanistan so that you can misidentify citizens outraged by a needless war of choice with magical "dirty hippies" who oppose all wars absolutely, you're going to get strong words from me.)
* At the gas station nearest me, regular unleaded clocked in $3.39 a gallon today. My driving is pretty much restricted at this point to work and gorcery shopping, where food prices have escalated to such an extent that I literally wince as the items go through the scanner. George Bush, John Sununu, Judd Gregg, and yes, you too, Jeb Bradley, are too be commended for being such fantastic stewards of our economy:
* Who knew? Flatlanders are two dimensional (this answers many a question I've had, being one myself).
* On Monday, Steve Marchand will be in Las Vegas, giving a keynote address entitled Developing, Executing and Transforming Results in Local Government at the National City & County Performance Summit (email).
* Next Wednesday the Shaheen campaign will be doing a statewide day of visibility. Click the link to see where and at what times. If you can make it, it'd be great to see some user diaries with pix of the events show up on BH.
Congratulations. Each of you is one of three people who might be the next President of the United States. You have each come very far, and each are extremely formidable, both against each other and against Senator McCain. It seems, however, that the debates of late have been hurting you, have been hurting the Democratic Party, have been hurting our national dialogue, and have been hurting the democratic process. For this, neither of you is to blame. The for-profit broadcast media companies which have hosted these debates have abdicated their responsibility to engage in adult discourse about our nation's most pressing issues, and have instead squandered their time attempting to catch one of you making a mistake in order to create a candidate-destroying sound bite. This is unacceptable. The following is an unscientific poll of the New Hampshire progressive activist community, which I expect will express our support for all future debates being moderated and controlled by either print journalists or non-profit organizations such as C-SPAN, offering a feed to any network wanting it, in which no organization influencing the debate profits from high ratings or selling sound bites to the 24-hour news networks. This will help you, help your opponent, help our party, and help our country, and so we ask that you insist upon these conditions for future debates. Thank you for your attention and for your service, and good luck moving forward.
I noticed this last night while avoiding the debate. Rasmussen numbers in NH polling:
Hillary v McCainFeb + 2, Mar -6
Obama v McCain Feb+13, Mar -3
If the polling dates and patterns continue, we should soon see an April report which will show continued erosion of support for the potential Democratic nominees in our state.
NH's four electoral votes could provide the electoral margin of error needed to put a Dem in the White House.
Two questions:
How big can the polling deficit get before it is insurmountable?
Should NH "Supers" (publicly or privately) attempt to influence the process for a speedier decision?
Feels like I'm stuck in the twilight zone putting up another liveblog thread after so long.
I think I'll watch it with one eye open - it could be ugly. If I can watch it, that is; I'm still looking for a webstream from ABC.
Have at it, folks.
Update: Laura found a radio link here. Nice of ABC to leave out the online world. Sheesh. Again: thanks to Laura, a roundabout webstream.
Update #2: It was hard to do, but 42 minutes in, ABC has managed to put together the worst, most insulting debate of this endless nomination race.
Update #3: Embarrassing is too kind a word for what we witnessed tonight. Call up ABC (818-460-7477 press 2 then 6 then 639) and tell them what a travesty their "debate" was.
As Hillary and Barack wrestle with each other in what may soon be called a dual drowning, let's remind ourselves and our friends of the pitfalls of John McCain. You can use the handy new(ish?) tools at the bottom of the diary to automagicly email this to any one of your bitter friends who says they will vote for McCain if {Their Candidate Here} does not win the nomination.
Courtesy of the AP
(Johh McCain) a crucial ally in President Bush's effort to increase and maintain U.S. forces in Iraq.
McCain promises to appoint judges who, in the mold of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, are likely to limit the reach of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.
McCain opposes gay marriage. True, he does not support a federal ban on gay marriage on grounds the issue traditionally has been decided by states. But McCain worked to ban gay marriage in Arizona.
McCain voted against a ban on assault-style weapons and for shielding gun-makers and dealers from civil suits.
And I think it was Laura? who had a great list that I can't seem to find right now... I'm sure someone will link it up in the comments.
Hillary Clinton, right after the audience she was addressing shouted "No!" to this line of argument:
"He was explaining to a small group of his donors what people who live in small towns right here in Pennsylvania are like and why some of you aren't voting for him," she said. "But instead of looking at himself, he blamed them. He said that they cling to religion and guns and dislike people who are different from them. Well, I don't believe that. I believe that people don't cling to religion; they value their faith. You don't cling to guns, you enjoy hunting or collecting or sport shooting. I don't think he really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you and not looks down on you."
Grant Bosse:
"Barack Obama doesn't understand rural America; Barack Obama doesn't respect rural America, and he's Paul Hodes' pick for President," said Bosse. "We deserve to know if Paul Hodes shares his candidate's contempt for small town families, or if he's willing to finally stand up against these elitist and condescending remarks."
..."Does Paul Hodes agree that gun owners and church-goers are bitter, frustrated and anti-immigrant, or will he tell Barack Obama that he's wrong?" Bosse continued. "Paul Hodes has a choice between rural America and liberal cronyism."
I'm surprised he beat Jennifer Horn to it. This kind of nonsense seems more up her alley. But of course, when you've raised less than 15K in a quarter for a federal race, you've got no choice but to turn up the shrill.
Wow, "The Compassion Forum" held on Sunday night in Pennsylvania and broadcast live on CNN about faith and politics with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was incredible. It gave the nation great insight about the open mindedness of two of the Democratic Party's leaders, each of whom resisted any desire to out-religion the other and both of whom I think put the role of religion and faith in America into proper perspective.
I think Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did equally well. It seemed to be a reasonable give-and-take about the topics, with torture, the environment, and poverty being emphasized as much as the more common issues that religious conservatives have been hitting in the past couple of decades -- abortion, gays, and the evolution/creation debate.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were stars in this forum, given equal billing. And it showed America that "compassion" has nothing to do with which political party one belongs to, but everything to do with the way we look at and treat one another.
It seems his presence at a meeting with the Colombian ambassador to promote a free trade agreement Clinton has spoken out against was the final straw.
It must have been serious for him to have to resign.
Penn and Clinton have a lengthy history dating back to her time as first lady. In 1996, the strategist famously targeted "soccer moms" to help then President Clinton get reelected. Penn took the reigns of Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign in New York and was credited with helping her overcome high negative ratings to win in a state where she had no geographic roots.
This campaign season, however, has been, by most measures, a rocky one. Penn's strategy to ostensibly write off caucus states out of the conviction that Clinton could wrap up the nomination early in the primary backfired. And throughout the course of the campaign he has bickered -- occasionally in public -- with fellow staff.
His continued work with the firm Burson-Marsteller has proved particularly problematic. At the time he was criticizing Sen. Barack Obama for ties to the energy-giant Exelon, Penn, it was reported, was also representing that company. In addition, he has been involved with a list of businesses embroiled in deep-seated labor disputes including, as the Huffington Post reported, New Era Cap.
This has been a rough week for Penn, who also lost his Colombia gig.
After meeting with Colombia's ambassador this past week, Penn tried his hand at damage control, calling the move an error in judgment. The next day, Colombia fired him and his firm.
While it's possible that the debts have been paid, each month's filings with the FEC isn't available until about the 20th of the next, so the February numbers are about all we have.
h/t to tpmcafe
From: Cafe, Election Central Hillary please pay these debts first
By - April 4, 2008, 12:16PM
We've all heard the stories about Hillary Clinton's debt. The small businesses left to pick up the tab after Clinton came, saw and left an unpaid invoice.
Let's talk about the other folks she's stiffed.
The school districts, universities, cities, towns and non-profits.
In the latest PPP poll on the Democratic Primary in Pennsylvania, taken 3/31-4/1, Barack Obama overtook Hillary Clinton among likely Democratic Primary voters. The last PPP poll in Pennsylvania, taken 3/15-3/16, showed a 26 point lead for Clinton (56 to 30), the greatest margin between the two of any Pennsylvania Democratic Primary poll listed on Pollster.com going all the way back to January 2007. While Obama's 2-point lead (45 to Clinton's 43) is within the 2.8% margin of error, this poll is not an outlier, as many in recent weeks have been showing Obama making gains. A Rasmussen poll with a considerably smaller sample taken on 3/31 showed Clinton with a five-point lead, at 47 to 42. Both polls show that more than 10% of likely voters are undecided. Furthermore, Obama leads in all age groups save the oldest.
While it is likely that Obama has not taken a definitive lead in PA, the fact remains that he has gained 28 points in two weeks, and there are nearly three weeks left until Pennsylvanians go to the polls.
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-...
On a personal note, while I often rail against polls as being unreliable and a negative influence on politics, the fact remains that we're outside observers and this is still better than listening to the same James Carville-Jamal Simmons argument 24 hours a day.
It's a simple question, really. Do you think the so-called Dream Ticket (Clinton and Obama together) is the best-case scenario? I'm not asking if you think it's a worthwhile idea, only if it is, in fact, your personal dream ticket. Personally, it's not mine.
By Bill Richardson
Tuesday, April 1, 2008; 10:29 AM
My recent endorsement of Barack Obama for president has been the subject of much discussion and consternation -- particularly among supporters of Hillary Clinton.
Led by political commentator James Carville, who makes a living by being confrontational and provocative, Clinton supporters have speculated about events surrounding this endorsement and engaged in personal attacks and insults.
While I certainly will not stoop to the low level of Mr. Carville, I feel compelled to defend myself against character assassination and baseless allegations.
Carville has made it very clear that this is a personal attack -- driven by his own sense of what constitutes loyalty. It is this kind of political venom that I anticipated from certain Clinton supporters and I campaigned against in my own run for president.
I repeatedly urged Democrats to stop attacking each other personally and even offered a DNC resolution calling for a positive campaign based on the issues. I was evenhanded in my efforts. In fact, my intervention in a debate during a particularly heated exchange was seen by numerous commentators as an attempt to defend Sen. Clinton against the barbs of Sens. Obama and John Edwards.
As I have pointed out many times, and most pointedly when I endorsed Sen. Obama, the campaign has been too negative, and we Democrats need to calm the rhetoric and personal attacks so we can come together as a party to defeat the Republicans.
More than anything, to repair the damage done at home and abroad, we must unite as a country. I endorsed Sen. Obama because I believe he has the judgment, temperament and background to bridge our divisions as a nation and make America strong at home and respected in the world again.
This was a difficult, even painful, decision. My affection and respect for the Clintons run deep. I do indeed owe President Clinton for the extraordinary opportunities he gave me to serve him and this country. And nobody worked harder for him or served him more loyally, during some very difficult times, than I did.
Carville and others say that I owe President Clinton's wife my endorsement because he gave me two jobs. Would someone who worked for Carville then owe his wife, Mary Matalin, similar loyalty in her professional pursuits? Do the people now attacking me recall that I ran for president, albeit unsuccessfully, against Sen. Clinton? Was that also an act of disloyalty?
And while I was truly torn for weeks about this decision, and seriously contemplated endorsing Sen. Clinton, I never told anyone, including President Clinton, that I would do so. Those who say I did are misinformed or worse.
As for Mr. Carville's assertions that I did not return President Clinton's calls: I was on vacation in Antigua with my wife for a week and did not receive notice of any calls from the president. I, of course, called Sen. Clinton prior to my endorsement of Sen. Obama. It was a difficult and heated discussion, the details of which I will not share here.
I do not believe that the truth will keep Carville and others from attacking me. I can only say that we need to move on from the politics of personal insult and attacks. That era, personified by Carville and his ilk, has passed and I believe we must end the rancor and partisanship that has mired Washington in gridlock. In my view, Sen. Obama represents our best hope of replacing division with unity. That is why, out of loyalty to my country, I endorse him for president.
The writer is governor of New Mexico and a former Democratic candidate for president.
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?
It's been a long, long nomination process, especially for those of us here in New Hampshire. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of trying to be diplomatic about it.
The Democratic party has a greater structural advantage, in money, in new voter interest, in turnout, in momentum, in candidates, in policy, in the House, in the Senate, among the governorships, than they have ever had in my lifetime, and perhaps ever will.
And we are pissing it all away on a nomination race that has lost all meaning and perspective, while the Republicans, who have as their leader the most hated president in my lifetime, who have as their nominee an elderly gentleman who is wedded to the president's most unpopular decision on the one hand, and on the other is unacceptable to large parts of the GOP base, who face a veritable crisis of fundraising and Congressional retirements, -- the Republicans are laughing at us.
One of our leading candidates cannot win the nomination without becoming Tonya Harding. Pursuing that path, she does things that are embarrassing to behold, and when she gets called out on it, turns the media spotlight off of her humiliation by opening up a raw wound on her opponent, the one who actually can (and will) win the nomination, whenever that may be in the distant future. And then his team responds with as much surrogate stupidity as hers. And no one with any real heft, aside from a carefully worded series of statements from Nancy Pelosi, will step in to stop this slow motion train wreck that is in a very real sense hurting the Democratic party.
(Perhaps this is karma? The Senator from Illinois has had an unusually charmed electoral history. Is this the first great endurance test for President Obama?)
Somewhere, off to the side, Iraq is boiling over again, the dollar reaches yet new depths, home values are plummeting along with consumer confidence levels, antarctic ice shelfs are falling into the ocean at even faster rates than scientists who actually believe in climate change predicted they would. And I still can't afford to fill up my gas tank.
Adding: And what burns me up perhaps the most is that this nomination fight, over yet not over, is sucking all the oxygen out of the media - and yes, the political blogopshere - for critical downticket races that need money and interest and enthusiasm and exposure, and need them now.
During the good old days before Iowa, we had a field of candidates who made the other team look pathetic. Remember them with me below the fold:
Are you a New Hampshire Episcopalian, worried about church doctrine and openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson?
Are you a New Hampshire Catholic, wondering whether Bishop McCormack's involvement in the Cardinal Law cover-ups should make you re-think your Sunday plans?
Help is on the way.
Hillary Clinton is now providing free religious consultation.
"[Rev. Wright] would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."
