It's already been revealed the Empress has no clothes, but this is just out, and video speaks so much louder than words.
Registering Voters! Just on Saturday in the county I was in, we registered almost 3000 new voters or people switching parties to vote in the Democratic primary. Obama still is unlikely to win in PA, but hopefully we got him some new voters.
Here's some info from the NY Times:
Democratic voter registration in Pennsylvania has hit a record of more than 4 million voters.And:
“It’s kind of incredible,” Harry A. VanSickle, the state’s elections commissioner, tells The Caucus as his office prepares to post the new numbers. “It’s the first time we know of that a party in Pennsylvania has gone over 4 million.”
A total of 4,044,952 people are now registered to vote in the Democratic primary; a total of 3,215,478 are registered for the Republican primary.
Some of the biggest numbers of those who switched to become Democrats were recorded in the Republican suburbs of Philadelphia, which are likely to be an important battleground in the primary. [thats where we were canvassing]
Democratic enrollment is up by more than 110,000 since last year’s election, an increase of roughly 3 percent, state election officials said. It is likely to surpass the record of 4 million by Monday. Republicans lost about 14,000 voters in the same period.And jeez, its a sappy local news kind of story, but c'mon its nice - check out how a high school student was inspired by Obama to set up a voter registration table at her school.
More than 58,000 registered voters have changed their affiliation to Democratic, with about 10,000 changing to Republican. Voters must be registered in a party to vote in the state’s primary.
More looks at Obama's advisors and policies.
The American Prospect takes a great look at Obama's foreign policy team (also explored in this earlier post):
Obama is offering the most sweeping liberal foreign-policy critique we've heard from a serious presidential contender in decades. It cuts to the heart of traditional Democratic timidity. "It's time to reject the counsel that says the American people would rather have someone who is strong and wrong than someone who is weak and right," Obama said in a January speech. "It's time to say that we are the party that is going to be strong and right." (The Democrat who counseled that Americans wanted someone strong and wrong, not weak and right? That was Bill Clinton in 2002.)And in today's Washington Post, Obama's economic advisor takes a quick look at Obama's plans to deal with the economic crisis. Keep Reading (if there's more)...
...I spoke at length with Obama's foreign-policy brain trust, the advisers who will craft and implement a new global strategy if he wins the nomination and the general election. They envision a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering "democracy promotion" agenda in favor of "dignity promotion," to fix the conditions of misery that breed anti-Americanism and prevent liberty, justice, and prosperity from taking root. An inextricable part of that doctrine is a relentless and thorough destruction of al-Qaeda. Is this hawkish? Is this dovish? It's both and neither -- an overhaul not just of our foreign policy but of how we think about foreign policy. And it might just be the future of American global leadership.
Are the Democrats on the path to giving us a McCain administration? Noam Schreiber of the New Republic explores (and looks at parallels to the 1980 Democratic race):
The problem is that each day Clinton and Obama spend consumed with the other is a day that moves John McCain closer to the White House. McCain's biggest asset is his political brand, which evokes a straight-talking, party-bucking reformer. Among his biggest liabilities is the suspicion he inspires among conservatives thanks to these same attributes. McCain apparently plans to spend the next few months making nice with his base. But anything he accomplishes on this front clearly diminishes his swing-voter appeal and, therefore, his chances in November.
Ideally, the Democrats would be exploiting this tension like mad. They would highlight the anti-Catholic, anti-gay ravings of John Hagee, the evangelical minister whose endorsement McCain recently accepted. They would ridicule his chumminess with supply-side Neanderthals like Jack Kemp and his flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts. They'd dwell on McCain's less-noticed association with crony-capitalists during his tenure as Commerce Committee chairman.
Instead, something close to the opposite is happening. McCain's courtship of the lunatic right and his ties to K Street have largely been hidden from view, while the Democrats' dirty laundry has been aired for swing voters. The upshot for Democrats has not been good. In late February, a Gallup poll showed Obama leading McCain among independents by 15 points. By March 6, a Newsweek poll put McCain up ten points among this group--and that was before Jeremiah Wright weighed in. Hillary went from down five to down 15 among independents during the same time.
Bill Richardson, '08 presidential candidate, Bill Clinton's Ambassador to the UN and later Secretary of Energy, and current Governor of New Mexico endorsed Obama today in a speech far more rousing than any I saw from him during the campaign (hey Bill - I like the beard too!) He was clearly inspired by Obama's speech earlier this week.
In a statement released earlier today, he said:
My affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver. It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall...Barack Obama will be a historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.Also - significantly from the '08 Democratic candidate with some of the most extensive foreign policy - he takes on Hillary's "commander-in-chief" threshold argument:
"There is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief when our nation's security is on the line," Richardson said. "He showed this judgment by opposing the Iraq war from the start, and he has shown it during this campaign by standing up for a new era in American leadership internationally."
If you missed Obama's speech, or only saw soundbites on TV, watch it here:
And/or read it here. I have to admit I got a little misty at the end.
And here is the rest of it.
Keep Reading (if there's more)...
In a speech today on Iraq, Hillary Clinton said the following:
"Senator Obama holds up his original opposition to the war on the campaign trail, but he didn't start working aggressively to end the war until he started running for president. So when he had a chance to act on his speech, he chose silence instead." And implied that Obama would be dependent on advisors, and won't match "words with actions."
Obama's campaign produced a video response:
Whether the vote was a vote for war or not I recapped in this post, along with headlines from that day.
I myself would add: Hillary herself not only was originally for the war, but only came out strongly for withdrawal in the midst of democratic primary, when it was necessary to do so.
Keep Reading (if there's more)...
In the interest of debunking the bogus Clinton campaign's "Big State" talking point, the first in a continuing look at some general election "big state" polls:
In Florida, both Clinton and Obama right now would lose to McCain, Obama by less:
FL-Pres
Mar 16 Rasmussen McCain (R) 47%, Clinton (D) 40%
FL-Pres
Mar 16 Rasmussen McCain (R) 47%, Obama (D) 43%
In NY, both Obama and Clinton would win, though interestingly Obama would outperform Clinton (a wee bit) in her home state.
NY-Pres
Mar 16 Rasmussen Clinton (D) 50%, McCain (R) 38%
NY-Pres
Mar 16 Rasmussen Obama (D) 51%, McCain (R) 38%
In CA, both Obama and Clinton would win, Obama by more.
CA-Pres
Mar 14 Rasmussen Obama (D) 53%, McCain (R) 38%
CA-Pres
Mar 14 Rasmussen Clinton (D) 46%, McCain (R) 39%
In OH, both would lose to McCain by the same amount.
OH-Pres
Mar 14 Rasmussen McCain (R) 46%, Obama (D) 40%
OH-Pres
Mar 14 Rasmussen McCain (R) 46%, Clinton (D) 40%
In PA, both lose to McCain right now - Obama though is almost even
PA-Pres
Mar 13 Rasmussen McCain (R) 46%, Clinton (D) 44%
PA-Pres
Mar 13 Rasmussen McCain (R) 44%, Obama (D) 43%
Keep Reading (if there's more)...
Obama on identity politics, Rev. Wright, Robert Kennedy and what his campaign is about:
You also have a choice: to believe that this is a sincere message given by a sincere person; or a phony message delivered by a fraud. The only way to really know which is to look at his record. It seems to me that Obama has been motivated by the same themes from the very start, and still offers the same hope of unity that has been the core of his campaign for president from the beginning.
Those who ask questions and seek answers about the influence of Wright are doing their democratic duty. It is equally Obama's duty to answer them as candidly and respectfully and precisely as possible. But those who do not want to hear an answer that gives hope and reconciles our divisions are betraying themselves and this country's potential. Reveling in cynicism and partnisanship is the act of those who truly do not love America.
A revealing look at Obama from University of Chicago constitutional law colleague Cass Sunstein in the Chicago Tribune. Highly recommended!
Not so long ago, the phone rang in my office. It was Barack Obama. For more than a decade, Obama was my colleague at the University of Chicago Law School.Here's another excerpt, read the whole thing here:
He is also a friend. But since his election to the U.S. Senate, he does not exactly call every day.
On this occasion, he had an important topic to discuss: the controversy over President Bush's warrantless surveillance of international telephone calls between Americans and suspected terrorists. I had written a short essay suggesting that the surveillance might be lawful. Before taking a public position, Obama wanted to talk the problem through.In about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the president's power as commander in chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more.
Obama wanted to consider the best possible defense of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counterargument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said he thought the program was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked me for my time.
This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama's mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side.
This is the Barack Obama I have known for nearly 15 years -- a careful and evenhanded analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view.
The Obama we know is no rhetorician; he shines not because he can move people, but because of his problem-solving abilities, creativity and attention to detail.Keep Reading (if there's more)...
In recent weeks, his speaking talents, and the cultlike atmosphere that occasionally surrounds him, have led people to wonder whether there is substance behind the plea for "change" -- whether the soaring phrases might disguise emptiness and vagueness. But nothing could be further from the truth. He is most comfortable in the domain of policy and detail.
I do not deny that skeptics are raising legitimate questions. After all, Obama has served in the U.S. Senate for a short period (less than four years) and he has little managerial experience. Is he really equipped to lead the most powerful nation in the world?
Obama speaks of "change," but will he be able to produce large-scale changes in a short time? What if he fails? An independent issue is that all the enthusiasm might serve to insulate him from criticisms and challenges on the part of his advisers -- and, in view of his relative youth, criticisms and challenges are exactly what he requires.
Fortunately, the candidate's campaign proposals offer strong and encouraging clues about how he would govern; what makes them distinctive is that they borrow sensible ideas from all sides.
He is strongly committed to helping the disadvantaged, but his University of Chicago background shows he appreciates the virtues and power of free markets. He is not only focused on details but is also a uniter, both by inclination and on principle.
If you've never seen an Olbermann Special Comment, they usually call to light hypocrisies of the Bush Administration. This is the first time he's said anything about the Democrats, in this case regarding the Clinton campaign and Geraldine Ferraro's comments and its a MUST SEE
Keep Reading (if there's more)...
Obama's Not Going to Win Pennsylvania: That according to the calculations of website "The Field." But he will still win the nomination without it - she can't catch up in delegate, he just can't play into the Clinton narrative that it is the last stand:
The press will try to make a race of it. There will surely be polls showing the race tightening, perhaps even suggesting that Obama could win it. But that’s just part of the predictable song-and-dance to sell newspapers and up ratings (and hit counts, for the political blogs and news sites that sell ads). The way the odd-numbered delegate districts break down, the demographics, the fact that it’s a closed primary (no Independent voters allowed), and its long border with the senator’s New York state make it a lead-pipe cinch for Clinton; to the extent that Obama supporters enter the “no, but yes, we can win it” narrative they’ll be walking into a trap.
Clinton has now moved 250 staffers (about 13 for each of Pennsylvania’s 19 Congressional districts) into the Keystone state and is opening two dozen field offices. She has the support of Governor Ed Rendell and his considerable machine, not to mention a phalanx of mayors including Michael Nutter of Philadelphia. They’re carrying a straight flush and they’re betting everything on it. That makes it tempting for Obama fans to seek a knockout punch, but all their candidate really needs to do is survive to the next round – North Carolina, two weeks later – without having fallen into a rigged expectations game to clinch the nomination.Keep Reading (if there's more)...
Have discussed this before here and here, but the NY Times looks at how Hillary has managed her campaign organization as an indicator of what kind of leader she is, finding some frightening parallels:
“She hasn’t managed anything as complex as this before; that’s the problem with senators,” said James A. Thurber, a professor of government at American University who is an expert on presidential management. “She wasn’t as decisive as she should have been. And it’s a legitimate question to ask: Under great pressure from two different factions, can she make some hard decisions and move ahead? It seems to just fester. She doesn’t seem to know how to stop it or want to stop it.”Even more troubling, however, is how her own tendencies toward loyalty, sound horrifyingly similar to our current president's management:
Still, interviews with campaign aides, associates and friends suggest that Mrs. Clinton, at least until February, was a detached manager. Juggling the demands of being a candidate, she paid little attention to detail, delegated decisions large and small and deferred to advisers on critical questions. Mrs. Clinton accepted or seemed unaware of the intense factionalism and feuding that often paralyzed her campaign and that prevented her aides from reaching consensus on basic questions like what states to fight in and how to go after Mr. Obama, of Illinois.Yikes.
Mrs. Clinton showed a tendency toward an insular management style, relying on a coterie of aides who have worked for her for years, her aides and associates said. Her choice of lieutenants, and her insistence on staying with them even when friends urged her to shake things up, was blamed by some associates for the campaign’s woes. Again and again, the senator was portrayed as a manager who valued loyalty and familiarity over experience and expertise.
Jonathan Chait at the New Republic looks at how Clinton is trying to win:
The morning after Tuesday's primaries, Hillary Clinton's campaign released a memo titled "The Path to the Presidency." I eagerly dug into the paper, figuring it would explain how Clinton would obtain the Democratic nomination despite an enormous deficit in delegates. Instead, the memo offered a series of arguments as to why Clinton should run against John McCain--i.e., "Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done"--but nothing about how she actually could. Is she planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? The memo does not say.
The reason it doesn't say is that Clinton's path to the nomination is pretty repulsive. She isn't going to win at the polls. Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton's Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. She isn't going to do much to dent, let alone eliminate, his lead.
Keep Reading (if there's more)...
That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified. And here is the rest of it.
A great and poignant little ditty from Andrew Sullivan, I recommend reading the whole thing (its short but good!):
The reason so many people have re-engaged with politics this year is because many sense their country is in a desperate state and because only one candidate has articulated a vision and a politics big enough to address it without dividing the country down the middle again. For the first time in decades, a candidate has emerged who seems able to address the country's and the world's needs with a message that does not rely on Clintonian parsing or Rovian sleaze. For the first time since the 1960s, we have a potential president able to transcend the victim-mongering identity politics so skillfully used by the Clintons. If this promise is eclipsed because the old political system conspires to strangle it at birth, the reaction from the new influx of voters will be severe.And here is the rest of it. Keep Reading (if there's more)...
The "Dream Ticket." Today, Bill Clinton was out promoting the idea of a Clinton-Obama ticket, following Hillary's floating the idea over the past few days. As Greg Sargent at Talking Points Memo states, "Hillary floated this yesterday, and, now, Bill today -- and it's hard to imagine that both Clintons would be talking this up in tandem by accident. " I also doubt they are, and to me this is one of the most crassly cynical, desperate, condescending and devious ploys their campaign has tried yet. Why?
Its already been shown the empress has no clothes, and pointed out that this is an argument she probably shouldn't start, as its one that McCain will win. Yet:
All the talk of "post-9/11" world, and how the Republicans will attack on national security: the Clinton campaign seems to think their role is to act like Republicans? Rush Limbaugh sure thinks they'll do a better job on it then his guys will.
Argh.
Keep Reading (if there's more)...
Obama and Hillary, Hillary and Obama. There's still a Republican they're destroying their party competing to run against (ok one of them is doing most of the destroying). And that Republican is John McCain. And there's some new stories that take a hard look at him. Salon brings up Hillary's "3 AM" experience gambit and points out John McCain wins on this argument. But should he?In interviews with Salon this week, several experienced military officers said McCain draws mixed reviews among military leaders, and they expressed serious doubts about whether McCain has the right temperament to be the next president and commander in chief. Some expressed more confidence in Obama, citing his temperament as an asset.
And Matt Yglesias looks at McCain's education policy and determines:
It is not difficult in Washington to find high-level military officials who have had close encounters with John McCain's temper, and who find it worrisome. Politicians sometimes scream for effect, but the concern is that McCain has, at times, come across as out of control..."I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor," said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004 and is now campaigning for Clinton. "I think it is a little scary. I think this guy's first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse."
"I studied leadership for a long time during 32 years in the military," said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, a one-time Republican who is supporting Obama. "It is all about character. Who can motivate willing followers? Who has the vision? Who can inspire people?" Gration asked. "I have tremendous respect for John McCain, but I would not follow him."Strolling through John McCain's policy proposals is a fascinating experience . . . lurking behind every link is a nearly-astounding level of vacuity
The Chicago Tribune looks at Hillary's claims of experience handling foreign crises one by one, and doesn't find too much there:
But while Hillary Clinton represented the U.S. on the world stage at important moments while she was first lady, there is scant evidence that she played a pivotal role in major foreign policy decisions or in managing global crises...
"How does going to Beijing and giving a speech show crisis management? There was no crisis. And there was nothing to manage," Rice said.I won't point out the irony around the fact that one of her "acts" of crisis management was a speech.
But what's most needed is temperament, maturity and judgment. Detailed expertise can come from advisors...Others think it's precisely the expertise that's needed...Hillary Clinton seems to think she's a strong contender in this latter category. But that's a joke. She's starting her second term in the US senate, where, yes, she serves on the Armed Services committee. Beside that she's never held elective office and she has little executive experience. I think she can argue that she'd make and would make a strong commander-in-chief. But she's pushing a metric by which she's little distinguishable from Barack Obama. I'm honestly surprised she's not drawing chuckles on this one.Keep Reading (if there's more)...
Obama actually won. NPR explains:...Texas contests are actually both a primary and a caucus.
Keep Reading (if there's more)...
Clinton won the primary with 51 percent of the popular vote to Obama's 47 percent, according to the Associated Press. Those results earned her 65 delegates to Obama's 61 delegates.
But allocating delegates in the Lone Star State takes a "Texas two-step." After the polls closed, more than 1 million Texans also attended caucuses, the results of which determine how about one-third of the state's delegates get awarded.
The state Democratic Party estimates that Obama will come out ahead: 37 pledged delegated to Clinton's 30 delegates. But the official tally of the Texas caucus won't be ready for months.
So before Tuesday's elections, right wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh urged his audience to vote for Hillary - to keep the Democratic race going and to allow her to continue to attack Obama because he doesn't think the Republicans have the stomach to do it.
[RUSH]: I want Hillary to stay in this, Laura. This is too good a soap opera. We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically, and it's obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it and don't have the stomach for it, as you probably know. We're getting all kinds of memos from the RNC, saying we're not going to be critical there. Mark McKinnon of McCain's campaign says he'll quit if they get critical over Obama. This is the presidency of the United States we're talking about. I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose. They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch, and it's all going to stop if Hillary loses.Now I just find the idea of this frightening - the eternal enemy of the Clintons telling his folks to vote for them - but according to some calls to his show and other accounts, it may have actually had some effect:
In Wisconsin, Republicans made up 9 percent of the Democratic primary vote. Obama won them 72-28 over Clinton. Just as tellingly, 14 percent of primary voters said they were "conservative," and Obama won them 59-40...Keep Reading (if there's more)...
Now, look at Ohio. Once again 9 percent of voters were Republicans, but Obama and Clinton split them evenly, 49-49. Once again, 14 percent of voters were "conservatives," and Obama and Clinton split them 48-48...It's a similar story in Texas, where Limbaugh has the most listeners of any of these states. Obama won the Republican vote 52-47, but conservatives (22 percent of all voters, up from 15 percent in the Kerry-Edwards primary) went against Obama.
I read this before I was blogging, but Nicholas Kristof had a great column dissecting the role "experience" actually plays in presidential successes, and in terms of Obama and Clinton. Read the whole thing!
It might seem obvious that long service in Washington is the best preparation for the White House, but on the contrary, one lesson of American history is that length of experience in national politics is an extremely poor predictor of presidential success.
Looking at the 19 presidents since 1900, three of the greatest were among those with the fewest years in electoral politics. Teddy Roosevelt had been a governor for two years and vice president for six months; Woodrow Wilson, a governor for just two years; and Franklin Roosevelt, a governor for four years. None ever served in Congress....
...The Democrats with the greatest Washington expertise — Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson — have already been driven from the race. And the presidential candidate left standing with the greatest experience by far is Mr. McCain; if Mrs. Clinton believes that’s the criterion for selecting the next president, she might consider backing him.Keep Reading (if there's more)...
To put it another way, think which politician is most experienced today in the classic sense, and thus — according to the “experience” camp — best qualified to become the next president.
That’s Dick Cheney. And I rest my case.
Hillary said this yesterday, and its caused some hubbub:
I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know that Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.Besides being unfair to Obama's actual record, the problem is that here is that she has just given John McCain a bite he can use in every ad he might have to run against Obama showing he doesn't have support of his own party. Its one thing to attack, its another thing to be willing to throw your party's potential candidate under the bus.
Jonathan Alter of Newsweek does a breakdown of the math: even if she wins Ohio and Texas, and almost every state after that (many of which she will NOT win), Hillary can't catch up to Obama's delegate lead.
Hillary Clinton may be poised for a big night tonight, with wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Clinton aides say this will be the beginning of her comeback against Barack Obama. There's only one problem with this analysis: they can't count.
I'm no good at math either, but with the help of Slate’s Delegate Calculator I've scoped out the rest of the primaries, and even if you assume huge Hillary wins from here on out, the numbers don't look good for Clinton. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week for the rest of the primaries...Keep Reading (if there's more)...
...no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal.
Mark Ambinder at the Atlantic has put together a brief little FAQ about "Existential Realities of the Democratic Race." Here's an excerpt:Q. Can Hillary Clinton win the nomination?A. Maybe.
Q. Can you be more specific? Is it mathematically possible for her to win the nomination?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it likely that she will win the nomination?
A. Based on the math alone and a reasonable projection of external events, no.
Keep Reading (if there's more)...
Q. But you said it's possible.
A. Yes. But lots of things have to break her way. If, say, voting ends and the press discovers that Obama has a secret second family in Idaho and all his superdelegates abandon him; if, for some reason, she wins 75% of the popular vote in the states after Ohio and Texas and half the remaining superdelegates; if, by slow attrition, he closes the delegate gap to about 70 and picks off two thirds of the remaining superdelegates; if the pledged (Obama) delegates concur with the credentials committee and seat the (Clintonian) Florida and Michigan delegations) -- then, yes, it's possible.
The LA Times asks "How did the Clinton campaign get here?" trying to understand how the candidate, who was once assumed to be the inevitable nominee, has reached the point she has. Their answer: leadership, or a lack therof.
Hillary Clinton may be one of the most disciplined figures in national politics, but she has presided over a campaign operation riven by feuding, rival fiefdoms and second-guessing of top staff members
...Already, some in Clinton's senior staff are pointing fingers over what went wrong, with some of the blame aimed at Clinton herself. As the race unfolded, neither Clinton nor anyone else resolved the internal power struggles that played out with destructive effect and continue to this day...
Joe Trippi, a senior advisor to John Edwards' now-dropped Democratic campaign, said: "At some point the candidate has to step in and bust heads and say 'Enough!' "If there's fighting internally, the candidate has to step up and make it clear what direction she wants to go and stop this stuff dead in its tracks. Otherwise there's going to be a struggle for power and control right until the end. It's crippling."Keep Reading (if there's more)...
In a recent article in the UK's Sunday Times, Obama revealed he is planning on including prominent Republicans in his cabinet:
As Barack Obama enters the final stages of the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, he is preparing to detach the core voters of John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, with the same ruthless determination with which he has peeled off Hillary Clinton’s supporters.Keep Reading (if there's more)...
The scene is set for a tussle between the two candidates for the support of some of the sharpest and most independent minds in politics. Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.
Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain’s closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary. Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee although that might be regarded as a “stretch”.
Asked about his choice of cabinet last week, Obama told The Sunday Times: “Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much..."
From a blogger in Texas:
I stopped at the intersection of Lovers Lane and Greenville this afternoon, and immediately noticed people standing on each corner (and on a couple of the medians) holding Hillary Clinton signs. Another thing immediately apparent, especially because of the race and gender issues in this presidential election, was that each person holding a sign was black.Always great to have to buy visibility and support. Keep Reading (if there's more)...
I rolled down the window to ask one of the men what group the sign-holders belonged to, and he told me Southern Fried Marketing. I asked if they supported Hillary Clinton for president, and he replied: "Paid for."
So on Friday, Hillary's campaign releases this fear mongering ad on TV in Texas and Ohio:
Her campaign describes it as a "positive" ad. Afterwards, her campaign had a conference call with reporters to discuss it, as described on the National Journal's blog (w/audio):
Responding to the release of HRC's new TX TV ad, which asserts in no subtle terms that only she has the experience to deal with a major world crisis, and, relatedly, to keep your children safe, Slate's John Dickerson asked the obvious question:Obama's campaign impressively whipped up their own response the same day:
"What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?" he said.
Silence on the call. You could've knit a sweater in the time it took the usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein, Clinton's national security director, to find a cogent answer. And what they came up with was weak -- that she's been endorsed by many high ranking members of the uniformed military.
I am just back from canvassing with my friends for Obama in Rhode Island. I was very taken aback when at one of the first houses I canvassed, a voter stated "well I'm undecided but...didn't he swear in on the Koran?" When I told him no, this had not happened, he responded, "well, he is a Muslim, though."
"I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years. I pray to Jesus every night," he declared at an earlier appearance in the rural southern Ohio town of Nelsonville. He said he wanted to halt "confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated."
It's all garbage. There is no anti-Israel candidate running for President. The partisans of one party or the other who say that there is, and who distort and lie to "prove" their point, need to be told that their tactics are indecent and beyond the pale. Although the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how to resolve it is a legitimate subject for debate, using Israel or anti-Semitism to score against opposing candidates is not. Worse than that, it disrespects and insults our community. But don't expect to stop receiving those hate e-mails anytime soon. No matter that they are nothing but lies, just like those e-mails everyone gets promising that a particular pill will enlarge a particular body part. The e-mails about the candidates are no different: lies for the gullible. They deserve the same response. Just hit "delete."
