Clinton Campaign Statement On RBC

Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy made the following statement this evening:

Today’s results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our Party’s nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party’s convention. The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly.

We strongly object to the Committee’s decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan’s delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.

The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.

We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.

RBC Live Wire 7: Clinton Nets 24 Delegates

Clinton nets 24 delegates out of the day.

7:16: Some Clinton supporters begin to shout: "McCain, McCain, McCain."

7:15: Michigan compromise motion passes; 19 to 8.

7:05: A senior Michigan Democrat: "We will continue to work until the full delegation is seated but have reason to believe the candidate will restore 100% when picked."

7:04: A spokesperson for Sen. Levin says that he's "going to keep working until Michigan is fully seated with full voting rights at the convention."

7:03: Ickes: "Mrs. Clinton has reserved her right to take this to the credentials committee."

7:02: Ickes: "Hijacking four delegates is not a good way to start down the path toward unity."

7:00 pm: Mr. Ickes continues. "Not only will this motion hijack four delegates from Mrs. Clinton, it will take 55 delegates from uncommitted status, which is a recognized presidential status under our constitution and convert them to Barack Obama."

6:58: A senior DNC official says that Sen. Carl Levin is not likely to challenge the Michigan seating.

6:57: Don Fowler, former DNC chairman, and a Clinton supporter, announces his support for the motion. Ickes: "I rise in opposition. I find it inexplicable that this body that is supposedly devoted to rules is going to fly in the face of other than for our affirmative action rules the single most fundamental rule in the delegate selection process, that is, fair reflection."

6:54: On To Michigan: Mame Reiley moves that all pledged delegate positions in Michigan be restored with one half vote; Clinton 69 delegates casting 34.5 votes, Obama's 59 delegates casting 29.5 votes; a net of five.

6:51: Vote to restore participation of entire Florida delegation with half a vote, netting Clinton 19 votes. Near unanimity on the committee. 27-0 and one non-voting.

6:50: Clinton campaign signals it will support the half vote compromise.

6:48: Lots of shouting. "This is disunity. You just took way votes." Huff: "We're giving some back to you." Shouting: "Lipstick on a pig."

6:47: A senior DNC official says that there is a tentative agreement among enough party leaders to seat Florida's delegation fully and give them a half vote, netting Clinton 19 votes, and to seat Michigan's delegation in full and give them half votes according to the Gang of Four's proposal: 69 to 59. The official notes that the public debate might change things.

6:46: Ralph Dawson motions to restore full delegation at one half vote. Again, boos from the audience. 52.5 delegates; Edwards: 6.5 delegates; Obama: 33.5. (Clinton nets 19.)

6:41: The motion to restore a full delegate slate to Florida will a full vote: two-thirds. Crowd cheers the vote. The vote fails, 12-13. Members of the crowd start to scream "Denver, Denver, Denver."

6:37: Alice Germond is hissed when she calls FL and MI "unsanctioned beauty contests." ... Lots of hisses and boos and Germond continues. "Shame on you!" yells a member of the crowd.

6:36: Flournoy: the motion "has no chance of passing this body. It saddens me. I understand the rules.; I understand their perfections and imperfections. ... Being a party of inclusion [drove this rule]... [cheers]..... I'm saddened by the fact that we will take a vote that does not bring Michigan back in with the full vote. I wish we could vote differently."

6:35: Yvonne Gates: "What happened, in my opinion is, that Florida did not follow the rules that we set up. But when you have rules, they must be followed, and when they're not followed, we have chaos."

6:29: Huff: "I know that this particular motion runs counter to what we'll do in 2012...this really is about energizing the state of Florida and energizing the voters and making sure that they have all that they need to do battle." ... The motion is opposed by David McDonald... who believes that the original decision was made without regard to parochial political interest. Whatever the situation was in 2007, "at some point, the Democrats in Florida tried to get a re-vote. They tried to give their people an opportunity to vote within our rules. But this ought to be a party in which we may have to take stands, but we welcome people back."

6:26: Alice Huff motions to fully seat the Florida delegates and give them their full voting rights. Loud cheers from the gallery... Herman rebukes the crowd.

6:26: The Obama campaign confirms that Sen. Barack Obama has quit Trinity United Church in Chicago.

6:24: First up: The Ausman challenge. Herman: "The co-chairs recommend that debate be limited to ten minutes per motion."

6:23: Co-Chair James Roosevelt says that the members "have reviewed the testimony and oral arguments" for each of the challenges. No word of the negotiations.

6:19: Harold Ickes, one hand clutching a cell phone, the other, gesturing a few inches from Alexis Herman's face. He looks unhappy.

6:16: Co-chair Alexis Herman is slowly making her way to the table. Herman and Clinton supporter/RBC member Tina Flournoy are having an animated conversation. Harold Ickes has just joined them.

6:13: Still chit-chatting. There are some Clinton people in the room now.

6:06 pm: Well, they're back. But they're chit-chatting.

RBC Live Wire 6: The Deliberations

6:00: Even the cognoscenti are being kept in the dark. Florida Dem Party chair Karen Thurman is visiting the press corps. She has no special info about the delay in resuming public deliberations.

5:54: Uh-oh. Rep. Robert Wexler has taken his sportcoat off.

5:48: Out of curiosity: what happens if nothing is decided today? When the does RBC next meet? Tomorrow? Next week? Over the phone?

5:46: Back room, close-door deliberations continue. It would be a smoke-filled room, but DC's smoking ban prohibits those.

5:40: There is a broad consensus here that Michigan will not be settled today. Of course, it remains to be seen whether it will be not settled in private, or whether the rules committee will return to the public hearing and not settle the debate in public. Theoretically, if Michigan remains unsettled, the Clinton campaign has another shot of the apple. Of course, the apple is rotting, and it has fallen off the tree and squirrels are nesting around it.

5:19 Video is circulating of one outspoken Clinton supporter here who unloads on Barack Obama and promises to vote for John McCain in the fall.

5:15: The RBC is trying to come to a private consensus, or, at least, trying to come to an agreement on a starting point, on Michigan.

5:08: Two sources with knowledge of the rules and bylaws committee's closed-door luncheon say that members of the committee are arguing over a resolution to Michigan's conundrum, having largely settled on a solution for Florida. They're settling this behind closed doors, at this point... which may fuel some conspiracy theories, depending upon what they ultimately decide.

4:59: We're still waiting.

4:52: The members of the committee aren't back from their lunch. Maybe they're coming close to an agreement, or maybe they're having a food fight.

So -- here we are, waiting for the rules and bylaws committee to deliberate. They could vote on a motion, or they could debate for hours. And it's not clear whether the problems of Michigan and

Florida are even severable.

RBC Live Wire 5: Clinton V, Obama On Michigan

Lunch break -- an hour and a half lunch period.

3:01: Contretemps between the chair of the committee, James Roosevelt, and Harold Ickes; Roosevelt chides Ickes to only ask questions during the question time and not pontificate.

3:00 Under the "concession" proposal floated by Obama and the one that (probably) will be accepted by the committee, Clinton would get 52.5 delegate VOTES and Obama would get 33.5 DELEGATE VOTES for a NET of 19 DELEGATE Votes. Note that Clinton will seat a NET of 38 people who are delegates, but since each gets a half a vote, she will get 19 DELEGATE Votes. Clinton would seat 105 actual people; Obama would seat 67. The superdelegates would each get a half of a vote as well, but, obviously, those votes are counted independently of the pledged delegates.

2:25: Blanchard: "You must NOT turn you back on our loyal state." Blanchard: the candidates taking their names off the ballot "was a knowing, willing decision. It doesn't make the election flawed. It makes a flawed strategy."

2:25: Speaking for Clinton, Ex-MI Gov. James Blanchard talks about his mother and his children. We're running an hour behind schedule.

2:20: Tina Flournoy tongue-in-cheek proposes a 50/50 delegate slating for 2012...

2:19: Mark Brewer notes that the 73-55 allocation formula was used to elect district delegates; Flournoy notes that "So.. the January primary has been used.".... In other words, it's already been recognized.

2:17: Carol Khare Fowler (an Obama supporter) asks what kind of delegate slating process does Bonior envision? Bonior: "Our basic position is that we need to have the Obama campaign and the candidate involved in the slating process."

2:15: Bonior points to the Florida "concession" as a reason to treat Michigan fairly.

2:12: Mame Reiley, a Clinton supporter, "My concern is the allocation. I do really worry that this body making a determination. I worry that we're getting so caught up in the division of those delegates, that I think we should honor the integrity of the voters and the vote. If I knew then what I know today, would I have voted the way I did? Probably not... I want to be fair, I want to do the right thing... I do believe in honoring the debate... and it is flawed... I have total confidence that uncommitted vote will go for Sen. Obama... I can be persuaded to recognize 50%... I've have to be convinced of 100%."

Where we are:

1. Obama campaign acknowledges Florida compromise to give Clinton a net 19 delegates;
2. Clinton campaign wants full slate with full voting powers, not full state with half voting powers
3. Sen., Carl Levin endorses MI Dem proposal to allocate 69 delegates to Clinton and 59 delegates to Obama -- a full delegation.
4. Rep. David Bonior, speaking on behalf of the Obama campaign, wants a 64-64 seating but hints that the campaign would accept a 32-32 seating.

RBC Live Wire 4: The Michigan Presenation And Ickes v. Levin

1:51: Ex-Rep. David Bonior, speaking on behalf of the Obama campaign, urges "fairness" and a consideration of those voters who did not process. Bonior calls the Michigan Dem proposal "arbitrary." "We are aware that the committee members to allow Michigan a full delegation with only a reduction in the voting strength.".... It is "clear that the resulting delegates should be split evenly between the two remaining candidates.

1:50: Levin :If you are unable or unwilling to reach a conclusion on the proportion issue, then fine. If you can't reach a conclusion, it would have to go to the credentials committee."

1:50: Ickes: :"You made some passing reference to the credentials committee."

1:48: Levin: "What we have done is what all of you the Obama campaign would not accept a full delegation/full vote status. His answer: "unity."

RBC Meeting: Live Wire 3: Clinton V. Obama

RBC member Alice Huffman asks why a full delegate seating would be tantamount to be disunity.

Wexler: "Respectfuly, I wish you had asked this question last year."

Huffman says she couldn't have envisioned the future

Wexler declares that no one supports voters rights more than he does.

12:25: Tina Flournoy, representing the Clinton campaign, asks Wexler, representing the Obama campaign, whether he would accept a full delegation seating with full votes given to the delegates.

Wexler: "We have answered the question."

Flournoy: "No you haven't."

Wexler: "The issue is how do we become unified."

Flournoy: "Thank you, Congressman. I think we understand your answer."

The Clinton folks in the crowd hiss at Wexler.

Harold Ickes then asks Wexler why he thinks Obama has conceded anything.

Wexler: "What we are saying is that up to the number 19, which is the maximum amount allowable under the Ausman petition and your rules, we the Obama campaign ... have agreed to a concession..." He notes that "In the state of Ohio and the state of Pennsylvania together, Sen. Clinton won a total of 19 delegates.." (He means NET delegates)...

RBC Meeting: Live Wire Two: Obama Endorses Ausman Compromise

12:02 p.m: Wexler is yelling. "We must find a way...to resolve this situation so that Florida may participate in this historic nominating process that will soon come to a close." ... Says the rules provide for a reduction in the NUMBER of pledged delegates... Wexler announces Obama campaign's support for Ausman petition... -- says it would award Clinton a net 19 delegates... "Sen. Obama should be commended for his willingness to offer this extraordinary concession.... "

11:58 :Wexler acknowledges that the election was held without a compliant delegate election plan; "both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton pledged not to campaign in Florida and both agreed at the time that the primary would not count. This contest was not a normal primary election." Argues that Obama's decision to follow the rules. Wexler notes said that the RBC told the campaigns that the process was non-binding; addresses a "canard;" this is "completely untrue." Wexler downplays the Obama campaign's roll in pushing against a new Florida primary.

11:56: This is an Obama crowd; Rep. Robert Wexler, identified with the Obama campaign, gets the loudest applause so far.

11:55: SOME SPARKS Don Fowler asks if the committee restored 100 percent of the delegates to Florida, Sen. Nelson would agree to that? He says yes. James Roosevelt: "Don, this is out of order." Fowler: "It's one question.." Roosevelt: "It's one question, but it's out of order."

11:54: Clinton adviser Tina Flournoy asks: "If ten people voted or 20 people voted; does it matter to you the difference?" The Clinton folks are trying to establish a grounding in the notion that if the full delegation isn't seated, then justice will not be done.

11:52: Brazile asks about the demographic diversity; Joyner says that the delegation is in full compliance.

11:49: Donna Brazile is given a spontaneous round of applause.

11:48: Asked which proposal she supports, Joyner: "I want it all!," noting that in life, you sometimes don't get what you want.

11:41: Joyner: "It's the responsibility of the party to seat these delegates and restore our confidence. ... You have the ability to give voices back to the 1.75 million voters in Florida."

11:39: Courtesy of CBS News's Jamie Farnsworth, here's what Bill Clinton said about seating the Florida and Michigan delegation.

“The republicans said something very differently. They said ok you guys went out of line and our party rules provide that we can seat you but you’ll only have ½ a delegate for your elected delegates and your superdelegates will be seated and (inaudible) votes. Our rules provide for exactly the same thing and we didn’t do that. Then she said ok well then give them another election and he said no. I mean basically he instructed his supporters in the Michigan legislature to kill any attempt to have a re-vote. So probably the only option then is to seat them under our rules as half delegates.”

11:38: Jones: "The price that we paid for trying to protect our voters was that we were told that our votes wouldn't count."

11:29: State Rep. Arthena Joyner speaks on behalf of the Clinton campaign

11:28: Bill Nelson gets a huge round of applause.

LIVE from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting

11:24: Seems like some folks are interested in scoring debating points rather than getting things done...

11:20 a.m: Nelson and the RBC spar over the fact that Democrats in the FL legislature voted in favor of the early primary. Nelson calls this question "adversarial." He notes that the legislature attached to the primary change bill a voter verified paper trial and that FL Dems tried to amend the bill; it was passed; it was signed into law by the governor of Florida. Member David McDonald responds..."The answer was: yes, people voted for it, but there was an explanation?" ... and contends that the Dems could well have chosen an additional process. "At some point in time, people in Florida really seriously tried to get a complaint process inside the window..."

11:19 a.m: Some background: there is no loved lost between Sen. Nelson and most members of the rules and bylaws committee... hence the tension.... The committee thinks that Nelson took an interest in the process way too late.

11:15 a.m.: "While the race for the nomination is not over, and we have two great candidates, and those two are personal friends of mine... while this race is not over, the dispute about these delegates ought to be resolved today."

11:13: a.m. here in one of the press rooms, two people have been lulled to nap.

11:02: a.m: Sen. Bill Nelson brings up Florida 2000...blames the media for telling Florida Democrats that their votes would not count... "Still, they were determined to send a message."

10:59 a.m.: Matt Drudge posts audio of ex-POTUS Bill Clinton talking about the seating of Michigan and Florida's delegates; he says half of the delegation ought to be seated; his wife's campaign, of course, wants the full delegations restored.

10:53 a.m.: Member Don Fowler (a former DNC chair) calls Ausman's interpretation "incorrect." Says there is no legislative history to support the idea that the superdelegates have a privileged status.

10:51 a.m.: Member David McDonald: notes that the charter does not give each delegate a VOTE at the convention, only the status of delegate. Ausman says it is assumed by the context.

10:48: a.m. Ausman contends that the rules prohibit the DNC from imposing additional penalties on states whose violations consist only of timing problems.

10:46: a.m. Note to the Daily Show writers who read this blog: "a shall in the charter is stronger than a shall in the rules. If you enforce this shall, you better be enforcing the shall in the constitution that says not only am I a delegate, I'm a delegate will a full vote." -- cool, right?

10:44 a.m.: Ausman holds that the automatic penalty trigger, since it contains the word "shall," cannot be expanded if the violation (the "material deficiencies") is due to the time violation. Rule 20(c)(1)(a): "a shall in the charter is stronger than a shall in the rules. If you enforce this shall, you better be enforcing the shall in the constitution that says not only am I a delegate, I'm a delegate will a full vote."

10:42 a.m.: Ausman: "If you want to punish me, and the other DNC members...who tried to get another delegate selection process...if you want to punish me for ...standing up to ..Charlie Crist, you cannot do it." Interesting but elitist argument here... the superdelegates have more standing in Ausman's eyes than the pledged delegates.... there's certainly a personal edge to his words....

10:38 a.m. Ausman notes that many DNC officials are delegates without being chosen; that supports his claim that DNC members and members of Congress "shall" be delegates without having to go through a process to choose them; "even if you think these processes apply to the selection of the charter delegates, I would advise you to read Article II, Section 38.. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary, the DNC shall ensure that the National Convention shall provide for all the members of the Democratic National Committee to serve as unpledged delegates."

10:34: a.m.: Ausman acknowledges that Florida did not comply with the rules and ought to be subject to some penalty. ... Article 10, Sec 3: "Each official body of the Dem party...shall .conduct its affairs ...which ... shall be consistent with this Charter." ... He's arguing about the supremacy of the charter... Article 4, Sec. 2: The delegates shall be chosen through process which ... provides for all of the members of the Democratic National Committee to serve as unpledged delegates." Emphasize on "shall." No conditionals. Notes that DNC staff analysis concurs that plain reading of charter supports that interpretation and that, therefore, a subsequent ruling on superdelegates was invalid. [The staff analysis also says that the charter could well be differentiating between valid and invalid processes.)

10:32 a.m.: Jon Ausman gets 15 minutes, and he seems to be spending the first part of his time pointing out every single Floridian who showed up.

10:31: a.m.: Harold Ickes seeks a point of information: "My understand is that both the Obama campaign and the Clinton campaign have intervened in this challenge."

10:30 a.m.: the Ausman challenge is up. (1) DNC members and members of Congress are, according to the bylaws, automatic delegates to the convention. (185 pledged delegates should be subject to the half penalty only.) (2) Ausman interprets the rules to suggest that the committee had no authority to extend penalties for states found in noncompliance for reasons of timing.

10:26 a.m.: Beginning the discussion of the Ausman challenges, DNC co-chair James Roosevelt notes that Florida could have rescheduled its primary for after Feb. 5 after they were found in noncompliance. "This was not some theoretical possibility." (Well, but it would have cost millions to hold a primary, and no one was willing to pay for it)

10:15 a.m.: It's all about Michigan, Co-Chair Alexis Herman notes pointedly that Michigan was included in the process to change the calendar and add states, (and thus by implication ought not to be complaining.) She reiterates that the RBC had the discretion to extend the automatic penalty (50% of delegates lost) to 100% and did so.

10:08: a.m. Dean blames the media for "sexist" and "racist" remarks. "That will stop."

10:07: a.m.: Dean refers to "five intellectually bankrupt members of the U.S. Supreme Court" who took the 2004 election away from Al Gore.

10:06: a.m.: Howard Dean tells a story about how Al Gore calmed one of his rants about the state of the Democratic party back in 2003. "Howard, you know, this is not about you, this is about your country."

10:04: a.m.: So there's a consensus... this thing will go by quickly, right? Not a chance. There are 28 members of the rules committee and a national cable audience. People are going to want to talk.

10:00 a.m: DNC chairman of Howard Dean is marveling at the participation of millions of Democrats. 35,000,000 people have come out to support Democrats. "Young voters have tripled, and in some cases quadrupled, previous turnout. In fact, 58% of voters under 30 now identify themselves as Democratic or leaning Democratic."

10:00 a.m.: So here's the Florida consensus: the entire delegation will be restored; each delegate will receive half of a vote; the delegates will be allocated according to the popular vote totals in the state. So Hillary Clinton picks up 19 votes.

09:57 a.m.: There is a quorum; 28 of 30 RBC members are present.

At 9:44, a.m. Co-Chair Alexis Herman gavels the "largest rules and bylaws committee meeting that we have ever had" to order.

09:30: Mitch Cesar, the long-time Broward Co., FL Democratic chairman and a member of the rules and bylaws committee, confirms the notion of a well-developed consensus about Florida's delegation. The fireworks, Mr. Cesar said, will be shot over Michigan, where the state's senior senator, Carl Levin, intends to protect the institutional prerogatives of his state. "We have members of Congress from Florida here who aren't going to speak because they can get a little too excited," he said.

09:38: A woman, dressed in a pink pants suit, parks herself in one of the press filing rooms and refuses to leave. Security hired by the hotel is called. They surrounded the woman; a 20 minute, unproductive discussion ensues. The woman claims she was escorted into the press room by a DNC official; the official, conveniently enough, cannot be found. The woman stood up and immediately fell to the ground, laying prostrate in protest. "Adam nine, we need SOD up to the McKinnon room," one of the hotel security agents radioed. The woman looked up at the curious members of the press corps. "Sorry to disturb you.," she said. As I type, a half dozen police officers and an equal number of security guards are trying to escort her out.

Obama And McCain Plan Competing Event Speeches

As reported this morning by the Politico, Sen. Barack Obama will gavel the Democratic presidential contest to a close from the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, MN, the location of the Republican National Convention.

And Sen. John McCain will deliver what Republican sources call a "framing speech" from the banks of Lake Ponchartrain just North of New Orleans.

RBC Meeting: Watch Carl Levin

The big unknown tomorrow is a man whose primary interest has nothing to do with the electoral success of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Sen. Carl Levin will be speaking on behalf of Michigan; he wants the entire delegation seated and given full votes, and if he does not get his way, he will likely [ Note -- let me walk back on the word likely... instead, substitute "might"]
challenge the RBC's ruling when the credentials committee convenes unless the rules and bylaws committee promises to strip Iowa and New Hampshire of their privileged status in 2012.

What that means is that the debate about the size of Michigan's delegation will not be settled tomorrow.

What we don't know is whether Hillary Clinton will use Sen. Levin's ornery desire to punish Iowa and Michigan as a pretext for continuing her campaign.

The blogosphere is buzzing with conspiracy theories that Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy have set a trap for Obama: because the RBC won't given them everything they want, they'll have an excuse to prolong the drama. (That rhymed!)

Well. After Wednesday, Barack Obama stops being polite and starts getting real. The establishment of the Democratic Party will turn, en masse, against Hillary Clinton; the race changes gear; the press treats her as a side show.

Another option, and one which I think is more probable, is that Clinton may well want to continue the quest to seat both delegations fully, but she might not do so as a candidate.

Campain Gets Tenses

John McCain (and his echo chamber) and Barack Obama (and his echo chamber) are today arguing about who knows less about Iraq and whether John McCain ought to have used a gerund instead of the past tense. The point of debate is inconsequential because the truth is knowable; John McCain is, at worst, wrong, or, at best, imprecise:

"We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr City are quiet."

On another level, this debate is about whether McCain looks at Iraq through rose-tinted glasses and whether Obama is deliberately shielding himself from signs of progress. Politics abhors a middle ground: either Iraq is getting better or it isn't. McCain has every incentive to maximize the success stories and project forward; Obama has every incentive to maximize the chaos and project forward. The question for voters is: the present is almost as unknowable as the future, so whose vision do you trust more? Polls show that less than half of Americans trust McCain and less than half trust Obama. Obama has an advantage on policy -- Americans want troops home soon and consider the Iraq adventure a failure -- , but the advantage disappears when voters are asked to think about who should lead the policy, whatever it turns out to be. That's probably because McCain retains enough of the aura of a straight-talking, tell-it-like-is-is reformer whose words reflect reality.

So McCain has to be extra careful here; when he uses shorthand, he inevitably has to go back and explain what he meant. Getting Iraq Right is the sine qua non of his campaign, and imprecision exposes his flank and it degrades his brand. The campaign contends that the press is frothing over a question of semantics, but that's tough to argue. The scope of U.S. troop deployment in Iraq is the central issue of the presidential election. When combat brigades withdraw is not a detail. It is an essential element of the question.

The McCain campaign, in any event, professes to be comfortable with any argument about the future of Iraq. For that matter, so does the Obama campaign. One Dem points out: "Look how angry McCain gets everytime someone dares to challenge him about Iraq?'" .... It is hard to determine who is getting the better of whom.

The RBC Meeting: The Challenge Process

When Hillary Clinton and friends say they might take the Florida and Michigan delegation challenges "all the way until the convention," what do they mean?

Think of tomorrow's rules and bylaws committee hearing as a district court proceeding. If any of the parties involved -- be it either of the campaigns or the state parties or the challengers -- wishes to challenge the RBC's decision, they can file a petition with the credentials committee, which does not take over jurisdiction until the end of June.

Ironically, the RBC's chairs would determine the proximate fate of the appeals petition, but it would most certainly end up being forwarded to the full credentials committee for review. As I've written before, Clinton will almost certainly have enough support on the credentials committee to force the attachment of a minority report.

Then, at the convention -- the Supreme Court in this metaphor --, the majority's decision will get a vote by all of the delegates, followed by the minority report, and then.... well, that's the end of the process.

Note: the credentials committee can't issue a "stay" of sorts... until the RBC's ruling potentially seating both delegates is formally overturned, the delegations are seated. So Florida and Michigan's delegations will, after tomorrow, be seated...unless and until they are de-seated by full convention.

RBC: A Possible Scenario (With Updated Numbers)

We've written about what the Clinton campaign wants out of the RBC meeting tomorrow and written about what the Obama campaign wants to prevent, but what about the institutional prerogatives of the national party?

1. They want to end the nomination race, and quickly.
2. They want to save face with voters, activist and fundraisers in Florida and Michigan.
3. They want to preserve the legitimacy of the rules process.
4. They do not want the meeting to turn into a political circus.

These pressures may constrain the choices that the members of the committee will be asked to make.

Based on reporting and some guesswork, here is one possible scenario... and note, the numbers aren;t exact, but they're approximately correct: Florida's delegation is restored in full. Each delegate gets a half of a vote; in this scenario, Hillary Clinton would pick up 62 votes and Barack Obama would pick up about 43 for a net gain of 19.

Michigan's delegation would be restored in full; each delegate gets a half of a vote; the delegates are divided evenly between the two campaigns, giving them about 34 or 35 each. (Does the RBC round up from 34.5?)

The total number of delegate VOTES -- not delegates, but delegate VOTES -- needed to cross the nomination threshold would rise to about 2118 -- halfway between 2210 and 2026.

Obama grosses 81 delegates; Clinton nets about 19 (100 grossed).

Depending on the results of PR, MO and SD, to secure the nomination, Obama will need roughly 19 more delegates than he otherwise would have needed.

I'm pretty sure that Obama campaign would be willing to accept this scenario. And unfortunately for the Clinton campaign, the preferences of the presumed nominee will take precedence over the arguments of the challenger.

So what happens to the superdelegates? Unclear at this point.

Obama/Veepstakes Poll

The RBC Meeting: The Disputants

Ex-Rep. David Bonior and Rep. Robert Wexler (R-FL) will argue the merits of the Obama campaign's position vis-a-vis Florida and Michigan tomorrow. Ex-Gov. James Blanchard (D-MI) will speak on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

McCain Pledges To Be "Chief Negotiator" In Middle East

Here's a bit of a new angle on Sen. John McCain's policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead of a hands-back approach preferred by President Bush, McCain pledges, in an interview with my colleague Jeffrey Goldberg, to be the "chief negotiator" between the two sides from day one. (You'll recall that it took President Bush roughly six years before he decided to become fully engaged -- what ex- U.S. ambassador Martin Indyk has called the "legacy syndrome" that afflicts presidents in their late hours.)

JG: Tell me how engaged you would be as President in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and give me a couple of names of plausible Middle East envoys.

JM: I would have a hands-on approach. I would be the chief negotiator. I have been there for thirty years. I know the leaders, I know them extremely well. Ehud Barak and I have gone back thirty years. I knew Olmert when he was mayor of Jerusalem. I’ve met many times with Netanyahu. I’ve met with Mahmoud Abbas.

In terms of envoys, there are a large number of people who could be extremely effective, and I apologize for ducking the question, but it would have to be dictated by the state of relations at the time. For example, we know that there were behind-the-scenes conversations Israel was having with Syria. Now it’s broken into the public arena. So it would depend on the state of things. If they were more advanced in talks, which they are not, with Hamas, then you need someone like a mechanic. If it’s someone who needs to lay out a whole framework, it would have to be someone who commands the respect of both sides, someone who has an impact on world opinion.

JG: What is the difference between an American president negotiating with Ahmadinejad and Ehud Olmert negotiating with the Syrians?

JM: You don’t see him sitting down opposite Bashar, do you? (Bashar al-Assad is president of Syria.) I mean, that’s the point here. It was perfectly fine that Ryan Crocker spoke with the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad. The point is you don’t give legitimacy by lending prestige of a face-to-face meeting, with no preconditions.

JG: But Obama has shifted off that position.

JM: Sure, and the next time he sees where he’s wrong, maybe he’ll shift again. The point is is that he doesn’t understand. Look, in the primary, he was unequivocal in his statements. And now he realizes that it’s not a smart thing to say. I didn’t say he wasn’t a smart politician.

JG: Do you think that settlements keep Israel and the Palestinians from making peace?

JM: There’s a list of issues that separate them, from water, to the right of return, to settlements. Look at the Oslo Accords, which basically laid out a roadmap for addressing these major issues. And settlements is one of them, but certainly one of the issues right now is the shelling of Sderot, which I visited. As you know, they’re shelling from across the border. If the United States was being rocketed across one of our borders, that would probably gain prominence as an issue.

Ron Paul Wants A Speaking Slot At The Convention

And he'll probably get one. But here's betting it won't be in prime-time, early prime, or even afternoon drive...

A Word On Pew's Survey

Alec Tyson, a research assistant at Pew, e-mails:

We enjoyed seeing your analysis of our recent May political survey on your blog; one methodology comment regarding your post on young voters and demographics which may be helpful to you in analyzing our polls going forward: It’s true that we interviewed 88 registered voters, ages 18-29, which – as you note – is less than 8% of our unweighted registered voter sample. However, in all of our surveys, we weight our data to census population estimates.

For example, in the May survey, we reached a disproportionately small number of young voters, but after weighting to census data they accounted for 14% of registered voters -- instead of under 8% -- in our weighted sample. Similarly, we reached 364 voters over the age of 65 (about 29% of our unweighted sample), but after weighting they represent 19% of the registered voters. All our analyses are based on weighted, rather than unweighted data.

The Atlantic's Boldest

A regular corrections column.

An early version of a post on Pew's latest poll had several typos; John McCain's net favorability rating is +3, not -3, and I referred to the percentage of 18 to 19 year olds who voted in 2004 when I meant to refer to the percentage of 18 to 29 year olds.

Obama Supporters Score Tickets To Rules Meeting Saturday

An e-mail:

From: Adam L. Barr Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:22 AM To: dcforobama@XXXXXX Subject: [dcforobama] Update on DNC Rules Committee Meeting

DC for Obama members were able to snag more than half of the 125 tickets
that were distributed online yesterday. That number does not include DC
supporters not in DC for Obama, nor does it include MD and VA supporters
and grassroots activists. In all, the region was very successful in
getting Obama supporters into the meeting. I know many of you were
frustrated with technical issues yesterday morning, but as you can see,
many others were successful in securing access to the meeting.

If you were able to get a ticket to the meeting and have not emailed me
yet, please do so. We're planning to have all of our members meet up on
Saturday morning before the meeting. Also, we're relaying important
event information to our members that are attending.

Note: The Obama campaign has asked that its supporters refrain from
protesting/demonstrating/rallying at the meeting, regardless of how
well-intentioned those efforts may be. Instead, they urge those without
tickets to engage in one of the activities listed below.

For those of you without tickets, there are three options for you on
Saturday morning.

1) You can show up early on Saturday and wait in the same-day
registration line in the hopes that someone with a ticket doesn't show
up. Tickets will begin to be given away on a first-come first-served
basis beginning at 9:30 am, which is also when the meeting agenda
starts.

2) Stay home and watch the meeting unfold on C-SPAN.

3) Most importantly, you can help move our cause forward in the region
by registering voters in Northern Virginia. We stand a good chance of
turning Virginia blue this year and that work has already begun. While
Clinton supporters are disturbing the peace at the RBC meeting, you can
help move our campaign forward. If interested, email
[REDACTED]@gmail.com for details.

Did McCain Have A Cold? (Update)

Mystifying, says the McCain campaign. Political bloggers are apparently trafficking in rumors that John McCain had a cold and thus canceled his schedule for tomorrow.

Ms. Buchanan said she was mystified at where the illness rumors were coming from. After all, she said, he was plunging ahead with his town hall meeting at a high school here and a fund-raiser this evening.

“He’s not sick,” she said. “Otherwise, we would have canceled this.

“It really is a scheduling issue,” she added but did not elaborate.

Mike Luo of the Times was also given conflicting information:

An aide also confirmed to The Times that Mr. McCain has a cold.

Perhaps HQ in Arlington didn't quite pick up the transmission from the roadshow. But the optics of McCain's canceling an appearance because of a cold are pretty cloudy; the guy generally campaigns through his colds, and, generally, doesn't have any incentive to allow voters and the media to see him in tip-top shape.

Update (midnight:20):

Well. I've been in contact with the aide who told me that McCain had a cold; I asked this person to reconcile the statement given to me with the one given to the traveling press by Ms. Buchanan. This person's answer I accept:

"Some events got moved around and rescheduled, a media avail got added and wires got crossed. So he's got a full schedule tomorrow. [I] Really do apologize for any confusion."

Well, my word is my bond, and my name is attached to the facts I present. But -- these things happen; on we go.

Rumor Of The Day

Rumor: McCain canceled his campaigning in Pennsylvania tomorrow because he's going to announce his vice presidential choice. (This rumor is swirling around Democratic circles.)

Fact: Uh, very, very, unlikely. He's under the weather and wants to rest up, according to campaign sources.

McCain Raises $$ Off Of Iraq Visit Issue

Here's the full fundraising email that just went out:

My Friends,

I have long said that this election will present the American people with a clear choice in electing our next president. The differences between my vision for national security leadership and that of Senator Obama's could not be greater, and this is why I am writing to you today.

I think you all know that this war has been long, hard and tough. And it has meant enormous sacrifice on the part of Americans in blood and treasure. But after four years of a badly mismanaged war, our new strategy is succeeding and we are now winning in Iraq thanks to the service and sacrifice of the brave Americans who are serving.

I have visited Iraq on many occasions because I think the most vital decision that any President of the United States can make has got to be about the security of this nation and the lives of the young Americans who are serving.

But I cannot say the same of one of my opponents, Senator Barack Obama. He has only been to Iraq once, on a trip two years ago. Senator Obama speaks openly about his willingness to sit down with our enemies and engage in open talks, but he hasn't gone to Iraq in over two years to meet with our leaders and see that progress is being made on the ground. Something is wrong with your judgment when you want to sit down unconditionally with Raul Castro and Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but you don't take the opportunity to sit down with General Petraeus and learn about the situation in Iraq firsthand. My friends, this is not the "change" we need in our next president.

Our next president cannot just talk about leadership; they must demonstrate it. Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. Yet he has not held one hearing on Afghanistan, a place where young Americans are in harm's way every day. When a chairman of a subcommittee can't lead, it's bad; when a president doesn't lead, it's unacceptable.

I am convinced that my experience, knowledge and every challenge I have confronted during my years of service to our country and its ideals make me better able to lead and ready to serve as our Commander in Chief on day one. That is why I am asking you to make a financial contribution of $50, $100, $250, $500, or any amount up to the limit of $2,300 right away. Our national security is too important to hand over to someone who does not have the knowledge or experience to make judgment calls on Iraq. Thank you.

Sincerely,

John McCain

P.S. My friends, it's clear Senator Obama was driven to his position on the War in Iraq by his ideology and not by the facts on the ground. He does not have the knowledge or experience to make the judgments necessary to keep our Nation safe, prosperous and strong. Presidents have to listen and learn. Presidents have to make judgments no matter how popular or unpopular they may be. I believe I am better prepared to make these judgments, leading our country as your next president, and I ask that you make a financial contribution right away to my campaign so that I am able to take my message of experience to the American people. Thank you.

Did Chinese Hackers Cause US Blackouts?

National Journal's Shane Harris has reliable, knowledgeable sources who believe that the answer is yes:

Computer hackers in China, including those working on behalf of the Chinese government and military, have penetrated deeply into the information systems of U.S. companies and government agencies, stolen proprietary information from American executives in advance of their business meetings in China, and, in a few cases, gained access to electric power plants in the United States, possibly triggering two recent and widespread blackouts in Florida and the Northeast, according to U.S. government officials and computer-security experts.

One prominent expert told National Journal he believes that China’s People’s Liberation Army played a role in the power outages. Tim Bennett, the former president of the Cyber Security Industry Alliance, a leading trade group, said that U.S. intelligence officials have told him that the PLA in 2003 gained access to a network that controlled electric power systems serving the northeastern United States. The intelligence officials said that forensic analysis had confirmed the source, Bennett said. “They said that, with confidence, it had been traced back to the PLA.” These officials believe that the intrusion may have precipitated the largest blackout in North American history, which occurred in August of that year. A 9,300-square-mile area, touching Michigan, Ohio, New York, and parts of Canada, lost power; an estimated 50 million people were affected.

Officially, the blackout was attributed to a variety of factors, none of which involved foreign intervention. Investigators blamed “overgrown trees” that came into contact with strained high-voltage lines near facilities in Ohio owned by FirstEnergy Corp. More than 100 power plants were shut down during the cascading failure. A computer virus, then in wide circulation, disrupted the communications lines that utility companies use to manage the power grid, and this exacerbated the problem. The blackout prompted President Bush to address the nation the day it happened. Power was mostly restored within 24 hours.

There has never been an official U.S. government assertion of Chinese involvement in the outage, but intelligence and other government officials contacted for this story did not explicitly rule out a Chinese role. One security analyst in the private sector with close ties to the intelligence community said that some senior intelligence officials believe that China played a role in the 2003 blackout that is still not fully understood.

A Prominent New Hampshire Democrat Endorses Full FL/MI Delegation Seatings

Amb. Terry Scumaker is, indeed, a long-time supporter of Hillary Clinton's, but he is also a long-time supporter of the DNC rules process and a partisan of New Hampshire. He wrote today to members of the rules and bylaws committee:

Dear RBC Members: I do not envy you your current assignment. To be clear, I write to you in my personal capacity as a lifelong Democrat, forty year participant in and defender of the NH Primary and as a former member of the DNC and the 2005 DNC Primary Calendar Commission--and not as the representative of any campaign or organization. To those of you I know personally, including Chairs Roosevelt and Herman, Don and Carol Fowler, Elaine K., Sen. Clark, Harold, Donna and Tina, please accept my apologies for a group email, but time and my limited technical abilities did not permit otherwise. As many of you know, we Granite Staters feel extremely strongly about our first in the nation primary and have gone to great lengths to preserve our tradition. At the same time, as one of the original 13 states whose motto is "Live Free or Die", we cherish democracy and our ancestors put their lives and honor on the line for our independence. I believe strongly that the delegates from Florida and Michigan, who were chosen in state certified elections by over 2.3 million people, must be seated or our party will make a mockery of our democracy and itself and will pay a heavy price in November. It appears we will need at least one of those states to win back the White House. Sen. Levin and NH did not see eye to eye during the primary Commission meetings on many points so it would understandable for us to say seat Florida, but not Michigan, but that would be wrong. The voters of those states had no say in setting their primary dates. I perceive little difference between issues presented by the Florida and Michigan delegations so they should be treated the same. First of all, Sen. Obama took himself off the Michigan ballot presumably to curry favor in Iowa, and perhaps that worked. His absence from the ballot is a "red herring" in your deliberations. He made his decision not knowing what you would do about the delegates and therefore must bear the consequences just as Sen. Clinton did when she signed the pledge proposed by the chairs of the four early state democratic parties. To say that 2.3 million voters in FL/MI did not know what they were doing when they took time out of their busy lives to go vote is insulting to their intelligence. Our party should never demean voters' intelligence or participation in democracy by voiding valid ballots cast. Please be assured that there is absolutely no clamor in our state to bar the delegates from Florida or Michigan from the convention because they moved their dates. Indeed, I believe the reverse is the case and that if asked, people here would say "count the votes and seat the delegates, that is the only fair thing to do" As a lawyer, I believe in the rule of law, and that rules should be followed. However, as we lawyers also like to say, it is the exception that proves the rule. Even statutes must bow to the constitution and this is an analogous situation. The DNC rules must bow to the contstitutional principle that every vote be counted -- especially when it is in our party and our nominee's interest in November to do so. Our party can stand for nothing less and if the movie "Recount" didnt reaffirm that for all of us, we are missing the point. The American people won't, and the GOP will make sure they don't. If the candidates and two states can agree on a reasonable compromise, I hope you will support it. If not, I urge you to vote to seat the entire delegations of both states. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, Terry Shumaker U.S. Ambassador, ret. Concord, New Hampshire

Polling: The Demographics: The Younger Voters

More from Pew's megasurvey:

The demographics are fairly predictable, but Pew's sample included only 88 voters between the ages of 18 and 29 -- less than 8 percent of the sample. In 2004, 17% of voters were between the ages of 18 and 29, and it's reasonable to assume that the figure will be, at bottom, 20%. Factoring my turnout assumption in, Obama's margin over McCain in the poll is about 6 percentage points, not three.

Other highlights from the poll: Obama is doing worse among evangelicals and better among folks with college degrees... all not surprising.

Obama's Primary Toll; McCain's Politics Problem

Pew's latest People-Press mega-survey (1,505 adults from May 21-25) has much to dive into.

OBAMA: THE TOLL FROM THE PRIMARY

The primary has taken a toll worthy of the Triborough bridge as even Democrats are now beginning to concede: about half believe that the contest has been going on for too long. Obama has trouble with white women; in March, nearly 60% of women who supported Hillary Clinton had a favorable view of Obama; that figure is down to 43% today. About 44% of Clinton supporters don't like Obama, way up from 26% in December of 2007. Roundabout two-thirds of the party are confident that it will unite around Obama; a third are skeptical. (Don't fret, Dems: only 62% of Republicans expect their party to unite around John McCain.)

More troubling for Obamaniacs: Obama's favorability ratings among independents is down 13 percentage points, and he does not receive the same support from Democrats than John McCain does from Republicans, although the pool of Democrats is much larger and McCain has not faced a true Republican opponent since March. Pew finds that a quarter of whites without college degrees say that their dislike of Barack Obama is personal, rather than political; (18% say it is both personal AND political).

MCCAIN AND INDEPENDENTS

As McCain has more fully embraced the identity of a true-red Republican, the percentage of voters who don't like his politics has climbed; they still have a favorable view of his character. Much of the decline comes from Democrats; that's balanced out with his improvement among Republican; he is slightly less popular among independents that he was, but the rate of decline has slowed. Nearly half of all independents believe that McCain represents a break, a change, from President Bush. (Less than 30% of Republicans are happy with the direction of the country.) McCain now leads by eight points on independents; Obama led among them in April; McCain led among them in March. This is a temporary trend.

Potentially worrisome to Arlington will be news that McCain's fav/unfav rating is a positive three (I originally and incorrectly wrote that the ratio was -3); Obama still has a majority fav rating of positive 9.

THE ISSUES

The usual pattern holds: Democrats hold overwhelming advantages on issues, from the economy to health care to energy to social issues. John McCain is seen as being slightly better on immigration and taxes, while the candidates are essentially tied on the Iraq question (although more Americans favor Obama's solutions). McCain's foreign policy is seen by a slim majority (51%) as "just right," while 16% don't think it's tough enough -- this suggests that efforts to link him to President Bush on foreign policy are failing. There is much more uncertainty about Obama's foreign policy approach.

WHY WE'RE VOTING

The percentage of folks who say they're voting for Obama because they like him (versus against McCain) is 75%; that's roughly the same percentage who, in 2004, said they were voting for George W. Bush and not against John Kerry. The 42% of people who don't like Barack Obama generally distrust his political views; 16% said they don't like the "kind of person he is," perhaps a cover for latent racism, or perhaps the result of percieved elitism.

McCain Cancels Schedule Tomorrow

This is the kind of press release that results in reporters by the busload calling the campaign:

"U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today announced that John McCain will cancel his town hall meeting and media availability in Pipersville, Pennsylvania on Friday, May 30th."

Fear not: he has a cold, according to an aide. That is all.

RBC: Michigan's Proposal

The DNC's staff analysis, quoted here yesterday, did not offer an opinion as to how Michigan's delegates ought to be allocated, if at all. The Michigan Democratic Party's leading lights, in a letter to members of the rules and bylaws comission today, reiterate their position: the Clinton campaign wanted 73 delegates to Obama's 55; the Obama campaign wanted them split equally; the party split the difference, proposing a 69 to 59 split. "This 69/59 approach was overwhelmingly adopted by the Executive Committee of the Michigan Democratic Party – which like the Rules and Bylaws Committee has members who are strong advocates for both candidates – as a position that can unify our party and put this issue behind us," these party leaders write. :o that end, both of our presidential candidates have made clear that they want Michigan’s delegates to be seated without penalty."

The reality is that the total number of delegates will not be 138; it will be 69; the RBC is not likely to restore the delegation to full strength.

The AP adds a wrinkle to the process: Joel Ferguson, a DNC member who will argue the case on behalf of Michigan, wants to award Clinton her entiire delegate slate (73); award Obama zero delegates because he chose not to be on the ballot (0), and, failing that, give all the superdelegates like himself a full vote and the pledged delegates a half of a vote.

A Third Mississippi Poll Shows A Tight Senate Race

One would have expected a poll taken right after Democrat Travis Childers's victory in the first congressional district to show some enthusiasm among Democrats, but we've now seen three polls -- two of them telephone surveys and the latest, an autodial survey -- showing a very tight Senate race between Republican Roger Wicker and Democrat Ronnie Musgrove.

McCain: A One-Term Pledge?

Obama's Healthy, A Letter From His Doc Says

Here is all we're going to get to know about Sen. Barack Obama's health:

DAVID L. SCHEINER, M.D.

Hyde Park Associates in Medicine, Ltd.

1515 East 52nd Place, Chicago, IL 60615

To Whom It May Concern:

I am David L. Scheiner, a board certified general internist licensed to practice in the State of Illinois. I am on staff at the University of Chicago Hospitals and Rush University Medical Center. I have been Senator Barack Obama’s primary care physician since March 23, 1987. The following is a summary of his medical records for the past 21 years.

During that period of time, Senator Obama has been in excellent health. He has been seen regularly for medical checkups and various minor problems such as upper respiratory infections, skin rashes and minor injuries.

His family history is pertinent for his mother’s death from ovarian cancer and grandfather who died of prostate cancer. His own history included intermittent cigarette smoking. He has quit this practice on several occasions and is currently using Nicorette gum with success.

Senator Obama’s last medical checkup was on January 15, 2007; he had no complaints. He exercised regularly often jogging three miles. His diet was balanced with good intake of roughage and fluids. A complete review of systems was unremarkable. On physical examination, his blood pressure was 90/60 and pulse 60/minute. His build was lean and muscular with no excess body fat. His physical examination was completely normal.

Laboratory studies included triglycerides of 44(normal under 150), cholesterol 173 (normal under 200), HDL 68 (normal over 40), and LDL 96 (normal under 130). Chem 24, urinalysis and CBC were normal, PSA was 0.6, very good. An EKG was normal.

In short, his examination showed him to be in excellent health. Senator Barack Obama is in overall good physical and mental health needed to maintain the resiliency required in the Office of President.

Sincerely,

David L. Scheiner, M.D.

John McCain disclosed 1400 pages covering eight years and even an examination of his buttocks (they're freckled!). Obama releases a page covering 21 years -- although, as a much younger man, one would assume that his health is less of a concern to voters than McCain's.

John McCain Is Responsible For Getting Out Of His Predicament

The corollary to the argument that John McCain is not entirely responsible for his political predicament is that he and his campaign are entirely responsible for getting out of it.

Option 0: Focus. Stop the scatter shot, hyper-zig-zag appeal to the base one day, appeal to moderates the next day. Spend much less time on foreign policy -- it seems as if McCain spends 60% of his time on Iraq, 30% on other foreign policy issues, and 10% of time on domestic policy. Change the ratio: spend 50% of your time on reform, 30% on energy and economic security, and 20% on Iraq and foreign policy.

Drawback: McCain's comfort zone would need to significantly enlarged.

Option 1: Truly, madly, deeply distance yourself from President Bush by way of policy distinctions on a subject other than climate change; stop respectfully disagreeing with the 27% President and start angrily disagreeing with him -- after all, Americans are angry about the direction of the country. They do not "respectfully" disagree with the President like you do.

Drawback: Though Republican conservatives have, say the polls, found their way to McCain, they drool much less than liberal Democrats do over their own nominee. The more daylight between McCain and Bush, the theory goes, the less enthusiastic the Republican base will be. Also: the angrier McCain gets, the more he turns moderate Republican and independent women off.

Option 2: Unleash the guns. Go after Obama's patriotism frontally; pronounce Michelle Obama fair game; play the race card; demagogue gays; turn the race into a 2004-esque series of cultural contrasts.

Drawbacks: It's (a) not clear that this works anymore, even as a way to gin up the Republican base; (b) it would completely violate every principle McCain stands for; (c) it would irrevocably alienate crossover women; (d) the Tennessee Republican Party and various 527 groups will do this anyway.

Option 3: Get rid of some of your senior advisers; purge every former lobbyist from your payroll; make a clean start. This would send the message that McCain "gets" it. It would create an expectation of a new beginning, allowing McCain to do something bold on policy, potentially.

Drawbacks: It's not clear whether McCain would be any happier; there are many personal entanglements that would have to be straitened out before certain advisers are brought back aboard; the media might cover the news as evidence of a campaign in permanent flux;

Option 4: Solve the women problem. It's an open secret in Republican and Democratic circles that less ideological Republican women and independent women are openly disdainful of John McCain in focus groups; they find him angry; they don't believe that he's equipped with the proper temperament to do the job. McCain can't win Pennsylvania this way unless he somehow manages to turn out white men in record numbers. The solution: appoint Tom Ridge to the ticket; appear on Oprah and Ellen once a week; appoint himself as permanent co-host of the View; buy ads on Bravo and Lifetime; Or, try to scare these women into thinking that Barack Obama is so dangerously inexperienced that his election will render their lives all the more insecure and unstable. Or, appear with your children; open up your private life some more.

Drawbacks: McCain's going to have to tackle this problem at some point unless he intends on running as, or winning as, the candidate of white men.

Option 5: Don't panic. McCain's not in a predicament. Barack Obama faces a tough electoral college map. His enthusiastic supports in New York and California and New Jersey and Illinois will drive up his popular vote margins but don't really translate, at this point, into solid strength in the states that will determine the election. Narrow the message a bit, stop giving all those policy speeches, start giving three town hall meetings a day, and see what happens.

Drawback: Campaign strategists who don't panic? That violates every precept of evolutionary psychology. And even if the campaign is calm, the concentric circles of interest outsiders will continue to panic.

Option 6: A game-changer. Pledge to serve for only one term. Appoint your veep pick early. Do something creative with public financing. Propose some new policy that takes your allies and your opponents by surprise. Challenge Obama to weekly debates.

Drawback: Campaigns are consensus-based and risk averse.

The Rules And Bylaws Committee Meeting: Half And Half

NBC's Chuck Todd estimates that Hillary Clinton could take away either six or 19 delegates from this Saturday's rules and bylaws committee meeting; six delegates if the size of Florida's delegation is reduced in half, and 19 if the entire delegation is given a half of a vote. Obviously, the Clinton campaign would prefer the latter, and there is some reason to believe that the Obama campaign might accept this as a solution.

One argument made by those who don't want the RBC to accept any of the challenges is that the DNC would lose all of its legitimacy and would not be able to enforce anything resembling a coherent calendar in 2012 or 2016; if states knew that their delegations would be fully or partially restored even if they broke the rules, they'd have no incentive to follow them in the first place.

But this isn't exactly true: the reason why candidates Clinton and Obama didn't campaign in Florida and Michigan had as much to do with the pledge they signed to stay out; one could envision a scenario where Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada and South Carolina create a similar pledge for the next crop of candidates, and even though a plethora of states decide to go early, the campaigns will reluctantly sign the pledge for fear of alienating the earliest of early states. Of course, a potential candidate could view the carnage of 2008 and just as easily conclude that an angry Iowa isn't as important as a major victory in Florida or Michigan. Then again, Republican Rudy Giuliani completed that calculus, and a lotta good it did him....

Bush The Chest-Bumper

If this cadet were Scott McClellan, don't you think the President would have Zidaned him?

(Hat Tip, Andy Towle)

Obama's First 100 Days

At a fundraiser in Denver last night, Sen. Barack Obama signaled that he would use the grace period of his first 100 days in office to push through national health insurance plan. In general, a fresh administration is given some latitude to pursue a single domestic policy goal; think of George W. Bush and No Child Left Behind -- although Democrats were a bit shell-shocked then.

Obama allies like SEIU president Andy Stern have been lobbying Obama and his aides to move quickly on health care; through his various labor-business coalitions, he wants to generate pressure on the incoming president to act, the theory being that potential opponents of the type of plan Obama will propose will be less willing to wage war against it because they favor immediate action on the general proposition that something has to be done. By putting health care reform into the 100 day period, Obama is also acknowledging that his election would not immediately clear the tracks and usher in a period of glorious liberal accomplishments; instead, he'll need this artificial booster.

So after he meets with the Joint Chief of Staff to determine a course of action in Iraq, Obama wants to "[G]et out health care plan moving. We need a bill...by March or April to get going before the political season sets in."

NB: Other Obama 100 day priorities include a "signal to the world" on energy and climate change, and a review of every Bush executive order.

McClellan On Today

A feisty interview with Meredith Viera on Today.

When Scott Attacks

Everyone's agog at Scott McClellan's blistering new reminisce if only because we don't usually associate the word "blistering" with President Bush's soft-spoken, loyal chief spokesman. The press accounts suggest that McClellan has accepted, more or less, the caricature of the White House under McClellan's regime as portrayed on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart: propagandistic, disconnected from reality, dangerously insular, allergic to transparency. As memoirs go, this one ranks pretty high on the "Damn Them All" scale; candidly bathetic, self-aware, critical. It's not hagiographic in the Peggy Noonan style; we'll see if it meets Don Regan's standard for candor.
Compare it to George Stephanopoulos's memoir, All Too Human, although the dramatic arc of GS's tale began with promise and ended with promise-subordinated-to-promiscuity. The excerpts suggest that McClellan ascribes bad intentions (rather than all-too-human flaws) to a range of actors: Rove, Cheney, Rice; McClellan portrays the boss as befuddled and in over his head. (Is George W. Bush a stand-in for McClellan himself?)

Karl Rove, while "reserving my judgment on the greater book," insinuated that McClellan sounded like a liberal blogger, which, while descriptive, says nothing about the truth of the book. Rove said the charges that he lied to McClellan about the Plame affair "are just not true."

We all await Karl Rove's memoir. It will be the first (and only, to date) sustained defense of the intersection of policy and politics of the Bush Administration.

Don't Blame McCain For McCain's Predicament

Over the weekend, the New York Times and the Politico published stories about growing worries in Republican circles about the direction of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. Many of the complaints as voiced by the Republicans in the article were structural; this state activist hasn't been consulted by McCain's team; that state party chair hasn't been in contact with his or her regional campaign manager. The complainers implied that if McCain only did X, or if his campaign did Y, then they'd be more comfortable. At the risk of sounding unduly ungenerous, what was missing from many of the complainers was any insight about the scope of McCain's challenge, any sense of time, and any true evaluation of the causes of the malaise.

(1) McCain is indelibly linked with the Bush Administration on Iraq, and he is indelibly linked with the Bush economy. On the latter, the campaign points out that McCain long ago criticized the way the war was run; that is an academic point (arguably, a true point) in a world of perceptions. (On the economy, McCain had the chance to forcefully separate himself from President Bush, and he chose not to. He is responsible for this part of the problem, to the extent that it's a problem.)

(2) Since 2005, independents have been voting Democratic, have been identifying as Democrats, and have grown incredibly resistant to the Republican brand. That's not John McCain's fault. There is little he can do.

(3) The Democratic party's 50-state nomination process has turned out to be a boon for the party in so many ways; millions of Democrats and independents have already practiced voting for the Democratic candidate; hundreds of state and local parties have benefited financially and existentially from the competitive presidential race; activists are spirited and enthusiastic.

(4) Republican voter registration efforts are tapped out; in 2003 and 2004, the Bush campaign's enormously successful voter registration drive essentially registered a large portion of the remaining soft Republicans in the country. The Democratic voter registration efforts are just beginning; the Obama campaign managed to register 200,000 Democrats in Pennsylvania alone; it intends to register a half a million African Americans in Georgia; millions of young Democrats in the South and West; even if the McCain campaign wanted to expand the pool, the zoning laws of the political universe are controlled by the other party.

(5) There has been, and there will always be, tension and mistrust between McCain's world and the Republican establishment.

(6) Rick Davis and company have had two months to turn a shoestring campaign existing only in the person of John McCain and a few aides to a fully-staffed general election machine that is supposed to rival the one constructed by the supremely wealthy, supremely disciplined, supremely volunteer rich Bush campaign in 2004.

(7) Fundraising has been the governing imperative of McCain's schedule for most of the spring. His campaign had to raise about $50m until the convention, and in order for them to raise that money, McCain had to travel to where fundraisers live; the political schedule has been fixed around the fundraising schedule, and not vice-versa.

Unforced errors have added up: current senior campaign aides and outside advisers are still befuddled by the campaign's late recognition of its lobbyist perception problem; McCain's speeches have suffered from a lack of build up and follow through; vetting could have prevented the John Hagee and Rod Parsley's controversies, all of which served to remind women voters that McCain is pro-life;

The Atlantic's Boldest

A regular corrections column.

Yesterday, I wrote that Barack Obama;'s great uncle helped to liberate Buchenwald in 1954; that was a careless error -- an obvious transposition of the last two numbers of the date. Buchenwald was liberated in 1945.

Clinton's Closing Argument To Superdelegates

In a final plea to undeclared Democratic superdelegates, Sen. Hillary Clinton points to her lead in the popular vote, some recent polling showing her strength against John McCain, and surveys showing that voters believe she is ready to serve as commander in chief.

In a letter, sent Tuesday, and in an extensive memo, sent today, Clinton frames the choice for superdelegates as one between a candidate who has won more delegates in caucuses and a candidate who has won more delegates in primaries and has won the popular vote.

"Recent polls and election results show a clear trend: I am ahead in states that have been critical to victory in the past two elections," she writes. In the memo, she notes that, of the 20 toughest districts for freshman House Democrats -- districts won by President Bush in 2004 -- Clinton won 16 of them. Clinton, the memo argues, has won 350 more counties than Obama and that she is responsible for huge turnout increases among women and Latinos.

Here's the full letter:

Dear ___________,

The stakes in this election are so high: with two wars abroad, our economy in crisis here at home, and so many families struggling across America, the need for new leadership has never been greater.

At this point, we do not yet have a nominee – and when the last votes are cast on June 3, neither Senator Obama nor I will have secured the nomination. It will be up to automatic delegates like you to help choose our party’s nominee, and I would like to tell you why I believe I am the stronger candidate against Senator McCain and would be the best President and Commander in Chief.

Voters in every state have made it clear that they want to be heard and counted as part of this historic race. And as we reach the end of the primary season, more than 17 million people have supported me in my effort to become the Democratic nominee – more people than have ever voted for a potential nominee in the history of our party. In the past two weeks alone, record numbers of voters participated in the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries. And with 40 and 35 point margins of victory, it is clear that even when voters are repeatedly told this race is over, they’re not giving up on me – and I am not giving up on them either.

After seven years of feeling invisible to the Bush administration, Americans are seeking a President who is strong, experienced, and ready to take on our toughest challenges, from serving as Commander in Chief and ending the war in Iraq to turning our economy around. They want a President who shares their core beliefs about our country and its future and “gets” what they go through every day to care for their families, pay the bills and try to put something away for the future.

We simply cannot afford another four – or eight – years in the wilderness. That is why, everywhere I go, people come up to me, grip my hand or arm, and urge me to keep on running. That is why I continue in this race: because I believe I am best prepared to lead this country as President – and best prepared to put together a broad coalition of voters to break the lock Republicans have had on the electoral map and beat Senator McCain in November.

Recent polls and election results show a clear trend: I am ahead in states that have been critical to victory in the past two elections. From Ohio, to Pennsylvania, to West Virginia and beyond, the results of recent primaries in battleground states show that I have strong support from the regions and demographics Democrats need to take back the White House. I am also currently ahead of Senator McCain in Gallup national tracking polls, while Senator Obama is behind him. And nearly all independent analyses show that I am in a stronger position to win the Electoral College, primarily because I lead Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio. I’ve enclosed a detailed analysis of recent electoral and polling information, and I hope you will take some time to review it carefully.

In addition, when the primaries are finished, I expect to lead in the popular vote and in delegates earned through primaries. Ultimately, the point of our primary process is to pick our strongest nominee – the one who would be the best President and Commander in Chief, who has the greatest support from members of our party, and who is most likely to win in November. So I hope you will consider not just the strength of the coalition backing me, but also that more people will have cast their votes for me.

I am in this race for them -- for all the men and women I meet who wake up every day and work hard to make a difference for their families. People who deserve a shot at the American dream – the chance to save for college, a home and retirement; to afford quality health care for their families; to fill the gas tank and buy the groceries with a little left over each month.

I am in this race for all the women in their nineties who’ve told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House. For all the women who are energized for the first time, and voting for the first time. For the little girls – and little boys – whose parents lift them onto their shoulders at our rallies, and whisper in their ears, “See, you can be anything you want to be.” As the first woman ever to be in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to them.

Finally, I am in this race because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party. I believe that if Senator Obama and I both make our case – and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard – everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee.

In the end, I am committed to unifying this party. What Senator Obama and I share is so much greater than our differences; and no matter who wins this nomination, I will do everything I can to bring us together and move us forward.

But at this point, neither of us has crossed the finish line. I hope that in the time remaining, you will think hard about which candidate has the best chance to lead our party to victory in November. I hope you will consider the results of the recent primaries and what they tell us about the mindset of voters in the key battleground states. I hope you will think about the broad and winning coalition of voters I have built. And most important, I hope you will think about who is ready to stand on that stage with Senator McCain, fight for the deepest principles of our party, and lead our country forward into this new century.

The 11 page memo is after the jump.

Continue reading "Clinton's Closing Argument To Superdelegates" »

Key Points Of The DNC Staff Analysis

The Democratic National Committee released a staff analysis today of the challenges up for consideration by the rules and bylaws committee at 9:30 a.m. on Saturday. First up: the superdelegate challenge and the delegate challenge by DNC member Jon Ausman. As the DNC summarizes,

The first challenge requests the Rules and Bylaws Committee (“RBC”) to reinstate all of Florida’s unpledged delegates (also known as “superdelegates”). The basis for the challenge is that the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States (the “Charter”) provides that delegates shall be chosen through processes which “provide for all the members of the DNC to serve as unpledged delegates,”1 and which “permit unpledged delegates” consisting of several other categories including all Democratic Members of Congress and Democratic Governors.

The DNC notes that, on a "plain reading" of the statute, all DNC members have the right to serve as superdelegates, though the DNC has the right to consider that status on members of Congress and Democratic governors. "Arguably, then, Rule 20(C)(1) of the Delegate Selection
Rules was invalidly adopted insofar as it provides that, if a State Party violates Rule 11 (the
“Timing Rule”), none of the members of the DNC from that state are permitted to serve as delegates to the Convention.

On the other hand, the DNC concedes that one can argue that the intent of the charter and the procedures set up to evaluate delegate selection plans "cannot fairly be read to require that any category of delegates actually be seated at the Convention if that category is chosen under a Delegate Selection Plan which itself violates the Delegate Selection Rules." The DNC lawyers seem to prefer an interpretation which preserves the greatest latitude for the DNC to interpret its own rules; "Indeed, it could be contended that the Charter language could not have been intended to mean that all DNC members are automatically entitled to serve as delegates even if they were chosen through a process or certified under a delegate selection plan that violates the Delegate Selection Rules or provisions of the Bylaws." In other words, even though the plain language of the rule suggests that the party cannot deprive its national committee members of their status as automatic delegates, the context within which the rules were written and amendment clearly give the DNC some discretion in the matter.

The second Ausman challenge holds that the DNC unfairly penalized Florida (and Michigan) solely because they violated the timing provision of the rules; if that was the only violation, then the DNC, under its rules, should not have reduced -- eliminated -- the delegation because that penalty is reserved for other violations.

The DNC's lawyers try to be neutral here, but they clearly don't see much to this challenge. The party's rules explicitly allow the DNC to impose sanctions "without limitation" as it sees fit on state parties that aren't in compliance with the rules -- including the timing rule. Judiciously, the DNC lawyers note that the RBC can impose additional sanctions, and it can lift additional sanctions. (It cannot lift automatic sanctions, like the 50 percent delegate penalty -- and this point is relevant to the Michigan challenge below.)

Part II of the second challenge asks the DNC to reduce the number of Florida pledged delegates in half, from 185 to 92, but, as the DNC notes, it's not clear whether the DNC rules provide any guidance as to how those delegates will be allocated, and it's not clear whether the rules allow delegates to cast half votes; in other words -- is the delegation size reduced? Or just its voting power?

The third challenge involves the status and seating of Michigan's delegates; the party argues that it has been punished enough, and that the DNC should consider a variety of remedies, including a compromise delegate slate wherein Hillary Clinton seats 79 delegates and Barack Obama seats 59. (The Clinton campaign wants all 128 delegates; the Obama campaign wants them split equally.) The DNC reiterates its view that the RBC cannot lift automatic sanctions, but it points out that the credentials committee, which takes over jurisdiction in early July.

The Moral High Ground On Federal Financing

Barack Obama is likely to opt out of the federal public financing system for the general election and instead embrace a variant of Joe Trippi's general election funding idea: tap your massive donor base and cap contributions. Once the decision is formally handed down, the McCain campaign is likely to protest massively. Obama, they will say, simply broke his word for the sake of political convenience. But the reality is that John McCain, by spending money right now on the general election -- polling Obama exclusively, running ads in swing states, opening offices in states, sending staff to states -- is spending money raised for the primary period. Had McCain opted to take public financing for the primaries, he would have blown past the caps months ago. Did Obama break a promise? Yes. Does McCain have grounding to criticize him for it? It's not so clear.

Rick Hasen makes the following points:

$85 million is shabby. The Times writes that this amount is "not so shabby," which explains why Senator McCain is opting in. I think that's wrong. I think Senator McCain is opting in because he figured (1) he is likely not to be able to raise as much as Sen. Obama if they both opt out, and by opting in he can try to embarrass Sen. Obama into opting in; and (2) opting in is not a big deal for Sen. McCain, because he is likely to raise a ton of money with the RNC, which is subject to more generous contribution limits. So he's not planning on running his campaign on just $85 million. To speak of the decision to opt in today as a decision to decline private financing fails to recognize the reality of the situation.

3. The Obama "web boom" is a big deal The Times focuses on the fact that half the primary money overall has come from donations "above $1,000." Of course, thanks to McCain-Feingold, these donations are capped at $2,300. Let's look what has happened with small donations so far this year. Overall, in 2004, donations of $200 or less (what I've termed "micro-donors") made up 28% of the total of donations raised by all candidates in the primary system.

This primary season so far, these micro-donors have made up 35% of the total donations. (On the Democratic side, it has been 40%, on the Republican side, 27%). Sen. Obama alone, however, has raised nearly half of his donations (47%) from small donors giving under $200, and about one-third in donations from $1,000 to the $2300 maximum. This is a big deal. I think it is a misnomer to call it "partial public financing but I think it is fair to say that this "web boom" of small donations gives egalitarians something to cheer. If there is going to be a revitalization of public financing in the future, it likely will build on this kind of micro-donor enthusiasm through generous matching funds which would give candidates who have greater private support some greater public support. (That's much like the voucher plan I've long championed.)

What do you think?

The RBC Meeting: A Preview

On Saturday, amid intense press coverage and protests generated by Clinton allies, the Democratic National Committee's rules and bylaws committee will meet to decide the status of several challenges to the RBC's earlier decision to penalize Florida and Michigan for their calendar violations. Here are some points to keep in mind:

(a) the decision, whatever it is, will not influence the identity of the eventual nominee.

(b) the decision, whatever it is, will inevitably be as much of a political decision as it will be a rules-based decision.

(c) Hillary Clinton has more overt support on the RBC than Barack Obama, but Obama probably has as much overall support as Clinton.

(d) The DNC's decision to schedule the RBC meeting four days before voting ends remains a curiosity in the minds of the Obama and Clinton campaigns; why the DNC didn't simply let the challenges be handled by the duly appointed credentials committee in July is a question; the DNC is caught here between the imperative of DOING SOMETHING to seat Florida and Michigan and abiding by, and standing by, its interpretation of the rules.

(e) Some Clinton campaign surrogates quietly encouraging vocal protests at the meeting; this will almost certainly backfire and wind up steeling the committee's spine. So what's going to happen? The best information I have at this point is that the RBC seems to be ready to accept a solution that would seat roughly half of the delegations. Whether the delegations are seated in the ratio of Clinton's margin over Obama in both states (over uncommitted in Michigan), whether both candidates are given the same number of delegates, whether all the superdelegates are released or only some of them, whether Michigan is dealt with differently than Florida -- these questions do not yet have answers yet. We truly do not know and the campaigns do not know either.

Almost certainly, Hillary Clinton will be disappointed at the results. But there won't be much sympathy for her. She will have succeeded in changing the total number of delegates needed to reach the nomination, and she will have been awarded MORE NET delegtes then she received organically from her victory in a state like Ohio."She may threaten to protest the RBC's decision to the credentials committee, but I doubt that her supporters will stomach a credentials fight.

Jack-In-The-Box Politics: Obama's Uncle

Call it Jack-in-box-politics. Each day, campaigns and national parties spin and spin and spin and spin and wait to see which story pops, making a loud noise, getting everyone's attention. Today's Jack-in-the-box story is Sen. Obama's misremembered recollection of an uncle who, in his words, "was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps." Russian troops, of course, liberated Auschwitz, and Obama doesn't have an uncle; his mother was an only child. The discrepancies "demand an explanation," according to an RNC spokesman. Late today, the campaign, after getting with the candidate, figuring out what he meant, and then checking with his family, said that Obama's great uncle -- the brother of his mother's mother -- had served in the 89th Infantry Division, which, in April of 1945, liberated Buchenwald. What accounts for Obama's misstatement? It's hard to see how it could have been an intentional distortion of history. On the other hand, it's certainly a reminder that, in talking about, or bragging about, how your family relates to certain historical events, precision matters, and some historical happenings and more sensitive than others.

You're Steve Schmidt

McCain As Nonproliferator

The Bush administration has quickened the pace of nuclear weapon dismantling; it has also, under the guise of preserving our nuclear deterrent, proposed a whole new nuclear platform: RRWs, or reliable replacement warheads -- these would be cleaner, leaner, easier to produce, easier to get rid of, easier to store. With his speech in Denver today, John McCain joins the debate about nuclear non-proliferation. Rhetorically, McCain and Barack Obama strike much the same pose, but they differ, often profoundly, in the details. Indeed, Obama offers more details than McCain; McCain, citing the sensitivity of the subject and the broad, open debate about the way forward, seems open to a wide range of possibilities. Both would continue to unilaterally reduce our nation's nuclear weapon stockpiles, but Obama opposes the development of next-generation warheads -- RRWs, while McCain is silent -- saying only that he would consult with the Joint Chiefs of Staff about ways to "reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number possible consistent with our security requirements and global commitments."

Obama would pursue a global ban on intermediate range nuclear missiles; he pledges to complete a global effort to secure unguarded or lightly guarded stockpiles of nuclear weapons within four years; he supports a global ban on the production of new nuclear material; he wants the US to ratify Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. McCain, in 1999, voted against the CTBT, but he is open to ways to "see what can be done to overcome the shortcomings that prevented it from entering into force." Like Obama, McCain would reward verified nonproliferators will a guaranteed supply of nuclear fuel, but he would not pursue a global pause in the production of weapons-grade nuclear material. On diplomacy, McCain and Obama are close about nuclear diplomacy with China and Russia; they differ significantly on North Korea (Obama favors a continuation of the Bush Admin. approach; McCain does not) and Iran, where the differences have been well established.

McCain today highlighted those differences:

“Many believe all we need to do to end the nuclear programs of hostile governments is have our president talk with leaders in Pyongyang and Tehran, as if we haven't tried talking to these governments repeatedly over the past two decades. The truth is we will only address the terrible prospect of the worldwide spread of nuclear arms if we transcend our partisan differences, combine our energies, learn from our past mistakes, and seek practical and effective solutions.”

Permalink :: TrackBacks (0) ::

Share This

Veepstakes: Dodd Watch

I know that Sen. Chris Dodd wants to be among those vetted by Sen. Barack Obama's veepstakes team, and to that end, the identity of his new chief of staff is interesting. It's Miles Lackey, formerly John Edwards's Senate chief of staff and one of the North Carolinian's closest advisers. It was Mr. Lackey, a National Security Council aide during President Clinton's administration, who Edwards trusted to shephard him through the vice presidential rigmarole in 2004. Mr. Lackey was successful. He knows the tricks; it was he who arranged a top-secret late-night meeting with John Kerry just a few days before Kerry made his choice. The Edwards family was at Disney World; Lackey figured out how to sneak them up to Washington without a ravenous press corps getting so much of a whiff of the movement.

Obama And The West

Barack Obama's out West, and the Associated Press credulously reports that Obama is "signaling he will fight for Western states." Well, that's fine. But the truth is the ONLY way, given the electoral college map that Obama is presented with, he can win the presidency if he loses Ohio or Pennsylvania by winning the West -- by winning at least four of these states: New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada and Washington. He cannot afford NOT to fight for the West. If he doesn't fight for the West, he loses.

Obama Chides McCain On Bush Fundraiser

Here's what Barack Obama plans to say at 3:30 pt ET in North Las Vegas, NV:

"I just had the privilege of visiting with Felicitas Rosel and Francisco Cano at their home here in Las Vegas.

Today, John McCain is having a different kind of meeting. He’s holding a fundraiser with George Bush behind closed doors in Arizona. No cameras. No reporters. And we all know why. Senator McCain doesn’t want to be seen, hat-in-hand, with the President whose failed policies he promises to continue for another four years."

Tucker Bounds, a McCain spokesman, responds: "Whether the issue is global climate change or urging a more effective strategy in Iraq, John McCain has had clear but respectful differences of opinion with the President. However, it isn’t surprising that Barack Obama is trying to disguise his own lack of depth and weak leadership on the issues with political generalizations and superficial attacks."

Worry About McCain-Ridge, Not McCain-Crist

ITEM: The Brody FIle's David Brody writes today about conservatives who worry that John McCain will put Charlie Crist, the popular, pro-life-but-not-doctrinaire Republican governor of Florida on the ticket.

ANALYSIS: Citing Crist's reluctance to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case, mainly, Brody's unnamed respondents skirt over another real reason why so many social conservatives think they have a problem with Crist. It's that they believe the gay rumors -- rumors that Crist publicly acknowledged and publicly denied, apparently to the satisfaction of real voters, during the 2006 election campaign. (Ooh, but he's soft-spoken and supports civil unions... well, so is -- and does -- President Bush.) Crist's office doesn't like when reporters bring up the gay rumors, and that's understandable; they were, after all, litigated in the past. But reality is reality -- many alpha dog social conservatives don't trust Crist because they don't believe him.

I don't think that McCain will choose Crist, although, really, I have nothing but a few, non-recent, off-hand conversations with McCain's friends and advisers to base that on.

The possibility that McCain will choose Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania is greater. If social conservatives want to worry about a pro-choicer on the ticket, they should worry about McCain-Ridge, not McCain-Crist.

McCain's New Populist Ad In Michigan And Pennsylvania

It focuses on the economy by way of McCain's unique orthodox Republican populism.

As president, John McCain will make taxes simpler, fairer;

Energy cleaner, cheaper;

Health care portable and affordable;

Corporate CEOs accountable;

Mortgage debt restructured;

Big ideas for serious problems,

John McCain.

Note that McCain does not say, to audiences in Pennsylvania and Michigan, that he will make taxes "lower."

How To Think About The Vice Presidential Process

When the laity looks at the vice presidential sweepstakes, we tend to misread the priorities of the process. For us, it's all politics.

But that's not the way that either John McCain or Barack Obama will choose their nominee.

We can't get into their heads, but we can be smart about how we assess their choices. Based on reporting, analysis and guess work, here's the best way to look at the next few months. First, try, as best you can, to put yourself in the shoes of the presidential candidate. It will occur to you that politics, alone, presents you with an array of palatable choices. How ever will you winnow the field? You might come to think of the process in two stages. There's the below the line stage -- the stage where you don the veil of self-awareness and answer questions that absolutely must be answered before you start to think about the politics. And then there's the above-the-line stage, where you're in front of the curtain, where politics matters more than anything.

Let's go below the line. One: the nuclear button test. Can the candidate be trusted to serve as president? This isn't necessarily a national security experience litmus test; obviously, in Obama's case, previous experience wasn't necessary for him to consider himself ready to be commander in chief, so there's no reason to think that, below the line, his answer to this question would require him to throw away a candidate who lacked national security experience. What's the compliment to national security experience? For both Obama and McCain, it's temperament: can this person do the job -- does he or she have the intestinal fortitude to serve?

Two: the trust test. This is a most difficult for any candidate to pass; can trust, if it does not exist, be built quickly? A series of internal questions: do I trust this person completely to serve my interests and the interests of the country? Was he or she there for me when it was risky for them to be there for me?

Assuming that a potential ticket-mate satisfies these two criteria, then and only then can a candidate consider politics; only then can the above-the-line evaluations begin. Even here, though, there's a caveat. We forget that, under Al Gore and Dick Cheney, the power of the vice presidential office has expanded significantly. A warm bucket of spit has been transformed into a cool quart of gin. What will the vice presidency be like in the Obama and McCain administrations? Probably, based on what these two men think of Dick Cheney and his influence over George W. Bush, much less of an equal and much more of a consiglieri.

Above the line, then, what political considerations are relevant? According to public reports, James Johnson's advice to Kerry was simple: once you've brought your potential nominees above the line, choose the person who would bring the most benefit to you politically. Johnson, along with Kerry friends like David Thorne, campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill and adviser Bob Shrum, helped Kerry figure out what type of political argument he wanted to make. Would it be geographic? (A candidate who could help mitigate losses in the South?) Would it be thematic? (A strong national security ticket with Bob Graham:? Would it be demographic? (Midwestern values: Dick Gephardt?) In the end, after apparently answering the below-the-line questions, Kerry chose John Edwards.

Did John Kerry follow this two-stage process when he bypassed Dick Gephardt and Bob Graham? Given what we now know, it's appropriate to ask: Did Kerry really trust Edwards? Or did he simply decide that the below-the-line questions were less relevant than the political imperatives of the time? Edwards has told associates that he thinks that Kerry never fully trusted him.

Obama Campaign Banks Superdelegates

In June of 1984, the day after California handed Gary Hart a last-minute victory and New Jersey, thanks to Hart's having insulted the state, voted for Walter Mondale by 15 points, Tad Devine, Mondale's chief superdelegate counter, was ready. Worried that Mondale would not meet his pledge to end the primary season with a majority of delegates, Devine and his team made a "frantic" series of phone calls to undeclared party leaders; by noon, a few dozen superdelegates endorsed Mondale en masse, taking the wind of out Hart's campaign forever.

Neither the Clinton nor the Obama campaign is clear what the DNC's rules and bylaws committee will do on May 31; depending upon how or whether they re-allocate delegates, Obama could wind up within to 20 to 30 votes of the nomination -- a situation rectifiable by a piddling performance in Puerto RIco, South Dakota and Montana -- or more than 100 delegates short, requiring solid performances in those states plus a few dozen superdelegate endorsements to put him over the top.

To prepare for that eventuality, the Obama campaign has, for the first time, really, begun to bank delegates. Sources close to the campaign estimate that as many as three dozen Democratic superdelegates have privately pledged to announce their support for Obama on June 4 or 5. The campaign is determined that Obama not end the first week in June without securing the support of delegates numbering 2026 -- or 2210, as the case may be.

RFK Jr. Defends Clinton

Continue reading "RFK Jr. Defends Clinton" »

The Argus Leader v. The New York Post

CBS News's Ryan Corsaro obtained the following statement from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader:

"The context of the question and answer with Sen. Clinton was why there was so much pressure on her to quit her race against Sen. Obama. Her reference to the Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the timeline of
his primary candidacy, not the assassination itself." -- Randell Beck, Executive Editor of The Argus Leader

A Vice Presidential Poll

Get Ready, Get Set.... Parse!

Hillary Clinton, speaking to the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, rejected calls for her to exit the presiedential race, citing her husband's example (Jerry Brown was on fumes, really) and RFK's assassination in June as reasons why a premature withdrawal would be ahistorical. Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that Clinton's evocation of the assassination "has no place" in the campaign. A Clinton campaign spokesman said Clinton "was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 as historical examples of the nomination process going well into the summer. Any reading beyond that would be inaccurate."

Here's the New York Post dispatch that started this latest exchange.

For those who contend that Clinton was referring to competitive contests or example, why didn't she bring up Ted Kennedy in 1980? Or Gary Hart in 1984? I think she was pointing to primary races where the eventual nominee was unknown at this point in the cycle.... But 1984 would apply more, her husband was the de-facto nominee at this point, and the compressed calender really renders such comparisons null and void.

Even if her point is legitimate, surely she is aware of the sensitivity of the subject.

A Hint About McCain's Convention Theme

Serving a cause greater than yourself..

The RNCC is sponsoring a YouTube video contest asking entrants to "take to heart" McCain's frequent call to service. Winning entrants will be chosen to attend the convention; the winning video will played at the convention, although not necessarily in primetime. Here's the introductory video from McCain campaign manager Rick Davis:

Some New Data From The Clinton Campaign

Basically, "we won the second half."

Since March 4:

Hillary votes: 6,519,685
Obama votes: 6,007,744
Margin: Hillary +511,941

Hillary pledged delegates: 510
Obama pledged delegates: 495
Margin: Hillary +15 delegates

Hillary contests: 7 (OH, RI, TX, PA, IN, WV, KY)
Obama contests: 6 (VT, WY, MS, GU, NC, OR)

Does Obama Like Being Threatened?

Does he scare easily? I don't think he does. (Did Nancy Pelosi get scared when parts of the Clinton fundraising universe threatened her this spring? ... Uh, no.)

Here's the (subtle, couched) threat:

Hillary's top campaign fundraising official said in an interview that there's a "risk" that Hillary's political and financial supporters won't get behind Obama in time for him to win in November if she's passed over for the veep slot.

The fundraiser, businessman Hassan Nemazee, is Hillary's leading finance chair and one of the most influential money men in the party. He's the first prominent Hillary campaign official to raise the possiblity of an Obama loss should she not be invited on the ticket, and his comments suggests that this argument could emerge as central to any Clinton camp push to make her veep.

"There's a desire on the part of the party to come together under any circumstances, and Hillary and her supporters will do everything in their power to help Obama win, should he become the nominee, whether or not she's on the ticket," Nemazee said to me this morning.

"But there's a risk that if she isn't invited on the ticket, Hillary's political and financial supporters may not feel compelled to be as integrated and involved in the Obama campaign in order to provide the maximum support that he'll need to prevail in November."

The 300 Map

The folks at VoteBoth are touting Chris Bowers's map merging the electoral maps of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama; in Bowers's estimation, a joint ticket gets to 300 electoral votes lickety-split. A "rout" is what Sam Arora and Adam Parkhomenko predict.

Logically, this doesn't work so crisply. Why assume that a joint ticket would benefit the Democrats? Wouldn't the weaknesses which produce the negative results in the marginal states be as likely to push votes to McCain as their strengths would push votes to Clinton? Think of, as an extreme example, West Virginia, where 50,000 Democrats voted for Hillary Clinton because Barack Obama was black. Wouldn't their estimation of Clinton decrease if she were to choose a black guy? Would putting Hillary Clinton on HIS ticket make them more comfortable? Perhaps only 40,000 of those Democrats would vote for a Clinton-Obama ticket. Perhaps 20,000 would vote for an Obama-Clinton ticket. Maybe 2,000 vote for McCain. Maybe the rest stay home. As a thought experiment, it works as well as assuming that these 50,000 Democrats would vote for a joint ticket.

The point is: a joint ticket may be beneficial on balance to Democrats, or it may not.

Just asking: how long until the VoteBoth effort receives an unofficial/official sanction from the Clinton campaign? That is -- how long until, say, Doug Band or Steve Richetti calls up one of the two gentlemen and tells them that, say, "The President and Hillary really appreciate what you're doing." Suddenly, the same message would be sent to fundraisers, and VoteBoth would raise a million overnight...

McCain's Health Records

The Washington Post's Michael Shear passes along the following pool report.

Read it after the jump.

Continue reading "McCain's Health Records" »

Ambinder Veepstakes Lists

The top five prospects, based on reporting, observation and guesswork, in no particular order. Incidentally, I would normally advise my readers to follow my guidance on veepstakes, but for Obama... you'd probably consult Lynn Sweet's lists and give them more weight than mine. (Sweet and I have opposite views on where Sebelius ranks. Honestly, I trust her more than I trust myself!)

And yes, these lists change from week to week. That's part of the fun.

BARACK OBAMA

1. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) -- Obama really likes her; that's very important.
2. The Virginia boys: Kaine and Webb
3. Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH) -- the Clinton stand in.
4. Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ)
5. Sen. Hillary Clinton -- there's a fine balance between subtle pressure and overt hectoring

Wild card: Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)

JOHN MCCAIN

1. Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)
2. Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA)
3. Mayor Michael Bloomberg (i-NY)
4. Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC)
5. Sen. John Thune (R-SD)

Wild card:

McCain's Health

Basically, he has it. His health, that is. Records here. Slightly elevated blood pressure, but nothing to worry about. Meds normal. No sign of cancer recurrence.

President Who?

President Bush has agreed to help Sen. John McCain raise money next week. The press corps eagerly looks forward to those pictures of McCain embracing B.. well, actually, no pictures at all. All three fundraisers, according to CBS News's Mark Knoller, are closed to the press. And McCain will only attend one of them -- on Tuesday in Phoenix. On Wednesday, Bush attends two additional fundraisers in Utah, one of them at the manse of Mitt Romney there.

As they say in wrestling, President Bush knows his role.

Bloomberg: Informed Whispers

Sen. John McCain had breakfast last week with New York mayor Michael Bloomberg. The usual tongues wagged. But it is true that certain McCain advisers who are privy to McCain's thinking about the vice presidential search have asked other Republicans about the benefits and drawbacks of selecting Bloomberg.... this could mean simply that they're curious or that they're trying to talk McCain into thinking seriously about a Bloomberg pick... or nothing at all. But those following this closely should take the idea of a McCain-Bloomberg ticket a lot more seriously than, say, a McCain-Rice ticket.

Reader Forum: McCain And The Rust Belt

Reader Matt wonders:

Like everyone else, am trying to figure out why Obama can't win in the Rust Belt. I have a theory that I'm trying to get feedback on, and that is that this has little to do with race in comparison to the economy.

First, I think these folks are afraid of what he represents as far as the youth movement, which so used to a global economy that they really don't pay too much attention as to whether an item is manufactured here or across the globe. Second, I think they are also afraid of the green movement to a degree, since it involves a 180 degree shift in the manufacturing patterns of the past, which is pretty much what the Rust Belt represents.

The question is, when/if(?) Hillary leaves the race, do they regard Obama as less or more of a risk than McCain? Any thoughts?

More of the argument is here,

What do you think?

If The DNC Seats The Entire Florida And Michigan Delegations

Lots of folks on both sides of the Obama/Clinton debate predict total chaos in 2012 (if the Democrats lose the election) or 2016. Luckily, 2016 is a ways away, and Democrats are confident about their chances.

But think about it. States will have NO incentive to follow the rules, knowing that at least half their delegations will be seated. The candidates will treat the states like any other state; Remember that Florida, which had half its delegation penalized by the RNC, turned into the victory that essentially sealed the nomination for John McCain.

Nominee-presumptives Obama and Clinton have no incentive to change the calendar -- he needs Iowa and she needs New Hampshire for the general election.

McCain's Vice Presidential Choice

McCain Rejects AND Denounces Hagee; Says No Comparison To Wright...

After hearing yesterday's comments from Rev. John Hagee, Sen. McCain has now decided to reject the pastor's endorsement, despite saying that endorsements were given freely and not his reject.

Here's a statement from McCain:

Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well. I have said I do not believe Senator Obama shares Reverend Wright's extreme views. But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual advisor, and I did not attend his church for twenty years. I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today.

Stories I Don't Have Time To Write About

Mysteries of the orange, solved.

Obama will substitute for Sen. Ted Kennedy and give the commencement address at Wesleyan University this Sunday. Kennedy says he wants his wife Vicky to succeed him if he vacates his seat.

A subpoena for Karl Rove in Congress's probe of the White House prosecutor purge.

The governor of New York hears "desperation" in Hillary Clinton's call to seat the full Florida and Michigan delegations. This is notable because Mr. Paterson is a Clinton superdelegate.

Romney Drops By The Heritage Foundation

The source of his health care policy ideas ....Romney was branded by some as the Heritage Foundation's presidential candidate... he stopped by Heritage HQ today for a private chat.

Romney's Upcoming Schedule: Busy

Mitt Romney's new PAC "will be the organization that will allow Gov. Romney to stay politically active on behalf of the candidates and causes that he cares about," spokesperson Eric Fehrnstom says.

How active? He's hosting President Bush on May 28 at his home in Deer Valley, Utah for a Victory 2008 fundraiser. He's raising money for Rep. Tom Feeney in Florida on the 30th and then jets to Jacksonville for the Federation of Black Republicans convention. He'll serve as a surrogate for McCain at two Republican conventions: in Colorado and in Texas. And he'll campaign with and raise money for Sen. McCain on June 11.

McCain veepstakes team: it's difficult to find another candidate who's working harder for the party than Romney right now.

Hillary Clinton, The Next Supreme Court Justice?

As floated on MSNBC yesterday.

What do you think?

May 31: FL Dems File Suit

Florida Democrats, including a prominent supporter of Barack Obama's and a prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton's want to force the DNC into seating delegations from Florida and Michigan. On its face, the prospect that a federal judge would interfere in a political party's internal matters is a bit scary, although the Democratic and Republican parties do enjoy a special status in our democracy.

McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill

I don't usually print entire press statements from campaigns, but they're usually not this acidic. The casus belli is today's vote on Sen. Jim Webb's GI bill; McCain opposes it because he worries about military retention and/but has offered a different bill that would provide incentives for folks to stay in the race.

Here's Sen. John McCain, who was one of only three senators not to vote on the bill today:

"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim.

"When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed. I rarely saw him again for four years. My grandfather, who commanded the fast carrier task force under Admiral Halsey, came home from the war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. I grew up in the Navy; served for twenty-two years as a naval officer; and, like Senator Webb, personally experienced the terrible costs war imposes on the veteran. The friendships I formed in war remain among the closest relationships in my life. The Navy is still the world I know best and love most. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well .

"But I am running for the office of Commander-in-Chief. That is the highest privilege in this country, and it imposes the greatest responsibilities. It would be easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation. More importantly, I feel just as he does, that we owe veterans the respect and generosity of a great nation because no matter how generously we show our gratitude it will never compensate them fully for all the sacrifices they have borne on our behalf.

"Senators Graham, Burr and I have offered legislation that would provide veterans with a substantial increase in educational benefits. The bill we have sponsored would increase monthly education benefits to $1500; eliminate the $1200 enrollment fee; and offer a $1000 annually for books and supplies. Importantly, we would allow veterans to transfer those benefits to their spouses or dependent children or use a part of them to pay down existing student loans. We also increase benefits to the Guard and Reserve, and even more generously to those who serve in the Selected Reserve.

"I know that my friend and fellow veteran, Senator Jim Webb, an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously, has offered legislation with very generous benefits. I respect and admire his position, and I would never suggest that he has anything other than the best of intentions to honor the service of deserving veterans. Both Senator Webb and I are united in our deep appreciation for the men and women who risk their lives so that the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. And I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

"The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.

"Most worrying to me, is that by hurting retention we will reduce the numbers of men and women who we train to become the backbone of all the services, the noncommissioned officer. In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family. And in combat, no one is more important to their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, and to the officers who command them, than the sergeant and petty officer. They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people not to choose to become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly. As I said, the office of President, which I am seeking, is a great honor, indeed, but it imposes serious responsibilities. How faithfully the President discharges those responsibilities will determine whether he or she deserves the honor. I can only tell you I intend to deserve the honor if I am fo rtunate to receive it, even if it means I must take politically unpopular positions at times and disagree with people for whom I have the highest respect and affection.

"Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election."

Webb's bill passed, 75-22.

Here's what Obama said:

I respect sen. John McCain's service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can't understand why he would line up behind the President in his opposition to this GI bill.

I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the President more on this issue. There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.

Defining Battleground States Narrowly

Item: New Quinnipiac polls of swing states show Hillary Clinton beating John McCain more soundly than Barack Obama does.

Florida: Clinton tops McCain 48 - 41 percent; McCain leads Obama 45 – 41 percent;

Ohio: Clinton beats McCain 48 – 41 percent; McCain tops Obama 44 – 40 percent;

Pennsylvania: Clinton tops McCain 50 – 37 percent; Obama leads McCain 46 – 40 percent

Discussion: And the point speaks for itself. But what if Q-PAC had polled Wisconsin? Virginia? Colorado? Iowa? Michigan?

Veepwatch: What Did Obama Talk To Webb About?

CBS News's Allison Davis O'Keefe notices that Sen. Barack Obama spent time in deep verbal commerce with Sen. Jim Webb at 12:05 pm ET on the floor of the Senate. They were joined by Sen. Dick Durbin...

What were they talking about?

1. The GI bill?
2. Webb's thoughts on Kentucky and West Virginia?

May 31: Clinton Explains Her History With Florida

The St. Petersburg Times's Adam Smith, the dean of the Florida political press corps, has a pretty tough interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton here, questioning why Clinton was silent when the rules and bylaws committee was stripping Florida of all the delegates.

May 31: Obama Floats Florida Solution

Sen. Barack Obama proposes halving the Florida delegation.

May 31: DNC Members Getting Oranges

Check your mailbox, DNC members: you'll soon get a small package containing oranges with the words "Count Florida's Votes" on them. The kicker: they're being sent from individual Florida voters. Not sure who's organizing this -- probably a union.

McCain Campaign Revanps Website

John McCain's new campaign website has been revamped. Tastes may vary, but it's certainly a change from the austere 1.0 version. Visually, it's less foreboding -- Egyptian blue rather than black, with more white space. The site is interactive and more traditionally formatted; those changes come at the expense of the overall design scheme, which is less elegant that the earlier one. One cool feature: the site asks whether you're a supporter, uncommitted, or aren't yet registered and customizes your home page to your choice. Still, the blog has only one post in the last four days. No blog = no fresh content = no reason to come back....

Rove On Obama's "Secret" Plan

Karl Rove:

If Mr. Obama believes he can change the behavior of these nations by meeting without preconditions, he owes it to the voters to explain, in specific terms, what he can say that will lead these states to abandon their hostility. He also needs to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea's Kim Jong Il will not deeply unsettle our allies.

If Mr. Obama fails to do so, voters may come to believe that he is asking them to accept that he has a "Secret Plan," and that he is hopelessly out of his depth on national security.

More interesting than the content itself is the idea that Mr. Rove wants to get conservatives talking about -- mocking -- Obama's "secret plan." Between Rove's speeches, say, at the NRA, and his WSJ op-eds, one gets the feeling like he's giving advice to the McCain campaign in the only way he can. (He does talk to some McCain advisers, but no forum better reaches McCain's donors and outside advisers than the op/ed page of the Journal.)

Team Romney Reunites In New PAC

As first noted by the Politico's Mike Allen, Mitt Romney's new PAC is launching on the weekend that vice presidential speculation reaches a low grade fever pitch -- maybe, oh, 99.2 degrees. The PAC is called "Free and Strong America." The PAC is designed to be a vehicle for Romney's future political aspirations as well as -- or nominally, if you prefer, a way to support Republican candidates across the country. The name is taken from Romney's speech on religion in College Station, TX last year.

On the site, Romney is introduced this way: "Widely recognized for his leadership and accomplishments as a public servant and in private enterprise, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney currently serves as the Honorary Chairman of Free and Strong America PAC." A list of Romney's executive and business accomplishments follow.

Make no mistake: the candidates Romney's PAC is supporting are all solid conservatives, ranging from Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) to Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL). Most of them supported Romney's presidential bid, although some, like Bachmann, are running competitive races in states Romney won during the primary campaign.

Eric Fehrnstrom, an advisor to the PAC and Romney's longtime spokesperson, said that the PAC was registered with the FEC a few weeks ago and that fundraising "began in earnest" the second week of May. Peter Flaherty, a Romney deputy campaign and his liaison to religious conservatives (back when Romney needed a liaison to religious conservatives) will serve as executive director. Rob Cole will be political director. Beth Myers, Romney's former campaign manager, will be a senior adviser. Others who will be informally helping Romney find his post-campaign voice are Ex-Rep. Vin Weber, attorney James Bopp, counsel Ben Ginsberg, Freedom's Watch CEO Carl Forti, and spokespeople Kevin Madden and Matt Rhoades.

The official press release is after the jump.

Continue reading "Team Romney Reunites In New PAC" »

Quietly, Obama Begins The Quest To Find A Running Mate

Very quietly, Sen. Barack Obama has begun the process that will end in his choosing a running mate, Democrats inside and outside the campaign said.

Obama has sworn a small group of his senior staff to secrecy. He is determined to start the vice presidential search on his own schedule and has said publicly, and repeatedly, that he will not talk about ticket-mates until the race for the nomination itself concludes.

But on his behalf, staffers are putting together a team to assist the search committee, and a hand-full of Democrats connected with the campaign will start to pull together dossiers (based only on open source research and press clippings at this point) on a large number of potential picks so that Obama can have something to read when he starts to think about the choice.

By June 4, the day after Democrats finish voting, the campaign hopes to have a full team in place.

"He wants this done right," said one person who is privy to the candidate and campaign's thinking on the matter. "He takes this very seriously."

James A. Johnson, who vetted potential nominees for Sen. John Kerry in 2004, is playing a major role. He has advised Obama and the campaign about the architecture of the process, though it is not clear whether he will reprise his role as head of the search committee. Ex-Sen. Tom Daschle is also providing advice.

"As always, we don't have anything to say about it," said Dan Pfeiffer, Obama's deputy communications director.

Kerry began his three-month search process in March of 2004. Johnson and his team looked at scores potential candidates and vetted about a dozen of them, ultimately settling on Ex-Sen. John Edwards.

Johnson, a former CEO of Fannie Mae who is currently vice chairman of Perseus LLC, a merchant bank, also vetted vice presidential candidates for Walter Mondale, whose campaign he chaired. On the eve of the convention in 1984, Mr. Mondale was set to choose Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, only to find irreconcilable political problems with the business dealings of Ms. Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro instead. Ironically, questions about Ferraro's husband, a real estate developer, would dog her throughout the general election campaign. Mr. Johnson said later that the experience if 1984 had taught him to start much earlier and vet much more thoroughly.

The vetting process entails a rigorous schedule of interviews focusing on everything from politics to potential embarrassments -- Did they ever employ a nanny on whose behalf they did not pay Social Security taxes, for example; did they experiment with drugs or people in college? -- and potential candidates are required to give the search team access to their tax returns and other financial records.

Aside from the question of what to do with Sen. Hillary Clinton, several political imperatives confront Obama as he begins to think about his choice. One is that the candidates with whom he has bonded would not necessarily serve his political needs. Another is that if he chooses a Democrat from the party's establishment, like Sens. Clinton, Dodd or Biden, he might undercut his argument that the establishment needs to go. If he chooses someone young and with a relative lack of executive experience, he opens the ticket to criticism that it is too green. If he chooses a Republican or a pro-life Democrat, he risks a major backlash from Democratic women as he tries to bring more of them to his side after the primary season ends. If he chooses someone young and flashy, he risks being upstaged. And while Obama discounts the experience argument, many of his advisers do not.

Potential ticket-mates, in no particular order, include Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA), Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Ex-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), Ex-Sen. John Edwards, (D-NC), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS), Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ), Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) ex-Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN), Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH) and others.

Which Working Class White Voters?

Here's some data that gave me pause; I had assumed that Oregon was typical of Western states in its demographics. When we talk about Barack Obama's problem with white working class voters, perhaps a better question to ask is: WHICH white working class voters. Oregon has a lower median income than Pennsylvania or Ohio; it has a greater percentage of whites than Kentucky does; it has a greater percentage of folks over the age of 65 than Kentucky does.

That Obama does well -- ok, does better -- among these voters in states where Clinton chose not to compete suggests that the arterial harderning we see among Clinton voters in Kentucky and West Virginia and Pennsylvania is related more to the frission of a tough campaign that it is to endemic problems. We will see.

Veepstakes: On Obama's Kentucky Vote, Webb Sees Affirmative Action As Culprit

First noticed by Teddy Davis, check out what Sen. Jim Webb said in an interview today in response to a question about why Barack Obama is doing so poorly Appalachian Democrats/Scotch Irish/working class whites, a group he called "my guys."

Said Webb:

"We shouldn't be surprised at the way they are voting right now. This is the result of how affirmative action, which was basically a justifiable concept when it applied to African-Americans, expanded to every single ethnic group in America that was not white. And these were the people who had not received benefits and were not getting anything out of it. .... The fact that they would line up and vote this way is not so much a comment on Barack. ... I think Barack Obama is saying a lot of good things that will appeal to this cultural group in time."

Going To The Dark Side

"Scoop" Nagourney: McCain Veep Interviews Begin

From Adam Nagourney at the Times:

Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, on Friday is scheduled to meet with two Republican governors who have been prominently mentioned as potential running mates, according to Republicans familiar with Mr. McCain’s plan.

Charlie Crist, the governor of Florida, and Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, have both accepted invitations to meet with Mr. McCain at his home in Arizona, according to Republican familiars with the decision. One Republican said that Mitt Romney, a former rival of Mr. McCain for the presidential nomination — is also expected to visit him this weekend. Mr. Romney’s advisers declined to comment.

My favorite detail: Crist tells Nagourney that the McCain campaign has so far not asked Crist to fill out vetting forms.

Conspiracy theorists will say that the story was fed to Nagourney in order to deflect attention from questions about McCain's lobbying. I don't think that's true. The McCain campaign seems to be legitimately not happy that the story got out.

Linda Douglass's Decision: Beginning A Debate

I've worked with Linda Douglass here at the Atlantic Media empire and at ABC News, and it would be unfair for you -- and for me -- to avoid sharing my impression of her. Linda Douglass has always struck me as an eminently fair journalist, idealistic, yes, but tough-minded and careful.

That said, the news her departure, in the catalytic phase of a presidential election, to the campaign of one of the two major candidates, is a story worth exploring. It certainly took the McCain and Obama campaigns by surprise, as it did Douglass's colleagues here at the Watergate.

Suzanne Clark, the National Journal Group president, called Douglass a "first rate talent" who has "made significant contributions to the National Journal Group. We are sad to see her go." Douglass recently wrote a well-received cover story for National Journal about a pivot point in McCain's life -- his decision to run for Congress, and has interviewed for her National Journal radio program virtually every top decision maker in McCain's campaign.

"It's been terrific working with Linda and we wish her nothing but the best," said Charles Green, National Journal's editor.

To conservative media critics, the divide between the press corps and modern political liberalism is fairly narrow, and easy to jump over, and Douglass's decision will reconfirm their sense that bias pervades newsrooms. Liberals who support Hillary Clinton will scour Douglass's work -- and the output of the National Journal -- to see whether she betrayed any pro-Obama tint. Both the Clinton and McCain campaigns have complained that the media is in the tank for Sen. Obama. One Clinton campaign adviser, upon learning of Douglass's decision, e-mailed: "This is scandalous and further undermines the media’s ability to claim independence overall."

Mark Salter, a senior strategist for John McCain who has known Douglass for years, said in an e-mail,"I like Linda very much. [[I] [w]ish her every happiness, but no success in November."

Douglass's choice can be accepted at face value, but it will give media critics plenty of ammunition to attack the press, but, then again, the media and its critics are in a perpetual state of war these days.

Byron York wrote on National Review's The Corner that Douglass "sometimes found it difficult to draw the line between reporter and source" in 1998, when he profiled her for the American Spectator.

But Todd Harris, a Republican who has worked for John McCain and Fred Thompson, said that Douglass was "a true pro in every sense of the word. She was a tough reporter for sure, but as far as I was concerned, always fair and even-handed. And I would wager money that Senator McCain would say the same thing."

Kevin Madden, formerly the chief spokesman for Mitt Romney and a Republican whom Douglass tangled with when Madden flacked for Tom Delay, called her "one of the smartest folks working in the politcal arena."

"The national press corps respects her and she always brings her "A game" to anything she does. She will be a worthy foe from a communications perspective during this campaign," he said.

One outside Obama adviser said that it was "smart" of the campaign to appoint a woman to a such a high-profile role because most of the Obama campaign's upper echelon are white men.

Continue reading "Linda Douglass's Decision: Beginning A Debate" »

Baker's Not The Best Surrogate For McCain's View

Who's appeasing who?

News broke that Israel, through Turkey, was negotiating a comprehensive peace agreement with Syria; a typical response to charges that Barack Obama wants to appease Iran is that, well, Ronald Reagan authorized talks with Iranians; that Oliver North traded arms-for-freaking-hostages, that Reagan summitted with Gorbachev; that the history of progress in international relations is explained more by the advent of mutual, tough diplomacy than by anything else, including military force. Some of these comparisons stretch the historical record. Mr. Reagan did not negotiate with Ayatollah Khomeini; when President Bush reached out to Libya, it was only after the country began to dismantle its nuclear capacity. In the instance of the latter, a precondition was set, and it was met. But James Baker isn't the best surrogate for John McCain's positions.

In today's Washington Post, former Secretary of State Jim Baker is quoted as saying, "You don't just talk to your friends; you talk to your enemies, as well. You don't reward your enemies necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not, in my view, appeasement."

More, from the Post:

When asked about Baker's comments, McCain said that as secretary of state, Baker talked only with adversaries who seemed open to changing their tactics. "When Secretary Baker was secretary of state, they didn't talk to Castro. They had a very strict position on whether to negotiate with him or not," McCain said.

On Castro, that's true. But Baker, as a member of the Iraq Study Group, advocated robust regional diplomacy to solve the problems created by the war in Iraq. While Secretary of State, he routinely talked to his counterparts in Syria and Iraq. Without preconditions.

As the Post reported,

"Baker noted that when he was secretary of state for President Bush's father, he made 15 trips to Syria in 1990 and 1991, "at the time when Syria was on the list of countries who were state sponsors of terrorism. On the 16th trip, guess what, lo and behold, Syria changed 25 years of policy and agreed for the first time in the history to sit at the table with Israel, which is what Israel wanted at the time."

A brief Google search provides other examples. Right before the first Gulf War began, Baker indicated his willingness for a face-to-face chat with Saddam Hussein. At a press conference to discuss the Iraq Study Group's report, Baker said, twice, "You talk to your enemies, not just your friends."

Baker might well favor McCain's election, but it's hard to read his words and conclude that he would oppose Obama's efforts at diplomacy.

Things I Don't Have Time To Write About

Oh, Hitler was fulfilling God's will, says John Hagee. By that logic, Neville Chamberlain also fulfilled God's wish when he accepted the annexation of the Sudentenland; so appeasement helped push history in the direction of a Jewish state.

2. Sen. Barack Obama draws 15,000 people to Tampa; does not mention the Florida delegate situation. He hit John McCain on lobbyists: "’ll tell you that John McCain then would be pretty disappointed with John McCain now because he hired some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington to run (his) campaign." The McCain campaign responded by questioning why Obama doesn't disclose the identities of lobbyists who advise his campaign. Also, there's this.

3. All hail Lynn Sweet, the toughest journalist on the Obama campaign trail. (Don't tell anyone, but she's also a really nice person. And we all steal insights from her.)

4. Jonathan Martin reports on the McCain campaign's incentivizing supporters to put supportive comments on blogs.

5. Hillary Clinton, in Boca Raton today:

"I believe that both Senator Obama and my self have an obligation as potential Democratic nominees – in fact we all have an obligation as Democrats – to carry on this legacy and ensure that in our nominating process, every voice is heard and every single vote is counted."

The Atlantic's Boldest

A regular corrections column.

1. Sen. Barack Obama did NOT endorse Ned Lamont in the 2006 Connecticut Senate primary. It was only after Lamont received the nomination that Sen. Obama announced his support. Obama endorsed Lieberman during the primary.

2. A while back, I implied in a column that Ferdinand Marcos did not begin his reign of kleptocracy and terror until after Charlie Black's lobbying firm had severed ties with the Filipino politician. That's not correct. Marcos had been a pretty sketchy guy for quite a while before he asked Mr. Black's firm for help.

McDonald Joins The McCain Campaign

John McCain's communications team is expanding.

Matt McDonald, a veteran of Arnold Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial campaign and the White House press team, will split his time between the campaign's headquarters in Arlington and the Republican National Committee.

He's a few weeks shy of his MBA; when he finishes, he'll start his job. McDonald worked at the White House with new McCain senior adviser Nicolle Wallace and at the Schwarzengger campaign for Steve Schmidt, now an increasingly influential voice in McCain's ear. At the White House, McDonald helped to oversee rapid response efforts.

Linda Douglass Joins The Obama Campaign

Linda Douglass, an award-winning television and print journalist who currently serves as a contributing editor to National Journal, will join Barack Obama's presidential campaign as a senior strategist and as a senior campaign spokesperson on the roadshow, a newly created position.

Douglass confirmed her new position when I walked up to the ninth floor, knocked on her door, and asked her about it. She informed National Journal President Suzanne Clark this morning of her impending departure.

"I see this as a moment of transformational change in the country and I have spent my lifetime sitting on the sidelines watching people attempt to make change. I just decided that I can't sit on the sidelines anymore."

Over 34 years in journalism, Douglass said, she grew disillusioned with the partisanship she saw first-hand. She came to specialize in campaign finance investigations, including a segment for CBS entitled "Follow The Dollar." When she interviewed donors, she would always ask them, "Why should your vote matter any more than my mother's?"

After serving as Justice Department correspondent for CBS News, DougIass moved to ABC News, where she covered Capitol Hill. A few years ago, she met Barack Obama and the two became friendly. Douglass retired from ABC News in 2006 to work on a project at New York University that was looking into how partisanship had paralyzed Congress. She joined the National Journal group as a contributing editor in 2007, writing for the magazine and hosting a weekly radio show on XM Satellite radio.

Douglass declined to discuss the terms of her new job or how the offer was broached. An Obama spokesman had no comment.

On Iran, Parsing Obama, Without Preconditions Or Preconceptions

About meeting with rogue leaders, what did Sen. Barack Obama really say, and what did he really mean?

Blargh, says the Obama campaign. All this word parsing is besides the point, is indicative of "gotcha politics" and the politics of distraction. Everyone knows that Obama meant.

Here's the campaign's official language:

"Barack Obama has always said that he is willing to meet with appropriate Iranian leaders at the appropriate time after due preparation and advance work by US diplomats. That's what he said last summer, and that's what he's said throughout the campaign. Preparation is not a precondition it is absolutely necessary to the success of any diplomatic effort. You need to build an agenda and open lines of communication, just as we would do with any country, But Barack Obama believes we must be willing to lead, just like Kennedy did, and just like Reagan did. And that's what he will do as president."

What we're trying to figure out is, what would it take for Obama to meet with the leaders of Iran? An invitation from Ahmadinejad or Ali Khamenei? Previous diplomacy? Concessions? An OK from the head of the PPD that it's safe to travel?

It's clear now that Obama would not, pledge, within the first year of his administration, meet directly with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without "preconditions" and without equivocation. It IS clear that Obama would meet with Ahmadinejad (or Ali Khamenei) without forcing Ahmadinejad (or Ali Khamenei) to provably suspend uranium enrichment. It's also clear that Obama would be more willing to meet with these leaders than McCain.

Obama's campaign now uses the word "with preparation" as shorthand to refer to diplomatic advance work; other advisers use the word "unconditional" as a straw man to suggest that critics are accusing Obama of wanting to meet "unconditionally" with these leaders -- of course their would be "conditions" -- there just wouldn't be "pre-conditions." (Would there be .... post-conditions?)

SQUARE ONE

In July of 2007, Barack Obama was asked by a video questioner: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?....."

"I would," he answered.

Now -- in Obama's answer, he broadens the predicate, saying at one point that "we need to talk to Iran and Syria," which is not the same thing, necessarily, as talking to Ali Khamenei or to Ahmadinejad or to Assad, but contextually, given the question was about "leaders" and given that the questioner mentioned the phrase "without preconditions," it certainly sounds as if Obama was promising to meet, within the first year of his administration, without preconditions, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.

Moments after the debate ended, David Axelrod told reporters that Obama did not necessarily mean what he appeared to say:

"What he meant was, as a government, he’d be willing and eager to initiate those kinds of talks, just as during the Cold War there were low-level discussions and mid-level discussions between us and the Soviet Union and so on. So he was not promising summits with all of those leaders."

Axelrod accused Hillary Clinton, who had questioned Obama's approach, of making a distinction without a difference.

WHAT DOES "LEADER" MEAN?

Sometimes, it means the head of state or government. Sometimes, it means lower-level officials.

Susan Rice, an Obama adviser, parsed this very distinction, in her response to a question from Wolf Blitzer yesterday:

Rice:

"“Well, first of all, he said he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn't named who that leader will be. It may, in fact be that by the middle of next of year, Ahmadinejad is long gone."

But to CBS News on October 15, 2007, Obama defined leaders in the conventional way:

Harry Smith: “You said, ‘I will talk to so and so and Hugo Chavez and etc., etc.’”

Obama: “Exactly, and without preconditions."

And Obama's website brags that

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions

Presidential diplomacy -- doesn't that mean diplomacy with Iran's president or supreme leader?

ON PRECONDITIONS -- THERE WILL BE CONDITIONS! JUST NOT PRECONDITIONS!

No preconditions, Obama said. Does that square with what Tom Daschle, a very senior Obama adviser, said this morning?

"When we talk about precondition, we say, everything needs to be on the table. I would not say that we would meet unconditionally; of course there are conditions that we would...are involved in preparation, in getting ready for the diplomacy."

Between the two end points, there's been an evolution.

In April, Obama: "So as a matter of principle, I will talk to any head of state after sufficient preparation in order to lay out what our interests are and to listen to them, but not to concede on the issues that are in our long term national security interest. So for example, meeting with Iran, if I were sitting at the table, I will be very specific."

Who injected the word preparation? A political adviser? What does that mean? Diplomacy under the level of principles? Obama's getting a briefing book and memorizing its contents?

Working backwards, here's Obama, speaking to Haaretz in October of 2007:

"I don't think it would be appropriate for us to engage in full-scale diplomatic discussions without some progress or some indication of good faith on the part of the Iranians,' the senator said. 'I do think the U.S. needs to send a signal to Iran that if they change their behavior that they have avenues available to them for improved international relations."

The day before, speaking about Hugo Chavez to Andres Oppenheimer of the Miami Herald:

'Under certain conditions, I always believe in talking. Sometimes it's more important to talk to your enemies than to your friends

My best semi-educated guess is that (a) Obama originally spoke in shorthand and that (b) he has clarified, in his own mind, his position; (c) that he wants Democrats to hear "without preconditions" and independents to hear "with preparation" (which is a euphemism for extensive pre-presidential contact diplomacy.") and (d) that his advisers still aren't reading from the same page of talking points. Also: Obama wants to draw a much brighter line between his approach to Iran and North Korea's and the Bush administration's approach to those countries.... A political trap awaits Obama in this sense: how to best distinguish your diplomatic approach from President Bush's.... that requires a very very wide gap between the two approaches ... and how to reassure Americans that Obama does not believe in the messianic power of his own rhetoric and would not be willing to let Iran run roughshod over the United States? That requires a slightly narrower gap. After all, there _are_ low level and mid-level (and even senior level) contacts between Iran and the United States right now; the Bush Administration is negotiating with North Korea....

Does Obama Need Working Class Whites?

Democrats don't need to win a majority of working class whites to win the election in November, although in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, though, if history is a guide, they need to limit the Republican margin to less than 10 percentage points above the Democratic number.

COULD IT BE that Obama's coalition (young voters, professionals, crossover men, the educated, the economically stable middle class voters, African American voters) gives him enough of a cushion? Maybe Democrats won't need as many working class whites to win the election; correspondingly, the polarized primary has pushed them away from their nominee in general. What accounts for the disparity between the astonishingly high numbers of Democrats in states like Kentucky and West Virginia who say they'd vote for McCain -- and Obama's national lead in the polls? What is his coalition? And how does it translate into the 50 constituent parts of what a national lead actually is? Might Obama's strength in the popular vote be a reflection of Democratic energy in large states and Republican sloth in large states -- rather than a reflection of the coalition he needs to win the general election? States are more internally diverse than regions of states are. In other words -- are the demographics of Obama's coalition so skewed (in terms of previous coalitions) that his national lead will greatly overstate his relative strength in the electoral college? Or is Obama's new coalition so robust as to absorb some of the bleeding of white, working class men in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania and still end up winning? Tentative points to support the latter theory can be found in Obama's primary victory in Iowa, where turnout far exceeded the expectations of everyone, in Wisconsin and Minnesota and Colorado, where Obama won handily but especially among Obama's core demographic groups, and in the way the campaign has been able to organize 75,000 rallies on a May Sunday in Oregon.

Maybe the coalition will stay the same, but the internal composition of the coalition will change dramatically. For all the talk of Obama forcing himself to somehow appeal to Jacksonian Democrats, as if one can, by sheer will, force someone to accept you, what Obama is offering might not be what those Democrats want. The conceit in all this is that we assume that Democrats all want the same thing... they just want to hear their politicians offer in ways that they can relate to. I don't think that's the case. In general, urban Democrats want different things (economically, culturally, intellectually) than Democrats who live outside cities. If anything, the more Obama tries to cast his lot with these voters, the more they reject him and the more the real coalitions harden.

It goes without saying that white working class voters in Wisconsin are different than white working class voters in Kentucky, too. So maybe the question for Obama is: which white working class voters should he spend time courting? Should he spend any time in West Virginia, where centuries of racism and cultural conservative have calcified and still govern vote choice; or in Wisconsin, where, although racial and cultural tensions remain, they are soft, in decline, and are subordinate to other concerns?

Is Lieberman Preparing To Abandon The Democratic Party?

Or, more precisely, is he willing to abandon the "Democrat" in "Independent Democrat?"

His op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal reads like a prelude to a Dear Nancy letter. Relations have been strained ever since Barack Obama endorsed Ned Lamont over Lieberman when the latter challenged the former in 2006.

After 9/11, Lieberman writes,

"...A debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.

John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends and America's enemies.

There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.

Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.

If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.

Sen. Lieberman has not, to date, served up this degree of criticism. He is dangerously close to abandoning his party's frontrunner, much as Chuck Hagel would be forced to do, it seems, if McCain wins the presidency. Will Lieberman be on John McCain's short list? Hard to say; for every departure from Democratic orthodoxy (he supports tort reform), he's been a passionate advocate for abortion rights, gay rights, and an expansive role for government. In the mind of McCain, Lieberman certainly meets the top two criteria: he could do the job from day one, and McCain trusts him like a brother.

Why Obama Tolerates Clinton's Presence

For some Democrats, watching this primary go on and on and on is like holding a yammering baby in a movie theater. every single second seems like an endless, endless eternity of cringing. How does one square the dislike that Democrats in places like West Virginia and Kentucky have for Barack Obama with the national poll numbers showing him soundly defeating John McCain? As the primary goes on, the opportunities for Clinton backers to feel slighted is magnified -- hence Geraldine Ferraro's opinion still mattering. Well, Clinton sees herself as the representative for the party's white working class voters and women and wants to do their interests justice. She has concluded that, the longer she stays in (until June 4), the more options she has. Though she has banned her staff from speculating about the vice presidency, people close to her -- people who know her -- believe that she would want to be asked to serve and would want to serve, if the situation presented itself. Does Clinton believe that she's going to force Obama's negatives up so high that he loses the election in November and Clinton comes back in 2012? No -- if that was her intention, she'd have gotten out when the getting out was good -- when Rev. Wright was hurting Obama and Obama needed a victory, like North Carolina, to regain some footing. (The depth of worry in the Obama campaign during the Rev. Wright affair can not be overestimated -- they were very afraid.) The Obama campaign is much less dismissive of Clinton than they were two weeks ago. That's in part because Clinton is no longer a threat to them. They're taking cues from their boss -- John Edwards's endorsement was really the first time in a few months that Obama himself could allow himself a real smile, and a real sense of accomplishment, and a real sense that the competition was over.

Question: Democrats don't need to win a majority of working class whites to win the election in November, although in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, they need to limit the Republican margin to less than 10%. Could it be that Obama's coalition and heavy turnout among African Americans will mean that Democrats don't need as many working class whites to win the election, and, correspondingly, the polarized primary has pushed them away from their nominee in general? What accounts for the disparity between the astonishingly high numbers of Democrats in states like Kentucky and West Virginia who say they'd vote for McCain -- and Obama's national lead in the polls? What is his coalition? And how does it translate into the 50 constituent parts of what a national lead actually is? Might Obama's strength in the popular vote be a reflection of Democratic energy in large states and Republican sloth in large states -- rather than a reflection of the coalition he needs to win the general election? States are more internally diverse than regions of states are. In other words -- are the demographics of Obama's coalition so skewed (in terms of previous coalitions) that his national lead will greatly overstate his relative strength in the electoral college? Or is Obama's new coalition so robust as to absorb some of the bleeding of white, working class men in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania and still end up winning? Tentative sluff to support the latter theory can be found in Obama's primary victory in Iowa, where turnout far exceeded the expectations of everyone, in Wisconsin and Minnesota and Colorado, where Obama won handily but especially among Obama's core demographic groups, and in the way the campaign has been able to organize 75,000 rallies on a May Sunday in Oregon.

Maybe the coalition will stay the same, but the internal composition of the coalition will change dramatically.

Hagel Chides McCain

"I'm very upset with John with some of the things he's been saying. And I can't get into the psychoanalysis of it. But I believe that John is smarter than some of the things he is saying. He is, he understands it more. John is a man who reads a lot, he's been around the world. I want him to get above that and maybe when he gets into the general election, and becomes the general election candidate he will have a higher-level discourse on these things."

Sen. Chuck Hagel, speaking in Washington tonight, according to the Huffington Post. Sen. Hagel also bestowed on Obama many encomiums.

Obama: "Change Is Coming To America"

"Change is coming to America," is the line of the night from Obama. His speech is an assemblage of idealism and and his biographical grounding in those ideals; a turning of the page to the general election and a challenge to John McCain.

"The skeptics predicted we wouldn’t get very far. The cynics dismissed us as a lot of hype and a little too much hope. And by the fall, the pundits in Washington had all but counted us out," he begins. "But the people of Iowa had a different idea."

From the very beginning, you knew that this journey wasn’t about me or any of the other candidates in this race. It’s about whether this country – at this defining moment – will continue down the same road that has failed us for so long, or whether we will seize this opportunity to take a different path – to forge a different future for the country we love. That is the question that sent thousands upon thousands of you to high school gyms and VFW halls; to backyards and front porches; to steak fries and JJ dinners, where you spoke about what that future would look like.

Praise for Clinton:

The road here has been long, and that is partly because we’ve traveled it with one of the most formidable candidates to ever run for this office. In her thirty-five years of public service, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has never given up on her fight for the American people, and tonight I congratulate her on her victory in Kentucky. We have had our disagreements during this campaign, but we all admire her courage, her commitment and her perseverance. No matter how this primary ends, Senator Clinton has shattered myths and broken barriers and changed the America in which my daughters and yours will come of age.

And a challenge to McCain:

I will leave it up to Senator McCain to explain to the American people whether his policies and positions represent long-held convictions or Washington calculations, but the one thing they don’t represent is change.

And the ending:

My faith in the decency, and honesty, and generosity of the American people is not based on false hope or blind optimism, but on what I have lived and what I have seen in this very state.

For in the darkest days of this campaign, when we were dismissed by all the polls and all the pundits, I would come to Iowa and see that there was something happening here that the world did not yet understand.

It’s what led high school and college students to give up their vacations to stuff envelopes and knock on doors, and why grandparents have spent all their afternoons making phone calls to perfect strangers. It’s what led men and women who can barely pay the bills to dig into their savings and write five dollar checks and ten dollar checks, and why young people from all over this country have left their friends and their families for a job that offers little pay and less sleep.

Change is coming to America.

It’s the spirit that sent the first patriots to Lexington and Concord and led the defenders of freedom to light the way north on an Underground Railroad. It’s what sent my grandfather’s generation to beachheads in Normandy, and women to Seneca Falls, and workers to picket lines and factory fences. It’s what led all those young men and women who saw beatings and billy clubs on their television screens to leave their homes, and get on buses, and march through the streets of Selma and Montgomery – black and white, rich and poor.

Change is coming to America.

It’s what I saw all those years ago on the streets of Chicago when I worked as an organizer – that in the face of joblessness, and hopelessness, and despair, a better day is still possible if there are people willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it. That’s what I’ve seen here in Iowa. That’s what is happening in America – our journey may be long, our work will be great, but we know in our hearts we are ready for change, we are ready to come together, and in this election, we are ready to believe again. Thank you Iowa, and may God Bless America.

An Obama E-Mail To Supporters

From: Barack Obama [mailto:info@barackobama.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:29 PM

Subject: What we just achieved

Read it after the jump.

Continue reading "An Obama E-Mail To Supporters" »

What Clinton's Margin Of Victory Means

0. Nothing in so far as the identity of the probable nominee is concerned.

1. For Clinton, a chance to win the popular vote without counting Michigan (and with counting/estimating the tallies from the caucus states.)

2. A round of stories about Obama's problems in what Howard Fineman calls the "spine of Appalachia," or what Jim Webb would call, the "spine of Jacksonian America."

3. A redoubled effort by the RNC to identify those Clinton voters in WV, PA, KY and IN who say they won't vote for Obama

4. Questions among his supporters why Obama doesn't appear to be taking his problems among white working class votes seriously. Though the white working class demographic is declining relative to other demographics, white working class whites are, as Reihan Salam notes, "overrepresented in all of the so-called battleground states."

5. A little bit more leverage for Clinton on May 31 when the DNC's rules and bylaws committee votes.

Clinton's Kentucky Win

She'll have won the state by 230,000 votes and 35 percentage points.

Icky Race Factor In Kentucky

Of the 21 percent of Kentucky voters who said that race was a factor in their decision, about 90% chose Hillary Clinton. In other words, more than 50,000 Kentucky Democrats are willing to admit that the pigment of Obama's skin was a reason they decided not to vote for him.

Night Poll

Clinton's Victory Declaration

Hillary Clinton's victory declaration was, for the second week in a row, a justification for her continued presence in the race, an exhortation to Democrats to give her a few more weeks, an explanation for the enthusiasm she generates in Appalachia, and, in an acknowledgment of reality, a promise to vigorously campaign for the eventual nominee in the fall.

"I commend Senator Obama and his supporters as we go toe-to-toe, we do see eye-to-eye in uniting our party to elect a Democrat president."

Toe to toe? Maybe big toe to pinky toe...

"Why do they turn out in face of nay sayers? You know that our political process is more than candidates running, pundits or even about winning a primary or a nomination..…it’s a path we choose as a nation."

They're voting because Clinton tells them that their vote counts.

"I have done it not because I’ve wanted to demonstrate my toughness I believe passionately we must take back the White House."

She really does believe that she'd be a better commander in chief than Obama. And if she wanted to stay in the race just to hurt Obama (the 2012 Theorem), she would have withdrawn at the height of the Rev. Wright affair.

"I am going to keep making our case until we have a nominee whoever she may be."

I think that's the line the Clinton campaign wants to echo...

Obama's April Fundraising

A release from the Obama campaign just as Sen. Clinton was taking the stage; the campaign raised $31.3 million in April, claiming 200,000 new donors, 94% of them who gave less than $200. Overall, the campaign claims nearly three million individual contributions with an average donation of $91.00.

Obama will probably fund his general election campaign by asking his contributors to pony up less than $200 each; he already has $9.2 million on hand as a pad.

Why Are Superdelegates Waiting?

Clinton talking point: the superdelegates aren't satisfied yet; they want the race to continue; a large number are waiting.

Discussion: Many of those superdelegates are from districts and states that Clinton won, but they haven't endorsed her -- more so than there are undeclared superdelegates from Obama districts who haven't endorsed him. The undeclared superdelegates haven't endorsed Clinton..why? Probably because they don't want to, and they're waiting until Obama reaches the magic number of 2026, so they won't have to. Many of them are dealing with the reality of delegate math, which all but guarantees that Obama is going to be the winner, and the reality that the voters in their districts and states have chosen differently; they're not going to alienate the nominee of the party, and they're not going to alienate the voters in their district. So they're going to wait.

Comments Enabled For Election Night

The Delegate Math Tonight

Borrowing blatantly here from Chuck Todd, if Obama wins more than 50 delegates tonight, which is quite possible, he will be able to claim that (a) he is within about 70 delegates of reaching 2026 and (b) has a majority of pledged delegates INCLUDING what Clinton would win if the delegations of Florida and Michigan were seated in total.

7:00 pm ET: Clinton Projected To Win Kentucky

More from the Kentucky exit polls: 67% of voters did not have a college degree (versus just above 50% for Oregon), and they voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. You know.. stop. How many times have I written that sentence before? Too many. The demographic tint of Kentucky is pretty all much all you need to know: ideologically, more Democrats describe themselves as moderate and conservative than liberal.

Sen. Ted Kennedy Today

An AP photograph...

8 In 10 Clinton Voters in KY Dissatisfied With Obama As The Nominee

From the folks at CBS News, some early exit polls:

In Kentucky, lots of anger and polarization. In Oregon, much less...

In Kentucky, 8 in 10 Clinton voters... say they'd be DISsatisfied if Obama were the nominee; about 60% of Clinton voters in Oregon said the same. MORE Clinton voters in KY say they'd support John McCain than say they'd support Barack Obama. (Explain that one?)

(Obama voters are split: half in Kentucky say they'd be dissatisfied; 43% of Oregon Obama voters say they'd be dissatisfied.)

In Oregon, 68% of Clinton voters say they'd vote for Obama versus 22% who say they'd vote for McCain.

In Kentucky, 6 in ten Clinton voters and 6 in ten Obama voters don't want to see the opposing candidate on the ticket.

In Kentucky, 85% of Democrats made up their mind before last week, compared to 47% of Democrats in Oregon. The economy was the top issue for voters in both states, but more so in Kentucky; in Oregon, the war in Iraq was the second priority issue for voters. A gas tax pause is favored by voters in Kentucky and not by voters in Oregon.

Parody? Or Real Ad?

Per TNR:

The campaign: Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO)

The Party Coalesces Around Obama

Gallup notices that Sen. Barack Obama is surging precisely among those voting groups who had resisted his charms to date. To wit:

Obama's now beating Clinton among Hispanics, for example.

McCain Campaign: Obama's "Reckless" -- So Please Contribute To Us

Here's the latest fundraising solicitation from the McCain campaign:

My Friends,

Last week, Senator Obama made a few comments I would like to respond to. Senator Obama claimed that all John McCain has to offer is a naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk would cause Iran to give up their nuclear program. He should have known better.

I have some news for Senator Obama: Simply talking, even with soaring rhetoric, will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program. And for the president of the United States to sit down for an unconditional, face-to-face meeting with the leader of Iran is simply reckless.

John McCain has made it very clear that we will not negotiate with terrorist organizations. By conducting a presidential meeting with the leader of Iran - the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism - as Senator Obama wants to do, we would legitimize a regime that is dedicated to the extinction of Israel and is responsible for the death of brave young Americans.

And it doesn't stop with Iran. Barack Obama has said he would sit down, unconditionally, with the leaders of oppressive regimes around the world. Today, as many celebrate Cuban Independence Day, we are reminded how the Cuban people continue to live under tyranny on that imprisoned island. The Castro regime, for decades under Fidel and now under his brother Raul, enforces strict limits against freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement and speech. This regime led by Raul oppresses its people and regularly flaunts its hatred of the United States. Yet, Barack Obama said he would sit down, unconditionally, with Raul Castro.

It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world without enemies. But that's not the world in which we live, and until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.

That doubt is also manifested in Senator Obama's position on the war in Iraq, a topic on the mind of every American.

Senator Obama has said that if elected he will withdraw American troops from Iraq quickly, regardless of the situation on the ground and no matter what U.S. military commanders advise. Frankly, his position is irresponsible and again raises questions to his judgment and preparedness to be commander in chief.

If we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, Al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, claim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions. Iraq could easily descend into genocide and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of various factions.

A reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran - the world's chief state supporter of terrorism, a country with nuclear ambitions and a regime with the stated desire to destroy the state of Israel - will view our withdrawal as a victory and will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly. The consequences of our defeat will threaten us for years.

Those who argue for premature withdrawal, as Senator Obama and Senator Clinton do, are arguing for a course that will eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that will entail far greater dangers and consequences for years to come.

John McCain believes we need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq, or will hold unconditional talks with Iranian president Ahmadinejad. If you agree, please support our campaign for John McCain to become your next president by making a donation of $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or up to the legal limit of $2,300.

Thank you,

Rick Davis

More Responses To Kennedy Announcement

Sen. Hillary Clinton:

“Ted Kennedy’s courage and resolve are unmatched, and they have made him one of the greatest legislators in Senate history. Our thoughts are with him and Vicki and we are praying for a quick and full recovery.”

President Bush:

Laura and I are concerned to learn of our friend Senator Kennedy’s diagnosis. Ted Kennedy is a man of tremendous courage, remarkable strength, and powerful spirit. Our thoughts are with Senator Kennedy and his family during this difficult period. We join our fellow Americans in praying for his full recovery.

Sen. Harry Reid:

"...anyone who knows Ted Kennedy also knows that he is a fighter. He has a work ethic like no other and has risen to every challenge he’s faced – and we are confident he will rise to this one as well. It’s no surprise to me that when I talked with his wife today, she told me he is in good spirits and full of energy."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein:

“My heart dropped when I heard the news about Senator Kennedy. On behalf of all Californians, I send him and the entire Kennedy family my sincere wishes for a speedy recovery. They are in our thoughts and prayers. There is reason for optimism. He has great physicians, a loving and beautiful wife in Vicki, and the indomitable Kennedy spirit. I look forward to the day when Senator Kennedy is back on the Senate floor, giving one of his famous stem-winder speeches. I hope that day will be soon.”

Veepstakes: Biden Trains Fire On McCain

One of the chief credentials of a vice presidential nominee is partisan toughness; you've got to be a credible attack dog against the opposing presidential candidate. Today, in the second speech Sen. Joe Biden has delivered on the topic, he lit into... heck, he bit into, his own friend, Sen. John McCain, and McCain's approach to foreign policy. It's as if one of Obama's vice presidential judges, a la American Idol, told Biden that the "category this week is a speech that links McCain to Bush."

Biden, speaking this morning at the Center for American Progress:

"Under George Bush’s watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march: · Iran is much closer to the bomb; · Iran’s influence in Iraq is expanding · Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and the country is on the brink of civil war. Beyond Iran, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – the people who actually attacked us on 09-11 – are stronger now than at any time since 9-11. Hamas controls Gaza and launches rockets at Israel every day. And 140,000 American troops remain stuck in Iraq with no end in sight. Because of the policies George Bush has pursued and John McCain would continue, the entire Middle East is more dangerous. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are less secure."

More:

Last week, John McCain was very clear. He ruled out talking to Iran. He said that Senator Obama was “naïve and inexperienced” for advocating engagement. “What is it he wants to talk about?” John asked. If John can’t answer the question, we are in trouble.

And:

What’s John’s plan for dealing with these dangers? You either talk; you go to war; or you maintain the unacceptable status quo. If John has ruled out talking, that means we’re going to get more of what we’ve had for most of the Bush administration – or worse. First, let’s end this false argument about “pre-conditions.” Senator Obama is right that the United States should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without insisting that Iran first freeze the program – the very subject of any negotiations. We didn’t insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before we talked to them about arms control. The net effect of demanding pre-conditions that Iran rejects is this: we get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb. Second, let’s stop the Bush/McCain fixation on regime change. We all abhor the regime, but think about the logic: renounce the bomb – and when you do, we’re still going to take you down. The result is that Iran accelerated its efforts to produce fissile material.

And:

Like President Bush, John grounds his argument for a war with no end in his assessment of the dire consequences of drawing down our forces Iraq.

Finally:

When it comes to the most urgent national security challenges we face – Iraq, Iran and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – last week made it clear that stylistically and substantively, there is no day light between George Bush and John McCain. They are joined at the hip. There would be no change with a McCain presidency and so there will be a real choice for Americans next November.

Bloggers Protest DNC(C) Credential Selections

There's a bit bubbling controversy regarding a backlash to the Democratic National Convention Committee's selection process for state bloggers. 21 bloggers representing 12 already-credentialed blogs sent a letter yesterday to DNC Chairman Howard Dean protesting the DNCC's selection process that appears -- in the viewpoint of the bloggers -- to have been used by state parties to silence critics.

The letter first praises Dean:

Governor Dean: Let us begin by noting our respect for your position at the Democratic National Committee and the reforms you have made. Your efforts to rebuild the Democratic Party in all 50 states has reinvigorated the political debate across the country -- and strengthened not just the party, but our country as well, in the process.

Then zooms in for the kill:

We write to you today out of concern that the same principles that have strengthened our party are today being ignored in the state blog credentialing process for the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer. As long-time progressive state bloggers, we have now witnessed many of our well-respected colleagues from crucial states be passed over. In many states, it appears that parochial politics and hurt egos played a role in these decisions. These concerns run counter to our shared goals of using programs like the state blogger pool to
"tear down the walls" in Denver -- and better connect the American people with the events on the ground. The Democratic Party endangers its own long-term viability when it makes fealty a criterion for inclusion. Instead, the Party should act to ensure that it includes its ideological media allies, even if those allies are occasional tactical or strategic critics. We, the undersigned, have been included in the state credentials pool, despite our own history of criticism of local Democratic actors. This speaks well to the character of our own local parties. But while our peers in other states are being excluded, we'd be remiss in staying silent.
We encourage you to review the selection process undertaken and reasons given by state parties for excluding some of America's most respected state level progressive blogs. We believe a fair and thorough review is necessary to ensure success for this promising experiment in shining a light on the Democratic Convention.

Most notably, according to the bloggers, is the exclusion of Juan Melli's Blue Jersey, an award-winning New Jersey political blog. His blog has been critical of the state Democratic Party; New Jersey's blog credential was given to PoliticsNJ.com (now PolitickerNJ.com), an excellent, albeit non-partisan site run by the mysterious Wally Edge and owned by the New York Observer.

The signers of this letter include Lowell Feld, a top Virginia blogger,the writers of LeftInTheWest.com awarded State Blog of the Year in '06 by IPDI; and bloggers from California, Massachusetts, Vermont, Wisconsin, Illinois, Kentucky, and North Dakota.

I'll update with the DNCC's response when I get it...

Politicians Respond To Kennedy's Announcement

Sen. Ted Kennedy disclosed today that a malignant brain tumor -- brain cancer -- caused his seizure this weekend.

Here's John McCain's response:

"Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and to him. We hope and pray that they will be able to treat it and that he will experience a full recovery." "I have described Ted Kennedy as the last lion in the senate. And I have held that view because he remains the single most effective member of the Senate."

FEC Numbers Day: Nothing Yet

Today, we should be getting the April bank account peaks for McCain, Obama and Clinton. Nothing yet....

MS SEN: DSCC Poll Shows Musgrove Up

A rule of sorts for this blog: don't cite partisan polls. I'm going to make an exception for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's latest survey of Mississippi voters. They give former governor Ronnie Musgrove (D) an eight point lead over Republican incumbent Roger Wicker. Even if the DSCC were inclined to fudge the poll (or their pollster was) -- no evidence that they have or will, but I'm just saying -- they wouldn't show their candidate in the lead by that much. Expectations are raised -- and if future polls consistently show Musgrove behind Wicker, we'll know that (a) the DSCC poll was misleading or (b) Wicker has regained a lead. The DSCC poll is consistent with Democratic energy in the state, with Republican pessimism, and with Musgrove's broad popularity.

Veepwatch: Webb Takes Manhattan

Everyone's favorite Scotch-Irish military hero and Jacksonian-loving rogue, James Webb, takes the salons of Manhattan and non-noncommittally answers a question about the vice presidency.

Count on it: whether Obama likes him or not (and I don't know enough about their relationship to say one way or the other), the guy is going to be vetted -- political imperatives demand it.

Three Nat'l Polls Include Cell Phone Sampling

Per Pollster.com: An overlooked development: joining Gallup in including cell phone samples in its national surveys are CBS News/New York Times and the Pew Research Center.

The problem: us folks who don't have home phones can't get phone calls from the automated polling companies like Rasmussen and SurveyUSA. Readers of this blog know that I'm skeptical of those types of surveys, but not indelibly so: it may well be that, after a few cycles worth of data and analysis, the automatic surveys turn out to be as valid (as opposed to as "accurate") as telephonic live person surveyors.

Obama Picks Up Two Superdelegates

Including Scott Brennan, the chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, who -- take note Rick Davis -- seems to be concerned about the McCain campaign's running three ads in the state already.

A Series Of Unfortunate Events

The McCain campaign and the White House did not see eye to eye over last week's "appeasement" exchanges. McCain advisers contend that the heads up that a senior White House official e gave to the McCain campaign was not very detailed, and that the campaign was caught without really thinking through the response. Some McCain advisers concede that the appeasement controversy stepped on what they wanted people to hear as a very important speech about McCain's governing principle. McCain's not blame free -- he came up with the implied comparison of Obama to Neville Chamberlain. And it's not that the argument itself is one that the McCain campaign doesn't want -- of course they do -- they just don't want George W. Bush to drive it.

McCain's Secret Meeting With Murphy

On Sunday, Sen. John McCain took a meeting with an hold hand -- his 2000 strategist, Mike Murphy.

As the Politico reported,

The two discussed the political landscape and Murphy offered his appraisal of McCain's coming general election battle against Barack Obama.

Though he played a lead role in McCain's 2000 White House run, Murphy has thus far had no formal involvement this campaign. Having worked for McCain and then on Mitt Romney's 2002 gubernatorial bid, Murphy stayed out of the GOP primary this year.

Sources with close, but indirect knowledge of the meeting say that campaign manager Rick Davis, who does not get along with Mr. Murphy, was not aware of the meeting in advance. That's one reason why the meeting took place in McCain's Arlington townhouse. The meeting, according to one source who knows, focused on the direction of McCain's campaign. It is not clear whether McCain asked Murphy to come aboard in any capacity or whether he expressed any dissatisfaction with those who run the campaign now.

"A social visit," was all Murphy would say about the meeting.

Campaign Shakeups!

Update From The Barr Campaign

Russ Verney, Ex-Rep. Bob Barr's presidential campaign manager, has issued his first strategy memorandum-cum-fundraising appeal; in it, he compares his candidate to Ross Perot and hints that Ron Paul might have made something of himself if only he...

FROM: Russ Verney Campaign Manager, Bob Barr '08 TO: Friends and Associates RE: Political Assessment DATE: May 19, 2008

These days, politics seems to revolve around polling and predictions. I'm not convinced it's the best use of anyone's time — especially for someone like me who's spent his whole life in full-time campaign activities — but consider this outline :

early October: 7% in national surveys
Mid October: wins televised Presidential debate
late October: 12% in national surveys
election day: captures 19% of national vote

That's what happened in a previous election I was involved with: Ross Perot in 1992. That could have been the case with Ron Paul if he had opted to run on a third party ticket.

I believe former Congressman Bob Barr has the same potential. Maybe better. Don't be mislead, however: I am no cheerleader by nature. But I do agree with our Senior Policy Advisor, Doug Bandow, in an e-mail I received from him yesterday:

"I've just read the early polling data and your election game plan — phenomenal. Congressman Barr is poised to have a huge impact on the public policy debates and political history. His will be no ordinary presidential campaign."

That's not going to happen without your involvement, but at this point I'm asking you to just to think about participating and to mull over the following ... November 4th is light years away. In terms of laying the foundation for a dynamic and influencial campaign, the pieces for Barr 2008 are already in place. Consider ...

America is swamped in Libertarian information:

Congressman Ron Paul's new book is the number one best-seller in the nation according to the New York Times
Neal Boortz has 4,000,000 radio listeners daily
On TV, John Stossel broadcasts such opinions as: "I am a libertarian in that I believe in limited government and as much individual freedom as possible."

Finally, you may not have heard this from many media pundits, but nearly 130,000 people — 16% of the Republican primaary turnout in Pennsylvania — got out of their easy chairs and voted for Ron Paul and against John McCain ... that was after John McCain had won the nomination.

Politically and ideologically, Bob Barr is plowing fertile ground.

It will take an articulate candidate and a powerful message to build the meaning of the Libertarian messages voters are receiving. We have both in the Barr 2008 campaign.

That's why we need your participation: your investment of time, talent, and financial resources is vital as the campaign builds, from the ground floor, the alternative to politics-as-usual.

Guilt-By-Association Update: The Optics

Item: Conservative activists create and begin to spread a video calling on Obama to fire adviser Greg Craig for representing -- as a lawyer, not a lobbyist -- a Panamanian accused of murdering a U.S. soldier.

Comment: Craig is not a peripheral figure in the Obama campaign. He was among the earliest senior Washington figures urging Obama to run, and he participates fairly regularly in the planning and strategizing about major events, including the campaign's decisions to accept debates. He has also served as an on-and-off camer