February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences
Democrats
TX
Clinton42%
Obama48%
Someone else3%
Undecided7%Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%.
Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%.
Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%.
Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.
22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Ole!
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Maybe Not Fair, But You know I'm Right
On the TV, HRC is speaking to supporters in Texas.
Her Voice Is Awful.
Like, makes you long for Al Gore awful.
In 2000 someone I knew reviewed their choice of Bush over Gore and said 'Can you imagine listenong to him day in and day out?'
I observed that this was not exactly a compelling or mature point upon which to make your choice but I didn't do it with much ferver because I knew that she had a point.
He was, (and still is) unsufferable.
So is Kerry.
And So is HRC.
And Mike Dukakis for that matter.
This is how we lose.
We choose people even I don't want to listen too. People that live up to every Limbaugh-drawn sketch of 'Liberal Elite' (meaning Condesending Effete Eastern Twit) Can you imagine playing basketball with any of those folks?
Bill Had it. Reagan Had it. Carter didn't need it in '76 and didn't have it in '80. We made sure that neither Bush needed it.
Do You Want To Win?
Bush-ish At Best
THE SHAKEUP....In the Atlantic today, Josh Green writes a fairly devastating account of the recent shakeup in Hillaryland and the firing of campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle:
Even after grasping the magnitude of the [Obama] threat, the Clinton campaign didn't react quickly and stuck to the strategy of trying to project an aura of inevitability. Here, too, Solis Doyle was disastrous; her lack of skill in areas other than playing the loyal heavy began to show. The first public sign of this came just after Clinton's reelection to the Senate. Even though Clinton had faced no serious opponent, it turned out that Solis Doyle, as campaign manager, had burned through more than $30 million. As this New York Times story makes clear, the donor base was incensed. Toward the end of the Senate campaign, Solis Doyle did her best to bolster the impression of the inevitability of Hillary's nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate, spreading word that Clinton's Senate reelection fund-raising had gone so exceptionally well that $40 million to $50 million would be left after Election Day to transfer to the incipient presidential campaign. But this turned out to be a wild exaggeration — and Solis Doyle must have known it was. Disclosure filings revealed a paltry $10 million in cash on hand; far from conveying Hillary's inevitability, this had precisely the opposite effect, encouraging, rather than frightening off, potential challengers.Rather than punish Solis Doyle or raise questions about her fitness to lead, Clinton chose her to manage the presidential campaign for reasons that should now be obvious: above all, Clinton prizes loyalty and discipline, and Solis Doyle demonstrated both traits, if little else. This suggests to me that for all the emphasis Clinton has placed on executive leadership in this campaign, her own approach is a lot closer to the current president's than her supporters might like to admit.
Monday, February 11, 2008
It Only Matters If I Say So
But, Matt Yglesias observes:
Maine for Obama
Back in October 2007, Clinton was beating Obama in Maine by a hilarious 47 to 10 margin, but it seems he's carried the state today, once again by a large margin. My understanding, though, is that this doesn't really count because it's a small state, much as Utah doesn't count because there aren't many Democrats there, DC doesn't count because there are too many black people, Washington doesn't count because it's a caucus, Illinois doesn't count because Obama represents it in the Senate even though Hillary was born there, Hawaii won't count because Obama was born there. I'm not sure why Delaware and Connecticut don't count, but they definitely don't.
Realistically, Clinton seems to have difficulty winning anywhere she can't mobilize racial polarization in her favor. Obama has, of course, deployed polarization to his benefit in a number of states (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana most notably) but he's also dominated the states with very few black voters.
UPDATE: I forgot about Missouri. Obama's win in Missouri, of course, doesn't count because the state was called too late.
The Party Of Fiscal Responsibility
What if the Republican president had hewed to the projected spending levels of his Democratic predecessor - you know, that flaming liberal, Bill Clinton? If you project the Clinton administration's 2001 plans for long-term spending and you allow for all the new defense spending in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, you still end up with a surplus. The difference is Republican recklessness.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
We Win
That's the calculation of the networks at this point, it seems. A narrow victory:
The Obama camp projects topping Clinton by nine delegates, 845 to 836.
NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex
formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838
for Clinton.
But it allows the Obama camp to point out - correctly - that they won a majority of the contests yesterday, won in a wider variety of red and blue states, and won in the number of delegates counted. Obama is also winning in fundraising. That's a pretty impressive tailwind for this weekend and next Tuesday.
Here we go
While no winner emerged tonight, a protracted campaign is better for Obama, and what might be his roll toward the nomination begins in four short days. On Saturday, voters in three states head to the polls or caucuses, and in all three, Obama has hefty advantages.
In Washington State, the biggest prize available this weekend, a total of 68 delegates will be decided in caucuses. Four years ago, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean did better in Washington than he did in any place outside his home state and the District of Columbia. Washington is one of the most highly educated states in the country, and the dominace of white Seattle liberals in the electorate could favor Obama heavily.
Washington State political watchers on both sides of the contest agree Obama has the leg up. Clinton backers privately admit that their candidate will likely lose on Saturday, while Obama supporters play up their organizational advantages and speak confidently of wins throughout the liberal western half of the state, from which most delegates will be allocated.
In Nebraska, just 21 delegates are available at that state's caucuses, but given the amount of effort Obama exerted in Idaho -- he opened an office in Boise, the only candidate to do so -- to win that state's 16 delegates, he could play strongly there as well. Obama has support from the state's only Democratic member of the congressional delegation, Senator Ben Nelson.
And if Nebraska's geographical and political positions, namely a red state in the Plains, are any indication, he will perform strongly there: Obama won North Dakota, Kansas, Missouri and Colorado on Tuesday, and won neighboring Iowa a month ago. Plains states, especially those President Bush won in 2004, have gone heavily for Obama so far this year.
93
Obama needed to get within 100 delegate to call the night a 'win'.
A tight battle in New Mexico where they are still counting won't change that spread.
93
Obama needed to get within 100 delegate to call the night a 'win'.
A tight battle in New Mexico where they are still counting won't change that spread.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Not What HRC WANTED
Obama: Alabama: Obama 60, Clinton 37... Arizona: Obama 51, Clinton 45... Connecticut: Obama 53, Clinton 45... Delaware: Obama 56, Clinton 42... Illinois: Obama 70, Clinton 30... Massachusetts: Obama 50, Clinton 48... Missouri: Obama 50, Clinton 46... New Jersey: Obama 53, Clinton 47...
Clinton: Arkansas: Clinton 72, Obama 26... California: Clinton 50, Obama 47... New York: Clinton 56, Obama 43... Oklahoma: Clinton 61, Obama 31... Ten
Vote Early, Vote Often
More Explanation
Leave it to CA to have poll results that are so screwed up.
Josh Patashnik at the New Republic looks deeper ...
About Those Dueling California Polls
As you might have seen elsewhere, the two new California polls out today show wildly diverging results: Zogby has Obama up 49-36, while SurveyUSA has Clinton up 52-42. As Josh Marshall says, somebody's gonna end up looking pretty stupid. Most likely they both will--I don't expect the final tally to be more than five or six points in either direction. But SurveyUSA will probably end up looking worse.
I took a look at the crosstabs of the SurveyUSA poll (I can't seem to find them for Zogby--if any commenters can, please link!). Unfortunately, one of the most relevant things to look at is the relative proportion of African-American and Latino votes in the electorate (since, by all accounts, Obama will win the black vote overwhelmingly and Clinton will win the Latino vote easily, though by a smaller margin). In the 2004 Democratic primary, 16 percent of voters were Latino and 8 percent were black. SurveyUSA estimates the 2008 Democratic electorate as being 26 percent Latino and 9 percent black. To be frank, I would be shocked if those numbers end up being correct--particularly given the disproportionate surge in black turnout we saw in South Carolina. If I had to guess, I'd say the proportions will be about 19 and 11--which is more in line with what other pollsters predict. This alone would swing the result several points toward Obama from what SurveyUSA has.
In addition, SurveyUSA has Hillary beating Obama by one point in the Bay Area, which defies all conventional wisdom. The Field Poll, which has more expertise polling California than anyone, had Obama winning in the Bay Area 41-31--and this was just at the beginning of what looks like a late Obama surge in the state. Hillary will win the state if turnout in Los Angeles and the Inland Empire are large enough, but, again, I'd be very surprised if she won the Bay Area (full of latté liberals and African-Americans) outright.
One final point: SurveyUSA doesn't say what percentage of Democratic primary voters are unaffiliated with either party (or "decline to state" in California parlance). But most models, I think, are underestimating these voters (who break heavily for Obama) as a share of the electorate. Field had them at 13 percent of Democratic primary voters, and far be it from me to question the oracle. But consider: decline-to-state voters can only vote in the Democratic primary, and it's easy for them to do so--they just show up at the polling place and ask for a Democratic ballot. They constitute 31 percent of eligible Democratic primary voters--that is, if you add up the number of Democrats and decline-to-state voters in the state, the latter make up 31 percent of that total. Now, of course, some of those folks lean Republican, and decline-to-state voters are less likely to vote in a primary generally--so the total decline-to-state share of the electorate won't approach 31 percent. But given the salience of the race and the enthusiasm it seems to be generating, I'd bet decline-to-state voters will make up closer to 20 percent of the electorate. This would add another couple points to Obama's total. Without having seen the crosstabs, I'd bet that Zogby has Obama up by so much because (1) he has a more favorable black/Latino composition for Obama, and (2) he has a more generous estimate of the decline-to-state share of the vote.
Bottom line, the race remains very, very close--Clinton's advantage among voters who have already mailed in their ballots should not be underestimated. But I will make two predictions. First, Obama will win among voters who go to the polls today. And second, Clinton will not win by double digits. (Obama probably won't either, but there's an outside shot.)
Who's Ready For Tomorrow?
Which Democrat Is Positioned for A Long Campaign After Today?
8) Obama may have the edge on this. His $32 million fundraising record in January shows that he will have more money than Clinton to wage a long campaign. He will also have more time to become better known in upcoming states than he did in the 22 states in which he is competing today.
The next round of primaries and caucuses this month tends to look better for him than for Clinton. Her strategists are pessimistic about her chances in Washington, Louisiana, Wisconsin and Maryland, as well as in the District. But they see Ohio and Texas on March 4 as critical states in which she has a foundation of support and could add to her delegate strength.
Rules for selecting delegates are structured in a way that makes it difficult for candidates to gain a decisive advantage unless they begin winning by margins approaching 20 percentage points. In this race, that could be difficult. At the same time, if one candidate falls behind in the count by as many as 200 pledged delegates, making up that deficit will be extremely difficult, given the rules.
Clinton's strategists are counting on the support of "superdelegates" -- those party leaders and elected officials who automatically have seats at the convention -- to build her delegate lead. In the early stages, she has such an advantage. But in the past, superdelegates tended to follow election returns. If Obama wins primaries consistently, he is likely to attract more and more superdelegates.
Momentum and psychology therefore will play an important role over the next few weeks. Clinton may be stronger in a war of attrition, particularly if she wins big battleground states in March. But a number of strategists surveyed over the weekend said Obama might have more room for growth in his support, and if he can develop a sense of momentum she would be at a disadvantage.
Viewers Guide
From Political Wire:
To make some sense of today's voting, Political Wire reviewed all the polls, surveyed our favorite pundits and flipped a coin when necessary in an attempt to highlight the key races.
Here's how we rate the races for Democrats:
Advantage Clinton:
Arkansas, New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, TennesseeAdvantage Obama:
Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, Kansas, North DakotaNo Clear Favorite:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Missouri, Delaware, Utah, Massachusetts, American Samoa, Democrats AbroadHere's how we rate the races for Republicans:
Advantage McCain:
Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Montana, New York, New Jersey, Oklahoma, TennesseeAdvantage Romney:
Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, West Virginia, UtahNo Clear Favorite:
California, Missouri, Georgia, Minnesota---- And ---
All eyes are on California, as most polls show the Democratic presidential race either very close or completely up in the air.
For example:
The latest Reuters/C -Span/Zogby poll shows Obama leading Clinton, 49% to 36%.The latest SurveyUSA poll gives the edge to Clinton, 52% to 42%.
But Marc Ambinder notes it may not matter who actually wins due to the strange rules for awarding delegates. "If, in many congressional districts in California, a Democrat does not receive more than 62% of the vote, he or she will receive the same number of delegates from that CD as the he or she who finishes second. Hence Hillary Clinton could win California by, say, 20 points... and take a sliver of a delegate advantage there."
Further confusing the situation: The Hotline notes we may not get the final delegate tally until Friday.
From Salon
Predicting California isn't easy - Alex Koppelman
Looking for some early sign about how the Democratic race in California, one of the most important states on that side of the aisle, will shake out tonight? Good luck.
On the one hand, you could look to the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll, released today, and decide that Sen. Barack Obama has a nearly overwhelming advantage in the state. That poll shows Obama leading rival Sen. Hillary Clinton 49 percent to 36 percent, with a margin of error of 3.3 percent, and has the momentum strongly in Obama's favor.
But on the other hand, there's the latest SurveyUSA poll, which shows nearly the exact opposite result. That survey, conducted over the same dates as the aforementioned one, has Clinton leading 52 percent to 42 percent. SurveyUSA characterizes the results as showing that "Hillary Clinton appears to fend off a late charge from Barack Obama."
If you're hoping that at least by tonight you'll know who -- if anyone -- was right about how California will shake out, we've got some bad news on that front as well.On Monday, the San Francisco Chronicle's Politics Blog noted, "Want to know who will win the California primary? You'll probably be waiting until Wednesday morning -- and maybe longer," and quoted Stephen Weir, the president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials and the top election official in Contra Costa County, as saying, "The East Coast is going to tune in the next morning and we are still going to be counting."
And, from Walter Shapiro
Here are a few things to watch for on the Democratic side early in the evening before everyone starts treading water in the tidal wave of returns.
Georgia -- The first returns of the night will begin to roll in when the polls close at 7 p.m. (EST). While no one will be proclaiming, "As Georgia goes, so goes the nation," it will be illuminating to see if Obama attracts anything like the 78 percent of the African-American vote as he did in neighboring South Carolina. In South Carolina, John Edwards (who has since dropped out) finished first among white men, with 44 percent in a three-way race. It will be worth watching how Georgia now splits in a race between a woman and an African-American.
Alabama and Tennessee -- The polls here close at 8 p.m. (EST) and these states should quickly indicate whether the trends from the Georgia exit polls can be extrapolated through the South.
Illinois -- Obama's home state (8 p.m. EST closing time) should not offer much suspense about the outcome. But this is another place where it would be worth watching to see how white male Democrats split their vote in downstate Illinois.
Massachusetts -- At 8 p.m. (EST) we will also get a quick test of the power of endorsements. From Sens. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to Gov. Deval Patrick, this state has become the launching pad of Obama campaign surrogates. But Massachusetts also has a vibrant blue-collar Democratic tradition -- and Clinton's performance among lower-income voters could be a bellwether for the evening.
Connecticut -- The candidates' own polls clearly indicated that Connecticut is up for grabs, since both Clinton and Obama were campaigning in the state Monday. (The best way to read a campaign's strategy is to watch where they send the candidate.) With the polls closing at 8 p.m. (EST), we should know fast the power of Obama-mania in Clinton's backyard. Working against Obama is that this is a primary open only to registered Democrats.
New Jersey -- Results from the fourth largest delegate haul of the evening will start coming in at 8 p.m. EST. Since independents can vote in the Garden State (unlike New York and Connecticut), we will soon know whether Obama is demonstrating his crossover appeal to these swing voters.
Arizona -- At 9 p.m. (EST) we will get our first look at the Latino vote in a primary out West. If Clinton does not roll up a large margin among this group in Arizona, it does not bode well for California, where the polls close at 11 p.m. (EST).
Minnesota -- While it is always difficult to draw larger conclusions from caucuses (since only a fraction of registered Democrats participate), Minnesota has perhaps the most vibrant caucus tradition in the Democratic Party, aside from Iowa. The caucus voting should be over by 9 p.m. EST -- and we should get another snapshot of how Obama is doing among party activists.
By the time we finally learn what happened in American Samoa (either Clinton or Obama will presumably come out with a 2-to-1 majority in the caucuses), our attention will probably have shifted to next Tuesday's Potomac primary with Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia all voting Feb. 12.
Even though a numerical majority of Democratic delegates will have been selected by the time the final returns trickle in on Wednesday, the real Super Duper Party Pooper Tuesday may come on March 4 when Texas and Ohio hold primaries that could (note the conditional) select the nominee.
From Chuck Todd at MSNBC
Looking for the break: But campaigns rarely deliver split decisions, and that’s why it’s possible that the Democratic electorate could break one way or the other. What if undecideds all go one way? And don't assume we think we know which direction they will break. We could easily explain how women power a break for Clinton, allowing her to win most states on the board today -- just as we could easily see undecideds breaking Obama and him cutting into Clinton's massive advantages among women and Hispanics thanks to a surge of younger voters that alter the makeup of electorates. The polls over the last week seem to indicate momentum is on the side of Obama, but we've all seen this movie before (think New Hampshire).
How to count delegates: On the Republican side, it's VERY easy; there are enough winner-take-call states to allow anyone who did ok in high school algebra to follow along. The Democratic side is not so easy: The threshold for winning an extra delegate (from 3-3 in a six-delegate district to 4-2 to 4-3 to 5-2 in a seven-delegate district etc.) changes. Then you add in the superdelegates. The Clinton campaign claims about a 100-delegate advantage among the supers. So if she gets any delegate advantage tonight, then she'll claim a 100+ delegate lead early and often. Obviously, Obama's folks would like to win the night on the delegate front, so that Clinton's super lead is cut into the double digits. Speaking of the spin war, both the Clinton and Obama campaigns did their best yesterday to lower expectations, with Team Clinton reminding folks this could be a convention fight (can you say Florida and Michigan credential fight?) and the Obama folks reminding the media that Clinton's still the favorite tonight to win more delegates and more states. The truth? As always, somewhere in between!
Go-Bama!
Hat tip to Mr JK for this post's title. Mr JK will be rising from his sick bed to do the good work of getting Barry O votes (well, at least one.)
Monday, February 04, 2008
No Wusses In Chicago
The Barack Obama who wrote so poignantly of adolescent alienation and the search for racial identity is the same Barack Obama who learned, the hard way, how to deal with the likes of Emil Jones Jr., a man whose cell-phone ring tone is the theme from The Godfather. Obama’s good looks and soft-spoken willingness to ponder aloud some of the inanities of modern politics have masked the hard inner core and unyielding ambition that have long burned beneath the surface shimmer. He is not, and never has been, soft. He’s not laid-back. He’s not an accidental man. His friends and family may be surprised by the rapidity of his rise, but they’re not surprised by the fact of it.
Closer Still
Cook/RT Poll: Obama Passes ClintonPolitical Wire got an advance look at the latest Cook Political Report/RT Strategies national survey which shows Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Hillary Clinton, 43% to 37%, just outside the 5.1 point margin of error.
In the GOP race, Sen. John McCain leads Mitt Romney, 39% to 24%, with Mike Huckabee third with 18%.In general election match ups, McCain leads Clinton by 4 points, 45 to 41 percent; Obama leads McCain by two points, 45 to 43 percent.
CNN Poll: Obama Catches Clinton
The latest CNN/Opinion Research national survey finds Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Hillary Clinton, 49% to 46%, within the survey's 4.5 point margin of error."The poll is consistent with other national surveys during the past few days. A CNN averaging of five national polls conducted in the last few days -- a 'poll of polls' -- puts Clinton at 45 percent and Obama at 43 percent. Those five surveys were done by CNN/Opinion Research Corp., Gallup, Pew, ABC and CBS."
In the Republican race, Sen. John McCain leads Mitt Romney, 44% to 29%, with Mike Huckabee at 18%.
Deseret Morning News: Obama, Romney Hold Leads in Utah
A new Deseret Morning News/KSL-TV poll in Utah shows Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Hillary Clinton among likely voters, 53% to 29%.
On the Republican side, it's a blowout with Mitt Romney registering 84% support, followed by just 4% for Sen. John McCain.The Utah primaries are on Feb. 5.
Getting There
Reuters/Zogby: Obama Surges in Latest Tracking PollThe latest Reuters/C-Span/Zogby tracking poll shows Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Hillary Clinton in three of the four key Democratic Super Tuesday races surveyed -- Georgia, Missouri, and California -- and the two were tied in the fourth, New Jersey.
On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain leads in three out of four key Super Tuesday states -- including winning more than 50% support in New York and New Jersey -- but trails Mitt Romney in California.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Another Example Of GT12 Leadership
Plouffe said the money came in at a consistent pace throughout the month, but the campaign's strongest day of fundraising came immediately after the New Hampshire primary, which Obama narrowly lost to Clinton.
"We took a lot of encouragement from that, because it showed the resolve of our existing donor base," Plouffe said.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Super Majority A' Comin'
Democrats Poised to Pick Up More GOP Seats
A new Democracy Corps survey in the 40 most competitive Republican-held congressional districts "shows Democrats have an historic opportunity to challenge deep into Republican territory. The Democrats have a more positive image than the Republicans across these 40 Republican districts where the race between the named Republican incumbent and Democratic challenger is now even."
Key finding: "Democrats start off even with Republicans, 45% to 46%, in a challenging battleground that Republicans won by a 10-point margin in the past two elections."
Thanks For That
From Raw Story
The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.
Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.
The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."
Closing
Two weeks ago, Clinton led Obama by five percentage points in California.
Ready For Those Media Buys!!!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama raised $32 million in the single month of January, matching his best three-month period last year, aides said Thursday.
The money positions Obama for the sweeping Feb. 5 primary contests, when 22 states will be in play for the Democratic nomination. Aides also announced that with their money they can now advertise in states beyond the Super Tuesday contest next week.
Obama is advertising in all but two of the Feb. 5 states and plans to begin advertising in states with upcoming contests, including Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, Maine, Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C.
Campaign manager David Plouffe said the campaign attracted 170,000 new donors for a total of 650,000 donors overall.
Clinton Scandal Watch
And Do We Want This Stuff Dribbling Out For The Next 8 Years?
From The NY Times today
After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton Charity
Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan.
Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.
Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.
Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.
Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.
The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.
and this choice tidbit which says a lot about the chance for straight-talk:
... Both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Giustra at first denied that any such meeting occurred. Mr. Giustra also denied ever arranging for Kazakh officials to meet with Mr. Clinton. Wednesday, after The Times told them that others said a meeting, in Mr. Clinton’s home, had in fact taken place, both men acknowledged it.
Staying = Power
... the last two weeks have seen a remarkable shift of establishment opinion against her and against the prospect of placing the party's 2008 chances in the hands of her husband, Bill Clinton.
The prominence of his role in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and the mean-spiritedness of his attacks on Obama, stunned many Democrats. Clinton's behavior underlined the warning raised in this column before Iowa, by a prominent veteran of the Clinton administration, that the prospect of two presidents both named Clinton sharing a single White House would be a huge problem for the Democrats in November if she is the nominee.
The negatives on the Clintons have brought much support to Obama, most notably that of Ted Kennedy, the most prestigious figure in the Democratic establishment in Washington. But it is also Obama's own appeal that is being talked about across the country from Massachusetts to Arizona by the younger generation of governors, senators and representatives who share with him an eagerness to "turn the page" on the battles of the past.
Obama is not inevitable, but the longer the race continues, the greater that hunger. And the growing recognition of McCain's appeal to independents also works in Obama's favor.
Uwired Unleashed
UW has often been there for us in the past, providing fresh ananlysis and outrage when GT12 is overwhlemed by work or Clinton-schmerz.
Visit the innocently titled 'I Have Sexual Tourette's today.
Judgement Vs. Experience
Obama's lack of experience shouldn't be considered a liability. Many of our most experienced Presidents have made disastrous choices. In the long life of the republic, judgment trumps experience, almost every time.
First, some context. When Kennedy ran for President, he had already served in the U.S. House and the Senate for 13 years (into the start of a second Senate term) and had traveled extensively in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. In the Second World War, he had commanded a P.T. boat - and emerged a hero. He had written a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on political courage.
Put that alongside Obama's record of public service: seven years in the Illinois State Senate, half a term in the U.S. Senate and assorted other positions of debatable relevance to the presidency.But all of Kennedy's knowledge and experience, especially in matters of war and peace, did not insulate him from the blunder at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, which initially undermined his standing as a foreign policy leader. There, Kennedy simply exercised bad judgment; it strains credibility to believe that he would have made the right decision if only he had spent one more term in the Senate.
In the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy relied more on his own judgment - overriding many gray-haired military men - and the most dangerous moment in Cold War history was resolved with far better results for the nation.
A look at other Presidents underlines the lesson. In the four years before the Civil War, James Buchanan [the only man between 'W' and GT12's Award as 'Worst President Ever] led the nation. He had held so many high offices over the years that he was known as "Mr. Government." It didn't help him or the country a jot.
Buchanan failed to head off the bloodshed that would soon engulf the country, and he is now remembered as one of, if not the worst, President in our history.
Inexperienced Abraham Lincoln was, happily, another story.
Woodrow Wilson had an impressive record before entering the Oval Office; history has not been kind to his legacy - or to his decision to enter the "war to end all wars."
Herbert Hoover, one of the most experienced public figures ever to get to the White House, demonstrated dreadful judgment in believing that the Depression would resolve itself with minimal government intervention.
By contrast, Franklin Roosevelt judged traditional strategies for ending the economic downturn inadequate, and instead gave the country a New Deal - a slew of federally sponsored programs including the SEC, the FDIC, Social Security and a minimum wage - that continue to make the country more humane and more just.
In foreign affairs as well, FDR sensed when to depart from conventional wisdom. In 1941, after Hitler had invaded the Soviet Union, Roosevelt's military chiefs, fearful that the Nazis would roll over the Soviets the way they had conquered Western Europe, advised against providing lend-lease aid to Russia. Roosevelt wisely concluded that the Soviets would hold out and provided needed supplies.
No, experience is not irrelevant - but it's no guarantee of anything either. And when judgment and experience clash, judgment is the decisive presidential virtue.
His Stock Is Rising?
From Political Wire
Political Markets Suggest Obama Benefits From Edwards Exit
The Wall Street Journal looks at the political futures markets to try to determine who supporters of John Edwards will gravitate towards now that he's out of the race.
"When word of Mr. Edwards's pending withdrawal leaked, Mr. Obama's stock rose. So the markets tell us that Mr. Obama is a better replacement for an Edwards candidacy than, say, Hillary Clinton, whose stock fell on this news. Despite the Edwards bump, Mr. Obama remains the underdog, and is currently a 38% chance of winning the nomination."
"Polls have been testing Edwards voters for some time, probing them about their 'second choice' for the Democratic nomination. Polls in New Hampshire suggested Edwards voters preferred Mr. Obama to Mrs. Clinton, whereas in South Carolina, the polls suggested the reverse. The market estimates, instead, tell us who Mr. Edwards's supporters are likely to favor in those states yet to vote."
Paint Your Opponent Red
Polite and True.
Watch out for Clinton's victim-card play.
DENVER - Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday said rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is too polarizing to win the presidency and she has taken positions shared by President Bush and Republican candidate John McCain for political expediency.
Obama depicted Clinton as a calculating, poll-tested divisive figure who will only inspire greater partisan divisions as she sides with Republicans on issues like trade, the role of lobbyists in politics and national security. At the same time, he elevated McCain, fresh off victory in Florida's crucial primary, as the likely Republican nominee.
"Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change," Obama said, speaking as rival John Edwards was pulling out of the race in New Orleans, leaving a Clinton-Obama fight for the Democratic nomination."It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq or who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like, who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," Obama said.
"We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party, that is exactly what I will do," he said.
A Real Restoration?
On Nightline last night, Clinton seemed to admit that her husband’s presidency was a co-presidency. It was a pretty striking admission. “MCFADDEN: Here's what a lot of people want to know. Can you control [Bill]? SEN. CLINTON: Oh, of course. … MCFADDEN: Newsweek magazine says flatly, if you're elected, it will be a co-presidency… Maybe it's a good idea? SEN. CLINTON: It’s not. I learned that. I learned that the hard way.” She learned that the hard way? Interestingly, at the time of course, the Clinton White House vigorously denied the idea of a co-presidency because it wasn't politically prudent. Now is history being rewritten a bit?
Monday, January 28, 2008
HRC per Europa
Her campaign managers probably think they are creating a perception of her as a bold, decisive and humane woman with the extraordinary intelligence required to cope with America's and the world's problems. To non-Americans she appears to be a mean street fighter who might be a vindictive and war-mongering President if her pride is crossed. She looks like the caricature ugly American who will stoop to anything to win. If she does this now, she might do so in foreign policy as well.
Love That Ted
"With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion. With Barack Obama we will close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay."
no other candidate has defended gay people as "brothers and sisters" without prompting in front of a non-gay crowd in the height of an election campaign. The Clintons don't do that. In fact, they have often done the opposite, using the fear of gay people as a way to triangulate for their own purposes. That matters to me. It should matter to gays and straights who care about equality under the law. On policy, there is no difference between Clinton and Obama. In terms of character, there is all the difference in the world.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Women Of The Party Unite!
From Mark Ambinder:
Sebelius Plans To Endorse Obama
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) will deliver the Democratic response to the State of the Union on Monday.And then Tuesday or Wednesday, she plans to endorse Barack Obama, numerous Democratic sources said.
The sources said that Sebelius decided some time ago that Obama was her candidate but decided to wait until after the State of the Union.
An Obama spokesperson declined to comment.
"Right now, the Governor's focus is on delivering her response to the President's State of the Union message Monday night," said Nicole Corcoran, communications director to Sebelius. "The Governor will have more to say about the presidential campaign after Monday."
Sulli-Freude
Guilty!
The Clintons push the envelope again - on the Michigan and Florida delegates. Ed Morrissey and Josh Marshall come together. Maybe the Clintons can bring the country together again - in revulsion at their expediency. Jon Chait crosses the anti-Clinton Rubicon for the first time:
Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.
Grief
It may well be true that any Democrat is going to have to handle that sort of sewage in the general election, but I've now--belatedly!--figured out that the real audacity in Barack Obama's campaign--far more than his positions on the issues, which almost seem an afterthought--is his outrageous belief that the entire country, not just Democrats, wants to see a straight up election; that the entire country is tired of the pestilence of tactical tricks that the Clintons learned from their co-dynasts, the Bushes. (The latest example being their sudden, sociopathic emphasis on the importance of the Florida primary, a contest all three candidates had agreed to eschew at the behest of the Democatic National Committee.)
It is a hell of a bet Obama has made. And nearly 40 years of political, uhm, experience tells me that it isn't a very wise one...but I must also say that it is truly sad to see Bill and Hillary Clinton on the wrong side of it.
... But You Run Just Like A Little Girl
Two Against One
By MAUREEN DOWD... Bill has merged with his wife totally now, talking about “we” and “us.” “I never did anything major without discussing it with her,” he told a crowd here. “We’ve been having this conversation since we first met in 1971, and I don’t think we’ll stop now.” He suggested as First Lad that “I can help to sell the domestic program
It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line. She handed over South Carolina to him, knowing that her support here is largely derivative.
By Any Means Necessary
Still, it’s legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere.
It makes one wonder whether they have any understanding or regard for the corrosive long-term effects — on their party and the nation — of pitting people bitterly and unnecessarily against one another.
What kind of people are the Clintons? What role will Bill Clinton play in a new Clinton White House? Can they look beyond winning to a wounded nation’s need for healing and unifying?
These are questions that need to be answered. Stay tuned.
Passing The Torch
Ted Kennedy to Endorse Obama
ABC News' Rick Klein Reports: Senator Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., will endorse Barack Obama's presidential bid on Monday in Washington, a source close to Kennedy tells ABC News.The endorsement gives Obama a boost in the eyes of the Washington establishment, and comes after some prominent Democrats criticized Senator Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former president Bill Clinton for their campaign tactics before Obama's landslide victory in South Carolina.
Caroline Kennedy, the late President John F. Kennedy's only daughter, announced her endorsement of Obama in an Op-Ed for the New York Times on Sunday.
And in an exclusive "This Week" interview, Obama hinted that the senior senator from Massachusetts might be next.
"I'll let Ted Kennedy speak for himself. And nobody does it better. But obviously, any of the Democratic candidates would love to have Ted Kennedy's support. And we have certainly actively sought it," Obama said. "I will let him make his announcement and his decision when he decides it's appropriate."
Text Below
A man aware of the forces being marshalled against him and defiantly refusing to concede to business as usual.
His best yet
Home Town Endorsement
Barack Obama is the rare individual who can sit in the U.S. Senate yet have his career potential unfulfilled. He is the Democrat best suited to lead this nation. We offer him our endorsement for the Feb. 5 Illinois primary.
By one measure, this endorsement is a paradox. We're urging votes for a candidate whose political views we often disagree with. But this is a more complicated contest, and a more complex candidate, than the norm. This nation's next president inherits a war -- against terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere -- that has found many ways to divide Americans. Capitol Hill is gridlocked and uncivil. Our discourse is hostage to blame.
Obama can help this nation move forward. A Tribune profile last May labeled his eight years in Springfield as "a study in complexity, caution and calculation. In the minority party for all but his final two years in the Statehouse, he tempered a progressive agenda with a cold dash of realism, often forging consensus with conservative Republicans when other liberals wanted to crusade."
Racial profiling, death penalty reform, recording of criminal interrogations, health care -- when victory was elusive, Obama seized progress. He did so by working fluidly with Republicans and Democrats. He sought out his ideological foes. He listened closely to them. As a result, many Republicans in Illinois have warm words for Barack Obama.
Obama's key opponent, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, unifies only her foes. Her penchant for gaming every issue -- recall her clumsy dodging when asked in a Philadelphia debate whether illegal immigrants should be licensed to drive -- feeds suspicion of maneuvering that would humble Machiavelli.
As this campaign has progressed, Hillary Clinton in moments of crisis hasn't been an ennobling sight. Her reliance on her husband, the less-than-presidential Bill, to trash-talk Obama reaffirms that the Clintons do whatever it takes to prevail. Depicting Obama's record on Iraq as a "fairy tale" is instructive: Think what you will of the war, but Sen. Clinton was an enabler when that was popular. In Kerryspeak, she was for the war before she was against the war.
The candidates' differences on issues are minor and largely irrelevant: Presidents don't dictate laws, they tussle over legislation with Congress. Much of the "experience" Hillary Clinton touts in that realm instead was proximity to power. Bill's power.
Well, The Ultimate Kennedy-esque Comparison, No?
OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.
... Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.
We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.
... I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.
[Amen sister - GT12}
Let's Look At It Cold Heartedly
Conservatives recognize what's in front of them.
Here's Lowry:
That was not only a stirring victory speech by Obama, but a devastating rebuke to the Clintons clothed in inspirational liberal terms.
And Pete Wehner, who has noted Obama's power before:
Unlike Clinton and especially Edwards, the Obama message is about unity, not divisions; and hopes rather than grievances. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, Republicans have a great deal to fear. He has tremendous break-out potential.
He nearly had K-Lo.
And some liberals also saw new strength. Noam Scheiber agrees with me about the speech.
Dickerson has a great line:
Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton so badly in South Carolina it may spawn some new kind of Southern colloquialism.And don't miss Ambers.
Hope For Mankind
Sen. Barack Obama's huge victory over Sen. Hillary Clinton in South Carolina tonight probably reflected as much on Bill Clinton as it did on his wife. The Los Angeles Times notes the "spectacle of a former president getting down and dirty in the current political trenches with numerous attacks on the freshman Illinois senator may have backfired big-time.""According to CNN exit polls, the ex-president's campaigning was an important factor in nearly 60% of Democrats' voting decisions.
Of those, 47% went for Obama and only 38% for Clinton's wife. Fourteen percent went for John Edwards."Nonetheless, "a Clinton aide said that Bill Clinton would continue campaigning for his wife."Jake Tapper reports that Clinton added fuel to the fire today -- an justified charges that he's engaging in race-baiting -- by comparing Obama's victory in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's in 1984 and 1988.
Like It's 1999
The Clintons are in the process of doing the impossible: making the 2008 election a referendum on them, rather than on the Republicans. And the Republicans are inching towards nominating their one candidate, Mr McCain, who has broad popular appeal. If what ought to be a stroll in the park in November becomes a real fight, then the Democrats will know who to blame.
So Fucking Happy
The Billary Road to Republican Victory
... What has gone unspoken is this: Up until this moment, Hillary has successfully deflected rough questions about Bill by saying, “I’m running on my own” or, as she snapped at Barack Obama in the last debate, “Well, I’m here; he’s not.” This sleight of hand became officially inoperative once her husband became a co-candidate, even to the point of taking over entirely when she vacated South Carolina last week. With “two for the price of one” back as the unabashed modus operandi, both Clintons are in play.
For the Republicans, that means not just a double dose of the one steroid, Clinton hatred, that might yet restore their party’s unity but also two fat targets. Mrs. Clinton repeatedly talks of how she’s been “vetted” and that “there are no surprises” left to be mined by her opponents. On the “Today” show Friday, she joked that the Republican attacks “are just so old.” So far. Now that Mr. Clinton is ubiquitous, not only is his past back on the table but his post-presidency must be vetted as well. To get a taste of what surprises may be in store, you need merely revisit the Bill Clinton questions that Hillary Clinton has avoided to date.
Yes We Can
But if there’s anything we’ve been reminded of since Iowa, it’s that the kind of change we seek will not come easy. Partly because we have fine candidates in the field – fierce competitors, worthy of respect. And as contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a contest for the Democratic nomination, and that all of us share an abiding desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration.
Friday, January 25, 2008
More On Bye-Bye Moron
What has been more curious is that degree to which Giuliani has proved to be a campaigner who appeal to voters seemed to diminish the more they saw him.
New Hampshire is the best example. Of all the early states, Giuliani tried to run a serious campaign in the Granite State, where the moderate-leaning GOP electorate appeared potentially hospitable. In November, Giuliani began to run television ads in the state and on the weekend after Thanksgiving he barnstormed the state. Standing outside city hall in Manchester, with Mayor Frank Guinta at his side, he predicted he would win the primary.
Instead, his support went in the opposite direction. He had almost a quarter of the vote in a September poll by the University of New Hampshire for CNN and WMUR-TV; by late December he was at about half that level.
Giuliani tried multiple messages. He began the campaign as a 2008 version of President Bush's 2004 reelection posture: the man who would keep the country safe. He railed at Democrats warning that their views on terrorism would invite more attacks and more casualties.
He ran for a time as the presumptive nominee, traveling overseas to appear with leaders in Britain and claiming to be one of the most recognizable Americans in the world. He ignored his rivals to attack Hillary Clinton, hoping to signal to GOP voters that he would be their strongest nominee.
He ran as the mayor, promising to do for America what he did for New York. He offered up his record as proof of what he could do as president.
He ran as a Reagan conservative -- at least on economic issues, touting his commitment to tax cuts, welfare reform, school vouchers and other conservative ideas.
But often he ran half-heartedly. He ran instead as a celebrity
