Another Pledged Delegate For Obama

Mississippi has recalculated -- Obama's margin of victory is above the 62.5% threshold, and so he adds a delegate and Clinton gets one taken away.

That means that Obama's pledged delegate lead is now at 169.

McPeak Responds To His Critics

Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak (ret.), a foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, has responded to his critics.

In 1976, then Col. McPeak published an essay in Foreign Affairs entitled "Israel: Borders and Security," where he argued that it was "territorial return which constitutes Israel's chief bargaining" power, and that Israel ought to cede much of the territory it won in the 1967 war in exchange for Arab world concessions.

The American Spectator's Robert Goldberg wrote that the article was in keeping with McPeak's general " anti-Israel and anti-Jewish" outlook, which included a history of comments blaming the pro-Israel vote in "New York" and "Miami" for tilting US policy away from common sense in the region.

In an brief response just posted on Foreign Affairs's website, McPeak flatly denies that either he or Obama is "anti-Israel."

I am a long-time admirer (and think myself a friend) of Israel. In the early 1970s, I played a key role in getting advanced weaponry released to the Israeli Air Force-- capabilities it later put to active use. During that period, I made many official visits to Israel and established close relationships there. These contacts turned out to be useful during Operation Desert Storm, when, as chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, I worked with my Israeli counterparts to help defend Israel from Iraqi Scud missile attacks.

I was a vocal opponent of the George W. Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq, a strategic blunder made worse by slapdash execution. As we have seen, this star-crossed action took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, breathed new life into a moribund al Qaeda, and enhanced Iranian influence in this critical region-- all outcomes which damaged both the United States and our ally Israel.

It is my view and hope that Israel will have our continued support. I wish it every success. Of course, what Israel regards as success is up to it to decide. But for friends like me, "success" means a secure Israel at peace with neighbors who recognize and respect its existence. Even so, we should maintain our special relationship and help Israel keep its qualitative military edge.

100 Years Of Solitude? McCain And Iraq

It's fair to say that John McCain has said that some measure of U.S. troops might stay in Iraq for as long as 100 years. Or something like that.

It's not fair to say that McCain wants to war to continue for 100 years.

There is a school of thought that holds that the presence of troops contributes to and feeds the instability and so, it may well be fair to link the presence of troops to a perpetual state of war. But that's an argument one has to make and not simply assume into evidence.

When, in Derry, New Hampshire, McCain uttered the phrase "make it 100," he was comparing the U.S. presence in Iraq to the U.S. presence in South Korea.

Clearly, this comparison implies a healthy amount of troops in the region and continued high-level military cooperation and self-defense treaties. That should be enough for Democrats. "100 years" -- even in the correct context -- is just one of those phrases that politicians were invented to exploit.

Watch here.

Instead, Democrats imply that McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years under the same conditions they're fighting right now.

Which is simply not what McCain said. McCain explicitly said that US presence in Iraq long-term would be predicated on the absence of violence and on the establishment of stability in the region.

Now -- Democrats might pursue this avenue. In November of 2007, McCain seemed to reject the Korea model, arguing that the conditions in Iraq were different. He now accepts the analogy.

The Superdelegate Quandary

In most cases, undecided superdelegates are trying to figure out which presidential candidate is best for them in the context of their unique political situation, their district, their down-ballot candidates. The CW is that outside of a few places in the Northeast, Hillary Clinton would weigh down the ticket: that she's too polarizing, that she has too much of a history, that Republican candidates would energize their base by running against her.

There is truth in this, and many superdelegates have pledged their support to Obama for precisely this reason.

But there's another side to the argument.

In this Sunday's New York Times magazine, here's what NRCC chairman Rep. Tom Cole had to say about which candidate he'd prefer his candidates to run against:

"I happen to think Hillary Clinton is a stronger candidate in the end" .... "You couldn’t raise money against Obama right away like you could with Clinton, that’s true, and so maybe by the time you were able to raise money it wouldn’t matter. But he’s ideologically well to the left of Hillary Clinton, for all his rhetorical gifts, and I also think he’s got a national-security deficit. I think she’s a plausible commander in chief, and I don’t think he is. It may not matter. But those two areas are where we would fight the election, and with McCain, I think we contrast with him very well.”

Against Obama, John McCain and the Republicans are going to front national security. They'll run on "who'll keep your safer" -- they'll try to force members in swing congressional districts to own -- or disown -- Obama. There is much more a messaging function in having Obama as the candidate, where Clinton would clearly provide the energizing function.

To this Democrats will respond: the Rove-style national security attacks against Democrats don't work. 2006 proved that.

But there are many Democrats who fear that they _do_ work, which is one reason why Democrats on Capitol Hill are powerless to end the war as rapidly as possible.

Obama provides a clean contrast with McCain on the war, and to the extent that Americans are ready to choose a "side" on Iraq, Obama has the upper hand. But Iraq has not been his trump card in the primary -- indeed, at least about half of Democrats do not believe that Clinton's 2002 vote disqualifies her.

Democrats may be tempted to conflate John McCain's national security arguments with the Bush-Republican national security arguments. Superficially, they sound alike. But McCain has much more standing to make them -- registered voters say this, not me, as does McCain's biography and life.

Obama supporters bristle at the notion that Obama will become as polarizing to Republicans as Clinton is right now. We will see. The net effect of the competitive Democratic Primary may well be that Obama becomes less of a unifying figure and more of a, well, Democrat.

He is certainly capable of enraging critical parts of the Republican coalition, like pro-lifers, who can now raise money off an off-handed comment from this weekend. Speaking about abortion, Obama said he would not want his daughters "punished with a baby." Then he said he would not want his daughters "punished with an STD." (Read the Brody File for the full context).

North Carolina In Obama's Pocket?

Not so, says the Obama campaign.

Reports that the other six Democrats on the congressional delegation are about to endorse BO are unfounded.

New Mexico, Too

An earlier draft of my post below on McCain's general election targets included New Mexico as a state he'll want to flip -- my typo, obviously -- Bush won there in 2004. But New Mexico is a target for McCain -- he's running his first general election ad there, and it brings up two other issues.

1. McCain, as Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs committee, will target the American Indian vote in a way that Republicans haven't.

2. He will also target Latinos.

Subprime Paradox

News that Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams was paid $200,000 to help a New York-based subprime lender revamp its business practices brings up one of the interesting racial cross-currents of the crisis. There was -- still is -- among politicians and activists and some economics a belief that home ownership is the key to building real wealth among African Americans, and companies who made it easier to take out home equity loans were to be lauded for their willingness to reach out to these communities, and not knocked for any attempt to exploit the financial ignorance of poorer black families.

Iran And Iraq, Together

I'm not enough an expert to judge the significance of Iran's having brokered a cease-fire between Shia militias, one of them belonging to the Iraqi government and the other, at least still in theory, controlled by Moqtada al-Sadr. (If Iran played a role in ending the violence, did it also, by dint of its ties to certain militias, help to seed it?)

This reminds me of the propaganda victory of a few months back when Iran's Ahmadinejad was able to tour Baghdad without the enormous security blanket that accompanies much lower-ranking US officials whenever they sneak into the country.

For our politics, does Iran's influence here mean that it recognizes that it has a role to play in stabilizing Iraq? Does it panic the Saudis? Does it panic the Israelis? Does it mean that the surge has given Iran a free hand to gain credibility as the political broker while the US military did the hard work of securing the peace?

Gore Is Very Reluctant To Play Broker

From 60 Minutes:

"We were with you in the San Jose Airport. And a man came over to you and he says 'Who are you supporting, Obama or Hillary? Who are you supporting? Who are you supporting?'" Stahl asked.

Gore's response to the man? "Uh ha."

"So, let me ask you. Who are you supporting?" Stahl asked.

"I'm tryin' to stay out of it," Gore replied.

Getting Al Gore to talk about politics these days is hard work. But as a party leader and uncommitted superdelegate, his staying "out of it" isn't easy.

"Are they calling you every minute?" Stahl asked.

"Not every minute," Gore said.

"No? Lotta pressure though, I'll bet," Stahl remarked.

"We unplugged the phones for this interview, so I can't say with authority. But no, everyone -- they both call. And I appreciate that fact," Gore replied.

"And what about the idea of the honest broker who goes to the two candidates and helps push one or the other of them off to the side?" Stahl asked.

"Yeah, kind of a modern Boss Tweed," Gore remarked.

"Except his name would be Al Gore," Stahl said.

"Well, I'm not applying for the job of broker," Gore replied, laughing.

He's not ruling it out, but he says he already has a job, as he puts it, "P.R." agent for the planet.

Gore today launches a $300 million "commercial-scale" campaign called We Can Solve It.

Here's its first television ad:

McCain The Martial Southerner

He was a Navy kid, so he moved around a lot as a child, but if you had to peg him to a particular geographic locale, it would be Meridian, Mississippi:

By all accounts, the McCains of Carroll County were devoted to one another and their traditions; a lively, proud and happy family on the Mississippi Delta. Yet, many McCains left here as young men to pursue careers in what has long been our family's chosen profession -- the United States Armed Forces. My great-grandfather was the sheriff and never left. But his brother, Henry Pinkney McCain, was a major general in the Army, and organized the draft in World War One. Camp McCain in Grenada, Mississippi is named for him. My great uncle, William McCain, was known as "Wild Bill" for his "dynamic" personality -- he was reputed to have ridden his horse onto his future father-in-law's porch to ask him for his daughter's hand. He chased Pancho Villa with General Pershing, was an artillery officer in World War One, and retired a Brigadier General. Both men are buried at Arlington National Cemetery, as are my father and grandfather. We trace my family's martial heritage back to the Revolution. A distant ancestor served on General Washington's staff, and it seems my ancestors fought in most wars in our nation's history. All were soldiers -- both Henry and Bill McCain were West Pointers -- until my grandfather broke family tradition and entered the Naval Academy in 1902. He was succeeded there by my father, then me, and then my son.

After this week, which will include at least three more speeches about McCain's martial history, there may well be some allied grumbling akin to William Kristol's today: biography is not destiny in politics.

True -- and McCain's campaign strategists know this. There will be several other tours over the next few months having nothing to do with where McCain is from but who he will do.

McCain's Two General Election Targets

(What happened to New Mexico? Click here.)

Republicans tasked by John McCain's presidential campaign with planning for his general election strategy have settled on two states John Kerry won in 2004 as their prime turnover targets for 2008.

They are Pennsylvania, which has 21 electoral votes and New Hampshire, which has 4.

The targeters seem to have Barack Obama in mind as their opponent, but the logic holds even if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination.

None of the three states will be easy to flip. Even though Pennsylvania is arguably the weakest large state in the Democratic electoral coalition, party identification is trending their way. In Philadelphia suburbs like Montgomery County, Republicans still control key county commission seats, but Democrats gain with every election. The economy in Pennsylvania is faring better than in the industrial Midwest, and the war is very unpopular. Watch for McCain to target Northwestern counties won by Sen. Bob Casey -- and Reps. Holden, Murtha and Carney. Watch for the Philly suburbs to be ground zero in any Democratic effort to highlight McCain's pro-life credentials.

Pick Up Six

Sen. Amy Klobuchar's endorsement of Barack Obama, along with news that six additional members of the North Carolina's congressional delegation will back Obama before the state's May 6 primary, may well signal the beginning of the open spigot for Obama and his superdelegates.

The campaign does not have a reservoir of privately-committed superdelegates just waiting to burst forth on Obama's behalf; if they had, you -- we - would know about them. Peer pressure, more than anything else, will force superdelegates off the fence.

The Daily Five: Just Super

1. Sen. Pat Leahy: "There is no way that Sen. Clinton is going to win enough delegates" and so should quit....he later walks back his comment....but says that "there is no good reason" for Clinton to stay in the race. Clinton team rebuts with angry comments from Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter. And Rep. Bruce Braley, an undecided frosh/superdelegate from Iowa, is happy to see the contest continue: "My preference is we let the system play out and we go to Denver. If it hasn't been resolved, then it gets taken care of there."

2. Clinton campaign talking point: In 1992, Bill Clinton didn't wrap up the nominee until June. Tapper truth: well, more like mid-March.

This notion that the 1992 presidential race was not over until June is literally true. But it was truly over about five or six weeks after the New Hampshire primary.

3. Newt Gingrich, on Obama:

Senator Obama gave us a very courageous speech. We owe it to him and to the topic to take it very seriously and respond to the level of eloquence and systematic explanation that he gave us. He asked historic questions, and that is appropriate. And I want to make quite clear, and this may well be a disappointment to the more partisan and the more ideological, my speech today is not an answer to Senator Obama. It is not a refutation. Hopefully, it is the beginning of a genuine dialogue in which people of all backgrounds can come together to have a serious conversation about America’s future.

Let me start by talking about the concept of anger, because I do think there’s an authenticity and legitimacy of anger by many groups in America. Senator Obama said in his speech:

That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white coworkers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings. . . . That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition.

I think that that’s right, and I think that it’s important to recognize that anger can be a source of energy to create a better future—in which case it’s a very good thing. But if anger is a self-inflicted wound that limits us, it is a very bad and a very dangerous thing. And we have to be very careful about the role that anger plays in our culture. Tragically, what has happened is that cultural and political leaders have used anger as an excuse to avoid reality, as an excuse to avoid change, as an excuse to avoid accountability, because everything that is wrong is somehow somebody else’s fault.

Watch Gingrich's full speech here.

4. Chelsea Clinton, in Allentown PA:

‘Do I think my mother will be a better president than my father...Well, again, I don’t take anything for granted, but hopefully with Pennsylvania’s help, she will be our next president, and yes, I do think she’ll be a better president.”

Responds Hillary Clinton: "I have to talk to her before I answer that question."

5. Chuck Todd on language:

If someone says, "the process isn't hurting the party, let everyone have a say" you know that is code for "I'm still holding out hope for Clinton."

But if a supposed uncommitted superdelegate says, "we need to start thinking about what this is doing to our long term chances of defeating John McCain" that is code for, "I am leaning toward Obama but I hope Clinton will simply drop out so I can always claim to her and Bill that I was never against them."

Who Is John McCain?

We know what we know.

But next week, his campaign hopes that you will find out a lot of things you don't know... how the story of this Scots-Irish politician is the story of America.

Monday, McCain talks family history at the Naval Air Station north of Meridian, MS. Tuesday, he'll speak about education and his educational influences in Alexandria, VA. Wednesday is the major speech: he'll talk about service-to-country and partiotism at the Naval Academy and then, later in the day, in the cradle of Navy aviation in Pensacola, Fl. Thursday is Jacksonville, which is actually a very Navy town... he celebrates MLK day on Friday and then wraps up the tour in Prescott, Arizona on the very same spot where Barry Goldwater touched off his 1964 presidential campaign.

A DNC Memo On McCain

So here's the problem: the Democrats are whacking the hell out of each other, spending money they'd like to spend on John McCain, and McCain has acres of room to stretch and mark his territory.

The DNC has labored mightily to fill the breach, with daily e-mails to reporters, conference calls, research hits -- and now a focus group report. The DNC spoke to (presumably undecided) voters in Minnesota and West Virginia. Read the DNC's memo here.
.
What I found most interesting, in part because it hasn't yet really come up in the context of the general election:

Women panelists in the focus groups reacted surprisingly strongly to the fact that Senator McCain opposes requirements for health plans to provide contraceptive coverage and favors abstinence-only sex education. Even among women who described themselves as pro-life, those aspects of Senator McCain’s record cast him as someone who is “unrealistic,” “out of touch,” and “stuck in the past.” Many of the women in the groups were resentful when they learned that Senator McCain favors overturning Roe vs. Wade, and were disappointed because they expected him to be more moderate on this issue.

The memo concludes in boldface:

Perhaps the biggest threat to John McCain that emerged from our focus groups is the damage he inflicted on his “independent” image and reputation for “straight talk” by shifting his positions to make them more acceptable to the conservative wing of his party.

How To Count The Popular Vote

The hyperintelligent Jay Cost at RearClearPolitics has produced for us a most helpful spreadsheet computing the various popular vote scenarios.

But this paragraph, is, to me, a very crucial point that both Clinton and Obama campaigns would rather ignore:

We have a large number of unknown factors. For many of them, we have very little idea what values they will ultimately take. What we do know is that small changes in several of them could induce large changes in the vote count. This makes it extremely difficult to be as precise as many commentators have been. We need to be wary of all the uncertainty we face here.

So -- my fairly conservative calculation has Clinton netting about 446,000 votes between now and June 3. Under all scenarios that exclude Florida and Michigan votes -- and count the votes of Washington's primary -- Obama still retains a popular vote lead of not more than 330,000 -- or an advantage of less than one and a half percent.

Under a scenario that includes the Florida and Michigan votes for Clinton, gives Obama all of the uncommitted Michigan votes, estimates the votes for all the caucus states and includes the Washington primary, Clinton wins by about 16,000 votes -- or about a tenth of one percent.

Which scenario is "right?" Under DNC rules, until the credentials committee figures out which delegations to seat, Florida and Michigan do not exist. But the voters in those states certainly do in the existential sense -- and if we're answering the question by figuring out how many Democrats voted for Obama versus how many Democrats voted for Clinton.

Obama supporters will anchor their estimates in the worldview most hospitable to Obama's nomination, and Clinton's supporters will similarly find ways to justify including Florida and Michigan before it is DNC-legal to do so.

The media may be called upon to take a stand -- especially since the superdelegates tend to listen to the media more than other entities -- and the most reasonable answer may well be -- well, it depends on who you talk to.

Are there historical precedents? Well, Democrats like to count every vote. So -- advantage Hillary? But there has to be some tempering factor to account for Obama's name not being on the Michigan ballot. Ok, but then there has to be some tempering factor to account for the fact that Obama's campaign made the decision to stay off the Michigan ballot as least as much because they feared losing the state to Clinton as they wanted to make a statement to Iowans about the integrity of the calendar process. Obama's campaign also made the strategic decision to contest caucuses; the Clinton campaign dumbly decided to avoid them. If they had spent a comparable amount of money and resources in the caucus states, Obama's margin of victory would have been lower and he certainly would have less of a delegate lead.

These are all arguments... all persuasive in their own way... and they don't get me any clearer towards the answering the question about which votes to count and which votes to ignore.

The Atlantic's Boldest: A Correction Column

I haven't disclosed my corrections in a while, and I'm feeling a bit guilty.

For this week:

1. I wrote that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg could be the "brass tacts" enforcer of Barack Obama's vision. But gilded politeness was not what I intended to convey. Indeed, the phrase is "brass tacks."

2. Yesterday, I wrote that McCain adviser Charlie Black was taking a "leave of absence" from his lobbying firm. In fact, Black is resinging.

3. In a piece about Barack Obama and Tony McPeak, I mispelled the name of AIPAC critic
and political scientist John Mearsheimer.

Obama: A Mere "Lecturer?"

So is Barack Obama exaggerating his resume when he says he was a "law professor" at the University of Chicago?

The schools says no.

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Casey's Endorsement Of Obama

Sen. Bob Casey's endorsement of Barack Obama is obviously a shock to Sen. Clinton's campaign. (I'd note that Obama has picked up a total of three superdelegates since last week, to Clinton's zero).

Casey is a freshman Senator; his father, former governor Bob Casey Sr., was so popular among white working class Dems that pundits have named an entire class of voters in his honor: the Casey Democrats who live in the inner suburbs of Pennsylvania's cities, who are wary of liberal social views but very sensitive to economic conditions.

Obama begins a six-day bus tour in Pittsburgh today.

Dean: Superdelegates Should Decide By July 1

On CBS's "Early Show" this morning, DNC chairman Howard Dean said that superdelegates ought to decide which candidate to support by July 1.

Dean:

"Well, I think the superdelegates have already been weighing in. I think that there's 800 of them and 450 of them have already said who they're for. I'd like the other 350 to say who they're at some point between now and the first of July so we don't have to take this into the convention.

More:

“Well, I think the candidates have got to understand that they have an obligation to our country to unify. Somebody's going to lose this race with 49.8 percent of the vote. And that person has got to pull their supporters in behind the nominee. That's our obligation, because in the end this is not about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It's about our country. We're not going to have four more years of George W. Bush, which is essentially what McCain is offering us. There's a really big difference between our candidates on these issues. And I don't believe for a moment that at the end of the day, the Democrats are going to vote for somebody who's going to put more right-wingers on the Supreme Court. But we do need to keep in mind that personal attacks now, often do have the seeds of demoralization later on. So I want to make sure this campaign stays on the high ground.”

McCain's First General Election Ad

It's running in New Mexico, statewide.

"John McCain: The American President Americans have been waiting for."

The Daily Five: Healing In HD

1. Last night on Fox News, Karl Rove floated his own balloon containing a novel way Barack Obama could end up being the nominee. In June, after all the states have finished voting and assuming he has an earned delegate lead of about 100, he could,say, you know what, let's go ahead and seat those delegations from Florida and Michigan based on their January primaries. Why the hell would he consider this, given that Clinton would close the delegate gap by more than 50 and would pull to near-even -- or even ahead of -- Obama in the popular vote? It would give the undecided superdelegates a reason to vote for Obama. It would show them that he's willing to put the party's interests above his own; it would be a gesture of mangnamity that Hillary Clinton could not match; it would display, at once, confidence and humility; it would give him a way to dominate the post-early-June news cycle.

The Obama campaign declined to comment.

2. Matt Bai:

Here’s a political postulate for you: whether or not a bad moment sticks to the candidate depends on how closely related it is to the core rationale of that candidate or his opponent. In other words, if your gaffe goes directly to the main argument you are trying to make about yourself with the electorate, or if it substantiates the most relevant thing that your rival would have us believe about you, then it has the potential to become a serious problem. If, on the other hand, you do something completely idiotic that is tangential to what voters most hope or fear about you, then you tend to get a pass. So Mr. Kerry’s choice of wording hurt because it played into the main theme that the Republicans had chosen to discredit him—the notion that he wanted to have everything both ways. By contrast, Mr. Bush’s brush with the law had nothing to do with the story he was telling about himself as a competent manager, nor did it underscore the central argument that Democrats were advancing about him (because, really, there wasn’t one).

3. Joe Klein's Gore scenario is just plausible enough to consider. Would Gore want it? His friends and advisers say he's moved beyond politics, but the chance to run for president without (a) weathering a primary campaign, which he did not enjoy and (b) the chance to run with a good possibility of victory might cause him to change his mind. Gore has never said "no" to the idea of running for president in part because he envisioned a scenario where he might want to run. Would Obama backers really be happy if Gore took the top spot? Because Klein raised the question, does Gore now need to say no, never?

4. Barack Obama will air his first ad in Indiana tomorrow. (Check out the leather jacket!)

5. The 700 Club is going high-def! On Monday!
For some reason, that's just cool.

Who Came First? McCain or McCain

Think Progress thought it trapped John McCain in a plagiarism controversy. But McCain may wind up being the victim, here.

“The accusation of plagiarism is fundamentally and irrefutably false. The Senator has used that language as early, and possibly earlier, as 1995," writes campaign senior adviser Mark Salter in an e-mail. They point to a speech McCain gave before the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Kansas City.

Think Progress now "updates:"

It appears that Ziemer’s speech may have been plagiarized from McCain. According to the McCain campaign, the senator used these lines before Ziemer — in 1995.

Will Obama Raises Taxes?

CNBC's Maria Bartiromo asked him the question today:

Bartiromo: “Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown? Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?”

Obama:

“Well, look, there's no doubt that anything I do is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office. I'm going to be sworn in in January, we don't know what the economy's going to look like at that point.”

Democrats Defecting

Gallup and Pew have more data out today about the Democrats most likely to defect to John McCain in the fall.

Fascinating: the two Clinton groups most likely to flip if Obama is the nominee are independents who lean to Democrats and conservative Democrats -- nearly 40% of them would vote for McCain. Also: 30% of men and 30% of Dems with high school diplomas or less. And 29% of Latinos.

The two Obama groups most likely to flip: independents who lean to Democrats and conservative Democrats. But assuming an average defection rate of 28%, as Gallup does, only the Clinton-to-McCain defections are statistically significant.

BTW: African Americans do not seem to desert Obama if Clinton is the nominee. As Gallup notes, though:

The data do not address the issue of motivation or turnout, which could be lower among blacks if Obama is not the nominee, nor do the data address the implications of the precise way in which Clinton might win the nomination. If Clinton were to win by the vote of superdelegates, for example, the blowback from black Obama supporters might be greater than if she were to win by gaining the highest percentage of the popular vote cast in primaries and caucuses.

Clinton Donors Circulate Florida/Michigan Petition

A member of Hillary Clinton's national finance team has started to circulate an online petititon that urges the Democratic National Committee to recognize the delegations from Michigan and Florida or else promise to hold new elections.

The petition, entitled "A Declaration of Fairness," was written by Michael Kempner, a PR exec in New Jersey and a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton.

Kempner said that the genesis for the idea came out of a meeting of the campaign's finance committee a few weeks ago but said that the effort is being run independently from the Clinton campaign.

The resolution notes that the undersigners include "many leaders and financial supporters" of the DNC. (There are only 20 undersigners at the moment, so that sentence is probably projective.)

Kempner said he sent the petition to thousands of Democratic donors and activists. In his e-mail to them, he calls Obama's "tactics" in "seeking to disenfranchise more than two million voters in Florida and Michigan" those of "division and deception."

"For whatever reason, the DNC seems to be captive of the Obama campaign," he said in an interview. "The fact is that many, many long-time supporters both financially and non-financially, that have a very different point of view. We very much want to put them on notice."

Kempner said that the petititon's language should not be interpreted by DNC chairman Howard Dean as a threat to withhold donations. But, he said, "We want the chairman to exercise some leadership."

Obama Superdelegate Indicted

To Puerto Ricans, he's known as their governor -- Aníbal Acevedo Vilá. He has a history of friction with the Clinton family, and a few weeks ago, he endorsed Barack Obama.

The indictment, on charges relating to his gubernatorial campaign financing, was expected, but Obama aides hoped it would drop after the June 1 primary. An indicted governor can do little to rally his party behind Obama's candidacy.

Read the DoJ press releasing announcing the indictment after the jump.

Continue reading "Obama Superdelegate Indicted" »

Project Economy: The Politics

Today, Democrats, supported by their interest groups, go out of their way to pay tribute to markets but argue that fairness and principle demand regulation and some degree of income redistribution. They use the rhetoric of populism to appeal to voters' sense of fairness. Republicans call Democrats "liberal" and oppose interventionist fiscal policy. Democrats call Republicans heartless; Republicans call Democrats "liberal."

Here's Obama, calling for tighter regulation of the financial markets:

"...the American experiment has worked in large part because we have guided the market’s invisible hand with a higher principle. Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it."

Here's John McCain's campaign, responding to Obama:

"No amount of rhetoric can hide Senator Obama's clear record of embracing the liberal tax and spend, big government policies that hit hardworking American families at a time when they're most vulnerable, and are certain to move America backward.

Well -- during a recession, raising taxes is usually contraindicated, along with cutting spending. McCain will face enormous pressure from conservatives to keep spending under control, while Obama (or Clinton) would face enormous pressure from liberals to find ways to pay for more government spending. With state governments cutting their own spending, the federal government will face pressure from governors conservative and liberal to fill in the gaps.

Obama and Clinton both criticized McCain for not proposing any specific policies to ameloriate the housing crisis, although McCain's statement today, very carefuly written, includes a suggestion that he is "open" to any and all policies. (McCain's economic team is wary of any federal intervention that would reduce risk-taking, which they see as essential to the credit market's recovery. But what does McCain have to say that those Americans whose homes are worth less than their mortgages?

As George Will has noted, Americans seem to embrace conservative arguments about the economy (rhetorical conservatives) but vote and act as if they were operationally liberal. It's not clear whether the "liberal" tax argument works in presidential races, particularly those occuring during recessions.

Trade is one issue where the polarization within each party is less than the polarization between the two, and McCain plans to make free trade a centerpeice of his economic arguments going forward; he proposed yesterday a free trade agreement with Europe, for example.

McCain faces a challenge in that conservatives seem to identify themselves by and organize around social and cultural (and now, increasingly, security) principles, rather than around a set of economic issues. It's counterintuitive: cutting taxes and reducing spending have always been linchpins of Grover Norquist's leave-us-alone coalition, but when it comes to evaluating candidates (rather than policies or referenda or ballot initiatives), conservatives tend to prefer the categories of morality and social values. I would bet that independent voters, when evaluating conservatives, are more likely to do so on national security than any other single variable.

Bloomberg/Obama

According to an aide, Sen. Obama called Mayor Bloomberg yesterday to ask if he would introduce the speech. Bloomberg said yes.

Project Economy: Obama Calls For More Regulation Of Financial System

Judging by two days worth of meaty economic policy addresses, it seems as if the fault line between liberals and conservatives hasn't really evolved much over the past few decades. It's still a fairly mundane debate between Neoclassical/marginalist/Chicago school economists on one hand and Keynes/Galbraith on the other. (I don't think supply side tax cuts amounts to an economic school.)

Liberals believe that the debate in this country is so narrowly contained between these two poles that the politics always works against them. Certainly, the language is familiar.

Obama today targeted the regulatory policies of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He implied that the Clinton administration was complicit in deregulating the economy to such a degree that it laid the groundwork for the subprime mortgage crisis.

"Under Republican and Democratic Administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices," he said. He blamed a "$300 million lobbying effort" for hoodwinking Washington.

Obama was referring to the repeal of the New Deal's Glass Stegal regs on banks by the Graham-Leach-Billey bill of 1999, which allowed financial institutions to merge without updating the regulatory framework.

Obama economics adviser Daniel Tarullo said that Obama opposes a resinstatement of Glass-Stegal but wants the regulatory apparatus to catch up. Obama said that banks ought to be required to increase their liquidity and capital requirements. He did not say by how much.

He laid out six principles he said will guide him as president.

One -- "First, if you can borrow from the government, you should be subject to government oversight and supervision."

Two -- better regulation of financial markets at home

Three -- better regulation of worldwide interconnections between markets

Four -- reducing duplicaton among regulatory bodies

Five -- crack down on illegal trading activity

Six -- more monitoring of systemic risks to the financial system.

Douglas Holtz-Eaken, John McCain;s chief policy adviser, said the speech was full of "wonderful words" -- "words you could hear out of a Democrat, words you could hear out of a Republican."

But he said Democrats mischaracterized McCain's response to the crisis as "do-nothing," when McCain, in fact, supported the interventions of the Federal Reserve.

Black Resigns To Join McCain's Campaign

Legendary Washington hand Charlie Black, a senior adviser to Sen. John McCain,has resigned from his public affairs / lobbying firm in order to join McCain on the trail full-time.

Black, currently the chairman of BKSH Worldwide (a subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller -- Mark Penn's Burson Marsteller), has not worked full-time for a presidential campaign since 1992, when he served as a principle spokesperson for Pres. George W. Bush's re-election efforts.

The resignation takes effect Monday. Black has close ties to virtually every wing of the Republican Party and has been a key link between the campaign and the White House.

(For a closer look at McCain's ties to lobbyists, check Mike Scherer's article in Time.)

Bloomberg On Obama

Very careful:

This is a city of big and small businesses, of entrepreneur and of dreams, of immigrants who come with nothing and give us everything they've got. And of families who are struggling to make ends meet. Our challenge is to build an economy that rewards their hard work and innovation. And I’m glad that senator Obama has chosen to come to our city to speak out on the economy.

There will be plenty of opinions on what he has to say, this is New York after all. And I’m not sure that all of us will agree with every idea, myself included. But it is critical that we know exactly where each candidate stands as we make perhaps the most important decision in our lives next November. It is now my pleasure to introduce, and not just because he picked up the check when we had breakfast together last month ... ladies and gentleman from the land of Lincoln, a candidate for president of the United States, Senator Barack Obama

PFIAB Phooey?

Thanks to Harry Shearer, I caught wind of a fairly interesting turn in the Bush Administration's battle to consolidate intelligence oversight in the executive branch.

PFIAB -- the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, called PIAB -- they is plenty of domestic collection these days -- has been fairly drastically reformed and much of its power has been taken away.

The board was set up during the Eisenhower administration and served for two decades as the government’s principle internal reviewer of intelligence collection techniques and analysis.

After the Church commission in the 70s discovered widespread mismanagement of CIA’s covert operations – assassinations, civil rights violations, and otherwise a bunch of scary stuff, President Ford created a separate group – the Intelligence Oversight Board – to investigate, on the president’s order, purported abuses within the intelligence community; its brief include dthe ability to refer crimes it discovered to the attorney general for prosecution.

Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush used PFIAB as a sounding board, reducing its size and staff. Bush, a Director of Central Intelligence in the 70s, was never a fan of the board, and Reagan's staff distrusted its role.

Under President Clinton, its legitimacy as a check on the IC was restored to some degree. He gave PFIAB some oversight ability over the inspectors general of the various intelligence agencies. For our purposes, he integrated IOB within PFIAB; PFIAB became more independent and less advisory. In 1999, at Clinton’s behest , PFIAB investigated security breaches at the Department of Energy and released a rare public version of its final report.

On Feb. 29, the Bush administration unveiled an executive order that reduced PFIAB’s oversight function and transferred some of its authority to the Director of National Intelligence. From a bureaucratic standpoint, this makes sense: forcing the intelligence community’s various arms and entities to report to the DNI has been a priority of the administration, and the presence of an outside investigative function within the executive branch itself might well complicate the DNI’s own internal investigative capacities.

Critics, though, see another move in the administration’s efforts to minimize oversight, transparency, and to consolidate power in the executive office of the president. The EO makes it clear that only the DNI can contact the attorney general independently. What happens if members of the board find abuses? They can only notify the president.

Another change: the EO reduces the frequency of reports that the board sends to the president. And the inspectors general and general counsels of the intelligence agencies no longer will find their work evaluated by the board without presidential permission. It also seems as if the board no longer has the authority to independently ask agencies for their records.

Section 1.2 of the Clinton administration EO reads:

Sec. 1.2. The PFIAB shall assess the quality, quantity, and adequacy of intelligence collection, of analysis and estimates, and of counterintelligence and other intelligence activities. The PFIAB shall have the authority to review continually the performance of all agencies of the Federal Government that are engaged in the collection, evaluation, or production of intelligence or the execution of intelligence policy. The PFIAB shall further be authorized to assess the adequacy of management, p ersonnel and organization in the intelligence agencies. The heads of departments and agencies of the Federal Government, to the extent permitted by law, shall provide the PFIAB with access to all information that the PFIAB deems necessary to carry out it s responsibilities.

Note the italics.

The revised Bush administration order:

Functions of the PIAB. Consistent with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order, the PIAB shall have the authority to, as the PIAB determines appropriate, or shall, when directed by the President:

(a) assess the quality, quantity, and adequacy of intelligence collection, of analysis and estimates, and of counterintelligence and other intelligence activities, assess the adequacy of management, personnel and organization in the intelligence community, and review the performance of all agencies of the Federal Government that are engaged in the collection, evaluation, or production of intelligence or the execution of intelligence policy and report the results of such assessments or reviews:

In other words – PFIAB, under Clinton, was able to determine what it needed. Now, the PIAB, under the Bush administration, will receive direction from the DNI.

Obama: Bloomberg Is "Extraordinary"

Here's the first paragraph from Barack Obama's speech this a.m. in New York:

I want to thank Mayor Bloomberg for his extraordinary leadership. At a time when Washington is divided in old ideological battles, he shows us what can be achieved when we bring people together to seek pragmatic solutions. Not only has he been a remarkable leader for New York –he has established himself as a major voice in our national debate on issues like renewing our economy, educating our children, and seeking energy independence. Mr. Mayor, I share your determination to bring this country together to finally make progress for the American people.

The First Read gang is all a-buzz at the Obama-Needs-A-Jew-On-The-Ticket-Angle, but I think the best way to look at an Obama-Bloomberg ticket is by noticing their complimentary traits. Obama isn't much of an administrator or a details guy by his own admission, while Bloomberg is so concerned about Your Health and Welfare that he studies intently the ins and outs of congestion pricing and trans-fats. He's a prime minister-type -- although he brings an outsider's sense of efficiency to the bureaucracy. Let Obama be the vision guy; Bloomberg could be the brass-tacks administrator.

Working The Delegates In Texas? (Update)

In Texas, there's this report that Barack Obama's campaign is targeting delegates Hillary Clinton won from the state's precinct caucuses -- and vice versa.

Nearly 90,000 delegates plan to attend the senatorial and county conventions this week; just 10 percent will move on to the state convention, which formally selects the pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

Right now, Obama has a net delegate lead from the caucus portion of the Texas contest of seven. As happened in Iowa, his lead could expand -- or contract.

Local reports indicate that Clinton supporters plan to challenge the credentials of some Obama delegates, but the campaign has dropped its formal objection to the way the party has organized the caucuses.

Here's an imponderable: since the caucus delegates represent the will of the voters in those precincts, doesn't any effort to get them to change their minds after the fact amount to .... well, actually, what's the difference between working the county delegates and then working the pledged delegates?

Update: Turns out that the culprit is the Texas Democratic Party. The delegate lists they forwarded to the campaigns contain many errors on them, so Clinton delegates are receiving Obama mail and Obama delegates are recieving Clinton mail. Indeed, it wouldn't make much sense for Obama to remind Clinton delegates when the conventions are.

Bloomberg Introduces Obama

Just caught this entry on New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's schedule:

*9:15 AM Introduces Senator Barack Obama at Speech on the Economy

Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art

The Great Hall

7 East 7th Street at Third Avenue

MANHATTAN

Obama Still Pulls Country Together

The first major national poll since the Wright episode broke, and it's Hillary Clinton, and not Barack Obama, who has taken the biggest hit. Her positive rating is 37%.

I found this interesting:

On one of the most critical questions we've been tracking for a few months, Obama showed resilience. When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton. All three candidates saw dips on this issue, by the way. In January, 67 percent thought Obama could unite the country; 68 percent thought McCain could do it; and 55 percent said Clinton would be able to pull it off.

No Re-Vote In Michigan, Ever?

The state party says the idea is dead...

spokeswoman for the Michigan Democratic Party said the ruling essentially ends any chance of a Democratic do-over election in the state because the judge prohibited the Michigan secretary of state from giving the lists to the parties.

"We need those lists to prevent people who voted in the Republican primary from voting in the Democratic do-over. Those are DNC rules," said spokeswoman Liz Kerr, referring to the Democratic National Committee. "This is basically the final straw in preventing us from having a do-over election."

Actually, the DNC rules don't say that.

Crist: Reparations For Slavery?

Attention McCain veepstakes vetters: the governor of Florida is open to slavery reparations "if we can determine descendency."

Rahm's The Only One

Now, Rep. Rahm Emanuel is the only Illinois superdelegate who hasn't taken sides.

Rep. Dan Lipinski, who is from the state's whitest and most conservative Dem district, has endorsed Obama.

Obama Camp: Donor Pressure "Inappropriate"

In response to news that Clinton donors are using their financial might to pressure Speaker Nancy Pelosi into retracting her Obama-favorable comments about superdelegates, Obama's campaign just released this statement:

“This letter is inappropriate and we hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it. Regardless of the outcome of the nomination fight, Senator Obama will continue to urge his supporters to assist Speaker Pelosi in her efforts to maintain and build a working majority in the House of Representatives."

The Daily Three: My Critics

1. The indispensible Brendan Nyhan's take on why party elders refuse to interfere with Obama is pretty convincing:

.....most party elders would prefer that Hillary withdraw but don't want to pay the cost of pushing her out of the race. There are two classic economic problems here. The first is that the collective benefits of pushing Hillary out are much larger than the individual benefit to any one party leader. Why would Pelosi or Reid risk becoming a hated figure to millions of Hillary's supporters? As a result, everyone is likely to sit back and hope that someone else will pay the cost of forcing her out.

The second problem is it's difficult to coordinate. If all the leaders could magically come together to ask her to withdraw, it might be less costly to them individually to push her out, but any effort to make this happen would inevitably leak, generating untold recriminations and infighting. The incentives to defect from such an agreement would also be strong. As a result, no one is likely to chance it.

For both of these reasons, it's likely that the race will go to the convention unless (a) Hillary decides to withdraw on her own or (b) the accumulation of superdelegate commitments after the primaries drives her out.

2. But why are the costs so high? A lot of Democratic voters are not supporting Barack Obama. Also, I'm beginning to be persuaded that Nancy Pelosi is doing everything she can to nudge Clinton out of the race, including the adoption of Barack Obama's superdelegate argument. The reaction by Clinton donors today is evidence enough that the Clinton campaign was really, really bothered by Pelosi's small intervention.

3. "Allies key to McCain's foreign policy vision." That's the CNN headline out of McCain's foreign policy speech in Los Angeles today. The BBC headlines: "McCain urges closer foreign ties" and features this quote:

"Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want."

Most other audiences are reading the speech as an affirmation of the necessity of the surge in Iraq. Meanwhile, the lead of most newscasts tonight will be violence in Baghdad and the expected battle between the Madhi Army and Iraqi/US forces. Read the full remarks here.

Judas Delegates?

Is the Clinton campaign waging a cloak and dagger campaign to persuade pledged delegates to switch sides?

She continues to rule in the possibility by pointing out that the DNC allows delegates to vote for anyone they want.

But the campaigns themselves file delegate slates. The delegates chosen tend to be extremely committed supporters. Many of them will turn out to be campaign volunteers and respected local Democratic offiicials who supported the candidate early. It is certainly possible to try and convince a pledged delegate to change his or her mind, but the universe of pledged delegates are probably the stickiest supporters a candidate has.

Michigan Primary Law: What The Ruling Does Not Do

Judge Nancy Edmonds's ruling DOES NOT order a new primary. She writes that the "the court agrees the issue of severability is beyond the scope of the claims." In other words: the parties themselves ought to figure out whether they need new primaries or not.

Here's the ruling.

I see this is as a small political victory for Clinton and a larger one for Obama; the ruling today means nothing more than a chance for her to make the case again for a re-vote, as campaign manager Maggie Williams does in an e-mail to reporters:

"In the wake of today's court ruling regarding Michigan’s January 15th primary, we urge Senator Obama to join our call for a party-run primary and demonstrate his commitment to counting Michigan's votes."

An Obama aide said the ruling speaks for itself. They avoided the worst: where the Clinton campaign had hoped that the judge would order a revote as the remedy, she simply ordered the state party to share its lists. Since the legislature is no longer in session, the notion of a re-vote is moot at this point, anyway.

Michigan's Primary Law Ruled Unconstitutional

A federal judge in Detroit has ruled that Michigan's 2007 law setting up a Jan. 15 presidential primary is unconstitutional because it unfairly prevents minor parties from having access to lists of voters after the fact.

More on this in a moment...

Obama Fundraising, High And Low

First, from an e-mail Barack Obama sent to supporters today:

Refusing money from PACs and Washington lobbyists makes this campaign different in one very important respect.

We are not beholden to anyone but you.

We've rejected the traditional Washington fundraising strategy -- including countless dinners hosted by lobbyists -- and put our trust in millions of Americans owning a piece of this campaign.

Senator Clinton and Senator McCain have a different approach.

Both have accepted millions from lobbyists and special interests, and both have relied on high dollar donors for the majority of their funding.

This campaign is different, and I'm looking forward to supporters like you joining me for a different kind of fundraising dinner.

If you make a donation in any amount between now and 11:59 pm EDT on Monday, March 31st, you could join me and three other supporters for an intimate dinner for five:

And now an invitation to a private, high-dollar fundraiser on April 8, where hosts are expected to raise $25,000.

Bill Clinton To Obama: Man Up, Dude

Bill Clinton in Parkersburg, WV, according to press accounts:

"If a politician doesn't wanna get beat up, he shouldn't run for office," he said. "If a politician doesn't wanna get beat up, he shouldn't run for office. If a football player doesn't want to get tackled or want the risk of an a occasional clip he shouldn't put the pads on."

Jake Tapper picks up on something else:

"I don't give a riff about all this name-calling that's going on. They've been going on ever since Iowa. I've heard them say all these things about her.... Apparently it's okay to say bad things about a girl,"

To interpret: those who complain about the tenor of the Democratic Primary are just whiners. And by extension, so is Obama. Is there some subterranean machismo/peacock feather displaying going on here, too?

Harry Reid: "Things Are Being Done"

Check out this brief Q and A with Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Las Vegas Review Journal's Molly Ball:

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.

Democratic Defection Rates

According to Gallup's latest survey, 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for John McCain over Barack Obama, and 19% of Obama supporters would chose McCain over Clinton.

“The data suggest that the continuing and sometimes fractious Democratic nomination fight could have a negative impact for the Democratic Party in next November's election. A not insignificant percentage of both Obama and Clinton supporters currently say they would vote for McCain if he ends up running against the candidate they do not support.”

I wonder whether the different demographic coalitions that the candidates are putting together are in some ways responsible -- whether, for example, white men have higher defection rates than women.

Obama's "Jewish Problem" (?)

There is no evidence that Barack Obama has a "Jewish" problem.

The problem with guilt by association arguments is that they tend to render insignificant the degree or quality of the association that allegedly tarnishes one participant.

Tony McPeak is an adviser to the Obama campaign, and he is verbose and colorful enough that Obama's press team likes to use him as a surrogate. McPeak happens to have some very strong opinions, one of them being the clumsily coded belief that New York Jews are responsible for the United States's locked-in alliance with Israel, which McPeak seems to believe is damaging. To hold Barack Obama personally responsible for McPeak's views -- which is the consequence of an argument that uses McPeak along to make the case that Obama has a Jewish problem -- is simply not logical. (Does Howard Dean have a Jewish problem? McPeak endorsed him too, in 2003.)

In the same way, John McCain does not have a Catholic problem because his campaign made the dumb mistake of publicly seeking and touting the endorsement of John Hagee. McCain's campaign has the problem, and McCain is implicated indirectly, only, in the sense that he was eager to associate himself with Hagee without checking to see what Hagee believes or has said.

Those Obama staffers who use McPeak as a surrogate are the ones who, if there is a problem at all, have to deal with it. Here's betting that McPeak will not find himself asked to do many surrogate interviews from now on.

Why would I defend Obama from McPeak's views, which reasonable people certainly can find offensive, and defend McCain from Hagee's views, which reasonable people certainly have found to be offensive?

Because there are indeed cases where the guilt by association argument is not out of bounds, where the choice of an association has political relevance.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright had long been one of Obama's closest personal advisers. Obama chose to associate with Wright and chose to continue his association with Wright even as his own views diverged from Wright's. Obama's association with Wright is a real one. His association with McPeak is an artifact of the campaign. If there's blame to be had, blame the Obama campaign staffer responsible for vetting potential endorsements.

To close off this post with some substance, Gallup finds that Obama and Clinton are splitting the Jewish vote, hardly evidence that Obama currently has a "problem" with Jews.

The Bowers Scenario

Chris Bowers makes a fair case for why Hillary Clinton ought to drop out if she loses Indiana and North Carolina. Bowers urges readers to make this idea the normative Dem position going forward.

Here is the "but."

As a matter of strategy, so long as the superdelegate option is available to Clinton and so long as the earned delegate/popular vote disparity is close, she will probably avail herself of the argument. So the counter to this would be to get the superdelegates off the fence -- perhaps the next project of the Democratic netroots.

My other sense is that the other vulnerable spot for the Clinton campaign is the sense that Bill's legacy and Hillary's Senate future are perilously close to being driven by factors out of her control.

Can you imagine, or envision, a Democratic/Netroots' based Senate challenge to Clinton in four years?

Incidentally, if Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, then what? The party is already employing a version of the Mondale argument -- he went into the convention losing primaries in 1984 -- as if that was among the main reasons why Ronald Reagan beat him so soundly in the fall. I doubt that argument will work later.

Obama And The Jews

The Clinton campaign is distributing an article in the American Spectator (!) about Obama foreign policy adviser Merrill McPeak and his penchant for.. well, the article accuses him of being an anti-Semite and a drunk. Principally, the author takes McPeak to task for supporting a Middle East map that would require Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 border. It also makes the case that McPeak supports the Walt-Mearsheimer view of the influence of the Israeli lobby on foreign policy.

The author's sudden conclusion: "Obama has a Jewish problem and McPeak's bigoted views are emblematic of what they are. Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself he wants. But until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama's sincerity and judgment will remain open questions."

As one keen observer pointed out to me, if advocating the pre '67 border map makes one an anti-Semite, just about every iteration of the U.S. government since 1967 would qualify. Tony McPeak's verbal gymnastics do not make a "Jewish problem" for Obama.

It Puts Hair On His Chest

As Hillary Clinton begins to talk openly about Sen. Obama's "choice" of pastors, bear in mind that she has three different audiences: the most important of them being the smallest: the remaining superdelegates. The more they worry about Obama, the more they will be afraid that their constituents will worry about Obama, and the longer they will wait.

Every day a superdelegate does not endorse Obama is one more day that HRC has to convince Pennsylvanians that their votes will move her closer to the nomination, even if, ceteris paribus, the nomination will not be hers for the taking.

I asked a top HRC adviser this a.m. to assess the argument that all of this is hurting the inevitable nominee -- Barack Obama. The adviser was blunt: "So now Obama expects to win the nomination without toughening up and lasting all fifteen rounds?"

The weird implication: if Obama is the nominee, all of this is _good_ for him in that it, as a father is want to say to a son, puts hair on his chest. In other words: this would have come up anyway, and because Hillary is making Obama fight for the nomination, she's "toughening" him up if he wins.

It's a pretty audacious argument.

A Superdelegate Primary?

Last week, Gov. Phil Bredesen of TN proposed one, and the Clinton campaign is now indicating that it is open to considering the idea.

Update: Clinton advisers are guiding me away from thinking that they're seriously considering the plan.

Here's what Clinton herself said this morning:

The governor from Tennessee (Phil Bredesen) suggested that there be a convention of superdelegates, and I think that it is an intriguing idea. I have not considered it long enough to have an opinion on it."

Clinton: Obama's "Choice" Was Wright

"He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is saying, made the choice to attend Trinity; he made the choice to stay at Trinity after Wright's remarks' and that's not the choice that Clinton would have made. (BTW: "don't choose your family" -- is that some sort of an allusion to her husband?)

More, from an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune and Gazette:

You know, I spoke out against Don Imus (who was fired from his radio and television shows after making racially insensitive remarks), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that," Clinton said. "I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving."

Make no mistake: Wright is now fair game for Clinton herself.

On Obama's Tax Returns

So far, the only points of interest are the income the family received from Treehouse, the Wal-Mart supplier on whose board Michelle Obama sat, and. in 2005, the capital gains reporting from their investements in Skyterra and Avi Biopharma. See here for background. Oh, by the way: Obama did not regularly tithe to Trinity United Church of Christ.

Levinson Lands At Edelman

Katie Levinson, formerly communications director for Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign, has landed at Edelman Public Affairs, where she'll serve as a senior vice president and political director for the firm's New York office.

Levinson served as communications director for Arnold Schwarzenegger's re-election campaign. Before that, she was director of television at the White House and in 2004, a senior spokesperson at the Republican National Committee.

Why I Won't Pay Attention To The Gallup Tracks Anymore

Except for three-day rolling averages....

Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal has got me all guilty about reading meaning into randomness.

Obama Posts His Tax Returns On The Net

Read them here.

He's challenging Sen. Clinton to do the same. Today, his campaign is on a transparency kick.

Reconsidering The Anti-Poach Pledge?

Will Hillary Clinton's campaign begin to pressure pledged delegates to change their affiliation? The Philadelphia Daily News's Will Bunch is on the case. Clinton is right about the rules, but it stands to reason that Obama's campaign would ensure that the pledged delegates they send to the convention are strong of mind; indeed, those who take the time to run for the position of delegate are probably not going to be swayed in any event. Even in 1992, only one delegate, as I recall, switched away from Bill Clinton amid the series of potentially disastrous controversies he weathered during his march to the nomination.

"....But what, I asked, would she say to a pledged delegate to convince him or her to switch:

I just think it’s a very dynamic process, and all these people haven’t voted – most importantly Pennsylvania hasn’t voted, so why do people want to shut it down? My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination until June, and in June he was running third behind President Bush and Ross Perot – elections are dynamic and the idea that you could make some decision now...and furthermore superdelegates are just as legitimate as any other delegates. I mean, they’re there for a purpose, they’re not just window dressing. They re told to exercise their independent judgment, you know. Some support me in states I didn’t win. Some support Senator Obama in states he didn’t win. So you could argue that you can’t do that, that Governor Richardson shouldn’t be supporting him, that I won New Mexico – under the Obama theory, right?

But I still wanted to know her case for switching. She went on:

There are different ways to become a delegate, there are delegates from caucuses, there are delegates from primaries, and there are the appointed delegates, they’re all equal, they all have an equal vote – those are the rules of the Democratic Party. Now if you don’t like the rules, change them going forward but those are the rules. And they are there for a purpose, because if you go back and look 30 years ago, people were elected to Congress said, 'Wait a minute, this party is not running winning elections. We need to have a say, with all due respect,' so, they have a say. You know, the goals are very conveniently being interpreted, you know – Michigan shouldn’t count because of the rukes and and we shouldn’t count the superdelegates even though the rules…You know, I think that doesn’t make sense.

McCain's Account Of The Origins Of The Financial Crisis

Speaking today on the housing crunch, Sen. John McCain provides this account of the crisis in the financial industry. You can hear the voice of McCain's chief policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin as McCain says:

While I was traveling overseas, our financial markets experienced another round of upheaval. This market turmoil leaves many Americans feeling both concerned and angry. People see the value of their homes fall at the same time that the price of gasoline and food is rising. Already tight household budgets are getting tighter. A lot of Americans read the headlines about credit crunches and liquidity crises and ask: “How did we get here?” In the end, the motivation and behaviors that caused the current crisis are not terribly complicated, even though the alphabet soup of financial instruments is complex. The past decade witnessed the largest increase in home ownership in the past 50 years. Home ownership is part of the American dream, and we want as many Americans as possible to be able to afford their own home. But in the process of a huge, and largely positive, upturn in home construction and ownership, a housing bubble was created.

A bubble occurs when prices are driven up too quickly, speculators move into markets, and these players begin to suspend the normal rules of risk and assume that prices can only move up - but never down. We've seen this kind of bubble before - in the late 1990s, we had the technology bubble, when money poured into technology stocks and people assumed that those stock values would rise indefinitely. Between 2001 and 2006, housing prices rose by nearly 15 percent every year. The normal market forces of people buying and selling their homes were overwhelmed by rampant speculation. Our system of market checks and balances did not correct this until the bubble burst.

A sustained period of rising home prices made many home lenders complacent, giving them a false sense of security and causing them to lower their lending standards. They stopped asking basic questions of their borrowers like "can you afford this home? Can you put a reasonable amount of money down?" Lenders ended up violating the basic rule of banking: don’t lend people money who can’t pay it back. Some Americans bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates. There are 80 million family homes in America and those homeowners are now facing the reality that the bubble has burst and prices go down as well as up.

Of those 80 million homeowners, only 55 million have a mortgage at all, and 51 million are doing what is necessary – working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets – to make their payments on time. That leaves us with a puzzling situation: how could 4 million mortgages cause this much trouble for us all?

The other part of what happened was an explosion of complex financial instruments that weren't particularly well understood by even the most sophisticated banks, lenders and hedge funds. To make matters worse, these instruments - which basically bundled together mortgages and sold them to others to spread risk throughout our capital markets - were mostly off-balance sheets, and hidden from scrutiny. In other words, the housing bubble was made worse by a series of complex, inter-connected financial bets that were not transparent or fully understood. That means they weren't always managed wisely because people couldn't properly quantify the risk or the value of these bets. And because these instruments were bundled and sold and resold, it became harder and harder to find and connect up a real lender with a real borrower. Capital markets work best when there is both accountability and transparency. In the case of our current crisis, both were lacking.

Because managers did not fully understand the complex financial instruments and because there was insufficient transparency when they did try to learn, the initial losses spawned a crisis of confidence in the markets. Market players are increasingly unnerved by the uncertainty surrounding the level of risk, liability and loss currently in the financial system. Banks no longer trust each other and are increasingly unwilling to put their money to work. Credit is drying up and liquidity is now severely limited – and small business and hard-working families find themselves unable to get their usual loans.

The net result is the crisis we face. What started as a problem in subprime loans has now convulsed the entire financial system.

I'm not enough of an expert to evaluate whether this account of the troubles is accurate. What do you think?

The Democratic Race: Square One

Still in light-posting mode until later in the week, I want to expand a bit on my post yesterday about the VandeHei/Allen theorem and the Democratic presidential race.

Regular readers of this blog know that I reached the conclusion more than a month ago that Barack Obama is likely to be nominated by the Democrats, although a Clinton comeback was possible, although not likely.

That's still where I am.

What I don't know, and what I can't predict, is how Obama will the nomination and what effects the end of the race will have on his general election viability. To many readers, particularly those who support Obama, my temporizing probably seems extraneous. But willing the future does not make it come any more quickly.

Hillary Clinton could win Pennsylvania (although I think it may be closer than one would expect -- Obama begins a six-day bus tour later this week) and Indiana, and then North Carolina (there may be a second debate and her advisers are internally conflicted about her chances there) and then Puerto Rico, where sixteen years of Clintonian good will makes her a near-prohibitive favorite. Do these victories suddenly produce a burst of momentum and convince the superdelegates that she's a better candidate than he is?

Probably not. Obama wins -- but he wins with a party that is increasingly divided. He wins with a little less than half the party consciously choosing someone else. He wins on the downslope. That's a tough place for him to be.

Now, the Obama campaign and many long-time Democrats are making the obvious counter-point that if Hillary Clinton were to get out now, these potential problems would not problems at all. Indeed, they argue that the only reason why Obama is likely to win the nomination and be damaged by the process is precisely because Hillary Clinton cannot accept that she is likely to lose. They argue that this is inherently unfair to Obama and to the party. So long as Obama is a few hundred delegates short of 2024, is there any other way to push Hillary Clinton out of the race?

Some Obama advisers believe that, right after Pennsylvania, Bill Clinton will become cognizant of the damage he has caused to his own legacy, and Hillary Clinton will begin to worry about her future in the Senate, and enough donors, fearful of being cut off by the new Obama power center, will force their hands. Others are preparing for trench warfare all the way to the convention.

Is the press somehow complicit in this state of affairs? They -- we -- are an easy target. But there are a few more suspects to consider. The party elders, as I've written, haven't forced anyone out of the race. The superdelegates are NOT making up their minds. And many, many Democratic voters are still expressing their preference for another candidate.

The Clintons And Loyalty

My Atlantic colleague Joshua Green has written often about Hillary Clinton's inner circle, and one of his broader conclusions is that its members value loyalty to Clinton more than they value other, more politically valuable traits, like competence and creativity. A decade of scandals, real and fake, hostile media coverage, and "traitors" like George Stephanopoulos have left a core of stalwarts who would never and will never desert, abandon, or to second guess the ambitions of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

James Carville cannot even explain why Gov. Bill Richardson owes something as prestigious as his presidential endorsement to Hillary Clinton. It is self-evident to him that Richardson has betrayed Clinton. The Clintons gave him so much, it seems, that anything but complete fealty is traitorous.

There is an internal logic to Carville's argument, but given that a large part of the Democratic Party has demonstrated conclusively that their loyalty to the Clintons and their appreciation for a decade well done does not extend to an automatic stamp of approval for Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

When the books are written about this campaign, you can bet that Gov. Richardson's conversation a month ago with Madeleine Albright will be explored in some depth. The former Sec. of State made the same argument: Richardson somehow owed his endorsement to the Clintons. That rubbed Richardson precisely the wrong way, according to people he has spoken to since. It was as if the Clintons discounted Richardson's own political talents and were telling him that absent Bill Clinton's benevolence, Richardson would still be a backbencher.

Anyway, here's Carville on CNN yesterday:

CARVILLE: I have to say that he quoted me accurately and in context. It was -- yes, that's exactly what I said. And by the way, I think the quote had the desired intent.

BLITZER: What was that?

CARVILLE: That people saw Richardson and saw somebody who was disloyal.

On the Judas metaphor

BLITZER: What were the 30 pieces of silver he got in exchange?

CARVILLE: Well, again, that was a biblical thing. History will -- we'll see.

BLITZER: Are you suggesting there was a deal or something?

CARVILLE: I was using a biblical metaphor and it had -- it had the desired intent. People called me left and right and said, "Whenever I see that guy, I'll can't help but think of that quote."

On how Gov. Richardson “betrayed” Sen. Clinton

BLITZER: But why was it such a betrayal? Because he makes the point, look, I ran against Hillary Clinton.

CARVILLE: Again, I think the world of Senator Kennedy, have never said one thing, or Senator Kerry, or...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: So why is Richardson different?

CARVILLE: Because I think that there was -- that he served in the cabinet in two different positions. I think that he invited President Clinton to come to his Super Bowl party.

McCain: Osama, Petreaus Agree

I just thought the highlighted sentence was a unique way to make the point.

"As you know, I was in Iraq, Jordan, Israel, France and England on my last visit. And a couple of days ago, as you probably know, an audiotape -- actually it was last week -- an audiotape was released where bin Laden said, and I have to quote bin Laden, ... 'the nearest field to support our people in Palestine is the Iraqi field.' He urged Palestinians and people of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to quote 'help in support of their mujahedeen brothers in Iraq, which is the greatest opportunity and the biggest task.' Now my friends, for the first time I have seen Osama bin Laden and General Petraeus in agreement, and that is, the central battleground in the battle against al Qaeda is in Iraq today. And that's what bin Laden is saying and that's what General Petraeus is saying and that's what I'm saying, my friends, and my Democrat opponents who want to pull out of Iraq refuse to understand what's being said and what's happening, and that is, the central battleground is Iraq in this struggle against radical Islamic extremism."

McCarthyism And Some Coin

A fundraising e-mail sent by Terry McAullife, the Clinton campaign chair:

Dear Friend,

Do you think Bill Clinton is like Joe McCarthy?

Of course you don't. Neither do I. But Barack Obama must because this past weekend, his campaign compared President Clinton to Joe McCarthy. Joe McCarthy!

Ever since we won in Ohio and Texas we have been seeing these kinds of personal attacks from the Obama campaign. It's hard to believe that a campaign that talks so much about changing the tenor of our politics would employ these kinds of tactics, but its the kind of thing we are seeing every day from Senator Obama and his campaign.

Here is just a small sample of the words they have used to describe Hillary and her campaign: "disingenuous," "divisive," "untruthful," "dishonest," and much more.

Well I'm not going to stand for it, and neither should you. There's no better way to fight back than to show your support for our campaign in the face of these attacks.

Click here to make a contribution and help us fight the negative attacks.

I appreciate everything you're doing to help Hillary win, and I know she does too. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Terry McAuliffe

Cackles

More fodder for the outrage file: James Carville still thinks Bill Richardson is a Judas.

The Obama Doctrine

The American Prospect's Spencer Ackerman has a reported essay about the scope and vision of Barack Obama's foreign policy. It's a provocative read. Note how the foreign policy team seems to consciously be operating against the 2004 rubric of "the politics of fear."

They envision a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering "democracy promotion" agenda in favor of "dignity promotion," to fix the conditions of misery that breed anti-Americanism and prevent liberty, justice, and prosperity from taking root. An inextricable part of that doctrine is a relentless and thorough destruction of al-Qaeda. Is this hawkish? Is this dovish? It's both and neither -- an overhaul not just of our foreign policy but of how we think about foreign policy. And it might just be the future of American global leadership.

Ackerman notices how certain grievances and perspectives link Obama's fo-po advisers to each other. They've all been outsiders, rather than insiders. They have a history of seeking advice from those outside their comfort zones. And they almost all have a preference for "dignity promotion" over the type of "freedom" and "democracy" promotion that the Bush Administration wants to be known for.

Duelo En Borinquen

The front page of San Juan's top Spanish-language daily features a gorgeous photograph of the Clintons accompanying an article about an upcoming visit by Bill Clinton to the commonwealth.

The DNC's rules and bylaws committee today is expected to make official PR's June 1 primary, with 63 delegates at stake. It used to be a caucus -- hmm.

Gov. Anibal Acevedo-Vila has endorsed Obama, but much of the island's progressive establishment is expected to line up behind Sen. Clinton.

Florida and Michigan Update

The Obama campaign's David Plouffe said on a conference call this morning that a 50/50 split would be fair from Chicago's perspective. That's their starting point, I bet they're willing to nudge those numbers a little. A Clinton aide on a later conference call took note of the proposal and dismissed it. "We think the votes should be counted."

Oh No He Didn't

To listen to some of the discussion about the Democratic presidential contest these days, one would think that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton should have spent Easter weekend in Chappaqua, writing her withdrawal speech and preparing for her return to the Senate.

Adam Nagourney, writing about the Clinton superdelegate scenario and, just perhaps, the VandeiHei/Allen thesis about presidential race coverage.

One Million Donors For Obama In March?

It's a possibility.

Outrages Of The Day

Outrageous! A new feature about the outrages, offensives to dignity, horrible immoralities, and otherwise horrendulosities that keep political partisans up at night.

Outrage number one:

"I am writing because I am very troubled regarding the media's unbalanced reporting on the Presidential election. After days reporting on something Obama's pastor said, you fail to cover an outright lie from Hillary Clinton herself about her trip to Bosnia. See the video link at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c. If it were Obama on video stating he had been under sniper fire and had to run for cover and the welcoming ceremony was cancelled, you not only would be reporting on it aggressively, he'd be out of the race. If you do not report on this as aggressively as you did on Obama's pastor it will prove that you have unbalanced reporting. Please do your job. Thank you.

Just outrageous.

Here's the video:

On a conference call with reporters today, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson acknowledged that his boss "misspoke."

Outrage number two: Gordon Fischer, former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party and Obama's Iowa co-chair, called President Clinton's oft-outrageified remarks about Clinton and McCain "a stain on [the former president's] legacy, much worse, much deeper than the one on Monica's blue dress. Fischer apologized today.

A Response To Allen and VandeHei

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning. … The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics. ... One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race — it’s more fun and it’s good for business.

Politico Executive editor Jim VandeHei and chief political writer Mike Allen present an unremarkable thesis about the Democratic presidential nomination – Obama’s probably gonna get it -- and support it with a provocative explanation: the media (I assume here they mean the press corps, not the broader media ) is consumed by, is driven by, self-interest in prolonging the idea of a competitive Democratic nomination. The authors posit this self-interest (“the answer has more to do with media psychology”) as the largest reason why, one would assume, there is still a race, rather than a nominee.

The first point is unremarkable, but the authors present it as a novel, even brave, conclusion. It’s not. Any regular visitor to Chuck Todd’s commentary in First Read, any viewer of David Chalian’s political commentary on ABC News now, anyone who has studied John King’s futuristic charts and graphs on CNN, anyone who has listened to the major commentators – Russert, Greenfield, Stephanopoulos, on the evening news – anyone who has read a story by Adam Nagourney on the presidential race, anyone who has listened to or read Jonathan Alter, and I dare say, regular readers of this blog – have known since before the March 3 primaries that the mathematics of the delegate selection process pose a near-prohibitively difficult challenge for Sen. Clinton. And many in the Clinton world know this. Indeed, the authors quote an anonymous senior Clinton adviser as saying there’s only a 10 percent chance that she can win.

So why does the media cover the race as if it matters?

Allen and VandeHei are surely right when they point out that the Clintons are a very unique political couple.

The media are also enamored of the almost mystical ability of the Clintons to work their way out of tight jams, as they have done for 16 years at the national level.

But they write that the media has “partnered” with the Clintons in portraying the race as tighter than it is. Apparently, VandeHei and Allen do not believe that the media has been sufficiently incredulous at all the goal-post moving that Mark Penn and Co. have been doing. I think the media have been properly skeptical, but let’s concede to them a bit of their premise: that the Clinton campaign is pretty good at managing expectation.

I don’t think the rest of their thesis holds up too well.

Take the argument that this race is “good business.” Really? While it is true that cable networks have seen revenue from higher ratings, newspapers have not seen any appreciable bump in their ad sales, and the television networks are not at all happy about the cost of the elongated nomination. Take a poll of the top fifty news division presidents or newspaper publishers and I’d bet that most would concede that the net financial effect of their political coverage has been negative.

There are many more factors that the authors do not mention. Indeed, the authors’ own publication, the Politico, is as responsible as any single publication for printing the type of horse race coverage that, in the eyes of the authors, are overstating the relative odds of the horses. The Politico has two excellent bloggers who provide moment-by-moment coverage of the race. Thanks to the newspaper’s magical pathway to Matt Drudge’s inbox and attention span, the Politico’s horse race coverage often disproportionately influences how editors and producers assess the day in political news. I don’t begrudge the Politico for its traffic ranking. Indeed, I envy them for it. But one would expect that Allen and VandeiHei’s own paper would at least take tentative steps in tamping down the enthusiasms of Ben Smith for writing about Hillary Clinton. They haven’t, thank goodness, for Smith is (a friend and) a fantastic political reporter whose instinct for the news is often spot-on and ahead of the curve. Allen writes a well-read daily political playbook. He hasn’t stopped covering Hillary Clinton either.

It’s true that editors like to find the point of conflict in a particular narrative and then base their coverage around that conflict as if it were the narrative itself. One of the reasons why the media jumps into the absurd word games – what did Barack Obama mean by “typical” – what did Bill Clinton mean by “two nominees who love America” – is that the candidates’s words are very easily reduced to the emotional impressions they make on their listeners out of context. All of this falls under the category of normal media coverage. The media spent way too much time on Sam Power and Geraldine Ferraro for this reason. a In the former’s case, Power’s comment was newsworthy for a small reason – that an Obama adviser called his opponent a monster – and for a larger reason – it reflects the near-hatred that the two campaigns have for each other personally right now. The media focused on the former and not the latter, because the former was more accessible and easier to explain; it was easier to put Power’s remarks in the context of the daily back and forth between the campaigns about who is nastier and dirtier and harder to focus on why they’ve become so nasty, at least toward each other.

Continue reading "A Response To Allen and VandeHei" »

McCain v. McCain

The Democrats this fall, knowing that John McCain is still very popular with independents who think he is independent and a truth teller, and, most of all, a resilient man, will seek to portray him as the opposite: beholden to whichever partner he is bringing to the dance.

That's the idea behind this new website from the DNC

It's called McCain Debates.

The turn is: he's debating himself.

Example, from the DNC:

ROUND 1: Do you think Saddam is a threat?

"I believe that Saddam Hussein presents clear and present danger to the United States of America with his continued pursuit of...to acquire weapons of mass destruction." [CNN Late Edition, 3/3/02]

vs.

"I never said that it was a, quote, clear and present danger because of weapons of mass destruction." [Hardball, 9/17/03]

Those ellipses are suspect....I admit.

Hey -- and here's a subject for another "debate."

Was John McCain on the verge of changing his party affiliation or joining John Kerry's ticket in 2004? He says never. The historical record is murky.

John Brennan: A Conspiracy Of None

Two e-mails from two Clinton supporters pass along this CNN brief about the company that employed a state dept. functionary who snuck a peak at Barack Obama's passport application.

Turns out that the owner of one of the companies is John Brennan, one of Barack Obama's chief advisers on intelligence policy. (The others are Lee Hamilton and Tony Lake.)

Conspiracy?

Actually, no.

It's more interesting that that. Let's broaden this out.

Brennan is one of many former intelligence community heavyweights to have started his own consulting firm after leaving the government. These firms employ hundreds of thousands of Americans in jobs requiring access to sensitive, Secret, Top Secret, or even Top Secret Codeword information.

There's a big debate in the community right now about contracting: how much oversight is enough? Should the contractors be subject to the same rules as federal employees? Are their jobs that contractors shouldn't do? Should the IC admit that it has outsourced many of our nation's most critical jobs to non-government employees?

Also: what's the quickest, safest and most efficient way to vet these employees.

In this case, the employee was subjected to a "national agency check," which is essentially what the Secret Service performs on folks whose friends get them those extra-special White House tours. That is, their names are run through federal databases to see if anything untoward pops out. Most "Secret" clearances are processed with a national agency check and only a little bit more investigation.

Most folks in the intelligence community want contractors to have easier access to raw intelligence products and have urged reform of the security clearance process. That's where another Brenann connection comes in. He's the chairman of INSA, the Intelligence and Security Alliance, a very well-regarded think tank consortium funded in part by companies who have IC business.

One wonders whether a President Obama would be more likely, or less likely, to support a more rational security clearance system after these indiscretions.

NB: Brennan was most recently in the news for breaking with Obama over telecom immunity. Brennan supports it; Obama does not.

Hollywood's Vietnam Moment

Starring Ross Douthat.

Rated R for nudity and sexual content. (Kidding... or am I?)

Stage Directions Anyone?

The Obama campaign distributed Gov. Bill Richardson's endorsement speech...note the stage direction:

I know Senator Obama well.

I first got to know him when I chaired the last Democratic National Convention, where he gave that wonderful keynote address.

And then, last year, as we campaigned against each other for the Presidency, I came to fully appreciate his steadfast patriotism and remarkable talents.

I also felt a kinship with him because we both had one foreign-born parent and we both lived abroad as children.

In part because of these experiences, Barack and I share a deep sense of our nation’s special responsibilities in the world.

[Turn toward Obama and smile]

Barack Obama, you are an extraordinary leader who has shown courage, sound judgment and wisdom throughout your career.

You understand the security challenges of the 21st century, and you will be an outstanding Commander in Chief.

Fundraising Comparisons

No question that the RNC has trounced the DNC in fundraising, with the Republicans finishing February with $25M cash on hand versus about $4.7M for the Democrats. That figure ought to stand by itself.

But the moment Republicans try to make any further comparisons.... they might want to note that the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain has less cash on hand than the DNC -- $3.7M when his debts are taken into account. Clinton and Obama raised more than $80M last month combined. If you add their totals to the DNC's total, then the Democratic general election machine outraised the Republican election machine.

As I resume light posting.... where has McCain's small donor base gone?

The Full Wright

This extended excerpt from Rev. Wright's 9/11 sermon is also circulating. I had read it but had not seen it. So in fairness to... well, everyone, here it is. (Cap tip, Andrew.)

A Faint Heart Beats In Michigan

The state Democratic Party has decided to postpone the slating of its delegates, which had previously been scheduled for March 29. They'd do that only if they really intended to keep fighting for a new primary of some sort.

The latest anti-Obama video circulating

by NHale Media, linked to the Salem media giant.

I'm comfortable posting this one because it (a) is being e-mailed around this morning by various party officials and high-level Republicans (as in, people who will have spending authority to create and disseminate anti-Obama messages in the general.), making it newsworthy, and (b) is not beyond the pale or racist, so far as I can tell.** (If Soren Dayton had circulated this one, would he have been suspended?)

** Does the end music come from Public Enemy? Hmm. "Fight the power" and "don't believe the hype."

What Does "Sought" Mean?

This Sunday, Rev. John Hagee tells the New York Times Magazine that John McCain "sought" his endorsement.

Sought -- as in -- made a courtesy call with lovey-dovey words in it? Wrote letters? "Please, please, pastor Hagee? I need you?" Or was the importuning left to some staffer?

I ask because the lesson of the Hagee affair to many inside and outside McCain's campaign was that McCain really wasn't seeking Hagee's endorsement at the time and had no business showing up with him and was sort of roped into it by a campaign structure that is too lean to allow for sufficient political vetting of spur-of-the-moment ideas suggested by campaign allies.

In other words: the problem was avoidable because there really wasn't a net benefit to Hagee's nod. (Please -- McCain won Texas because of Hagee?)

Light Posting Resumes

until it pauses.

"A photo.....ooooh"

Just for kicks, check out Howard Wolfson's response to the New York Times in this news brief, and then try and figure out why all of us at the Atlantic think the rest of the item is pretty darned cool.

Richardson Endorses Obama At... 12:08 am PT

The New Mexico Gov. sent a message to his campaign e-mail list at 3:08 a.m., leading to AP bulletin about 5 minutes later. Did Obama need a good morning news cycle?

BTW: a wise old hand agrees that St. Dept. passport affair might well help unite Democrats around Sen. Obama by posing the Bushies (fairly or not) as foils.

During the last year, I have shared with you my vision and hopes for this nation as we look to repair the damage of the last seven years. And you have shared your support, your ideas and your encouragement to my campaign. We have been through a lot together and that is why I wanted to tell you that, after careful and thoughtful deliberation, I have made a decision to endorse Barack Obama for President.

We are blessed to have two great American leaders and great Democrats running for President. My affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver. It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall. The 1990's were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward. Barack Obama will be a historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.

Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him. He inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.

As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences--and place blame on others not like them . We all know the real culprit -- the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!

Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.

His words are those of a courageous, thoughtful and inspiring leader, who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand. And, after nearly eight years of George W. Bush, we desperately need such a leader.

To reverse the disastrous policies of the last seven years, rebuild our economy, address the housing and mortgage crisis, bring our troops home from Iraq and restore America's international standing, we need a President who can bring us together as a nation so we can confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad.

During the past year, I got to know Senator Obama as we campaigned against each other for the Presidency, and I felt a kinship with him because we both grew up between words, in a sense, living both abroad and here in America. In part because of these experiences, Barack and I share a deep sense of our nation's special responsibilities in the world.

So, once again, thank you for all you have done for me and my campaign. I wanted to make sure you understood my reasons for my endorsement of Senator Obama. I know that you, no matter what your choice, will do so with the best interests of this nation, in your heart.

Sincerely,

Bill Richardson

The Obama Passport Scandal

Or maybe just overly curious contract employees.

Bill Gertz:

Two State Department employees were fired recently and a third disciplined for improperly accessing electronic personal data on Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The officials, all contract workers, used their authorized computer network access to look up files within the department's consular affairs section, which processes and stores passport information, and read Mr. Obama's passport application and other records, in violation of department privacy rules, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was notified of the security breach yesterday, and responded by saying security measures used to monitor records of high-profile Americans worked properly in detecting the breaches.

Mr. McCormack said the officials did not appear to be seeking information on behalf of any political candidate or party.

"As far as we can tell, in each of the three cases, it was imprudent curiosity," Mr. McCormack told The Washington Times.

The FBI is apparently investigating.

One Last Michigan Push: Mail-In?

The state Senate bill is dead, and the Governor has all but conceded that there's no hope for a new primary.... but I'm hearing that Michigan Democrats are going to try to make one final push for a vote by mail primary.... it's a long shot.

As I continue my light-blogging, think about this: if HRC had started to press for new primaries in Florida and Michigan, say, right after Feb. 5 or immediately after Ohio and Texas.... would she have had a better chance?

Clinton Campaign Gets A New C.O.O.

A major hire in Hillaryland.

Howard Paster, formerly the chief Capitol Hill liaison for President Clinton in the White House and a long-time informal campaign adviser, will serve as the campaign's chief operating officer, two Democrats with knowledge of the move said today.

Mr. Paster, 61, will report to campaign manager Maggie Williams directly and will be responsible for carrying out her orders

He will coordinate the campaign's various operational departments -- scheduling, press, liaison, communications, political, field. (Jessica O'Connell, the campaign's national operations director, resigned this week.)

Williams announced Paster's addition to senior staff this morning.

It was in part because of Paster's advice that Mark Penn, now Clinton's chief strategist, was brought into the Clinton inner circle ahead of the former president's re-election. Paster is a senior executive at WPP and supervises its A-list marketing companies, including Burson-Marsteller, of which Penn is CEO.

Clinton Kremlinologists were buzzing this morning at the news that the campaign hired, for the first time since 2000, a second pollster. Geoff Garin was brought aboard to survey Indiana and other states.

A Clinton spokesperson confirmed the news but declined to comment.

The Democratic Race: Square One

Political analysis is often a tug of war between the deep limbic, animal regions of the brain on one day and the cortical areas on the next.*

Obama's had a tough week, as numbers everywhere reflect, including the Gallup daily track (but not the Rasmussen track) and three state polls showing Clinton outperforming Obama against McCain in Ohio, Missouri and even making Kentucky somewhat competitive.

But the Obama campaign has met the challenge of Rev. Wright, perhaps sufficiently, perhaps not. But from the perspective of wavering superdelegates, it's hard to find a level of panic among them. Obama has four weeks to recover until Pennsylvania; assuming that the bad news evens out the good news, the attitudes of these superdelegates will degrees to the mean and they won't be a position to rethink the entire premise of Obama's candidacy.

The see-saw numbers change every week; why would superdelegates put more stock in them now versus last week versus two weeks from now?

And Florida and Michigan aren't going to re-vote. The chances for their Jan. 29 delegations to be seated intact are slim to shred.

Clinton may well win the political argument in Florida and Michigan, but she won't win a single delegate from those two states until at least April, when the DNC's rules and bylaws committee might decide to seat superdelegates based on the appeal of DNC member Jon Ausman.

To put it crudely, the analyst's emotional brain feels momentum for Hillary; the analyst's analytical brain can't quite figure out how Obama loses.

* Yes, cognitive neuroscientists, I am vastly oversimplifying the brain.

A Delegate-Sharing Proposal From Florida

This comes from the ranking Democrat in the State Senate, Steven Geller (who hasn't endorsed anyone), and State Sen. Jeremy Ring.

Half the delegates would be awarded on the basis of the Jan. 29 primary; the rest would allocated according to any number of scenarios, including an even split, a split reflecting the national popular vote, a split reflecting the national earned delegate count.

To work, it would require both campaigns to sign on, and would require the DNC's credentials committee to approve it, a process that would not really begin until July.

Multimedia Delights From The Atlantic

A smorgasbord of video and audio content to tide you over as I hopefully stick a lighter posting schedule.

First, Ross Douthat and Matt Yglesias discuss Sen. Obama's speech in an audio podcast.

And the latest installment of the page, where Megan McArdle, Yglesias and I discuss race... gender, Geraldine Ferraro and our own Andrew Sullivan.

Gallup Daily Tracking

The first time Hillary Clinton has led outside the margin of error. A reflection of Obama's week. Nothing more, nothing less. Obama has never been the overwhelming favorite of Democrats; Clinton has never been the overwhelming second choice. Ten percent of the party seems to vacillate. And every poll I've seen of Dems who've voted already suggests that Obama has an edge over Clinton.

Lanny Davis Jabs Obama On Wright (Updated)

One very prominent Clinton campaign surrogate either didn't get the message (unlikely), has decided to freelance, or represents the tip of the spear in terms of a new Clinton campaign front.

Lanny Davis, in a HuffingtonPost column today,, asks:

These two questions are:

1. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?

2. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her "Religious Advisory Committee" of his or her presidential campaign?

No offense to Arianna... the Huffington Post is not the main news source for Pennsylvania voters. Superdelegates and Obama donors... yes. Was this an authorized hit?

Update: "Nope," says Clinton campaign communications director Howard Wolfson.

Racial Realities And Obama's Speech

Some semi-final thoughts, written for The Current.

Obama's Memo On Michigan

The Obama campaign is opposed to a Michigan re-vote mainly for reasons of politics. That's a descriptive truth I arrived at from reporting and talking to numerous sources within the campaign. It may well be true that there are legitimate grievances and obstacles to a new primary that the campaign has found -- indeed -- there appear to be some. Pointing out that the main reason for the opposition is political has pushed some readers to conclude that I have a pro-Clinton bias. Think what you wish. There are sand boxes out back. (OK, that's unfair. Sorry.) This is the blog, after all, that sounded the pre-clearance alarm (see below)....

Here's a memo from Obama counsel Bob Bauer describing some of the Obama campaign's worries about Michigan.

TO:

Interested Parties

FROM:

Robert F. Bauer

RE:

Michigan Primary

DA:

March 19, 2008

In the short time available, I have reviewed the proposed legislation to establish the June 3, 2008 primary, considering primarily those issues that bear on the central question of whether this election can be conducted successfully without undue risk of legal challenges, including those challenges arising out of errors or other breakdown induced by the schedule the State has proposed.

No one disputes that the election will have to be hurriedly prepared; and it is further accepted that it is, in material respects, unprecedented in conception and proposed structure. Michigan will be, for example, the first to state to have re-run an election in circumstances like these, to redress violations of party rules, and it will be the first to do so with the state supplying the legislative and administrative support but with private parties underwriting the costs with "soft money". Whether the state can achieve its goals here depends on the nature and seriousness of the legal and administrative questions presented by this initiative—questions that, raised after the election, could put at risk the running of the election, undermine acceptance of the results if the election is held, and in both cases effectively deny Michigan voters, a second consecutive time, meaningful participation in the nominating process.

For the reasons discussed briefly below, there are such questions and they are serious both in nature and in their potential, if not likely, impact on the June election proposal.

Voter Disqualification

Although Michigan has always run open elections, which allow voters to vote in whatever primary they prefer, voters who participated in the Republican primary in January could not vote in the June election under the proposed law. This class of voters includes Democrats and Independents who chose not to vote in the invalid Democratic primary at the time because the majority of active candidates did not appear on the ballot and the results would not be accepted under party rules.

This provision raises a significant constitutional question and, along with it, the prospect for litigation that would undermine the perceived legitimacy of the election and bring preparations to a standstill under circumstances in which such delay is effectively fatal. The claim here could also be presented to the party, under party rules, with a similar effect of putting the election and its results in serious question.

The burden on voters here is one of complete disqualification—they cannot participate in the Democratic primary in June if they voted in the January Republican primary. Their claim of a violation of their rights would rest on the fact that that the state "changed the rules in the middle of the game." These voters' choice was entirely reasonable in the circumstances: there was no valid Democratic primary available to them at the time, and they could not know that, when their choice was made, that they were disqualifying themselves from participating in a re-run Democratic primary this year that they could know would be held.

Moreover, the state will have difficulty justifying this disenfranchisement by reference to any legitimate state interest. Michigan cannot argue that it wants to limit the June primary to those who are genuinely Democrats, because it has always run fully open primaries. Voters, in other words, have a state-conferred right to vote in the Democratic party no matter what their affiliation. The primaries in January were fully open; and the decision to close them in June will not easily stand constitutional scrutiny. In any challenge, Michigan will be criticized for proposing a re-run without, in effect, restoring to voters the original choice they had—whether to participate in a meaningful Democratic primary.

In other words, the proposal offers a re-run for the State but not for all the voters. The state will have to assert an interest sufficient to justify this infringement on the voting rights of its citizens. Its challenge will be to show how, when the state is seeking to remedy a problem of its own making—failure in the first instance to observe party rules on timing—it can somehow discriminate against groups of its own citizens.

The State is also vulnerable to challenge under the party rules. Since any Republican or independent who did not vote in January in the Republican primary is fully free to participate in the June primary, the effect of the proposal is to enfranchise a class of Republicans while disenfranchising a class of Democrats—the ones who chose to vote in the Republican primary when they correctly understood that the Democratic contest was meaningless. A challenge along these lines would consume time, when time is not available, and it is not clear that the party would or could approve this exclusionary feature even if the participating candidates were to agree to it. The DNC would subject itself to legal action if it proceeds with approval of the plan with these terms included.

These voting rights issues constitute a serious vulnerability in the proposed legislation and a threat to its successful enactment and implementation.

Voting Rights Act Pre-Clearance

The June primary proposal is clearly subject to pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act. Because of the voter disqualification feature, together with the other extraordinary circumstances, there is no reason to believe that this review will conclude promptly or without issues raised. The Justice Department is not even required to issue its ruling until 60 days have elapsed. This timeline simply does not fit within the state timeline and may only further delay preparations.

Further, should the Department of Justice object, the state would be barred from proceeding with its plan. Even if the Department pre-clears the election, objections could be pursued further in litigation initiated under another provision (Section 2) of the Voting Rights Act.

Additional Issues: Implications for Litigation

Under the bill, and in connection with meeting the demands of an election under the schedule it establishes, there are additional sources of potential legal challenge. Each of these is addressed briefly here:

(1) Voter Affirmation

The proposed legislation would call for voters to affirm that they have not participated in any other Presidential primary election in this calendar year. Should the election be close, it foreseeable that these affirmations would become a source of challenges, as we have already seen, in Texas, similar demands for the verification of up to one million voters' eligibility. Any such challenge would delay results on a timetable that does not allow for delay.

There is also a significant danger here of potential voter confusion: a voter might affirm that he or she did not participate in any other Presidential primary, by which the voter might mean the prior Democratic primary, with the result that the voter would be subject to investigation for falsely affirming what he or she believed to be true.

The result here could be extensive litigation, embarrassment to the voters, and eventual loss of credibility for the election.

(2) UOCAVA

.It is a serious risk that, under the highly compressed timetables established under the proposed bill, Michigan will be unable to satisfy the requirements for compliance with the Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA),, which was designed to protect our men and women in uniform, among others. The Election Assistance Commission's report in September, 2007 on the low turn-out in overseas voting called on States and local election authorities to attend closely to the requirements for the timely and reliable delivery and receipt of ballots. The fact that, as noted below, election administrators within Michigan have already raised the potential for administrative strain, if not breakdown, in the proposed June election squarely raises the foreseeable consequences for Michigan's performance of its obligations to these voters under the law.

(3) Strain on Election Preparations

Those with the most detailed knowledge about, and the greatest responsibility for, how well the proposed election will work—the clerks who will actually be charged with administering the election—have stated that the election cannot be planned and administered within this time frame. http://blog.mlive.com/kzgazette/2008/03/saginaw_county_clerk_says_redo.html (reporting the President of the Michigan Association of County Clerks conclusion that "Our software and other equipment are not designed to run (multiple) elections at the same time. There are just so many reasons why this [June election] wouldn't work").

The professional judgments in advance of the election, warning of breakdown, will be cited in litigation over any difficulties Michigan experiences over the course of endeavoring to run this election. If breakdowns occur, and especially if the election is close, it is likely that Michigan's attempt to hold this election on this timetable, in the face of these warnings from the responsible local officials, will weigh heavily against its legal position. In any litigation, it is sure to be noted, as in the past, that "Michigan is the largest . . . state that today place[s] responsibility for conducting elections primarily at the municipal level. . . . Some 274 city clerks and 1,242 township clerks . . . are primarily responsible for the actual administration of Michigan elections." Steven F. Huefner, et al., From Registration to Recounts: The Election Ecosystems of Five Midwestern States 88 (2007). An election held without regard to the independent and professional judgment of the responsible officials will, in the event of breakdown, subject the state and the party to adverse consequences in any subsequent legal accounting.

A Note on Financing

I have further reviewed the state's plan to collect the funds needed for this election from private sources. It appears that, under Michigan law, the State may, if it "appropriates" the money by separate enactment, invite private parties, individuals or groups, to contribute on an unlimited basis to support a public function such as this conduct of this election.

To the extent that this extraordinary financing provision raises issues, these arise under the Federal Election Campaign Act of l971. Throughout press accounts, supporters of the proposal and others commenting on it have referred to the private funding as "soft money." Now in formal use following the enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, this term covers any funds raised and spent outside the FECA's contribution limits, source restrictions and reporting requirements to influence a federal election. Neither the national party nor candidates may solicit such funds, nor may others "acting on their behalf" as their agents.

We could expect that this issue may be raised—and it has already been identified by a leading reform organization, Democracy 21, a leading supporters of the BCRA "soft money" reforms. http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={91FCB139-CC82-4DDD-AE4E-3A81E6427C7F}&DE={93E58584-8019-4201-A02C-4519BC65B974

Since the state is acting on behalf of the party, with the expected assistance of the candidates, a creditable case may be made that all soft monies raised have been impermissibly solicited on behalf of at least the Democratic National Committee and, possibly, Senators Obama and Clinton (to the extent that their donors are encouraged or motivated to volunteer funds). It is therefore well within the realm of possibility that such a case will be made, subjecting the party and its candidates to potential liability.

The World v. Obama On Michigan

The DNC now weighs in.

MEMORANDUM

TO: DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Members
FROM: Alexis Herman & James Roosevelt, Jr., Co-Chairs DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee
RE: Update on Proposed Michigan Legislation
DATE: March 19, 2008

We have recently been asked whether the legislation as proposed by Michigan would fit within the framework of the National Party’s Delegate Selection Rules. Our review of this legislation indicates that it would, in fact, fit within the framework of the Rules if, it were, passed by the state legislature and used by the Michigan State Democratic Party as the basis of drafting a formal Delegate Selection Plan. If a formal Delegate Selection Plan is received we will convene a meeting of the RBC to consider such a Plan.

We look forward to talking with you soon

Light Posting

I'll be posting less frequently over the next week or so in order to attend to some longer-term projects, among other things.

When events warrant, I will certainly be here, so please do check the blog regularly.

Regular posting will resume next Wednesday at the latest.

Will Clinton Visit Florida Next?

Unclear.... the situation is fluid there.... but if the case needs to be pressed, it's likely that she will make a stop in Florida at some point soon.

It's Not All About Race

So this was supposed to be posted TODAY... and instead was posted yesterday...but somehow, despite a timestamp suggesting it was published BEFORE Obama spoke, 47 of you managed to comment.

Did Obama's speech "work?"

The commentariot interprets this to mean: how do Reagan Democrats feel about the speech?

There's not that much evidence that Obama has a problem with whites, YET. He won 40% of them in Georgia, won them handily in Virginia ... whites of all socioeconomic backgrounds. And in Wisconsin, too. Yes, Pew and Gallup and some state polls have found that blue collar Democrats and white working class independents are attracted to John McCain when Obama is the Democratic nominee, but that evidence is preliminary, and the thread hasn't really been pulled. We don't know whether that's because Obama has yet to establish his security credentials, whether these whites are uncomfortable voting for a black man, or whether Clinton's kitchen-sink attacks against Obama are hurting him when pollsters ask people to project forward.

Does Obama resonate with the steelworker in Pittsburgh? Well, is that steelworker rich? Does he or she read Dailykos? How's his pension? His health care? Is he young or old? There are so many cross-cutting cleavages having little to do with race here.

The most polarized states are the states with the harshest racial histories and the states where Obama has done well so far -- think Virginia -- the New South -- he seems to be doing well enough, thank you, with white voters, although I haven't seen a poll there.

Obama's speech is about, yes, race, but its reception may depend as much on the hearer's class and age and religion and gender.

Questions About Obama

For the first time in two months, Democrats who had concluded that Barack Obama had sewn up the nomination, Democrats who support Barack Obama, Democrats who had concluded, as I had, that the mathematics work against Hillary Clinton, are filling my inbox and voice mail with versions of the same question: is his campaign in serious trouble?

I dunno. I still think the math works against Clinton. More so, if no Florida and Michigan 2.0

But something is trembling beneath the surface.

One neutral long-time Obama observer writes that Obama has been "whipsawed" by Wrigbt and Michigan/Florida, two external events over which he has no control.

Note that the Clinton campaign has said word ZERO about the Wright story. I'm told that campaign manager Maggie Williams issued an edict to staff members and surrogates and top fundraisers, urging them to hold their tongues. That the Clinton campaign was able to keep to this discipline may turn out to be the most consequential tactial move they've made in months. If anyone associated with the campaign had waded into the Wright affair, it would have been politicized in a way that probably would have hurt Clinton and not Obama.

The seeming kiboshing that was done to the new primaries in Florida and Michigan is, on its face, a huge victory for Obama. But Clinton's visit tomorrow will press the issue in a way that is bound to force Obama's hand to some extent. There is an urgency to the situation in Michigan, as the legislature has a few days to act before it goes on recess. The Obama campaign's reasons for throwing up obstacles in Michigan are mostly political. They know it, the Clinton campaign knows it, and by tomorrow, it's clear that many Michigan Democrats will know it.

All of this is to say that weirdness and uncertainty of the week has given superdelegates a reason to think this race through, once again. And there is only one candidate, at this point, who benefits from a re-think. It ain't Obama.

Clintons Gets A Superdelegate!!!

Rep. John Murtha, (D-Defense Contracts)

Sorry... D-PA, of the 12th congressional district...

Conservative Democrats in his district...leading to theories about why he chose yesterday to come out for HRC.

The "I Would Be Remiss" Post

I would be remiss if I didn't at least mention:

(a) it now seems as if New York Gov. David Paterson had more than one extramarital affair. Recently. As in, during the past few years. This is, to say the least, politically damaging to the governor, an enormous gift to political comedians, and could very well, depending on the press coverage, lead to Gov. Joseph Bruno.

(b) John McCain, as has been amply documented, has flubbed the Iranian connection to Al Q at least once before.

The Page: Democratic End Games

Megan McArdle, Matthew Yglesias and I explore the Democrats, Rev. Wright, and end games.

Michigan Primary Trouble: The Final Snag?

The politics of this are crystal clear. The Obama campaign did not want a Michigan re-vote or a Florida re-vote. So they've raised objection after objection. Some of them have been spurious and others have been valid.

Last night, the following objection began to make the rounds:

In Michigan, there is a law stating that the first time you vote, you have to do so in-person, and can only request an absentee after doing that initial in-person verification. This would obviously be a huge problem for Obama folks, as pretty much all college students are newly registered. Some will be stuck at school and can't vote absentee from home; others will be newly registered at their school and won't be able to vote there as they will be home as summer will have begun.

Well, this is so because a Michigan law passed by a Republican-controlled legislature in the mid-1990s prohibits students from being registered to vote at a different address than their driver's license. And Michigan's motor vehicle laws require that persons must be registered to vote at their residence address. Because many college students change their residence during college and many remain on their parents' auto insurance policy, most keep their address on their driver's license at their parents' home, not at a college address. Changing the driver's license address regularly as they move back and forth and around campus would be a hassle and costly. That means it's generally easier for Michigan college students to keep their home address on their driver's license and easier to vote at home than on campus.

An expert explained the problem to me:

The real problem for college students generally comes in a general election in November. Most students are on campus then and it is a difficult time to travel home to vote (although some do travel home on Election Day just to vote). Witness the 2000 congressional elections in which U.S. Rep Mike Rogers defeated State Rep. Dianne Byrum by less than 200 votes to take the seat vacated by Debbie Stabenow. Many college students at Michigan State University were unable to vote on campus due to their driver's license addresses. Reports were in the hundreds. Many credit this restriction is credited with Rogers' narrow victory. In fact, many refer to the driver's license restriction as the Rogers' Law.

A June election, in contrast, when students are home, actually may result in higher student turnout because more students are home near the polling place for the address on their driver's license. It's easier to vote in person or get an absentee ballot from their home clerk when they are home and not on campus.

But just to assume that June is more difficult for college students because school is out is an assumption made by someone who doesn't really understand all of the issues with college student voting in Michigan caused by laws passed by Republicans in the 1990s.

McCain Team Responds To Iran/Qaeda Error

Brain Rogers, a communications deputy over at the McCain HQ in Arlington, sends over a statement about his boss's momentary confusion in Amman, Jordan today:

“In a press conference today, John McCain misspoke and immediately corrected himself by stating that Iran is in fact supporting radical Islamic extremists in Iraq, not Al Qaeda -- as the transcript shows. Democrats have launched political attacks today because they know the American people have deep concerns about their candidates’ judgment and readiness to lead as commander in chief.”

Here's the transcript:

McCain In Amman, Jordan Today:

McCain: Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and is receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known and it’s unfortunate. So I believe that we are succeeding in Iraq - the situation has dramatically improved, but I also want to emphasize time and again Al Qaeda is on the run, but they are not defeated. We are seeing a major battle take place in Mosul as we speak. The southern part of Iraq has other difficulties as we well know. So I am pleased with the progress, we have a long way to go, and I am deeply concerned about Iranian influence, not only in Iraq, but on nuclear weapons; on sponsorship of Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations, and if we leave Iraq it will enhance Iranian influence in the region to the detriment, I think, of every nation in the region.

McCain: I’m sorry; the Iranians are training the extremists, not Al Qaeda. Not Al Qaeda. I’m sorry.

CBS News Poll On Rev. Wright And Obama

** 52% of registered voters are paying a lot or some attention to the episode.

** 36% of independents and 15% of Democrats say the episode has rendered them less favorable to Obama.

** 44% of voters view him favorably, 30% view him unfavorably, and 26% either are undecided or have not formed an opinion. 63% of Democrats view him favorably, a slight downward blip from CBS's poll last month.

McCain Blames Hastert Seat Loss On Anti-Immigration Rhetoric

McCain, on NPR this morning:

"We just had a loss of Denny Hastert's seat out in Illinois," McCain said. "The Republican candidate out there, I am told, had very strong anti-immigrant rhetoric also, so I would hope that many of our Republican candidates would understand the political practicalities of this issue."

A sign that McCain will stand his ground on the politics of immigration, at the very least.

Iran's Helping Sunnis Or Shiites?

Here's Video.

According to John McCain, the Sunnis...

He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

Al Qaeda, of course, is a Sunni group. Iran is said to be arming Shiite militias.

Now -- this could have been a brain flub. Some vesicle unloading an errant amount of a neutrotransmitter into the synaptic cleft. Or whatever. We all make 'em. But certain flubs can't be made... and this is probably one of them.

(Hat tip, La Page.)

Another Senior Staff Departure In Hillary Land

Jessica O'Connell, the national director of operations, responsible for personnel management, staff deployment and headquarters operations, has decided to step down. She joins a raft of Patti Solis Doyle loyalists, ranging from wonderkind Adam Parkhomenko to deputy manager Mike Henry, who have departed in recent weeks.

Here is O'Connell's resignation letter.

I am writing to share with you that I will be leaving the campaign effective Friday, March 21. I remain awed by the Senator's energy, passion, leadership on the issues, and courage. Senator Clinton will continue to have my full support and admiration. I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity to have worked directly with so many dedicated and talented colleagues in Virginia and throughout the country. No matter what your role, whether you have been with the campaign for days or from the beginning, let there be no doubt that you are making history and helping to change the world.

I will work closely this week with Maggie to ensure that you will be updated on who is handling various tasks from the National office and how to contact them. We have strong teams in place to manage the logistics of getting people where they need to be and offices up and running around the country. At the National HQ, the operations team will continue to ensure that things run smoothly. Of course, if you are in Ballston, I cannot guarantee that you will not be too hot or too cold on any given day - and I will miss the flurry of creative emails I receive on the topic.

Thank you for your friendship and support. This has been a life-changing experience and I am grateful to those who gave me the opportunity to be a part of this remarkable effort.

O'Connell's resignation should not be interpreted as a sign of chaos in Hillayland. It's just that Williams's management style is very different than Solis Doyle's.

Bell Curve Author On Obama Speech

Charles Murray:

"Flat out brilliant."

And he means it.

Rush Limbaugh Reacts To Obama Speech On Race

On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said that Barack Obama was now "the candidate of race."

He said Obama "is not an agent of racial healing, he is a product of it."

He accuses of Obama of wanting to be the nation's racial-healer-in-chief, rather than its commander-in-chief.

Limbaugh can go there... I don't know if John McCain can, or will.

HRC Records To Be Released Tomorrow

CBS News is reporting that eight years worth of Hillary Clinton's schedule as First Lady will be released tomorrow by the National Archives.

Gallup On McCain's Favorability Rating

Why does John McCain seemingly hover, untroubled, above the awful electoral foundation that Republicans have set for himself?

67 percent of Americans have a favorable perception of him today, compared to 62% for Barack Obama, to 53% percent for Hillary Clinton, according to Gallup.

These numbers have fluctuated. It seems that the more Democrats squabble, the better McCain looks. Perhaps when the Democrats finish squabbling and begin to squabble with McCain, he will regress toward the mean.

I think McCain's high favorability rating also explains why Americans seem to trust him with the economy, despite his professed lack of knowledge about the subject.

These numbers are fluid and early, and reflect a lot of three dimensional chess-playing. Crow should not be eaten; shorts should not be bunched.

More On Imminent Death Of Michigan Primary....

This dispatch from the MIRS News Service in Michigan (no link)

Senate Democrats emerged from a closed-door caucus this morning and proclaimed that a fledging idea floated by top Michigan Democrats to create a special June 3 primary election is all but dead.

"The votes aren't there to do it," said Sen. Buzz THOMAS (D-Detroit), the co-chair of the Barack OBAMA campaign in Michigan

Sen. Gretchen WHITMER, a supporter of Hillary CLINTON, also conceded the chances of a June 3 redo of the Democratic presidential primary were slim. She stopped short of declaring it dead, saying instead that it was "on life support" and in need of CPR.

The Legislature would need to approve a bill by a two-third vote to put in place a June 3 special primary that would replace the results of the Jan. 15 presidential primary, which the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is not recognizing because the early date violated national party rules.

No Michigan Re-Vote?

Michigan Democrats may not be able to come to an agreement on a new primary..... developing...

Speechwriter Of One

This wasn't a speech by committee... Obama wrote the speech himself, working on it for two days and nights.... and showed it to only a few of his top advisers.

Rhetoric!

In college I took "The Elements of Rhetoric" with Prof. James Engell. A great course and a fabulous professor.

I am heartened that this presidential election seems to have coincided with a rebirth of at least the idea that public rhetoric in its most basic form -- the persuasive speech -- still matters. Think of Mitt Romney's speech about religion in America and, of course, Obama's speech today.

The Obama Speech That Polarizes Republicans Against Obama?

Check out the comments of the Cornerites from National Review and compare them, say, to the rapturous analysis of the center-left anchors and commentators on the cable nets now. Actually, some of the folks there like the speech. So we'll see.

Personal Reflections On Obama's Speech

Y'all don't read this blog for my personal reflections on political developments, so I tend to refrain from writing about them.

I do think that Obama's speech was a marvel of contemporary political rhetoric. Politically, analytically and emotively, it hit many high notes. His acknowledgment of white working class resentments (busing) and about the perception that there's been no racial progress, his willingness to stick by his friends, his grasp of history, his sense that our views of race are cramped and caricatured... all of that is something that even those who disagree with the substance of his speech, can, I think, appreciate.

Reflections On Obama's Speech

If you're watching this speech in the suburbs of Philadelphia and are an undecided voter... please let me know what you thought.

For a biracial candidate living at the cusp of a postmodern era, Barack Obama's identity has been remarkably coherent and well-contained. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's discordant rhetoric poses the first real existential threat to the "Barack Obama" who has captured the hearts and minds of so many Democratic voters -- and, perhaps more importantly, piqued the curious admiration of non-Democrats.

In his speech today, instead of casting Wright out, throwing him overboard, trying to write him off, Obama did the opposite: he incorporated Wright into Barack Obama, LLC. Wright's evolution becomes part of America's evolution, which is part of Obama's story.

In no uncertain terms did Obama renounce -- morally condemn -- the hateful, anti-Semitic, anti-American and just plain bizarre rants of his pastor -- "former pastor," as Obama now calls him. But he did not reject him. He refused to reject him. He is daring, in essence, his white liberal supporters to accept what Wright's anger represents -- a legacy of oppression -- and daring the rest of white supporters to take a leap of faith him... and asking them to expand their minds a bit and see that Wright is preaching in a tradition that has a context that is directly related to the material and spiritual conditions of all Americans.

The sell will be easier for white liberals, I think. The speech was magnificently written. It was internally consistent with Obama apparently believes.

How it plays will determine how it plays. If the media focuses more on the Wright defense-by-renouncements and then juxtaposes them with clips of Wright's comments, then I think the trouble remains. The seeds of doubt about who this guy really is may be nourished. I know that Obama believes that a discussion about race plays to his benefit, no matter what people think about white working class voters and their latent feelings. Perhaps this is the beginning of his opportunity to lift the veil and get everyone -- not just himself and the media -- to talk openly.

Problem is... so far, this is a one way conversation. It's ... well, the tiny media scrum debating Rev. Wright... and Obama preaching to the country. There's no give. There's go back and forth. A one way conversation is a lecture.

CW tells us that white voters tend to become nervous when Democrats and liberals lecture to them -- even when they lecture eloquently and respectfully -- about race. Will they, this time? What do you think?

Obama's Speech: The Text

Full text after the jump.

Here are, I think, the critical paragraphs:

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

Continue reading "Obama's Speech: The Text" »

Obama's Speech

His campaign has released the embargoed text, and while I won't violate the embargo, I can say that the title of the speech is "A More Perfect Union."

Edwards Endorsement Imminent?

That's the big rumor of the week.

What makes it sexy is that it is somewhat dissonant. Edwards, the change agent, is supposed to ally himself with Barack Obama, the change agent.

But it's true that Edwards has never believed that Obama is ready to be president.

Edwards advisers, including several who had spoken with him recently, were skeptical that Edwards was on the verge of endorsing anyone.

Source: DNC Okayed Michigan Plan

Lawyers and officials at the Democratic National Committee have reviewed and informally given their OK to the legislation authorizing a primary re-vote in Michigan, two Democrats with direct knowledge of the matter said.

This means that, so far as the DNC concerned, the plans for a re-vote are likely to pass the screen of the party's rules and bylaws committee.

Dem Rules And Bylaws Committee May Meet In April

Democratic sources say that the party's 28-person rules and bylaws committee might meet in April to consider petitions filed by Jon Ausman to seat Florida superdelegates and perhaps the first of many challenges to seat Florida's delegation.

Florida's Delegation: What Now?

For the superdelegates, the Ausman Challenge.

For the rest... in staccato format...

(a) A fight at the rules and bylaws committee meeting in April... the RBC does not, as of today, have a meeting scheduled for April. But I suspect that the Florida Democratic Party will formally file a challenge and will request an RBC meeting in April...

(b) the RBC, which has veteran DNC rule sticklers as well as Clinton and Obama partisans on it, may well debate and rule, or may table the petition until July, when jurisdiction is taken over by the credentials committee.

(c) A negotiated settlement is not likely -- at least formally -- because there is no mechanism for it. The only mechanism for seating delegates is through (a) DNC sanctioned re-votes or (b) RBC/credentials committee resolutions adopted at the conventions. If not A then B. If not A or B, then the delegations will not be seated. Process "B" will play out.

Very senior aides to Hillary Clinton are not in a compromising mood. The Obama campaign may float a 52-48% delegate compromise... we'll see.

The only other folks who are floating the idea for a compromise are DNC members and members of Congress who want their delegates seated.

But a compromise would have to be iron out through the rules / credentials process.

Howard Dean cannot wave his magic wand and deem it so.

There Will Be Jokes...

But incoming New York Governor David Paterson's affair does not strike me as a large or significant story. Not even that titillating.

Not Technically A Hurdle In Michigan

I said this might be a hurdle.

Turns out that DNC rules do prohibit cross-over participation. The state party has to comply with rule 2.E, which states:

"No person shall participate or vote in the nominating process for a Democratic presidential candidate who also participates in the nominating process of any other party for the corresponding elections."

So as far as the DNC is concerned, the objection of potentially disenfranchising Dems or indies who voted in the GOP primary is not valid. For the Obama campaign, this may well be a political hook on which to hang their argument about unfairness. But it's within the rules of the party.

Bottom Line: No Florida Revote = Blow to Clinton

A senior Clinton campaign adviser admitted tonight that the chances for a primary do over in Florida were slim to none.

A re-vote was central to Hillary Clinton's political argument – a “real” win there might have given her a shot to eclipse or meet Obama in the popular vote tallies and bring her, oh, 30 delegates closer in the earned delegate tally.

This is a definite blow to her chances for the nomination.

I still suspect that the DNC may well seat the Florida and Michigan superdelegates -- see here... but there will be no big Florida victory in June for Clinton, no huge ending momentum swing, no big reduction in earned delegates.

Florida Ankles Re-Vote

As anticipated, the opposition to a mail-in primary was too fast, too furious, and John Singleton can't direct this thing to a stop yet.

The Florida Democratic Party sent an e-mail entitled "537" to its list -- the number of votes that separated George W. Bush from Al Gore in 2000.

A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it's simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the Party were to pay for it. Republican Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio refuses to even consider that option. Florida is finally moving to paper ballots, which is a good thing, but it means that at least 15 counties do not have the capacity to handle a major election before the June 10th DNC primary deadline.

This doesn't mean that Democrats are giving up on Florida voters. It means that a solution will have to come from the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to meet again in April.

When this committee stripped us of 100% of our delegates last year, some members summed up their reasoning by saying, "The rules are the rules." Unfortunately, the rules did not apply to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina when they, too, violated the DNC calendar by moving from their assigned dates.

Actually, the RBC won't meet in April (though there may be an emergency session), and in any event, what the FL Dems are referring to here is the credentials committee process, which lasts through the summer.

I know it sounds as if the state party has given up on the idea of a new primary, but .. we shall see.

A Last Minute Hurdle Erected In Michigan?

The proposed primaru re-vote legislation in Michigan prevents those who've voted in the Republican primary from voting in the re-vote.

Fair enough, right?

But about 32% of the those who vote in the GOP primary, according to the exit polls, were Democrats or independents.

It's a fair bet that many of them were Obama supporters, as he was not on the original Michigan ballot.

This could be a dealbreaker for the Obama campaign in Michigan.

Michigan Democrats have said that they won't move the bill the forward unless the Obama campaign gives its assent.

I'm told the Obama campaign is reviewing this part of the legislation....

The Fiscal Nightmare Of 2009

I wrote an Atlantic Current today on the state of affairs facing the nation's next chief executive. Short answer: the Dem will face pressure to raise taxes in a recession (bad!) and the Republican will face pressure to raise spending (bad politics!).

Both Democratic candidates released long statements on today's market meltdown.

Clinton, saying the economy was "in the soup":

“This is a moment of great unique uncertainty in our financial markets. The crisis that began in the subprime mortgage market has spilled over and now poses a broader threat. I am following the developments in our markets closely. This morning I spoke with Secretary Paulson and New York Federal Reserve President Tim Geithner. They both outlined the actions that were taken yesterday to ensure liquidity and restore confidence in the market. I relayed to them my thoughts and concerns. I will continue to monitor the situation closely throughout the day and will seek advice and counsel from a broad range of economic advisors.

Obama:

"Many other steps will be required to reverse this downturn in the weeks to come. It will require the efforts of those in the financial community; of the Federal Reserve; of Congress, and the White House. And it will also require a renewed confidence that we can meet this challenge. We are the United States of America, and each time we have faced moments of adversity in the past – some much greater than this – we have summoned a spirit of cooperation and innovation to emerge stronger and more prosperous than we were before. But it will take work, it will take time, and it will take leadership that recognizes that we are all part of the same economy, and that economy must work for every American in order for America to prosper in the 21st century."

Doug Holtz-Eakin, speaking for Sen. John McCain, who is in Iraq:

“Senator McCain has complete confidence in Chairman Bernanke and the actions of the Federal Reserve, and is committed to ensuring the economy continues to grow – because no government program or policy is a substitute for a good job. John McCain understands the federal government’s responsibility to ensure the stability of the US financial system, and is equally committed to protecting the pocketbooks of hardworking American families.”

Like a million men are going... I don't have no pocketbook...

He's Got A Feaver. More Iraq Explanations!

Peter Feaver, the political scientist-cum-Bush-White-House Iraq guru, has some pretty explicit advice for John McCain: you say you want an honest debate about Iraq? Do not ignore the origins of the war.

Feaver and his colleagues have evidence that voters chose Pres. Bush in 2004 in part because they still believed that the origins of the war were just. So they reason that in 2008, with a compelling majority having retrospectively changed their minds -- a very difficult cognitive reversal for a body of public opinion -- McCain must find a way to explain his vote.

McCain seems to ignore, for example, the near-supermajority of American adults who believe that the administration lied -- as in intentionally misled -- the public.

Feaver further argues that the case for war is stronger than the leftists who control the public discourse now would have everyone believe. And he argues that McCain's failure to explain his own thinking allows, say, Barack Obama, to get away with a lapse in reasoning:

Finally, the failure to defend the historical case has allowed Democrats to avoid answering tough questions about their own stances. Senator Obama, for instance, loves to praise his own judgment in coming out against the Iraq war in 2002, favoring instead containing Saddam Hussein with a vigorous weapons inspections regime. What Obama has never explained is how he thought the United States could reconstitute the containment/inspections regime absent a credible threat of force. When Obama gave his 2002 speech, there were no inspectors on the ground in Iraq and the U.N. sanctions were falling apart. It was the U.S. threat of force--the very threat Obama was protesting--that reinvigorated the Security Council and reestablished the inspections regime.

Randy Scheunemann and other McCain policy advisers have almost certainly read and digested this article as it appeared in the Weekly Standard, McCain's house organ. Perhaps it was a subtle message from them (the Standard) to him.

Obama Web Video Slams Clinton On War

Just like to use an active verb like "slam" because it gets the Memeorandum bots' attention. And in this economic environment, every bit of traffic helps.

HRC today: "What matters is what we've actually done.."

Cut to:

HRC before the war vote in 2002: "This is a very difficult vote... any vote that might lead to war should be hard... but I cast this with conviction... perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other hand of Pennsylvania Avenue."

Obama Will Speak On Wright, Race, Future

Barack Obama plans a major speech tomorrow in Philadelphia on race, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the future.

An adviser said that Obama wants to contain the Wright story. He worries that the 1960s-to-1980s prism of race is what everyone has read into it, and Obama wants to move the discussion forward.

He is expected to recount, in detail, how he came to know Rev. Wright, how he came to admire Rev. Wright, the history and meaning of the Trinity church, and address the controversial remarks attributed to Wright.

He is also worried that Wright and church will get caricatured unfairly.

Politically, Obama wants lead his defense, believing that surrogates might either inflame the controversy by defending Rev. Wright or describe imprecisely Obama's view of race relations. (Is he post-racial? Trans-racial?)

Since everyone is paying attention to Obama and race, the basic thought, according to advisers, is why not give a big speech about... Obama and race.

Kristol Admits Error

This paragraph now runs at the top of Bill Kristol's column today:

In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama campaign has provided information showing that Senator Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error.

Markos Responds: HRC Responsible For "Civil War"

Re: the "Strike" by pro-Clinton writers at the DailyKos.

Founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga responds.

"[A] coup by super delegate would sunder the party in civil war. Clinton knows this, it's her only path to victory, and she doesn't care. She is willing -- nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power. . . . That's why she has earned my enmity and that of so many others. That's why she is bleeding super delegates. That's why she's even bleeding her own caucus delegates (remember, she lost a delegate in Iowa on Saturday). That's why Keith Olbermann finally broke his neutrality. That's why Nancy Pelosi essentially cast her lot with Obama. That's why Democrats outside of the Beltway are hoping for the unifying Obama at the top of the ticket, and not a Clinton so divisive, she is actually working to split her own party. Meanwhile, Clinton and her shrinking band of paranoid holdouts wail and scream about all those evil people who have "turned" on Clinton and are no longer "honest power brokers" or "respectable voices" or whatnot, wearing blinders to reality, talking about silly little "strikes" when in reality, Clinton is planning a far more drastic, destructive and dehabilitating civil war.

Superdelegates From Florida, Michigan May Be Seated

I've been reporter-skeptical of the fits and starts and floated "compromises" to seat half delegations and half superdelegations, and seat one Dingell and not the other and half the UAW and not the NEA or whatever... but there is one rules challenge in particular that may well, by the middle of next month, lead to the acceptance of Florida and Michigan superdelegates no matter what happens with regard a primary re-vote in either state.

Last week, DNC member Jon Ausman filed a petition with the party's rules and bylaws committee pointing out that the charter of the DNC uses the verb "shall" when describing the relationship between superdelegates and the convention, as in -- superdelegates "shall" be seated. The argument, basically, is that the charter supercedes any penalty imposed by the RBC. The counterarguement is that the verb "shall" is later qualified.

The 28 members of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws committee may well decide that the challenge has validity and may well decide to seat the superdelegates from Florida, and then, should there be a similar petition from Michigan, the superdelegates from Michigan.

There are Obama supporters on the RBC (Carol Khare Fowler) and there are Clinton supporters on the RBC (Harold Ickes), but the members of the committee have a reputation for looking at these things with a clear tablet.

What This Isn't

This ISN'T a compromise sanctioned by or floated by a campaign. Ausman was a Kucinich supporter. This DOESN't resolve the question of the earned or pledged delegates. The RBC might well decide that the challenge is NOT valid. And even a valid challenge can be appealed to the credentials committee in July.

HRC's Challenge To Obama And McCain

Five years after the start of major combat ops, as John McCain and Dick Cheney visited Baghdad, as the financial markets melt down, as the media focuses on her opponent's tricky associations, Hillary Clinton sees a vaccuum and and is filling it with tales of her own bravery, a new set of principles about withdrawing from Iraq, and some words for her rivals, near-term and short-term. One-to-two-brigades per month. Clinton is still going to face the same problems Sam Power knows Obama will face, but the luxury Clinton has is that no Clinton adviser is going to acknowledge this... and an Obama adviser already has... and so Clinton has the political foot-hold here, even though reality is likely to confront them similarly. Here's the full speech.

Some key paragraphs after the jump.

Continue reading "HRC's Challenge To Obama And McCain" »

The Times Will Correct The Kristol Column

The New York Times will shortly add a correction to Bill Kristol's column.

McCain's Bracketology

Creative... let's see how many folks they get to sign up.

McCain: Clinton Withdraw Plan Means 'Qaeda Wins

From a CNN interview:

John KING: Well, today, back home, one of those Democrats, Senator Clinton, who could be your opponent in the fall election, is giving a speech in which she is saying if she is elected president of the United States, she will start bringing home the troops within 60 days.

John MCCAIN: Well, all I can say is that she obviously does not understand nor appreciate the progress that has been made on the ground. She told General Petraeus last year when he testified that she would have to suspend disbelief in order to believe that the surge is working. Well, the surge is working.

So I just think what that means is al Qaeda wins. They tell the world that. And we fight here again and around the Middle East. And their dedication is to follow us home. All I can say is that this will be a big issue in the election as we approach November because at least a growing number of Americans, though still frustrated and understandably so, believe that this strategy has succeeded.

…But when you look at what has happened over the last year, in the view of most objective observers, it is a pretty remarkable improvement.

2024 Is The New Magic Number

The Democratic National Committee tells us this morning that the new Magic Number is 2024, thanks to a variety of micro-changes, including the travails of Client #9.

** Bill Foster's election in Illinois's 14 congressional district increases by one the number of superdelegates.

** Andre Carson's election in Indiana 7th congressional district increases by one the number of superdelegates.

** As chronicled here, the number of superdelegates declines by one because ex-DNC chair Ken Curtis retired to Florida from Maine.

** Eliot Spitzer's resignation means that David Paterson can't serve as 2 superdelegates at once, so the number decreases by one.

McCain's Tax Returns

He will make them available to reporters after he files on April 15, according to his campaign.

Another Superdelegate for Obama

Margie Gavin Woods, from Illinois.

That makes 48 for Obama since Feb 5, and zero for Clinton.

Flo/Mi: The Lawsuits Begin

A supporter of John Edwards has persuaded a federal appeals court in Atlanta to hear his case for seating Florida's 210 delegates.

This may well be an exercise in jurisdiction assertion, but it's got to make the DNC a wee bit nervous: after all, the DNC was unsuccessfully sued for violating the civil rights of Floridians last year and was essentially granted the right to determine and interpret its own primary rules.

What's Next? Biddle? Bailey?

It's been so long since we've had a good bank run that we lack the language to describe how the Bear Stearns collapse translates into our politics.

Bear had weathered the vagaries of the markets for 85 years, surviving the Depression and a dozen recessions only to meet its end in the rapidly unfolding credit crisis now afflicting the American economy.

It was the investment bank most exposed to the credit crisis, but still...

I suppose that if the Republican primary were still competitive, Ron Paul's anti-Fed thundering would have more relevance. But what the heck would happen without the Fed? Think what would will of the Bernanke bailouts.... they're temporarily containing these panics.

Megan:

This was always the most likely outcome--of the American bulge brackets, JP Morgan has the largest balance sheet and access to the Federal Reserve's discount window. Now that it's happened, we can breathe a sigh of relief that one gigantic disaster has been averted. Libertarians and liberals arguing against the Fed's role in all this sound to me either ignorant or psychotic. The credit markets are already badly malfunctioning (yes, I was wrong). Bear Stearns is the counterparty to a huge number of transactions. Allowing it to fail would have been like throwing a hand grenade into a burning pool of gasoline; bankruptcy proceedings are time-consuming and uncertain. JP Morgan has the ability to assume their risks without any danger of going under themselves; that's very good for the markets, and by extension, us.

Yes, this is creating moral hazard that we'll have to deal with, probably unpleasantly, down the road. But whatever the moral hazard, it is hard to see how it could be worse than the full-blown financial crisis the Fed is trying to avert.

There's an argument, of course, that successive Fed interventions, starting with the Russian bond crisis, have turned bankers into ever-greater risk takers, making each crisis bigger and more expensive than the last. The thinking goes that we need to draw the line here, whatever the cost, because if we let the financiers go on their merry way, eventually they'll create a wave that will swamp the Fed's power to intervene. Possibly so, but from what I hear, the people on Wall Street are pretty much scared right down to the tips of their Gordon Gekko underoos.

Still Snags In Michigan

Legislators won't sign off unless Obama and Clinton campaigns are explicit in their assent...

And today is the comment deadline for Florida's proposed mail-in primary in Florida. Deadline may be the appropriate way to describe it...

Kristol Fails To Check His Sources, And So Bungles Key Fact In Anti-Obama Column

Bill Kristol's New York Times column about Barack Obama this morning contains a major, prejudicial error.

Paragraph five:

But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That’s when Wright blamed the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much of the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain.

The error is in trusting the source without checking.

The truth is that Obama did not attend church on July 22.

He was on his way to campaign in Miami.

(Here is some video evidence.) This was before he signed an agreement forbidding himself from campaigning in Florida.

Here is the original, false, Newsmax story:
Obama Attended Hate America Sermon.

One of his correspondents allegedly attended a service last summer where Rev. Wright preached on the "United States of White America." Kessler writes that Obama "nodded" his head while Wright preached along these lines:

Addressing the Iraq war, Wright thundered, “Young African-American men” were “dying for nothing.” The “illegal war,” he shouted, was “based on Bush’s lies” and is being “fought for oil money.”

Now, a simple Google search suggests that Obama spent most of the day in Miami. But a simple e-mail or telephone call to Obama's campaign might have cleared things up.

An "Attack" On The Church

CBS News's John Bentley spent Palm Sunday at the United Church of Christ and was handed this press release:

“Nearly three weeks before the 40th commemorative anniversary of the murder of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.’s character is being assassinated in the public sphere because he has preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children, and men in America and around the globe.”

“It saddens me to see news stories reporting such a caricature of a congregation that has been such a blessing to the UCC’s wider church mission,” said the Rev. John H. Thomas, UCC General Minister President. “It’s time for us to say ‘no’ to these attacks and declare that we will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological ends.”

Moss [Rev. Otis Moss, III, Pastor] added, “The African American Church was born out of the crucible of slavery and the legacy of prophetic African American preachers since slavery has been and continues to heal broken marginalized victims of social and economic injustices. This is an attack on the legacy of the African American Church which led and continues to lead the fight for human rights in America and around the world.”

Obama Picks Up A Net Of 10 Delegates

That's 10 delegates from Iowa, now.

So that means that Hillary Clinton, as of today, needs an extra 10 superdelegates... or an extra 10 pledged delegates... well, all the permutations are evidence.

Again, Hillary Clinton earned nine net delegates in Ohio.

Defending Political Journalists

Matt Yglesias writes:

Political journalists...end to focus on campaign happenings... [as] key determinant[s] of election outcomes. Research...indicates that most people vote as dogmatic partisans and that most ...variance can be explained by macroeconomic trends.

Primary campaign voters, by contrast, are more fickle because there's much less underlying difference between the contenders. And one thing primary voters look at is electability, and another thing they look at is elite support and elites look a lot at electability. Voters and elites alike, meanwhile, like reporters, tend to wildly overestimate the importance of contingent campaign happenstance on election outcomes. Consequently, a primary season campaign gaffe that's seen as potentially harmful during the general election is arguably more likely to hurt you in the primary because of the perception that it'll hurt you in the general than it is to actually hurt you in the general election.

If we date the modern era of elections to 1960, there have been twelve campaigns from which we can draw data. That is simply too few to make more than basic generalizations; certainly, we cannot make projections based on isolated variables like macroeconomic conditions. In 2000, in robust economic conditions, the candidate who won the most votes did not win the election; the candidate, indeed, who may have won the election might have won the election; the contingent happenstance that tipped the scales in favor of George W. Bush can be narrowed to a few, one of them the Bush campaign's superior legal tactics in Florida.

In 2004, macroeconomic variables were not dispositive; national security variables seemed to be.

In this cycle, as I have written before, there is a clear single strategic insight that is responsible for Obama's success and Clinton's failure; it is the lock-and-key fit between Obama's candidacy and his type of Democratic voter, and caucus process that allowed them to rack up votes and delegates of affluent, young, liberal activists.

If Matt is referring here to Power/Wright/Ferraro, I don't agree that these issues really play all much of a role in the primaries. For the most part, they seem to have convinced Democrats that Hillary Clinton is making unfair attacks against Obama. They also seem to be turning Republicans on to McCain and off to Obama...transforming Obama into more of a partisan Democrat. And I think Matt shortchanges the very real differences between Clinton and Obama. Issues, no. Style of governance? Yes. Indeed, the approach to governing of Clinton and McCain are closer to each other than their respective styles are to Obama; that accounts, I think, for some of the intense polarization that we see among Democrats.

Obama Camp Claims Net Of At Least 5 Additional Pledged Delegates From Iowa

Remember, the 16 to 15 pledged delegate split that was projected out of January's Iowa caucuses was bound to change, and is has: out of the county conventions, the Obama campaign now predicts that it will net at least five pledged delegates out of Iowa, perhaps as many as seven. Sen. Hillary Clinton netted nine out of Ohio. The math, once again, works to Obama's advantage.

Pro-Hillary Writers "On Strike" At DailyKos

There's a movement afoot by prominent pro-Clinton diarists at Dailykos.com.

Writes Alegre, in what is now the featured post on the site, one of the founding sound boards of the Democratic netroots movements:

"We are going on strike and taking our writing elsewhere. When and if our beloved community is once more a focal point for Democratic election discussions, we will gladly return."

Alegre has set up "The American Federation of Concerned Bloggers (AFCB)" and has enlisted at least three dozen bloggers.

He writes:

.....Daily Kos and Markos himself no longer adhere to this purpose of electing Democrats. Daily Kos has become an Obama community and discussion of other Democrats is not welcome. We Clinton supporters are continually attacked and even threatened. The atmosphere has become so poisonous that we could do nothing else but take our discussions elsewhere. Places like MyDD.com where Clinton and Obama supporters chat without name calling. Heated discussions sometimes, but we tend to stay respectful of our fellow Democrat's opinions. Our post is currently up on the Recommended List so we must have tapped into something a lot of others have been feeling for quite some time.

The post has generated more than 1100 comments, many of them supportive. ( Finally Someone Fingers the Bolsheviks) Some of them are not. (Not I Clinton has tarnished the word progressive.)

Who Hillary Clinton is and what she represents has been THE debate among Democratic activists for years. It is now THE national debate. The Democratic Party may well come together and support its nominee. But the debate about Clinton, her (and his) politics, the legacy, the tactics -- will endure.

The Table: The Hubris Of Eliot Spitzer

Hubris, shady legal practices, manipulation of the markets.... and frequenting expensive prostitutes. The Table returns, with Megan McArdle, Matthew Yglesias and me.

Wright Removed From Obama Advisory Committee

As of today, according to an Obama campaign official, Rev. Jeremiah Wright is no longer serving on the campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee. Earlier today, the campaign said they did not envision a scenario where Wright would leave that committee. Now he is gone.

In two days, a spasm of right-wing media attention has completed the circle on Rev. Wright, helping Obama with some housecleaning ahead of the general election, but potentially, serving to warn the campaign as well of what they'll face in the fall.

Petreaus On The Surge

Only because this will be the Grade A debate this fall:

Remember: the surge was supposed to lead to stability... and help rebuild civil society... all of which would lead to national reconciliation. All interwoven, all crucial. The surge was -- never was -- solely about security.

So -- isn't this an admission of ...

Iraqi leaders have failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence to make adequate progress toward resolving their political differences, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday.

Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.

Page A-10 of the Post? A-10?

Obama Spends Friday Tieing Up Loose Ends

First, he strongly denounces his spiritual mentor's racist, anti-American sermons in an essay on the Huffington Post website (nice -- how many Obama donors DON'T read that site? -- and, as a Jewish person, I can write this -- how many Jewish Obama donors don't check that site)

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It's a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

And Sen. Obama spent several hours sitting down with the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times answering their questions about Tony Rezko.

From the Tribune:

Indicted Chicago businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko was a more significant fundraiser for presidential candidate Barack Obama's earlier political campaigns than previously known. Rezko raised as much as $250,000 for the first three offices Obama sought, the senator told the Tribune on Friday.

Obama also said for the first time that his private real estate transactions with Rezko involved repeated lapses of judgment. The mistake, Obama said, was not simply that Rezko was under grand jury investigation at the time of their 2005 and 2006 dealings. "The mistake was he had been a contributor and somebody involved in politics," he said.

Marty Feldstein Warns Of "Severe Recession"

I'm no economist, but when Marty Feldstein and Larry Summers both agree that the coming recession is likely to be more severe than most...

I post this mostly to ask a question for readers to answer.

Why doesn't the White House acknowledge the seriousness of what virtually everyone seems to see except for them? (A speech in NYC doesn't cut it.) Do they not want to talk down the economy? (Isn't it already down?) Do they not want to make things more difficult for John McCain in the fall? (But wouldn't a feckless White House response do that anyway?)

When the rebate checks hit mailboxes and people discover that they'll be good for paying the difference between what gas costs now and what gas will cost this summer, what then?

When will the Democratic presidential candidates begin to acknowledge that the economic conditions may well delay universal health care and all of their other spending projects?

A Better Case Against Obama's Electability

Atlantic media political director Ronald Brownstein has the data the Clinton campaign did not:

In a recent Pew Research Center survey, for instance, Obama carried independents against McCain by 6 percentage points, while McCain carried them against Clinton by the same amount; the difference mostly reflected Obama's stronger showing among independents earning at least $50,000 annually. Other surveys, such as a Quinnipiac University poll in the key battleground of Pennsylvania, have found that Obama also swipes more Republicans from McCain than Clinton does.

This all tracks Obama strengths familiar from the primaries. But primary-season trends more troubling for Obama are also persisting. In the national Pew survey, and in Quinnipiac polls of Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama lost more Democrats to McCain than Clinton did. In the Pew survey, Obama struggled particularly among the same blue-collar white Democrats resisting him in the primaries: Fully 30 percent of white Democrats earning less than $30,000 a year preferred McCain over Obama. Clinton would lose only half as many of them to McCain, the polls indicate. In the Quinnipiac surveys, Clinton likewise outpolled Obama against McCain among white women without college degrees, a key general election swing group that has overwhelmingly preferred her in the primaries.

Findings like these help explain why many Democrats think Obama offers greater potential rewards as a nominee, but also presents greater risks. If Obama runs well, he seems more likely than Clinton to assemble a big majority and trigger a Democratic sweep -- not only by attracting independents and crossover Republicans but also by increasing turnout among African-Americans and young people.

But if Obama stumbles, he could face a greater danger of fracturing the traditional Democratic coalition by losing seniors and blue-collar whites to McCain, principally on security issues. Clinton's reach across the electorate may not be as long, but her grip on her voters could be firmer.

Clinton And Revotes

Mark Schmitt may be right about the Clinton preference for uncertainty over math, but my reporting suggests that most -- though by no means all -- of the folks in Florida and Michigan who are fighting for a revote are Clinton allies, and almost everyone who is fighting against a revote are Obama allies.

An Update From Michigan

Just in: A statement [from] Senator Carl Levin (D-MI); Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-13th District); President Ron Gettelfinger, UAW; and DNC Member Debbie Dingell

We have been working to resolve the question of seating Michigan’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

We agree that the Michigan delegation should be seated at the Convention, and without a fight before the Credentials Committee or on the floor of the Convention.

At this time we are focusing on the possibility of a state-run primary in early June, which would not use any state funding. This option would require the passage of legislation by the State Legislature, and we look forward to working with the members of the Legislature in the coming days to see if this option can be made a reality.

Meg Whitman, Cabinet Secretary?

She just joined McCain as a national finance co-chair. From talking to some of her associates, I know she's been considering a turn to politics.... thinking, first, about running for statewide office in California. But perhaps she'd make a fine Secretary of the Treasury in a McCain administration?

Hagee, Wright, Parsley, Fallwell, Obama and McCain

I've never gone ga-ga for guilt-by-association assassinations, but it seems to be that if one campaign is willing to make an issue out of one's associations, they should be open to questions about their own.

And, in truth, some associations are more meaningful than others. Barack Obama's close friendship with, his intellectual debt to, and the spiritual advice he's gotten from Rev. Jeremiah Wright almost pre-books that 60 Minutes interview you know he'll do in the fall explaining it.

But John McCain needs be careful.

As J-Mart notes this morning, McCain's campaign included Ron Kessler's WSJ op-ed in its clips, which implies that they believe reporters should make a note of it. But as his colleague B-Smith later noted, that conflicts with what McCain strategist Charlie Black (C-Black?) told Joe Scarborough on MSNBC this morning -- namely, that "I don't think Senator McCain wants to get in the middle of a discussion about Senator Obama's former pastor or his faith."

More, from Black:

"He believes that people who endorse you, people who befriend you are entitled to their own views, but you are not held personally accountable."

Well, now McCain is part of that discussion. And it's a dangerous place for him to be, what with Rev. John Hagee's anti-gay remarks (curiously unremarked upon by anyone in the McCain campaign -- is the McCain campaign afraid to repudiate anti-gay remarks?), his anti-Catholic remarks (once condemned by McCain, but now McCain wants to give Hagee the benefit of the doubt)?, his millennialism (which means, as some honest McCain adviser must have explained to the candidate by now, the death of millions of innocent Muslims)... also: Jerry Falwell, and his casual association of 9/11 with the sins of homosexuality, and Rod Parsley, a man who McCain has called a "spiritual guide," a man who has also called Islam a "false religion" and has advocated war against it and various other bad things.

Why are these folks entitled to these opinions and Wright isn't entitled to his?

The McCain campaign is quick to respond to the slightest whiff of tarnish to McCain's image as a reformer. They don't seem to know what to do about his new friends and some of their more colorful comments.

Pull back the curtains a bit.

Everytime I write about McCain and lobbying, I hear from senior McCain officials within a microsecond of saving my post.

Everytime i write about McCain and these subjects, the radio is silent.

"Journey To Freedom"

35 years ago today, John McCain was released from his more than five of year of captivity in Vietnam. His campaign has produced a web video to honor the anniversary.

If They'd Only Listened To Ruffini...

Patrick Ruffini, one of the finest strategic minds in the Republican Party, is tearing his hair out trying to get the McCain campaign to pay attention to a major strategic deficit they face and are not apparently willing to confront.

How does John McCain go up against the $3 million-per-email Obama machine and the $2 million-per-email Clinton machine? It’s a big question with serious implications for the future of the Republican Party

It's just doesn't look right ... Obama or Clinton raising their general election money from millions of younger folks...... and McCain raising his in thousand dollar increments from rich white guys. Who will be dead in ten years.

Supers Bowled For Obama

Bloomberg News notes that superdelegates (ahem, Harold -- automatic delegates) are moving Obama's way by an average of five to one since Feb. 5.

Add one to the tally today: Melissa Schroeder of Wisconsin.

Searching For Rev. Wright.

As we read in "Dreams from My Father," In 1985, when a twentysomething Barack Obama was shopping for a Church, he was also on his self-described search for his identity and was trying to figure out where he fit in this universe. He had discovered, to his dismay, that his birth father was not the hero he imagined. Obama was vulnerable and disillusioned. He deliberately sought Wright as a source of authentically black inspiration.... and the two developed a very close relationship that has weathered Wright's turn to separatist black nationalism and radical politics. Obama eventually settled his identity wanderings in someplace very different, but his relationship with Wright endured.

"The title of Reverend Wright's sermon that morning was 'The Audacity of Hope.' .... As I watched and listened from my seat, I began to hear all the notes from the past three years swirl about me. The courage and fear of Ruby and Will. The race pride and anger of men like Rafiq. The desire to let go, the desire to escape, the desire to give oneself up to a God that could somehow put a floor on despair."

An epiphany. "Hope," for Obama, traces its origins to this sermon. Wright is therefore important as an intellectual source for Obama's politics and not merely a spiritual guide.

Anyway, Andrew Sullivan wants to hear more from Obama about Rev. Wright:

It's nutty, offensive and paranoid stuff. And it is perfectly legitimate for reporters and voters to ask questions. It is not much nuttier than Falwell and Robertson, however. And I don't think it's racist to understand that the black church has a different cultural style in its preaching and activism style that helps add some dimension to Wright's record. If you read Obama's books and listen to him speak about his church, it's clear that he was not drawn by Wright's more inflammatory and offensive language. His engagement with the Church was an attempt to connect with the life and feelings of a black urban class he had never truly belonged to and whom he intended to represent. We can forget what an outsider Obama was when he first came to Chicago.

Nonetheless, Obama needs to be much more forceful and candid in explaining his relationship with Wright. I'm a little leery of getting in between a man and his minister - it's not unlike the lawyer-client relationship in some ways. And, goodness knows, I have had many a priest with whom I have disagreed or even found offensive. But like many people, I wouldn't sit through one of these sermons, let alone come back for more. And it would be helpful, to say the very least, if Obama told us more candidly why he did and does.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Topic A On Peruvian TV

Jaime Bayly's show, transmitted via MegaTV around the Globe, focused last night on Rev. Wright. When has an American election ever before so captivated a global audience?

The Michigan Plan

Michigan Democrats seem to be on the verge of a breakthrough, and Florida Democrats are stuck in the mud. Why the disparity?

Simple internal politics. Had Sen. Bill Nelson consulted more widely with House Democrats and Democratic activists in Florida, he might not have encountered the near fatal opposition to a mail-in primary that has set itself in his path today. Meanwhile, after an initial burst of publicity, Michigan Democrats pulled in all their powerful actors -- Gov. Granholm -- the Dingells, the UAW, the NEA, the state party, the Kilpatricks -- and worked their differences out behind the scenes.

Clinton Accepts PA Debate; Obama Trumps With NC Debate

Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign has accepted ABC's invitation for a 4/16 debate in Philadelphia.

So has Obama -- but he's also accepted a debate for 4/19 in North Carolina, one hosted by Katie Couric and Bob Scheiffer of CBS News.

A nice little trump.

The Michigan Compromise?

Mark Halperin has his hands on a compromise plan floated by some Michigan Democrats.

He writes:

Michigan’s 156 delegates would be split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama.

–Florida’s existing delegates would be seated at the Denver convention—but with half a vote each. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 19 elected delegates.

– The two states’ superdelegates would then be able to vote in Denver, likely netting Clinton a few more delegates.

To make this happen would require the same three-step process.

First, the rules and bylaws committee would have to handle it in some fashion. Then they'd punt it to the chairs of the credentials committee. Then the chairs would kick it to the full committee. Then the full committee would recommend it to the full Democratic National Convention.

Unless Howard Dean is willing to cross what has been his bright line -- the rules are the rules -- then there is no quicker way for such a compromise to take effect.

The Rush Effect

Mark Blumenthal has new data suggesting that Republicans who voted for Clinton in Mississippi were motivated largely by their opposition to Barack Obama.

.

These Clinton Republicans also expressed very negative views of Barack Obama:

* 91 percent said Clinton is more qualified to be commander in chief; only 3 percent said Obama is more qualified.
* 94 percent said Obama does not inspire them "about the future of the country."
* 89 percent would be dissatisfied if Obama were the Democratic nominee.
* 86 percent said Obama is not "honest and trustworthy."
* 86 percent said Obama has not "offered clear and detailed plans to solve the country's problems."
* 82 percent said Clinton should not pick Obama to be her running mate if she is the nominee.

So the primary motivation of Clinton's Mississippi Republicans may be a desire to stop Barack Obama, although many may be motivated by tactical shenanigans as well.

Obama Can't Win The General?

They let Mark Penn out to speak and... this happens.

The USA Today link includes two minutes worth of audio, so you can make up your mind about the context.

Of course Obama can win the general election; it's illogical to generalize from the vote totals alone, as I and others have pointed out. Yes, Obama's Gary Hart-Jesse Jackson coalition is untested in modern general elections, but we live in hyperpartisan times, Democrats have an enormous partisan identification identification advantage, and Democrats are much more enthusiastic about their candidate than Republicans are. There's just no way to justify Penn's assertion from reading a poll.

It is worth pointing out that several polls suggest that Obama may lose white working class voters, especially men, to John McCain. That's something to keep an eye on. But it's not a reason to pre-emptively declare that he can't win the general election.

Incidentally, there are several conversations at once.

Penn is talking to reporters and superdelegates.

Clinton and Obama are talking to voters and superdelegates.

Republicans -- those folks who are playing the Jeremiah Wright sermons -- are talking to their activists.

In Florida, A Step Forward, And A Step Back

In a press conference, Florida Dem. chair Karen Thurman seemed a little pessimistic about the chances of the first draft of a mail-in primary being accepted by the DNC and making it through to the voters unimpeded. "We've got to come to some kind of conclusion," she said. "I'm not sure there is one." Specifically, she said, if the candidates do not agree, "this is not happening."

So far, Barack Obama does not agree.

At this point, it would seem as if the biggest hurdle to a new primary is the lack of a non-biased sponsor. Clinton allies have promised to put up their share of the money, but Obama allies in Florida, including his Florida finance chair, Kirk Wagar, are keeping their wallets closed.

From Power To Ferraro To Wright...

Looks like he'll be the sideshow of the day.

More on him later.

Obama Releases '05, '06 Earmarks

For a few years, The Chicago Sun-Times's Lynn Sweet and others have been pestering Barack Obama to release his earmark requests from 2005 and 2006 (he's released his '07), and today, as the Senate prepared to debate the DeMint/McCain earmark amendment, Obama complied, and challenged Hillary Clinton to release hers for the corresponding period.

Here are Obama's '05 and '06 earmarks.

Opposing earmarks on principle aside, after glancing through them, I can't find any that seems inherently objectionable.

Romney To Form A PAC

The next incarnation of Mitt Romney's political career is taking shape.

According to two Republicans with knowledge of his plans, Romney, at some point during the next few weeks, intends to establish a new political action committee to help elect Republican candidates.

"We're thinking about what new entity can be created to allow Governor Romney to remain politically active so he can raise money and campaign for Republicans, and advocate for the issues he cares about," Eric Fehnrstrom, Romney's long-time aide, said in an e-mail message.

"You can also expect Governor Romney to be very busy in the remainder of this year campaigning for Republican candidates up and down the ticket, starting at the top with Senator McCain."

Fehrnstom would not elaborate.

Other Republicans close to Romney said that Romney was looking for ways to position himself as the ideas factory for the Republican party over the next four years, contributing policy to John McCain, if he's in the White House, or to Republicans in Congress, if McCain is not.

Obama's Religion

13% of those surveyed believe that Barack Obama is a member of the Muslim religion, according to the NBC News / WSJ poll.

(H/T, Campaign Spot.)

The number will probably decline by the fall, and intuitively, I'd assume that most folks who haven't taken the time to learn about Obama's background probably aren't Democrats.

Florida 2.0: The First Draft

Read it here.

Lots of obstacles remain... preclearance, the Florida House Dems, David Plouffe's strategy... but, as a senior party official put to me earlier this week, "What do we have to lose?"

Formally, the state party executive committee will vote on this in April 15. But the party will begin the process much earlier than that.

Here's chair Karen Thurman's intro:

Democratic Leaders – I urge you to fully consider the following information thoughtfully and thoroughly, remembering that we are all in this primary situation together. There is no question that we must move quickly to deal with the dispute over Florida’s Democratic Presidential Primary. Fingers have been pointed in every direction, but how we arrived at this breaking point is irrelevant. The stark reality is that all Democrats lose if this is not resolved immediately. Florida Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller commissioned a poll of voters who participated in the state’s January 29th Democratic Presidential Primary. The results are striking – 59% of those Democrats want a revote. Moreover, only 63% of these primary‐voting Democrats are committed to sticking with our eventual nominee if Florida voters are not counted. That number is dangerously low. We must refocus our discussion of this issue on the people of Florida. Restoring their faith in the Democratic Party is of paramount importance. No action is truly a solution if it leaves Florida voters feeling that they were excluded from the most exciting nominating contest in history. Because of the unprecedented nature of the national race, a situation that previously was a relatively minor, party‐insider issue now has the potential to result in irreparable damage for years to come. The people of Florida are not responsible for this dilemma and should not be unfairly punished by losing their right to vote. It is true that a record‐breaking 1.75 million Democrats voted on January 29th in an open and fair election. The Florida Democratic Party has been adamant and consistent for many months that the results of this election should be counted and the allocated delegates seated because it was the only opportunity for all Florida Democrats to participate. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no possibility the presidential campaigns and the DNC will agree to seat the delegation as is. Some have suggested that to resolve this issue Florida’s delegation be split evenly between the candidates, and potentially restore the superdelegates’ votes. However, the DNC has informed the Party that this is not an option under the Rules. Additionally, it does not allow the voters to participate in the process. Attached is a draft outline of a proposal I would like you to review as soon as possible. It is the only best option that has been presented to me that offers Florida voters a voice in the nominating process. After you have seriously considered it, please respond directly to me or Executive Director Leonard Joseph via email or phone by the close of business Friday with your comments, concerns and suggestions. I will review all input over the weekend and be in touch again on Monday. If the consensus is that we should take the next step, the Party is fully prepared to do so and will make available a full delegate selection plan for a 30‐day public comment period. If not, the Party cannot and will not move forward without your support. Thank you.

You, On Iraq

In that new NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll, a bare majority, 52%, want troops withdrawn by 2009. But you are not certain whether Hillary Clinton or John McCain, and, to a lesser extent, Barack Obama, is most capable of achieving that end. 43% of Americans say they want the troops to stay until the situation is stable.

Unfortunately, most Americans probably want both, not being entirely aware that option (a) would in the intermediate produce chaos that might lead to option (b); and the only way for a solution that accomplishes withdrawal without bloodshed would be extremely expensive and extremely time-consuming. None of the presidential candidates are there yet.

So when John McCain says that most Americans want "victory" and not "defeat" in Iraq, he ought to be challenged a bit. But when Democrats say that Americans want the troops out now, they ought to be challenged a bit too.

People a heckuva a lot smarter than I are coming to believe that the fall elections will turn on who Americans trust to withdraw from Iraq responsibly... on the theory that John McCain and the Democratic nominee will essentially hold the same position... and will be arguing over tactics and the message sent by those tactics.

The "Give" Theory

Why did Nancy Pelosi, Bill Richardson and other party elders, so eager to see the presidential race decided after Ohio and Texas, suddenly change their minds when Hillary Clinton's margin of victory crept up a little higher than expected in Ohio?

I have a theory.

And this new NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll is the first point of evidence.

It shows voters preferring a Democratic-controlled Congress over a Republican-controlled Congress. Add to this: enormous voter enthusiasm on the Democratic side. A huge financial advantage ('xcept for the DNC). A huge disparity in party identification. Likely Senate seat pickups by Dems; likely House seat pickups by Dems; gasoline nearing four bucks a barrel; foreclosures; the Fed bailing out lenders; the president's approval rating at historic lows; the right-track, wrong-track figures being where they are; the economy heading into the recession....

The point is that the Democratic advantage has some give to it.... a few more months of a tough Democratic presidential race can bend that advantage... and may be even begin to create some microfractures, but the fundamentals are so well established that the risk in making sure that the presidential process plays itself out appropriately is well worth taking.

Preclearing Michigan and Florida

Reader Bruce Adelson writes:

I am a former Senior Attorney (career, not a political appointee) with DOJ's Voting Section. I am now in private practice. I am unaffiliated with any political campaign.

In response to the issue about whether DOJ must "preclear" Michigan and
Florida's proposed do-over primary or caucus, the answer is yes. There is no
question about this.

Portions of Florida and Michigan are "covered" by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act. This coverage means that "changes affecting voting" in these
covered parts of the two states must be precleared or approved by DOJ or the
federal trial court in Washington, D.C. before they take effect. Failure to
preclear these changes makes them illegal under federal law.

By way of background, in 2004, when the Michigan Democratic Party proposed
Internet voting for its presidential primary, this was a "change affecting
voting" and had to be precleared. No political party in Michigan had
previously conducted an election over the Internet so the proposed 2004
Internet voting was a voting change.

I was the DOJ attorney who discussed this issue with the Michigan Democratic
Party, reviewed the party's submission to DOJ, and recommended preclearance.
DOJ approved the change and the state party's Internet voting in the 2004
primary election proceeded.

The do-over elections being discussed for Michigan and Florida would
similarly be "changes affecting voting" since they would be new elections
held on previously unscheduled election dates. Under Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act, these changes must be precleared by DOJ or the federal trial
court in Washington, D.C.

By law, DOJ has 60 days to approve, reject or request more information about
any changes affecting voting after DOJ receives a request to preclear the
change. You are correct that the federal court in DC would take much longer.

Sounds fairly clear to me.

"God Damn America"

The latest network report on Rev. Jeremiah Wright, this one from the fabled Brian Ross Unit of ABC News.

McCain Wants To Seat Full Michigan And Florida Delegations

A nice contrast is developing between Republicans and Democrats:

Later, speaking to reporters aboard his “Straight Talk Express” bus, McCain said he disagreed with the Republican National Committee’s decision last year to punish New Hampshire, Michigan, Florida and South Carolina Republicans for holding primaries prior to the Feb. 5 date allowed by an RNC rule. He said he supports overturning RNC-imposed sanctions that cut those states’ delegations by half.

The Daily Five: Crazy Like A "Fox" -- Counterintuitive Thoughts

1. "Fox" Fallon really wasn't pushed out.

This is nothing like the case of Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff who had his career cut short by Donald Rumsfeld for telling a Senate committee that a few hundred thousand troops would be needed to impose order in postwar Iraq. Shinseki was offering his professional judgment on a strictly military question—how many troops would be needed to perform a mission—in response to a senator's question. Fallon, by contrast, was challenging the president's policy—and at his own initiative.

Fallon, who is one of the military's finest strategic minds, may well be right. Certainly his views match those of many senior officers. But they are contrary to the president's views, and Fallon knew this. There is much debate within military circles these days over how far, and in what forums, a general or admiral should take his disagreements with political leaders. By most standards, Fallon probably went too far, too publicly. The U.S. Constitution does call for civilian control of the military, and generally, we should be thankful for that.

2. Was Geraldine Ferarro being racist? Racial? Or real?

3. Clinton has momemtum?

4. A same-sex marriage gift for John McCain from Republicans on the SCOCAL? (Is that what it's called? The Supreme Court of California? ScoCal?)

5. Orlando Patterson needs to get out more.

North Carolina Bound

In conference calls this morning and afternoon, Barack Obama's campaign chieftains claimed that Obama would be quite competitive in the general election in North Carolina. That pricked the ears of the Republican National Committee.

Alex Conant, a spokesman there, wanted to get this response on the record: "the Senate’s ‘most liberal’ member is not going to win a state Republicans carried by double digits in the last two cycles and haven’t lost since voters wore bell-bottoms.”

True, John Edwards said he'd help deliver the state for John Kerry in 2004; Bush won it by 12 points that year; by 14 points in '00, and Jimmy Carter was the last Democrat to win there.

But the state is-a-changin'. The counties around Raleigh, Durham and Fayetteville are growing very