The Blue State

Clinton-Obama feud benefits Edwards and Richardson

One day after the Youtube debate, Hillary Clinton told a local newspaper that Barack Obama was "irresponsible and frankly naive" for wanting to talk with world leaders that are US foes.  As expected, the Obama Campaign immediately fired back.

Is it just me, or are the top two campaigns forgetting the lessons of 2004?  Going into the final three weeks before the Iowa Caucus, it looked like either Howard Dean or Dick Gephardt would win the nomination.  Desperate and almost blind to the reality that there were two other formidable candidates in the race, Dean and Gephardt unleashed a barrage of attacks against one another.  All that negativity weighted down the two front-runners, while John Kerry and John Edwards went untouched and surged to the very top in Iowa just in time for the vote.  Kerry and Edwards both ended up on the Democratic ticket, while Gephardt and Dean were finished.

Relate this to today.  If Dean and Gephardt are like Obama and Clinton, then Kerry and Edwards are -- you guessed it -- like Edwards and Richardson.  Hillary and Barack had better be careful to not attack one another too early and too often, because realistically speaking voters will find alternatives.

Dean to Democrats: End the war or lose Congress

During the weekly Democratic radio address, DNC Chairman Howard Dean issued a wakeup call to the Democratic Congressional majority in Washington:

"The American people hired Democrats last November to ensure that weend this war," Dean said during the weekly Democratic radio address."So let me be clear, we know that if we don't keep our promise, we mayfind ourselves the minority again."

Listen to the Howard Dean radio address in its entirety.

Voters respect politicians that have the audacity to show some spine.  Voters are frustrated because although Democrats have a majority in both chambers of Congress, they have yet to show even a desire to flex their political capital.  Until they demonstrate that willingness to lead on Iraq, they do not deserve to stay in the majority.  Dean is a straight-shooter on this one.

Progressive lawmakers slam Cheney-Lieberman pact

Ned Lamont, Russ Feingold and Howard Dean went out in full force on the Sunday talkshows and confronted Joe Lieberman head-on for using the latest terror threats as a pandering opportunity.

Joe Lieberman acting a lot like Dick Cheney.  Let's look at the similarity between the comment Dick Cheney made last week and what former Democrat Joe Lieberman also said. 

First, Dick Cheney:

"And as I look atwhat happened yesterday, it strikes me that it's a perhaps unfortunateand significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party ... I think there's a significant bodyof opinion that wants to go back -- I guess the way I would describe itis sort of the pre-9/11 mind set, in terms of how we deal with theworld we live in."

Now compare that with what Joe Lieberman said:

"If we just pick up (and leave Iraq) like Ned Lamont wants us to do, itwill be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted toblow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It willstrengthen them and they will strike again."

Other than the simplicity in their statements, the two are feeding into Ken Mehlman's belief that Lamont's victory reflected a defeatist attitude on the part of the Democrats.  But just in case they didn't realize it, Connecticut voters, not Ned Lamont, decided the outcome.  Either Cheney and Lieberman reject democracy, or they are clearly out of touch with a majority of taxpaying Connecticut voters.

On ABC's Sunday show "This Week", Russ Feingold came out and defended Ned Lamont from Lieberman's attack:

This morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) responded toLieberman’s remarks. “Joe is showing with that regrettable statementthat he doesn’t get it. He doesn’t get it,” Feingold said.

Howard Dean called on Joe Lieberman to drop out of the race:

"I know how hard this is for Joe, and he is a good person, but thetruth is I lost one of these races and I got behind my party's nomineeand I think that is what you have to do if you want to help thiscountry," Dean, former governor of Vermont, said on NBC's "Meet thePress."

Ned Lamont also stood up and rebutted Lieberman's Cheney-like tactic of using national security to scare people:

"It surprised me," he said. "It seemed almost orchestrated. It's sortof demeaning to the people of Connecticut. … I thought the senator andthe vice president were both wrong to use that attack (strategy) on thevoters of Connecticut."

Yes, Connecticut voters -- you are exactly who Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman were attacking.  They were trying to insult your intelligence.  They think you don't understand anything about how to keep this country safe.  This November, you can send Lieberman and Cheney the right message by kicking the bums out of Congress.

The Republicans have pretty much backed Lieberman in this race.  When RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman was asked to set the record straight on Sunday's Meet the Press, he dodged the question and would not endorse Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger.  Gee, I wonder who Cheney, Mehlman and Rove are rooting for!
---------------------------------------------------------
Other sites blogging about this issue: The Huffington Post, The Left Coaster, Lamontblog, Political Warzone, Unclaimed Territory, Blue and White, Angry Bear, Nameless Cynic, Hotline, Free Democracy, Russ Feingold Force, The Truffle, Getting Elected Blogline, The Astute Bloggers, Vox Mia, Unearth Connecticut, The Future was Today, Nasty Little Man, RW Research.

Karl Rove surrenders the north to the Democrats

It's the campaign season.  Karl Rove has his game face on.  We've been through this before.  In the early months of each even election year, the White House tests out basic themes, and watches how they resonate with different voting demographics.  Then, once Karl Rove develops a plan, he sticks to it.  We are approaching that time in the summer when the White House begins to fully implement their campaign strategy from this point straight on into November.  In other words, we are getting to a point of no return.  Whatever the White House goes with now will be their strategy from here on out.  There will not be enough time to alter course in mid-flight.

As I wrote a few nights ago, it appears as though Karl Rove is reorganizing Bush's immigration strategy.  At first, he supported a Senate plan that included a comprehensive immigration package.  But knowing full well that the House would block any bill with a guest worker program, and also knowing full well that Bush needs conservative support to bring up his low poll numbers, Bush is showing signs that intends on taking a hard ideological right turn this election season.

His new alliance with conservative House Republicans is a breath of fresh air to some.  But for the Northeastern Republicans up for reelection this year, they think what Bush is doing will prevent them from winning in November.  Connecticut Congressman Christopher Shays, who faces a tough reelection challenge this year, is worried about the President's conservative strategy:

"It was stupid and gross," said Representative Christopher Shays ,Republican of Connecticut. "They have this obsession to satisfyconservative Republicans who will probably be re-elected no matter whathappens. They get job satisfaction, but they are making it moredifficult for me to win my race."

And Shays is right.  He is facing a tough challenge this November from Democratic challenger Diane Farrell, who narrowly lost to Shays in 2004.  With her progressive stance in support of a timely exit from Iraq, Connecticut voters might favor her over Shays -- especially with the public's view of the war in Iraq even less favorable than it was in 2004.

Karl Rove's strategy, in a nutshell, is a defensive one.  He wants the President to take a strong stance on immigration, even if it alienates Northeastern Republicans, because it will increase the likelihood of a deal with the House.  If the Republicans can succeed in getting an immigration bill passed before November, it will allow them to hold onto more House seats in the south and the Midwest.  In other words, Rove is giving up on the Northeast -- which is why I call this a defensive strategy.  Rove recognizes that the Democrats have the upper hand in states like Connecticut, where Bush has a 30% approval rating.  So why go after seats you might not win anyway when you can pander to your conservative base and increase the potential that more of your side will turn out to vote?

The Democrats can respond by realizing that Rove is surrendering the North, and give more money to Democratic candidates in other parts of the country.  There is an ongoing disagreement between DNC Chairman Howard Dean and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel about how to allocate money.  Emanuel wants campaign money to be concentrated more in the north, while Dean favors spreading it out more in hope that the Democrats could put up a fight anywhere in the country.  If I am right about Rove's strategy of surrendering the north to the Democrats, then Dean's monetary proposal is obviously the better one.  Winning the seats in the Northeast is not enough.  We need to be pouring more money into the West and Midwest in hope of encouraging a landslide this November, and strengthening our nationwide support heading into 2008.  The Democrats cannot win on just a regional message.

Dean said the Democrats need a 50-state strategy:

"They can say what they want, but we've been doing it the old way for awhile and it's time for a change," Dean said in an interview. "To findout if the 50-state strategy is going to be successful, you'll have towait for a couple of presidential cycles. It won't be deemed a failure,because I'm going to keep doing it."

Emanuel's plan is just too regional.  But since the Democrats will do well in the north anyway, why not follow Dean's plan of spreading it around a bit?  We will follow that as it unfolds.

In the meantime, it is important for mainstream media analysts to at least acknowledge that Karl Rove is unveiling a campaign strategy that is for the most part defensive.
------------------------------------------------------------
Other blogs writing about this issue: Copeland Institute for Lower Learning, New Mexico Politics, HowieinSeattle, Progressive Strategy Blog, Beltway Blitz, The Young Pundit, Tom Roeser, That's my Congress, Northern Alliance Wannabe, Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, The Democratic Strategist, Democrats in 2006.

Democrats try to play offense on immigration

Marxists on the far-left like Lou Dobbs and right-wing ideologues like Sean Hannity have been accusing Democrats of going soft on border enforcement in this latest immigration debate.  But as the conservative Washington Times reports, DNC Chairman Howard Dean is setting the record straight: while the Democrats support a guest-worker program, tough border enforcement should be America's number one priority:

"The first thing we want is tough border control," he said. "We have todo a much better job on our borders than George Bush has done. And thenwe can go to the policy disagreements about how to get it done...immigrants who obey the law and pay taxes..(should) be able to apply forcitizenship. We support earned legalization vigorously. And, much to mysurprise, so do the American people."

The DNC is launching Spanish language television spots in the Southwest regarding the issue of immigration.

New immigration protests throughout the country are scheduled for May 1.  Pro-immigration groups are trying to agree on the tactics they will use, reports Joe Rodriguez of the Mercury News.

Meanwhile, the feds are stepping up their immigration raids.  Yesterday authorities in nine states launched raids on Houston-based shipping manufacturer.