Burning down the house, blow-torch style

I haven't posted in awhile - work and personal and a confluence of things have been getting to me. But I will continue posting on things that outrage me, like the fact that a Democratic 527 (with Hillary affiliations) is making confusing phone calls to African American voters in North Carolina. They were charged with doing the same thing in Virginia.

Women's Voices, Women Vote is a DC based group that aims to boost voting amongst unmarried female voters. This is a fantastic cause, and one that I wholeheartedly support. However, the question is, what then are they doing using an African American man's voice to make robocalls to African Americans in North Carolina.

Dailykos is on top of it.

Women's Voices Executive Director Joe Goode worked for Bill Clinton's election campaign in 1992 as a pollster; the group's website says he was intimately involved in "development and implementation of all polling and focus groups done for the presidential primary and general election campaigns" for Clinton.

I am so angry that I want to cry and tear my hair out. Why would you deliberately do something that would damage our chances in the general election?!?!

If Hillary thinks that even if she survives the primary, that she can win without African American voters, then she is wrong. Because it's not only African American voters who are pissed about this behavior. Only someone like Hillary can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - the economy is for shit, gas is hitting $4/barrel, and reports say it may go as high as $6/barrel in the summer.

The politics of destruction have gone too far. I am a staunch Democrat, but that is because Democratic platform currently includes equal opportunity and fairness. I will still vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, but it is only because McCain is a far worse choice. If anything, I believe that Hillary will drive a lot of people back out of the party and to independent or third party groups. Currently her influence on the race and Democratic registration and enrollment is about 50 worse than Nader. And super delegates should be aware of this - if she is willing to not just ignore, but actively disenfranchise African American voters, she will be willing to knock down and run over any one of you to gain power.

I have been moderate about Hillary. Now I am done with her. After this election, I am sure that her advisors will remain in the party. That the Clinton money will still stay in the party. But she is not my candidate of choice or happenstance. And if there is a primary challenger in her upcoming Senate race, I will find a way to support him or her.

These are new low tactics, and they are beyond the pale. There's a reason why her trustworthy polling is in the 30s when Obama and McCain are in the 60s, and she's definitely damaging his ratings. It's over. Pull out. Drop out. Obama's won.

When even Rahm Emmanuel is saying that the way the loser loses decides how we win in November, then you know you're toast. Emmanuel is as big a Clintonista as there is, and the only reason he has remained neutral publicly is because while he may have supported Clinton and run his political operations, he is a Congressman in Chicago (where the Daley machine is strong) and his home state senators are the dream team duo of Dick Durbin and Obama.

Ugh. Good riddance.

NY Gov. Hillary Clinton: Say it ain't so

Oh god, please say it ain't so, I don't wanna know. . .

Jonathan Alter of Newsweek is talking about "giving" Hillary Clinton the NY State governorship as a consolation prize for not winning the presidential nomination.

This is ridiculous. First of all, just because Paterson is currently having problems does not mean that he will have to resign, and second, the reason why I don't want Clinton as my president (apart from issues of judgement) is that she feels entitled to it. It's as though her parents didn't get the big huge stuffed panda and now she just has to settle for the still large but just slightly smaller one.

Get over it.

Maybe this prospect would have seemed more appealing if she hadn't totally botched her campaign and if she hadn't started down the nuclear path. But more importantly, you don't just get handed a governorship. You should have to work for it. The way she worked for her first Senate campaign, and the way that she worked to represent the people of New York.

I don't have a problem with her having higher ambitions - if politicians didn't, they probably would never get anything done. But she consistently just uses and loses people, cities, states. Look at how certain states (Iowa and oh, about 20 states) were important and then not so much. Look at how Bill Richardson was important, and now not so much.

I mean, c'mon. When's the last time the people of New York had a competent governor for a long period of time? Mario Cuomo? Oy.

Hillary's hardball tactics backfire

As I predicted in previous posts, Hillary and her campaign's shenanigans and hardball tactics are turning off supporters and undecided superdelegates.

The Clinton campaign has been actively wooing these delegates, believing a plurality represents the strongest, and increasingly the only, way for her to win the nomination. But one undeclared delegate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the recent tactics are turning her and other superdelegates off.

"I don't think anybody's saying 'step aside,' but 'stop with the garbage' is what people want to say," the delegate said. "Just chill a little bit."

As activists committed to the party, they said, they have been impressed by Obama's ability to bring new Democrats into the fold, and they worry that Clinton is threatening that.

"We like the fact that there is a candidate that has won so many states overwhelmingly," the delegate said. "We're feeling her advisors are leading her in a path that diminishes her as well as him."

And really can you blame them? Between crazy jabbering about "converting" (read: stealing) pledged delegates and mentally incompetent jawboning about Richardson as Judas (expect to see some Latino leaders walk away soon - first the firing of Patti Solis Doyle and now the description of the nation's highest ranking Democratic Latino as "Judas", well this is kinda starting to show a trend where Hillary is just using them as tokens and discarding them just as quickly.)

Plus Clintonites recognize that Pelosi ain't so happy with Hillary and now are trying to force her back into a corner. Read their letter to her here including this thinly veiled threat from some of the Democratic Party's major fundraisers: "We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters."

It's hard not to read this as a threat to withhold funds from the DCCC. And it's true that these people are no joke - Maureen White was the former finance Chair of the DNC, Steve Rattner was behind the Atlantic Yards project in New York, Susie Thompkins Buell founded Espirit, and Haim Saban created the Power Rangers franchise. These people give massive amounts of money to the party, but it doesn't mean that their voices should count for more than the millions of voters.

This is probably the stupidest thing they could have done, and will just result in her unleashing her deputies to a greater degree. In case they forgot, Pelosi is the speaker of the House, the titular leader of 233 of the superdelegates, and many have not publicly sided, belonging to the 400-odd group of undecided delegates (the super-undecideds?) Also, Pelosi is no stranger to hardball politics, but unlike Hillary she is able to pull people back into her corner. (Witness her election as Speaker when several Dem congresscritters voted present rather than voting for her as Speaker. She has done an excellent job of maintaining party unity for the most part, and has gained the respect of those previous holdouts.)

Pelosi knows how to count and whip votes like nobody's business, and I want to point to Dan Lipinski, who reps the most conservative district in Illinois that's held by a (nominal) Democrat. Today he endorsed Obama, leaving Rahm Emanuel the lone undecided in the Illinois Democratic delegation.

Basically, having run a number of campaigns, Clinton is desperate because she's running a sinking ship. By the time you have to arm wrestle your supporters, you've already lost. And the crazy, desperate, haphazard flailing and failing actions you take are ones that unnerve even your supporters. You lose perspective and try to be too ham-handed, and it's not good for anyone, least of all your campaign. If you had a campaign that was doing well, you would be attracting superdels and volunteers and donations like flies to honey. Kinda like what Obama's campaign is doing.

Instead, your pressuring of Dean, Pelosi, and other national leaders has given you a black eye and brought it to the point where Harry Reid, whose son ran your successful Nevada operations, is saying that this will be over soon.

It's not too late to leave with grace and dignity. After all, when Kerry starting making noise about running for president again, he got some serious primary challenges floated. Don't think the same won't happen to you.

UPDATE: correction - posters are correct, these are two different people. Bruce Ratner is the Atlantic Yards developer and Steven Rattner is the American venture capitalist. I apologize for not double checking and researching. Thanks to readers for catching this.

Hillary: the Tonya Harding option

Well, I barely resisted the urge to call her that in my Sunday post, but a DNC official has gone public (in that anonymous DC fashion), calling Hillary out.

Jake Tapper of ABC has the scoop:

What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?

She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"

The Tonya Harding Option -- the first time I've heard it put that way.

It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn't get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama win the gold.

(In this metaphor, presumably, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would be Oksana Baiul. Does that make former President Bill Clinton Jeff Gillooly?)

Here's what I said:

"If this is an example of how she is running her campaign (and it is), I don't see why more superdelegates aren't running in the opposite direction. This is a prime example of why Democratic activists are afraid of endorsing because they are incredibly sore losers who will try to handicap your knees."

Why did I not want to fully call it that, and instead just alluded to it? Because I do think that it is slightly sexist. It plays into people's perceptions that Hillary is a fighter, albeit a dirty fighter who is willing to do anything to win, who is a rough and tumble gal. I think that Hillary's hardball antics are increasingly turning off a number of high profile Dems, Richardson and Reid among them. It's the Judas-calling kinda stuff that reminds people that she has high disapproval ratings amongst parts of the Dems and the GOP, and the independents.

This meme is so powerful that it will be the one to end her presidential campaign, and it may factor into a netroots/progressive Senate challenge in about 4 years. It's catching fire and soon youtube will be flooded with videos comparing the two. Only, this time it's not going to be a challenger like Jonathan Tasini, it will be someone who is better funded, and who is going to do a much better job of drawing votes from various disenfranchised communities. If you think that the media is just eager to cover this angle, you forget how much the media despises Hillary (despite her well-trained press team.)

And Hillary won't have the backing of the Governor's machine this time around because he's busy enough trying to save his own political hide. Sure, she might have his verbal backing but when the knives come out, he won't be in her corner.

She has poisoned her own well, and she's going to have to drink from it sooner or later.

Clintonite calls Bill Richardson "Judas"

WOW! Just when you thought the kitchen couldn't get any hotter, Ragin' Cajun James Carville throws some tabasco sauce in the mix, calling Bill Richardson a Judas (!!!) for endorsing Obama over Hills:

"An act of betrayal," said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

"Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic," Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

Damn, talk about over the top. I mean, obviously the Clintons are pissed that Richardson didn't go with La Famiglia, but this is WAY over the line. And I am saying this as someone who doesn't love Richardson (mostly because of how he threw Wen Ho Lee under the bus as Sec. of Energy.)

I mean, the whole Mark Penn saying that Richardson was significant before he was insignificant is par for the course. But Judas?!? Does that mean they think Hillary is Jesus?!?!?

Not okay. They just insulted the top ranking Latino in the US, is she trying to kill her base?!? I mean she has a large part of the Latino vote, is she really trying to throw them over?

If this is an example of how she is running her campaign (and it is), I don't see why more superdelegates aren't running in the opposite direction. This is a prime example of why Democratic activists are afraid of endorsing because they are incredibly sore losers who will try to handicap your knees.

This is just beyond the pale, and incredibly bad taste. This is why people hate the Clintons. Carville needs to be fired for this.

Clinton's perceived honesty gap and some basic questions

A new Gallup poll has it in pretty stark numbers: a majority of Americans don't consider Hillary to be honest.

Obama and McCain's numbers are within the margin of error, so they are essentially tied with 2:1 ratios of voters trusting them to be honest.

It's something that I've flagged as a problem of hers before, and the results don't surprise me, because those numbers include both Democrats and Republicans. Hell, the thing I hear the most from people who don't like Hillary when I ask "why?" is "I don't trust her."

Now, this trust issue spans a lot - it spans that they don't trust her to tell the truth, but it includes not trusting her to fully defend progressive values, not trusting her to lead our country in the right direction. Some of this is mistrust on how she's seemingly willing to tear down the party to prevent someone, anyone else from winning the presidency (on the Democratic side.) Some people don't trust her because she used to be a College Republican and they think she continues to use Republican tactics. But I also hear it from apolitical people and swing voters, as well as Republicans. I hear it from Asian Americans, Latinos, whites, and African Americans. I hear it from all ages.

I'd say this is her major hurdle to overcome. The general populace is inclined to believe that she has the experience. They just don't believe that she won't use that experience to either stab us in the back or to fail to stand up for the little guy or girl.

One of the only positive side effects of the rev. Wright thing is that it has helped to wash away the Muslim smear. Instead there's a black nationalist smear. But Obama took a risk and was open and honest about how he personally connects to the issue. And I think that people appreciate that kind of courage and convictions.

It would have been easy for him to throw Rev. Wright under the bus, to completely disown him. But Obama didn't - he said, this man has raised me and brought me into the church. That shows loyalty, a kind of loyalty that the Clinton's haven't shown to their supporters, for the most part. During the Clinton-Gore campaign of 96, the APIA community got shafted and scapegoated for participating in our democracy. Staffers were afraid for their jobs, leaders felt silenced and our community - which was very much still emerging at the time, just on the cusps of starting some foundational new organizations - well, we just shut up. (There's a lot of reasons for this, including lack of infrastructure and even less power then. Check previous posts.)

I keep referencing this because if they would distance themselves from us over some bad checks, what do you think they would do if it comes to a harder issue of deeper importance, like immigration and keeping families together? I don't mean on an individual case by case basis but rather if the GOP wants to use us as the economic grinding-stone of white working class anger? Listen to Obama's speech for a good perspective on both sides.

It's already happening to some degree, and I've seen this movie before. It doesn't end pretty. In 1996, hate crimes increased 17 percent. In the 80s, there was the beating of Vincent Chin and movies like Rising Sun. There's legislation out there that would more clearly define and punish those who perpetuate hate crimes, and we can't seem to get it passed.

Hillary has proven that she fumbles hot potatoes like the drivers licenses issue, that she finds these issues radioactive. But the question is: when will she take a stand? My fear is that despite everything that there is to admire about her (and there is a significant amount), she either won't stand up for our community on the most important issues and really put her weight to bear on preventing bad legislation or passing good bills. Or that she'll fumble because she lacks the coalition building ability like with HillaryCare.

Obama puts himself in everybody's shoes, and as painful as that thought is to some reflexive progressives, I think it makes for a better argument for our case at the end of the day. It helps you spot the objections that other parties have and to address them. Too frequently, we are blind and deaf to the base concerns of Americans, and that's why we are unable to seal the deal.

Obama listens, and that informs his speeches. He makes his position and our position the majority one in simple and plain terms that make it easy for people to understand why he supports his positions.

One could argue that he puts himself in everybody's shoes because he has to walk in a lot of paths, but the who and why is not as important as the how. Because the how is what allows you to walk further down that path and to cross the bridge.

Pelosi pushes for Obama and the future of the Democratic Party

As I've noted throughout, Speaker of the House Pelosi (god I love that phrase) has been pushing for Obama in every so slight and subtle ways, including with her lieutenants Jan Schakowsky and George Miller endorsing him. More recently, she said that a Clinton Obama ticket was never going to happen because of the things that had been said, which supports his position that he would not be her veep (and can we talk about how ridiculous it is for the Number 2 to be offering the front runner a veep position?!?!)

Now, Pelosi comes out even more, and supports his stance on delegates. She is perhaps the single most important player in the Democratic party, as someone who has the support of the liberals and who understands how the game is played. Keep in mind that when she supported Mike Honda in a tight race for the DNC Vice Chair position, he got there.

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

. . .

Pelosi's comments could influence other House Democrats who are neutral in the presidential race and will attend the convention as superdelegates.

In her interview, Pelosi also said that even if one candidate winds up with a larger share of the popular vote than the delegate leader, the candidate who has more delegates should prevail.

"It's a delegate race," she said. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."

She understands what is at risk - a divided party is not going to be good for downticket races or for the future of the Democratic party. Indeed. what is ironic is that Hillary shares the same sector of voters that McCain does, at least in age. She has all the older voters, and something I am hearing more and more frequently now from the 30 and under cohort is that they will not vote for Hillary if she is the general nominee. This is from people who are NOT Naderites.

REPEAT: These are not Naderites. Naderites are the lunatic fringe. These are normal people in big cities and suburbs, some married with kids, of all races.

They are not the fringe of the party, but rather party activists and loyalists. And even people who have been less politically involved and engaged up until now. Who are now reading politico.com obsessively and whose watching of CNN is starting to rival mine (!!!) Many of these people are not political junkies and have never been. But they are deeply passionate about Obama and his message of change, and this is the future of the Democratic party.

Some of these people are the independents (a slice of the electorate that has been steadily growing) who want to come to the Democratic fold.

I am shocked and pleased at how informed people in the US and internationally are about our election. At the general enthusiasm and excitement. I wish it would stay this way but I'm increasingly concerned that some people will be turned off of politics for good if the current level of debate goes on like this and Clinton wins. I am going to support her and work for her regardless if she is our nominee, but I'm alarmed at WHO is saying that they won't. More than the party activists, I'm alarmed at the "normals" (if you will) who are making these declarations.

I hear that the campaigns are going to play cleaner for a bit, and I hope they stay there. Because all of this dirt and outrage is going to be played back by the RNC and McCain's campaign in the general election. And Pelosi is right - there's no way that if Obama wins he puts Hillary on the ticket just so the RNC can run ads with her saying that John McCain would be a better president.

That is beyond the pale. And if she was smart, she would stop trying to burn our house down. This level of naked ambition isn't going to do her well if she is trying to position for 2016, because all these millennials and the 30 and unders who are disgusted with her tactics are going to remember and never let her get a chance again. But maybe that's what's driving her fierce urgency this time around. The Democratic Party is changing, more rapidly than people could expect.

It's a good and healthy thing for us to be evolving. Good lord, it's been so long! But Clinton donors are trying to put the squeeze on Howard Dean as DNC chair because they are afraid of the evolution of the Democratic party, and afraid of losing their stranglehold over the power.

Pushing to seat the Florida delegates, at least one top Clinton fund-raiser, Paul Cejas, a Miami businessman who has given the Democratic National Committee $63,500 since 2003, has demanded Democratic officials return his 2007 contribution of $28,500, which they have agreed to do.

“If you’re not going to count my vote, I’m not going to give you my money,” said Mr. Cejas, who was the United States ambassador to Belgium from 1998 to 2001.

Christopher Korge, a Florida real estate developer who is another top fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, held an event last year in his home that brought in about $140,000 for the national party, which was set aside in a special account for the general election battle in Florida. But he told committee officials this week that if Florida’s delegate conundrum was not settled satisfactorily he would be asking for the money back.

“If we do not resolve this issue,” Mr. Korge said, “I think it’s safe to say there will be a request for a return of $140,000.”

Nice.

Should Clinton be Obama's veep?

Is the question that a lot of national pundits and some grassroots activists are asking. Is even the case that Governor Ed Rendell is pushing.

They argue that the Democratic base is so divided that we need these two on a ticket to bring the fold back together. That Hillary can retain and bring the female vote.

My gut response is no, no, no. NO. NO. NO!

Although my friends argue in discussion that Clinton's media discipline and DC insiders' knowledge are useful in the White House and in moving policy, my reasoning is that Clinton would hamper Obama from making real and meaningful change. That her veep advisors would overwhelm and hamstring and doublecross his WH staff on the Hill and around every bend if there was an issue that they disagreed on.

That whatever initiatives these are would go down like Hillarycare. In flames, and over disagreements about how we get there.

And this doesn't result from a dislike of Hillary. I find that they agree on many issues, but I am sure that Obama's ways of getting there would be vastly different than Clinton's, and I don't want a change president hampered by the exact opposite.

Not to mention that I really don't think we can win with Clinton on the ticket. Not a national general election. This is apart from the GOP base hating her fanatically. Either Obama or Clinton, if they became the nominee, would need someone to balance out the ticket - someone either with tremendous amounts of military, executive, or economic experience. Ideally all three, but 2 out of three ain't bad.

Here's what voters care about this election: Iraq and the economy. Increasingly, the economy is a major concern, and I'm sure that voters in Ohio care more about that than other issues.

If an Obama candidate brings someone to the table with lots of military experience like Jim Webb, then we can at least draw neutral with McCain on the military experience issue. If we can neutralize him on that we go after him on his total lack of understanding around the economy and his lack of judgement on Iraq and "bomb bomb bomb Iran."

Democrats are already more trusted on economic issues, so I think Obama needs to go more populist and talk more about the economy, but to also really figure out how to connect with lower income voters. Part of that means going to Appalachia.

If Obama brought someone with both economic sense and executive experience, like Mike Bloomberg, then he would still need to hammer on the military stuff some. Don't get me wrong - I don't think Webb is the most progressive guy, and he hasn't been great on immigration. But I think he can also talk to Appalachians and lower income voters and he relieves people's mind son the security question.

The last time that we pushed our national front runner to adopt a veep because they were next in the popular vote, we got Kerry Edwards. Kerry and Edwards didn't necessarily get along, it was more of a shotgun wedding. And no wonders that it didn't last. The GOP kept taking things that Kerry had said about Edwards or vice versa in the primaries and using them against us. In order to create change you have to have people who welcome it. The spectre of Mark Penn in the White House is not something I want.

I also don't trust her to cut and run on crucial issues. To use Penn to read the public's opinion on a given week and to decide based upon numbers what is good and right. Hillary has MAJOR trust and credibility issues. It is the biggest complaint that I hear from people who are apolitical, from people who are conservative, and who are liberal. We don't trust her to do the right thing, and I cannot have someone that high up in the Executive Branch like that. People trust McCain's judgement - under pressure he stayed under torture rather than use his connections. That is huge and it is vastly different than George Dubya. There's as contrast that McCain can draw, right there.

We want someone who is going to fight for the everyday people, and Hillary is not that person. Barack Obama has community organizing experience, but Hillary went corporate. She was on the WalMart board. Her adviser Mark Penn has done lots of work for WalMart.

Hillary has run a BAD campaign, whether it was led by Mark Penn or whomever. At the end of the day, she has to take responsibility for that and for overseeing and hiring the wrong people. I don't want that kind of decision making in our White House when we have just suffered under a terrible president.

And I'm going to put this out there, for what it's worth. Someone asked me if we shouldn't just put Hillary on the ticket just to prevent her from bringing the whole house down. Just because she's on the ticket doesn't mean she can't subvert it from the inside. If not during the campaign, then over a 4 year term. Her machine is known for being ruthless in getting what they want. And she wants to be top dog.

Reasons why Hillary will stick it out until April

From Mark Halperin:

1. She thinks she would be a better president than Obama.

2. She thinks she would be a stronger candidate against McCain than Obama.

3. She feels an obligation to her supporters to keep fighting.

4. She thinks she can win Pennsylvania.

5. She thinks she is finally gaining traction on the “national security experience” argument.

6. She thinks the one-on-one debate has only just begun, along with the heightened scrutiny of Obama.

7. She is finally raising enough money to fight the fight with paid TV ads.

8. She knows the Rezko trial is getting started.

9. She knows Obama is still well short of winning a majority of the delegates.

10. Clintons don’t quit–and she really, really, really wants to win.

Not saying that this is what I want or necessarily think will happen, just that an awful lot of people seem to be writing her out of the picture before she's formally exited, stage right. Never forget that she has the capability to bring the house down with her by going nuclear, and that the Clintons are sadly, very sore losers. The main reason so many of the superdelegates have yet to commit is not that they dislike Obama, but rather that they fear the wrath of the Clinton machine.

Also, reasons why Mark Penn needs to own his failure, courtesy of Marc Ambinder. Along with this stinging volley, which I consider quote of the week:

First, giving a quote like this to a reporter while your candidate remains viable is like the NTSB issuing a report on an airplane before it's crashed.

Two soundbites: McCain and Hillary staff

At this juncture in the race, I wanted to alert you to two soundbites. One is this video of John McCain calling himself a "proud conservative liberal Republican" and the editor has helpfully mashed in some pictures of weed and colorful 60s tie die waviness. Marc Ambinder helpfully confirms that he did indeed say this.



The other is rather more serious - it's John Dickerson from Slate on a call with Clinton advisors asking when in her career, has she ever been tested by a foreign crisis?

The long silence is deafening, and the sophomoric attempts to make shit up afterwards don't help.

"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.

Go to Hotline blog, which has the audio.

Throw Mark Penn under the bus

I wrote earlier about how outraged some Latinos in leadership positions were that Patti Solis Doyle, the former campaign manager for the Clinton campaign, had been thrown under the bus for mismanagement of the campaign, but that someone like Mark Penn, who has been called the "architect" of the campaign, has come without repercussion.

That, my friends, is all changing.

“Mark Penn has run this campaign,” said Ickes in a brief phone interview this morning. “Besides Hillary Clinton, he is the single most responsible person for this campaign.

Why now? Because the campaign is still flailing, and they still need a scrapegoat. And the criticism is well deserved and coming from all corners. (By the way, Mike Henry, former deputy campaign manager was right - Hillary should have skipped Iowa. She should have either fully invested early on, instead of hiring 100 field organizers back in Oct-Nov, or she should have largely stayed out. Instead, the campaign invested in things like snow shovels with Clinton's campaign logo for Caucus Day, when it DIDN'T SNOW.)

And also, Mark Penn is no friend of the working class, and unions hate him. Some very politically savvy unions came out for Obama, because Mark Penn's firm has serviced clients like Walmart. And when you go to Ohio and the unions are decimated, it's not bad to heap the blame on a DC fatcat like Mark Penn who is getting paid 2 million in a month when there are mom and pop small businesses filing in small claims court over unpaid bills.

Here once again, on egoism:

When asked about the assertion by one senior Clinton official the campaign was effectively run by committee, diluting Penn’s authority, Ickes was incredulous.

“I don’t know what campaign you’re talking about,” said Ickes. “I have been at meetings where he introduces himself as the campaign’s chief strategist. I’ve heard him call himself that many times, say, ‘I am the chief strategist.’”

Asked if Penn preferred the title of chief strategist to pollster, Ickes said, “Prefer it? He insists on it!”

Being thrown under the bus isn't so pretty. I suspect that Mark Penn will not have much political work outside of New York after this campaign.

Additionally, I want to say that Paul Begala is one of the best Clinton spokespeople and that he needs to be on tv more (as if all the CNN face time weren't enough) - he's affable, believable, and sells the message well. He does this thing where he gets you to buy into what he's saying by seemingly conceding your point but using it as a launching pad for his argument.

Clinton's APA staff won't back down

Most people read the Clinton staff letter by over 500 staffers pledging that they were in it to win it as a sign that the Clinton campaign wasn't going to back down.

Me, I scanned it for Asian American names. Keep in mind that this isn't even all her campaign staff - it's those who are the most dedicated and most loyal. By this list, it's not hard to see how Clinton has the most APA staff.

Additionally, it's notable for who is NOT on the list, namely Policy Director Neera Tandeen (who is a fixture in hillaryland), top APA hand Irene Bueno and APA spokesman Jin Chon.

Huma Abedin - Hillary's legendary traveling chief of staff
Nahiyan Ahmad - former healthcare consultant turned phone bank manager
Swathi Bojedla - senate staff assistant
Catharine Chen - former field staff and surrogate scheduler
Dennis Cheng - prev mentioned; NY State Finance Director
Cynthia Cho - former reporter turned Clinton staffer
Lenore Cho - former reporter turned Clinton staffer
Lillian Choi - NY attorney
Anne Gavaghan - Senate legislative aide
Diane Hamwi - California fundraiser
Melissa Ho - Senate side staff, Agricultural policy
Rafi Jafri - Chicago fundraiser
Ioanna Kefala - CT staff
Yekyu Kim - Senate side staffer, Deputy Director of Constituent Affairs
Roger Lau - Massachusetts director
Hyun J. Lee
Johna Ohtagaki
Amee Patel
Shraddha Patel Tewary
Tara Rangarajan
Victoria Ruan - former reporter turned regional field director in Nevada
Rishi Sahgal - LA attorney
Elisa Shyu
Uday Sreekanth

A snapshot of Hillary as a young attorney on a rape case

Glenn Thrush of Newsday has a good and deep article looking at one particular case of hers when she was a young attorney defending an indigenous client - she attacked the credibility of a 12 year old girl.

But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesn't mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant.

The case offers a glimpse into the way Clinton deals with crisis. Her approach, then and now, was to immerse herself in even unpleasant tasks with a will to win, an attitude captured in one of her favorite aphorisms: "Bloom where you're planted."

This is pretty damning for someone who continually touts her time at the children's defense fund. And it continues the meme that she's willing to do anything to win, a storyline that is currently working against her, and hard.

Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed "Hillary D. Rodham" in compact cursive.

Ouch - it's easy to point at this and call her craven. And the fallout of the more lenient sentence that adept young legal eagle Hillary Rodham Clinton won?

The victim, now 46, told Newsday that she was raped by Taylor, denied that she wanted any relationship with him and blamed him for contributing to three decades of severe depression and other personal problems.

"It's not true, I never sought out older men - I was raped," the woman said in an interview in the fall. Newsday is withholding her name as the victim of a sex crime.

With all the anguish she'd felt over the case in the years since, there was one thing she never realized - that the lawyer for the man she reviles was none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"I have to understand that she was representing Taylor," she said when interviewed in prison last fall. "I'm sure Hillary was just doing her job."

You can call this a hit piece. It sure hits on many of Hillary's weak points, and questions the morality of impugning a preteen girl. The article also grants that she would have been negligent in her duties as an attorney if she didn't provide him with the best legal defense possible, which is also true.

Don't keep reading if you have a weak stomach . . .

At 4:50 a.m., the girl walked into a local emergency room, badly shaken. The doctor's report noted that she had injuries consistent with rape. Sgt. Dale Gibson, the department's lead investigator in the case, interviewed her as she huddled with her mother. She offered a chilling detail - a threat from Taylor and his friends. "If I did say anything about it, they would catch me out later," she told the investigator.

Ugh, the details just get more and more gruesome - and Taylor was only one of the defendants - it was group rape, according to the girl. And the underage aggressor admitted to raping her as well.

The whole case sounds wretched and well, the article is a must-read.

I feel really bad for that woman who is now all grown up, but who has tried to commit suicide and can't get her life on track. It also sounds like the case affected Senator Clinton, as she "says the case spurred her to create the first rape hotline in Arkansas."

It sure sounds like a seminal case for Hillary, a real life-shifting experience, and I'm struck by how the woman doesn't blame Clinton. But I feel just terrible reading all of this.

SNL's brownface

So Saturday Night Live has largely stayed away from skewering Senator Obama as much as Clinton, largely because they don't have someone who has Obama's mannerisms down, as you'll see form this video below.

But it doesn't help that they don't have many actors of color and that they are trying to pull off political commentary in an election season when race has been one of the central themes.

Watching this video off of Ben Smith's Politico blog, I just couldn't help but think that it was rather awkward. First you have a white guy playing a Latino anchor, but without any of the actual intonation or accent that the anchor has.

It's as if they tried very hard to consider what would push the boundaries of funny and PC and offensive. Yes, it would be too offensive to try to replicate his spanish-tinged American English. Yes, it would be too much to make his skin darker. But it's okay to have a white guy play a famous Univision anchor without actually playing him. I don't really get it. He would have been better off playing John King, who he at least shares a jawline with.

Also, Barack Obama is played by an actor who completely lacks Obama's intonation, mannerisms, gestures, and gravitas. The guy playing him is just stilted and awkward. And I don't care if Fred Armisen is part Japanese American, part Venezuelan American. He just kinda sucks at Barack Obama. Did SNL pick him because he is also of mixed heritage? Who the hell knows. The writers at least had some good lines like journalists saying "yes we can" support Obama, and Fred delivered these well, but it was just exceedingly awkward and painful to watch.

One of the funnier moments - Amy Poehler as Hillary pulling decidedly away from Obama reaching for her hand.

Obama takes Wisconsin

CNN calls it for Obama with 1% reporting!

Clinton's speech is full of AFSCME green, and she's talking about healthcare reform and also foreclosure crisis. Damn, she's stealing talking points straight from John Edwards - "we're going to give the middle class a break instead" - I would have NEVER thought Hillary would go so anti-corporate.

They cut from her to Obama's Wisconsin victory speech which is being held in Houston. 9 straight states, day-mn. He gives props to Reps. Al Green, Eddie Bernice-Johnson and Chet Edwards. Props to faith leaders and their circle of prayer, and union support like SEIU, UFCW, and Transport Workers.

Early voting - smart to address right off the bat - Clinton's campaign is going after early voting like mad. He's locking in the votes now. He's making an organizer's ask - also saying that they have to attend the caucus at 7pm to get more delegates. SMART SMART SMART man.

He is going through the process like your average canvassers, saying, don't go alone to the polls - bring your friends and family. Now he launches into his speech.

Talking about civic pride in Wisconsin and how when you go vote, it's 5 degrees outside.

"THe change we seek is still months and miles away, and we need the good people of Texas to help us get there. We will need you to fight for every delegate it takes to win this nomination. And if we win this nomination, if we are blessed to win this nomination, then we will need your help to win this election in November. And if we win this election in november, then we will need you time, help, energy, enthusiasm, voices, to help us change America over the next four years. Understand this Houston, as exciting and as wonderful as this crowd and the energy is, it is not easy and it will not happen overnight. it's going to take more than big rallies,m more than big speeches, more than policy papers and positions and websites. It is going to require something more. Because the problem we face here in America today is not the lack of good ideas, it is that Washington becomes a place where good ideas go to die. Because lobbyists crush them with their money and influence because politicians spend too much time trying to score political points and not enough time trying to resolve their differences so we can get something done.

The problem is we haven't had leaders who can inspire American people to rally behind a common purpose and a greater purpose. . . We're here because we still believe that change is possible. We're here because we know we've never needed it more than we do right now. We're here because there are workers in Youngstown Ohio who've watched job and job disappear because of bad trade deals like NAFTA. Who have worked here for 20 years and then see the machines literally unbolted from the floor. . . We're here because of the mother I met in San antonio just this afternoon, who has 2 year old twins who are blind . . . she needed us to crack down on predatory lenders. she needs change today.

We're here because of the mother who I met in Green Bay Wisconsin, who gave me the bracelet that I'm wearing . . . A year ago, I stood on the steps of the old state capitol in Springfield Illinois and I announced this improbable journey to change America, and there are those who said, why are you running so soon, why are you running this time. And I had to explain to them that I'm not running because of any longheld ambition, I know some people have been digging through my kindergarten papers [ouch!]

I'm not running because I think it's somehow owed to me, I'm running because of Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now. Because there is such a thing as being too late, and that hour is now upon us. we are at a defining moment in our history, our nation is at war, our country is at peril, .

health care reform - Obama doesn't just say that he feels our pain, he demonstrates it through his language.

One year ago when I made the decision to run, it was based on the belief that people had grown weary of a politics that was based on spin and pr, they wanted a politics that was based on honesty. I was convinced most of all that change in America does not happen from the top down, it happens from the bottom up. some of you know that I used to work as a community organizer to bring economic development

It was the best education that I ever had because it taught me that ordinary people can do extraordinary things when given the opportunity. [weird voice talking over him, "..are you becoming Jewish?!?!?" or something like that - This is exactly what I feel about community organizing.]

If we could join together to challenge the special interests in washington, but also to challenge ourselves, to be better citizens, to be better neighbors.

WOW, just looked at the vote count - so far with 18 % reporting, Dem turnout has outpaced Republican by 3 times. in TEXAS!

Makes the ask: The question I have for you tonight Houston, is are you really ready for change? YES!!!

Because if you are really ready for change, we can go ahead and tell the lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda are over. Because they will not run my White House and they will not drown out the voices of ordinary people. I put out a plan that says everybody will be able to get health insurance at least as good as what I've got as a member of Congress. We will emphasize prevention so that we have a health care system instead of a disease care system. We won't do this twnety years form now, we will do it by the end of my first term.

If you are really ready then we can start restoring some balance to our economy, we are an independent and self reliant people, we don't believe in government doing what we can do for ourselves [nice nod to libertarian Texas] but when we've got CEOs making more in ten minutes [CNN employees asking each other if they're off for the night] than what we make in a year and when it's the CEOs getting a tax break and workers are left with nothing then something is wrong and something has to change. So I want to take away those tax breaks to companies that are creating jobs overseas and give them to companies who are investing in America.

We want to promote trade and we embrace globalization but we want our trade deals to embrace labor, environmental and safety standards. . . because if you work in America you should not be poor and that's a goal we will set in America.

The problem is not a lack of plans, but the lack of political will, the lack of urgency.,we think that those children in inner city Houston, that's somebody else's problem, that's somebody else's child. We think that child in East Texas, where there's a low tax base, and they can't afford to buy computers, I'm here to tell you that every child is our responsibility, and every child needs to be nurtured and embraced.

I won't just talk about how great teachers are I will reward them for their greatness by giving them higher salaries and more support, and I want the highest standards in our schools [DAMN, this is a great way of talking about merit pay, if you believe in it. Not that I do, but whoa]

If you are ready for change, we can have an energy policy that makes sense. We send four billion dollars to other countries every day and we're melting the ice caps in the process.

I'm not just someone who will tell you what you want to hear but will tell you what

If you're ready for change, we can start using immigration as

We are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, and those two things we can join together, we can crack down on employers who are taking advantage of undocumented workers, but we can also provide a path to citizenship for those who are already here, they can pay a fine, go to the back of the line, and learn English.

We can start reinvesting in cities, we are spending 9 billion dollars, we can reinvest that money right here in Houston, in hospitals and in broadband and employing young men and women, that is possible if you are ready for change.

You know, as your commander in chief, my job will be to keep you safe, and I will not hesitate to strike against any .. .I will do whatever is required, but part of keeping you safe is maintaining the best military in the world, and that means providing our troops with the proper equipment, training and rotations, and that means taking care of our troops when they come home. we have a solemn obligation to honor those who have served on our behalf. part of keeping us safe is deploying our military wisely. and the war in Iraq was unwise, it distracted us from the fight that needed to be fought in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda, it fanned the flames of anti American sentiment, it cost us dearly in blood and in treasure. I oppose this war in 2002, I will bring and end to it in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home.

But I don't just want to end the war, I want to end the mindset that got us into war, I want to end a politics based in fear, that uses 9-11. . . I said earlier that I want to meet not just with our friends but also with our enemies, and there

we should never negotiate our of fear but we should never fear to negotiate. Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries and try to resolve things without resorting to fear. We will lead not just militarily, yes we will hunt down terrorists,

We are going to lead by example, by maintaining the highest standards of civil liberties and human rights, which is why I will shut down guantanamo, and restore

You can elect a president who has taught the Constitution and will obey the Constitution of America. [love love love]

All these things are possible if you are ready for change.

We need to season and stew him a little more and boil all the hope out of him, but I think you understand that the last thing we need is to have the same old folks doing the same old things, over and over again and we need new leadership to move into a new century.

There are those who would say that you have to be weary about inspiration because you might be disappointed, who say that Obama may make a good speech but what is really going to make a difference is how you work the government, but it is my central premise that the only way we will bring about real change in America is if we can bring new people into the process, if we can attract young people, independents, and stop fighting with Republicans. I want a working majority for change, that's how we win elections, that's how we will govern.

I know there are some who will say what about John Mccain? I revere and honor John Mccain's service to this country, he is a genuine american hero but when he embraces George bush's failed economic policies, when he says he is wiling to send our troops into another 100 years in iraq, then he represents the policies of yesterday and we want to look forward into tomorrow and we want to have that debate.

You know there's something deeper in this argument about inspiration, it really has to do with the meaning of hope. If you think about it, the odds of me standing here are very slim. I was born to a teenage mother, my father left when I was two, so I was raised by a single mom and my grandparents, they didn't have money and they didn't have fame, so what they gave me was love, and education, and they gave me hope. And so I talk about hope, I put hope on my signs, I gave a speech in boston about hope, I wrote a book about hope.

but now some suggest that I must be naive, that you're fuzzyheaded and idealistic, the implication is that if you talk about hope you're passive and you wait for things to happen.

Hope is not ignoring or being ignorant of the challenges that stand between you and your dreams, I know how difficult it will be to provide health insurance to change energy policy because the status quo services powerful people. I know how hard it will be to fight poverty.
American, if it were easy it would have already been done. I know how hard it is to change


I know how easy it is for politicians to turn us on each other to use immigrant and gay people and folks who aren't like us, as scrapegoats. But I know this because I've fought on the streets as an organizer, as a legislator,

Because good intentions aren't always enough, they need to be fortified by power. But I also know this, Houston, nothing good in this country ever happened without someone somewhere being wiling to hope.

A group of patriots founded this empire, slaves and abolitionists resisted an evil system, and how a new president charted a new course to the greatest generation, my grandpa fighting in Patton's army,

tha's how pioneers settled the west, how immigrants travel at great distances to these shore, how women won the right to vote, how workers won the right to organize,

that's what hope is - imagining and fighting for, working for, struggling for what seemed impossible. there's a moment in every generation when that spirit has to come through if we are to make our mark on history, when we are not wililng to settle for what the cynics have to accept, when we are willing to reach for what is possible,

when we determine we are going to keep the dream alive for those who hunger for opportunity and for those who dream of justice. it will not be easy but as hard as it will be, we will join together lock arms and go about the difficult but noble task of remaking our nation. houston, this is our moment, this is our time, and if you are willing to vote for me, if you are willing to stand with me, iuf you are willing to caucus for me, we will not just win Texas, we will win this nomination, we will win the general election, and you and I together will change this country and change this world.


Pundits saying his speech was too long, but I don';t agree it was just right - mix of inspiration and policy and substance. Takes on Hillary and pivots and takes on mccain. soaring highs like Boston 2004, and jesus if I didn't feel love and hope and empowered. Pnudits make the point that Hillary not only didn't congrtualte Obama on his Wisconsin win, but she didn't thank the people who VOTED FOR HER in Wisconsin. BAD ettiquette. Just goes to show that she will use and lose you. Obama started his speech before she was done, forcing the news stations to cover his victory versus her. HAHAHAHHAAH Clinton is claiming to be the candidate of labor. What about serving on the Walmart board!?!? Talking about promises, but people don't trust her. Kinda sad, really.

Looking at the map of Wisconsin exit polls, the only places that voted Clinton in Wisconsin are traditionally REpublican strongholds. what does that say?!?

Obama has essentially closed the gender gap with Clinton - 49%. Plus he is dominating economic issue - 55% of those who cited it as most import voted for him. Plus he got 53% of the white vote in Wisconsin. DAMN.

Obama voters with no college degree - 54%. wow, if I'm Clinton, I'm fucking scared.

One of the interesting things is that Obama is winning big in Green Bay - 56 to 43. Understand that this is one of THE most Republican areas in Wisconsin EVER. Plus she's grasping at straws by saying that Obama is plagerizing, and even touching the third rail of saying that you would go after another candidate's PLEDGED delegates. Why would you commit strategic suicide? Pledged delegates are THE most gungho about their candidate. Who are elected officials are general activists who ran to vote for their candidate.

Ahhh, Mccain - is wife is soooo Stepford, she scares me!

Update: Made some salsa, settling in the for the Hawaii elections.

American Dreaming - hard and soft power

Ron Fournier of the AP has an exceptionally good article that looks at the divides within the party, especially pertaining as to why insiders are eager to ditch Hillary.

Remember when I wrote about Governor Bill Richardson of new Mexico's stubborn refusal to endorse Hillary after originally campaigning hard and blatantly (and somewhat embarassingly I might add) to be her veep during the summer? Well, here's the quote of the week:

Some are folks who owe the Clintons a favor but still feel betrayed or taken for granted. Could that be why Bill Richardson, a former U.N. secretary and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, refused to endorse her even after an angry call from the former president? "What," Bill Clinton reportedly asked Richardson, "isn't two Cabinet posts enough?"

You think the left wing of the party, the Howard Dean supporters dislike Hillary? That's nothing compared to the people who were in power with the Clintons and resented being rode all over. It's because of this entitled attitude that you're supposed to jump through hoops to get to the inner circle and then fall on your sword if needs be, without nary a thank you.

Obama has won 23 of 35 contests, earning the majority of delegates awarded on the basis of election results. The remaining 796 delegates are elected officials and party leaders whose votes are not tied to state primaries or caucuses; thus, they are dubbed "superdelegates."

And they are not all super fans of the Clintons.

Some are labor leaders still angry that Bill Clinton championed the North American Free Trade Agreement as part of his centrist agenda.

Some are social activists who lobbied unsuccessfully to get him to veto welfare reform legislation, a talking point for his 1996 re-election campaign.

Some served in Congress when the Clintons dismissed their advice on health care reform in 1993. Some called her a bully at the time.

Some are DNC members who saw the party committee weakened under the Clintons and watched President Bush use the White House to build up the Republican National Committee.

Some are senators who had to defend Clinton for lying to the country about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Some are allies of former Vice President Al Gore who still believe the Lewinsky scandal cost him the presidency in 2000.

Some are House members (or former House members) who still blame Clinton for Republicans seizing control of the House in 1994.

The list of grievances is long, and is partially a result of the single interest players in the game. It's also a reaction to the way that the Clinton machine uses and abuses people and states, throwing them away like dishrags. If you count the numbers, it gets increasingly hard for Hillary to even hold all the delgates who she has because ultimately they play machine politics - a politics of fear and retribution, carrots and large sticks. She is the ultimate transactional leader, one who pays to play, and who metes our harsh punishment for losses.

"I would make the assumption that the ... superdelegates she has now are the Clintons' loyal base. A superdelegate who is uncommitted today is clearly going to wait and see how this plays out. She's at her zenith now," Duffy said. "Whatever political capital or IOUs that exist, she's already collected."

Few Democrats want to cross the Clintons when they're on top. But how many are willing to stand by them when they're down?

Hillary just doesn't have the same charm as Bill - whereas if Bill were running for office again, Bill Richardson would have probably endorsed him, much of this is personality. And Obama has been gracious and classy throughout the cycle, bailing Senator Biden out of a tough spot at an Iowa debate, and Richardson before him. Obama strikes me as the type of guy who wants to win fair and square, and who has HONOR. That's who you live and die for, who you fight for, and who wins.

Obama wants to win on the merits and he does, and he's probably been told before that whatever he does, he has to work 10x harder than anyone else just to prove that he's equal, as some of my friends have. That in order to transcend the game, you have to not fall into the mud and the dirt.

It's also true that he's the perfect politician in that he serves as a mirror for everyone and anyone to their ideals and hopes. For white liberals, especially those who grew up in the 60s, he represents the flowering of King's dream and their rosy futures. For African Americans, he rebuts 300 years of toil and being told that "you're not good enough." For immigrants, he represents the American Dream. For hapas, he has successfully synthesized dual cultures, multiple cultures. For those who grew up poor, he also represents the American Dream. For those who never had a voice, or didn't think they had one, he is their megaphone. For cynics, he represents a chance to hope, for once, like some kind of punchdrunk love. For the media, he parlays all these stories and writes their stories, a rock star because he is easy to love, easy on the eyes and easy to write about. He confounds the jaded.

In many ways, one could look at him as a Messiah except that he continually reminds us that there is so much work to be done and that he is only one man. That in order for us to see the changes that we want, we have to take action. Obama is our organizer-in-chief, a transcendent leader who is also a superstar.

In some ways, the Clinton camp's feeling of unfairness is valid - how can she compete against a man who reflects the American experience to us, and both idealizes it while acknowledging that there is much work to be done?

And this is where McCain's argument fails - it is not merely a dream that Obama has and shares, it is an achievable future, one that he readily acknowledges necessitates sacrifice and work. Without this balance, Obama's vision and leadership would just be gossamer words. But the work ethic entailed, the positive vision, in the simple slogan "YES WE CAN" describes and unites all of our American Dreams.

Primary impressions

Long lines and bad weather, Maryland polls extended their hours so that people could cast their votes. Obama's 3 to 1 in DC, and 60-40 in virginia and Maryland. Snow across the region, and people don't know how to drive in snow or rain, so bad traffic meaning long lines.

DC was a goner for Obama, with visibility events every single day and even on every corner, every Metro stop and old white hippies, young black students, and everybody in between cheering on Obama. Cross sections of America, of our communities, joining together in victory, unison and hope.

Obama won big, across the board in urban and rural areas, as well as with Latino (53-47) and APIA districts in suburban Northern Virginia, and in working class areas. The mo is shifting, and HARD. I don't know that a majority of Latino voters know about the Patti Solis Doyle stepdown, but this has to have the Clinton camp worried. Also, her deputy campaign manager left - Mike Henry had been under fire for his memo to NOT play in Iowa, but he was right. If Clinton was going to rejigger the machine, she should have done it after Iowa, and she should have done it more decisively (including kicking Mark Penn out.)

Here's the best news of the night for the general election:
With 92 percent reporting in Virginia, Obama is now 102,000 votes ahead of all Republicans combined.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton was having a hard time competing because usually you model your voter universe around likely voters - a stable number of tried and true voters. This consistency usually makes it much easier to run the numbers, but the Obama factor brings in an unknowable number of new voters so that you don't know what your opponent's voter universe is, or how big the yield will be. This is an uneasy position to be in. Because you can still target your base of unlikely voters (white women) and you can model what you anticipate Obama's turnout, and try to cut into that base, but when only half the population generally turns out to vote, having a whole other say 25% turnout is CRAZY-MAKING.

CNN says Obama now has more delegates.

Hillary looks TERRIBLE at her speech. And her voice is really scratchy.

"There's a saying in Texas, all hat and no cattle."

"I would require that congress not get a raise until we raise the minimum wage!"

Universal healthcare, the plan that members of Congress, our staffs and federal employees get.

Obama's speech - new political majority. Nice, he's introducing the idea of a $4000/year college credit that you can only get by giving back with public service - "we invest in you, you invest in America." Nicely played to a largely college audience.

Huckabee's speech - he looks a little phased, but not really. Less jolly, more sombre than normal. "We're still working to give voters a choice. All the people who have not yet had an election have as much choice and right to vote as those who have already in the frontloaded race."

I think it's a good tihng that Huckabee is still in the race - it gives the religious conservatives a strong contrast to McCain and if Huckabee doesn't get it, it ruins their hopes and deflates tem even more.

John McCain's post Potomac Primary sweep is a very dour speech - talking about hope and teamwork. He's on the offensive against Obama right now, casting himself as the voice and embodiment of experience and knowledge.

Also he's not even talking about small government, he's talking medium sized government. His supporters must be so bewildered.

I made the offhand mention that McCain is Colonel Tye from Battlestar Galactica which caused a friend to gleefully say, "That's right, he's a cylon! . . . No wait, he's not as noble as Tye."

"I don;t seek the presidency with the personal hubris that history has anointed me in its hour of need" - OUCH! "I'm running to serve America and to champion the ideas that help every America generation make a stronger country and a stronger world."

"Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing. I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men's hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience. And I stood astonished at the resilience of their hope in the darkest of hours because it did not reside in an exaggerated belief in their individual strength, but in the support of their comrades, and their faith in their country. My hope for our country resides in my faith in the American character, the character which proudly defends the right to think and do for ourselves, but perceives self-interest in accord with a kinship of ideals, which, when called upon, Americans will defend with their very lives.

To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.

When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest ambition, and that all glory was self-glory. My parents tried to teach me otherwise, as did the Naval Academy. But I didn't understand the lesson until later in life, when I confronted challenges I never expected to face."

Now he gets back to the Republican talking points, but they are less pointed:

"For a government that takes and spent less of your money . . .

provides strong and capable defense"

"I won't confine myself only to the comfort of only speaking to those who will speak to me"

"And my friends, I promise you I am fired up and ready to yield."

McCain was much more gracious and genteel this time around, less sneering, which can only be to his benefit. but one look at the tv screen is sufficient contrast - McCain has no energy, his supporters who are all older white people have no energy. compare that with Obama's supporters. We are the future!

Looking forward to Wisconsin, it's culturally a mix of Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota. The economic populism is strong, and the people and party are not quite as progressive as Minnesota, nor as open to candidates of color. But Madison has the only out lesbian in Congress, Tammy Baldwin, and Rep. Gwen Moore is a new progressive fighter from Milwaukee. (Baldwin is for Hillary, Moore for Obama.) Wisconsin is a pretty white state - African Americans make up 6%, Latinos 5%, and APAs 2%. These are also mostly concentrated around Congressional districts in Milwaukee and Madison.

The other thing that was prominent was if you overlay the states that McCain has won with the states that Obama has won, they're pretty much the same states - mostly the big Demographic states. And THAT means VERY well for the general matchup, because there's NO WAY New Yorkers, Californians, Washington State, New England (with exception of New Hampshire) or Illinois residents are going to vote for McCain over Obama. Plus Obama has won more states than McCain, and a wider range of states.

Lol, Clinton's surrogate Paul Begala said that "you know, the writers are back, so people will be paying less attention" and thus the calendar is beneficial. Although I have to say, whether it's because of the writers' strike or enthusiasm for Obama or what, people have been more informed this time around than ever before.

Donna Brazile - "People are flocking to Obama because they hear something they are thirsting for."

Ok, back to the celebration-
OH SMACK - eleanor holmes norton on colbert Report, and she's not playing the straight woman or the angry black woman - she's really happy and funny and light hearted. Cute!

CNN debate - Hillary v Obama

Ok, liveblogging begins now. My thoughts are in italics.

Very civil intros by Obama and Clinton. She didn't look like she was prepared for such a civil intro and had to do a copycat intro. Both did an appeal to Edwards. Hillary looks really good - the brown turquoise mix is nice, and Obama also looks good. hillary looks better than normal though.

First q: what are policy differences?
Hillary has a healthcare program like edwards; Obama doesn't have a universal healthcare proposal, it's voluntary but creates incentives for people to buy. [this is the one area that I feel like he should and could be stronger. Hillary's is closer to universal; Edwards had the best.]

OH! Obama is taking a swipe at Hillary on the drug company profits and lobbyists when he says that it should be broadcast on C-Span and that it will be transparent. The audience seems to be more with Hillary - she got off a good point on how she did success in getting S-CHIP for children's healthcare. She's got some sharp talking points on healthcare and she's clearly comfortable discussing the finer points since she has experience debating it.

[Ed Helms from Daily Show and the Office is in the crowd.]

wow, she is referencing local issues and also electronic records.

IMMIGRATION:
OOOh, first question is a divid and conquer wedge about negative consequences of immigration on African American community. Senator Obama, do you want to go first?

Nice, he makes the point that as a community organizer, he worked with white, black, Latino and Asian workers, and they have always felt economically insecure. "To suggest somehow that the economic insecurity that we see now, somehow, is attributable to immigration, I do not believe it. I think it is an instance of scrapegoating [big applause.] Now, here's where we're different from the other party.. . I do believe we have to crack down on employers . . . We should not use immigration as a tool to divide" [huge applause] Excellent response that calls it out as the wedge question it is.

Followup question for Clinton: driver's licenses.

Hillary: "I believ ein many parts of our country, because of employers who exploit workers, there are job losses, and I think we should be honest about that." References comprehensive immigration reform.

We've got to say, "come out of the shadows" for the vast majority of people who here.

Do I think we ought to talk about privileges like driver's licenses? I think we need to talk about the masic labor problems first.

Obama: when this issue came up, not drivers' license but comprehensive oimmigration reform generall, I worled with Ted Kennedy, dick durbin, and John McCain, although he might not admit it now. This might not be an issue that polls well, ut I think it is the right thing to do. It is important for us to recognize that the problems that workers are experiencing generally are not caused by immigration.

Children who were brought here through no fault of their own are able to go to college, so that they can get a good education and a good job. I don't believe we ned to deal with this issue as we sid before, because people don't come here to drive, people come here to work. [applause] NICE!

Wolf: were you missing in action when Obama and Kennedy and Durbin were

Well actually I cosponsored comprehensive immigration reform in 2004 before Senator Obama came to the Senate. So I have been on the forefront of these issues. References farmworkers' endorsement. NICE. Knows her audience.

so we may be looking at the immigration issue as a political issue, by those who are undermining . . .

WOW, Clinton has an amazingly good talking point - "I hear this all the time from people, and they often ask it with an edge in their voice, just like Kim, and so I ask them, "What would you do? Would you round up and deport 10,000 people and their families? and how many additional Border Patrol authorities would you have to hire for that? ow would you do it?" [I think this is a really strong point - people who complain don't have an answer to this.]

Why not then, if you're that passionate about it, let them get drivers licenses.

We disagree on this, because and I believe it is a diversion from creating a coalition of those who are trying to get comprehensive immigration reform.

Senator Clinton gave a number of answers over the course of six weeks on this issue, and that did appear political. Now she has a consistent answer, and that is good. From my perspective, I agree with Bill Richardson, from a public safety issue, and I dont want a bunch of It's important to recognize that this can be tough, and we need someone who can tackle it and solve it.

She's doing really well, and Obama and Clinton got off good shots at Romney.

Obama smartly avoids diminishing accomplishments of Clinton administration.

Her bigggest line of the night: "You know it did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it might take a Clinton to clean up after the second Bush." [long, sustained applause]

Wow, Hillary just sounds more presidential. She doesn't even really engage Obama she mostly hits on Bush as though she is the frontrunner. She is returning to that campaign default of the incumbent's stance. She's also addressing the people from Politico who ask questions with their names, which makes her seem more personable. (Yes, it's also a stalling tactic to figure out what you want to say.)

[Tobey MacGuire's in the audience.]

Clinton's giving her answer on why she didn't vote for the Levin Amendment, and she sounds insincere and she's grasping.

Ugh, she sounded really good, and now she is just boring me. I think that Obama has the audience on Iraq "I think it is important to be RIGHT on day one."

Well, I guess it's good that this doesn't have as much sniping and fireworks as the GOP debate - I think both of them are still going to come out looking presidential.

ON TOO MUCH SEX & VIOLENCE ON TV:
OBama: The primary responsibility is for parents. [audience of writers, actors, hollywood types clap. Speilberg is in audience and nods. I think that was Stevie Wonder who clapped and nodded.]

OUCH! If you can't control your spouse on the campaign trail, what will it be like in the White House? [audience groans, boos]
Hillary takes responsibility for all the decisions, says "she is fully prepared to [make the call]". "At the end of the day it's a lonely job in the White House." [lots of applause]

DREAM TICKET question [audience really likes this, both candidates laugh] - would you consider an Obama-Clinton or a Clinton-Obama ticket?:

Obama; well, obviously there's a big difference between the two. I respect Senator Clinton a lot, we've been travelling this road together. I think it would be premature and presumptious to be talking about vice presidents.

Clinton: "Well, I would have to agree with everything Barack just said. This has been an extraordinary campaign, and both of us has been overwhelmed by all the affection." Shills her nationwide townhall.

Well, that's it - it wasn't very divisive, it was sorta boring, and they I think were both conscious that any of their statements could be used in an attack ad against either of them by the GOP in the summer and fall. It was really quite civil. I think this was almost a draw, and that both of them got in good passionate reasons why they would be good. But I have to say I think Senator Clinton came off better, slightly more presidential. And this has nothing to do with my personal preferences, I was just watching to see who did better. Obama had a lot of "uhms" and pauses whereas Hillary came out strong and confident in most of her responses. She sounded quite sure of herself and presidential for the most part, especially the beginning segments. I started getting really bored in the latter half, and I don't doubt that most people did as well (and they're not even as political as me.)

Anyway, I thought this was a much more cohesive, about the issues debate than the GOP one and voters will look at the two and think, who would I prefer running our country? And they would have to say the Democrats.

Also, I really don't think that Obama would put Clinton as his vp, and it wouldn't do him any favors electorally because all the people who would vote for her would vote for him - he has a broader appeal. Clinton, on the other hand might. But I think she can't afford to have someone who doesn't have actual military experience.

Ugh, the more I think about it, the more I think that Clinton got the better in this debate - when Obama said that Clinton would certainly be on anyone's short list, she just said "I agree with everything that Obama said." So she didn't necessarily have to mean that she thought Obama would also be an excellent vp, just that she would be on anyone's short list. Also, she wouldn't necessarily be willing to be a vp having had the White House experience. But as some of the CNN commentators noted, she would probably be willing to float the idea of an Obama vp just to gain some additional voters.

Update: Is it possible that people who watched only half the debate thought that Hillary won? I think that one of the things that charmed people was that Obama was perfectly courteous. I'm not sure if he was trying to show himself as being above the Clinton fray of war, but I thought that his performance on healthcare was really weak. I thought his immigration stances were spot on, but that Clinton was more forceful with her stances, even if I don't agree with them. Also, what was this drivers licenses are risky for immigrants bit? No one seems willing to touch it, not even her top surrogate in the Latino community, the Los Angeles Mayor.

But you know, it was nice to hear some real passion in her voice when she was talking about immigration, some real heat. Even Wolf acknowledged it. It's like how she looked when she was first asked that question about drivers licenses. She looked raw emotionally, and I could see her internal struggle - the struggle between what she really believes, and what she knows is politically popular. Now she seems to have reconciled it all, relegated drivers licenses for immigrants to the trashheap of unpopular ideas, and she's not willing to fight for it, for us. I don't actually disagree with her assessment that drivers license are a wedge issue that the Republicans use to drive up fear and hostility, and I think that immigrants rights advocates could be doing a better job of discussing drivers licenses, or pushing Dream Act more. I thought Obama did a great job when he said, "people don't come to this country to drive, they come here to work."

And I also hear that edge in people's voices when they ask that question about immigrants taking "our" jobs. There are things like that which remind me that Hillary's real and that she cares, but then just as quickly she turns the corner and puts on her mask, and does battle with the forces of what's popular and what's not, and at the end of the day, I don't know if she's fighting for what's right anymore, or just fighting to save her political hide. I want someone who is going to lead on immigration, because it's not a popular issue. It's thorny and as contentious and personal as anything, and I want someone with the moral certitude and willingness to go to bat for those who are voiceless. That someone is Obama.

Obama was perfectly genteel. I think he may have disarmed Hillary in the beginning with his intro, and she seemed really surprised, as if she had been ready to attack. And as if she was really happy that the cool kid had validated her.

Hillary could not explain her vote for Iraq in any passable way with a straight face.

One of the things that I noticed about the end of the debate is that Obama went immediately to the crowd, which was lining up and piling up to reach and touch him. Hillary stayed on stage with her daughter and husband. Perhaps she didn't think she would have that type of reaction?

Hillary silent during Walmart anti-union board meetings

I know it is popular amongst the left to hate on Walmart - it seems almost reflexive, and fashionable. It seems even trite sometimes, because those of us who live in big cities with our lattes and our Volvos can afford to hate on Walmart, with other options such as Trader Joes and Whole Foods nearby, and farmer's markets for the localvores.

But the reality is that Walmart depresses the economy everywhere it goes, and that their employees don't even make enough to have health insurance, placing them amongst the working poor.

So this well-timed piece of oppo research (found on ABC by way of dkos) was conveniently leaked the day after Edwards, the populist crusader, dropped out of the race. Hillary Clinton, in her years on the Walmart Board of Directors, was silent on the issue of taking down unions.

In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.

. . .The tapes show Clinton in the role of a loyal company woman. "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting.

This is going to hurt her big time with the California-New York elite axis of liberals who were formerly for Edwards, and also with the mainstream blogosphere.

And Bill's not really helping here:

President Clinton defended his wife's role on the Wal-Mart board last week after the issue was raised by Sen. Barack Obama in a CNN debate.

His wife did not try to change the company's minds about unions, the former Arkansas governor said.

"We lived in a state that had a very weak labor movement, where I always had the endorsement of the labor movement because I did what I could do to make it stronger. She knew there was no way she could change that, not with it headquartered in Arkansas, and she agreed to serve," President Clinton said.

At the end of the day, Barack's comment about Hillary serving on the Board of Walmart during the SC debate was intentional - it was meant to highlight that she can't be trusted. And this isn't really new news - we already know about Mark Penn and his work for crappy businesses, and it's not really new that Clinton was on the board. But I think it brings all of this up in a very visual light, one that strikes people hard.

I feel like Obama's got the mo back heading into Super Tuesday. He's got Teddy and the Kennedy imprimatur, and the blowout win in South Carolina. He's got over $32 million raised, JUST IN THIS MONTH. That's a pretty crazy number - most people would consider that a deliriously good haul for the QUARTER. He has, for better or worse, the endorsement of Rupert Murdoch's NY Post, which Hill and Bill have spent the past 6 years cozying up to. So what does that say?!?

On where Edwards voters go, Chris Bowers and Joe Trippi both offer their takes. I do think it will make it harder for Obama to take Feb 5th overall, but I feel . . . hopeful.

Gore v Bill Clinton

Ugh, Gore had the sense to stay low and let the current candidates shine - why can't Bill have the same sense. Even nonpolitical observers have told me that it feels like Clinton is running his wife's campaign. And this message coming from not particularly politically active WOMEN undercuts the root of Hillary's appeal to women, both implicit and stated by the campaign.

per political wire:

Marc Ambinder notes that Al Gore "has not told any of his political advisers and friends if he is considering an endorsement. During the past year, he has spoken privately with all three leading Democrats."

However, an adviser said that Gore "had long ago decided to lay low once the Democratic delegate selection contests began so as not to interfere in the race."

Now there's a man with good sense and sensibility who knows when to leave the stage. Bill on the other hand, not so much. This Politico piece lays it all out:

Who can say what Clinton’s effect on the campaign trail really is? However much journalistic critics and Obama supporters cringed at Bill Clinton’s performances, they seemed to help Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and Nevada.

But those experiences seemed to unleash something more antic and unruly in Clinton’s attacks on Obama and the media, making the Clinton campaign even more about him and less about her. The effect was a bit like a dieter who reads on the Internet that doughnuts are actually good for you.

But the gluttony strategy backfired in the South Carolina primary, and it backfired again in the Kennedy endorsement primary.

In his own career, Clinton’s errors have always been followed by recovery, self-indulgence by self-correction. The next several weeks will determine whether he can follow the same pattern on behalf of his spouse.

Also, Congressman Raul Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona, has switched his support from Edwards to Obama, according to local papers:

Grijalva had endorsed Edwards on May 3, saying the former senator from North Carolina "has shown principled leadership on the way in Iraq and on economic opportunity in America."

Grijalva will be very helpful in Latino outreach, especially since California is one of the biggest prizes on Feb 5th. And apparently the first interview that Teddy Kennedy and Obama did after the historic speech and endorsement was with Univision - way to understand your audience. Teddy Kennedy is remarkable - he carried Kerry on his back in Iowa, with the farmers, and the Reagan democrats, the white males, and the union members. He has the trust and respect of many of the Latino voters and civil rights organizations. Teddy Kennedy is like instant cred.

Which Hillary could have used, right about now, as her husband appears to be flailing in his own ego and hubris.