• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    riverdaughter on 14 Reasons
    Roger on 14 Reasons
    riverdaughter on Finally, an Obama speech worth…
    HerStoryRepeating on Finally, an Obama speech worth…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Finally, an Obama speech worth…
    lililam on Blitzkrieg or Sitzkrieg?
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Finally, an Obama speech worth…
    riverdaughter on PSA: Last Day in PA
    riverdaughter on PSA: Last Day in PA
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on PSA: Last Day in PA
    William on PSA: Last Day in PA
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Blitzkrieg or Sitzkrieg?
    William on Blitzkrieg or Sitzkrieg?
    riverdaughter on And now a message from Ru…
    James Bowater on And now a message from Ru…
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

    • Grifters
      NEW: Previously un-released documents show the government has paid $2.5 million to @realdonaldtrump's businesses. Far more than we knew. Trump Org charged $7,700 for a dinner, $6,000 for floral arrangements…and $3 for POTUS’s own glass of water.https://t.co/fubxgjRPFH — David Fahrenthold (@Fahrenthold) October 27, 2020
  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Interview Part 2: Politics Thru Climate Change
      This second excerpt from my interview is more interesting and longer. This is the second clip from my interview with Ian Welsh (Ian blogs at ianwelsh.net). For this segment, we went on a wild ride discussing the big picture mess that is US politics and society more broadly. I asked Ian what might happen if […]
  • Top Posts

Clarification

In the post below, How Power Works, I am in no way advocating that anyone vote for McCain. Voting for a Republican in this day and age is an anathema to me. Nor am I saying that the state of the economy, Iraq war, Supreme Court are not important to me. (However, I would like to point out to you young, nubile female Obamaphiles who think the world revolves around abortion rights that it was probably not the best strategy in the world to repeatedly call us old women. Because as you know, old women generally do not worry overmuch about unplanned pregnancies and they can usually pay for their daughters to go elsewhere if necessary. So, that whole, has-been feminism thing to make us feel unsexy and uncool probably backfired a bit.)

No, if Obama wins the nomination by excising two states, and by extension NY, NJ, CA, AZ, MA, OH etc, what I envision is this: I am going to go vote this November for Linda Stender in NJ-07 and various and sundry municipal positions. But the top spots will remain uncast until the end. Then, I will stand there in front of the Sequoia eVoting machine, the left hand hovering over Obama’s name, the right hand hovering over the “Cast Ballot” button, and at this point in time, I have no idea what is going to happen. BUT, I figure that the Republicans are unpopular this year and Barack has SOOO much enthusiastic support among the college aged crowd, who will certainly not be too busy studying to carry out most of the GOTV activities, that he probably won’t need my vote anyway.

I took a peek at TPM today and it looks like the Obamaphiles are in full spittle mode, misinterpreting the polls that say that 28% of all Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if Obama is on the ballot. This is not what I am advocating at all. But there is a great deal of uncertainty about what I *will* do, no doubt about that. And the 28% of Democrats who are considering McCain are probably a lot like my mother. She voted for Bush twice, but she is a registered Democrat and this year, she is planning to vote for Clinton in the PA primary. She’d vote for her in the general too except that won’t be possible if the Obama campaign manages to cut out 29 million voters in Florida and Michigan and win on the 48 state strategy.

What puzzles me is how it is that any Democratic blogger would consider this prospect, um, Democratic. Or better yet, think it is a good idea as long as his candidate wins. But there you go, they are not so much pro-Obama as anti-Clinton. In fact, I rarely read anything on their pages that promote Obama’s policies. What they are mostly about is tearing Clinton down.

So, there you have it. My vote is uncertain. As someone in the comments said, Obama is going to have do a lot of ass kissing to get my vote. I don’t know where he will find the time to court the Democrats all over again at that stage of the campaign but that’s *his* problem. In all my years of voting, going back to 1980, I can not ever recall having such a visceral dislike of a candidate. And this feeling was not generated by anything Clinton has said or not said. her campaign has been rather tame. Obama has done this to himself. But in the past, even when the nominee wasn’t my first choice, I learned to like him. Not this time. This time, I will be voting under duress and my left hand may not know what my right hand is doing.

Some good news: It looks like some wealthy patrons of the party have sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi asking her to zip it. Zip it good.

Update: Obama is having a hissy fit over the letter. Demands that Hillary make them take it back. Hmmm, I hope she’s taken a lesson from James Carville’s playbook and doesn’t apologize for anything. For all we know, she had nothing to do with it. Besides, it’s *their* money.  They can do with it what they want.  They can help Nancy get rid of the Republicans that are getting in her way or Nancy can raise funds from some other source and they’ll go to Paris for the spring.

Jamie Rubin Flogs Andrea Mitchell

MABlue helpfully provides us with this link of Jamie Rubin getting his point across and lazy@$$ “journalist”, Andrea Mitchell having to sit there and take it.  Rubin is frickin’ brilliant.  He had all of his notes prepared in advance and called her on all of the distracting, discrediting points she was prepared to make.  The point he kept driving home again and again is that the race will not be decided by pundits or the clique of Washington DC press (ie, The Villagers).  Hillary’s  not getting out of the race just because they demand it and there are millions of voters out there who havent’ been heard from and THEY will decide.  Not YOU, Andrea.

So, there.  :-p

Tanya Harding? How about the “Rove Option”? (One More Time)

Good morning all! I found this on Yahoo news, originally from Huffpost. Earl Offari Hutchinson, author of The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House says Karl Rove long ago signaled that he believes Barack Obama is the weakest Democratic candidate.

In an open memo which got almost no media play and zilch public attention last December, Rove spit out six things Obama should do to zap Clinton.

Obama has followed the script to the letter. He’s unleashed an all-out no holds barred attack on Clinton’s personality, record, and demeanor, and even tossed in some blatant racial digs at her and hubby Bill for supposedly demeaning Dr. King, Jesse Jackson, and of course himself. He’s made bold, brash, and loud pitches and promises to do everything from end the war to clean up the economy. This fulfills Rove’s admonition to him to stop sounding wishy-washy on the big ticket issues and create an aura and persona of confidence, expertise, and even invincibility about himself.

And the big blogger boyz bought right into Rove’s strategy, didn’t they? Rove must be a happy camper these days, seeing Hillary attacked right and left and the likes of Markos and Josh screeching at her to give up. Rove and other Republican strategists want nothing more than the chance to tear Obama apart in the general election campaign. As Hutchinson points out, Rove was already well aware of Rev. Wright and his controversial sermons as well as the simmering Rezko stew when he wrote this memo. Not only that, he was celebrating the possibilities for attacking Obama’s thin resume.

Rove viewed him as untested, inexperienced, way at the front on the learning curve on foreign policy matters, and with a checkered history. That included the hints, innuendos, and whispers about relations with his one time bankroller, the indicted Chicago financier Tony Rezko to his association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

And of course the race issue is one the Republicans have decades of experience in exploiting. Why do the Democrats always fall for the Republican tricks? Will enough superdelegates will wake up and smell the coffee before it’s too late? I’m betting yes, but I’m an eternal optimist. Please go read the whole thing. I’m tempted to go out and buy Hutchinson’s book. He’s got it just right.

Here is a little taste of Rove’s open memo to Barack:

First, stop acting like a vitamin-deficient Adlai Stevenson. Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job, not in a mean or ugly way but in a forceful and straightforward way.

Hillary may come over as calculating and shifty but she looks in control. You, on the other hand, often come over as weak and ineffectual. In some debates, you do not even look at her when disagreeing with her, making it look as if you are afraid of her. She offers you openings time and again but you do not take advantage of them. Sharpen your attacks and make them more precise.

And item three on the six point program:

…when you create controversies do not pick issues where you are playing the weaker hand. For example, you attacked her for lacking foreign policy experience. It is true she was first lady, not secretary of state, and nobody will ever mistake her for James Baker III. But your qualifications are even thinner; you were a state senator and lived in Indonesia when you were six. Big deal. Americans think she has more foreign policy experience than you – and she does.

I ask you, which candidate does it sound like Bush’s “architect” thinks is stronger and which one does he think is weaker?

Three Myths About the Democratic Race

By Peter Daou

This was sent to me by Peter Daou and is printed with his permission.  (Originally posted at blogHillary)

MYTH: Barack Obama is running a positive campaign that will unite Americans.

FACT: Barack Obama and his advisers have conducted a divisive “full assault” on Hillary’s character.

While talking a lot about the politics of hope, change and unity, Sen. Obama and his campaign have been conducting a relentless and singularly personal assault on Hillary’s character. They have blanketed big states with false negative mailers and radio ads and have described Hillary and her campaign as “disingenuous,” “divisive,” “untruthful,” “dishonest,” “polarizing,”calculating,” “saying whatever it takes to win,” “attempting to deceive the American people,” “one of the most secretive in America,” “deliberately misleading,” “literally willing to do anything to win,” and “playing politics with war.”

This “full assault” on Hillary’s integrity and character has reached a new peak since Hillary’s victories on March 4th. One of Sen. Obama’s top surrogates equated President Clinton with Joe McCarthy; another called Hillary a “monster;” and his campaign manager held an angry conference call claiming that Hillary is “deeply flawed” and has “character issues.” That’s neither unifying nor hopeful. If Sen. Obama really is the prohibitive favorite some say he is, these negative attacks make absolutely no sense. Why would a frontrunner seek to attack and divide? If Sen. Obama can’t unify Democrats in a primary, how can he unify Americans in a general election?

=====

MYTH: The delegate “math” works decisively against Hillary.

FACT: The delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win.

“The Math” is actually very simple: with hundreds of delegates still uncommitted, NEITHER candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination. And EITHER candidate can reach the required number in the coming weeks and months. That is indisputable. No amount of editorials, articles, blog posts, charts, graphs, calculations, formulas, or projections will change the basic fact that either candidate can win. Pundits who confidently proclaim that Hillary has no hope of winning because of “the math,” have counted Hillary out of this race three times before. Each time they based their sober assessments on ‘facts’ and ‘realities’ — and each time they were wrong.

In a campaign with dozens of unexpected twists and turns, bold prognostications should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Look no further than Sen. Obama’s “full assault” on Hillary’s character to judge whether he thinks this election is over. The fact is this: Hillary and Sen. Obama are locked in a very close, hard-fought campaign and Hillary is demonstrating precisely the strength of character required of a president. Her resilience in the face of adversity, her faith in the voters, her capacity to rise to every challenge, are part of the reason she is the best general election candidate for Democrats. And it is why she is increasingly strong against John McCain in the polls at the same time that Sen. Obama is dropping against Sen. McCain.

=====

MYTH: For Hillary to win, super delegates must “overturn the will of the people.”

FACT: The race is virtually tied, the “will of the people” is split, and both candidates need super delegates to win.

The Obama campaign and Sen. Obama’s surrogates have engaged in a sustained public relations effort to convince people that the election is over and that if super delegates perform their established role of choosing a candidate who they believe will make the best nominee and president, they are somehow “overturning the will of the people.” They have the audacity to make this argument while quietly and systematically courting those very same super delegates. They are courting them because they know that Sen. Obama needs super delegates to win. The Obama spin is being parroted daily by pundits, but it is patently false. The race is virtually tied; the “will of the people” is split. By virtually every measure, Hillary and Sen. Obama are neck and neck — separated by less than 130 of the more than 3,100 delegates committed thus far and less than 1% of the 27 million+ votes cast, including Florida and Michigan. Less than 1%.

An incremental advantage for one candidate or the other is hardly a reason for super delegates to change the rules mid-game. Despite the Obama campaign’s aggressive spin and pressure, the RULES require super delegates to exercise their best independent judgment, and that is what they will do. Even Sen. Obama’s top strategist agrees they should. If not, then why don’t prominent Obama endorsers like Senators Kerry (MA) and Kennedy (MA), and Governors Patrick (MA), Napolitano (AZ)  and Richardson (NM) follow the will of their constituents and switch their support to Hillary? After all, she won their states. And if this is truly about the “will of the people,” then Sen. Obama’s short-sighted tactic to run out the clock on a revote in Florida and Michigan accomplishes exactly two things: it disenfranchises Florida and Michigan’s voters; and it hurts Democrats in a general election. Apparently, for the Obama campaign, the “will of the people” is just words.

=====

Forward this to a friend.

How Power Works

I’ve noticed quite a few commenters in the last post expressing the opinion that, “Yes, the Obamaphiles and the DNC have really crossed the line but when it comes right down to it, I don’t want another Republican in the WH, so I’ll bite the bullet and vote for Obama if I have no other choice.”

And that’s just where Obama and the DNC want you. They want you to think you have nowhere else to go. You’ll come crawling back to them, despite all of the abuse and them taking you for granted. So, they will continue to dish it out against Clinton because they think they have you. You will never leave them.

That is not how personal power works, guys. At least not for you. You gain nothing if you allow them to bully you into voting for Obama instead of McCain. What will YOU, the stupid old bitch, “typical white person” get out of an Obama presidency? If he can ignore you now and treat you like $#$%, what makes you think he’s going to change after you’re married to him?

The power you have is in your choice NOW. The nomination hasn’t been cast in stone yet. You haven’t signed any legal papers. The Superdelegates are still watching the game play out. And here is your opportunity to make your point and exercise your power. All you have to do is say to the Superdelegates, “If you do not rein in the forces working for the Obama campaign and if you do not get the DNC’s thumb off the scales, you can not count on my support this fall. Period” The power is in the uncertainty. Don’t rule it out, just leave them hanging. Then the Superdelgates can watch the rest of this race with a more critical eye. Is Obama going too far? Have they let the media get away with too much misogyny? How angry is the base and can we afford to lose even a small percent of them? All things being equal, whose supporters can we least afford to lose?

If you do not lay down the gauntlet now, you *will* be forced to make an unthinkable decision in the fall. Now is the time to say you will not be forced to accept such a decision and that the Superdelegates are playing with fire if they pick the worng person.

No more of those comments please. You’ve been warned. This is your choice, right now.

Here is the list of Superdelegates who have not endorsed yet.

Update: Tucsonlynn went online and changed her registration to “No Party Preference”. That’s a good first strike. I recommend that TL send a letter to her superdelegates in her state and the DNC explaining why she did it and tell them that they still have a choice before the nomination. After the nomination, they can’t count on her.

Wednesday- PSAs

Good morning, everybody! Are you ready to do battle again today? Hokay, gird your loins ‘cos here we go.

  • First, I would like to draw your attention to something that needs your attention. Did you know that March is Colorectal Cancer Awareness month? Betcha ya didn’t even have time to shop or anything. It seems to come earlier and earlier each year, doesn’t it? But seriously, folks, colorectal cancer is no laughing matter but it is treatable if detected early. The problem is that frequently the signs of colorectal cancer are no signs at all. Fortunately, there is something you can do about it. You can eat your veggies AND you can get screened. To find out more about how to fight this disease, check out The ColoRectal Cancer Coalition or the Screen For Life page at the CDC. And remember, you won’t always be young and beautiful. Even Clintonistas age gracefully.
  • For those of you who want to see the *whole* segment of Chelsea Clinton gracefully but firmly telling the Obamaphile in the audience to “Mind your own business”, complete with applause, you can find it at Breitbart.TV.
  • Boston Boomer pointed me to this post on Noquarter about Greg Craig, a former lawyer for the Clintons. I don’t know if we could legitimately accuse him of violating attorney-client privilege but who knows if he’s been playing 20 Questions with the Obama strategists? I know that careers in Washington can veer into the incestuous and all that but really, perception is reality in this game and unless he can prove there is a firewall between his work for the Clintons and his current work for Obama, he probably should just stick to mailing envelopes and assembling yard signs.
  • Peeps, I received an email from the DFA last night asking me to take action over James Carville’s provocative remarks about Rill Richardson. It seems to me that Bill Richardson is a big boy and can take care of himself and Carville hasn’t retracted his remarks. In fact, he seems rather insistent about sticking to them and going one step further. I applaud him for that. I don’t want him to break down. It’s time for Carville and other friends of Clinton to stop capitulating to the aggressive intimidation of groups like DFA, Move-on and the Obama campaign itself. But what really frosted my crockies about this email is that it was sent from the DFA itself which is run by Jim Dean, Howard’s brother. And the email was specifically directed against Carville, but not the anonymous DNC official who described Hillary as a Tonya Harding kneecapper. That $#@!’s gotta stop. Yesterday, March 25, 2008, was a turning point for me. If the DNC doesn’t rein these people in and stop tilting the scales for Obama, I don’t know how I will muster up the initiative to vote for him in the fall. I know that Hillary will want me to support the party nominee but this is not about my advocacy for Clinton or my respect for her or her husband. This is about the destructiveness of the Obama campaign and the way the DNC has treated its loyal base of support. We’ve been called everything from stupid old bitches to “typical white people”, which is a code term for racists. Our votes have been deliberately disenfranchised, not only in Florida and Michigan, but by extension, everywhere a state has gone decisively for Clinton. And Senator Obama has allowed this, perhaps even encouraged this, on his behalf. Guys, as bad as John McCain may be, I am seriously concerned that an Obama presidency may be worse. Due to the overt negativity of his campaign and the brutality of his campaign’s tactics in crushing dissent, I have no expectation that he will be a more ethical or Democratic president than George Bush was. I plan to write a letter to the superdelegates expressing my concerns. Had Obama conducted his campaign in a less destructive manner, I might feel differently about him. In fact, as recently as Super Tuesday, I was willing to vote for him had he become my nominee. But I simply can’t at this point and this is as much a reflection on the Democratic party as Obama himself. I feel alienated from the party that I have considered my own since I was old enough to vote. At this point, I do not feel that Obama is a viable candidate in the general election. He is going to have to spend just as much time wooing the Democrats back as the Republicans and Independents. I won’t forget the way I was treated this year. You guys can take your own steps. But as Anglachel describes quite forcefully, this has been an assault on my self-respect and dignity and this is where I have to draw the line. (Note to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi: Expect this to have severe downticket consequences)

Ok, that’s all I have to say for awhile. I need to work for awhile. Later…

Tanya Harding? How about “the Rove Option?”

Good morning all!  I found this on Yahoo news, originally from Huffpost.  Earl Offari Hutchinson, author of The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House says Karl Rove long ago signaled that he believes Barack Obama is the weakest Democratic candidate.

In an open memo which got almost no media play and zilch public attention last December, Rove spit out six things Obama should do to zap Clinton.

Obama has followed the script to the letter. He’s unleashed an all-out no holds barred attack on Clinton’s personality, record, and demeanor, and even tossed in some blatant racial digs at her and hubby Bill for supposedly demeaning Dr. King, Jesse Jackson, and of course himself. He’s made bold, brash, and loud pitches and promises to do everything from end the war to clean up the economy. This fulfills Rove’s admonition to him to stop sounding wishy-washy on the big ticket issues and create an aura and persona of confidence, expertise, and even invincibility about himself.

And the big blogger boyz bought right into Rove’s strategy, didn’t they? Rove must be a happy camper these days, seeing Hillary attacked right and left and the likes of Markos and Josh screeching at her to give up. Rove and other Republican strategists want nothing more than the chance to tear Obama apart in the general election campaign. As Hutchinson points out, Rove was already well aware of Rev. Wright and his controversial sermons as well as the simmering Rezko stew when he wrote this memo. Not only that, he was celebrating the possibilities for attacking Obama’s thin resume.

Rove viewed him as untested, inexperienced, way at the front on the learning curve on foreign policy matters, and with a checkered history. That included the hints, innuendos, and whispers about relations with his one time bankroller, the indicted Chicago financier Tony Rezko to his association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

And of course the race issue is one the Republicans have decades of experience in exploiting. Why do the Democrats always fall for the Republican tricks? Will enough superdelegates will wake up and smell the coffee before it’s too late? I’m betting yes, but I’m an eternal optimist. Please go read the whole thing. I’m tempted to go out and buy Hutchinson’s book. He’s got it just right.

 Here is a little taste of Rove’s open memo to Barack:

First, stop acting like a vitamin-deficient Adlai Stevenson. Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job, not in a mean or ugly way but in a forceful and straightforward way.

Hillary may come over as calculating and shifty but she looks in control. You, on the other hand, often come over as weak and ineffectual. In some debates, you do not even look at her when disagreeing with her, making it look as if you are afraid of her. She offers you openings time and again but you do not take advantage of them. Sharpen your attacks and make them more precise.

And item three on the six point program:

…when you create controversies do not pick issues where you are playing the weaker hand. For example, you attacked her for lacking foreign policy experience. It is true she was first lady, not secretary of state, and nobody will ever mistake her for James Baker III. But your qualifications are even thinner; you were a state senator and lived in Indonesia when you were six. Big deal. Americans think she has more foreign policy experience than you – and she does.

I ask you, which candidate does it sound like Bush’s “architect” thinks is stronger and which one does he think is weaker?