The Blue State

Hillary's biggest threat: Edwards or Obama?

Over the last two months, as Obama has sounded more long-winded, and as John Edwards has transformed into a more authentic leader, I have struggled with this question.

Who should us non-Hillary Democrats endorse: Edwards or Obama?  Many of us just wish they would join forces, or one would simply drop out of the race.  Most of their supporters share the same concerns about Hillary Clinton -- that she is indebted to the Washington establishment, does not say what she really thinks, uses wedge issues to divide voters, and would cause hardcore conservative voters to rally against the Democratic Party during the general election season.

These two videos from the Edwards Campaign pretty much sum up my personal distaste towards Hillary:

It is in Hillary's interest that these two candidates split the votes in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.  However, if Hillary loses the nomination, it will be because one of these two candidates fizzled while the other surged ahead.  The longer we hesitate on a decision, the less of an opportunity we will have as concerned citizens to make a difference in the Iowa Caucus.

And also, if you are doubting the impact of blogs, that skepticism might be mildly true about general elections.  But when it comes to primaries, blogs have a proven history of making a difference.  Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate primary because of the netroots.  Each of us can make a difference this time around.  What we have staring us in the eye is the most important Democratic nomination since 1968.  We must get involved in any way possible to prevent eight more years of closed government.  If Hillary wins the nomination, there will be nothing we can do other than endorsing a Democrat to run against her in 2012, who would surely lose.  Are we going to wait until 2016, or are we going to actively participate in this discussion?

Who should it be: Edwards or Obama?

I am introducing this issue today because in exactly one week, the Democrats will take to the stage in the last presidential debate until December 10th.  This is absolutely huge.  We will need to watch both candidates closely, and evaluate them.  What are their strengths and weaknesses, and how will those traits impact their ability to beat Hillary?  Both of them would make great presidents.  But we can only pick one.

So if any of you have an initial opinion, then comment on this post.  In the meantime, all of us will keep a watchful eye on the two in next week's debate.  Every few days, I will readdress this issue as objectively as I can so that all of us 'regulars' can make an informed decision.

Editorial: 365 days until election day

Remember the sick feeling in your stomach when in the late evening hours of election night 2004 you saw that the margin in Ohio was too wide for John Kerry to make up.  Remember thinking, "Or if Kerry just wins Florida," only to discover that Bush was up by even more votes there.  I remember it quite clearly.  A few hours earlier I had returned from the hospital after having the stitches removed on my stomach, following life-saving intestinal surgery one month earlier.  That night, the pain was back -- only this time it wasn't me.  Our country was the one in trouble.

Since his razor-thin reelection, George W. Bush has used his so-called "political capital" to nominate two right-wing conservative justices; nearly get away with cutting guaranteed Social Security benefits for seniors; suspending habeas corpus; failing the Gulf Coast; enacting fiscal policies that continued to weaken the US dollar; vetoing legislation on stem cell research and health care for children; and presiding over an Iraq policy that killed about 2,000 more US soldiers.  And that is not even the half of it.

We need to prevent this mishap from happening again in our lifetime.  It starts by nominating a presidential candidate from the Democratic Party with the courage to think outside the box, and who has shown a consistent pattern of rejecting the conventional wisdom of the so-called 'experts' in Washington.  So much is at stake. 

Do we want eight more years of this mess?  Do we want the authoritarian Rudolph Giuliani, who has loaded his campaign team with neoconservative advisers?  Do we want the elitist Mitt Romney, whose country-club mentality is underscored by his deep-rooted special interest connections?  How about Fred Thompson, who strangely enough is campaigning as a Washington outsider even though he worked as a lobbyist for 20 years?  Or how about Mike Huckabee, who wants to shift more economic burden to the poor and middle class by installing a regressive national sales tax?  This is what progressives are up against.

It's exactly one year until election day.  Don't sit on the sidelines.  Get involved in any way that you can to help nominate a Democratic candidate with the backbone to stand up to the right-wing smear machine, and to restore honest and open government back to Washington for the first time since before the K-Street Project.  What we cannot afford to have is a Democratic nominee that loads up on Washington consultants and falls into the trap of promoting the status quo.  The status quo mentality is what has hurt our country this decade.  Let's start out on the right foot in the beginning of January by voting for a Democratic nominee with the moral judgment to lead responsibly and promote open democracy.

Democrats need some emotion

Unless the Democrats can exhume the soul of RFK, they had better find their own way of relating emotionally to voters, otherwise they cannot expect to make major House and Senate gains in November of 2008.  So many Democrats in Washington are closed off from the public, and lack the emotional appeal needed to inspire the country after seven dismal years of George W. Bush.

A leaked internal memo from the Democrats said just about that:

Democrats are losing the battle for voters’ hearts because theparty’s message lacks emotional appeal, according to a widelycirculated critique of House Democratic communications strategy.

“Ourmessage sounds like an audit report on defense logistics,” wrote DaveHelfert, a former Appropriations spokesman who now works for Rep. NeilAbercrombie (D-Hawaii). “Why are we defending [the State Children’sHealth Insurance Program] instead of advocating a ‘Healthy Kids’ plan?”

Helfert sent the memo this week to an e-mail list of all Democraticpress secretaries and communications directors after staffers met onMonday to discuss rolling out the Democrats’ latest message.

Maybe start by nominating a candidate like Edwards or Obama -- both of which have charisma that we have not seen in years.

Obama hasn't crashed

It can be frustrating for Obama supporters to watch him out-raise Hillary Clinton, yet not again much ground in the polls.  Keep in mind though, this is only September.  At this point in 1976, 1988, 1992 and 2004, the eventual nominee did not lead the field.  Furthermore, keep in mind that Obama has not crashed, as Howard Dean did in 2004.  He is in a position to make a move, and has yet to over-extend himself in terms of celebrity hype.

As one political scientist in Iowa says, it's not all bad for Obama:

"It's a good news/bad news story," said Cary Covington, a politicalscience professor at the University of Iowa. "The bad news is he hasn'treally taken off, but the good news is he hasn't crashed and burned,either."

In other words, if you are Obama and you want to gamble everything and make your move, it is at least reassuring to know he has not made his move yet.

Webb amendment needs three more votes

Senator Jim Webb's (D-VA) amendment, which would require that all soldiers spend at least as much time at home as oversees, is just a few Senators away from reaching the 60 votes of support to force cloture.

Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) gave us an update earlier today:

“Right now, Senator Webb’s amendment, I would guess, has at least 57votes, on a bipartisan basis,” said Reed on ABC’s This Week with GeorgeStephanopoulos. “We want to move and move forward, pick up thevotes. This process is sometimes too slow, but it’s a process that Ithink is going in the right direction. We’re picking up support. And Ithink on this issue, we can pick up sufficient votes -- 60, I hope 67.”

I don't know about 67.  Maybe 60 or 62.  Remember, 60 is required to break a Republican filibuster.  67 is required to override a Bush veto.

More importantly, what this does is turn it into a showdown between George W. Bush and Jim Webb -- exactly what we want.  Unlike some other Democrats, Webb is not a wimp.  He stands up.  He has courage.  He is not afraid to give us the hard truth.  Voters respect that.  He should be out there, front and center, debating Bush, as opposed to Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.

Hillary admires Rove's political strategy

The question has been posed thousands of times since Monday: What is Karl Rove's legacy?  There are literally thousands of answers.  James Carville, a long-time Democratic strategist, believes Rove will be credited with losing an entire generation of Republicans between the ages of 18 and 30:

If the trends hold, the one thing that we can be sure of is that MrRove’s political grave will receive no lack of irrigation from futureRepublicans.

But for those more interested in what Rove's legacy will be in terms of political strategy, it is clear that he left an impression on the Clinton family.  Peter Baker of the Washington Post revealed Hillary's admiration for Karl Rove's brand of politics:

Harris and Halperin wrote last year that Rove and the Clintonsshared some of the same understandings of how politics work, and thetwo authors even crafted a list they titled "What Hillary Clinton andKarl Rove Know About the Way to Win the White House in 2008." Clinton,they wrote, has "borrowed some strategies" from Rove for dealing withthe news media, enemies and anticipated attacks. "Like Karl Rove," theywrote, "Hillary Clinton knows that playing offense is better thanplaying defense. . . . Hillary Clinton obviously dislikes Bush's policygoals, but she appreciates some of the methods he has used to achievethem."

So, would a Clinton victory next year be a repudiation of Karl Rove politics or the perpetuation of them?

There is a lot more in that article worth reading!

Really though, what methods could possibly be admirable?  The ones Rove used against John McCain in the 2000 primaries, Max Cleland in 2002 or John Kerry in 2004?  Yeah, he sure was effective -- effective in turning voters off to politics, that is.

Special Counsel or Impeachment -- It's Bush's Choice

Today on CBS' Face the Nation, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said his committee will give Alberto Gonzales one week to re-clarify his statements.  Last week both documents and the FBI Director contradicted the testimony of Gonzales a few days prior.  Leahy is giving Gonzales one last chance and then the gloves are off:

"He has a week to correct it if he wants," Sen. Patrick Leahy,D-Vermont, said. "If he doesn't correct it, then I think that there areso many errors in there that the pressure will be very, very heavy,whether it's a special prosecutor, special counsel efforts within the –within the Congress."

This next part is where it gets tricky.  Obviously the Judiciary Committee prefers to have a special counsel.  But that may not happen.  Congress can request a special counsel.  Ultimately though, the decision is made by Solicitor General Paul Clement.  The problem is that Clement is a Bush official, and may be instructed by Dick Cheney not to appoint a special counsel for fear of it opening the executive branch up to further investigations regarding the legality of the warrantless eavesdropping program.

Even though the congressional request can be denied, the Democrats still have political leverage.  Judiciary Committee Chairman can call for impeachment of Gonzales.  So in other words, the Democrats' message to the Administration should be this: allow Clement to appoint a special counsel, or else face an impeachment trial for their Attorney General.

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.

Draft Bill approved to hire Baathists (What's old is new again)

The removal of The BaathParty was a mistake, which became apparentand common knowledge months ago when Paul Bremer (former administrator ofthe Coalition Provisional Authority) (CPA) testified at a congressional hearingback in February.

Bremer said he was wrong to temporarily stop paying salaries andpensions to former Iraqi army officers. He added that Iraqis went too far withhis order to purge members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from the government.

"I acknowledge I made mistakes," Bremer said. "But on thewhole, I believe we made great progress under some of the most difficultconditions imaginable." Readon...

Removal of The Baathists is considered one of Bush'sbiggest mistakes.

“It is one of the darkest aspects of Iraq,” Iyad Allawi, the former PrimeMinister, said yesterday. “It has caused mass emigration from the country anddeprived the Establishment of trained manpower.”

After all these months, and all of the "experts" acknowledging thefact it was a mistake, a "draft bill" was finally approved thatwould give thousands of Baathists jobs. ("draft" operative word)

BAGHDAD -- Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's cabinet approved a U.S.-backeddraft oil law and the Parliament is expected to start discussing it next week,government officials said Monday.

The U.S. has pressed Mr. Maliki's government to pass the oil law and severalother pieces of benchmark legislation to spur reconciliation among the country'ssectarian and ethnic groups. The oil law is especially important to Sunni Arabs,who populate regions of Iraq that are largely without oil resources. Readon...

I personally do not believe The U.S. pressed anything, I think theyare just running out of ideas and this was the smart move by default. The administration didn't listen to anyone, commanders were fired because they didn't "agree" with the admin., conservative talking heads claimed them "incompetent". It's all a bunch of crap!