The Blue State

Hillary tries to create inevitability factor

Even with the other Democratic candidates fighting hard, it will be nearly impossible for them to erase the inevitability factor that acts as a symbolical shield around Hillary Clinton's campaign.  And because three cable news networks consider her to be the likely nominee, most Democratic voters are likely to buy it as well.

Elizabeth Wilner notes how this inevitability factor was created in part to scare establishment types inside Washington from supporting anyone else:

Clinton allies made clear to contributors and fundraisers that theywere watching closely who went where -- and that the Clintons wouldhave long memories should she win the presidency.

This message sinks in with more than money people. It also works with the ideas people.  If you are sitting at a Washington think tank, and hope some day to sitat the State Department, you must think twice before working foranother candidate or being quoted saying something less thancomplimentary about Clinton.

Speaking of think tanks, Clinton allies populate the upper ranks of atleast two Washington thank tanks that were started with her activesupport. That willingness by the Clinton team to invest in intellectualand policy infrastructure has helped create an air of expecation andmomentum around her candidacy. Which leads to another similar strategy…

*Project an aura of inevitability. The Bush team used this tactic togreat effect not only during his first campaign in 2000, throughcareful expectations-setting and record-shattering fundraising, butalso during the Florida recount, when they exuded far more confidencethan Vice President Al Gore and his team that they were going to win.

Although Obama’s success on the fundraising front has muddled thiseffort somewhat, the Clinton campaign has touted its huge coffers andpoll dominance in an effort to say, “Forget the other guys, we’re goingto win.”

The Washington establishment is trying to decide five months before the first contest who will get the Democratic nomination.  Hillary has the media on her side too -- even though Obama out-raised her in primary money for the second consecutive quarter, and has more individual donors than both Hillary and Edwards combined.

Hillary contradicted herself on nukes in order to smear Obama

Last week, immediately after Barack Obama ruled out using nuclear weapons in the Middle East, Hillary's campaign slammed the freshman Illinois Senator for being irresponsible:

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the useor nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said. "Presidents since the ColdWar have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believethat any president should make any blanket statements with respect tothe use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

But back in April of 2006, Hillary said she would take nukes off the table:

`I have said publicly nooption should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclearweapons off the table,'' Clinton said.  ``This administration hasbeen very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way wehaven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terriblemistake.''

Remember though, Hillary is thinking big -- in other words, preparing for the general election.  That is why today, more so than last year, she intends to flex her muscles on national defense.

The problem is when you engage in this kind of political calculation -- appealing to different voters at different times -- later on your opponents can come back and easily discover contradicting statements that you made.  Voters like bold and decisive leaders that have a spine, not politicians that tell one group of people that their favorite color is green, and then the next day inform an entirely different group of voters that it's red, just to make everybody happy in the short-run.

If Hillary stuck to her core progressive principles, and put boldness ahead of political calculation, more voters would respect her.

Elizabeth a major asset to John's electability

Running for president a second time is definitely a hard task, especially while struggling to grab the spotlight from rock star candidates like Clinton and Obama.  Though, it certainly does help to have one of the most respected women in America as your wife.  The Edwards Campaign is finally realizing that wife Elizabeth is a wonderful asset in terms of her ability to attract positive buzz.  From her tough battle with cancer to her on-air verbal exchange with conservative columnist Ann Coulter, Elizabeth is warmly respected by Democratic primary voters.

This week, the campaign threw her strong personality out onto the airwaves.  In a new television ad, Elizabeth talked about her marriage with John, and tried her best to sell her husband as a man of honesty and conviction:

As Marc Ambinder explains, it is the best thing John Edwards can possibly do right now:

The genius in Elizabeth Edwards being Elizabeth Edwards, in thecampaign's sanctioning her role as the Edwards who speaks truth to theClinton's power, is that she is a stealth fighter -- capable ofdropping bombs but extremely hard to shoot down.

And it is true.  Elizabeth is a hard figure for any opposing campaign to shoot down.  As of this moment, there are two untouchable Democrats: Bill Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards.  Attacks against either one will backfire.  Elizabeth and Bill are security blankets for their candidate spouses.  Whenever John or Hillary start to slide, they can hoist their security blankets high in the air for every primary voter to see.  That is exactly what the Edwards Campaign is trying to do with Elizabeth.

Brownback parades around Iowa with Schiavo's brother

Plain and simple: some Republican candidates are struggling to get money.  Former Virginia Governor James Gilmore has only raised $381,000 since January.  He dropped out of the race yesterday.  John McCain reported disastrous second quarter fundraising numbers, putting him well below the top-tier Republican candidates.

So the question for the little guys is how to attract attention from the conservative base?  Maybe candidate Sam Brownback is onto something:

One of Brownback's first campaign stops Saturday was at West DesMoines' Crossroads Fellowship Church. He was joined by Bobby Schindler,the brother of Terri Schiavo, who died in 2005 amid a nationalcontroversy over end-of-life issues. Schiavo spent 15 years in whatdoctors called a vegetative state and died after her husband won afight to remove her feeding tube.

Schindler described his sister as someone who was "killed" because shewas physically disabled and said she would have needed only awheelchair to join the group at Saturday's campaign stop.

"Herlife remained sacred to the very end," Brownback said. "Whether it's achild in the womb or it's somebody that has had a very difficultsituation ... she nonetheless remains a person and she shouldn't beartificially, or by humans, terminated. Instead, we should protectthese lives."

Although, give Brownback credit because he did stop short of using a video tape to diagnose the corpse of Terry Schiavo.  We will leave that to Bill Frist .  (I kid, of course!)

Politically speaking, this is a depressing reminder of what second tier Republican candidates must do to raise money.  The first tier GOP White House hopefuls are having enough difficulty as it is.  Imagine how frustrated Brownback must be right now.  In theory, his social policy positions are perfect for getting support from the kinds of passionate conservative activists that donate money to campaigns.  But Brownback has failed miserably in each debate to articulate his stances, since Iraq is the most discussed topic.  Quite simply, if we were not at war, social issues would take center stage at each Republican debate, and Brownback would be a top-tier candidate.  Too bad for him.

Now Brownback is playing what could be his last remaining wild card: Terry Schiavo.

The Good: Senator Domenici Jumps Ship, The Bad: He's Up for Reelection The Ugly: Personal Gain or From the Heart?

Senator Peter Domenici (R-NM) is jumping  President Bush's "supportthe Iraqi War" Ship.  Although technically I supposeit's a good thing, I however do not believe it was a decision from the heart and for the people. TheWashington Post says  Domenici is a "party loyalist and formerstaunch war supporter," and thus "one of the most significant GOPlosses to date." So why the change of mind? How about he's upfor reelection next year for starters?

Sen. Peter Domenici, a New Mexico Republican who is up for reelection nextyear, broke with President Bush on the Iraq war. Domenici's move is beingtreated as a significant development, indicative of Bush's increasingly weakposition within his own party. The WashingtonPost says Domenici is a "party loyalist and former staunch warsupporter," and thus "one of the most significant GOP losses todate." The timing of Domenici's announcement is interesting. As the WallStreet Journal reports, "a showdown is likely" in coming weeks"over a Democratic amendment to the main Defense Department spending billdemanding that US troops begin leaving Iraq within 120 days." The NewYork Times notes that is "an idea Mr. Bush has alreadyvetoed," and in fact Domenici "made it clear Thursday that he did notsupport such measures either, saying, 'I'm not calling for an immediatewithdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops, but I am callingfor a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on thepath to continuing home.'" Instead, USAToday reports, Domenici "supports a bipartisan bill that embracesfindings of the Iraq Study Group, which said combat troops could be out by March2008 if certain steps were taken."

U.S.News & World Report: The APnotes Domenici "said he has not talked to the administration about wantinga strategy shift," and the LosAngeles Times reports the senator's comments "drew a measuredresponse from the White House, which has been trying to maintain Republicansupport for the president's 6-month-old strategy of using additional Americanforces, primarily in Baghdad, to control sectarian violence." ABC WorldNews said the White House is worried over Domenici's defection, but"officials are taking some comfort by the fact that he said he wasn't readyto cut off funding, wasn't ready to call for a complete withdrawal oftroops." ReadOn...

In my opinion this is another example of "what'sbest for me?" self gain; more votes; campaign slogans; and whatever elsecomes along with decisions made for personal reasons and not for the people. Icould be wrong, but I need to see his true change if he does win the reelection. And if I know me, I'll dig this up after the elections and give him an "atta-boy" or a "you self promoting, self gain useless piece of crap" post.

Winning the Little Battles?

The Washington Times (regardless of the opposing bias in which it was written) dives into the slow and "debilitating" process with which Democrats are approving President Bush's nominations in various open positions.

Since Jan. 7, the president has sent 229 major nominations to theSenate, but just 66 have been confirmed. Those figures exclude U.S.attorneys, marshals and judges, but the White House says thosenominations also have an alarmingly low confirmation rate — just 18 ofthe 46 (39 percent) sent to the Senate this year have been approved.

I thought "typical partisanship" much like you probably did.  However, the magazine compares the approval rate to the period in 1995 when Republicans gained control of the Senate and the House.

Back then, President Clintonsent up 188 nominations between January and June, winning approval for112 — a 60 percent confirmation rate.

While the article is written in a negative slant (which would also indicate that some pieces of the story could be missing), it seems like there are at least two things to consider:

1)  President Clinton didn't establish a precedent of nominating unqualified buddies for high-level positions, nor did his administration show a trend of vast and complete failure when those buddies faced tough decisions or situations (Iraq, the World Bank, Katrina, UN, etc); and

2)  This is a battle the Democrats are winning, in a stubborn but effective way.  Clearly the feet-dragging is frustrating the administration and slowing their business.  If the administration has made it clear that they aren't interested in listening to the people, the Congress, or the judiciary, why not come up with a simple strategy to slow the administration down?  It makes "running out the clock" much less fulfilling.

DCCC moves against GOP incumbents early

We are not even one year removed from the previous election, and theDemocratic Congressional Campaign Committee is already moving against anumber of Republican House incumbents.  According to CongressionalQuarterly, the DCCC is launching a major ad blitz around the Fourth of July against certain GOP lawmakers thatvoted against benefits for military families:

Playing off the patriotic themes that will abound during the July 4celebration, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)will be waging media and mass phone-calling campaigns accusing the GOPincumbents — all of whom have supported President George W. Bush’s Iraqwar policies — of failing to provide sufficient support for members ofthe U.S. military.

“Next week, Republicans are going home to talk up their support forour nation’s troops and veterans. But, their constituents deserve toknow that the Republican record on veterans is all talk and no action,”said DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen, a representative from Maryland, ina statement. “America’s troops and veterans deserve more than patrioticspeeches this Independence Day.”

Here is an example of what the radio ads will sound like.

The GOP incumbents that the Democrats are targeting are the following:

• Robin Hayes (NC-08)
• Joe Knollenberg (MI-09)
• Jon Porter (NV-03)
• Jim Walsh (NY-23)
• Don Young (AK)
• Shelly Moore Capito (WV-02)
• Sam Graves (MO-06)

This is great!  Every time the Republicans play the military card and then turn around and vote against military families, let's hold them accountable.  No more being silent like we were.

22-point shift: Rural voters tilting blue

We are in the midst of a major electoral sea change.  In 2004, Bush decisively won the rural vote by 19 points.  Today, because of the Iraq war, Katrina and government corruption, Democrats now have the support of rural voters:

While the president won re-election over Democrat John Kerry  by a national margin of just more than 2 percentage points, rural respondents favored him by 19 percentage points in 2004.

Thesurvey found that rural voters prefer an unnamed Democraticpresidential candidate over a Republican candidate by 46 percent to 43percent. A Democratic congressional candidate leads a Republican on ageneric ballot test by 46 percent to 44 percent. And surveyrespondents, by a 45 percent to 33 percent margin, say that Democratshave done a better job than Republicans in paying attention to “ruralissues.”

21% of voters nationwide live in rural areas -- so this sea change is pretty significant.  Another poll that was conducted earlier this month confirmed the same trend.  There is so much voter fatigue, even in the most traditionally Republican counties nationwide.  They want change.  The trick for Republicans is finding a candidate that they can paint as anti-Washington establishment.  The front-runner to fit that mold appears to be Fred Thompson, even though in reality he was a lobbyist for twenty years, and repeatedly holds fundraisers for Scooter Libby.  But for the moment, conservative activists think he is above the problem.

Even so, swing voters have had enough.  This rural landslide coupled with broad voter fatigue will be tough for the GOP to overcome in '08.

No progressive majority until Democrats grow a spine

Ever since losing majority in 1994, the Republicans have used wedge issues to stir up emotion in swing states and put the Democrats on the defensive.  Now with the Democrats slightly in control of the Legislative Branch, they look to 2008 as their first opportunity since 1992 to gain a clear progressive majority.

How can the Democrats get there?  The Nation columnist Rick Perlstein is right on the money:

For as long as I can remember, liberals have been complaining aboutawkward, self-conscious attempts to recover this "mainstream"sensibility and how they have paradoxically weakened the party. Theyforced Democratic politicians to become obsessed with polls. That, inturn, boxed Democrats into an identity the public--themainstream--found the most off-putting of all: Democrats became timid.They couldn't pursue a bold public agenda because they were too hemmedin by polls. Very recently, among progressives, a new dictum hasemerged: Hug close to the polls, worship the polls, be the polls.

When President Bush was reelected in 2004, there were a countless number of moderate voters that admitted something like, "I don't agree with Bush a lot -- but you know, he is a bold leader that does not look at the polls.  I want a guy like that." 

There is a certain respect factor there with voters.  It's not about where to stand along the political spectrum.  What voters want is a leader with a vision.  Democrats have lacked that vision for so long.  We need a Democratic presidential nominee that is willing to be bold enough to take stances that are sometimes not ideologically popular.  Political calculation alone does not build majority parties.

Commentary: How Bloomberg would fare in the general election

Immediately after New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg officially announced his defection from the GOP ranks, political analysts quickly began hyping a possible general election match-up between three New Yorkers: Giuliani, Clinton and Bloomberg.  Already, the media is in love with the idea of a three-candidate New York showdown in '08.

Prematurely though, these pundits are assuming that Clinton and Giuliani will win their party's nominations.  We are six long months away from the first vote.  Anything can happen on both the Democratic and GOP ends.  Giuliani's pro-choice stances could be his undoing.  Hillary's Washington establishment label could cause a massive voter revolt in January.  We cannot presume anything at this point.

So while other blogs, news sites and so-called 'pundits' salivate over a possible Clinton-Giuliani-Bloomberg showdown, Newsweek's Jonathan Darman thought outside the box about Bloomberg's possible impact on all the other candidates:

Other candidates could also feel the Bloomberg effect in a generalelection fight. John Edwards has made a strong pitch for his party'spopulist wing. Should he win the Democratic nomination, pro-businessvoters in the middle might view a Bloomberg vote as a protest againstboth Bush-backing Republicans and Labor-pandering Dems. Barack Obama'scampaign is centered around the idea he would introduce a new,different kind of politics. Whatever you may think of it, Bloomberg'scandidacy would certainly be new and different. On the right, MittRomney has taken conservative positions on every major social issue inthe hopes he will emerge as the choice of Christian conservatives inthe primary. Should he win the nomination, he's counting on moderatevoters remembering he was the governor of liberal Massachusetts forfour years. But that pivot could prove harder with a viable, sociallymoderate Independent candidate in the race. John McCain and FredThompson's aides talk up their candidates' appeal to a broad swath ofvoters as evidence they can lead the GOP out of troubled times. Butthat appeal may well be limited as long as McCain and Thompson refuseto break with Bush on the unpopular war in Iraq.

This is a pretty decent analysis.  Mitt Romney is expected to perform yet another political makeover if he becomes the GOP nominee -- transforming himself back into the moderate candidate he was as Massachusetts Governor.  Many of Romney's moderate positions on social issues will be canceled out by Michael Bloomberg.  There would be too much overlap.  For that reason, if Romney and Bloomberg were two of the three candidates in the general election, almost any Democrat would win.

But I don't think it will come to that.  The Karl Rove's strategy of pandering to the far-right works well.  That is why someone like Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee, two conservative southerners that are good at reaching out to Evangelical conservatives, would be affected the least if Bloomberg got into the race.

Obviously, these hypotheticals are nothing more than late-night thought unless Bloomberg actually does run.  But if he chooses to, Bloomberg would be much more electable than Ross Perot.  It would be unlike any other election in American history.