Ever since John Edwards dropped out of the race, there's been speculation about what his role would be in a Democratic administration, if any. VP? No way. My thinking for months has been that he'd never want to go there again but even if he did, he brought so little to the ticket in 04 why would the nominee want to pick him this year? So, what then? My response has always been: Attorney General. What better job for a man who holds social justice as the cause of his life?

Looks like Edwards may feel the same.

When asked whether he'd want to be Vice President, Edwards was surprisingly emphatic:

"No," Edwards said in no uncertain terms on NBC's the Today show when asked about the possibility. "Won't happen....It's just not something I am interested in."

But when asked whether he'd be interested in Attorney General, he began to play coy.

"I don't really want to get involved in that speculation," he said. "Right now we have to focus on getting Barack Obama elected to President of the United States, then we'll worry about those things."

John Edwards is not good at playing these games. Remember when he was on MSNBC recently, he was asked who he voted for and even as he said he wouldn't reveal it, he accidentally used the pronoun "him" referring to his candidate preference. So, I have to take this as an indication that he does want AG and in fact, I suspect, he's probably been in talks with both Democrats about that very role. He'd be perfect for it and what a change it would be after the jokers who've held the position these past few years. Not only that, but as Bowers points out:

While there were some who thought he was overly messianic in his anti-corporate campaign rhetoric (people like positive messages), that strikes me as exactly the attitude we need from an Attorney General.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, john edwards, attorney general (all tags)

Barack Obama has said for months that he "looks forward to having that debate with John McCain", usually referring to issues where Democrats are perceived as weaker than Republicans. In this video clip (h/t TPM) Obama responds to George Bush's "appeasement" attack yesterday and John McCain's embrace of it and in so doing signals clearly that the debate on foreign policy is on. I have to say, watching this, that I'm starting to believe that in Obama's hands, we really can finally win this debate.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, barack obama, john mccain, george bush (all tags)

Last week security guards working at Kaiser Permanente facilities in California went on strike to protest illegal anti-union activities on the part of their employer, Inter-Con Security.  Instead of hiring security guards directly in California, or using a union-friendly security contractor, Kaiser contracts with Inter-Con.  The strike lasted three days.

A few local TV news broadcasts covered the story, and there were a few newspaper articles announcing that there was going to be a strike.  But there was almost no actual coverage of the strike except on progressive sites and labor outlets.  What's up with that?  

Why does the media barely cover labor issues?  

(Continues)

I am proud to be helping SEIU spread the word about this strike.  

Of course, when I write "the media" here I mean the newspapers, TV and radio that we usually call the "mainstream" media and lots of us call the "corporate" media.  This is where most people get the news and information that forms the basis of their opinions and understanding about what is happening - and why it is happening.  And therefore for most people the information presented by this mainstream or corporate media necessarily forms the basis of their voting decisions, their opinion poll survey answers, and their overall acceptance of and consent for actions conducted in their name by government and other institutions of society.

When things are repeatedly reported in "the media" as problems, most people begin to become concerned and perceive that these "problems" need to be somehow "solved."  We see cycles of this development of public concern.  In recent years, for example, the media has done a great deal of reporting on the problem if children being kidnapped.  And there is a great deal of concern about this among parents -- to the point that societal patterns are changing and children rarely are allowed out of the house unaccompanied.  Fewer and fewer children walk to school, go to parks alone, etc.  

In reality child kidnappings are extremely rare, which makes this a case study of the power of the major media to sway the behavior of the entire country.  Over the years similar media-driven concerns about drugs, shark attacks and satanic cults have created waves of national hysteria.

If actual threats held sway, car accidents, guns, and other real threats would receive much, much more public attention and concern.

The other side of this ability to drive public attention is the power to hide real problems.  The national debt is approaching ten trillion dollars, and interest on that debt is approaching half a trillion dollars per year, but is rarely mentioned as a concern.  The military budget is greater than the military spending of all other countries in the world combined, much, much higher than when we faced down the Soviet Union, while a lot of people are making a whole lot of money from it with little public scrutiny.  (This is not even counting Iraq/Afghanistan spending.)  But this is never brought up.

And then there is the problem that labor unions are trying to address.  This is the domination of our government by big-business interests and the accompanying concentration of wealth into the hands of a very few people at the expense of the rest of us.  Workers like the Inter-Con security guards who are trying to organize to demand even minimal pay and benefits are absolutely invisible in today's mainstream/corporate media.  The illegal tactics being used - with the assistance of the Bush administration - are not covered by today's mainstream/corporate media.  But what else would you expect, as the media becomes further and further concentrated into the hands of a few very, very large corporations?  Do you think for a minute that a large corporation would allow any kind of pro-labor stories to be carried on news media that it owns?

You hear that the reason for this is that "labor is declining."  Well there are a lot more members of unions in this country than there are Fellows at neo-con think tanks, but you sure do hear from them a lot in the mainstream/corporate media.  There are a lot more members of labor unions than there are members of the far-right Christian Coalition, but you sure hear a lot about their concerns the corporate media.  And there are a lot more people who work for a living in jobs that pay too little, don't provide adequate health care or sick leave or other benefits and need to hear about the benefits of joining unions.  That's for damn sure.

In fact any coverage of the plight of these security guards is necessarily pro-labor.  When you hear about their living and working conditions you will understand what I mean.  My next post will be about that, so stay tuned.

I encourage you to visit StandForSecurity.org.

Tags: labor, media, corporations, SEIU (all tags)

Unforced errors tend to do in campaigns...

Two years ago, in an interview with James Rubin for Sky News, Sen. John McCain expressed a willingness to negotiate with the terrorist group Hamas -- the very group that McCain has been relentlessly using to smear Sen. Barack Obama over the last several weeks.

Rubin has written an op-ed in Friday's Washington Post about his exchange with McCain, and The Huffington Post has obtained exclusive video. Here's the key excerpt:

RUBIN: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCAIN: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

You can watch the video of the exchange over at HuffPo. Suffice it to say that this one stings for the McCain campaign, both because of the nature of the major flub and because it's not the first time that the candidate's words have come back to bite him. In fact, it has become quite common with McCain to act like he is holier than now, whether on Iraq or campaign finance or some other issue, only to be outed not only as fallible, like any other human (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), but also as cynical, hypocritical, conniving, and overly ambitious -- in other words as just the kind of power-hungry career politician willing to say anything in the hopes of winning an election that Americans hate (which is not such a good thing).

On the issue of Hamas, in particular, because this exchange between Rubin and McCain was caught on tape and it isn't ancient history (just three years ago), this line of attack is now off the table for McCain and the hard right. They simply have no credibility on the issue. What's more, by harping on Hamas from here on out, those on the right would only serve to remind Americans a) that McCain will flip-flop his positions for political convenience, and b) that McCain was recently in favor of reaching out to Hamas. To this end, it's hard for me to think of anything else that could have emerged on this topic that could have been more detrimental to McCain.

Tags: John McCain, Hamas (all tags)

Conflict of interest, anyone?

John McCain's campaign asked a prominent Republican consultant, Craig Shirley, to leave his official campaign role Thursday after a Politico inquiry about Shirley's dual role consulting for the campaign and for an independent "527" group opposing the Democratic presidential candidates. The campaign also released a new conflict of interest policy barring such arrangements.

Shirley, a conservative public relations veteran, doubled as a consultant to McCain and to the group Stop Her Now, a 527 group barred from coordinating its activities with presidential campaigns. He is not currently on the McCain campaign's payroll, but would also step down from his role on McCain's Virginia Leadership Team, a McCain spokesman, Brian Rogers, said.

"If you're working for a 527 involved in the presidential race, you won't have a named role in our campaign," said Rogers.

I'm not quite sure what that means -- people can't have named roles in the McCain campaign and still work on 527 organizations trying to impact the outcome of the presidential race. Does that mean that the McCain campaign is alright having people working on such 527s secretly advising the campaign in non-named roles? Is there another meaning to such a statement that I'm missing? Either way, campaign finance experts aren't terribly impressed.

Campaign finance experts expressed surprise that a McCain consultant would moonlight for a 527, a dual role that could trigger inquiries from the Federal Elections Commission.

[...]

"When you involve the same people there's at least the risk that coordination will be found," said Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in election law issues. "The question is why a campaign would want to run that risk -- especially a campaign like McCain's or Obama's that tries to put itself out there as supporting campaign finance reform and opposing 527s."

This type of attitude towards campaign finance from McCain -- not exactly following the spirit of law, playing games despite having previously spent so much time demagoguing on the issue in the past -- should come as little surprise to MyDD readers as it's something we've written about over and over and over again. And even if it seems that the establishment media haven't fully embraced and accepted this reality, believe me when I say that McCain's shenanigans are not being overlooked by a lot of voters who by November aren't necessarily going to see McCain as so righteous or so honest.

Tags: John McCain, Campaign Finance, 527s (all tags)

What's up tonight?

Tags: open thread (all tags)

Today on Hardball, there was more fawning over how great John Edwards and Barack Obama looked on the stage together yesterday, the point, of course, being that they're a ticket made in heaven. I have to agree they did look great but so did John Kerry and John Edwards four years ago and we all know how well that worked out. The truth is, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton looked perfect together too once upon a time, but the quintessential Dream Ticket image of them standing on the stage together after the Los Angeles debate has been overshadowed by the tension of the race between them that's ensued since then, not to mention the most recent debate, which was anything but a showcase of unity.

But in the minds of these talking heads who seem to have written off an Obama/Clinton ticket but now see Obama/Edwards as the key to Democratic victory in the fall, the perfection of Edwards extends beyond aesthetics. On Hardball today it was suggested by one guest that Edwards was a perfect match for Obama because he could be the bridge between Obama and those elusive white working class voters. It's ironic, of course, that Edwards's endorsement would prompt this discussion since Edwards had cited his concern over the white working class narrative that had emerged post-West Virginia as one of the reasons he chose yesterday to endorse. But my real point here is that in fact, as great a guy and a candidate John Edwards is and was, he has in no way demonstrated that he would somehow be the key to the white working class vote.

Poblano has the goods. He begins:

It seems to be taken for granted that John Edwards had some stranglehold on the working class white vote. But this was not really the case. The working class vote was not a particular strength of John Edwards in either relative or absolute terms.

As evidence, he breaks down how all three candidates performed in the first 5 contests -- through Florida after which Edwards dropped out -- on several measures in an attempt to gauge white working class support. Poblano concludes:

Firstly, John Edwards actually performed slightly better among voters making more than $50,000 per year than among those making less.

Secondly, while we only have this data available in three states, there was no real difference in the education levels of Edwards supporters.

Thirdly, in every state where we have data available, Barack Obama performed significantly better than Edwards among voters making less than $50,000 per year, and among voters who did not attend college. This held true in racially mixed states like Florida, as well as extremely white states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

Fourthly, in every state where we have data available, Hillary Clinton performed significantly better than Edwards among voters making less than $50,000 per year, and among voters who did not attend college.

Now, as Poblano correctly states, this is not to in any way disparage John Edwards but rather just to point out that if it's white working class voters you want, there's just no evidence that John Edwards would deliver them. In fact, Hillary Clinton didn't exactly blow Obama away on this measure either that early in the game but as we've seen in the most recent contests, the game has changed.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic nomination, barack obama, hillary clinton, john edwards (all tags)

At the Atlantic, Marc Ambinder has the story of the McCain campaign belatedly asking employees to disclose potential conflicts:

This morning, according to two Republicans with direct knowledge, Rick Davis, the campaign manager, e-mailed to McCain's entire staff a memo entitled "McCain Campaign Conflicts Policy" -- Effective Today" that includes a questionnaire asking about previous professional activities.

One of the questions asks: "Have you ever been a registered lobbyist at either the Federal or State level?" Another asks: "Have you ever been a registered foreign agent? A third asks staff members to list all of their previous lobbying or foreign government clients.

All staff members are required to submit the form to McCain's campaign counsel, Trevor Potter and his staff, for their review.

Ambinder speculates that because "...the campaign waited until now to ask these questions of staff [it] suggests that no one at a senior enough level saw the presence of many former lobbyists as a problem."

But who says they do now? Have we considered the possibility that this disclosure isn't an attempt to make sure all McCain staff meet some sort of campaign-wide lobbying conflict requirement?

Tags: John McCain (all tags)

You may have already seen the grossly misleading and embarrassingly political smear Bush used against Democrats (and WH aides say Obama) from Israel:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to Israel's parliament, the Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

As Singer pointed out, McSame ramped up the charge, perhaps after realizing he had been looped out of a debate between the President and a Democrat running for the job he wants:

"I think [it] is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation's security."

White flags, surrender, naive, etc..

But let's contrast the responses from two of the surrogates - one Republican and one Democrat.

On the right, a yahoo talk radio host on Hardball in an enormously awkward segment:
On MSNBC's Hardball tonight, right-wing radio host Kevin James attempted to defend President Bush's comments comparing Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) to Nazi appeasers because he favors talking with our enemies. James compared Obama to Neville Chamberlain, about whom James could only cry: "He's an appeaser!"

Matthews pressed James at least 19 times over five minutes to simply explain what Chamberlain had done in 1938 and 1939 to make him an "appeaser." James could only shout his talking point over and over, prompting Matthews to threaten to end the interview:

  MATTHEWS: You don't know what you're talking about, Kevin. You don't know what you're talking about. Tell me what Chamberlain did wrong.

  JAMES: Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, Chris. Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, all right? [...]

  MATTHEWS: I've been sitting here five minutes asking you to say what the president was referring to in 1938 at Munich.

  JAMES: I don't know.

  MATTHEWS: You don't know, thank you.

   

(If you have a couple minutes, click through and watch the whole video - it's the best TV I've seen in weeks)

And on the left, Joe Biden:

"This is bullshit."

Bingo.

Republicans think they can breathe new life into the strategy of veiled accusations of Dems-as-traitors. But it didn't work in the '06 midterms, and it won't in '08.

It all sounds so ridiculous now. Biden's answer says it all.
 

Update [2008-5-15 20:5:18 by Josh Orton]: YouTube version of the Hardball clip below the fold. The puny conservative host Kevin James is actually a relatively good walking, breathing representation of the charge itself: desperate, dishonest, and ridiculous.

Tags: George Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, Joe Biden (all tags)

Today John McCain appeared more than willing to hug George W. Bush again, concurring with the President's ridiculous position that it is a sign of weakness rather than one of strength for America to be willing to speak with other nations of the world, both those that are friendly and those that are not. The McCain campaign went even farther, with the candidate himself becoming unhinged in questioning Barack Obama's qualifications to be President because he doesn't adhere to Bushian views on foreign policy. The response from the Obama campaign was strong:

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor also weighs in: "It is the height of hypocrisy for John McCain to deliver a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning and then embrace George Bush's disgraceful political attack in the afternoon.  Instead of delivering meaningful change, John McCain wants to continue George Bush's irresponsible and failed Iran policy by refusing to engage in tough, direct diplomacy like Presidents from Kennedy to Reagan have done."

The Obama campaign is completely right to invoke Presidents Kennedy and Reagan in talking about the importance of speaking with both friend and foe. They might have even invoked Teddy Roosevelt, who McCain claims to model his career after but who in fact McCain seems to know and understand little about, a President who won a nobel peace prize while in the White House specifically because of his willingness to engage with the world.

But I'd go even a step further and ask why John McCain is afraid to speak with Iran. What is it about Iran that scares McCain so much? Or is it that McCain believes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei are so crafty that they would trick an American President into inadvertently ceding the state of Maine or American Samoa to Iran? Or alternatively, is it that McCain simply does not know how to act in a manner different from his true political role model, George W. Bush?

America shows its strength by being part of the world, not receding from it. If there is any lesson to learn from the period between the two world wars it is exactly that -- it is entirely counterproductive for America to turn inward and be afraid to engage with the world in a meaningful way. But when America is willing to speak with unfriendly nations from a position of strength -- whether President Kennedy speaking with Premier Kruschev, President Nixon speaking with Chairman Mao or President Reagan speaking with Premier Gorbachev, to take three examples -- both America and the world more broadly can reap serious benefits.

Tags: John McCain, Foreign Policy, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)

I've been meaning to post something on this for a while, and have been swamped with work, but popped in here to see a diary on this issue. This is exactly the same mechanism that was used in 2004 on MyDD throughout the election.

As it says, when you click on either of the map counters of EV's:

"This Electoral Vote Map is updated constantly to forecast the 2008 Presidential election based on the latest available state polling."

The very latest poll in each state, without weighting or averaging.

There isn't a bias as to the pollster, if you see the poll listed as credible on Pollster.com, or RealClearPolitics.com, it'll be included. But, if the latest poll is tied, then the result remains the same as the previous latest poll.

This is a forecast made by the very latest poll. If you see a mistake, perhaps a poll was missed that is the latest, then point it out, and one of the admins will make the change.

The forecast isn't a prediction of the election, but a simple up-to-the-minute poll temperature of the state polling.

(update) And yes, you can edit the map yourself, as one user explains:

1) When you first log onto mydd, it populates the two maps with the most recent single poll for each state.

2) If you then click on the map and change it (for example, you don't believe that Hillary would lose WA to McCain), the numbers update to your settings - now it becomes like an EV calculator

3) The next time you log on, or refresh the page even, the counters go back to their poll-generated state.

Tags: transparency (all tags)

As Bush's disastrous tenure as president winds down, we've seen him devolve into a bizarre, almost court jester-like persona.  He's really not even trying anymore, and the more obvious that has become, the further his approval ratings have continued to plummet. But perhaps in a new low for Bush, demonstrating that he truly has no shame and has absolutely no interest in salvaging any ounce of dignity from his final year in office -- and indeed that he intends to play bad cop in the general election -- Mr. 27%, on a trip to Israel to celebrate the nation's 60th anniversary, took the opportunity in his speech to liken Obama to Nazi appeasers.

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to Israel's parliament, the Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

And in case you were wondering if he was being ambiguous, while he may not have named Obama by name...

White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party.

Imagine for a moment a Democratic president criticizing the foreign policy of a Republican presidential candidate on foreign soil, let alone going to Israel to draw a Nazi comparison. Oh, right, my bad, it's OK if you're a Republican...

But in case anyone feared Obama intends to let himself be swiftboated, Obama hit back fast.

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in a statement released to CNN by his campaign. "It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel...."

"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel," Obama's statement said.

As did Howard Dean:

"On the same day John McCain is talking about putting partisanship aside, the President launched a cheap political attack while on a state visit honoring the 60th anniversary of Israel, one of America's greatest allies. Bush's outrageous comments are an embarrassment to our country, not based in fact and bring us no closer to our goal of ending terrorist attacks against Israel and bringing peace to the region. If John McCain is really serious about being a different kind of Republican, he'll denounce these remarks in the strongest terms possible."

2008 is going to be ugly. Not only is Bush in his last throes -- desperate for relevancy to the point of not caring -- so is the entire Republican Party. This sort of attack, which harkens back to their 2004 campaign, is, of course, all they have and we can expect plenty more over the course of the rest of the year. They really don't seem to get that this shit doesn't work anymore. The country has moved on.

Update [2008-5-15 16:4:5 by Todd Beeton]:Joe Biden gets the prize for best response:

“This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement.”

“He is the guy who has weakened us,” he said. “He has increased the number of terrorists in the world. It is his policies that have produced this vulnerability that the U.S. has. It’s his [own] intelligence community [that] has pointed this out, not me.”

Biden noted that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have both suggested that the United States ought to find a way to talk more with its enemies.

"If he thinks this is appeasement, is he going to come back and fire his own cabinet?” Biden asked. “Is he going to fire Condi Rice?”

Message: we will not be swiftboated.

Update [2008-5-15 16:17:37 by Todd Beeton]:And Hillary Clinton responds, via CNN:

"Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous. In light of his failures in foreign policy, this is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced."

Tags: 2008 presidential election, george bush, barack obama (all tags)

In a stunning 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court has ruled today that the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional making it the second state after Massachusetts to allow gay couples to legally marry.

From calitics, the majority opinion concludes:

in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union "between a man and a woman" is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.  In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.

So what does this mean going forward?

Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court.

Wow.

As you'll recall, in 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco authorized the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. 4,000 couples were married until they were halted by the...you guessed it...CA Supreme Court. A stunning turnaround in 4 short (although not short enough) years.

But as Lawyerish rightly points out, this is not the end of the fight. The anti-equality forces won't go down easy and in fact have already submitted a ballot initiative calling for a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to between a man and a woman. If it does make it to the ballot, it won't be until November where millions of motivated Californian liberals will be turning out in record numbers; in other words, I think the good guys just might win this one.

To his credit, Arnold Schwarzenegger has come out against it and reiterated his opposition in a statement today:

"I respect the Court's decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn the state Supreme Court ruling."

Word is that licenses will begin to be issued within 30 to 60 days. This is a huge day for equality and for all Californians. And it gets us closer to the day when the issue of gay marriage won't be perceived to be radioactive by our presidential candidates.

Tags: same sex marriage, california supreme court (all tags)

This is rather interesting. Congressional Republicans, in the wake of their embarrassing and downright depressing loss in the special election in Mississippi's first congressional district, are talking about downplaying the things that currently make the party so unpopular with the American people while trying to embrace as tightly as possible their presidential nominee, John McCain. McCain, however, will have none of it, report Adam Nagourney and Carl Hulse.

But Mr. McCain's advisers said the Mississippi race underlined his intention to distance himself as much as possible from Congressional Republicans. Mr. McCain has already been openly critical of some of President Bush's strategies.

Times are tough when a party's presidential nominee is afraid to being affected by the taint that surrounds his party's membership in Congress. But it's not the first time that we've seen this before. During the run up to the 1948 presidential election, Harry Truman ran as much against the "Do-Nothing Republican Congress"  headed by the unpopular Robert Taft of Ohio as he did GOP presidential nominee Thomas Dewey. What's more, Truman drove a wedge right down the middle of the Republican Party, introducing legislation in Congress seeking the implementation of the moderate policies upon which Dewey was running his campaign -- policies, however, that were anathema to the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill (particularly Taft).

There's a possibility that the Democrats could do the same thing here -- split McCain off from his base, and from the Republican leadership in Congress. The problem, of course, is that unlike Dewey, who was genuinely a moderate and even had some progressive tendencies, McCain is a hard right conservative. Luckily, however, even as McCain finds himself well to the right of center on most issues, his party's leadership and much of its base is even more conservative than he is. On at least a few issues, there is some light of day between McCain and folks like John Boehner.

What could the Democrats do to exploit this? Bring up some of those policies upon the back of which McCain pretends to be a moderate but which he would never exert any real political capital trying to pass if president and dare the Republicans to vote for them. For instance, look at the issue of immigration. Because Republicans on Capitol Hill would never support a serious solution to the problem that attempts to stop the flow of those unlawfully crossing the border while at the same time figuring out a path to legalization for the millions already here who are so important to the American economy, if the Democrats introduced such legislation they could illustrate to the American people that while McCain might talk a good talk, when push comes to shove he (a) can't get it done when it counts, and (b) doesn't command the respect of his own party.

Americans don't want someone who won't or can't get things done to be President. Do nothing Presidents, just like do nothing Congresses, just aren't popular. So although attempting such a move carries at least some risks -- most notably the possibility that McCain comes off as more of a moderate than he actually is -- the potential upsides of such a move, including outing McCain as someone who when push comes to shove will not be able to achieve many if any of the policy proposals where he is slightly less conservative than the rest of his party, just might make it worthwhile.

Tags: House 2008, 2008, John McCain, Republicans, 110th Congress (all tags)

I'd mentioned earlier in the Edwards endorsement speech thread, that John Edwards currently has 19 delegates that may, but don't have to, go to Obama. DemConWatch clarifies:

So how many Edwards delegates are there? Four from New Hampshire, 8 from South Carolina, and 4 so far from Iowa.

With the help of Ben Smith, DemConWatch identifies 13 of the 16. But what about the other 3?

The DCW tracker shows Edwards with 19 delegates. Why the difference? It's because Edwards is projected by The Green Papers to get 3 state-wide delegates at the Iowa State Convention on June 14. But as we learned at the Iowa Congressional District Conventions in April, these delegate projections are only estimates. And it's difficult to see the Edwards forces holding together in June. (assuming the race is still going on then). So those final 3 delegates will likely get reassigned to other candidates, leaving Edwards with the 16 delegates described above.

Edwards also has 13 delegates out of Florida whose fate we will know after the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting on the 31st.

Now, as for the extent to which Edwards's delegates are now compelled to vote for Obama:

...from a political and practical viewpoint, pledged delegates will keep their pledge to vote for the candidate they were elected for until "released" by that candidate. By endorsing Obama, Edwards finally ended his campaign, which had been "suspended" up to now, and "released" his delegates to vote for the candidate of their choice. Of course, these delegates may decide to follow their original candidate and support Obama, and Edwards will of course be contacting them to urge them to support Obama.

In other words, as of now, they are essentially unpledged delegates akin to the supers. The likelihood is, of course, that they'll declare for Obama.

In fact at least one already has.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic nomination, john edwards, barack obama, hillary clinton (all tags)

Bumped - Todd

Well, I just finished my fourth and last final exam for my first year of law school here at Berkeley (which is one of the big reasons why I've been a bit quieter than normal the last couple of weeks). As I don't quite have the juice in me to get up a full post just yet, consider this one an open thread... What's on your mind?

Tags: Open thread (all tags)

Down in Mississippi, the Republicans ran a campaign where they targeted Democrat Travis Childers as being a pawn of Barack Obama under the theory that if they could mention Jeremiah Wright often enough they could scare voters into keeping the state's first congressional district in Republican hands. This wasn't their first attempt at such a move. Next door in Louisiana the Republicans tried to make another special election earlier this month into a referendum on Obama right at the time Wright was saturating the news -- only to lose a seat that had been in Republican hands for more than three decades.

Not only did Republicans lose last night in Mississippi, they lost bad. In a district that George W. Bush carried by 25 percentage points in 2004, Childers won by 8 points -- a swing of 33 points. That's right, 33 points. A great part of this is that voters are beginning to approach congressional elections more like they were parliamentary ones, backing the party instead of thinking just about the candidates themselves. Indeed, the results looked a lot more like the generic congressional ballot in which the Democrats hold a lead approaching 20 points than they do a contest simply between two well-matched candidates.

But it goes beyond voters saying yes to the Democratic Party in corners of the country where the Democrats didn't even seriously try to run in as recently as even a few years ago. This is at least in part a reaction to the deliberate attempt by the Republicans to obfuscate the real issues facing this country and attempt to make this election about the Reverend Wright and all that entails.

This tactic does not work. It did not work in rural Louisiana. It did not work in rural Mississippi. And it will not work elsewhere. Voters, whether suburban, urban or rural, do not want to be condescended to by elites in Washington, DC who think that they can be swayed by ethnic and racial and just pure dirty politics. Just because an election is held in a conservative part of the South does not mean that voters think about race like Jim Clark did in 1965 or Orval Faubus did in 1957 or Strom Thurmond did in 1948. Voters do not like being treated like they are racists by anyone, particularly by a party to whom they have given their support in recent elections.

And yet the leadership of the Republican Party appears determined to continue this strategy, pledging to continue to run ads making the election about Obama, talking about immigration as a "tar baby" for Obama and others, and generally acting in a way that would make Abraham Lincoln roll in his grave. Perhaps when Tom Davis said today that his party was "below the floor" he should have said that the Republican Party is in the much, in the gutter, in a place where the American people simply do not want to go. If this trend keeps up, Republicans will be lucky to only lose 20 seats in the House come November.

Tags: NRCC, House 2008, Republican Party, Race, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Today's Quinnipiac University National poll is the second poll in a row showing a majority of Democrats favoring an Obama/Clinton ticket.

By a 60 - 33 percent margin, Democrats say Obama should pick Clinton as his vice presidential running mate.

That's almost 2 to 1 among a group that prefers Obama to Clinton for the nomination by a slim 45-41 margin.

It should be noted too that the poll finds that either Obama or Clinton at the top of the ticket would defeat McCain in November, Obama by 7 points, Clinton by 5.

Interestingly, Quinnipiac finds that Clinton and Obama perform quite similarly against McCain among white voters, among men and among women. The real difference between how each Democrat fares against John McCain comes among groups with whom Obama has traditionally held more appeal. In other words, when up against John McCain, Barack is stronger among Hillary's base than Hillary is among his.

In an Obama-McCain matchup, independent voters back the Democrat 48 - 37 percent, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds. Men split with 45 percent for McCain and 44 percent for Obama, while women back Obama 49 - 36 percent. McCain leads 47 - 40 percent among white voters, while blacks back Obama 87 - 4 percent.

In a Clinton-McCain contest, independent voters split with 41 - 41 percent. Men go with McCain 46 - 42 percent while women back Clinton 51 - 36 percent. White voters back McCain 48 - 41 percent, the same margin as the Obama-McCain matchup, while black voters back Clinton 79 - 8 percent.

What I find most remarkable about these results is how close this contest is still. The poll was taken from May 8-12 in the wake of the results of last Tuesday's primaries, indeed, at the height of the post-IN & NC "it's over" talk. Yet Obama is up only 4 points above Clinton for the nomination and only fares 2 points better against McCain. It really shows you not only how popular Hillary Clinton is but also how solid her support continues to be and it really begs the question does Barack Obama want to expand the map and have a landslide victory in the fall as he has said he does or is he content to risk simply winning with 50+1? At the risk of sounding like a broken record, more and more I'm convinced that if we're really going to accomplish the former, finally, Hillary Clinton must be on the ticket.

Update [2008-5-14 21:11:59 by Todd Beeton]:I wanted to add that it's also striking how at odds the will of the voters is with conventional punditry. Not only does a majority of Democrats want Obama to pick Clinton for VP, which itself contradicts the "it'll never happen" chorus from the talking heads on the teevee, but there's also this result from the poll:

"Party leaders may be cringing over the potential damage to Democratic chances in November from the endless primary campaign, but two-thirds of the rank-and-file think Clinton ought to keep battling," Carroll added.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic nomination, barack obama, hillary clinton, dream ticket (all tags)

Barack Obama is taking the stage at his rally where John Edwards will announce his endorsement of Obama.

Update [2008-5-14 18:48:48 by Todd Beeton]:"During the course of this campaign, I have gotten to know the candidates very well." He first wants to address Hillary Clinton. Way to stay classy, Grand Rapids, booing Hillary in this context. Sheesh.

Speaking about Hillary Clinton, Edwards said:

"It is very very hard to get up every day and do what she's done. It is hard to get out there and fight and speak up when the odds turn against you. What she has shown is strength and character and what drives her is something that each and every one of us should appreciate. She cares about working people...men and women in Iraq...she is a woman made of steel and she is a leader in this country not because of her husband but because of what she has done...When this nomination battle is over, brothers and sisters, we must come together as Democrats and in the fall stand up for the future of America to make America better. We are a stronger party because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat...and we will have a stronger presidential nominee in the fall because of her work."

Update [2008-5-14 18:54:0 by Josh Orton]: Apologies for stating the obvious, but noticeably not on stage: Elizabeth Edwards.

Update [2008-5-14 19:1:52 by Todd Beeton]:"What all of us believe is in this America that we love so much, no matter who you are, no matter who your family is and no matter the color of your skin, none of those things will control your destiny and that one America that I've talked about is not only possible but it will be achieved under President Barack Obama starting in January, 2009."

Tags: barack obama, john edwards (all tags)

CNN confirms. Will likely be around 6:15-6:30ET tonight in Michigan.

Update [2008-5-14 18:4:24 by Josh Orton]: Looks like CNN will stream the endorsement rally here. Should start around 15 minutes from now. I'm told Edwards' plane just landed.

Update [2008-5-14 18:30:56 by Josh Orton]: Michigan Messenger is liveblogging the rally from the press area there.

Update [2008-5-14 18:38:41 by Todd Beeton]:Will be interesting to see how and whether John Edwards addresses the issue of his delegates. Will he ask them to support Barack Obama and will that then compel the Obama campaign to shift them to his column? Right now, without MI & FL, Edwards has 19 pledged delegates. That number goes up to 32 if MI & FL are fully seated. On CNN Jeffrey Toobin just suggested Edwards's delegates will put Obama within 100 votes of the nomination. Bill Schneider countered with confirmation that "they can vote any way they want. We're not going to put them in the Obama column right now, we'll call them first..."

Tags: John Edwards, Barack Obama (all tags)