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 camera surrogate for McCain at propitious moments. Yes, there's a difference between being a lawyer and being a lobbyist; lobbyists represent a real or preceived conflict of interest. But Obama's campaign holds itself to a higher standard: why doesn't it make sense to make sure that senior campaign advisers are also not, for their dayjobs, representing (alleged) U.S. soldier killers?

Item: McCain adviser Charlie Black claims that campaign manager Rick Davis hasn't been a lobbyist for five years.

Comment: Uh, not true, apparently. Davis and deputy campaign manager Christian Ferry were registered to lobby for Preserve Luke AFB, LLC during the 2005 round of BRAC closings. Still, three years... five years... the point isn't when Davis or Black stopped lobbying; it's about, mainly, appearances: McCain doesn't have a problem with their former professions or any non-negotiable reservations about their former clients. That's a political decision, one that is open to praise or criticism.

SuperD Update: +2 Obama

Cindy Spanyers and Blake Johnson, both superdelegates from Alaska. By the campaign's estimation, they need 109 more...

White House Slams NBC News

White House senior strategist Ed Gillespie does not like the way that Richard Engel's interview with President Bush was edited to reflect the president's reflections on his remarks to the Knesset last Thursday

(Still -- doesn't the fact that the White House still finds it necessary to explain what President Bush meant by "appeasement" mean that, in essence, Obama won the day?)

Here's the interview as-aired:

And here's the letter to NBC News President Steve Capus:

Steve Capus

President, NBC News

30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112

Mr. Capus:

This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush's actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel's question about Iran policy and "appeasement," rather than the deceptively edited version of the President's answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.
In the interview, Engel asked the President: "You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless, and then you went further. You said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama?"

The President responded: "You know, my policies haven't changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn't get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you've got to take those words seriously. And if you don't take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn't take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolf Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon."

This answer makes clear: (1). The President's remarks before the Knesset were not different from past policy statements, but are now being looked at through a political prism, (2). Corrects the inaccurate premise of Engel's question by putting the "appeasement" line in the proper context of taking the words of leaders seriously, not "negotiating with Iran," (3). Restates the U.S.'s long-standing policy positions against negotiating with al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas, and not allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Engel's immediate follow-up question was, "Repeatedly you've talked about Iran and that you don't want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?"

The President replied, "You know, Richard, I don't want to speculate – and there's a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain – we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we'll continue to rally the world to isolate them."

This response reiterates another long-standing policy, which is that if Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment program the U.S. government would engage in talks with the Iranian government.

NBC's selective editing of the President's response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel's characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it. Furthermore, it omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President's follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that "negotiating with Iran is pointless" and amounts to "appeasement."

This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President's responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts.
As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.

On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: "We should mention, we didn't just wake up on a Monday morning and say, 'Let's call this a civil war.' This took careful deliberation.'"

I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a "civil war." Is it still NBC News's carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?

Lastly, when the Commerce Department on April 30 released the GDP numbers for the first quarter of 2007, Brian Williams reported it this way: "If you go by the government number, the figure that came out today stops just short of the official declaration of a recession."

The GDP estimate was a positive 0.6% for the first quarter. Slow growth, but growth nonetheless. This followed a slow but growing fourth quarter in 2007. Consequently, even if the first quarter GDP estimate had been negative, it still would not have signaled a recession – neither by the unofficial rule-of-thumb of two consecutive quarters of negative growth, nor the more robust definition by the National Bureau of Economic Research (the group that officially marks the beginnings and ends of business cycles).

Furthermore, never in our nation's history have we characterized economic conditions as a "recession" with unemployment so low – in fact, when this rate of unemployment was eventually reached in the 1990s, it was hailed as the sign of a strong economy. This rate of unemployment is lower than the average of the past three decades.

Are there numbers besides the "government number" to go by? Is there reason to believe "the government number" is suspect? How does the release of positive economic growth for two consecutive quarters, albeit limited, stop "just short of the official declaration of a recession"?

Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

Sincerely,

Ed Gillespie

Counselor to the President

An Expanding Obama Universe

"Top Hillarylander mulls Obama job," reports Ben Smith: Former Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle and Obama chief strategist David Axelrod reportedly discuss, informally, what role PSD might play in an Obama campaign. Solis Doyle tells me: "I'm with Hillary, and I have been for 17 years." But Axelrod tells Smith: "I know that she wants to be helpful in a general election campaign," which leads to the question: how would he know that if she and he didn't talk about?

Backstory: PSD got her start in politics in Chicago, and she and Ax are friends and talk frequently, and it stands to reason that PSD would help the Obama campaign if he were the nominee; she's told friends and colleagues that she very much admires Obama. Inside the Clinton campaign today, there is anger at Solis Doyle for letting informal chatter like this get out. Says one top campaign official: "It's a funny world we live in."

Significance: If Obama's the nominee, more Hillarylanders will work for him than some might suspect given the tension between the two camps.

Sorry Sweetie: Geraldine Ferraro May Not Vote For Obama

The former vice presidential candidate calls Sen. Obama "terribly sexist."

Ponderable

Does Barack Obama believe that he can have his wife campaign for him in public and then also claim anything she says is out of bounds?

SuperD Watch: +2 For Obama

In addition to West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, the chairs of two Democratic parties -- Kansas's Larry Gates and Washington State's Dwight Pelz. The Obama campaign says it's 111 delegates from securing the magic 2025.

The DCI Group Responds On Burma

A little more than a week ago, Doug Goodyear, the CEO of the Washington-based public affairs firm DCI Group, resigned from his volunteer posting to McCain campaign; he had been picked to serve as the CEO of the Republican National Convention. His departure, and the departure of one of his colleagues, was precipitated by news reports that DCI had served as image consultants to the ruling junta in Burma for a period of eight months beginning in 2002.

Now, amid press reports about a new wave of McCain campaign departures, DCI wants to get its side of the story out; the short-hand used to describe and the firm and its actions bothers Mr. Goodyear.

Goodyear agreed to a brief interview this morning. The firm plans to release a statement to the press about its work for the government of Myanmar six years ago.

Why, I asked, did DCI terminate its contract in 2003?

“It was clear that we couldn’t accomplish what we set out to accomplish,” Goodyear said. “We were going to try and make relations between the two countries more normal. It was very clear that we couldn’t do what we wanted to do.”

In DCI’s statement, Goodyear lays out the chronology as follows: In 2002,

DCI Group was approached by a moderate faction within the Myanmar government that sought assistance in working alongside the U.S. government in its fight against the opium trade and Myanmar’s AIDS epidemic. Recognizing the implications of this effort, DCI Group agreed to take on this project on the condition that the Myanmar government demonstrate a major confidence-building commitment and agree to release a number of political detainees including Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi.

Thanks to the work of international pressure groups, Suu Kyi and dozens of prisoners were soon released – though many thousands remained in jail, including religious dissidents and journalists -- and DCI began its work – a campaign/public relations effort that tried to rehabilitate Myanmar’s image in the United States and boost the profile of the so-called “moderates” in the regime. DCI says it helped the government combat narcotics trafficking, an effort that led to the destruction of about $500 million worth of opium. And, indeed, while DCI worked for Myanmar, the government began to negotiate with Suu Kyi and others, a report by Human Rights Watch confirms that international organizations were optimistic that, perhaps, the government was ready to moderate. Throughout this period, though, according to HRW

“….systemic restrictions on basic civil and political liberties continued unabated. Ethnic minority regions continued to report particularly grave abuses, including forced labor and the rape of Shan minority women by military forces. Government military forces continued to forcibly recruit and use child soldiers.”

In DCI’s view of the events, it took only eight months for conservative elements in the government to reassert themselves and begin to imprison the moderates who wanted to work with the DCI Group.

Mr. Goodyear was not bitter about his moment in the spotlight, but he said he was concerned about that his firm misrepresented. “Lobbying is less than 5% of our firm,” he said. “As far as I know, I’ve never lobbied. I wasn’t on the [foreign agent registration]; I’ve been lumped in with lobbyists. I can understand it; even though I don’t lobby, our firm does.”

Why then, he did leave?

McCain, he said, “wants to be out there talking about global warming….As soon as it was clear to be that I was going to be a distraction for him, I exited.”

I asked Goodyear about whether the maintenance of McCain’s reformer brand requires an extra bit of prudence. “McCain is very much his own man. And he knows he wants to be perceived by the public. This clearly matters to them, and to that extent its fair game.”

As to repeated rumors that DCI Group’s principals participated in the 2000 South Carolina smear campaign against McCain, Goodyear said that his firm “had absolutely nothing to do with it” and offered to send along a letter from campaign manager Rick Davis attesting to that fact.

The full DCI statement is after the jump.

Continue reading "The DCI Group Responds On Burma" »

Robert Byrd Endorses Obama

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) endorses Barack Obama.

Clinton Camp On Obama's "Slap In The Face"

David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, e-mailed millions of Obama supporters with the message that tomorrow, Obama could reach the milestone of having earned a majority of the pledged delegates. " A clear majority of elected delegates will send an unmistakable message -- the people have spoken, and they are ready for change." He urges members of the list to watch Obama's speech tomorrow night in Iowa.

The Clinton campaign responded this way:

To: Interested Parties From: Howard Wolfson, Communications Director

Date: Monday, May 19, 2008

Re: Mission Accomplished? Not so fast.

Senator Obama’s plan to declare himself the Democratic nominee tomorrow night in Iowa (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10184.html) is a slap in the face to the millions of voters in the remaining primary states and to Senator Clinton’s 17 million supporters.

There is no scenario under the rules of the Democratic National Committee by which Senator Obama will be able to claim the nomination tomorrow night. He will not have 2210 delegates, the number needed with Florida and Michigan included in the process, nor will he have 2025 delegates, the number needed to secure the nomination without Florida and Michigan.

Premature victory laps and false declarations of victory are unwarranted. Declaring mission accomplished does not make it so.

While Senator Obama inaccurately declares himself the nominee, Senator Clinton will continue to work hard, campaigning for every vote in the upcoming states and making the case that she will be the best nominee to take on John McCain and be our next President.

The Obama campaign is backing away from reports that tomorrow night's speech will amount to a declaration of victory, but, really, they're too smart for that. They _want_ the media to cover the speech as if it's a declaration of victory -- giving Obama a moment in the spotlight -- but will reserve their formal declaration of victory for June ...3? 4? 10?.

Kentucky, Oregon Polls

From Suffolk University:

Kentucky: Clinton 51%, Obama 25%. Note that Obama's favs in KY = his unfavs -- 43%.
Oregon: Obama: 45%, Clinton 41%. Obama's favs in Oregon = 73%.

A plurality of Dems in both states believe that Obama will be the next president.

McCain To Release Medical Records

John McCain will release a batch of medical records on Thursday.....

McCain And The Lobbyists, Part II -- Obama

So what really rankles McCain advisers is what they see as the Obama campaign's hypocrisy on the matter of lobbyist influence. They say that the Obama campaign makes a small concession -- forbidding federal lobbyists from contributing, which probably deprived Obama of less than one percent of his total money haul -- and continues to use lobbyists in ways that directly contravene the spirit of the concession.

Item: Many lobbyists advise the Obama campaign presumably on matters that they will continue to lobby about it Obama is president.

Item: Former lobbyists can contribute to Obama; they can bundle; can host fundraisers; plenty of state government lobbyists have contributed.

Item: Senior Obama campaign officials, like Steve Hilderband, worked as lobbyists before joining the Obama campaign. Hildebrand, ironically, lobbyied on behalf of the McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill. Many other officials lobbied on behalf of labor unions (field director Buffy Wicks) and corporations (Delegate counter extraordinaire Jeff Berman.)

Item: the McCain campaign's new conflicts policy is as strict as -- or more strict than -- the Obama campaign's.

The response of the Obama campaign, generally, is that while their attempts to avoid the lobbying influence nexus are not perfect, they represent a first step. Also, those former lobbyists on the campaign staff plied the trade for the forces of good in the world, and not the, well, forces of malevolence (like corporations and foreign governments) they associate with McCain's cadre of lobbyists. Supporters of the Reagan Administration's foreign policy might not have had a problem with Charlie Black's representing Marcos, or of Tom Loeffler's close relationships with the Saudis. (Interestingly, McCain and Obama both talk tough about Saudi Arabia.) Though one of Obama's advisers lobbies for the oil industry, Obama doesn't favor policies which coddle them.

On balance, it's fair to say that the former lobbyists who work for McCain are closer to him than those who work for Obama are in associational proximity to Obama, and that lobbying for foreign governments will always be more controversial for lobbyists of any political ilk, and that Democrats (and perhaps a chuck of the press corps' default mentality) don't have problems with union lobbyists (while Republicans, many of them, think that unions are fairly malevolent.) and don't equate those who lobby FOR environmental protection with those who lobby AGAINST it.
But the difference is NOT political bias. Truly. It's one of interest group politics versus client politics; corporate lobbyist's work tends to have a closer connection to the exchange of money and power than the work of interest group politics, and what benefits one corporation or industry tends to directly hurt another -- think of sugar subsidies; . No one suggests that those McCain advisers who lobbied on behalf of the pro-life movement ought to give up their position because McCain might appoint pro-life justices to the court.

The final issue seems to be one of optics. The Obama campaign has squeezed as much juice as possible out of their no-contributions-from-federal-lobbyist pledge, perhaps more juice than was there, and benefits from the media's general Progressive-era understanding of what a reformer is. There ought to be more scrutiny of Obama's ties to lobbyists.

The McCain campaign has a special burden because of McCain's own reformer brand and thus ought to have from the standpoint of politics been much more sensitive to the optical difficulties of stuffing your campaign with former lobbyists. And the fact -- and some McCain folks don't like this when it's pointed out to them -- but a great many people within their campaign and informal, outsiders advisers have been tuned to this channel for a long time, have raised these alarms, have predicted the scrutiny that would inevitably come, and now are throwing up their hands and saying, "See? I told you so."

McCain And The Lobbyists, Part 1

Tom Loeffler's relationship with John McCain was sui generis; it existed long before even the 2000 presidential campaign. John Weaver, McCain's former chief strategist, ushered Loeffler into the developing campaign structure and made him its national finance chairman. Loeffler, according to campaign officials, disclosed his lobbying clients; at Weaver's behest, he was prepared to give them up for the duration of the campaign. But McCain, trusting Loeffler to know where the boundary lines lay, overruled Mr. Weaver; Loeffler got to keep his clients. McCain and the campaign were both caught unaware by the revelation in Newsweek that Susan Nelson, McCain's new finance director, was paid a $15,000 stipend by Loeffer in addition to her campaign salary. McCain "went ballistic," according to a source, when he learned that Nelson's work with Loeffler's lobbying clients while ostensibly the full-time chief of raising money for a campaign that, for a while, had trouble raising a lot of money.

Nonetheless, McCain was not prepared to seek Loeffler's resignation and campaign advisers are beginning to complain about a "witch hunt" mentality that afflicts the press corps, one which refuses to distinguish good people who made mistakes (acceptable) from people who lied or broke the rules (obviously, not.) Loeffler is a favorite of McCain's and well-liked by the staff. So the new campaign press strategy is to tighten up the faucet; no more confirmation of this departure or that departure, no more drib-drab of bad news.

"Everybody must comply with the policy," campaign communications director Jill Hazelbaker said. "The campaign will not comment further on individual staff members."

A few others are expected to leave within the week, according to outside campaign advisers.

Poll Of The Day: Obama's Policies

McCain On SNL

In case you missed it...

A Final NRA Salvo At Obama Mentions Wife, Wright (Updated)

Note Updated Obama response below.

The NRA convention in Lousville is winding up today.

Here's the final broadside against Sen., Barack Obama courtesy of Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist -- officially, its executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

(Note: i was sent the text in telemprompter format; in order to preserve authenticity, I've taken the liberty of keeping the format.)

The bolds are my own.

That’s Barack Obama,

the radical out-of-touch elitist who believes

we’re so bitter that we can only survive by clinging to God

and guns.

Well Barack,

we are bitter

and we should be!

We should be bitter ...

that these elitist hypocritical snobs

try to play us for a

bunch of fools.

We should be bitter ...

that Hillary and Obama look gun owners

in the eye...

and LIE about their support for the Second Amendment.

We should be bitter ...

that Obama’s pastor hates America ...

and that his wife is ashamed of our country.

We should be bitter ...

that Hillary sold out our freedoms years ago

and thinks we’ll just forgive and forget.

We should be bitter ...

that our friends in the Democratic Party

keep nominating their worst gun-hating candidates.

But when Hillary and Obama mouth off like they have ...

and

vote like they have ...

and lie like they have ...

and trample Second Amendment freedoms like they have ...

you bet the members of this proud Association are bitter.

Tommy Vietor, a senior Obama campaign spokesman (though... not a spokesperson for seniors or a person of age), responds:

"This hateful attack from John McCain's newfound friends at the NRA is just the latest example of why his lofty speech on bipartisanship and civility was rendered meaningless the minute he finished delivering it. John McCain can talk all he wants about what kind of honorable campaign he plans on running, but his actions show that he's embraced George Bush's divisive politics just as much as his failed policies."

Kennedy Update

Here's the latest statement from Sen. Ted Kennedy's congressional office:

"It appears that Senator Kennedy experienced a seizure this morning. He is undergoing a battery of tests at Massachusetts General Hospital to determine the cause of the seizure. Senator Kennedy is resting comfortably, and it is unlikely we will know anything more for the next 48 hours."

Health Care Contrasts: It's All About The Risk

Ron Brownstein's column today is at once fascinating and counterintuitive:

The plans unveiled by Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton encourage the sharing of risk between the healthy and the sick, even at the cost of requiring the former to subsidize the latter. McCain's proposal would maximize individual choice in obtaining coverage, even at the cost of reducing risk-sharing. This contrast, which reflects the broader divide between the Democratic emphasis on community and the Republican focus on personal freedom, is the wellspring from which all of the major differences in the candidates' plans flow.

"...Some experts, including centrists such as prominent health economist Jonathan Gruber, would take the gamble of McCain's tax credit plan. They consider it fairer than the exclusion, which reduces taxes most for affluent workers and penalizes people who buy insurance as individuals rather than through their employers. The catch is that many credit supporters (Gruber included) say it can work only if it is joined with reforms that ensure more risk-sharing and equity in the individual marketplace.

Obama and Clinton are proposing such reforms, but McCain would move in the opposite direction by vastly deregulating all insurance markets to promote competition. Next week we'll explore that component of his agenda.

Charlie Black On His Lobbying Career

"I'm not ashamed of anything the firm did," McCain adviser Charlie Black says of his days as the principle in one of Washington's most influential lobbying firms. "If they want to use it to fire up the left wing, well, that's fine."

Black is referring to a campaign by liberal watchdog and political groups to pressure McCain into dumping Black, now a top McCain campaign strategist. Today, MoveOn's political action fund released a video accusing Black of lobbying "for some of the world's worst tyrants."

Say this for Mr. Black: he has been forthcoming about his associations.

He told me, as he has told other reporters, that his firm ran every potential foreign client by the State Department and/or the White House in whatever administration was in power and asked whether the scope of the work fit with American foreign policy goals.

"A lot of times it wasn't [within the scope], and we didn't do it," he said.

Black allowed that "in some cases, it went bad."

When Black took on Ferdinand Marcos as a client, the president of the Phillipines was democratically elected. "When he tried to steal the election, Reagan pulled the plug and we resigned the account the same day." Marcos, among other crimes, authorized the arrest of political opponents and was a kleptocrat.

On Mobuto Sese Seko, Black says that the State Department was encourarging him to hold parliamentary elections and his firm advised Sese Seko on how to conduct such elections. The election took place; Sese Seko didn't like the election results and he cancelled the election results and we quit." Sese Seko became a dictator.

Other examples cited by MoveOn and other critics: Angolan rebel Jonas Savimbi and Ahmad Chalabi.

As Black points out, Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly -- now BKSH and Associates, is a bipartisan firm; it's CEO, R. Scott Pastrick, is a former treasurer of the Democratic National Committee and a supporter of Hillary Clinton's. (It's now owned by Burston Marsteller, which, of course, is run by Mark Penn.)

I asked Black about McCain's new conflict of interest policy.

" I think it's mostly a clarification. McCain has had pretty high standards, always. I don't know of anyone who worked on the campaign who would have gone and tried to lobby Mccain and his staff."

The campaign supports Mr. Black -- aides say that he's an integral part of the team and will not be going anywhere anytime soon.

And Black insists that his lobbying days are over. "I'm a retired lobbyist," he says.

Hillaryland: What The Heck Happened?

In a brilliant article, the New Republic's Michelle Cottle lets Hillaryland advisers, aides and adjuncts speak for themselves. Here are the insights I find to be most accurate or not so accurate.

"Devastating vulnerabilities such as Obama's associations with Wright and Ayers were not unearthed by the campaign's vaunted research team in time to be fully taken advantage of--despite being readily available in the public domain."

ME: This relates to the larger problem of not having taken Obama seriously and then, when the time came to take him seriously, being trapped in the wilderness of racial politics.

"Harold Ickes's encyclopedic understanding of the proportional delegate system was never operationalized into a field plan. The campaign inexplicably wrote off many states entirely, allowing Obama to create the lead of 100+ delegates that he has today. Most notably, we claimed the race would be over by February 5, but didn't devote any resources to the smaller states that day and in the weeks that followed, allowing Obama to easily run up margins and delegate counts on the cheap--the delegate margin he will win by."

ME: Ickes wrote memo after memo; none of them answered. And the Clintons, after Iowa (and Nevada) viscerally recoiled from caucuses. That Ickes does not regularly speak to the Clintons might have contributed to this problem.

"She never embraced the mantle from the beginning of being a different kind of candidate. Why did the campaign not do that? Because Mark Penn wanted to do it a different way. Read his book. He thought that you have a list of policy prescriptions. Voters are into that, and that's how you win. This came at the expense of--and it's a decision he really pushed for--saying to folks, 'Yes, she's a pretty inspiring figure herself.' ... There's no reason why she's not a change agent also. But once the CW is set, it just doesn't change."

ME: This one I kind of disagree with. In a race with Barack Obama, Clinton was never going to be seen as more of a change agent. And while Penn's strategy has been widely debated, criticized and caricatured, had other strategic decisions been amended, we would be writing about its success today.

"The Senator is as loyal as she is smart. And I think that removing Patti is where those two things came into conflict. She knew the right thing to do. At same time, she was very loyal to Patti, who had been very loyal to her."

ME: Excessive loyalty within the inner circle has been a trademarked Hillaryland problem ever since it became a trademarked asset. PSD, as she's known to her friends and others, made mistakes, as did Mark Penn and others. But the chain of cause of effect does not begin with personalities; it begins with persons and their reaction to events. If Clinton had contested the caucus states, she might be the nominee today. The decision not to contest the caucus states was made by the Clintons in response to Iowa and Nevada and a fairly prismed view of their role in the party.

"Mark Penn and Mandy Grunwald dismissed the possibility of youth turning out heavily in Iowa for Obama, saying on the record after the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, 'They don't look like caucus-goers.'"

ME: Everyone but the Obama campaign dismissed the possibility of a surge in voter turnout.

"Even among Clinton spokespeople long known for their heavy-handed ways, Phil Singer stood out for his all-too-common and accepted profanity-laced tirades and abusive behavior--both at colleagues and the media, who were all too happy to direct his comeuppance toward Hillary at a time she needed them most."

ME: Phil can be tough to deal with (and I've been on the receiving end of some of the profanity), but he is loyal to a fault, and the kind of guy you you'd want in the foxhole next to you. Most reporters who cover the Clinton campaign, if they had disputes with Phil or others, didn't train their sights on Clinton: they're adults. They just found someone else in the campaign to talk to.

The Full Rubin

Mmm. Rubin. But seriously: the RNC and the McCain campaign are distributing the full context clip of James Rubin interviewing John McCain. It seems that McCain, (like Obama, it must be said) would be disinclined to engage with Hamas unless certain conditions were met.

The White House Responds

Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesperson, responds to this post about Ed Gillespie's gaggle.

"You should read the rest of the gaggle. That wasn’t Ed’s point. He later explained that the language wasn’t geared toward any one person."

Stanzel points me to something Gillespie said a little later:

Q So when the question of a possible rebuke to Carter came up, was the language changed, what was the discussion, what was the analysis of what might be --

MR. GILLESPIE: The -- it was put in the context of a broader discussion of approach and policy, so that it would not be seen as a reference to any individual.

Here's the first part of the quote:

"We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words. ... There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. that was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it."

What do you think?

FEC Logjam Broken?

Mr. Von Spakovsky withdraws.

More NRA/McCain Notes

1. Jonathan Chait on what Barack Obama didn't say about six shooters.

2. And the folks at the Obama campaign research shop are sending this quote around:

McCain: “The NRA is entitled to their advocacy. I don’t think they help the Republican Party at all, but I don’t think they should in any way play a major role in the Republican Party’s policy making.” [CNN, 5/12/00]

3. And just in case you're wondering: the Secret Service did mag the auditorium where McCain spoke to the NRA. Guns were not allowed in.

An Alternate View On Obama And McCain

Since everyone (including me) is questioning what the Republican world (Bush, McCain, the RNC) was trying to do with yesterday's Appeasmentiana, I thought I'd pass along an alternative view from a well-connected Republican reader:

"Why is no one talking about the HUGE opportunity that Obama let pass him by? He could have publicly declined to comment on the President's comments citing the long standing custom of not criticizing a sitting president while abroad. He looks presidential and post-partisan. Then hold a presser in front of the gates of Andrews when the President arrives home. The second Air Force One touches down, unleash the attack. I thought he was supposed to be a new kind of politician, but he played right into the hands of McCain. Somewhere McCain is smiling about all the Jewish votes he just secured in Florida. This could not have been teed up more perfectly, yet Obama's camp found a way to slice it into the woods."

McCain, at NRA, Acknowledges Disagreement, But Speaks Of "Real Differences" With Democrats

I've read Sen. John McCain's speech to the NRA today so you don't have to.

Here's the meat:

Over the years, I haven't agreed with the NRA on every issue. I have supported efforts to have NICS background checks apply to gun sales at gun shows. I recognize that gun shows are enjoyed by millions of law-abiding Americans. I do not support efforts by those who seek to regulate them out of existence. But I believe an accurate, fair and instant background check at guns shows is a reasonable requirement. I also oppose efforts to require federal regulation of all private sales such as the transfer between a father and son or husband and wife. I supported campaign finance reform because I strongly believed our system of financing campaigns was influencing elected officials to put the interests of "soft money" donors ahead of the public interest. It is neither my purpose nor the purpose of the legislation to prevent gun owners or any other group of citizens from making their voices heard in the legislative process.

Here's the dessert:

It seems every election, politicians who support restrictions on the Second Amendment dress up in camouflage and pose with guns to demonstrate they care about hunters, even though few gun owners fall for such obvious political theater. After Senator Obama made his unfortunate comment that Pennsylvanians "cling to guns and religion" out of bitterness, Senator Clinton quickly affirmed her support for the Second Amendment. That drew Senator Obama's derision. "She's running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment," he said. "Like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, packin' a six shooter!" Someone should tell Senator Obama that ducks are usually hunted with shotguns.

Senator Obama hopes he can get away with having it both ways. He says he believes that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. But when he had a chance to weigh in on the most important Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court in decades, District of Columbia v. Heller, Senator Obama dodged the question by claiming, "I don't like taking a stand on pending cases." He refused to sign the amicus brief signed by a bipartisan group of 55 Senators arguing that the Supreme Court should overturn the DC gun ban in the Heller case. When he was running for the State Senate in Illinois, his campaign filled out a questionnaire asking whether he supported legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns with simple, "Yes."

And more:

Senator Obama would meet unconditionally with some of the world's worst dictators and state sponsors of terrorists. I would not add to the prestige of those who support violent extremists or seek to destroy our allies.

But I would like to close my remarks with an issue that I know is much on the mind of Americans -- the war in Iraq. Senator Obama has said, if elected, he will withdraw Americans from Iraq quickly no matter what the situation on the ground is and no matter what U.S. military commanders advise. But if we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the success of the surge, still exist, and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda. Civil war in Iraq could easily descend into genocide, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. A reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran will view it as a victory, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the Sta te of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly.

RNC Chair: Liberal Tagging's Still Our Strategy

Republican National Committee chairman Mike Duncan, speaking with my colleague Linda Douglass, hinted that the GOP hasn't given up on the strategy of tying Democratic congressional candidates to Barack Obama's liberal record. Speaking of Mississippi's first congressional district, Duncan says:

It was an interesting district, because the Democratic candidate ran away from Barack Obama. He denied that Barack Obama had actually endorsed him there, because the contrast is so sharp between the two parties and this fall, the congressional candidates aren't going to be able to run away from Obama, because he has a real liberal voting record.

Douglass: Well, you're talking about whether the Democrats are going to need to run away from Barack Obama, but some in your party have suggested that it would be wise if your candidates put some distance between themselves and President Bush, whose approval rating is so low. Should they?

Duncan: Well, Linda, every candidate has to run their own race. And when I took this job there weren't a lot of people wanting to be RNC chairman, and President Bush talked about the fact that the political spotlight would go off of him, and go onto the presumptive nominee, and that happened the first week of March. Elections are about the future, and this election, particularly, is about big ideas because it's what Sen. [John] McCain wants it to be about. And there will be some disagreements between the Republican candidates, and there is room for disagreement in the Republican Party, but we're moving the country forward.

We have a philosophy of lower taxes and less government, individual responsibility, strong national defense and a broad framework that allows us to have some disagreement but still offers a stark contrast with the Democrats. The Democrats are proposing the highest tax increase in history by not keeping the tax cuts that President Bush put into effect after 9/11 to help stimulate the economy. That's a real difference. They are also proposing a trillion dollars in new spending -- Sen. Obama has already. That's going to require higher taxes. This is a real election and very stark contrasts.

Mental Health Break

A trademarked feature of Andrew's blog, I know, but still:

A word about Andrew. Regardless of where you stand on same-sex marriage, regardless of how you feel about gay people, know that Andrew Sullivan is as responsible as anyone else, alive or dead, for the expansion of substantive and symbolic rights (and rites) that gay people now enjoy.

McCain, Obama, Clinton Will Speak To AIPAC Conference

AIPAC's annual convention is fast becoming Washington's top bipartisan gathering.

This year, from June 2-4, all three remaining presidential candidates -- Sens. Clinton, Obama and McCain - will speak, as will bold names names like Pelosi, Boehner and Reid, McConnell.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert speaks on Tuesday night.

An AIPAC spokesman expects 7,000 attendees.

(Take that, J Street....)

The McCain Campaign's Conflict Policy

The full policy follows:

From: Rick Davis

CC:

Date: May 15, 2008

Re: McCain Campaign Conflict Policy

MCCAIN CAMPAIGN POLICY

The Campaign policy with regard to lobbying by individuals affiliated with the Campaign is as follows:

Continue reading "The McCain Campaign's Conflict Policy" »

Rove Belittles Obama At NRA Convo

At the NRA convention in Kentucky this afternoon, Karl Rove portrayed Barack Obama as an effete, South Side liberal who claims he's immune to criticism and and who would confiscate guns by the barrel. The gun stuff is much less important than Rove's general line of argument; Rove has a direct line to McCain advisers Steve Schmidt and Charlie Black and has been pushing the campaign to make these sorts of contrasts.

Through a transcription provided by the wonderful Jamie Farnsworth of CBS News, it seems that Rove pulled the old anticipate-the-response card: "We know what he's going to say-- it's divisive, distractive, keeps us from coming together. After all, he says, we are the change we have been waiting for. what the heck does that mean?"

"Does it mean we've been keeping ourselves waiting? Why was change late anyway? I don't get it. let me tell you what's divisive. It is divisive to undermine the Second Amendment, to undermine to constitution of the United States."

More Rove: "It is divisive to say one thing and do another, to belittle the values of the people -- which is exactly what Obama was doing in San Francisco. Our answer is no we won’t."

Here's a shot:

"Let me tell you what's distracting -- it is distracting to say change when you have no experience of making real change. .... It is distracting to say that an American flag on a lapel is a substitute for patriotism ... then this week start showing up with an American flag on your lapel...."

The GOP Must Accessorize; Work It, Frank

CBS News's Brian Goldsmith elicited some interesting remarks from Frank Donatelli, the RNC deputy chairman, about the GOP brand:

CBSNews.com: Tom Cole, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, went beyond what you've said. He thinks the problem is more than the environment. He asked aloud whether something was wrong with the product after three special election losses in Republican districts. Do you think there's something wrong with the product as well as the environment?

Frank Donatelli: Well, I guess what I would say is that the successful Republicans this time are going to maybe take the basic brand and add their own mix to it. So I guess I would say yes. I mean, I don't think the generic brand will do it this time.

Sometimes the generic brand does it for Republicans or Democrats, based on the circumstances. But this time it's a very challenging environment and it's not enough just to kind of go down the litany of issues. I think you've got to be more creative. You've got to reach out. You've got to have some really strong issues, talking points of your own.

So, you know, it's kind of like we're a basic black dress. Sometimes it works. But sometimes you've gotta, you know, you’ve gotta have the accessories to go with it. And we need accessories this time.

CBSNews.com: This is the year to accessorize for Republicans.

Frank Donatelli: First time I've ever talked about shoes in an interview like this.

Obama Camp: White House Has Its Talking Points Confused

Though White House aide Ed Gillespie said the target, if there was a target, of President Bush's speech yestreday was Jimmy Carter, Obama spokesman Bill Burton passed along two "crystal clear examples" of the White House saying that the speech was intended to suggest, without naming, Barack Obama. The examples are laundered through the brains of two very well respected White House correspondents.

NBC (John Yang): Speaking on background, a senior administration official says the president's language to anyone -- the official specifically mentioned Obama and former President Jimmy Carter's suggestion that the U.S. talk to Hamas -- who has suggested engaging with rogue states or terrorist groups without first getting some leverage.

CNN (Ed Henry): While the words Barack Obama were never used White House aides privately admit the President referring not just to Barack Obama but other Democrats like Jimmy Carter, for example, who has recently suggested himself has sat down with Hamas leaders and has suggested that the U.S. government to should sit down with Hamas. So, the inference is clear. Although the President didn't name names, administration officials are privately acknowledging this was a shot at Barack Obama and other Democrats.

With respect: Gillespie and Dana Perino are ... contradicting the SAOs who briefed Ed Henry and John Yang. SAOs tend to be more forthcoming. Make of it what you will.

McCain Camp Calls Obama "Hysterical"

In re: Obama's comments in Watertown, here's the response from McCain campaign aide Tucker Bounds:

“It was remarkable to see Barack Obama’s hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn’t even mentioned. These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Senator Obama. Senator Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America’s enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Senator Obama talk about with such a man? It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Senator Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.”

Thought For A Friday

Didn't Democrats scoff when Howard Dean and the DNC put money into Mississippi?

Obama: Bush-McCain "Have a Lot To Answer For."

In Watertown South, Dakota, Sen. Barack Obama called President Bush's remarks "outrageous and appalling and divisive."

Well I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain – if they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that’s a debate I’m ready to win, because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.

He used the phrase "Bush and John McCain" about a dozen times, which speaks for itself. Obama came off as tough, pissed off, and in a fighting mood; the Goths are at the gate, and Obama's beating them back. That type of thing.

Well I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain – if they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that’s a debate I’m ready to win, because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.

"...in the Bush-McCain worldview, everyone who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is an appeaser. And back during his “No Surrender” tour, John McCain said anyone who wants to end the war in Iraq responsibly wants to surrender; he even said later on that he would be ok keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years, but yesterday he said our troops could be home by 2013. He offered the promise that America will win a victory, with no understanding that Iraq is fighting a civil war. Just like George Bush, his plan isn’t about winning, it’s about staying, and that’s why there will be a clear choice in November: fighting a war without end, or ending this war. Because we don’t need John McCain’s prediction about when the war will end – we need a plan to end it.

The general election, friends, is joined.

The White House Changes Targets

Ed Gillespie, gaggling to reporters today in Saudi Arabia, said that the White House really meant to Get Carter, not Obama:

"We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words. ... There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. that was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it."

500,000 African Americans In Georgia

Did you know that a half a million African Americans Georgia are eligible to vote but haven't registered? The Obama campaign knows this. And they plan to register these voters by November, campaign folks say.

The New York Times reports today on how his campaign has already increased turnout in the South among African Americans. As astounding as some of the numbers cited by the Times are, what the Obama campaign plans for the summer and fall are incredible, as in, barely credible, until you arrive at the conclusion that they've met most of their incredible goals (1.5 million donors) before.

And the Republicans are doing what, now?

Khaled Meshaal, The American President Is On Line Three

Jamie Rubin, writing in the Washington Post, detects a contradiction in the way Sen. John McCain prefers to relate to Hamas today. Here is McCain in 2006:

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

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

"Deal with them." To put it another way, it's in our national interest to cultivate a relationship with Hamas -- or it was, in 2006, before Barack Obama's foreign policy was received pleasantly by a Hamas spokesperson. There are two points here, easily tangled up in one another. One is whether the United States ought to reach out and establish contact with Hamas. On this the score is clear: McCain says yes and Obama says yes (but condicio sine qua non if they renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist, etc.) So we are not really discussing Hamas in the constricted geopolitical confines of greater Israel. What we're debating -- and where there is a difference -- is whether the United States should submit to the reality that Iran is a permanent, major political power in the region, one emboldened, as Obama might argue, by the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and a force that is better reconciled with than ignored (through strength.) This second point relates to the reason why Hamas "endorsed" Obama in the first place: his identification with an approach to the world that is not arrogant or colonial.

("We don’t mind — actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance.”)

Why would the Hamas spokesperson say this? We're taught never to take the word of terrorists at face value, so let's assume that there's an ulterior motive at work. Does Hamas want the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq? Tricky: though a Sunni group, Hamas receives advise and counsel and financial support from Iran; a precipitous U.S. draw down might lead to a massacre of Sunnis; Saudi Arabia and Iran would fight a proxy war; Hamas would be caught in the middle. Etc. The answer is fairly simple: an Obama administration would talk with Iran (and by the umbrella property), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Hamas patron -- and a McCain administration would not. I also suspect that Hamas, like many Republicans, believes that a Democratic administration would push Israel to bargain, hard, with Hamas in a way that the previous administration resolutely refuses to do. To preserve the standard of intellectual honesty, for starters, McCain needs to explain the difference between Hamas and Iran and why he is open to accepting the legitimacy of the one, but not the other; or he must explain why he did not say what it appears he had said; Obama must contend with a terrorist organization that is content to use his name, his party, and his approach to the world as a propaganda tool, one that the McCain campaign is eager to exploit and believes that it is their duty to point out.

Obama Today Will Take On Bush's Comments

Expect, as they say in the trades, some new language today from Sen. Barack Obama on President Bush's having equated him with Neville Chamberlain.

What Happened To McCain Yesterday

I've tried to understand, from the perspective of the McCain campaign, what yesterday was all about.

McCain spent the week putting distance between himself and President Bush.

On the day McCain gives a speech that breaks with many traditions and habits of the Bush Administration; On the day McCain preaches post-partisanship,

He ties himself very tightly to the President on a central and disputed element of Bush's foreign policy vision;

He allows -- or his campaign allowed -- the White House to step on his message.

Did the White House coordinate this day with the McCain campaign? Everyone would assume that they did. Did they?

McCain Campaign To Re-Vet Entire Staff

After a series of disclosures forced the resignation of two McCain campaign aides with ties to unsavory regimes, the campaign has decided to scrutinize the background of the entire staff to ferret out connections to lobbyists.

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

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

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

Employees who lie about their affiliations will be fired. The new conflicts policy prohibits campaign staffers from being "registered lobbyist or foreign agent, or receive compensation for any such activity."

It's not clear whether Davis plans to terminate employees who have lobbied for unsavory characters or corporations or governments. The memo says that those who have lobbied before or who have represented foreign governments can't participate on campaign policy task forces for the subjects they registered to lobby on, and they're "prohibited from lobbying Senator McCain or his Senate personal office or committee staffs during the period they are volunteering for the campaign." Staffers who currently lobby will be forced to terminate their lobbying status.

A final question asks:

Please list any other potential conflict of interest (whether lobbying related or not) that you think the Campaign should be aware of. It is important for the Campaign to know at the outset of any controversial clients you or your former employers have represented to avoid future embarrassment to you or the Campaign:

A McCain spokesperson confirmed the authenticity of the memo but declined further comment.

The Politico reported this evening that Craig Shirley, an outside, unpaid campaign adviser, will no longer advise McCain because he also works for an anti-Obama 527 organization.

In the wake of last weekend's disclosure that McCain's convention CEO and one of his regional campaign managers lobbied for the Myanmar Junta in 2003, McCain promised to reporters that he would better vet his campaign staff.

But sympathetic critics -- including some within the campaign -- worry that the damage to McCain's brand has already set in, and have, for months, urged senior campaign officials to screen their staff.

That the campaign waited until now to ask these questions of staff suggests that no one at a senior enough level saw the presence of many former lobbyists as a problem. Davis and senior strategist Charlie Black are both former lobbyists.

Black resigned from his firm in April; his long list of clients have attracted the attention of Democrats who've accused him of representing would-be dictators and malevolent regimes.

The Obama campaign has had a similar conflict of interest policy since the campaign began last year and has required prospective employees to list potential conflicts.

McCain's Response To California Decision

From the campaign:

“John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.”

Not so much a comment on the decision as it is a statement of principles.

Obama And The Vice Presidential Search Process

Here's what I know: the campaign has taken a collective vow of omerta when it comes to answering questions about the process. I know that, when I've asked senior officials whether James Johnson, a major Obama fundraiser/superdelegate wrangler/Washington hand/Kerry veepstakes vetter has been tapped to run Obama's search, communication abruptly stops, as though I've mentioned "Skull and Bones" in the presence of a member. I know that Barack Obama regularly says that he won't begin to think about veepstakes until after voting ends on June 4, so I suspect that, if Johnson, or Valerie Jarrett, or anyone else, has been asked to help Obama, it won't happen until after that.

Here's what else I suspect: that Obama will wind up vetting more candidates than one might suspect; that the vetting will be extremely thorough and private; that several women will be vetted NOT as tokens but as actual potential choices; that Hillary Clinton WILL be asked to submit the vetting documents IF she signals that she wants to be considered; that Obama DOES NOT have a frontrunner in mind; that the campaign, even if it uses another vetter, will seek to emulate the Kerry/Johnson process; that Obama, or his campaign manager, has asked senior staff to say not word one about the process, ever, thus accounting for the reticence of his press staff even to joke about it.

Here's what I don't know: whether, at some point, the campaign will release a short list to publicly test names -- a la Gore in 2000; I don't know which pollster(s) will be dedicated to the outfit. (Kerry polled some potential choices in 2004); I don't know whether Tom Daschle wants to be vice president or merely chief of staff or just Tom Daschle; I don't know whether Obama will consider vetting a Republican.

Reid: McCain Lacks "Temperament" To Be Prez

Appearing tonight on Jon Ralston's Face to Face show in Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tells Ralston that "John McCain does not have the temperament to be president."

Ralston provided no other details in his teaser sent to reporters....

The Daily Four: My Way, or The Highway

1. Barack Obama further consolidates control within his campaign; per Ben Smith, his national finance chair is urging major donors not to contribute money to outside 527s; the good: one message is easier to control. the bad: if David Axelrod and David Plouffe are wrong about the message, then Democrats are in trouble.

2. The American Leadership Project -- a pro-Clinton 527 -- is airing this positive ad in Oregon on Clinton's behalf.

3. In the New York Times Magazine, Matt Bai has a timely, 8000 word exposition about John McCain's foreign policy doctrine. Here's the best part:

I ARRANGED TO TALK with McCain during the last week of April, before a fund-raising event at the Grand Hyatt hotel in Tampa. When he strode, an hour late, into the conference room his campaign had reserved, his gait was rushed and purposeful and his manner decidedly businesslike. Having survived the sadism of the Vietcong and, more recently, skin cancer, McCain these days shows the wear of his 71 years. His face is more topographically interesting than it was when he first ran for president eight years ago, the skin folding into small craters and valleys as it runs into his neckline. His eyes look warier and less mischievous than they did back then. You can imagine, looking at him, how McCain spent much of these last few years: beseeching and indulging Republican power brokers, many of whom he does not like, all the while tolerating their lectures, bridling his infamous temper, keeping the irritation pent up. Perhaps repression exacts its cost.

Sitting down at the end of a long granite table, he greeted me warmly, and then, before I could ask a question or even introduce the subject at hand, he dove headlong into a five-minute soliloquy. He told me that he had just driven in from the airport on Eisenhower Boulevard, and that Eisenhower was a man he very much admired, because Eisenhower understood the costs of war and strove to keep America out of it. He then made reference to a “rather hysterical” column by Fareed Zakaria in that morning’s Washington Post about McCain’s views on foreign policy. His voice was tight and measured.

“I’ve seen other stories and I’ve seen comments about my national-security speech,” McCain said, referring to an address he gave in Los Angeles a few weeks earlier. “The story line is as follows: ‘McCain’s not the same McCain. He’s changed, and now he’s become a hawk, and he is dramatically different from what he was.’ ” He recited this narrative as if repeating the nonsensical words of dullards. “And anybody is free to write whatever they want and form whatever opinions they want to form. But facts are facts. And the fact is that I know war, and I know the tragedy of war. And no one hates war more than veterans.”

From here, McCain went on to list for me some of the military actions he supported (Grenada, Panama) and some that he opposed (Beirut, Somalia). He had always followed the same set of values, he said, grounded in the premise that all people, not just Americans, were created equal and had inalienable rights. And when America could intervene militarily to further those values around the world without needless sacrifice in lives and money, he was all for it, and where we couldn’t, he was not, and there was nothing extreme about that.

“As far as people who advise me,” McCain went on, though I still hadn’t asked a question, “probably one of my most trusted advisers for the last 30 years is Henry Kissinger, not known as a hawk or a neocon.” McCain infused the word with sarcasm. “I also remember the days when Ronald Reagan was portrayed as a hawk and a neocon. I remember the near hysteria in response to his ‘tear down this wall.’ I remember the ‘Oh, you can’t do that, when you call the Soviets an evil empire.’ I remember all those things. Same people who are now saying — ” He stopped himself midsentence, then began again. “I’m always open to new ideas and new thoughts, but my principles were grounded many years ago in places like the National War College and other places where I have learned and studied and talked to people I admire and respect.

“So,” McCain said finally, “with that preface, I’d be glad to answer any questions you might have, and again, it’s always good to be with you.”

4. Steve Rosenthal, a top Democratic operative and one of the brains behind the Atlas Project, has produced a new web video about Sen. John McCain's lack of youthfulness.

SuperD Watch: Obama + 4

Rep. Jim McDermott (WA), Reps. Henry Waxman and Howard Berman (CA) and heretofore neutral CWA President Larry Cohen (DC). Also: Obama picked up one of John Edwards's pledged delegates.

Schwarzenegger's Response

Per Wilshire and Washington:

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

Still waiting for word from the McCain campaign...

CA Judges Not Unelected

Reader J.B. writes:

One problem with Rep. Blunt's ignorant statement condemning the California Supreme Court ruling is his reference to the justices as "unelected judges." Justices of the California Supreme Court are appointed by the governor, but unlike U.S. Supreme Court justices, serve specific terms, and must be confirmed by the voters in order to retain their positions. All seven members of the California court have been confirmed by the voters. Kennard -- confirmed 2006 with 74.5% Corrigan -- confirmed 2006 with 74.4% Werdegar -- confirmed 2002 with 74.1% Moreno -- confirmed 2002 with 72.6% Baxter -- confirmed 2002 with 71.5% George -- confirmed 1998 with 75.5% Chin -- confirmed 1998 with 69.3%

Scary Gay People Meme Watch

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL):

"The California Supreme Court today effectively thwarted the will of the people by overturning a voter-approved gay marriage ban. I'm appalled that unelected judges have irresponsibly decided to legislate from the bench and overturn the will of the people

"Florida's hardworking families should know that I will continue to fight to prevent San Francisco taxes and values from infiltrating our community," said Feeney.

The first paragraph is fine (inaccurate vis-a-vis unelected judges, but certainly a reasonable statement from someone who opposes same-sex marriage.)

The second paragraph is coded gay-baiting... right?

Politics: Did The White House Step On McCain's Speech?

Maybe they did. John McCain's speech today was billed by his campaign as one of his most important to date and a summary of sorts of the past two months of policy addresses and promises. In it, McCain said that he hoped most American troops would be home by 2013 -- a new time frame for him.

PRESIDENT BUSH's decision to label Barack Obama as an appeaser has had three effects. Obviously, it made them angry. Less obviously, it made many of them defensive, which is precisely what the White House has in mind. McCain piled on:

“I think Barack Obama needs to sit down and explain why he wants to talk with the man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terror. I will make this issue with Sen. Obama throughout this campaign, I believe in peace through strength and peace through strength is the way that we have succeeded in the past.”

McCain likes that talking point. But his speech has been entirely obscured by President Bush's. No one from the McCain campaign will say whether the White House tipped them off about the speech, and no one will say whether they protested -- or, indeed, have any power to protest. If I could magically summon a few day's worth of White House phone longs, I'd bet we'd find a few telephone calls between Ed Gillespie and Charlie Black and/or Steve Schmidt. They talk regularly. If the campaign was in cahoots with the White House, then it means that they're perfectly willing to let the White House play the role of stun-gunner; it means that the White House is perfectly willing to drop to that level. But President Bush? Outside of a dedicated decimal of the Republican base that is already, if polls are correct, committed to McCain, Bush has no political standing from which to make such charges. They aren't -- and I'm talking perception here -- credible.

THAT SAID, what the President has access to, and what John McCain does not, is Teddy Roosevelt's bully pulpit, stress on bully. That stage is only effective in advancing legislation for about the first 100 days of a presidency. After that, it becomes a way for the President to sharply focus the mind of the nation, instantly. And Bush has done that, today, on McCain's behalf. I ask because I don't quite remember: Did President Clinton do this in 2000? President Reagan in 1988?

ISRAEL is an extremely sensitive issue for the Obama campaign, and so the fact that President Bush chose an address at the Kenesset to force-feed his ill will probably extended a few staff meetings in Chicago today. Obama is resting at home with his family. It's a sign of the Obama campaign's maturity that they did not march Obama out to respond to Bush -- that would have been, by one measure, aggressive -- but then, the White House and the McCain campaign were kind of expecting to draw Obama into a debate about Hamas and Iran. Didn't happen. Obama's campaign issued two statements and left the rest of the response to others in the Democratic Party, like Joe Biden, who have immediate standing and skin in the game.

Bob Barr Supports California Supreme Court Decision On Marriage

Yes he does - and he's the the guy who wrote DOMA.

"Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.

"Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states' powers should work."

Veepwatch: Biden Blasts Bush

Sen. Joe Biden is very much asserting himself these days. Yesterday, he laid out a comprehensive plan to solve the global food crisis. Today, he took the lead in responding to President Bush's attack on his party's presumptive nominee.

“This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset and make this kind of ridiculous statement.” “The President’s saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders and spurs instability in the Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right into Tehran’s pockets. “The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on isolation and tension is an America ready, willing and able to engage. And by the way, since when has talking removed the word “no” from our vocabulary? It’s amazing how little faith this administration has in the power of America’s ideas and ideals."

A lot of Democrats responded to President Bush today, but only of them called it "bullshit," and that's the soundbite that will endure.

On Same-Sex Marriage Decision, Little Blowback

It took four votes for the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage; gay couples can now get civil marriage licenses, starting now. Predictably, social conservatives are upset. The Family Research Council called the decision "outrageous" and urged Californians to pass a constitutional amendment banning it.

What's interesting is that the lack of a response from any institutional Republican organizations. Nothing from the Republican National Committee or congressional leaders or from the California Republican Party or the McCain campaign. No blowback. McCain opposes a Federal Marriage Amendment to the constitution and reportedly does not want to campaign in a way that musters up fears of the "gay agenda."

Oops: Spoke too soon: Here's a statement from Rep. Roy Blunt, the House's number two Republican, who insults the entire state of California in the process:

“Today, the decision of unelected judges to overturn the will of the people of California on the question of same-sex marriage demonstrates the lengths that unelected judges will go to substitute their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people. The Supreme Court of California chose today to legislate from the bench without any concern or deference for the democratic process.

“This ruling effectively opens the door to allowing the opinion of this state’s court on same-sex marriage to stand as the law of the land for the entire country. These California values are not the values of the majority of the American people – and the manner in which this decision was rendered is not consistent with the values of a democratic society.”

RNC's Web Ad: "2013"

Re: McCain World, circa 2013. Personally, I like the graphics.

Bush's Attack On Obama

The White House insists that the following from President Bush at the Knesset in Israel this morning was not meant to be an attack on Barack Obama but instead a message aimed at any one of a number of Democrats:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Some people suggest that if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of our enemies, and America rejects it utterly. Israel’s population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because America stands with you.

The Obama campaign saw otherwise:

“It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power - including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

(1) Bush knew was what he saying -- of course the first paragraph was aimed at Obama
(2) The Obama campaign is very, very touchy about anything related to Israel

An Obama Internet Presidency

From June's Atlantic:

If Obama wins, and if he can harness the Web as a unifying force once the voting is done, he could be a powerful president indeed—the kind that might even deliver on some of the audacious promises that Obama the candidate has made. But the Web, like the politics it seeks to transform, is unruly and fickle. The online networks that have turbocharged Obama’s candidacy could end up hemming him in, and even stalling his agenda, as president.

Read the whole article here.

McCain Hopes Majority Of US Troops Are Out Of Iraq By 2013

That's the headline from Sen. McCain's speech today in Columbus, Ohio on his governing style. Call it McCain's FutureWorld: from the excerpts provided to reporters, the speech appears to be a sketch of the hopeful, much-improved condition of the United States as seen from 2013, when McCain begins his second term. (Or Presidents Pawlenty or Clinton begin their first term.)

Attention will be paid to McCain's vision for Iraq.

By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.

You can read the excerpts after the jump, but check out this paragraph full of meaty McCain promises:

If I am elected President, I will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. I will listen to any idea that is offered in good faith and intended to help solve our problems, not make them worse. I will seek the counsel of members of Congress from both parties in forming government policy before I ask them to support it. I will ask Democrats to serve in my administration. My administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability. I will hold weekly press conferences. I will regularly brief the American people on the progress our policies have made and the setbacks we have encountered. When we make errors, I will confess them readily, and explain what we intend to do to correct them. I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the Prime Minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons.

Continue reading "McCain Hopes Majority Of US Troops Are Out Of Iraq By 2013" »

RNC: Obama's Underperforming

Responding to the Democratic National Committee's scene-setting memo from today, the Republican National Committee sends along this rebuttal.

Memorandum

To: Interested Parties

From: RNC Communications

Date: May 14, 2008

Today, the DNC released a memo attacking Senator John McCain, which is a clear attempt to divert attention away from their own weaknesses as a committee. In point of fact, John McCain has consolidated his position as the Republican nominee and made great strides in bringing independents and disaffected Democrats into his coalition.

Party Unity

One thing is clear in the Democratic primary process – Democrats themselves are deeply divided over whether Barack Obama should be their nominee. Obama has consistently failed to connect with key constituencies vital to the Democratic primary electorate. Union, rural, Catholic, and senior voters have time and time again voted against Obama when given the opportunity. These voters are not only important to Obama in the primary – they are necessary for any Democrat to be successful in the general election.

Obama losses among key groups of Democratic primary voters:

Whether Senator Clinton or Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, either will be faced with the reality that over 16 million Democratic primary participants cast their votes against them. Bridging this fissure within the Democratic Party will be no easy task.

Republicans, on the other hand, are solidly behind Senator John McCain. In most recent polling – including that from Bloomberg/LA Times below – Senator McCain commands a far greater share of his Party’s support than either Obama or Clinton.

Crossover and Independent Appeal

Even more telling is the depth of support that Senator McCain has received from independents and Democrats. Among independent voters, most polling shows Senator McCain running equal to or ahead of Barack Obama – even while independent voters are said to be the strength of Obama’s coalition.

Additionally, the April 28 NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey shows Senator McCain with a 46%-35% lead among Independent voters

Democratic voters are also crossing over to support John McCain by a 2:1 margin. In the same Bloomberg/LA Times poll, 15% of Democrats are leaving Obama to vote for Senator McCain, while less than half of that number of Republicans support Obama.

Momentum

At a time when John McCain is engaging all Americans on the issues that are important to them, Barack Obama is stuck in a primary process that has handed him defeats in nearly all of his recent contests. Just last night, West Virginia voters showed their preference for Senator Clinton by a margin of over 40 points. This was Obama’s worst defeat of the campaign.

Since his high-water mark in February, Obama has lost the key, high-profile contests in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. In the latter two contests, his comments to San Francisco liberals behind closed doors that small town voters cling to guns and religion out of economic distress clearly drove away in scores the key voters with which he struggles.

More troublesome to Democrats should be the fact that Obama has been unable to win the key swing states that will determine the outcome of the general election. In addition to his recent losses in the key battlegrounds of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, he also lost the key swing states of Arizona and New Hampshire and failed to even compete in Florida and Michigan.

Senator McCain, on the other hand, is consistently competitive against either potential Democratic nominee. This is most impressive against the backdrop of the overwhelming advantage in paid and earned media that the Democrats currently enjoy. The Democrat field has outspent the Republican field by over 30:1 on television since the February 5 contests (and this is money which cannot be recovered). Additionally, according to the most recent data from Pew’s Project for Excellence in Journalism News Coverage Index, Senators Clinton and Obama have been the “main newsmaker” or have received “significant presence” in 70% and 67%, respectively, of all news stories about the election.

The Party

The significant financial advantage of the RNC over the DNC also warrants mention. March 31 FEC reports show that RNC has raised over twice as much as the DNC in the first three months of 2008, and currently enjoys a 6:1 advantage in cash on hand. April numbers will be more impressive still, and the McCain campaign, with the RNC, will have more than enough resources to fund all of the programs needed for victory. In addition to fundraising, the vital organizing already has been done in the key swing states, and paid staff is already on the ground managing our voter identification and registration programs.

And while Barack Obama is still campaigning in the primary, Senator McCain continues to travel across the country to events and town halls, reaching voters that candidates from both parties have overlooked in the past. He has delivered major policy addresses on the issues that concern Americans – the economy, housing, health care, and the environment. His record of finding real solutions to difficult problems is long and clear, and his message in recent weeks underscores his commitment.

At this stage in the election, the DNC might consider addressing its own problems rather than manufacturing problems to assign to others.

Obama's Sorry For "Sweetie"

Hear his voice mail apology to reporter Debbie Agar.

Update: Jo Ann Davidson, the co-chair of the RNC, reacts:

“Women have come too far in this country to have a presidential candidate refer to them as ‘sweetie’ while they are working and carrying their professional responsibilities. Barack Obama’s comment is another example of his poor judgment and further proof of how out of touch he really is.”

The Big Show

Edwards:

The reason I am here tonight is that Democratic voters in America have made their choice and so have I. There is one man who knows in his heart that it is time to tear down that wall and make one America, Barack Obama.”

"Join me in sending Barack Obama to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue..."

1. 19 delegates added to Obama's column.

2. West Virginia? It wipes the story off the media rundowns.

3. The message to superdelegates: Edwards was content to let the race play out. Now, he's not. He wants this over. And you should too.

4. Edwards is identified within the party as the anti-poverty crusader, as the son of a mill-worker, as a friend of the forgotten white working class.

5. Edwards worried that Obama wasn't ready to be commander in chief; that he's found a reason to temper those concerns is a hint that others should do the same.

6. Michigan, Michigan, Michigan. Front page headlines, rapturous stories.

7. Obama seems happy -- really, genuinely happy.

On the other hand:

8. On any other day, NARAL's endorsement would be huge news. (So NARAL might have picked a better day to endorse Obama.)

9. Elizabeth Edwards has not endorsed yet. She is, in many ways, the party's voice on health care reform. She's not completely satisfied with where Obama is on the issue.

Tomorrow's Debate Today: Same-Sex Marriage In California

The State Supreme Court decision comes down at 10 am PT (1pm ET), and the pro-gay marriage side is very hopeful that they'll be victorious. The court's ruling will determine whether the state's voter initiated ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. If it is, California could be the second state in the union to legalize gay marriage. John McCain, as you'll recall, opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment on federalism grounds but has hinted that he might change his mind if state courts start overturning people-initiated decisions on gay rights. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed same-sex marriage legislation because he wanted to defer to the court's ruling; he has since told a gay rights group that he opposes a ballot measure that would ban gay marriage. Six of the seven justices were appointed by Republicans.

Some gay rights activists are worried about a ruling in favor of gay marriage because they fear the potential political backlash -- locally and nationally -- that would result. And California has a very strong civil unions law, which gives gay people virtually every state-granted right that married couples have access to. What the court is really dealing with here is whether whether the deprivation of the word "marriage" is in and of itself a constitutional harm.

Yup, It's Edwards

It's him. He's the endorsement. He didn't give the Clinton campaign a heads up -- correction, yes he did -- and most of his senior campaign staff were caught unawares.

Hints, Hints, Hints

I don't know if John Edwards is endorsing Barack Obama today.

Here are some hints, though.

So who's staffing Edwards today? A hint: this is Jennifer Palmieri's out-of-office message...

I will be out of the office on Wednesday, May 14. But will be checking messages intermittently. If you need assistance in the meantime, please contact [REDACTED] at [REDACTED].org for assistance.

Ms. Palmieri is a family favorite and has been called upon to staff the Edwards family at sensitive events before.

What's Wendy Button, Edwards's longtime speechwriter, been doing lately? I hear she's been writing a secret speech... (Her facebook profile includes this entry for 3pm: "Wendy just finished writing the speech.")

How come Edwards's brain trust -- all of them -- are unreachable?

Who's on this flight?

NARAL PCA Members Outraged At Obama Endorsement

From their own members and readers of their blog. Try to find more than a handful of comments to their PAC endorsement post that aren't angry...

(Note: some of the swarm appears to be directed...)

N, Miller: "I have never been so disgusted. How dare you claim to represent pro-choice women and then turn your back on one of the most influential women's right advocates in recent history?"

Shameful: "I am insulted, as all pro-choice Democratic women should be, that Naral would endorse Senator Obama."

Jon: "You could have waited until after the Oregon primary."

Alyssa: "NARAL has completely lost my support."

Mare: "Et tu Brute!"

The anger is focused at NARAL for now, and these women would probably never vote for John McCain, but Barack Obama _does_ need them to vote, and should he win the nomination, he will have to work to integrate them into his coalition. Hillary Clinton's exit, if it comes, must be treated carefully.

Judge Kicks The Can Down The Road

A federal judge ruled today that the DNC acted prematurely in seeking the court's intervention in a regulatory dispute with the Federal Election Commission. The DNC wants the FEC to consider whether John McCain illegally withdrew from the primary matching fund system after reaping some of its benefits. The DNC argued that the FEC wasn't operating; the court said, in essence, that the DNC had to give the FEC 120 days to respond, by statute, before it could take the matter to federal court.

“John McCain still thinks the rules apply to everyone but him. Unless there is a serious and timely investigation underway by the FEC, we will be back in court in the end of June to hold McCain accountable for breaking the law," says Stacie Paxton, the DNC's spokesperson.

SuperD Watch: Oklahoma's State Senate President Pro Tempore

He's a superdelegate, and he's endorsed Barack Obama.

The Map: Watching Florida

Both the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign believe that Sen. McCain has an edge in Florida heading into November, although the Obama folks will definitely contest the state as if it were a swing state. Let's dig a little bit into some of the latest numbers to see whether fortunes are shifting.

In the latest Quinnipiac poll (released May 1), Obama beats McCain 47-43 in North Florida and 51-36 in Southeast Florida. They're neck and neck in normally conservative Southwest Florida, 42-44. However, McCain leads in Tampa Bay and Central Florida, 50-34 and 48-38 respectively. Overall, the poll only has McCain up 44-43 over Obama in Florida, and it's important to note that in this same poll, McCain is getting the votes of 36% of Clinton supporters -- a number that will obviously decrease with time -- although how drastically, we do not know.

REPUBLICANS ARE 89-7 for McCain while Democrats are 69-19 for Obama. Among independents, Obama is only down 38-42 -- despite essentially never having campaigned here. Only 83% of blacks are committed to Obama in Florida, versus 95% in Pennsylvania. That will change, too. These numbers (excluding the regional ones) are strikingly similar to the poll's finding in Ohio. And only 29% of Clinton supporters say they are voting for McCain there, 16% of Dems overall.

In many parts of Florida, the economy is in the tank. The state has the second highest foreclosure rate in the country, and ghost towns -- ok, ghost gated communities -- are popping up. Consumer confidence is at its lowest point in 16 years -- and George W. Bush has a 24% favorability rating. (He was over 45% in 2006.)

So Obama has an opening here.

EMILY's List Hits Back At NARAL

For the Obama endorsement. Here's a statement by EMILY's List president Ellen Malcolm:

“I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton - who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade - to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.”

Pro-lifers are going to have a lot of fun with this one...

Obama Appears To Call Reporter "Sweetie"

An unusual video clip from Sen. Barack Obama's tour of the Chrysler Stamping Plant in Sterling Heights, MI today.

A reporter tries to question Obama about helping automakers.

"Hold on one second there, sweetie," he says.

The reporter's tag line: "This sweetie never did get an answer to that question."

Obama Campaign Touts Big Endorsement

A big national endorsement that Obama will unveil at 7pm ET tonight.... a conspicuous Clinton deserter, perhaps? I don't know. (Mark Halperin implies it's John Edwards.)

California Gay Marriage Decision

Tomorrow, it drops at 10:00 am PT (1pm ET).

The NRA's New Friend

Having followed the National Rifle Association's relationship with Sen. John McCain for years, it is mildly amusing and not at all surprising to watch as the NRA leadership embraces Sen. McCain. Perhaps embrace isn't the right word -- it's more of that scrunched fingered-chest-butted out hug that you reserve for a cooky, spooky aunt or uncle. Or -- this type of hug.

Today, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told the AP, ""We've had our disagreements, everybody knows it. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on those. We're not foolish enough to ignore the vast areas of agreement in which John McCain has been a friend to gun owners."

Not just disagreement. Here's how the NRA's in-house magazine characterized John McCain in 2001:

The same article noted that McCain was the poster boy for Americans for Gun Safety, a centrist group set up in part to oppose NRA's political dominance and a group the NRA dismissed as a sham front for pro-gun-control types. They also cited his support for closing the "gun show loophole" and his crusade for campaign finance reform. A year later, the NRA folks morphed McCain's face into Joe Lieberman's -- quite unflatteringly.

Well -- McCain supports closing the gun show loophole and still embraces his campaign finance reform legislation. But the NRA's dislike has considerably diminished, a consequence of choosing the lesser of two evils (which the NRA, in the past, has not done in the presidential race) and McCain's impending nomination. (The NRA has maintained that it is not a winky-wing subsidiary of the Republican Party despite all appearances to the contrary).

Reality Principle Watch: NARAL Endorses Obama; Clinton Endures

The AP reports, and I can confirm, that NARAL Pro-Choice America has endorsed Barack Obama.

NARAL president Nancy Keenan said in a statement: "Today, we are proud to put our organization's grassroots and political support behind the pro-choice candidate whom we believe will secure the Democratic nomination and advance to the general election. That candidate is Senator Obama."

Clinton's high command is hosting a conference call right now. Terry McAullife, the chairman of the campaign, has a new talking point. It's "Hillary Clinton has now moved ahead in the popular vote." (He requires Florida and Michigan to make this claim) -- but Clinton's margin in West Virginia -- more than 147,000 votes, was quite helpful. Wolfson, anticipating the May 31 DNC meeting, said that "[w]e will continue to argue that Florida and Michigan will be seated 100 percent." (The DNC's rules and bylaws committee, under this scenario, would have to agree to stand down completely and render itself neutered for future election cycles.)

CBS's Jim Axelrod asked about the Clinton campaign's new total delegate universe -- 2210 -- which includes the full Florida and Michigan delegations. "What has changed, aside from Sen. Obama getting closer 2025?" Axelrod asked. Responded Howard Wolfson: "I think there was every expectation that we would not have a significant outpouring of support for the Democratic primaries in Florida and Michigan. " Wolfson said that the campaign used the new number only after challenges were filed with the rules and bylaws committee. "If you want to get into the philosophy, rather than the number, we have been consistent in saying that Florida and Michigan ought to be seated."

NB: Gov. Ed Rendell still supports Hillary but very much will push for the unity ticket.

Cole's Advice: Embrace McCain

Rep. Tom Cole, the Republican's House campaign chief, opened a telephone briefing today with the sly suggeston that it was his most well-attended press conference, ever. The intense interest reflects a fascination with failure -- three losses in a row, in formerly Republican seats in Lousianna, Illinois and last night in Mississippi. "When you lose three of these in a row, you have to get beyond campaign tactics and take a long hard look -- is there something wrong with your product?" he asked. His RX: look to the example of McCain, who Cole said was "terrific", is "running on change," and who, he noted, is running stronger in many Republican districts than House candidates are. "He's established his own unique brand as a candidate. I think Republicans ought to remember this." On policy, Cole said that the Democrats who won were masquarading as conservatives and that voters didn't trust Republicans to make the distinction. he blamed the presidential race for obscuring the contours of the debate. "Once we're down to a one-on-one competition, those debate lines clarify," he said. Cole said that comparing Democratic candidates to Barack Obama remains "a useful tool." But "is that a substitute for an agenda? No."

Automatic Delegate Watch

Hillary Clinton picks one up in Tennessee -- an unpledged add-on.

The Republican Loss In Mississippi

On MSNBC last night, Chris Matthews said that the Republican's loss in MS-01 would be "like the Democrats losing in Brooklyn."

That's an exaggeration -- Kings County went for Kerry by 50.6% in 2004, whereas according to news coverage, MS-01 only went for Bush by 25%.

What it is similar to is the margin by which Kerry beat Bush in Los Angeles County -- 27.6%.

Can you imagine the meltdown if (in some hypothetical countywide election) L.A. County had just gone Republican by 8 points?

Good Timing For Jim Webb

How 'bout that? Sen. Jim Webb's new book will be released on May 15, just as reporters like me start to speculate about his chances of becoming Sen. Barack Obama's vice presidential nominee.

"A Time To Fight: Reclaiming a Just And Fair America" is Webb's most explicitly political to date, and it takes some potshots at the Democratic establishment. (Newsy!) Webb writes about martial values and military service, but his main subject is what he terms the "forgotten" working class. He blends history and contemporary observations and sketches out the policies that would work toward the end of reclaiming America for average joes and janes. The timing, again, is impeccable: right when Obama is starting to look around, ah, here's a guy who can go toe-to-toe with John McCain on national security, is beloved by white working class voters, puts Virginia into play instantly, and has a charming way with the media.

Obama's Vice Presidential Choice

Local GOP's Obama Bracketing

As Barack Obama visits Michigan today, the Kent County GOP is releasing this "ad" (a video, until I see details of the ad buy) that paints him as a white-flag-waiving elitist.

As an American flag slowly dissolves into a white flag, the narrator intones that "Barack Obama believes that those of us from small towns in the midwest "get bitter and cling to guns and religion..." "He will compromise America's strength, mission and integrity."

Superdelegate Spigot Still Open

Four new superdelegate endorsements for Sen. Barack Obama today: the chair and vice chair of the College Democrats of America, the chair of Democrats Abroad, and Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN).

Sen. Clinton meets with undecided superdelegates at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee today and meets with her national finance team after that.

The Sophisticates: I Told You So?

A reader writes:

You know, I know that educated coastal liberals are not supposed to condescend to "working-class Americans" and I have been very critical of condescension I have perceived at [an Ivy League School], in [Northeastern city] etc. against the military, Republicans, Christians, etc. That said, in reading today's Washington Post article about racism against Obama, and reading all the man-on-the-street interviews with West Virginia racists, I am sort of exasperated, to put it mildly.

Did race drive yesterday's vote in West Virginia?

What do you think?

Obama Will Pick Up Several More Super-Ds Today

You know, before this race, "Super-D" referred to Dave Osborne....

Also: Obama will NOT release his April fundraising today despite what MSNBC reported last night.

DNC Memo: McCain's Failing

Here's a preview of a new DNC memo out tomorrow with the goal of persuading reporters to ask whether John McCain is failing to connect with voters and is losing ground.

Here's the memo.

And here's an excerpt:

Despite having wrapped up the Republican nomination nearly three months ago, John McCain has failed to reap the benefit of extra time and has failed to connect with the American people. As a measure of how much of an uphill climb McCain faces this November, the GOP standard-bearer has actually lost ground against his potential Democratic opponents and Republican voters have actually come out to vote against him since he became the presumptive nominee. McCain has failed to shore up the Republican base, trails in poll numbers, has tied himself to unpopular positions and an unpopular President, and continues to post fundraising numbers nowhere near the level of the two remaining Democratic candidates

There's a reason for the DNC pointing out these numbers. They want To Dole-ify McCain and try to demoralize the Republican base. So expect a DNC talking point to be that not only shoudn't McCain it, not only can't he win, but he won't win. Period.

Cole: Be Warned, Republicans

A fairly remarkable statement from the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep. Tom Cole, about tonight's special election in Mississippi. He's warning his incumbents and challengers: change or die.

“We are disappointed in tonight’s election results. Though the NRCC, RNC and Mississippi Republicans made a major effort to retain this seat, we came up short.

“Tonight’s election highlights two significant challenges Republicans must overcome this November. First, Republicans must be prepared to campaign against Democrat challengers who are running as conservatives, even as they try to join a liberal Democrat majority. Though the Democrats’ task will be more difficult in a November election, the fact is they have pulled off two special election victories with this strategy, and it should be a concern to all Republicans.

“Second, the political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general. Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for. This is something we can do in cooperation with our Presidential nominee, but time is short.

“I encourage all Republican candidates, whether incumbents or challengers, to take stock of their campaigns and position themselves for challenging campaigns this fall by building the financial resources and grassroots networks that offer them the opportunity and ability to communicate, energize and turn out voters this election.”

Childers Wins; Democrats Pick Up Republican Seat

The Associated Press has called Mississippi's first congressional district for Democrat Travis Childers, giving Democrats a seat held by Republicans since 1994.

Democrats now have a 37 seat majority in the House of Representatives.

Childers will serve at least until next January -- he faces a normal election in November.

MS 01 Update: Childers + 4

With 69% of the votes in, Democrat Travis Childers leads Republican Greg Davis by 4 points -- nearly 3,000 votes.

MS-01 Update: Narrow Childers Lead

Per the AP, with 64% reporting, Travis Childers (D) leads by 1,800 votes.

CHILDERS (D): 51.4% 32,201 votes
DAVIS (R) : 48.6%, 30,400 votes

"Dream Ticket" Update

Mario Cuomo's on board:

“Look, what we want more than anything is to win, and to win you're going to need all the votes she gets and you don't,” said Cuomo, addressing his comments to Senator Obama during an appearance on CNN’s The Situation Room. “The best way to do it is to invite her on the ticket. If, in fact, at the end of process you win, which it looks like you might very well, then why not add her to the ticket?”

Clinton in West Virginia: Lead Me To Victory

This was much less of a victory speech than a sustained argument for Hillary Clinton's continued viability. "The bottom line is this," she said. "The White House is won in the swing states, and I am winning in the swing states."

"The question is: why do so many people keep voting? Why did 64% of Democrats say in a recent poll say they wanted this race to continue? The American people ...know what's at stake...two wars, the brink of a recession, oil shooting through the roof, oil prices and gas prices..."

"I am so grateful for this overwhelming vote of confidence. There are some who have wanted to cut this race short. They say, give up, it's too hard, the mountain is too high. But here in West Virginia, you know a thing or two about rough roads to the top of the mountain."

Clinton vowed to stay in the race "until every one has had their the chance to have their voices heard."

"An enormous decisions falls on the shoulders of Democratic voters. In these final contests and those Democrats empowered to vote at the convention. I want to send a message to everyone still making up their minds. I am in this race because I believe I am the strongest candidate to lead our party in 2008 and the strongest president to lead our nation starting in January of 2009."

"You know I'll never give up. I'll stand with you as long as you stand with me."

Here's Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson on Clinton's way forward:

Clinton Fundraising E-mail: Keep Fighting

Dear XXX,

After tonight's tremendous victory here in West Virginia, it's clear that the pundits declaring this race over have it all wrong. The voters in West Virginia spoke loud and clear -- they want this contest to go on.

I'm listening to the voters -- and to you.

With your help, I'm going to carry the energy of tonight's victory into the next contests in Kentucky and Oregon. And just as always, I'll be depending on you to share every step of this journey with me. You have worked your heart out, put yourself on the line for what you believe in, and given generously. And I'm not about to turn my back on you.

We've proved conventional wisdom wrong time and again in this race. We did it again tonight in West Virginia. Let's keep going.

Thank you,

Hillary
Hillary Rodham Clinton

Obama Calls To Congratulate; Leaves Message

Barack Obama just called Hillary Clinton's personal cell phone and, finding that she was not available, left a message congratulating her on her victory in West Virginia.

(He could have texted her too: (Hil, kewl job in wv. Luv, Bam.) But he didn't.)

More West Virginia Exit Poll Information

70% of West Virginia Democrats believe that Hillary Clinton shares their values, as opposed to 47% who think that Barack Obama does.

61% think that Clinton would run stronger against John McCain

68% think that Clinton was most qualified to be commander-in-chief.

Clinton took the support of 70% of union voters, 71% of women and 59% of men. She won among all incomes levels and among 74% of blue collar whites.

Clinton Projected To Win West Virginia

CBS News projects that Hillary Clinton will win West Virginia by a wide margin.

Apologies Of The Day: Only Seven Years Of "Whore"

Pastor John Hagee formally apologizes to Catholics. An excerpt from his letter:

West Virginia Exit Polls

Here, courtesy of CBS News, are some data points from earliest wave of exit polls:

51% of West Virginians believe that Barack Obama shares the worldview of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

72% of West Virginians made up their minds before the last week of campaigning. 63% of them support some sort of a gas tax pause. 75% of Clinton supporters say they'd be dissatisfied if Obama were the nominee; 61% of Obama supporters would be similarly off-put.

Some Obama Pre-Spin On Tonight's Blowout

A memo:

TO: Interested Parties

FR: The Obama Campaign

RE: West Virginia and Obama’s Strong Position in the Race Ahead

DA: 5/13/08

West Virginia

There is no question that Senator Clinton is going to win by huge margins in the upcoming primaries in West Virginia today and Kentucky next weeks. She has poured resources into both states and she, former President Clinton, and Chelsea Clinton have all campaigned extraordinarily hard there.

The Clinton campaign has already been touting their margins in these states – In fact, Bill Clinton said that Hillary can win West Virginia with 80 percent—and the West Virginia Senate Majority Leader said Clinton needs to win by “80-20 or 90-10.” And in keeping large margins in perspective, it is worth noting that, while Senator Clinton will win big in West Virginia, Barack Obama won neighboring Virginia by 29 points.

But with 49 contests behind us and only six to go -- including several states where we expect to do well -- Barack Obama leads in pledged delegates, contests won, and superdelegates. And for perspective, while 28 pledged delegates are up for grabs this evening, Obama has won the support of 27 superdelegates in the course of just the last week putting him less than 150 total delegates away from clinching the Democratic nomination.

Obama’s Strong Position in the Race Ahead

Nationally, Obama is running stronger among Independent voters than any winning Presidential candidate since 1988 and is significantly outperforming Sen. Clinton among these voters as well in general election polling.

To understand a potential general election match-up between Obama and McCain, the only analysis and data that should be considered valid are the current head-to-head National polls rather than extrapolating irrelevant assumptions from exit poll data in Democratic primaries.

And, on the issue of Democratic unity in the Fall, analysts need only consider that in April of 1992, on a night when Bill Clinton won four primaries and was the presumptive nominee, 6 in 10 Democratic primary voters said they wanted another candidate in the race. Despite this, five months later, Democratic voters were unified behind Clinton and he won his first of two terms in office.

Debunking Five Myths About Obama’s Support

MYTH 1: The Primary has left Democrats divided.

FACT: Democrats are united behind Barack Obama, even more so than Republicans are united behind McCain

ü May 12 Washington Post poll shows that Obama wins 81% of Democrats in a matchup against John McCain.

ü Indeed, more Republicans crossover to vote for Obama (15%) than do Democrats for McCain (13%).

· NOTE: In 1996, Bill Clinton won 84% of Democrats.

MYTH 2: The Primary campaign has hurt Obama with swing voters and Republicans:

FACT: Obama is winning the swing voters against McCain by a wide margin.

ü Obama holds a 51-42 lead among Independents in the Washington Post poll.

· NOTE: Clinton loses 46-49 to McCain among Independents.

ü Not since 1988, when George Bush beat Michael Dukakis 57-43 among Independents, has a candidate won such a large margin among swing voters.

· In his two victories, Clinton only managed a 6-point margin over the Republican among independents in 1992 and an 8-point margin in 1996.

· Indeed, no Democrat has won a majority of Independent voters since exit polls were first conducted in 1976.

MYTH 3: Obama cannot perform strongly enough among white voters:

FACT: Obama’s is running as well or better than past Democratic Candidates among white voters.

ü LA Times (May 8) Obama: 41

McCain: 45

ü Wash Post (May 13): Obama: 42

McCain: 51

ü 2004 Exit polls: Kerry: 41

Bush: 58

ü 2000 Exit Polls: Gore: 43

Bush: 54

ü 1996 Exit polls: Clinton: 43

Dole: 46

ü 1992 Exit polls: Clinton: 39

Bush: 41

Perot: 20

MYTH 4: The race against Clinton has compromised Obama’s position among women:

FACT: Obama has begun attracting the support of a broad coalition of women and is poised to win historic margins.

ü Wash Post (May 13): Obama: 54

McCain: 40

ü New York Times (May 3) Obama: 47

McCain: 39

ü NOTE: No Democratic candidate has won women by so large a margin since exit polling was first conducted in 1976. The closest any candidate has come was in 2000, when Al Gore won women 54-43 over George Bush

MYTH 5: Obama cannot win working class voters:

FACT: Obama is already winning working class voters

ü In the recent LA Times poll, Obama wins every income group under $100,000.

Obama McCain

· <$40K: 43 35

· $40K-$59K 43 40

· $60K-$100K 51 42

· $101K+ 46 47

ü According to the Washington Post/ABC poll released today, despite Sen. Clinton’s insistence that she is stronger among white, working-class voters the data shows that Sen. Obama performs nearly as well as she does in the general election. Among white, non-college voters in this poll:

· Obama vs. McCain is 40-52

· Clinton vs. McCain is 44- 52

McCain Places _tiny_ Ad Buy In Oregon

More details later, but the McCain campaign has placed its first ad buy in the Pacific Northwest. McCain's there today talking about the environment.

But it's tiny. Very, very tiny. How tiny?

A total of less than $1,500. For 36 gross ratings points. (A saturation buy equals 1,000 gross ratings points.)

The reason for the small buy: to be able to run an advertisement and then tell the press that the buy is "real," giving the press a pretext to cover the content of the advertisement and magnifying its effects.

Unless I'm missing something.

Update: the McCain campaign insists that the buy is much larger but they won't provide details. Again, the figures above come from a reputable source who opposes McCain, so make of it what you will.

Reality Princple Watch

James Carville:

"I still hear some dogs barking," Carville said, according to The State newspaper. "I'm for Senator Clinton, but I think the great likelihood is that Obama will be the nominee."

"As soon as I determine when that is, I'll send him a check," he added.

Jack Johnson:

"I cannot in good conscience go to the convention and not support Barack," Johnson said in an interview. "She ran a great campaign, but she fell short of the line."

Johnson is a pledged delegate for Clinton; pledged delegates rarely switch sides.

Hillary Clinton:

Speaking to voters in the Appalachian state, she said: “All the kitchen table issues that everybody talks to me about are ones that the next president can actually do something about, if he actually cares about it.” Realising her faux pas, she added: “More likely if she cares about it!”

The Clinton Campaign on Why WV Matters

A memo:

To: Interested Parties

From: Clinton Campaign

Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Re: Why West Virginia Matters

With a record turnout expected in today’s primary, West Virginia Democrats will make clear who they believe is the strongest candidate to take on Sen. McCain in the Fall.

The Mountain State is used to picking winners. Every nominee has carried the state’s primary since 1976, and no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia since 1916.

Democrats carried West Virginia in 1992 and 1996, but lost the state—and the White House--in 2000 and 2004. Hillary has predicted victory against Sen. McCain in West Virginia based on the strength of her economic message.

Given the attempts by our opponent and some in the media to declare this race over, any significant increase in voter turnout, coupled with a decisive Clinton victory, would send a strong message that Democrats remain excited and energized by Hillary’s candidacy.

In the face of grim poll numbers, the Obama campaign has attempted to dismiss today’s outcome despite the fact that Sen. Obama has outspent us on advertising, has more staff in the state, and more than double the number of offices.

He has also benefited from the support of the most high-profile endorsers in West Virginia—Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Congressman Nick Rahall. By every measure, the Obama campaign has waged an aggressive campaign in the Mountain State.

Despite being the so-called “presumptive nominee” and benefiting from these advantages, Sen. Obama has been unable to close a significant gap in the polls.

Sen. Clinton has already won Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan. With a win in West Virginia, Sen. Clinton will have once again proven her greater ability to win in the key swing states.

Warren Beatty On Politics And Rumors

"I like Obama. I like Hillary I like McCain, and when I get ready to say something publicly, I will do it," Warren Beatty told me.

I had called the actor to ask about a report -- well, mostly a rumor -- that John McCain had told Mr. Beatty, who had become a close friend, that in 2004, he voted for John Kerry and not for George W. Bush.

Beatty would have none of it. "Mystifying," he called my question.

"I don’t understand the ridiculousness of this process that makes that a subject of your work. Isn't it clear that the McCain campaigned for the Republican candidate?"

"What I think is interesting is whoever these people are, their making up something that I said while and refusing to be identified and at the same time, they are saying that John McCain is lying about whom it was he voted. And it seems to me to be such a non-story. It's clear that John McCain campaigned for the Republican candidate."

He went on:

"It seems to me that the reason why people are doing this is to attempt to dramatize some sort of duplicity in a man who... I’ve known John McCain for a long time. He always said he was a conservative. He was a conservative. He is a conservative. It seems that people should take John McCain for what he says he is."

Has John McCain changed much from 2000, when, in the glow of his apostasy from Republican orthodoxies, he found himself embraced by many friends in Hollywood? [Note: Beatty's friendship with McCain predates the 2000 campaign.]

"I think I've made it clear that I’m a liberal Democrat.. and I have never found that to … I consider my friendships to be friendships." He paused. "Let me say this a better way. I don’t think that political ideology is necessarily germane to friendships. "

I told him I agreed.

Beatty, as Bullworth in the 1998 film of the same name, played a no-bullshit, shoot from the lip politico who didn't care a whit about the conventional rules of politics. The picture predated McCain's first presidential campaign by a year, and the character became an archetype for the press to follow. The comparisons were hard for lovelorn liberals to resist.

Over the phone, Beatty speaks cautiously and slowly.

"There is something called a voting booth which relates to privacy. It seems to me, I think, that people should concentrate on legitimate differences between the conservative and liberal points of view. I think there’s plenty to concentrate on there."

The Obama Campaign Is Staffing Up

The press shop needs flacks and aides for the general election.

From: Dan Pfeiffer [mailto:XXXX@barackobama.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 5:52 PM Subject: Resumes and Recommendations

While Barack continues to campaign hard in the upcoming primary states, we have begun collecting resumes for communications staff for the general election. Pls send resumes of friends and colleagues who you would recommend to become part of our organization either in Chicago or in a state to Lauren Thorbjornsen (XXXX@barackobama.com).

Thanks,

Dan Pfeiffer

Superdelegate Watch

For Obama: Roy Romer, the former DNC chair, DC superdelegate Anita Bonds, Ray Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans, and Rep. Joe Donnelly, the congressman from Indiana.

MS-01 Watch

The most important election taking place today is not in West Virginia. It's in Mississippi, for the first congressional district, a seat held since the Republican revolution of 1994 by Republican Roger Wicker. Wicker's moving up to take Trent Lott's seat, and there's a good possibility that Democrat Travis Childers will win today's run-off election. Republicans have tried to nationalize the race to some degree in order to paint Childers, who does well in the district's rural areas, as a closet liberal. Also: the ballot is non-partisan, so party affiliations are not listed. The only way to make sure Republicans know that candidate Greg Davis is a Republican is to make sure they know that Childers is the Democrat. It's also why Dick Cheney was in Mississippi on Monday campaigning for Davis. The district is one of the more geographically diverse in the state. It's home to a college town (Oxford), rural and exurban communities, and the southern suburbs of Memphis (De Soto Co. and environs.)

A Dem pick-up here will be a portent of doom for Republicans in the fall. George W. Bush won this district by 25 points (66,000 votes) in 2004. Because Davis and Childers tangled via advertisements over whether Childers had been endorsed by Obama amid Rev. Wright's revenge tour, the press will be tempted to spin a Childers victory as a sign that Obama is not a drag on the ticket. Local factors and the national environment are going to be dispositive here, not Barack Obama. So don't believe the hype.

Republicans "Sore" At Obama's Metahpor

Obama almost had them. All the way the end of his interview with the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, the probable Democratic nominee-in-waiting chose a metaphor to describe the effect of the perception of the longstanding conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. He said:

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable.

First came the Republican Jewish Coalition:

"Once again, Senator Obama demonstrates his questionable grasp of America's foreign policy. Senator Obama manages to excuse the inexcusable actions of anti-American militant jihadists by putting the blame for their actions on America's foreign policy. America stands with Israel because it is one of our strongest allies and the only democracy in the Middle East. Senator Obama naively believes that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will solve the global scourge of radical Islamic extremism. Yet Senator Obama never says how he will reign in Hamas' daily onslaught on Israel or Iran's scurrilous condemnations of Israel. Is it any wonder Hamas has endorsed him for president?"

Then the organized Republican response began in the form of statements from minority leader Boehner and from Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA):

“It is truly disappointing that Senator Obama called Israel a ‘constant wound,’ ‘constant sore,’ and that it ‘infect[s] all of our foreign policy.’ These sorts of words and characterizations are the words of a politician with a deep misunderstanding of the Middle East and an innate distrust of Israel"

Notice how the metaphor, which, in context, referred to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is now a metaphor about Israel. So -- the GOP responses loses a few intellectual honesty points. But you can bet that Obama will be asked to elaborate, in much the way that a writer for the Weekly Standard, more honestly, lays out:

Call me naïve, but while solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unquestionably an admirable and important goal, I’m not sure it "infects" all, or even most, of the challenges we face in the world. The Burmese junta isn’t repressing its people because of Israel. The Sudanese government isn’t massacring the poor inhabitants of Darfur because of Israel. Iran isn’t murdering American troops in Iraq because of Israel. The Russians aren’t saber rattling in Georgia because of Israel. And the Chinese aren’t threatening Taiwan because of Israel.

No, Senator Obama is not a closet anti-Semite. Yes, he genuinely considers himself to be a friend of Israel. But he suffers from the left-wing misconception--heard on university campuses and European foreign ministries--of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the Holy Grail of international relations.

Late in the day, Rep. Rahm Emanuel defended Obama in a statement:

"On the eve of Israel's 60th anniversary, Congressman Boehner should remember that Israel enjoys bipartisan support and commitment to its security. Nothing could be worse for Israel at this time than for it to become a proxy for Congressman Boehner's political games. Senator Obama's record is clear when it comes to Israel's security and friendship with the United States."

The Biggest Existential Threat To McCain's Candidacy

The Atlantic Map: Responses And Amplifications

Lots of feedback to the first Atlantic Election Map. The state most in dispute: Iowa. Many Republicans believe that a combination of depressed evangelical turnout and Obama's extremely built out organization in the state give Obama a decisive edge, and that the state should really be a tilt Obama. Michigan: Should it be a tossup? Obama's decision to take his name off the ballot left Democrats there cold, Romney could help McCain with Republicans, the unions are in disarray, and the hope is that by the election, Gov. Granholm (D) is a drag on the ticket.

Continue reading "The Atlantic Map: Responses And Amplifications" »

What's In Obama's Kishke? Jeffrey Goldberg Finds Out...

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg interview Sen. Barack Obama this weekend on a subject near and dear to his heart: Israel and the Jews. Here's the full interview.

Obama certainly has the basics down: he lists as influences Phillip Roth and Leon Uris, and a Jewish camp counselor who taught him about Zionism. These two questions and two answers I found fascinating:

JG: Do you think that justice is still on Israel’s side?

BO: I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience. I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea.

That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel, because it’s a government and it has politicians, and as a politician myself I am deeply mindful that we are imperfect creatures and don’t always act with justice uppermost on our minds. But the fundamental premise of Israel and the need to preserve a Jewish state that is secure is, I think, a just idea and one that should be supported here in the United States and around the world.

JG: Go to the kishke question, the gut question: the idea that if Jews know that you love them, then you can say whatever you want about Israel, but if we don’t know you –- Jim Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski –- then everything is suspect. There seems to be in some quarters, in Florida and other places, a sense that you don’t feel Jewish worry the way a senator from New York would feel it.

BO: I find that really interesting. I think the idea of Israel and the reality of Israel is one that I find important to me personally. Because it speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus, it describes the history of overcoming great odds and a courage and a commitment to carving out a democracy and prosperity in the midst of hardscrabble land. One of the things I loved about Israel when I went there is that the land itself is a metaphor for rebirth, for what’s been accomplished. What I also love about Israel is the fact that people argue about these issues, and that they’re asking themselves moral questions.

Sometimes I’m attacked in the press for maybe being too deliberative. My staff teases me sometimes about anguishing over moral questions. I think I learned that partly from Jewish thought, that your actions have consequences and that they matter and that we have moral imperatives. The point is, if you look at my writings and my history, my commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it’s more than political expediency. When it comes to the gut issue, I have such ardent defenders among my Jewish friends in Chicago. I don’t think people have noticed how fiercely they defend me, and how central they are to my success, because they’ve interacted with me long enough to know that I've got it in my gut. During the Wright episode, they didn’t flinch for a minute, because they know me and trust me, and they’ve seen me operate in difficult political situations.

The other irony in this whole process is that in my early political life in Chicago, one of the raps against me in the black community is that I was too close to the Jews. When I ran against Bobby Rush [for Congress], the perception was that I was Hyde Park, I’m University of Chicago, I’ve got all these Jewish friends. When I started organizing, the two fellow organizers in Chicago were Jews, and I was attacked for associating with them. So I’ve been in the foxhole with my Jewish friends, so when I find on the national level my commitment being questioned, it’s curious.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty Jokes About His Sex Life

A bit bawdy for the GOP VP frontrunner?

From WCCO.com:

"I have a wife who genuinely loves to fish. I mean, she will take the lead and ask me to go out fishing, and joyfully comes here.... She loves football, she'll go to hockey games and, I jokingly say, 'Now, if I could only get her to have sex with me.'"

The governor quickly clarified, "It's a joke, it's a joke."

All I can say, governor, is that the Naval Observatory can be an incredible aphrodisiac....

McCain Will Toil

Time's Michael Scherer lays out seven elements of John McCain's general election strategy against John McCain.

They're all right on.

Here's an eight: Outwork him. Those of us who have traveled with McCain and Obama know that McCain generally appears less fatigued at the end of a long day (although Obama has gotten much, much better since he began his campaign.) But McCain's advisers know that one way to divert attention from their candidate's age is to show voters how hard he works and how little the work seems to tire him. So the plan is, for now, to work McCain to the bone, scheduling grueling days full of town hall meetings and hope that Barack Obama, in following suit, is one who winds up appearing worn out. The explicit message: McCain has more energy than a guy half his age; he's got callouses on his hand. The implicit message: Obama's a bit of dabbler, a dilettante.

WILL IT WORK? I think the McCain campaign understimates Obama a bit. So we'll see.

McCain's Climate Change Policy

I'm no expert on environmental policy and so I have few means of evaulating Sen, McCain's environmental policy proposals, including the cap-n-trade schema he outlined today. As you might imagine, the organized Democratic left is throwing everything at the wall, and that's not particularly helpful for those of us who like our policy evalulations less hyperbolic. So here's the take of David Roberts of the excellent environentalist blog GristMill:

It comes as no surprise that the focus is on a cap-and-trade program, something McCain has supported for five years. In fact, there is virtually no mention of any emission reduction policies outside of cap-and-trade -- no efficiency or fuel economy mandates, no electrical utility decoupling, no mention of public transit. McCain obviously retains his conservative allergy to regulation and public spending. There is some discussion of funding research and incentivizing market deployment of new technology, but the details are tantalizingly vague. Perhaps they'll be fleshed out in the energy speech.

One area where McCain deserves big kudos: He devotes a good chunk of his speech and his policy plan to adaptation, something that's been too far under the radar in climate discussions. Substantial impacts from climate change are inevitable, and it's high time the federal gov't got serious about coordinating and funding local efforts to prepare.

As for the cap-and-trade program itself, McCain's basic targets and mechanisms are roughly in line with what others have proposed. He would aim for 1990 emission levels by 2020, and 60% below 1990 levels by 2050. That long-term target falls short of the "80% by 2050" recommended by the IPCC and beloved of climate activists, but the short-term target is roughly in line with what's offered in the Lieberman-Warner bill and Barack Obama's plan.

It's the cost-control measures that are sure to be controversial. McCain does not include the much-maligned "safety valve," whereby carbon prices cannot exceed a pre-set cap. He does, however, propose to allow unlimited use of domestic and international carbon offsets for compliance with the cap, at least initially. He would also give away rather than auction a substantial portion of the original pollution permits. (The level of compliance permitted via offsets and the number of permits given away will both decline over time, on a schedule determined by the Climate Change Credit Corporation, the public-private agency McCain proposes to oversee the program.)

Read the whole thing. He concludes that "it's better than expected, somewhat short of Lieberman-Warner, and far short of what Obama has proposed."

If Clinton Had Only Transformed Earlier...

Ben Smith:

Here's a budding storyline you shouldn't buy: Hillary could have won this race, if only she'd cracked the code earlier on how to stop Obama. It's an appealing notion, but one that ignores the force that's driven her transformation: The calendar.

I think is the correct, but I want to add an important caveat: if Clinton had cracked the strategy code two months earlier than she did, then it's very possible that the course of the race would have progressed very differently. Clinton's central strategic failing was her seemingly inexplicable decision to cede major, populous states to Obama solely because the states chose delegates via caucus. If Clinton had competed in Minnesota, in Colorado, in Maine -- if she had spent time and money and effort to contest those states, she would have not won them, but she almost certainly would have picked up hundreds of thousands of additional votes and dozens of additional delegates. Indeed, she might have even per herself in a position to tie or match Obama in the pledged delegate and popular vote counts. Clinton advisers will say to this argument, "well, we only had a limited amount of time and resources, and so it's not fair to say we should have gone into the caucus states." Well, that's the choice, isn't it?

Continue reading "If Clinton Had Only Transformed Earlier..." »

What's Obama Up To This Week

The general election. He's going to campaign in Missouri later this week and Michigan -- Macomb County -- on Wednesday. He will not be on television to be able to explain his significant (expected) loss tomorrow night; he'll give Clinton the courtesy of saying whatever she wants to say. He's picked up his net 23rd delegate since last week just moments ago -- Dolly Strazar of Hawaii.

Barr Announces

Item: Ex CIA officer/US Attorney/Rep. Bob Barr (L-GA) Announces

Good timing: the Libertarian National Convention begins in two weeks in Denver.

His campaign slogan: "Liberty for America."

He's running because: he believes his party betrayed the country by working to gut statuatory protection for civil liberties.

Intersection with the Ron Paul movement: more theory than reality at the moment. The Paulites aim to reorganize the Republican Party the way that Howard Dean reoganized the Democratic Party after 2003 by running candidates for dozens of party functionary offices across the country and beefing up the small number of Paul devotees in elected office. The Paulites also plan to make mischief at the Republican National Convention. Ideologically, Barr is more concerned with the balance between liberty and security; Paul is obsessed with the Iraq war. Barr is distinctly a social conservative, having authored the Defense of Marriage Act; Paul, pro-life, is generally more of a social libertarian. Paul wants to return to the gold standard; Barr doesn't really care about that. Barr and Paul favor letting states determine medical marijuana policies (though Barr's position has changed -- he used to favor federal control of the issue.)

Impact on John McCain: Libertarian voters for president have ranged from a little more than 300,000 in 2004 to nearly 1 million in 1980. In order for Barr to tip the balance away from McCain, he'd need to rack up at least 50,000 votes in states like Colorado and Nevada.

Reader TB:

There is a line of thought to which i am tempted to subscribe at this early hour that Barr actually hurts Obama more than McCain. Most of the libertarian voters would probably be tempted to vote against McCain and the horrible Republican record on those issues and if Obama was the only choice, Obama could get it (since he has actually pretty good on the narrow subject of civil liberties) which would be a way to secure those margins in the West to the Democratic party for quite a while.

It is difficult to know for sure where those voters would have gone but when a Republican constituency goes from swing voters with two choices to thirdpartyleaners, it is a loss opportunity for Obama at the very least.

Obama's 22nd Superdelegate Since Last Weekend

A net of 20, now -- Rep. Tom Allen of Maine.

Trippi's Revolution Almost Complete

If Barack Obama decides to limit general election contributions to $100 or $150, it will represent the apotheosis of the political revolution that Joe Trippi, as Howard Dean's campaign manager, first led.

On page 235 of his book, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, Trippi wrote:

"W'e've had the right to fix this broken, corroded, and corrupt system since the earliest days of our Republic. Two hundred and eight years later we finally have the tools to do it -- the tools to bring us together in common purpose to reclaim what is rightfully ours, beginning with the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. We have it in our power to reclaim our government and with it our national purpose.

It would be easy to do. If six hundred and thirty-one wealthy individuals can raise more than a hundred million dollars to elect George Bush -- it will only take two million Americans contributing less than a hundred dollars each to defeat him.

Call it Jefferson's revenge.

Call it the $100 revolution. It doesn't matter what you call it, now is the time to make it happen."

The book was published in 2005, but Trippi has been trying to get his candidates to make this risky gambit for years -- remember Jerry Brown and his $100 contribution limits? In 1992, he was able to raise eight million when supporters pledged money over his toll-free phone number.

Trippi was ridiculed by his party for pushing unilateral disarmament -- even Obama's campaign rejected the idea for the primaries, fearing that they wouldn't be able to raise enough -- but now, this idea -- the last real unfulfilled of his revolution -- will become a reality.

The Obama campaign has not been eager to associate itself with Trippi -- and indeed, several Obama innovations were constructed specifically with the Dean campaign's organizational failings in mind; if Trippi would things X way, the campaign would try them another way. But echoes of Trippi, of Howard Dean's revolution, are everywhere. And capping donations to raise money for a general election is as much his triumph as anyone else's.

Full disclosure: Trippi and I are both consultants for CBS News.

McCain's Call For Emissions Caps And Nuclear Power

From his speech today in Portland, OR:

Some of the most compelling evidence of global warming comes to us from NASA. No longer do we need to rely on guesswork and computer modeling, because satellite images reveal a dramatic disappearance of glaciers, Antarctic ice shelves and polar ice sheets. And I've seen some of this evidence up close. A few years ago I traveled to the area of Svalbard, Norway, a group of islands in the Arctic Ocean. I was shown the southernmost point where a glacier had reached twenty years earlier. From there, we had to venture northward up the fjord to see where that same glacier ends today – because all the rest has melted. On a trip to Alaska, I heard about a national park visitor's center that was built to offer a picture-perfect view of a large glacier. Problem is, the glacier is gone. A work of nature that took ages to form had melted away in a matter of decades.

To lead in this effort, however, our government must strike at the source of the problem – with reforms that only Congress can enact and the president can sign. We know that greenhouse gasses are heavily implicated as a cause of climate change. And we know that among all greenhouse gasses, the worst by far is the carbon-dioxide that results from fossil-fuel combustion. Yet for all the good work of entrepreneurs and inventors in finding cleaner and better technologies, the fundamental incentives of the market are still on the side of carbon-based energy. This has to change before we can make the decisive shift away from fossil fuels.

We will cap emissions according to specific goals, measuring progress by reference to past carbon emissions. By the year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emission, by 2020, a return to 1990 levels, and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the course of time, it may be that new ideas and technologies will come along that we can hardly imagine today, allowing all industries to change with a speed that will surprise us. More likely, however, there will be some companies that need extra emissions rights, and they will be able to buy them. The system to meet these targets and timetables will give these companies extra time to adapt – and that is good economic policy. It is also a matter of simple fairness, because the cap-and-trade system will create jobs, improve livelihoods, and strengthen futures across our country.

As we move toward all of these goals, and over time put the age of fossil fuels behind us, we must consider every alternative source of power, and that includes nuclear power. When our cap-and-trade policy is in place, there will be a sudden and sustained pursuit in the market for new investment opportunities in low-emission fuel sources. And here we have a known, proven energy source that requires exactly zero emissions. We have 104 nuclear reactors in our country, generating about twenty percent of our electricity. These reactors alone spare the atmosphere from about 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released every year. That's the annual equivalent of nearly all emissions from all the cars we drive in America. Europe, for its part, has 197 reactors in operation, and nations including France and Belgium derive more than half their electricity from nuclear power. Those good practices contribute to the more than two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide avoided every year, worldwide, because of nuclear energy. It doesn't take a leap in logic to conclude that if we want to arrest global warming, then nuclear energy is a powerful ally in that cause.

The General Election Map

Here's the first Atlantic Election Map of the cycle based on interviews, reportage, polling and guesswork. In this map, I've pushed as many as tossups as I can possibly justify: Virginia, and Nevada to McCain, and Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire to Obama; these five states, with their 56 electoral votes, are tossups masquerading as leaners, so for all intents and purposes, our map has eleven states and 128 electoral votes up for grabs. As polling and information warrant, watch for these states to move out of the lean column and into the tossup column.

McCain's base states + his leaners: 245 electoral votes.
Obama's base states + his leaners: 221 electoral votes.

McCain's base states -- 175 electoral votes.

Texas (34), West Virginia (5), Georgia (15), South Carolina (8), Kentucky (8), Tennessee (11), Alabama (9), Mississippi (6), Louisiana (9), Arkansas (6), Wyoming (3), Idaho (4), Utah (5), Arizona (10), Alaska (3), Oklahoma (7), Kansas (6), Nebraska (5), South Dakota (3), North Dakota (3), North Carolina (15)

Tilt McCain states -- 70 electoral votes.

Indiana (11) -- competitive House and GOV races; Obama's college force multiplier; state borders IL
Virginia (13) -- polling shows McCain with lead; McCain will over performing in Tidewater; Obama will overperform in NoVA. Probably will be tossup by the summer as Mark Warner's popularity will stoke Dem enthusiasm.
Missouri (11) -- lack of McCain enthusiasm in rural (Huckabee) areas; state borders IL; Obama overperformed among suburban whites and inner city African Americans in primary.
Montana (3) -- Schweitzer's army and state legislature trending Democratic; probably safe McCain by November.
Florida (27) -- McCain's very popular in South Florida and North Florida; whether Florida is competitive depends a lot on his appeal to Latinos and his overperforming with Jewish voters
Nevada (5) -- Unusual for Latino voters to be up for grabs, although state has more Dem energy than GOP energy (and plenty of infighting on both sides.)

Tossups: Pennsylvania (21), Wisconsin (10), Iowa (7), Ohio (20), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9) -- 72 electoral votes.

Obama's base states -- 172 electoral votes --

Washington, D.C. (3), Maryland (10), California (55), New York (31), Vermont (3), Massachusetts (12), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Rhode Island (4), Illinois (21), Hawaii (4), New Jersey (15), Maine (4)

Tilt Obama States -- 49 electoral votes

New Hampshire (4) -- everything trending Dem, including independents. If McCain's maverick image endures, NH becomes an easy tossup.
Michigan (17) -- An economically depressed Dem union state with an active GOP base and that primary problem;
Minnesota (10) -- If Pawlenty is McCain's veep the state is marginally more in play; the GOP gets the force multiplier of the convention. Else, the state would be safe Obama.
Washington (11) -- McCain campaign wants to contend here
Oregon (7) -- McCain campaign wants to contend here

A Second McCain Aide Resigns

Doug Davenport, the regional campaign manager for the mid-Atlantic states, founded the DCI Group's lobbying practice and oversaw the contract with Myanmar in 2002.

"Doug has tendered his resignation and we have accepted it," Jill Hazelbaker, McCain's communications director, wrote in a e-mail.

He joins former DCI Group CEO Doug Goodyear, who resigned yesterday from the post of convention CEO after Newsweek reported that DCI was paid more than $300,000 to represent Myanmar's ruling junta.

Goodyear and Davenport were recruited by McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, who has been accused by some current and former McCain advisers of take insufficient care of McCain's reformer brand by appointing lobbyists to key positions. Ironically, as Newsweek reported, Goodyear was asked to become convention CEO after Davis's lobbying firm partner, Paul Manafort, was nixed because of his own close ties to foreign governments and controversial companies.

Davenport did not respond to an e-mail seeking his comment last night.

Latest Superdelegate Count: Obama 275, Clinton 271

Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ) endorsed Obama this evening:

I’m proud to support Barack Obama for President. Senator Obama and I worked together last year to improve care for our soldiers and veterans in the wake of the scandal at Walter Reed, and I know that, as President, he will work hard for our men and women in uniform. Like the primary voters of my congressional district, which Senator Obama carried, I am inspired by Barack’s vision for America, his ability to unify our country and bring much-needed to change to Washington.”

An Optics Problem For McCain

Item: The McCain campaign's handpicked RNC convention czar, Doug Goodyear, resigns after Newsweek reports that his firm, the DCI Group, was working to make the government of Myanmar look good.

“Today I offered the convention my resignation so as not to become a distraction in this campaign. I continue to strongly support John McCain for president, and wish him the best of luck in this campaign.”

Discussion: Optics. What becomes now of Doug Davenport, the DCI lobbying czar who is a campaign regional manager? A campaign spokesperson referred comment to Davenport, who did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment. As the head DCI lobbyist, Mr. Davenport would have been directly in charge of the Myanmar account during 2002.

Goodyear and Davenport were brought to the campaign by manager Rick Davis. This episode will increase criticism by some McCain allies that Davis has paid insufficient attention to McCain's brand by appointing so many lobbyists to key campaign positions.

Clyburn: Would Clinton Get Only 8 Percent Of the Black Vote?

In an interview with National Journal's Linda Douglas, Rep. James Clyburn gives the corollary to the argument that Barack Obama faces a deficit with white working class males.

Douglass: Well, just one more question on that subject... She was quoted today in USA Today describing her strengths against his weaknesses, and she said about herself -- quoting from a news article, she was talking about a news article -- but Senator Clinton said the following: that "Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again," and "whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." "There is a pattern emerging here," she said. What's your reaction to that quote?

Clyburn: Well, I don't think that carries any more weight than anyone who will argue that the fact that she only got 8 percent of the African-American vote in North Carolina indicates that she cannot get African-American votes in the general election. It's one thing for us to measure these two Democratic candidates against each other. It is totally something else again for us to measure a Democratic candidate against a Republican candidate. Those are two different things -- apples and oranges -- and I do believe it is a stretch for us to consider otherwise. If we buy into that, and we buy into the conventional wisdom that no Democrat wins the presidency getting only 8 percent of the African-American vote, then what does that to say for her prospects in the fall?

Later, he explains why he's neutral, sounding very non-neutral and very much of a mind to believe that if the "graybeards" -- the superdelegates -- take the nomination away from Barack Obama, there'll be consequences.

. I'm very proud of what Barack Obama's done. When I sat in those jails back in the '60s in South Carolina -- dreaming about growing up, dreaming about becoming an adult, dreaming about having children and grandchildren -- I now have a 14-year-old grandson, and he is very proud of Barack Obama. I'm not going to sit down and watch anybody marginalize my grandson's dreams and aspirations. And I'm not going to see anybody go out and just absolutely nullify the energy and time that my daughter, youngest daughter, put into Barack Obama's race. This young lady started going to his office at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, every day after work, staying there to 11, 12 o'clock at night, and apologized to me for having to follow her heart for fear that it might disrupt my neutrality.

So when I look at this daughter of mine, I look at this grandson of mine, and see the pride in their faces -- I'm just not going to have anybody just tamping that down, and so that's why I spoke up. Because I'm going home on weekends, and I go to these college campuses, as I will be this weekend -- I'm going to Voorhees [College] and do the commencement there, I'm going to Tuskegee in Alabama and do commencement there on Sunday -- these young people are looking at me, saying, are you graybeards in this party getting ready to go into some room somewhere and nullify everything we did in this campaign?

From The "If McCain Did This" Files

Obama, below, is tired, nothing more.

But if John McCain did this -- if he mistakenly said he'd visited 57 states -- the media would be all up in his grill, accusing him of a senior moment. Just saying....

Three More Superdelegates

Three more superdelegates for Obama: New Mexico superdelgate Laurie Weahkee, Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), and Wilber Lee Jeffcoat, the vice chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party.

Did McCain Vote For Bush In 2000?

Did John McCain cast his vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Arianna Huffington, a cast of actors, and a few unnamed folks say that he told them no. McCain, twice in the past two days, says of course he did.

There is no loved lost between Huffington and McCain these days. She's said for two years that McCain has been "hijacked by the right" and subsequently "sold his soul."

"For me, why this is so sad is that I am utterly convinced that he was genuine in 2000 about reforming the country and reforming the system," she says.

In theory, both sides have motive to shade the truth, here, so those sympathetic to McCain will accept his denial, and those unsympathetic to McCain will accept the testimonies as true. Three witnesses are presently on the record against McCain; currently, only McCain is on the record in favor of himself. (You should expect more folks to attest to having heard McCain say or signal that he voted against Bush in 2000.)

There are four possibilities:

(a) Either he did not vote for Bush in 2000 and is lying; the lie being a reflection of his need to harness his political history to his present ambitions; this preserves the campaign's need to present McCain as having always been a conservative Republican who, despite a brief fluffaroo in the 2000 primaries, has always been a party loyalist.

(b) Or he did vote for Bush in 2000 but, to impress his new Hollywood friends, told them that he did not;

(c) Or Huffington and the actors are lying in order to smear McCain; the narrative here would be that McCain is and has always been a Bush conservative; or they're trying to drive a wedge between him and Republicans

(d) Or everyone misremembers;

This story will not worry the McCain campaign because it sets him up as a foil for a plot by nefarious Hollywood liberals.

Here's one way to think about the question. Ask yourself whether McCain has changed his outlook, orientation and worldview since 2000; read news coverage of what else McCain said in 2000 and who he spent his time with after the election; go through his legislative record on domestic issues in 2001 and 2002 and 2003. If the McCain you see today is the same McCain who is the sum of all those parts, then his denial is more credible.

None of this is to suggest that McCain every voted for Al Gore. Indeed, one longtime McCain observer says that McCain was not shy about telling his friends that Gore was a "phoney."

Veep Watch: Just Asking...

McCain-Fiorina '08?

What is true: Folks on the periphery of McCain's world are talking her up.

What I don't know: Basically everything else.

Obama: Clinton's On "Anyone's" Shortlist

In Beaverton, OR today. responding to a question about whether Sen. Clinton would be his running mate:

"I have not won the nomination yet; it would be presumptuous of me to suggest that she is going to be my running mate while we are still actively running."

"I will say that she has shown herself to be an extraorindary candidate and an extraordinary public servent. She is hard working, she is tough, she is very smart, and so I think she would be on anyone's shortlist."

Rahm's Spokesperson Walks It Back

Sarah Feinberg, the communications director for the House Democratic Caucus, e-mails;

While I realize it's a slow news day, and all 08 reporters feel every news bit must be immediately made out to be breathless, breaking, and instantly analyzed in order to break thru, I would like to clarify two points:

1. All Rahm said was that Senator Obama is clearly now the frontrunner, which by and large means, because of the calendar, he is the presumptive nominee, at this point. He was stating the obvious. Its about the calendar.

2. The "presumptive" quote is only accurate if you ignore the several sentences proceeding this half sentence and the several minutes of conversation that followed it. I'd call it selective quoting. Congressman Emanuel also stated about 90 seconds after this that he thought Senator clinton can still win the nomination and he stands by that.

McCain's Best Argument Against Obama....

Who's The CA Superdelegate Teased On The Page?

Here:

It's not Christine Pelosi.

It's not Bob Mullholland.

Update: It's Mr. Super himself, Ed Espinoza.

Reality Principle Watch: A Clinton Power Point Presentation

Here's a Power Point presentation that Sen. Clinton has sent to superdelegates arguing that she's the strongest candidate in the general election.

And here's a letter written by a dozen members of Congress to undecided "automatic delegates" seeking their forbearance.

Swing State Democrats Say Hillary Best For Top Of Ticket The text of the letter is below.

Dear Fellow Democrat,

We are writing to you because of our shared belief in our Party’s principles and our commitment to ensuring that we have the strongest possible nominee to lead our ticket against John McCain and the Republicans in November.

The decision about who to support to be our Party’s nominee is not one that any of us should take lightly. We haven’t. But, after giving this important decision a great deal of thought, we are convinced that Hillary Clinton has the vision, skills and commitment to make the changes our country needs. As Democrats who have run and won in competitive Congressional districts and battleground states, we believe that Hillary is best positioned to successfully lead the Democratic ticket in districts and states like ours around the country.

As you know, Hillary has racked up victories in bellwether states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and now Indiana that are absolutely vital to winning the White House and maintaining our Congressional majority in the fall. Hillary has won the big battleground states by connecting with voters whose support we must have to win the general election. Her victories in Pennsylvania and Indiana were all the more impressive after being outspent by as much as two or three to one.

Pennsylvania was not just a victory for Hillary Clinton. It was also a wake- up call for superdelegates, forcing us to ask ourselves two essential questions: 1) Which candidate can carry the magic 270 electoral votes to win in the fall? 2) Which candidate is most likely to help our fellow Democrats in down-ballot races? We believe the answer to both of these questions is Hillary Clinton.

On the first question, Hillary has shown she can win the all-important battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida even while being outspent. This speaks to her ability to connect with voters we must deliver in the fall, including blue collar Democrats who can sway this election as they have in the past.

On the second question, Hillary has won rural and suburban districts which we as Democrats must carry to maintain our edge in Congress. Of the fifteen districts rated “toss up” by the Cook Political Report, Hillary has now won ten. Of the 20 districts we picked up in 2006 that had gone for President Bush just two years before, Hillary has now won 16. She is strong in the places we must win to hold and expand our majority.

This is a historically close race. The candidates are separated by a mere percentage point or two and the path to victory for each candidate is the same: win in the upcoming states and secure enough pledged and automatic delegates to get to the number required to win the nomination.

The race now turns to the remaining six contests where the focus will be squarely on the economy. Voters in our states and across the country are voting on issues that affect them, their communities and their children’s future. We believe that they will decide that Hillary is the candidate who best understands those issues and has the best solutions to address them.

We Democrats are justifiably proud of both of our candidates, and if Senator Obama is our Party’s nominee, we will enthusiastically support him. But our responsibility is not to choose simply to support the eventual nominee; it is to help select the nominee who is best for our party and best for our country. Our choice is clear: Hillary Clinton is that candidate. We believe she should be your choice as well.

Thank you for consideration.

Sincerely,

Rep. Michael Arcuri (NY-24)

Rep. Shelley Berkley (NV-01)

Rep. Marion Berry (AR-1)

Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX-28)

Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20)

Rep. Gene Green (TX -29)

Rep. John Hall (NY-19)

Rep. Darlene Hooley (OR-5)

Rep. Kendrick B. Meek (FL-17)

Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11)

Rep. Silvestre Reyes (TX-16)

Rep. Mike Ross (AR-4)

Rep. Joe Sestak (PA-8)

Rep. Ike Skelton (MO-4)

Rep. John Tanner (TN-8)

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20)

Reality Principle Watch: As Rahm Goes, So Goes The Party?

Rep. Rahm Emanuel's comments are more interesting because of who he is rather than what he says. Indeed, his words reflect the developing consensus of many high-profile Clinton supporters. The race is over, but let's let Clinton will determine when and how to exit.

"At this point, Barack is the presumptive nominee," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel during the New Yorker's magazine conference. "Hillary can't win but something could happen that Barack could lose the nomination."

Emanuel wouldn't go so far as to say that Clinton should drop out. "Next question!" he declared when asked. But his voice does carry political sway. The congressman has been staunchly non-committal throughout the primary process. And his ties to the Clinton administration and connections to fellow Chicago pol Obama make him one of the key figures who could help facilitate an end to the nomination battle.

Clearly, party unity was on Emanuel's mind.

"What Hillary does in the next month is important," he said. "If she spends her time contrasting with Senator McCain, drawing distinctions that help the Democratic Party, that's productive. If it's done in another way, that's not productive."

Obama's Massive Voter Registration Kickoff -- More

For weeks, core volunteers have been staffing and organizing phone banking events, signing up volunteers for the Obama campaign's massive voter registration rallies in 110 cities across the country.

Says one volunteer organizer: "These volunteer lists were built with months and months worth of campaign events, visibility events, marches and social gatherings leading into super Tuesday. Every single event included a determined effort to sign up new supporters, and press those supporters to signal an interest in volunteering. I've heard casual mention that the nyc team alone has something like 15,000 potential volunteers names and contact information."

Here's an e-mail from another organizer:

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Faina XXX Date: Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:52 PM Subject: Details on staffing the May 10th event To: Faina XXX

Hello all,

Thank you for volunteering to help out with the Vote for Change rally, your experience is critical in ensuring that this event goes smoothly.

Before I can get into details about the actual program, I want to ask if any of you are available to help with setup on Friday, May 9th at 3pm. We will be putting together packets for volunteers, and making signs. Because we are expecting a turnout of about 800 - 1,000 people, we will need to have enough packets ready for each volunteer. If you are not available tomorrow, it's totally fine, although any help that you can give is greatly appreciated.
As for the day of the event, we are asking that staffers get to the church at around 10:30 - 11:00. We will be needing people to direct the lines that will be forming outside of the church, there will most likely be two lines. The church is wheelchair accessible, so we will be needing volunteers to direct traffic through the wheelchair accessible entrance. There will also be sign in tables, where volunteers will be receiving their packets.

We will also need ushers to direct people to their seats, and then to their staging location captains, after the training.

I will continue to update you all on the program, as the details come in. In the meantime, please let me know if you are available to help out on Friday.

Thank you!

--
Faina XXX
Obama for America
(XXX) XXX-XXXX

How sophisticated is Barack Obama's voter database and contact mining? Testimony from reader TDE:

"I donated a small amount and supplied my work contact information below before the California primary. A few days later, I get a message on my home answering machine – not the numbers below and _not_ a listed number – thanking me for my support and inviting me to an event “at a neighbor’s house” two blocks from my house (miles away from the information I supplied below). I was not contacted at my work address. So they took my name from the donation and then located my unlisted home phone number and unprovided home address and put it in their database so they could contact me for a neighborhood meet up. "

Why Won't Edwards Endorse?

Another Obama Superdelegate: John Gage

President of the American Federation of Government Employees.

McCain To Speak At the NRA Convention

Aides say Sen. John McCain has accepted an invitation to speak at the National Rifle Association's annual exposition and convention next week in Louisville, KY.

He will appear on Friday afternoon, an NRA spokesman said.

McCain has authored legislation tightening loopholes at gun shows and wants to reduce the flood of cheap guns into the market, but he opposes restrictions on so-called assault weapons and does not support holding gun manufacturers liable for illegal gun trafficking. In South Carolina last year, McCain said simply that he believes in "no gun control."

The NRA has sparred with McCain over campaign finance regulation, and the Gun Owners of America, more hardline than the NRA, has given McCain an "F-" ranking for his alleged apostasies.

Courting the NRA has benefits -- its millions and millions of members, including many Democrats -- and its risks. The NRA would probably do Sen. McCain's bidding regardless -- Obama presents such a contrast on gun rights. There's a chance that appearances before groups like the NRA could undercut McCain's effort to attract soft Republicans, independents and Democrats -- precisely the groups with which he underperforms today.

An NRA spokesman had no immediate comment.

The Politics Of The FEC

Why did the White House jump one of its favorites, FEC chairman David Mason? To help John McCain with his argument before the committee that he legally and properly withdrew from the public financing him? To help him obtain public financing for the general election? The McCain campaign does not deny that they lobbied members of Congress to achieve this end result. Trevor Potter, McCain's general counsel, points out that such nominations are the province of the White House, and not McCain. Here's his reasoning:

So, let me say that I think the criticism of the President's decision not to re-appoint Dave Mason rests on a faulty assumption. Critics write as if Commissioner Mason has already determined that Sen. McCain has violated federal campaign finance law, and that he would so find if only he is on the Commission when a quorum is restored. I do not believe this is the case. Commissioner Mason wrote the campaign in February to ask for additional information concerning Sen. McCain's withdrawal from the public funding system, and it was provided to him in full. Commissioner Mason did not state that the McCain campaign acted improperly in any way: he stated that he believed the FEC had to vote on Sen. McCain's withdrawal from the primary funding system, while the campaign's lawyers do not think such a vote is required. The McCain campaign believes that Commissioner Mason's questions have been answered satisfactorily, and that if he is on the Commission when a quorum is restored he will agree that Sen. McCain's withdrawal from the system was proper. Accordingly, given the lack of evidence that Commissioner Mason thinks otherwise, the controversy about the White House decision to nominate someone else for the Mason seat seems to be a manufactured one.

Mr. Mason was not given any information about the sudden White House decision to drop his renomination.

Bob Bauer, Barack Obama's lawyer, is having none of it:

Of course, the appearance is fairly troubling here. One minute, this Commissioner is in good standing and the next minute on his way out the door, and what happens in between is that he becomes famous for challenging John McCain’s conduct of his legal affairs. McCain, fully versed in the preoccupations of reform, appreciates as well as anyone else and better than most the significance of disturbing "appearances", and yet here he is content to endure them, at his own expense. It is apparently worth it.

Obama Nets Two Superdelegates

** Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA) endorses HRC. (+1)

** Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) endorses Obama (+0)

** Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ) switches from Clinton to Obama (-2)

Responding To Salter

The Obama campaign responds to Mark Salter's letter:

“Clearly losing one’s bearings has no relation to age, given this bizarre rant that Mark Salter just sent out. It’s clear why a candidate offering a third term of George Bush’s disastrous economic policies and failed strategy in Iraq would want to distract and attack, but it’s not the kind of campaign John McCain has promised the American people that he would run."

Salter: Obama Attacked McCain's Age

John McCain's senior adviser, Mark Salter, writing in a measured high dudgeon, accuses Barack Obama of playing the Age card and defends the McCain campaign's practice of pointing out Hamas's "endorsement" of Obama:

To: Interested Parties

From: Mark Salter, Senior Advisor

Date: May 8, 2008

Re: Senator Obama's Attack Today

First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama's attack today: He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning.

We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.