Sheldon Silver needs to go; why NY needs Obama-style bottom up reform and Paul Newell for Assembly


Just about a year ago when I began volunteering with a political campaign for the first time, my candidate was considered a long shot at best.  That candidate was facing the full weight of an overwhelming political establishment.  Opinion makers quickly dismissed the upstart candidate as too young and too inexperienced, noting the primary would be nothing more than a <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2654.html">formality</a> or <a href="http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/10/194329/990">procedural</a> <a href="http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/by_frank_james_if_you.html">obstacle</a> on the way to the front runner's <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,221661,00.html">inevitable</a> <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1011/p08s01-comv.html">coronation</a> [1].

Of course, that "incumbent" candidate was Hillary Clinton; Barack Obama, my candidate, the one pundits expected to implode into a cloud of inexperience under the crushing weight of the establishment with an audible 'poof', is now our Democratic nominee.  There's still a great deal of work to be done before Barack Obama becomes our 44th President, but he's out of the gate with a strong lead, even with the wounds of our the long, contentious primary campaign still slowly mending.

New to politics a year ago, I entered the fray with only a passing familiarity with the candidates various policy proposals.  Despite my indifference and apathy at the time, Barack Obama's commitment to good government policies -- specifically campaign finance reform, government transparency and ethics reform -- drew me into the campaign, and eventually into Democratic politics for good.  I could go on and on about my admiration for Obama's dedication to these issues, how good-government, campaign finance, and increased transparency are the prerequisites for lasting change, but I imagine there's little need to trumpet Obama to TPM (for the record, this post was originally <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/23/152528/967/517/538495">written for a broader audience at dailykos</a> -- I hope TPM readers enjoy the topic as well).

Well, once again I'm rooting for the reformer-underdog.  Still, despite the overwhelming weight of New York's establishment machine bearing down on Paul Newell campaign, <strong>I'm more convinced than ever that Obama-style bottom-up <em>Change</em> is precisely what NY state so desperately needs.</strong>

<a href="http://www.newellnyc.org/">NEWELLNYC.ORG</a>
<a href="http://img401.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newellobamawitzlb0.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1547/newellobamawitzlb0.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a><br />

Like Obama, Paul Newell's campaign for New York State Assembly in Lower Manhattan insists that <a href="http://www.newellnyc.org/2008/04/reforming-albany.html">reforming Albany</a> should be our top priority.  In light of the recent FISA capitulation, it may seem hard to believe, but NY state Democrats are often even less effective than our US Congressional Democratic majority at delivering real reform, despite an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Assembly#Current_composition">overwhelming Democratic majority</a> in the State Assembly (of course, Republicans <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Senate">control the State Senate</a> -- I'll address that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering">problem</a> shortly).

<blockquote>Albany is broken, corrupt and unaccountable.  As one of the three-men-in-a-room, Sheldon Silver is directly responsible.  The dysfunction of Silver's Albany cabal denies democracy to New Yorkers and costs us billions in funds spent unaccountably.  Behind closed doors, Silver and Bruno are listening to the concerns of campaign donors and party bosses instead of New Yorkers.

<strong>Outside of that room, New Yorkers are looking for real change.</strong>
-- <a href="http://www.newellnyc.org/2008/04/reforming-albany.html">Paul Newell</a> (newellnyc.org) </blockquote>

Let's look at a couple examples of Albany's culture of corruption actively blocking progressive change in New York and protecting some of the most regressive laws in the country today.  New York's draconian <strong>Rockefeller Drug Laws</strong> -- on the books since 1973 -- have survived for decades despite repeated attempts at meaningful reform, and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/nyregion/13nyc.html?ex=1368417600&en=3ec4191b8d17b2a8&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink">near</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/opinion/27tue3.html?ex=1369540800&en=277aca3a119ff84f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink">universal</a> <a href="http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/03/between_the_roc.php">recognition</a> of the need for reform in the state (<a href="http://www.drugpolicy.org/statebystate/newyork/rockefellerd/">succinct history of the Rockefeller Drug Laws</a>).  While meaningful incremental reform did make it through the legislature in 2004 (<a href="http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch738_druglaw_reform_2004.htm">Drug Law Reform Act of 2004</a>, or DLRA), reducing mandatory minimum sentences and expanding drug treatment programs, the reform was missing most of the key ingredients for lasting reform.  Most importantly, so called "judicial discretion" still hasn't been restored, leaving prosecutors the "power to determine sentencing due to the mandatory sentencing provisions" (drugpolicy.org).

<blockquote><strong>Drop the Rockefeller Drug Laws</strong>
...
Rockefeller drug laws are possibly most destructive piece of legislation on the books. Tens of thousands New Yorkers are serving multi-year sentences for non-violent drug offenses.  This is breaking up our families and destroying lives.

While a clear majority of New Yorkers have supported Rockefeller reform for many years, Sheldon Silver and Joe Bruno's culture of failure in Albany have consistently failed to bring change.
http://www.newellnyc.org/2008/04/drop-the-rockefeller-drug-laws.html
</blockquote>

Early last year, meaningful reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws appeared again on the floor of the legislature, even <a href="http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A6663">passing</a> by a <a href="http://assembly.state.ny.us/Press/20070418/">comfortable margin</a> in the State Assembly.  News of reform passing the state Assembly sounds encouraging, except when that reform is ultimately <a href="http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A6663">killed in the State Senate</a> shortly thereafter.  But wait, you say!  How could progressive New Yorkers conceivably blame Silver's Assembly leadership for drug reform's demise in the Republican controlled Senate?  Here's where New York state politics get really interesting (i.e., depressing), hopefully compelling any reform minded progressives to rally around our noble cause.

<a href="http://img522.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2206488686302dffb36xv7.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/5113/2206488686302dffb36xv7.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a>
<em><a href="http://flickr.com/photos/jesst7/220648868/">Capitol Park</a> by flickr user <a href="http://flickr.com/photos/jesst7/">iessi</a>, used under Creative Commons license</em>

When Newell speaks about reforming Albany, he invariably focuses on the insidious "three-men-in-a-room" problem, whereby Assembly Speaker Silver, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and the Governor effectively control the state.  Bruno and Silver especially, have developed a cooperative relationship in Albany effectively designed to protect incumbents -- in fact "<em>since 1970, twice as many NY legislators have died in office than been defeated by challengers</em>" (newellnyc.org).  Here's a quick rundown of one major cause of this problem from the Gotham Gazette and NYTimes (emphasis mine).
<blockquote>In New York State redistricting is officially done by the six members of the Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR), who are appointed by legislative leaders on both sides of the aisle. The task force thus takes on the aura of a disinterested bipartisan body. <strong>In reality, the leaders of each house have agreed to split the spoils. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver controls redistricting for the Assembly and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno controls redistricting for the Senate.</strong> And if that power divide isn't distressing enough, state law and legal precedent have established that district lines CAN be drawn in order to ensure that party representation and incumbency are protected.
...
In fact, overall, New York State ranks near the bottom in terms of turnover in its legislative races. In 2002 no incumbent lost a general-election race in New York. Over the past twenty years, only 30 incumbents have lost general election races. This is an incumbency return rate statewide that hovers around 98 percent.
<strong>GG</strong>, <a href="http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/fea/20050214/202/1318">Why Gerrymandering Must Go</a> by Doug Israel (February 14, 2005)
</blockquote>

<blockquote>Mr. Silver’s extraordinary power comes from his safely gerrymandered majority and his unchallengeable hold on his district. But it also comes from his members.
<strong>NYT,</strong> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/nyregion/20silver.html?ex=1340078400&en=77c6d92128bf3b1d&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink">Silver Wields Power by Keeping Albany Guessing</a> By Joyce Purnick (June 20, 2007)</blockquote>

Gerrymandering doesn't nearly capture the entirety of Albany's chronically-dysfunctional nature, but it's an important aspect of our state government that fosters unaccountability.  Campaign finance, Tammany-style machine politics, and various other <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Alexandra_Dupr%C3%A9">distractions</a> have plagued New York politics for decades.  When politicians literally draw their own districts, it becomes impossible to hold our leaders accountable.  Despite his continued support for Albany's crippled politics -- a system specifically <strong>designed</strong> to deliver an unrepresentative Republican State Senate majority, Sheldon Silver gets to claim credit for the Assembly's efforts to reform the state's archaic, racist, and inhumane Rockefeller Drug Laws.  Corruption at the very foundation of Albany's politics is directly responsible for New York's continued inability to enact progressive legislation and reform, specifically reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws despite overwhelming support from New Yorkers.

<blockquote>In November 2006, more New Yorkers voted for Democrats for NY State Senate than for Republicans
...
92% of NY voters who voted for a Republican State Senate candidate picked a winner.
43% of NY voters who voted for a Democratic State Senate candidate picked a loser.
<a href="http://www.thealbanyproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=111">Gerrymandering and the 51% minority</a> by <a href="http://www.thealbanyproject.com/">TAP</a>'s Scott in NJ (Dec 19, 2006)
</blockquote>

Beyond supporting the state's broken political foundations, Shelly Silver's cloistered leadership style creates additional problems for New Yorkers.  Take for example Congestion Pricing, the recent proposal supported wholeheartedly by New York City Mayor <a href="http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/78982">Mike Bloomberg</a>, then Governor <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/nyregion/08congestion.html?ref=nyregion">Eliot Spitzer</a>, and the <a href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/03/31/city-council-passes-congestion-pricing/">New York City Council</a>.  For downtowners, Congestion Pricing would have meant "$354 million in federal funds to help mass transportation, ease traffic congestion and improve the air that all New Yorkers breathe" (NYT, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/opinion/08tue2.html?ex=1365393600&en=869378308b2df8e8&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink">Mr. Silver Does It Again</a>).  More specifically, 10.4 million dollars of those federal funds would have helped launch congestion pricing in NYC (high startup costs plagued London's congestion pricing implementation), "$213.6 million to improve and build new bus depots, $112.7 to develop bus rapid transit routes, and $15.8 million for expanded ferry services" (Wikipedia, New York congestion pricing).

Without holding a vote or even allowing debate on the Assembly floor, Sheldon Silver killed congestion pricing for New York City.  $354 million in federal mass transit financing?  <a href="http://gothamist.com/2008/04/07/breaking_silver.php">Gone</a>; given instead to <a href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/04/29/chicago-gets-nycs-congestion-pricing-money/">Chicago</a>.  New, reliable source of revenue for mass transit projects?  <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/congestion-pricing-plan-is-dead-assembly-speaker-says/">Squashed</a>.  Improved air quality and quality of life?  Swept aside without a vote, or even a single word of debate.

Silver claims a vote would have been a waste of time, that "fewer than 25 Democratic members of the chamber would have voted in favor of the bill" (NYT, <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/congestion-pricing-plan-is-dead-assembly-speaker-says/">Congestion Pricing Plan Dies in Albany</a>).  Earlier, when the provision was <a href="http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/fea/20070806/202/2253">approaching the City Council</a>, skeptics were raising the same <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/city-council-vote-expected-on-congestion-pricing/">doubts</a> before the vote there, in hopes of scaring off supporters.  Despite gaining a state commission endorsement, enjoying a comfortable 30-20 victory in the <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/council-panel-approves-congestion-pricing-measure/">City Council</a>, in the end, NYC's Congestion Pricing Plan was brought down by a single man behind closed doors, hidden from the constituents he's been elected to serve.

<blockquote><strong>Rarely does one man have a chance to do so much harm to so many.</strong>
NYT, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/opinion/08tue2.html?ex=1365393600&en=869378308b2df8e8&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink">Mr. Silver Does It Again</a> (April 8, 2008)</blockquote>

<blockquote>As if to underline the absolute discretion that these 107 state legislators in the Assembly exercise over major state and city legislation, the final blow to the bill was administered on April 7 in private—a committee killed it before it could even come to the floor. Mr. Silver’s members had spoken to him, they said afterward—and he listened.
<a href="http://www.observer.com/2008/congestion-drip-sheldon-silver-man-blame?page=0%2C0">Congestion Drip: Is Sheldon Silver the Man to Blame?</a> by Azi Paybarah (April 8, 2008)
</blockquote>

<a href="http://img211.imageshack.us/my.php?image=18450783132c506e3a4ku6.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/7805/18450783132c506e3a4ku6.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a>
<a href="http://flickr.com/photos/thejcgerm/184507831/">Typical</a> by flickr user <a href="http://flickr.com/photos/thejcgerm/">thejcgerm</a>, used under Creative Commons license

<blockquote>It takes true leadership and courage to embrace new concepts and ideas and to be willing to try something.  Unfortunately, both are lacking in the Assembly today.

If that wasn't shameful enough, <strong>it takes a special type of cowardice for elected officials to refuse to stand up and vote their conscience- on an issue that has been debated, and amended significantly to resolve many outstanding issues, for more than a year.  Every New Yorker has a right to know if the person they send to Albany was for or against better transit and cleaner air.  People know where I stood, and where members of the City Council stood.  They deserved at least that from Albany.</strong>
<a href="http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2008a%2Fpr126-08.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1">STATEMENT BY MAYOR MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG ON THE FAILURE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO VOTE CONGESTION PRICING</a>  (04/07/08)</blockquote>

<blockquote>Sheldon Silver's killing of congestion pricing without even a vote showed contempt for both the democratic process and the concerns of Lower Manhattan. Of 150 Assembly districts in New York, none would have benefited more from that bill than the 64th. We have the Brooklyn Bridge, the Manhattan Bridge, the Williamsburg Bridge, the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, and about three blocks outside the district is the Holland Tunnel. We have dramatically higher asthma rates than the rest of the country. We have noise pollution.
...
I understand why Brodsky opposed congestion pricing. I disagreed with him, but I understand where he's coming from at least. His constituents felt they were going to be paying this fee. This was a bill that was going to help the 64th Assembly district directly. We needed leadership and it wasn't there. My question then becomes, "What is the point of being represented by the Speaker of the State Assembly if he doesn't go to bat for you?"
<a href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/04/30/paul-newell-on-congestion-pricing-and-reforming-albany/">Paul Newell on Congestion Pricing and Reforming Albany</a> by Ben Fried (April 30, 2008)
</blockquote>

New Yorkers statewide will never get meaningful legislature reform, ethics overhauls, campaign finance reform, third-party redistricting or transparency initiatives as long as Sheldon Silver continues to lead the state Assembly.  Sheldon Silver's maniacal obstructionism affects millions of New York voters.  While Silver has continuously sent the district generous earmarks in hopes of placating any resentment, there a growing constituency that understands Silver's leadership is a net negative for the neighborhood and New York state.  Paul Newell understands the need to reach these voters, and expand the pro-reform message by speaking about the insidious <a href="http://www.newellnyc.org/2008/04/reforming-albany.html">three men in a room</a>, <a href="http://www.newellnyc.org/2008/04/congestion-pricing.html">Congestion Pricing</a> and Albany's crumbling foundations, alongside red meat Democratic issues like <a href="http://www.newellnyc.org/2008/04/affordable-housing.html">affordable housing</a>, and <a href="http://www.newellnyc.org/2008/04/public-schools.html">public schooling</a>.

In AD64, fewer than 10,000 votes can deliver real change to Albany, communicating to any too-comfortable incumbents in the Assembly that New Yorkers are need lasting Change.  Democratic politics are in an exciting place; we've got a mobilized, excited base across the country thanks in large part to Barack Obama.  New voters and activists join our cause every day.  This moment is unique, but we need help to turn these golden opportunities into real change, to go from <a href="http://www.blogpac.com/node/50">Blue to Bluer</a>.

<em><strong>New York progressives, we desperately need your help.  Visit <a href="http://www.newellnyc.org/">NEWELLNYC.ORG</a>, <a href="http://dlcc.wiredforchange.com/o/5519/t/44/signUp.jsp?key=14">Join Our Mailing List</a> and <a href="http://www.newellnyc.org/donate.html">Contribute</a>, if possible.</strong></em>

<b>***</b> <b>TOMORROW NIGHT</b> (Tues., June 24th) the Newell campaign is hosting its last fundraiser for the quarter.  Details are available at <a href="http://mypaulnewell.com/blog/?q=node/2">mypaulnewell.com</a>.  Event runs from 7-10 pm, with an open beer & wine bar 7-8:00pm @ M1-5 (52 Walker St., B'twn Church & Broadway) <b>***</b>

Additional Reading
*<a href="http://nymag.com/news/politics/47409/"> The Obstructionist</a> Is State Assembly leader Sheldon Silver the master of passive-aggressive politics, or the guy who keeps bad things from happening to good people? By Geoffrey Gray (Jun 1, 2008)
*<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/8/143722/1718"> NY Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver - Worthless Political Hack</a> by Shane Hensinger (Apr 08, 2008)
*<a href="http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5384"> Blue to Bluer: Taking On Sheldon Silver</a> by Chris Bowers (Apr 25, 2008)
*<a href="http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5630"> Paul Newell is the progressive choice for New Yorkers</a> by Evan Hutchison (May 07, 2008)
*<a href="http://www.thealbanyproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2030"> AD-64 (Yes, Shelly's): Meet Paul Newell</a> by Phillip Anderson
*Paul Newell Interview @ StreetsBlog [http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/04/30/paul-newell-on-congestion-pricing-and-reforming-albany"> Pt.1</a> & <a href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/04/29/paul-newell-on-starting-a-political-campaign-in-new-york-city/"> Pt.2</a> by Ben Fried
*<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/nyregion/20silver.html?ex=1340078400&en=77c6d92128bf3b1d&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink"> Silver Wields Power by Keeping Albany Guessing</a> NYT Editorial Board (April 8, 2008)
*<a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/04/06/2008-04-06_shelly_silver_shadow_governor.html"> Shelly Silver, shadow governor</a> By Celeste Katz and Larry McShane (April 6th 2008)
*<a href="http://www.nysun.com/new-york/paul-newell-32-is-inspired-by-fight/74433/"> Paul Newell, 32, Is Inspired By Fight on Rockefeller Laws</a> By JACOB GERSHMAN
*<a href="http://www.nysun.com/opinion/stalking-horse-on-the-loose/80015/"> Stalking Horse on the Loose?</a> By JACOB GERSHMAN (June 16, 2008)


[1]of course, plenty of sharp thinkers <a href="http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/is_clinton_inevitable/index.php">noticed</a> the inevitability strategy was <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070326/greider">a canard</a> from the beginning.

Rasmussen to terminate Dem. primary polling


As expected, Senator Obama's national numbers are beginning to grow following last tuesday's primaries in North Carolina and Indiana.  Their latest tracking poll places Obama's support comfortable ahead of Clinton and outside the margin of error, also marking "the first time Obama has reached the 50% level of support since April 15." 

More interesting than the actual results, however, is Rasmussen's decision to terminate their daily tracking poll for the Democratic primary in the very near future.

However, while Senator Clinton has remained close and competitive in every meaningful measure, she is a close second and the race is over. It has become clear that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

At the moment, Senator Clinton’s team is busily trying to convince Superdelegates and pundits that she is more electable than Barack Obama. For reasons discussed in a separate article, it doesn’t matter. Even if every single Superdelegate was convinced that the former First Lady is somewhat more electable than Obama, that is not enough of a reason to deny him the nomination.

With this in mind, Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race and focus exclusively on the general election competition between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. Barring something totally unforeseen, that is the choice American voters will have before them in November. While we have not firmly decided upon a final day for tracking the Democratic race, it is coming soon.

Rasmussen's decision seems to indicate the conventional wisdom propagated by bloggers and pundits is (finally) seeping into the real world, and affecting real decisions.  Huzzah!

"Hope" Is Finished; The Lie That Will Destroy Obama!


Hillary's team is doing a bang up job of "drawing sharper contrasts" in their latest Facthub posting. Brace yourselves for some devastating news here ladies and gents, in just one single blogposting is contained the lie that will tear victory from Obama's overambitious, inexperienced, formerly-muslim fingertips.

Fact Check: Hillary versus the Republicans

12/29/2007 6:21:49 PM

Today, Sen. Obama falsely claimed that he was the only candidate who beat every Republican in recent polls:

Most recent polls, I am the only candidate who beats every single one of the Republican candidates. I beat Giuliani, I beat McCain, I beat Romney, I beat Thompson, I beat Huckabee, I beat 'em all. I beat them all…John Edwards doesn't beat them all. Hillary Clinton doesn't beat 'em all.

Many recent polls contradict his claims. Sen. Obama is not beating Sen. McCain:

McCain vs. Obama

Poll Date, McCain (R), Obama (D), Spread

FOX News 12/18 - 12/19

McCain 44% Obama 40% -- Spread, McCain +4%

CNN 12/06 - 12/09

McCain 48% Obama 48% -- Spread, Tie

Oh christ! A tie! 4%! Obama you lying scumbag, you haven't beat all the republicans in every polling matchup ever!

But wait, the post gets better. Here's the rest of the posting:

And recent polls also show Hillary is also beating her other potential Republican opponents:

Giuliani vs Clinton/Obama

NBC/WSJ 12/14 - 12/17

Giuliani 43% Clinton 46% -- Clinton +3%

Giuliani 40% Obama 49% -- Obama +9%

USA Today/Gallup 12/14 - 12/16

Giuliani 48% Clinton 49% -- Clinton +1%

Giuliani 45% Obama 51% -- Obama +6%

Battleground 12/09 - 12/12

Giuliani 44% Clinton 50% -- Clinton +6%

Giuliani 43% Obama 46% -- Obama +3%

CNN 12/06 - 12/09

Giuliani 45% Clinton 51% -- Clinton +6%

Giuliani 45% Obama 52% -- Obama +7%

Huckabee vs Clinton/Obama

FOX News 12/18 - 12/19

Huckabee 38% Clinton 47% -- Clinton +9%

Huckabee 35% Obama 44% -- Obama +9%

NBC/WSJ 12/14 - 12/17

Huckabee 44% Clinton 46% -- Clinton +2%

Huckabee 36% Obama 48% -- Obama +12%

USA Today/Gallup 12/14 - 12/16

Huckabee 44% Clinton 53% -- Clinton +9%

Huckabee 42% Obama 53% -- Obama +11%

CNN 12/06 - 12/09

Huckabee 44% Clinton 54% -- Clinton +10%

Huckabee 40% Obama 55% -- Obama +15%

Romney vs Clinton/Obama

USA Today/Gallup 12/14 - 12/16

Romney 46% Clinton 52% -- Clinton +6%

Romney 39% Obama 57% -- Obama +18%

Battleground 12/09 - 12/12

Romney 44% Clinton 50% -- Clinton +6%

Romney 42% Obama 48% -- Obama +6%

CNN 12/06 - 12/09

Romney 43% Clinton 54% -- Clinton +11%

Romney 41% Obama 54% -- Obama +13%

Thompson vs. Clinton/Obama

Rasmussen 11/19 - 11/20

Thompson 44% Clinton 46% -- Clinton +2%

Thompson 41% Obama 48% -- Obama +7%

Gallup 11/11 - 11/14

Thompson 40% Clinton 53% -- Clinton +13%

Thompson 38% Obama 51% -- Obama +13%

screen capture

See that? In hopes of catching Obama in a "lie" - and I'm certain Obama was really just quoting some specific poll which supported his claim, as all campaigns do - they've voluntarily posted poll numbers that show Obama consistently outperforming Hillary in match-ups versus every single Republican candidate. I see Hillary outperforming Obama exactly once in the midst of all those results, with a 6% Clinton margin over Giuliani against Obama's 3% margin according to Battleground.

More seriously, this sad little Facthub posting speaks to the glaring weakness last night's Obama Iowa victory exposed in the Clinton campaign. She has no salient message, no reason for being. Obama is hope, a candidate for the next generation hoping to leave the bitter boomer partisanship behind. Edwards offers a populist message, a triumphant, unstoppable progressive determination. In a sentence, the best I can come up with for Hillary is "the nineties", or "experience".

Last night should be all the evidence the Clinton campaign needs that's "experience" isn't a terribly persuasive campaign message. Earlier this morning, The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder posted a list of Clinton counter-attacks, and effort at re-messaging, and re-legitimizing the case for Clinton. One of those arguments was the following:

The Clinton Counter Attack

6. Run against the idea of John McCain as the Republican nominee; in other words, who's better to face McCain: Clinton or Obama?

While the sixth point focuses directly on McCain, the underlying argument is the familiar case of Clinton's superior electability. Just when the Clinton campaign's misguided poll driver messaging should be refocusing, they release this sad, unintentionally hilarious Facthub Obama smack-down, inadvertently regressing into the same old tired strategy that resulted in embarrassing Iowa defeat.

And just in case this blog posting results in shocking controversy, resulting in the article getting pulled, I've preserved it here:

In Light of Telecom Amnesty Bill, Some Dem. Fundraising Data


Back in May, still early in the primary season, the Washington Post published a story citing Senator Hillary Clinton as the big fundraising winner among telecom employees. Framing that particular article was Net Neutrality issue. According to the article, Hillary and Obama had recently co-sponsored legislation that would have enforced net neutrality. The author thought it strange that democrats would be out raising Republicans with such visible and divisive issues standing between telecos and Democrats. With all signs indicating Democrats will be back in the White House in '08, employees of telecommunications corporations (among others) continue to be shift their fundraising dollars towards the presumptive victors.

Telecom Leaders Open Wallets for Clinton

Hillary Rodham Clinton's fundraising machine is working its magic among employees of the nation's biggest telecommunications companies, despite her support for an industry-unfriendly legislative initiative.

...

Overall, employees of the nation's telecommunications and cable television companies contributed $119,250 to Clinton's campaign. McCain took in $79,300, an analysis of Federal Election Commission records showed.

...

Of $59,300 in contributions from Verizon employees, $20,700 went to Clinton, $13,350 went to Obama and $11,750 went to McCain.

(note: some totals above includes cash from corporations not implicated by the warrantless surveillance program)

In light of the dismal GOP presidential field and impressive Bush approval ratings, it seems corporate fundraising has started funneling into the pockets of Democrats. Glenn Greenwald recently recommended a spectacular article on this topic at Wired relating directly to the Telecom Immunity FISA "compromise" bill, Democratic Lawmaker Pushing Immunity Is Newly Flush With Telco Cash (Ryan Singel). In the spirit of these wonderful articles, I it would be helpful to tabulate 2008 political contributions by employees from the three Telecom corporations implicated by the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance program: Verizon, AT&T , Bellsouth (now part of AT&T) and SBC (now also AT&T).

First, I should mention a few things about how I added things up. For each candidate, I've included the total donor count, total dollars contributed, number of donors contributing $2,000+ and number of donors contributing $500+. The number of donors contributing over $500 (you'll see) includes the group contributing over 2,000. I didn't include the other trailing democratic candidates, because there weren't enough separate donations to make it worth my time to keep track. With that said, off we go:

Employer: AT&T

$89,321 was given by people who identified their employer as "AT&T".

$28,891 to Republicans $60,430 to Democrats

  • Hillary Clinton (17 donors)

    $27,838

    >1999 7

    >499 11

  • Barack Obama (29 donors)

    $28,668

    >1999 4

    >499 16

  • John Edwards (5 donors)

    $2874

    >1999 0

    >499 1

--

Employer: SBC/Southwestern Bell Company (AT&T merger)

$9,100 was given by people who identified their employer as "SBC".

$0 to Republicans $9,100 to Democrats

  • Hillary Clinton (2 donors)

    $5,000

    >1999 1

    >499 1

  • Barack Obama (1 donors)

    $2,100

    >1999 1

    >499 1

  • John Edwards (1 donors)

    $2,000

    >1999 1

    >499 1

--

Employer: SBC Communications (variation of above)

$1,687 was given by people who identified their employer as "SBC Communications".

$0 to Republicans $1,687 to Democrats

  • Hillary Clinton (3 donors)

    $1,687

    >1999 0

    >499 2

--

Employer: BellSouth (merged with AT&T effective 12/29/06)

$2,740 was given by people who identified their employer as "BellSouth".

$2,240 to Republicans $500 to Democrats

  • Hillary Clinton (1 donors)

    $500

    >1999 0

    >499 1

--

Employer: Cingular (AT&T)

$250 was given by people who identified their employer as "Cingular".

$0 to Republicans $250 to Democrats

  • John Edwards (1 donors)

    $250

    >1999 0

    >499 0

--

Employer: AT&T Wireless

No Contributions Found

****

Employer: Verizon

$71,459 was given by people who identified their employer as "Verizon".

$29,331 to Republicans $42,128 to Democrats

  • Hillary Clinton (6 donors)

    $23,250

    >1999 5

    >499 6

  • Barack Obama (13 donors)

    $14,228

    >1999 4

    >499 9

  • John Edwards (3 donors)

    $3,400

    >1999 1

    >499 2

--

Employer: Verizon Wireless (variation of above)

$8,385 was given by people who identified their employer as "Verizon Wireless".

$4,559 to Republicans $3,826 to Democrats

  • Hillary Clinton (2 donors)

    $1,000

    >1999 0

    >499 2

  • Barack Obama (3 donors)

    $2,826

    >1999 1

    >499 1

--

Employer: Verizon Communications

$12,450 was given by people who identified their employer as "Verizon Communications".

$8,000 to Republicans $4,450 to Democrats

  • Hillary Clinton (4 donors)

    $3,200

    >1999 1

    >499 1

  • Barack Obama (2 donors)

    $1,250

    >1999 0

    >499 1

--

Employer: MCI (Verizon acquisition)

$250 was given by people who identified their employer as "Mci".

$0 to Republicans $250 to Democrats

  • Barack Obama (1 donors)

    $250

    >1999 0

    >499 0

So there we have it. I have the final total at $62,475 (35 donors) for Senator Clinton, $48,072 (49 donors) for Senator Obama and $8,524 (10 donors) for Senator Edwards. There's a good chance I've missed some individuals, but I've done the best I could to cover the various names each corporation might contain. I used the ridiculously useful Huffington Post FundRace 2008 search tool.

The Washington Post's surprise at the fundraising numbers is a little unfounded. Democrats have always been treated extremely well by employees of telecom corporations, showered with their fair share of fundraising cash. From 1990-2006, Telephone Utilities companies (AT&T) have contributed about 44% of $107m to Democrats. Telecom Service (AT&T & Verizon) corporations actually donated slightly more to democrats, with 52% of $59m falling on the left.

Honestly, these numbers look pretty meaningless besides the tens and tens of millions our candidates have raised. Still, I think the breakdown of the fundraising data tells an interesting story. As expected, Clinton is the favorite of the ranking members of these corporations. She's currently the leading democratic candidate (by a wide margin, if you believe the polls), most likely bet for the WH in '08, and hasn't joined the Edwards/Obama stand against contributions from corporate lobbyists. Does this mean Clinton is a corrupt, a corporate shill? Not necessarily, it just indicates ranking (like AT&T's VP Federal Relations, Peter Jacoby) employees in these telecom companies clearly believe a Clinton campaign would be a more favorable outcome, despite her stance on issues like Net Neutrality.

I really believe this could be a defining issue for the presidential campaigns. If Clinton supports this legislation (or conveniently misses the vote, resulting from "campaign conflicts"), Obama and Edwards could use her position to sharply criticize Clinton's corporate ties, calling the vote an indication that the corporate lobbyist money has some influence over her policy decisions. Combined with Clinton's recent DC based, corporate sponsored "Rural Americans for Hillary" fundraiser, there definitely an unsettling trend emerging from the Clinton campaign.

We haven't heard from Edwards yet on the compromise bill, but I suspect we'll hear some sort of opposition statement shortly. Obama has already the Telecom Amnesty, but it's not yet clear to what degree, if any, Obama will support Dodd's efforts to hold and eventually filibuster the bill. Things are certainly getting interesting.

seanh

user-pic

Following: 2
Followers:

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address