tag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk/blogs/demnamedrnc//2331 2008-11-04T05:30:41Z Movable Type Pro 4.21-en tag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk/blogs/demnamedrnc//2331.242466 2008-11-04T05:27:23Z 2008-11-04T05:30:41Z

DemNamedRNC tag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk/blogs/demnamedrnc//2331.241871 2008-11-02T00:00:07Z 2008-11-02T01:01:24Z

When does the time come when the job description for the media once again includes correcting falsehood or misinterpretation (intentional or otherwise). Yesterday in Iowa Barack Obama, repeating a sentiment he has offered many times before, stated that the...

DemNamedRNC When does the time come when the job description for the media once again includes correcting falsehood or misinterpretation (intentional or otherwise). Yesterday in Iowa Barack Obama, repeating a sentiment he has offered many times before, stated that the results of the Iowa caucus had vindicated his faith in the American people. Since that time, John McCain has mangled the meaning of Obama's words, to in some way indicate that Obama lacked faith in the American people before that occurence. So, let's parse this out a little bit. From the Mirriam-Webster definition of vindicated:

(1): confirm , substantiate (2): to provide justification or defense for : justify c: to protect from attack or encroachment : defend

Obama states that he had faith in the American people and implies that others did not- now, I'm adding this part myself, but I feel comfortable inferring the implication that Obama had faith while others (myself included) did not have faith that a majority white populace would vote for a black presidential candidate. So when, in Iowa, they did just that they vindicated or provided "justification or defense for" Obama's faith.

Now, I have certainly thought a number of negative things about John McCain, but I have never thought him stupid. So, I can only assume that he is knowingly and intentionally mangling the meaning of Obama's words in order to attack Obama's patriotism. This is not a surprise- John McCain is apparently in the last days on the bad end of a change election. He's going to say anything that might change the game in a hurry. I understand that. What I do not understand is why it would be that in reports on these attacks running all day on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, the Washington Post and the New York Times, not a single reporter has bothered to point it out.  I do not understand how journalists can stand by while a candidate looks at something that is blue, and screams "look- it's red," and rather than saying "no, it's blue" just comment on how hard the candidate is giving it to the other guy... "Wow. Did you hear that Bob... he says it's red. That hurts..."

There are many things I hope to look forward to in the coming administration. I think my fondest hope is that, perhaps, it might be an administration that won't villify the press for their very existence... and that perhaps that may mean that the press will do something they've been afraid to do for a long time... call it like it is rather than like one side would like it to be. Perhaps then, whatever faith we may have in the fourth estate will be... wait for it... vindicated.
]]> tag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk/blogs/demnamedrnc//2331.237387 2008-10-15T22:03:49Z 2008-10-15T22:38:24Z

I keep on hearing msm commentators talking about McCain's history of come backs- "Well, it looks bad for McCain, but don't count him out." It doesn't hold water.He ran for President in 2000. He got beaten- badly! Not his fault,...

DemNamedRNC
He ran for President in 2000. He got beaten- badly! Not his fault, perhaps, but he certainly can't point to a comeback there.

Last year, his campaign was in disarray. He was all over the map. He shook up the campaign and his position improved... a bit. It didn't propel him to the front of the back. It returned him to viability. He then got a series of gifts. First of all, Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thompson, conversely to conventional wisdom, ended up being TERRIBLE national candidates. So, they basically self-immolated. That left Romney and Huckabee. Huckabee was very engaging, but was NEVER going to be a viable national candidate. He was, however, engaging enough to fatally wound Romney. Romney, went limping into New Hamphshire, where Huckabee was not likely to play well, and there was John McCain- always somewhat popular in New Hampshire anyway. And we're off the the races- Romney, having lost in his neighboring state, was not going to come back. Huckabee was never going to have the money to seriously compete on Super Tuesday, and even if he could, there were too many states that would not look kindly on his evangelical background for him to have too good of a day. Bottom line is, McCain won the Republican nomination by being the last man standing at the end of a very short ward of attrition against two highly flawed competetors.

And now, here we are in the Fall campaign... and McCain has been singulalry unimpressive. McCain had a few good weeks when he named Palin and that's about it. And even there, I would argue, he had actually planted the seeds of his ultimate demise- it was a craven political move, reaching out to a part of the party that he had no particular relationship to or taste for. I would also point out that, while all the talk has been that his numbers basically tracked with the Dow. That's partially true, but when he really cratered was after the VP debate- it was at that point that the majority perception of Palin solidified as someone who, like her or don't, is not qualified for the office to which she aspires.

There are three weeks, which is an eternity in politics, but if McCain does prevail, it will almost certainly be due to outside forces, rather than a McCain comeback for which he's never shown a propensity.
]]> tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.221615 2008-10-03T03:37:37Z 2008-10-03T03:37:37Z

Did anyone else notice that, when talking about the diversity of the people supporting John McCain, Sarah Palin only listed one non-Republican... Joe Lieberman... if he is, in fact, a non-Republican. Apparently, in Alaskan Republican circles, when you add the...

DemNamedRNC Did anyone else notice that, when talking about the diversity of the people supporting John McCain, Sarah Palin only listed one non-Republican... Joe Lieberman... if he is, in fact, a non-Republican. Apparently, in Alaskan Republican circles, when you add the former Democrat to Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, and Linda Lingle, you get diversity. Hmmmm. tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.220316 2008-09-27T18:55:13Z 2008-09-27T18:55:13Z

Since last night, I've seen and read a great deal of coverage of the negative response undecided dial groups seem to have had to McCain attacking Obama as naive or not understanding. Much of the analysis has centered around the...

DemNamedRNC
As most analysts have noted over the last several weeks, when the subject is personality, the candidates are tied, or McCain is a little ahead. When the subject matter is policy, Obama has a significant advantage. The reason for the the former can be debated. The reason for the latter is clear: by a 2-to-1 margin, people agree with Obama that the Iraq war was a mistake; by a 2-to-1 margin, people want a timetable for withdrawing our troops; by a 2-to-1 margin, people want the US to engage in active diplomacy with adversarial governments such as Iran and North Korea, and; the list goes on. Recognizing that the majority of Republicans agree with McCain's positions, that means the independents agree with Obama's positions by and even larger margin.

So back to those dial groups- when an undecided voter was listening to McCain say Obama was naive about Iran, what they heard was that THEY were naive about Iran; when McCain said Obama didn't understand what would happen if we withdraw our troops from Iraq, he was saying that those undecideds didn't understand.

I don't think many people cared that McCain was condescending to Obama- McCain was condescending to Obama's ideas- ideas that most of them share- in short, he was condescending to them.
]]> tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.220222 2008-09-27T04:30:34Z 2008-09-27T04:30:34Z

Tonight's debate was, by-and-large, a draw. Obama made some good points. I generally disagree with him, so I won't say that he made good points, but he certainly scored some good points. Neither candidate had any serious gaffes (that will...

DemNamedRNC
That said, I think tonight was the beginning of the end.

Barack Obama has spent most of the general election campaign with a small but discernable edge in the polls. However, with the exception of one or two, he has always fallen short of the 50% mark. People want change, they generally like Obama, and they haven't been quite ready to go all the way over to Obama. As with Reagan in '80, and een Bush in '00, undecideds have needed to see that Obama had a full and firm grasp on foreign affairs and national security. Agree or disagree with him, Obama certainly did that tonight. He was direct and authoritative. The hold outs will begin moving his way now.
]]> tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.184130 2008-03-18T19:22:14Z 2008-03-18T19:22:14Z

As readers of any of my previous posts may have surmised, I am a supporter of Barack Obama. I recognize that my views are colored by my support, and therefore have always tried to bring a reasoned dispassionate approach to...

DemNamedRNC
Like many, I was quite taken by Barack Obama’s keynote address to the 2004 Democratic Convention. I was moved by his sentiments, and impressed by his skill at articulating his sentiments. I would not, however, say that I was “won over” at the time. I was impressed and wanted to learn more about Obama, but I wasn’t clamoring from that moment to see an Obama candidacy. All of that changed when, a few months later, I read his 1995 book, “Dreams from my Father.” From the time I read that book, I was overwhelmed by Obama’s voice; by his ability to reflect, with clarity, on history without being weighted down by it; by his ability to recognize, not just superficially, real grievances on all sides of potentially divisive issues; by his understanding that seeming contradictions in our society can be one of our greatest strengths rather than our most threatening flaw. It was from reading that book that I began to believe that Barack Obama could be the kind of transformational leader that we Democrats have not seen since Kennedy or Roosevelt.

I have continued to support Obama’s candidacy since then, was an early member of the networking side of his website, and was a nearly small donor. But for most of the campaign thus far, I have felt that he, and the campaign, have been harkening back to his second book, “The Audacity of Hope.” While that book is also well written and interesting, it is the writings of a politician providing a political rationale for his candidacy, not a leader laying down a vision.

Today, that changed. Today, rather than using a speech to try to diffuse a political problem, Barack Obama took the ‘audacious step’ of using a political problem as an opportunity to address major social issues. Rather than trying to gloss over or candy-coat, he acknowledged the fact that all sides have some legitimate complaints, and all sides have tried to make some illegitimate hay out of the history of race relations in America. And once again, returning to the unique voice he displayed in “Dreams from my Father,” he pointed out that acknowledging this seeming contradiction could be the source of our greatest strength in moving forward. In short, whatever the outcome of the this nomination campaign or the general election, Barack Obama has re-established himself as the truly transformational leader of this campaign. ]]> tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.183017 2008-03-12T13:49:20Z 2008-03-12T13:49:20Z

The Ferraro saga continues, and is truly heartbreaking. As a longtime supporter (I volunteered for her congressional races and worked for Mondale/Ferraro), I don’t believe that Ferraro is a racist. However, she has clearly become so disconnected that she doesn’t...

DemNamedRNC
Beyond Obama’s assertion that being black has never been part of the ‘Presidential Candidates Handbook,’ there are aspects of Ferraro’s comments that my wife points out to me that are just non-sensical. Ferraro says that Obama would not be in the position he’s in were he a woman of any color, yet she supports a woman who claims to be in roughly the same position. Is she saying that Hillary Clinton is actually a token candidate rather than a legitimate contender? Further, she claims that those arguing the point she’s making are being reverse-racists— they’re attacking her because she’s white. Yet the candidate she supports has refuted her remarks. Is Hillary Clinton practicing reverse racism?

Part of her defense (if you can call it that) is to acknowledge that she would never have been the 1984 Vice Presidential nominee were she not a woman. In fairness, she is right— but the circumstances are not parallel. Ferraro became the Democrats VP nominee because an individual (Walter Mondale) decided to make a bold move and select a female VP nominee. That is very different from a widespread electorate individually choosing to vote for a minority candidate. Mondale was specifically intending to make a statement. It is hard to imagine that the more than 13 million individuals who have voted for Obama thus far are collectively trying to make a statement Further, there are dramatic differences between the two political seasons; Mondale chose to make his statement in a year when Democrats were expected to lose; voters are choosing Obama in a year when Democrats are expected to win. It’s one thing to make a statement choice in a year when you’re going to lose anyway. It’s another thing entirely to cast a statement vote in a year you’re likely to win.

Ferraro seems to have forgotten the way the opposition attempted to marginalize her candidacy by paining her with the brush of stereotypes— both those of a woman and those of an Italian-American. I say she seems to have forgotten this, because she is trying to do the same thing to Obama. She has either forgotten what was done to her, or is so adamant that the gender barrier must be broken before any other, that she is lashing out in this way.

The saddening thing is that Geri Ferraro apparently does not understand her own place in history.  Barack Obama is not in the place that he is solely because he’s black. Hillary Clinton is not in the position that she’s in solely because she’s a woman. They are both, however, where they are in part because Geri Ferraro went first: she took the beating; she took the attempts at marginalization; she took the slurs under the radar, and sometimes not under the radar. It is, in part, because she got that conversation started in 1984 that Obama and Clinton can run on who they are and not on what they are. But by throwing around the language that she is throwing around, by trying to marginalize Obama (and, by extension, Clinton) Geri Ferraro is threatening to drag us all the way back and undo all the good that she had done.

]]> tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.182165 2008-03-07T15:21:57Z 2008-03-07T15:21:57Z

I don't know what the exact wording should have been, but regardless, you are right.There are two lines that have been crossed, neither of which needed to be. To be clear, I am an Obama supporter. But I think it...

DemNamedRNC
There are two lines that have been crossed, neither of which needed to be. To be clear, I am an Obama supporter. But I think it is perfectly legitimate if Clinton wants to argue that she is more prepared to be Commander-in-Chief. I may disagree, but it is a legitimate line of argument. As long as the argument stayed there, I think the Clinton campaign was being tough, but reasonable. But then she crossed the lines:

The first crossing of the line is to suggest not just that she's more prepared, but that she is and Obama is not. It's not crossing the line because it's harsh. It crosses the line because Democrats have been beaten by the Republican fear machine as being too weak in a time of war. These arguments re-elected George Bush, and sent honorable men like Max Cleland into early retirement. The statement that Clinton made essentially accepts the false arguments that Republicans have made in the past by saying that some of us (Democrats) are ready, and some of us really are too weak.

The second line crossing is, frankly, baffling to me. I have to wonder whether the Clinton campaign has become so out of touch that they no longer know what they are actually doing. Democrats have two huge advantages going into this election year. One is the economy, for which the public clearly blames the Republicans. The second issue advantage Democrats have is that most Americans 1) believe the war in Iraq was a mistake, 2) believe that we are less safe as a result and 3) largely blame Republicans for the war. In short, for the first time in recent history, Democrats actually go into a general election with national security as an advantage. By making the statement that she made yesterday, Hillary Clinton has ceded that advantage back to the Republicans. She has harmed Obama, if he is the nominee, by suggesting that he is unprepared, but she has also harmed herself by offering agreement and equal footing to McCain if she is the nominee.

I realize many will say that he's a war hero and hence has equal footing (or an advantage) already. His service was heroic, but he still represents a very unpopular war, and is the poster child for the equally unpopular surge.

These statements by Clinton were damaging to Obama, but ultimately, they were equally damaging to herself and all Democrats.]]> tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.182032 2008-03-07T03:54:07Z 2008-03-07T03:54:07Z

The more focus drawn to Florida and Michigan, the more people are talking, the further we're getting from facts and, ultimately, fair solutions. SO, just to clarify a few things, lets try to dismiss some the fictitious talking points being...

DemNamedRNC
First, the reminder: It was only a few months ago that the media and both parties were wringing their collective hands about the possible length of the primary campaign. Specifically there was fear that, as everyone kept moving primaries earlier, the ’08 Iowa caucuses might end up taking place in ’07. It was in part because of those concerns that the rules about what states could schedule their contests during which windows of time were developed. I have no particular need or desire to defend Howard Dean. However, remember that he has been trying to enforce a policy that was developed to keep the primary process from getting completely out of control.

Now, let’s talk about the fictitious talking points:
In insisting that delegates from his state must be seated, Governor Charlie Crist stated that it was inappropriate that the voters of his state voted and that someone from Washington was arbitrarily disenfranchising those voters. First, there was nothing arbitrary about it: before the vote ever occurred or was even scheduled, it was made very clear to all involved that scheduling the primary before February 5th would be a violation of the rules, and that the primary would not be recognized by the party. Second, it is the Republican controlled Florida Legislature that has disenfranchised Florida voters by knowingly scheduling the original vote in violation of stated rules. The next talking point suggests that, since it’s the DNC that is not recognizing the previous vote, it’s the DNC that should pay for the new election rather than “unfairly taxing the residents of Florida or Michigan.” This is preposterous! The Florida and Michigan legislatures created the infraction, and should pay the cost of correcting the infraction. If the voters, who are innocent bystanders in ALL of this, are unhappy about that, they should vote against their legislators who did this to them.

Now, as I just pointed out, the voters in Florida and Michigan are innocent bystanders in all of this. They didn’t choose the dates for the respective primaries. So, no matter who is responsible, we must develop some way to have these voters represented at the convention.
For Michigan, there has to be some form of re-vote. Everyone other than Hillary Clinton obeyed the candidate agreement to remove their names from the Michigan ballot. Michigan violated the rules, the Clinton Campaign violated the candidate agreement. As a result, Clinton’s was the only name on the ballot. Neither she, nor the state can or should be rewarded for basically unethical behavior. There needs to be a new vote and the state of Michigan should bear the cost.

Florida is a slightly different story, and may pose a reasonable option that avoids the cost of a revote. Unquestionably, the outcome of a vote will be impacted by whether the candidates campaign. Though Clinton, Obama and Edwards were all on the ballot, without the campaigns being able to operate in the state, reach out to potential cross-overs, argue the rationales for the candidacy, etc., the election was nothing but a very shallow beauty contest. Still the three candidates running at the time were on the ballot. Clinton won 50% of the vote, with Obama and Edwards splitting the balance.
Here’s where Edwards can save the day. Edwards may be reluctant to make an endorsement at this time. However, if he specifically says he’s not endorsing, but requests that any delegates he may be entitled to from Florida should vote for Obama, we should end up with an even split of the Florida delegates- an outcome neither of the remaining campaigns could really argue against. Florida did still violate the rules, so there still must be some sanction, such as reducing their number of delegates. Still, the voters are enfranchised and no candidate unfairly benefits or is harmed by the irregularity of an election with no campaign.

These may not be perfect answers, but they are equitable solutions. Again, these problems were caused by politicians, but the victims are the voting citizens of Florida and Michigan. The only reasonable answers must protect victims without benefiting the perpetrators.
]]> tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.180666 2008-02-28T23:56:31Z 2008-02-28T23:56:31Z

I am constantly hearing the Clinton campaign organization being ripped apart for the strategy of running on her experience. Clearly, the logic goes, when experience (Clinton) comes up against a true change agent (Obama), experience loses every time. Therefore, this...

DemNamedRNC
The problem with this theory is that the experience issue was a tactic, not a strategy. The strategy was that Clinton was a winner. To support that strategy, the campaign employed the tactics of establishing her as experienced, burnishing the legend of the Clinton political machine, and trying to create (through fundraising prowess, endorsements, etc) the aura of inevitability. As a reminder, when Clinton announced her candidacy online, her website didn't say "I'm The Most Experienced." The website read "I'm In It To Win It." Presumably, few people run with the intention of losing, so I assume the rationale behind the strategy was that Democrats were so desperate to win the White House after eight years of George Bush that anyone appeared a winner was golden.

Here's the flaw with the strategy: If your rationale for running is that you can win, as soon as you lose, you've lost more than a race (say, the Iowa Caucus), you've lost your core rationale. Ever since that first loss, the Clinton campaign has been desperately trying to convert their tactics into strategies with mixed to poor results. They still have yet to come up with a core rationale for her candidacy, while Obama has a transparent rationale for his.

Surely, the race is not yet over, though it may effectively be over next Tuesday. If it does end with Hillary Clinton returning to the Senate rather than running for President, that lack of a core rationale will ultimately be to blame... and you can blame a campaign organization for not executing an effective strategy, but you can only blame a candidate  for not having a clear rationale for running from the beginning.
]]> tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.180486 2008-02-28T03:18:58Z 2008-02-28T03:18:58Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?ref=opinionBloomberg, in tomorrow's Times, makes it official that he's will not be a candidate... and while he's at, though never naming names, he seems to suggest an Obama endorsement may be coming in the future....

DemNamedRNC http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?ref=opinion
Bloomberg, in tomorrow's Times, makes it official that he's will not be a candidate... and while he's at, though never naming names, he seems to suggest an Obama endorsement may be coming in the future.
]]> tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.180291 2008-02-27T05:56:16Z 2008-02-27T05:56:16Z

I was watching and reading a lot of the "pre-game" for tonight's debate. Several commentators suggested that Clinton would go after Obama as not being sufficiently prepared to be Commander-in-Chief. My own suspicion was that she would not; she would...

DemNamedRNC
Stll, if Clinton goes too negative on the stump the next few days, don't be surprised to see the rest of the democratic presidential candidates throwing their support  elsewhere. One, by painful one.


]]> tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.180280 2008-02-27T03:21:10Z 2008-02-27T03:21:10Z

Just have to say... was there ever a danger that the Independence Party was going to support Hillary Clinton in her Senate Campaign? Her saying that she specifically rejected any potential support is akin to saying "I won't accept John...

DemNamedRNC Just have to say... was there ever a danger that the Independence Party was going to support Hillary Clinton in her Senate Campaign? Her saying that she specifically rejected any potential support is akin to saying "I won't accept John McCain's support if he opts to drop his run, and drop out of the Republican party." Okay... so... tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.179595 2008-02-22T01:45:58Z 2008-02-22T01:45:58Z

Watching the debate thus far, I'm reminded of the debate episode of West Wing. Polling shows that whether the President tries to be 'just plain folks' or the smartest kid in the class, the perception will be that he's arrogant....

DemNamedRNC ]]>