We can always count on Keith Olbermann to speak truth to power without missing words. If more journalists had done this on many other issues, what a different America we would have had. See Keith's special comments here.
Hillary’s most consistent supporters have been folks over 50,
especially women over 50. With her statement about assassination, and
her bizarre "apologetic" explanation (namely, I was thinking about
Teddy and so I mentioned Bobby’s assassination), she just lost a
substantial number of these supporters. I will not say all. I will not
say those closest to her. But I will say, a very significant number.
Most importantly, in terms of the race, many superdelegates in this age
cohort, who may have been leaning her way, will be looking around for
the nearest Exit sign. Ditto for those who were in favor of placing her
in the VP slot.
Most of you reading this commentary will have
heard what Hillary Clinton said yesterday afternoon, May 23rd, to the
editorial board of South Dakota’s Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, in response to a question about staying in the race.
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?" she said. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." The New York Times, May 24, 2008, Katharine Q Seelye reporting. http://www.nytimes.com/...
And you may have heard Clinton’s "apology," also reported by Seelye in the Times.
" ‘The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy,’ referring to the recent diagnosis of Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s brain tumor. She added, ‘And I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.’ "
Members of the Democratic Party who experienced the trauma of the assassinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King will understand that Clinton crossed a line yesterday. Many will agree with Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, an uncommitted superdelegate. Seelye reports that Clyburn "said through a spokeswoman that the comments were ‘beyond the pale.’ " For those who remember Bobby lying in a pool of blood the night that he won the June California primary, little explanation is needed as to why prominent figures shouldn’t mention the assassinations of presidential candidates.
To say that Hillary was simply using RFK’s assassination as a time marker doesn’t cut it. There are simply too many other ways that Hillary could have talked about extended nominating contests. For example, she could have simply said, RFK won the California primary in June. "Oh, but Hillary would never wish the death of another candidate," a supporter might reply. But it is not a question of her wishes, whether benighted or angelic. I leave it to the psychologists to analyze her motives. What I do know is that someone who lived through the sixties as an adolescent or adult should understand the dangers of invoking the assassination of a presidential candidate during a campaign, especially one in which the front-runner is an African-American. And Clinton not only invoked an assassination, she invoked the assassination of the brother of a Senator who has just been diagnosed with terminal cancer. How disturbing is this? Just ask yourself, could you have imagined this story before it happened?
Please don’t tell me that her words can be explained away entirely by 'Hillary fatigue.' First, because she was quite lucid when she was speaking, and, second, because she has raised the issue of assassination before, without using the term.
"NBC/NJ’s Mike Memoli notes that Clinton said something similar the day after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. ‘Sometimes you gotta calm people down a little bit. But if you look at successful presidential campaigns, my husband did not get the nomination until June of 1992,’ she said. ‘I remember tragically when Senator Kennedy won California near the end of that process.’ " http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...
Perhaps most tellingly, her "apology" showed little understanding of the seriousness of her "gaffe." Yes, she should have apologized to the Kennedys, but she should also have taken responsibility for her remarks and made a sincere apology to the American people. She is going to lose support among influential boomers, support that she can’t afford to lose at this point.
This is the end of Hillary’s quest. Her judgment can no longer be trusted. Democrats will not take a chance on running her for president or VP. It is just awful that it had to end like this.
(As a side note, Hillary has been misleading audiences when she has claimed that Bill’s race ran into June. Technically it did because California hadn’t voted. But he had the nomination sewed up before California’s primary in June. The situation is not analogous to the current race.)
The above was cross-posted on My DD and the Daily Kos, as well as on my blog.
[When I wrote a blog last week about Teddy Kennedy and the assassination of JFK, "The President, The Senator, and the Candidate." http://msa4.wordpress.com/ of course I had no idea that Clinton would make such a thoughtless statement. But I believe that this blog reinforces my claim that the trauma of these assassinations is very real for a certain age cohort. And it helps to show that this is not a matter of scoring points against Clinton. It is heartfelt. I have seen too many knee-jerk defenses of Hillary on the Web. This one requires us to step back.]
Interesting article in the London Times Online
I have no idea how authoritative it is or isn't, but reading this article certainly cheered me up and I'm passing it on in case there's truth in it and it can heal some nasty feelings here that yesterday's gaffe engendered. It helps reinforce Barack's `unity` theme: some light at the end of the tunnel?
:-)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3998946.ece
1. Have a previous posting history of at least one previous comment.
2. Do not degenerate to praising FOX News in your fifth post in the thread.
3. Avoid using turns of phrase that can be easily associated with your other usernames.
4. ???
5. PROFIT!!!*
* Payable in McCain Bucks, void where prohibited.
Dear Obama friends,
Senator Obama picked up 3 super delegates today to Senator Clinton 1
Alaska: Former Governor Tony Knowles has endorsed Obama (Add-on)He also may pcik up a second pledged state-wide because his share of state-wide delegates seems to have gone from 74.6% to 77%
Wyoming: Add-on Rep W. Patrick Goggles and has endorsed Senator Obama
Georgia: 2 Add-on were added
state Party Secretary Stephen Leeds has endorsed Senator Obama
Now surprisingly enough, Verna Cleveland has endorsed Senator Clinton
This is odd for several reasons,
Obama won Georgia with a large majority, and after what Senator Clinton said yesterday, it seems that some Super Delegates have decided
1/ still to support Senator Clinton2/ still to divide the party
Should SDs still support the Clinton campaign?
Finally, Senator Obama will add 3 more Super Delegates tomorrow from Hawaii
I've just seen the nuclear option video.
Now I've seen Hillary bringing up JFK's assassination... Maybe that's the nuclear option!?!?!
Hillary's just scaring me now!!!!!
P.S. what movie does that nuclear explosion come from?
For the past several weeks I've been taking the polling data Andrew Tanenbaum uses for www.electoral-vote.com and using it as input to Monte Carlo simulations of the general election matchups. State-by-state polling is still erratic at best (some states haven't had polls since the end of February), but since people like to look at the headline electoral vote totals from that site, I think computing averages and winning percentages from the same data provides more value.
I'm using a 4% margin of error on the polls, and am assuming the sampling error on polls is the only source of variability, so at best this is a snapshot in time of the most recent polls. But while this is not a particularly good prediction model (once a lead in a state gets beyond the margin of error, the candidate basically wins it all the time in the simulation), it is interesting to see both how things stand now, and how they've changed over the time I've been running the data. I've found changes in just a few key states can swing winning percentatges wildly, and those percentages can be far more extreme that I'd predict for actual probabilities (or, say, from market probabilities inferred from political futures markets like the Iowa Electronic Markets or Intrade).
So here's the most recent data, using 10,000 trials for each simulation*:
Obama wins 81.0%, averages 281.9 EV
McCain wins 18.8%, averages 256.1 EV
Electoral tie 0.2%
Clinton wins 100%, averages 320.9 EV
McCain wins 0%, averages 217.1 EV
No electoral ties
By comparison, electoral-vote.com gives the state to whoever is leading, and gets totals of Obama 266, McCain 248, tie 24 on one side, and Clinton 314, McCain 207, tie 16.
Obama took leads from McCain in Ohio, New Mexico, and New Hampshire, and he pulled even in Virginia. Actually, there were two new polls in Virgina, one from Virginia Commonwealth University giving McCain an 8 point lead, and another (centering around the same date) from Survey USA giving Obama a 7 point lead. Following the electoral-vote.com algorithm, I'm taking the most recent state poll and averaging it with any other polls from within the same week.
Compared with last week, Clinton has now taken leads in Missouri, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and North Carolina(!), so she is now ahead in enough states by enough margins that sampling error alone wouldn't cause her to lose the general election based on the most recent state polls.
Obviously this is Clinton's best showing since I've been tracking this, and Obama's winning percentage also matches his best (although three weeks ago his average electoral vote average was higher, mainly because back then the most recent Texas poll showed just a 1 point lead for McCain, so Obama would win it about 1/3 of the time in the model; now the most recent Texas poll, from May 7th, gives McCain a 9 point lead, guaranteeing him the state in this simulation).
Once the Democratic primary fight ends, I'd expect a bounce for the nominee, although given the tone of the campaign, I think Obama would get a larger one than Clinton would. The current data support the idea that either candidate is in good shape right now, and that McCain is vulnerable.
Please indulge a quick story before I come to a point...it will make sense.
I come from a proudly Democratic branch of an overwhelmingly Republican extended family. When I was growing up, Thanksgiving was the event that would bring the family together every year, and in even-numbered years the conversation always turned to the recent election.
In 1988 I was 10, but my parents were very strong supporters of Michael Dukakis. We know how that turned out. At Thanksgiving dinner later that November, several of my uncles were salivating at the chance to rub my father's nose in the results of the election.
As soon as we arrived, they sauntered over and said, "so what did you think about the election?" My father surprised them by saying he was delighted.
"Why?" they asked.
"Well," dad continued, "George Bush said that he was going to reduce violent crime, clean up Boston Harbor and balance the federal budget - all without raising taxes. That sounds great to me."
My uncles were a bit taken aback by this naive comment. They didn’t say anything for a minute then one of them chortled - "You actually believed him?"
Dad ended the conversation with: "Didn’t you? You voted for him?"
I tell this story because I really like it, and because it informs my opinions about who gets my vote. I will never, like my uncles did, vote for a candidate that I know is lying to me. There are always a number of platitudes that a candidate must utter in a campaign, but I look for the candidate that does it less, and does it reluctantly.
Furthermore, I give extra credit for a candidate that utters a truth that they know will be politically damaging, just for the mere fact that it is true. In this season, there were three candidates who fit this bill from my perspective:
1. Ron Paul - Don’t get me wrong, this guy is crazy, and other than his position on the war (sort of) I can't think of a single thing he said that I agree with, but was there ever a moment where you thought he was lying? Crazy and dead wrong, sure - but not dishonest.
2. Joe Biden - Very simply, I don’t think Joe Biden gives a s#%t if you agree with him, or if what he says is popular. He calls them like he sees them, and I like him for that.
3. Barack Obama - He not only tells the truth, but he relishes it. He tells more truth than he needs to. He could have gone along with the gas tax holiday, and it would have been safer politically, but he told the truth, and screamed it from the rooftops. He could have simply disavowed Jeremiah Wright at his first opportunity, but he told more truth than he needed to, and really added something to the discussion on race in this country.
As you think about who will get your vote, or as you look back on who you voted for, ask yourself how many times they lied to you - How many times did you have to justify your candidate's words by thinking "they have to say things like that if they want to win."
Maybe they don't. Maybe if they tell the truth, they can win anyway. I hope Barack proves me right.
Its amazing how many Obama haters on line sound exactly like any 5 minutes of the Rush or Hannity shows.
There is a reason those radio guys are a 24-7 Obama hate fest. They hope to destroy him now because they know how easy it will be to get Hillary next. All they have on Obama is Wright and Ayers, and they fear the guilt by association will wear thin by November. Hillary, on the other hand, they have 16 years worth of ammo for.
Clearly Hillary, grasping at straws to keep herself afloat, will accept the help of these wing nuts. But any Democrat parroting the same lines as Limbaugh would have to be drunk to believe he would ever do anything to help the Democrats win. The Repugs know Hillary starts with 50% negatives that are deeply ingrained. They fear that one day people will figure out that its kind of silly to believe a half white guy raised by a white family is a racist, or that he's a muslim, or that the name his Daddy picked 40 years ago is relevant to anything. Next, they might figure out the lobby types Hillary and McCain have been worshipping their entire careers are the real reason nothing good gets done in DC, and a president not beholden to them, one who gets his money from regular folks, might actually work for the people instead of the corporations. Thats why they must destroy Obama now.
These guys are pros at getting blue collar types to vote against their best interests, which is why their jobs got exported and their sons get sent to this illogical war. Their deepest fear is that Obama, with his easy smile and non-threatening manner will convince poor whites that they have more in common with democrats than with 100 million dollar Cindy who makes 5 million a year by just existing.
Barack's supporters get called Obamabots, but I have to see them support the party of big oil, fend for yourself health insurance and send our jobs to China to make the stuff at Wal-Mart cheaper. Seriously. Think gas would be $4 a gallon if Bush hadn't ripped middle east peace to shreds because his neocon buddies thought it would be easy and fun to start Democracy? After seeing how wrong the Republicans have been, and what a mess they have made of the world, why do so many still obey Limbaugh's marching orders? Its got to be more than the fact that Obama's ex-preacher said some things as wacky as what Hagee preaches.
Guess what. Rush and Hannity can afford $20 gas. And if they can again con blue collars into voting against their best interests because they think Obama's ex preacher hates America, $20 gas may be the least of our problems.
Cross-posted at http://politicaldissonance.blogspot.com/
Senator Hillary Clinton reminded us that the 40th anniversary of Robert Kennedy's assassination is coming up on June 6th. In the midst of a bruising battle with Eugene McCarthy, Kennedy looked to have finally clinched the popular vote after the California primary, only to be killed by a deranged youth. It was a tragic end to the life of the politician who had come out so forcefully against "the mindless menace of violence".
I found Clinton's comments about Kennedy's death to be offensive, while I understand that she was not hoping for Senator Barack Obama to be hurt. The more important point is to remember that Kennedy, for a short time, managed to create a vision of justice and a coalition of hope that still inspires people today.
Senator Ted Kennedy summed up his brother's life best during his eulogy at St. Patrick's Cathedral after his death:
My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.
Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will some day come to pass for all the world.
As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him:
"Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not."
For a recording of the full speech, you can go here.
We should honor Robert Kennedy's legacy by thinking about how the likely Democratic nominee matches up to these standards and create lasting coalition that will allow us to dream a bit more.
This is what all the smart people, it seems, are missing. McCain lovers point out he barely knew Hagee, so can't be held to his whacky beliefs, while Obama bashers say "20 years in the pew Barry" must remain welded to Rev Wright's most controversial thoughts.
But this ignores the fact that the basic defense supporters make for both Wright and Hagee is identical.
Rev Hagee says he prays, and God's will is revealed to him. He believes God wants Israel united, so the Messiah can return. Revelations tells him God sent the hunter, Hitler, to chase the Jews there, because once they control both sides of the Jordan river, the end times will come. If nuking Iran speeds things up, then bring it on. Hagee believes God hates sin and sinners like Homos must be punished, hence Katrina.
How is this any stranger than Rev Wright saying God will damn America for its sins, like Indian genocide, Slavery and Jim Crow, CIA Assasinations like Diem, proping up dictators like the Shah, torture, and tens of thousands dead in Iraq for no good reason?
Both men pray, read the bible and preach what their God leads them to say. Evangelicals call it Prophetic preaching, the exact same words Wright's backers use in his defense.
Now Hagee is on TV several times a day. Do we think the millions who listen to him share his views, which critics label anti catholic, anti-gay, and pro Israel because it brings the rapture closer?
Now that Hagee has helped McCain beat the Evangelical Mike Huckabee, he has called Hagee's comments crazy. Obama has likewise denounced all of Wright's controversial views. Critcs see both moves as cynically political.
Now the logical thing for the nation to conclude is that "preachers can be led to say a lot of whacky stuff, thats why the founders put in all that stuff about seperation of church and state."
People who attend church have all sorts of releationships with their pastors. Some hear the whacky stuff as metaphor, others believe it literally. Millions including Hannity and O'Reily stuck around and defended the Catholic church, because they know some screwed up priests don't define the church, even if the Bishops and the Vatican failed to protect their children. No one would accuse those Catholics of approving of the crimes their leaders covered up. We cut them some slack, and pray their church gets it together and keeps doing the good things Catholics do.
Sadly, few will grant Obama's church the same slack. This will not happen, because for now, Wright is the only smoking gun his opponents have. It lets the Limbaughs repeated say "racist preacher = scary black guy candidate whites can't trust". They will bring him up every chance they get. McCain even managed to get a Wright jab in while denouncing Hagee.
Personally, I believe the relationship between any person and his church or preacher is none of my business. There is no religion that people of some other faith don't think is crazy. Many Christians believe billions of non believers will burn in hell. Most of those billions don't even think hell exists. Radical Islam wants to slay all non-believers. I don't agree with any of them, but as long as they are not violent or threatening, I defend their right to believe it.
I personally pray for a world that lets anybody believe anything, as long as they leave evryone who disagrees with them alone. This political season, America seems to be headed in the opposite direction.
Interesting poll observations....
The day after a Quinnipiac University poll of Ohio and two other battleground states showed several bad signs for Sen. Barack Obama, a new poll indicates a much brighter outlook for the Illinois Democrat. Quinnipiac had Obama losing by 4 points to Sen. John McCain; now, SurveyUSA shows Obama beating the Arizona Republican by 9.
In
stark contrast to the university's survey, today's poll shows Obama
winning among both white and male voters. He also comes within 4 points
of McCain in crucial southeast Ohio; Quinnipiac had Obama losing by 20
in that area (although the polls may not be defining the region in
quite the same way).
Read more here
I spent the day at the Democratic State Convention here in Vermont. I, myself was not a delegate, but I came with my friend, who was a state delegate. Senator Patrick Leahy was there, as was Congressman Peter Welch. The entire thing was an interesting and exciting experience for me, as it was the first state convention I've ever been to. But something really caught my attention at the end, when the two speakers for Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took to the stage.
First, in support of Hillary Clinton, former VT Governor Madeleine Kunin. I have a lot of respect for her, and it was exciting to hear her speak, even if she was speaking in support of Clinton. But I was very put-off by much of her justification for why she supports Hillary. I found that a lot of her justification was that "it would be beautiful to see a woman place her hand on the bible instead of holding it for her husband." Not a direct quote, I'm going on memory here. Why was I put-off? Because, Hillary's candidacy was brought down to no more than her sex. Yes, Kunin mentioned how intelligent she is, and how hard-working she is. But her main point was that Hillary is a woman. She then, at the very end, repeated words that Hillary had spoke saying something along the lines of, "No matter who's the nominee, Hillary will do everything she can to see that a Democratic is in the White House." Not to mention her own calls and pleas to see MI and FL seated.
The entire speech sounded like a desperate plea to voters. I understand why she makes the arguments she does, why she used the talking points she did, but honestly, it made me a little sad. Sad for Hillary Clinton, that things had been reduced to what they are.
Then, the speaker for Obama took the stage: Former Chairman to the DNC Joe Andrew took to the stage. The entire speech was entirely different. Rather than a plea of support for his candidate, he spent his time talking about unity, and unifying the party. He talked about, no matter who you support, coming together in November to beat John McCain. It was energized, enthusiastic, and certainly optimistic. It was interrupted briefly when Mr. Andrew made a remark about (if I remember correctly) how a candidate needs to be able to inspire people, and a Hillary supporter called out "HILLARY!" I'm all for supporting one's candidate, but honestly, during Governor Kunin's speech, no one rudely interrupted in such a way. What made it even worse was the fact that Mr. Andrew was making the point to be fair, even giving Hillary praise, barely ever specifying a candidate by name, but rather, focusing on the need for a Democrat (generally) in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress.
I realized from this that Hillary really is done, and it was obvious in the somber, unenthusiastic and desperate tone of Governor Kunin's speech. I honestly think it was the first time I actually felt even slightly bad for Hillary. The feeling didn't last thanks to the gracious Hillary supporter.
She could always nominate her husband if she won. Can't beat THAT name recognition....
It has pained me to watch Sean Wilentz act like such a tool during this election year, because I really admire his historical works. ("Chants Democratic" and "The Rise of American Democracy" are both well worth reading.) He has accused Barack Obama of playing the race card when his opponents launched controversial personal attacks, while blaming the Senator from Illinois for his inability to win over certain voters. (Those would be the mysterious "white working class" we hear so much about, who supported Obama in Wisconsin and Oregon but not in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and other states.) His latest salvo in the Huffington Post -- "Barack Obama and the Unmaking of the Democratic Party" -- reaches all the way back to 1828 to show why Obama is going to ruin everything. In the process, he fails to explain the roots of the real forces at work here: white solidarity, anti-intellectualism, and racism.
Wilentz points to the 1828 battle between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams as a formative moment, when white working class support became essential to the success of the Democratic Party. Almost in spite of himself, Old Hickory became the face for a broader movement aimed at breaking down barriers to opportunity, liberalizing business and politics, which also happened to be a movement that both aspiring capitalists and frustrated workers (i.e. all white men) could get behind. Businessmen wanted to be able to get easy credit to develop the West, and they wanted to overturn laws that required them to obtain approval for each new corporate charter from legislatures. Workingmen wanted to end all property qualifications for voting, and supported the idea that ordinary people could serve in government jobs -- a policy that Jackson embraced in office, developing the "spoils system" of handing out positions to party supporters. The working people were also facing the loss of autonomy and economic security as industrialization began to get underway. Jackson became the vehicle for many different economic, social and political aspirations in those days, helping to invent modern, democratic party politics. With a rapidly expanding economy and an opening political system, white men could rally together behind the banner of equality and opportunity that the Democratic Party raised. Instead of pitting working man versus business man, all classes of white men could band together against different foes. A lot of inchoate resentments and grievances solidified in the support of the self-made man Jackson, and naturally opposed the stuffy old-money Bostonian intellectual, Adams.
Richard Hofstadter touched on this curious combination in his essay, "Andrew Jackson and the Rise of Liberal Capitalism," in which he wryly notes that Jackson, the frontier aristocrat who defended the
creditors in Tennessee, became the hero of debtors a few years later. (Hofstadter also wrote a whole book on the history of anti-intellectualism in American history.)
It's easy to say it all goes back to populist Jackson against the know-it-all snob Adams, but it goes much deeper. The earlier Federalists thought the people who knew best should run the show, while Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republicans were the ones who praised the wisdom of the common yeoman, creating the embryo of a partisan patronage system (the idea that any ordinary person could serve in government, which Jackson embraced). It was a debate left over from the Revolution, when many felt that a republic could only work if the leading citizens, the gentry, were in charge. Jefferson's people gradually broke down the idea, and Jackson's bunch finished it off.
Wilentz is right that this pattern goes back a long way. What drives me crazy is that he takes such a high hand as a historian (know-it-all elitist!) and schools us that Obama is going to destroy the Democratic party because he can't win the same electoral map as Jackson did in 1828. "Without the votes of workers and small farmers in Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as a strong Democratic turnout in New York City," he writes, "Jackson would have lost the Electoral College in a landslide." So what if Obama could not win the same coalition that a Democrat summoned in 1828? You might as well say Jackson's victory was illegitimate because he couldn't win Alaska or New Mexico!
This determination of his to show how important the "white working class" is for the Democratic Party is understandable. His insistence that they (however defined) are the only group that matters, and that racism played absolutely no role in this campaign, is truly perplexing. He knows as well as anyone where the historical roots of racism lie: in the fear of competition for scarce jobs and small wages, in the deliberate pitting of workers of different races against each other on shop floors and across picket lines. "All of the evidence demonstrates that white racism has not been a principal or even secondary motivation in any of this year's Democratic primaries," Wilentz maintains, ignoring the fact that most people are reluctant to come out and say, "I'm a bigot!" -- and the fact that a quarter of voters in West Virginia and Kentucky actually admitted that "race" affected their choice of candidate. I agree that allegations of racism have been thrown around too lightly during this campaign, but Wilentz seems to react to this unfortunate fact by denying that racism played any role -- just as some Obama supporters (a small minority, as far as I can tell) try to argue that sexism played no role in the problems of Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps a tradition of anti-elitism or anti-intellectualism has shaped voters' decisions in some of these contests. When Bill Clinton said the real division in the election is between the regular people and those who think they're better than everyone else, he was speaking to a powerful current in American politics. This phenomenon certainly does go back to 1828 and beyond. Maybe we can admit to ourselves, no matter which candidate we support, that there is some good old-fashioned racism going on here too. In any case, it is just plain wrong to look at an underdog candidate, who managed to build a winning coalition that crosses lines of race and region, campaigning in the face of the biggest political machine in Democratic politics, and blame him for his lack of support in one segment of the electorate in the context of a primary. It is far wronger still to accuse him of single-handedly shattering the 180-year legacy of a political party by achieving that victory.
See Wilentz's side of the story at:
"Race Man"
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
""Barack Obama and the Unmaking of the Democratic Party"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-wilentz/barack-obama-and-the-unma_b_103353.html
When Hillary finally concedes the primary election, the Obama campaign will turn a laser-like focus to a single goal: getting Obama elected in November. If cold political calculation suggests that Clinton as VP would give him the most help, she will be chosen. No one - least of all in anyone in the Obama campaign - will suggest that any grudges from the primary season should stand in the way of maximizing Obama's chance of electoral success. The question, then, is whether she would be the VP candidate who would most help Obama.
Clinton's strongest positive is her talent for campaigning, particularly for her ability to counterattack. She could be the person to answer the Republican attack machine as it turns on Obama. One can imagine a campaign where Clinton and McCain engage in ever more vicious attacks and counterattacks, while Obama can stay above the fray, acting Presidential, promising (and delivering) a new kind of politics. Hillary is doubtless capable of truly knocking old man McCain completely off his bearings.
Clinton's negatives include her strong negative ratings with many voters, the baggage she carries from the past two decades in politics, and her unpredictable spouse.
Also, it is said that the one function a VP candidate serves, in the end, is to deliver her/his state for the ticket. NY is safely Democratic, so other candidates offer more to Obama in this regard.
However, considering how negative Presidential campaigns have become, Hillary's talent at attacking ruthlessly may end up being the determining factor for Obama campaign strategists.
During an interview with Radio Isla Puerto Rico on Saturday, Obama reacted to the Clinton comment.
According to a quote released by the campaign, he said, "I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Sen. Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make, and I think that is what happened here. Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I will take her at her word on that."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/23/clinton.comments/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps Hillary will return the favor one day. Time and time again he provides her with a save harbor when she screws up. I would like to see her take the hight road and stay on it, just once, possibly twice.
Has anyone else noticed a sudden increase in semi-articulate posts raving about the downfall of the Democratic party--or blatantly (and not even cleverly) bashing either one of the dem candidates or the other candidate's supporters? A quick background check shows many of these to be the work of mystery posters, with no profiles and no posting histories. In the interest of maintaining the integrity of the site, perhaps we should refrain from comments to these posts? (I rue the day I long for BillyGlad!)
Something like six weeks ago, in the run up to the ohio primary, Jeremiah Wright's sermons hit the press. People were offended; Hillary Clinton was heard observing that if she'd been in the church that day, she'd have walked out and quit the congregation.
Yet by Kentucky, the next state over and barely a month later, Wright's 'offensive' belief--that the game is rigged and they ain't gonna let a black man win it--has become Hillary Clinton's campaign. And no one notices or cares.
Which all goes to show: with Wright, it wasn't what he said, its that a black man said it.
For many ardent Hillary Clinton supporters a glimpse of Senator Clinton lights up the faces, broadens the smiles and her words seep through the ears filling hearts well, with honey.
We get it!!!! But again we don't really get it!!! But that's okay.
But for others, what was your threshold for Hillary and when did the it break inviting a mutiny of ampersand and asterisks to clog in your throats?
Here are some possible moments when the nerve broke...
Change you can xerox...
Shame on you Barack Obama....
As far as I know...
Do you need a pillow...
Well he wouldn't be my pastor....
Tim, we shouldn't just denounce but reject....
Senator McCain and I have passed the C-in-C threshold...
White Collar voters...
RFK was assisinated in June....
I'm sure I'm missing dozens of Hillary Kitchen Sink moments that made blood gush through the veins and stain your face with color...when did you say that's it.
To all of you in the press who have nothing to do but beat up on a former first lady's comments who herself has had secret service protecting her for doing good works for our country, you need to get a real story. Stop making mountains out of molehills. People are truly sick of CNNand msnbC AND THERE BIASED REPORTING. Get over being in the tank for Obama. If he wins he will not be a good president,so save your breath. He's not worth it. The RN'S Iam in contact with feel you are not concerned enough about an important constituency in this race WOMAN. sOME DAY YOU WILL ALL NEED ONE WHETHER IT'S IN THE HOME, HOSPITAL, WHITE HOUSE,ETC. So our advice to you all who keep picking on the woman candidate is to knock it off. There was no malice in her comment and you all know it too. Read this one on your blog Mr. Cafferty, not the ones that are biased against HRC.
Warning: DoD May Change URLs, thwarting TPM
The Department of Defense (DoD) has changed URLfor documents on the military analyst program. The Department of Defense released to the NYT and public emails and other documents related to the military analyst program in response to a NYT FOIA request.New York Times' David Barstow is involved with this analysis and reporting.
It is not obvious the problem is with the URL. Some readers may believe they cannot view a document because of an error with the analysis; or the DoD site has excessive traffic. This may not be the case.
Any saved URLs or URLs posted to public blogs may or may not be valid. Earlier analysis with original URLs, without an auto-connect feature, are no longer valid.
One objective of information warfare is to thwart others from getting access to information, not just provide invalid information. The White House has not commented on how these changes may or may not relate to efforts to thwart enforcement of the laws of war. The public should ask for White House, State Department, NSC, DoD, DOJ OLC, and outside counsel emails and notes discussing how the public might be thwarted from getting access to information about this military analyst program.
White House Involved With DoD Military Analysts
The disclosed emails are damaging to the President. The emails show the White House, Rove, State Department, CIFA, and National Security Council are linked to the Military Analyst program. See 120
Some of the URLs have been updated on the DoD website. Without an auto-connect feature from the original (now invalid) URL to the new (updated, valid) URL, it is difficult for TPM readers to easily see the documents showing the White House connection to the military analysts.
Previous commentary establishing the link between the President, White House, and the DoD military analysts includes now-invalid URLs.
For example, one original URL had spaces, but the new URL for the same document no longer has the spaces. The spaces in the original (now invalid) URL are represented by %20. It is difficult for most people to manually remove the %20 from the original URL to connect to the updated URL
Inadequate DoD Explanation
Without mentioning the URL changes or deletions, the DoD website states, in very small font at the bottom:
This page was last updated on:
Friday, 23-May-08 23:38:48
I'm no Unity Baby but I got tired about reading blog after blog on Hillary's gaffe, so, why not focus on things that are in the Democrats favor this year? So, without further ado: 10 things Democrats should be for this year:
1. That George Bush is the anti-Midas. Everything he touches turns to crap. His businesses, Iraq, the Justice Department, the economy...you get the drift, I'm sure you could even add to the list.
2. That the Republicans had the majority in Congress for six years as they helped George Bush run the country into the ground.
3. That the majority of Republicans have lost their bearings along with John McCain. What principles do they stand for? As far as I can tell they're the Anti-Party. They're against abortion, against gay marriage, against immigration, against taxes, against Mother's Day, and even against a functioning government (this bunch hold the record for the most filibusters, ever). Oh, I just thought of something they are for...torture. But the Torture Party doesn't sound like a winner either.
4. That Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot become a Vice Presidential nominee unless the Constitution was rewritten.
5. That Mitt the Phoney Romney seems to be McCain's best choice for a running mate.
6. That the electorate is engaged in this election season because they're tired of George Bush.
7. That the drawn out primary has helped the Democrats set up operations in many of the states and have enthusiastic support from volunteers across the country.
8. That senior citizens have a problem with John McCain's age. It also helps that he's not sure about whether he supports privatizing Social Security or not. Flip-flop much?
9. Speaking of flip-flops, McCain has flip-flopped on immigration so many times, Republicans don't trust him and Latino Americans don't trust him either. Notice his support in his own home state is not as strong as it should be.
10. And most of all, they should be grateful for the rise of the blogosphere and that people have access to all kinds of opinions and don't need to rely on the traditional media.
The story behind Hillary Clinton's comment about June being the month that things tend to happen, assissinations for example, is not about the killing of Obama. It's about Hillary confessing that's she's LOST this nomination -- UNLESS -- something BAD happens to Barack Obama.
She's admitting that she's begging Supers to hold off endorsing because there's an off chance that Obama will need to drop out or he's hurt in someway. She's admitting that by DNC rules -- she cannot win.
That's the story here, not the comment itself, because she's said these words before.
The media and the Supers should immediately END this nomination process. Hillary needs to be forced out, she refuses to otherwise.
Even if you listen to her EXCUSE as to why she must stay in -- she's wrong. She could have dropped out weeks ago and if something would force Obama to drop out, the DNC would have nominated her as his replacement, simply because of how close she came to winning.
She can drop out gracefully, voters in the next three states can still vote the way they would have. Nobody's hurt. But Obama can then concentrate on McCain ONLY.
If she refuses, then Supers need to give Obama the needed 56 to reach that 2026 total before May 31st.
Among my plans for the weekend was to blog about the electoral college math for November. The title--I had a title ready and everything--was going to be "We Don't Need Her." I've been playing with electoral college calculators and polling data and, notwithstanding Hillary's insistance that only she can win the big states and the Republican strategists quoted on Politico as saying they think they can pull off a Republican blowout (god, that one's like Idiotic--it just doesn't stop being funny), I've come to the conclusion that the GOP is hosed. All very interesting stuff. It was going to be all about Virginia and the states out west of the Mississippi that Obama puts into play and how she doesn't really do anything for us if she's on the ticket.
Then, late yesterday afternoon, Hillary rendered the whole thing moot, because one of the immutable laws of politics is that trailing presidential candidates who use the word "assassinated" in the answer to the question "why are you still in the race" don't get to be vice president. Regardless of what you meant, or whether you meant anything, it doesn't matter. No president wants a morbid veep, especially not one with thousands of aggreived supporters.
So we've had ourselves a good big ol hissy fight over it, possibly the biggest ever here. The Clintonites are here gamely defending her comment, insisting that it doesn't mean anything, while the Obama supporters are split between the "revealing Freudian slip" camp, the calculated attempt to instill doubt camp and the "now, now, let's give her yet another break because I'm sure she didn't mean anything about it." But it doesn't matter. Her veep gambit is over and she knows it and so do Bill her thuggish money people.
Count me in the Freudian slip camp. Maybe it was just her subconscience's way of sabotaging the veep talk. I expect, however, that it truly was a reflection of her real reasons for staying in this long. Reasons that are much noted and much talked about: anything could happen. She's been staying in hoping that something would turn up--a big scandal, a career ending gaffe or a genie in a bottle or something. Anything, really. Yes, including that.
Much has already been written, and I'll no doubt write more about myself, but I did want to point out one huge irony about this thing.
Hillary has been staying in this thing, stretching it out, hanging on, in large part, because she was hoping Obama would utter some huge, career-ending, gaffe before it was all said and done.
Despite a recent show in the polls [most recent NT Times] showing narrow margin in the overall popular vote by Hillary Clinton to the tune of [ /- error 3% statistically] 5 percentage points over her arch nemesis Barack Obama with 47% of voters considering her, to his 42% with 13% undecided. in light of the most recent foibles on the campaign stump heading toward the big DNC run-off in Denver this fall. Most of the pollsters are showing similar results. Zogby, Barna, Wall Street Journal and the Peer Research Institute are showing shadings of 3%-5% percentage points off the NY Times spot poll. On the Republican side of the isle, John McCain is uncontested, however is either tied with Obama in some polls or what would amount to a statistical dead head in the rest. So, what does this all mean?
Dean told AP back on March, 29th "
Let the media [Pro Obama] and the Republicans and the talking heads on cable television [again Pro Obama] attack and carry on, fulminate at the mouth,"
said Dean to the Associated Press. "The supporters should keep their mouths shut about this stuff on both sides because that is harmful to the potential victory of a Democrat.", Having spoken that here is where we are: Hillary Clinton holds 1779 delegates to Barack Obama's 1968 pledged delegates. However, the popular vote keeps ebbing more and more toward Obama. Real Clear Politics reports the popular vote for the DNC a notch in favor of Obama reporting Obama at some 49.1% to Clinton's 47.7% - clearly a statistical dead heat. The DNC needs an enema to get to the root of what the situation is here. The party is divided between hard-line progressive on Hillary's side, which include the more socialist of the unions, radical feminists, enviromentalist... and the rest of the social "isms". Obama carries [clearly] the feely crowd, those"feel" America needs hope and change as his stump rhetoric would carry it. Social moderates are split right down the middle between he and McCain, what divides them is their position on the sanctity of life, alternative life style and environmental issues.
Hillary kind of reminds me of the redheaded step child that keeps insisting on having attention thrown her way. Good press or bad press, which is odd - because any morally clear candidate would run from sordid business. But I think Hillary voters and the publican by-in-large have gotten used to her antics, so for what it is worth, the spin cycle seems to work just fine on the Clinton machine so why change what people wouldn't trust as change anyway - that sentiment by the people would be fully earned. All indicators point toward a show down between the Jr. Senator from Illinois, and the veteran Senator from Arizona. Both have issues currently, some more severe than others.
Obama was speaking at a rather conservative Synagogue in Florida on the 22nd of this month, Obama took his happy-happy, joy-joy show on the road down there, and [well...] ended up contradicting himself regarding his position on meeting with Hezbolah or other terrorist entities within his first year in office if he were elected. He voiced this rather appeasist sentiment during the debates, and now is looking like he regrets heading to Florida. His statements got a good deal of mileage with conservative talk radio for a couple of days, hosts such as Michael Medved and the respected Mark Styne had at him as well, but it seems no sticks it to themselves better than Obama himself. In the McCain camp - John McCain withdrew his acceptance of support from Pastor John Hagee - move that may come back to haunt him, he is already on thin ice with Evangelicals as it is; especially over comments from a sound byte that were not played in their entirety and spun. Even talk show host Michael Medved [who being Jewish himself] found it hard to have taken the comments out of context, unlike Jeremiah Wrights words which in no way could be confused with benevolence.
The road may be rocky, but it looks as though super delegates are lining up behind a power broker nut-fest with the DNC, some heads will roll, but that is what they get for even setting up such a dastardly system - designed for leverage, but look what is happening? It will boil down to a Obama vs. McCain show down this November, and Hillary should not think she is above being voted out If there is anythign New Yorkers have is a memory - and that they can use against her.
It's time for leaders to lead in the Democratic party. Superdelegates should stand up and pick their candidate. Most will pick Senator Obama, and most of them already know that they will.
Moreover, superdelegates should act this week. May 31st is when the DNC rules committee meets to work on the issue of seating the Florida and Michigan superdelegates. If current undecided superdelegates remain undeclared and the outcome of the primary process remains unclear, this will give the Obama camp every reason to fight hard against an unfair ex post facto seating decision that ignores the previous rules and favors Senator Clinton. However, if enough superdelegates move this week behind Obama, he can safely go into this meeting and be exceedingly generous and gracious.
The goal could be to in the end either seat everybody along the lines of the popular vote (assuming the non-Clinton votes go to Obama in MI - as they should) or at least seat a higher percentage of delegates than the Republicans agreed to seat in penalizing those states in their contest (i.e. something greater than 50%).
The larger goal is to neutralize any argument Republicans can use to say that Democrats ripped off their voters in dealing with this problem. Superdelegates should see that they have it in their power to make a big difference in the general election result by endorsing this week. Those who are arguing that they want to wait until all the primaries are done are being penny wise, pound foolish. As much as we care about them, the voters in Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota will not play as big a role in the general election as those in Michigan and Florida will.
Part I: The DoD Email Linked To Rove's Legal Team and Correspondence to Congress
Page 107 and 111 show the same law firm as listed on the letter to Congressman Conyers.
Legal counsel with the firm are reported to have disclosed Rove's involvement with specific meetings, not just those in conjunction with the military analysts. The White House, NSC, State Department, and other White House-connected personnel are also involved at 120.
The name of the law firm is on the letter head to the Judiciary
Committee; and he email format and address match those provided through
the DoD FOIA. The Major General listed on page 111
has contact information matching the same Rove's law firm counsel wrote
to Conyers. The firm's name also matches contact information on page 107 of the
DoD emails.
These issues may or may not relate to war crimes issues, punishable by the death penalty. The DoD emails show the interaction between counsel and the government was not a narrow legal-advisory role.
Not all attorney communications are protected. In this case, some of the law firms communications appear to have been sent to non-represented parties, falling outside this exception. Counsel is foreseeably subject to discovery on all communications between counsel-affiliated persons, the US government, DoD and the White House.
Questions About Legal Counsel Motivations
Legal counsel to the President's chief political strategist appeared to feign confusion about various Judiciary Committee actions. Rove's legal team is connected with the DoD military analyst program. Counsel is prohibited from engaging in frivolous action which might delay a tribunal. Karl Rove's legal counsel should first ask the questions raised in the letter to their inhouse experts.
Telecommunications Connection
The law firm is one of the "Capital Club sponsors" for the inaugural National, hosted by Tiger Woods. The telecommunications company connected with that golfing activity is none other than the firm connected alleged FISA violations.
With the law firm is a relative of a former Chairman of a major political party, not the DNC.
Discovery
It is beyond dispute Rove was involved with the military analyst
program. The question turns on what information outside counsel have,
how they intend to use this information. The connection between Rove's law firm and the DoD military analyst activity raises many issues:
- A. What role did the military analysts play in providing information to legal counsel to advise on which documents to prevent war crimes prosecutors and State AGs from reviewing?
- B. Are outside counsel asking through the White House and FBI questions of jury member to gather information from jury members because they do not want to spend funds conducting mock juries for war crimes cases?
- C. To what extent are law firms invoking "executive privilege" to shield communications between their clients and contractors allegedly involved with war crimes, FISA violations, and illegal activity?
- D. To what extent are counsels claims (at C) trumped by the fraud crime exception? 445 F.3d 266
"I do not understand why"and/or
"It was hard to see"
I've never wanted Hillary to be the Dem nominee - for dynasty reasons. And later for how she ran her campaign.
However, having listened to her original comment about the RFK assassination yesterday, I actually think it was a muddled comment. Hillary was trying to invoke a June primary that everyone could remember into without consulting a history book. Now, whenever Obama missteps ("bitter"), Hillary is all over it and aggressively so. And I viewed her in less esteem each time she did it as a result.
There are a couple of implications in the statement that are wrong, of course, which is typical of Hillary's spin:
a) CA used to be one of the last primaries. Normally the CA primaries haven't been that important (despite the number of delegates) because the nomination was already decided. But she is hoping you would forget that part.
b) In 1968, only 13 states had primary contests -- so not everyone was heard from.
c) RFK was not beloved by everyone at the time -- even on the left side of the party. Eugene McCarthy supporters were angered that RFK tried to hone in on the anti-war vote once McCarthy showed the way. (And, in fact, RFK was very much part of the administration that really opened up the Vietnam war and this was not lost on people back then either.) And, Humphrey supporters, of course, had a plurality of the delegates on their side. So while RFK grew substantially as a politician from 1965-68, he was still seen (correctly) as part of a dynastic hold on the White House. He was willing to split the party for his own political ambitions. Sound familiar?
So I wasn't particularly bent out of shape with her comment, it was just a muddle of talking about a late primary in a dumb way.
