Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

I'D GIVE MY LEFT FRONT PAW FOR DEMS TO SEE THE BIG PICTURE

avatar

Guys, this is up over at HuffingtonPost.com's Off the Bus page:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deanie-mills/id-give-my-left-front-paw_b_126081.html

and, as with all my posts, at

http://deaniemills.com

Hope this goes on through:


In the final week before the Texas Democratic primaries, Bill Clinton made an exhausting, whirlwind tour of the state on behalf of his wife, Hillary.  Each and every day, he visited at least five small cities and towns across the state.

I remember when he came to Abilene.  My e-mail notification of his visit arrived at five p.m. on the day before, which gave me no time to rearrange my schedule so that I could make the 100-mile drive for the event.  At the time, as an Obama precinct captain, I was working day and night making phone calls and blogging and contacting other Democrats and so on, so I didn't see how I could manage the trip.

Turns out, I didn't have to.  Clinton was scheduled to arrive at about seven p.m., I think, and supporters and the curious began to gather at the large community barn near the small airport two hours before that.

Also, all three local news networks had camera crews posted.

And Clinton was, as usual, notoriously late.  As the hours passed, it began to rain, and a reluctant Secret Service permitted the people to enter the barn so they could at least remain dry while they waited, sitting on hay bales and standing around the perimeters of the building.

At least one local network, KTAB, the CBS affiliate, announced that it intended a live broadcast of the entire event.  Most of their ten p.m. news broadcast came from the barn, where people still waited, on a Wednesday night.  And even though most had children in schools and jobs to get to bright and early the next morning, very few left.

Finally, at eleven p.m. that night, after the crowd had been waiting five or six hours, Bill Clinton arrived.  He clambored up into the back of a pick-up truck that had been decorated with flags, and spoke on behalf of Hillary in a hoarse voice for the better part of an hour.  The speech was extemporaneous; he used no notes, nor did he need them, and if he seemed to ramble at times, the crowd didn't seem to mind.

Understand that Abilene, Texas is one of the most conservative cities in the entire country.  It is home to three separate church-supported universities (Baptist, Methodist, and Church of Christ), and votes overwhelmingly Republican in most elections.

Molly Ivins once wrote of West Texas, "Gay people stay in the closet because they're afraid people will think they're Democrats."

But many of the (closeted) fans who had come to the event had long loved Bill Clinton, and many of them were Hillary supporters, but to pass the time, the longsuffering camera crew gamely interviewed a nice cross-section of the crowd, and just as many, it seems, had come out of respect for the presidency.

"Don't get much chance to see a real, live president," said one cowboy.  "Thought it'd be worth the trip."

A plump, middle-aged woman said, "I'm a Republican, but he was President of the United States, and I thought my kids ought to see him."  She added, "He gave a nice speech.  It was worth the wait."

KTAB then did a rehash of Clinton's remarks, and the next day, local papers within a 200-mile radius had published front-page stories on the Clinton visit.

And Hillary beat Obama in this area by a resounding margin.  (In my own county, some 100 miles from Abilene, 75% of the Democratic primary vote went for Hillary.)  In fact, she won the state's primary vote-count, but Obama won the caucus. 

(Yeah, we don't take anything for granted here in Texas.  We do caucuses AND primaries, but you can't vote in the caucus unless you also voted in the primary.  Please don't expect me to explain Texas, because if I try, we'll both get hopelessly confused.)

I'm telling you this little story in order to make a larger point:  that Democrats need to stop all the "hand-wringing and bed-wetting," as Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, put it in a New York Times article, "Obama Plans Sharper Tone as Party Frets," by Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/politics/12obama.html?ref=politics

I live in solitude in West Texas ranching country, and my children are grown.  My work as an author/blogger gives me the freedom to work from home, and the time to plow through half a dozen major newspapers a day, as well as numerous political blogs.  I spend at least four hours a day doing this.

Reading.  Listening.  Watching all the new ads.

What this does is, it gives me a Big Picture attitude.  By doing so much reading and Internet surfing on a seven-day a week basis, I'm able to follow general trends that I see taking shape in the political narrative overall.

The blogosphere especially, however, tends to grasp at whatever hot-news topic dominates a given day, and spew outrage on that.  This outrage spills over into vitriolic e-mail forwards and other obsessing on the daily minutia of political campaigns.

Mostly, this past week or so, there has been a great deal of horror at John McCain's choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, combined with panic that Obama does not, in their view, appear to be fighting back hard enough to vicious McCain/Palin attacks.

Or, to read others--he IS fighting back, but that's NOT HIS JOB.

Or, to read others--he IS fighting back, but it makes him look WEAK.

Or, to read others--If he doesn't fight back, HE LOOKS WEAK!

Or, to read others--WE TOLD YOU TO NOMINATE HILLARY!

About Sarah Palin, viral e-mails and raging blogposts go out several times a day, consumed with the lastest revelation about her and her presumed barbarism.

Such as the fact that she not only encourages aerial hunting of wolves, but promises $150 in taxpayer money for every left front paw produced by hunters as evidence that they killed a wolf.

Animal lovers everywhere are horrified; even some hunters recoil. 

(Out here in the West, where we've seen what a predatory animal can do to a baby lamb or calf, or house cat or pet dog, are not always as sentimental, but even we draw the line at aerial hunting.  A more civilized solution in places like Yosemite, has been to tranquilize and relocate the animals who are encroaching on ranches and suburban areas.  That said--I don't think there's much sheep-ranching or urban sprawl that goes on in Alaska.  To Palin, this is just plain sport.)

So, what happens is, with each twisty new piece of the jigsaw puzzle, panicked Democrats launch into a fear-and-rage fueled tirade about how ugly this picture is going to be when it's all put together--Lady MacBeth wearing Tina Fey glasses, stalking the castle by night, looking for the sleeping Obama. 

Meanwhile, thousands of Internet and op-ed voices pick and pluck over the perceived carcass of the Obama campaign like vultures waiting for roadkill to die already.

But boys and girls...ya gotta pull back, put away the microscope that focuses on each tiny thing, and look at the Big Picture.

One of the complaints I read today, by a liberal op-ed, was that Obama needs to go back to the big rallies that excited his base and cut out all these obscure stops at diners and factories and schools. 

Whoever it was--I've forgotten now--said, "He's let the whole McCain-celebrity-meme get into his head."

It was a waste of time, they said, for him to concentrate on small venues.

Ahhhh, but whoever lodged that complaint did not see Bill Clinton take over media coverage for two straight days in the small-market area of Abilene, Texas...and Tyler, Texas, and San Marcos, Texas...and so many other small stops he made that last week before the primaries, standing alone in the back of a pickup truck, speaking from the heart to a few hundred souls.

The thing is, whenever Obama or Joe Biden speak at a small-town venue, they know that the local media will be all over the event.  You have to understand that most small-town and small-city papers and local TV-news venues (outside of Iowa and New Hampshire) aren't used to big politicians coming to their little bergs and giving them one-on-one interviews.  Most folks in those small towns don't get the opportunity to see famous people in such intimate settings.

It's exciting for them.

It's news.

And when Obama or Biden makes such an appearance, they dominate the coverage and the commentary.  There can be a dozen nasty McCain ads on TV, but they can't compete with this kind of personal communication.

Visit enough 200-mile media markets in enough swing states, grant enough interviews to small-town reporters, take enough questions from people worried about their jobs or their lack of health insurance or their kids in Iraq...and a new jigsaw puzzle begins to slowly be assembled in voters' minds.

This piece from Terre Haute, Indiana, and this piece in Santa Fe, new Mexico, and this piece in Raleigh, North Carolina--they all come together into a pattern, one pickup truck at a time, one vote at a time.

I understand that the McCain campaign is doing much the same; that's what politics is.  But it has been a month since the so-called straight-talker has given any interviews to ANYBODY, and Sarah Palin is being kept tightly-wound in Saran Wrap. 

Without her along, McCain can't even generate a crowd...and when she's alone, she says things like, "Perhaps"--going to war with Russia might happen because they invaded Georgia.

And people begin to lose count of all the wars McCain/Palin want to fight, when we can't even get extricated from the two we're in now.

Obama asks us, repeatedly, How stupid do they think we are?

When the McCain/Palin campaign runs outrageous, bodacious lies in ads, they may provoke panic among Democrats and sneering approval from Republicans, but the folks who sit on hay bales at the local community barn to hear Obama up close and personal are going to know bullshit when they see it.

At the same time, the superlative Obama ground operation has opened dozens of small campaign offices scattered all over various states--five or six for each large city, one each for small cities, way-stations for rural areas.  Volunteers from each office-area are trained, given a list of names and phone numbers and addresses of voters in their own neighborhoods, and they are calling up their neighbors and saying, "My name is Jane Doe, and I live on Main and First.  I'm volunteering for Barack Obama, and I wondered if we can count on your vote?"

Then, one on one, they can answer doubts and questions, and reach out to those same people who saw the local news broadcast of Obama talking to that nice waitress at the truckstop on I-10.

The waitress who, beaming, told the news-camera, "I wasn't sure before, but I'm voting for Obama now.  It means a lot that he came in here."

Simultaneously, a massive voter-registration drive is in effect, nation-wide, that has so far signed up more than two million new voters, the vast majority of whom will vote for Obama.  (Names, by the way, that are not included in those used by polling agencies.)

The Obama campaign has even set up a website, where you can register to vote.  It takes less than five minutes:

https://www.voteforchange.com/index_obama.php?source=091008emailR

Meanwhile, Obama IS fighting back, in an aggressive ad-buy in those same swing states, that, within hours, not only answers attacks as the untruths they are, but continues to hammer home his theme that Bush/McCain/Palin do NOT represent change, that they lack a true grasp on the problems facing our nation, and that all this flim-flammery coming from them is a con--deliberately designed to distract the American public from the fact that they have NO new ideas as to how to address those problems and would, in fact, simply apply Bush policies all over again.

And as far as the daily avalanche of Palin-stories, again, look at the Big Picture.

Rather than reacting viscerally to each new horrific revelation and fixating on that, keep in mind, as Obama does, that Sarah Palin is not running for president.

However, a man who impulsively selected her as his running mate after a single phone conversation and one hurried meeting months before, with virtually no vetting, has virtually sacrificed his country that he claims to put "first," on the altar of his own naked and blatant political ambition.

He would rather turn over the Oval Office, should something happen to him, to a haplessly unprepared and inexperienced political hack, than lose an election.

We've had a government run by political hacks for eight years, and what has that gotten us?

Katrina.

Iraq.

Sex, drugs, and rock n' roll between the Interior Dept. and the oil industry.

A Justice Dept. run by lawyers hired because they think Dubya is sexy rather than because they are qualified.

How, exactly, in a government like this, does Sarah Palin represent CHANGE?

Look at the Big Picture.

Don't fixate on the wolf's left paw.  Sickening and disgusting though that is...it is irrelevant to the Big Picture.  It is only one single piece of the jigsaw.

(And of course I'm not referring only to the wolf-hunting; I'm also talking about the whole daily soap opera coming from Alaska these days.)

Don't panic every time we pull a new puzzle piece out of the box.  Don't freak out over every little daily poll or every attack ad or every news cycle.  

Trust that, although we're putting the puzzle together blind--our candidate and his superb team have seen the whole picture. 

He has seen it--not just one barn and one factory at a time--but the whole country, the whole strategy.  He and his team know what they are doing.  Give them some credit for getting this far.

(And if you're STILL worried...Don't forget.  Yesterday Obama had lunch with Obi-Wan--er--I mean, Bill Clinton.  They discussed the campaign at length, and Bill promised to help.)

The Bush/McCain/Palin campaign is doing everything it can to hide its own record and steal Obama's as their own. 

Give it time. 

The debates are coming up.  The debates will present, not just single puzzle-pieces, but whole chunks of the puzzle.  It will be very hard, in those settings, for the flim-flam man and his Vanna White to hold on to the pretense that they are anything other than what they are: a shiny new box with a pretty new picture...but once you put all the pieces together, it's the same old puzzle.


Comments (24)

Excellent post, Deanie! I tip my hat! Or maybe i should say "my musical note" tip! ♪

avatar

LOVED IT!

avatar

This is a good reminder to people that the campaign isn't just being fought on TV and the blogosphere, and in the big media markets. Good going.

Er.. shorter Deanie Mills: chill the fuck out, he's got it? :)

Great post. I think the most important factor in this race just may end up being the fact that John McCain has spent the last couple of weeks doing irreparable damage to his own reputation. It's going to take a while to sink in, but when his poll numbers start heading south again (and they will) and Obama starts to climb, McCain will be working without a net. Then the real race begins.

Great blog, as always.

It amazes me how few on the left can see the Obama strategy for what it is: a 50-State, community-organizing effort. His team has been brilliant, both in the primaries and now in the general.

Barack plays chess while the neoconservatives play checkers.

Very nice. However, I kind of like being outraged that Sarah Palin asked for $3.2 million to study the DNA of seals and made rape victims pay for their own forensic test kits.

It seems to me she should've done the responsible thing and made the seals pay for their own damn DNA testing. Saved us a bunch of money.

Ha! Good one. Thanks for this post Deanie. One of your best!

avatar

I've been following for months the local newspapers where his events are taking place. Even in dominant Republican areas they do a good job reporting the event with pictures, and sometimes video and even live feeds. Best of all, they actually report most of what he says, not just the controversy.

avatar

more articles like this please.

Plouffe laid out the theory: the Obama camp isn't that panicked about news cycles, we're looking longer term, he said. Team Obama has sunk massive amounts of money into a huge number of field offices in competitive states (some conservative states aren't worth fighting in and liberal states are in the bag already). At the last comprehensive count, the Obama campaign had 336 field offices around the country, and McCain 101. McCain has probably opened more recently, but the disparity is still striking.

Some state-by-state comparisons are useful. In Ohio, Obama has 33 offices, and McCain nine. In Michigan, it's 22-11. Virginia, 28-6; Iowa, 23-6; New Mexico, 18-1; Missouri, 27-7. You get the picture. Florida is the only competitive state where McCain has more offices, 35-25. That 35 is deeply uncharacteristic for McCain, probably explained by the fact that much of the McCain vote in Florida will be elderly and will need to be driven to the polls on election day.

In addition, the Obama campaign is counting on a large voter-registration effort that's been ongoing in key states since 2006. Twenty-eight of the 50 states enroll voters according to party affiliation, and in those states, Democrats have gained 2 million voters in the last two years, while the Republicans have lost 334,000. Numbers for 2008 alone look like this in some important states: Colorado, 66,516 Democrats to 13,352 Republicans; Florida, 209,422 Democrats to 77,196 Republicans; Iowa, 69,301 Democrats to 7,515 Republicans; Pennsylvania, 98,137 Democrats to just 289 Republicans.

It takes a lot of time and money to register all those people and set up all those offices. The Obama people are betting that the investment will pay off. It is their belief, Plouffe said in Denver, that most people pay more attention to their co-workers and neighbours than they do to television talking heads. And with all those neighbours and co-workers spreading the word on election day, they say they feel good about the situation they've created. Field, they say, will trump news cycle.

So there you have it. Are the Obama people right? The problems with their theory are that all this field-tilling is invisible to pundits, and that there's no way to measure its success until the votes start coming in. In the meantime, McCain is very much winning the visible war, which can be measured day-to-day. And, since he named Palin, enthusiasm on the right is sky high, so he'll have his army of volunteers now, too.

One doesn't doubt that the Obama turnout will be impressive. But there are 51 daily news cycles between now and November 4. Obama certainly needs to win a few of them. So let's sort all that out first. Then we'll talk about the big picture.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/13/uselections2008.usa

I sure hope you are right - and there are also the Ron Paul supporters who positively refuse to vote for McCain (I think they're secretly in love with Obama).

But these numbers you cite, these statistics, not what they represent but the statistics themselves, they make my eyes roll to the back of my head.

The surest way for Obama to lose the election is to continue citing statistics, explaining policy, etc. I'll bet that there's a mathematical equation out there that proves that every time Obama utters the word "percent" that he loses x number of votes

I wish he would personalize this. Show a commercial having a conversation with a middle class family. Throw his daughter on his shoulders. Do something goddammit! What did Rick Davis say, this campaign is not about issues?

avatar

more articles like this please.

Great post! Thanks.

(Also, a tip of the hat to Aatos for the line about seals paying for their own DNA testing.)

avatar

Dear Ms, Mills:

Thank you so very much to pointing out the obvious. I keep reminding the scardy cats who are doing the handwringing that there is a grand and purpose for everything the campaign does. I am so very trusting of this plan, that I do not question the eventual outcome an verwhelming victory in November.

Plus, I burn a candle for Mr. Obama constantly and invoke the gods on his behalf. Employing all the angles.

avatar

Ah, yes: Pascal's wager! Sounds good to me.

Deanie, I love your optimism.

Couple points.

First, many of us feel we've seen this before. Obama gets swiftboated (right after the convention this time) with a sex ad, feels it's beneath him to respond. Expect to see the sex charge leveled against him periodically in the next several weeks, and then the creepy reminder on the final weekend that Obama wants to teach your young children about sex. Yes it's utterly ridiculous but it sways votes. I live in the suburbs. I can see the uncertainty in the faces. Normal folks with young families who don't follow politics, who feel they have no need for big governement, wonder whether this liberal black man would really enter their homes and initiate their kids to sex. Yes, that's what it boils down to. And what was Obama's response? He hasn't responded? Hmmm, maybe he really WOULD do something like that... I am telling you in capital letters, it sways votes. People like Josh Marshall? One of the brightest talents on the scene, but as you said, they don't quite get it. (JMM lives in Manhattan for chrissake - how many moderates does he meet on a daily basis? And talking on the phone to registered Republicans doesn't count).

I commented on all of this here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-pig-is-fun-but-w.php

Troopergate? Earmarks? Give me a f-cking break, pardon my french. That sways no votes. Everyone knows politicians are crooks.

Quick reminder: love your optimism!

Second, you talk about Clinton - Clinton is the man. People love him. The reason he was late for the speech at the barn? Because he will stop and listen to EVERY person who introduces him or herself. He will shake EVERY hand extened to him. All sorts of public officials will tell you a story like this: how one of their constituents wanted to meet Bill Clinton, and the local official looked into Clintons travel schedule and asked if Bill would mind stopping to shake hands with their constituent on the flightline when Air Force One arrived. "No promises" said Clinton's aides.

Well the day came, Clinton would be in town. The officeholder arranges for the citizen a chance to shake hands with Clinton. "Those rope lines get big," the official tells the excited constituent, so why don't we step over here, away from the crowd, and you can be sure you get a better chance to say hello to the president.

Here he comes, President Clinton, running late as usual but happy as can be as he shakes hands and signs autographs with the people. It's after midnight now - Clinton is expected somewhere at 7am in the morning - and it's taking him a while to get through that line. Don't get your hopes up, says the officeholder. Finally Clinton approaches. Here is the regular guy's big chance to shake hands with the president. Here he comes. The official greets the president eagerly, tells the president why he is here and why his constituent is here, and then introduces the president to him. The president shakes the man's hand. The man with the compelling story who contacted his Congressman about possibly meeting the president has done it - he has met the president of the United States.

And the president of the United States, instead of saying "nice to meet you" and stepping into his presidential limo, shakes the man's hand and talks with him for two hours.

Bill Clinton can make this kind of connection with every person he meets. And makes it with crowds too. Go back and watch his "I feel your pain" moment on YouTube. In a way, it's chilling.

Third point: the debates are overrated. Think back to 2004. The only chance Obama has in the debates is if McCain is seized in a coughing fit or completely forgets where he is ("Oh, Mayor Sparks is here") or some such thing. I wouldn't discount it, either.

The bigger picture, from the Clinton perspective and that of his supporters, is that if McCain wins, Hillary can run again in 2012.

I want Obama to win, but I guess I wanted to see Hillary win the primary, so I am a bit conflicted - and I am not even one of the rabid ones.

So if Obama continues to act like a John Kerry or Al Gore, then I hope Obama supporters will throw their support to Hillary as the primary season begins in late 2011.

avatar

tk, you're assuming Obama did not respond to the sex-ed ad; but they were out IMMEDIATELY with an ad answering, that the "sex ed" was actually a lesson on how appropriate and inappropriate touching and was put together in such a way to protect them from predators. The ad said something like, "Does John McCain not want our children to be protected from predators?" or some such thing.

They are answering back aggressively, but usually in targeted markets. Also, the MSM IMMEDIATELY pointed out the truth of the ads, pretty decisively. I'm not ready to cheer on Hillary JUST yet...but thank you for the optimism thing. Not always optimistic; I just try to be SENSIBLE.

Nodice, your statistics are just awesome, and I mean that in the old-fashioned definition of the word. Very impressive, and encouraging, as well.

Kelso, great perspective.

And Aatos, boy you take the cake! I lol-ed at that one! I agree about those pesky seals...


Great post. Prudent reminders.

avatar

tk, First of all, Al Gore won the popular vote, and from a reasonable point of view, the presidency. Certainly, you can't compare his or Kerry's campaign organization to Obama's.

This isn't 2000 or 2004. the wars, the economy, the housing crisis, global climate change, crumbling infrastructure, the mess in the Justice Department. People think the country is on the wrong road.

Look, the people (plural) that I thought were most qualified to be president didn't even have a shot. I preferred Obama to Hillary because Mark Penn is a sleaze and that did not bode well for the country if she had won. And frankly, I didn't look forward to the drama that would ensue if she had won. But you'd better believe I wouldn't be conflicted about whom to vote for had she won. I would have done everything I could to help her campaign because we can't afford four more years like the last eight. The country comes first. There is no guarantee that she would win the nomination in four years, and being a Clinton, she has high negatives to get past even if she did. And if McCain wins, the last thing Hillary wants to do is to run in 2012 or 2016 against a Sarah Palin with "experience" as VP.

Rove and McCain will run a despicably dirty campaign. That's a given. They will appeal to racists. That's a given. They will lie, and lie some more. That's a given. Large segments of the mainstream media will overlook, minimize or outright spin McCain's gaffes, his lies, his racist ads, and the implications of his campaign. Rove is no doubt figuring out how to steal votes, cage voters and otherwise cheat his way back to the White House. That's a given. You think a black man running for president doesn't know these things, or isn't prepared for a fight?

You are right that debates should have lost the game for Bush in 2004; remember the one in which he appeared to be wearing some kind of ear piece and seemed to be on a 5-second delay? He was incoherent but still won the election. But that was before the economy went down the tubes, with the remnants of his popularity. At these debates, McCain will have to answer for the Bush legacy, because face-to-face Obama will not let him work the "change" meme. I hope you vote for Obama; my guess is that Hillary would be his Secretary of Defense or State, (I'd like Defense, she would be the first woman there) where she can position herself to run against anyone. You know Obama and Bubba cut a deal of some kind. :)

avatar

Can someone tell me what Hillary will do after Obama wins? It seems like she has no future unless she competes again for the presidency. The woman is fantastic, there's no doubt she's a political goddess, but she is not meant to be President. So, what will she do? Can anyone think in those terms instead of holding out hope for an Obama loss. If McCain wins, we may not have elections in 2012. Think about that! Obama has a great strategy, but we need voices in the crowd connecting with the disconnected. As far as I am concerned, anyone making less then $250K/year should be reminded how Americans are not that stupid. Anyone with income over $250K/year should be reminded, they will make more in a better economy minus higher taxes meaning a net gain and Americans are not that stupid.

avatar

Supreme court justice. That'll be a fine job, and she will be having an impact on Amercian society for two or three more decades.

avatar

I would like to see Hillary lead the charge for health care reform (passage not administration) and then fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. She is an extraordinarily gifted politician, and very few people can match her analytic ability. That would give her a legacy at least as lasting as Bill's and engage her meaningfully for decades. It also plays to her interests and strengths. Her campaign proved that she is not interested in, or good at, administration.

avatar

Salmo, I agree wholeheartedly.

I never thought she could win against McCain or any Republican. I feared a 50-plus-one heartbreaker. Too many negatives. Too much hatred directed her way. Too many skeletons in the closet. The Bill Factor. Blah blah blah.

That said, I do think she could do extraordinary work in the Supreme Court, or in a Cabinet position, or even as Senate majority leader. She is a brilliant person and well-versed, but, unfortunately, a poor administrator. Even if she HAD reached the WH, it would have been leaks and in-fighting and scandals and Bill-gaffes and problems all over again, pretty much like her campaign.

Post a Comment

Inside Cafe

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Claire Wilcox



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address