I've been reading, almost daily, Krugman and Matt Yglesis's various criticisms of the Obama bank plan and started out supporting nationalization as described by Krugman: take over the bad banks, get rid of current stakeholders (shareholders and bondholders), divide into good and bad assets, and sell what you can. In a purely hypothetical world, it seems to be a simple, elegant solution that would put the whole problem behind us quickly.
When Lindsey Graham says that nationalization should be seriously considered as an option for the banks, as he did today on Meet The Press, it is clear that the political climate is shifting dramatically.
I live in the northern suburbs of Baltimore, within a mile or two of the city line. As most of you know, this is Obama country. Indeed, we live in such a bubble here that I can count on one hand the number of people I know who are supporting McCain. All of them are supporting McCain because they don't want to pay more taxes (and actually would).
My knowledge of social conservatives is therefore limited to what I read on the internet, hear on talk radio, or see on television. Still, I never felt I was living in Pollyannish naivety. However, I was shocked and really frightened by what I read in the Baltimore Sun today concerning the national reaction to a short piece (and I mean short) on Gov. Palin written by a local columnist.
Today's Washington Post includes an op-ed from Clinton Strategist Geoff Garin entitled "Fair is Fair." In it, he argues that Obama has been unfairly attacking Clinton while Clinton tries to fight fair, and the media has skewed this reality to make it "falsely" appear that Clinton is the party at fault. Yes, this was actually published.
As some may recall, on April 4th, I posted a short diary with a poll concerning comments made by two Clinton surrogates/allies, Corzine and my governor, O'Malley, that weekend. Both men stated that they, as superdelegates, would vote for the winner of the "popular vote" as the nominee. My poll queried: (1) are these men trying to hint to Clinton that their support for her is limited, or (2) are they laying the groundwork for some type of bad math "popular vote" argument.
says that "popular vote" should not be overturn by superdelegates. is this the latest clinton strategy or a sign that the endgame is near?
There was a lot of press coverage yesterday of prominent Hillary supporter Corzine's pronouncement that he will support whomever wins the popular vote. Some thought it signified that Hillary's superdelegates were considering switching. Today, there was a short article in the Baltimore Sun indicating that Maryland Governor and long-time Hillary supporter Martin O'Malley also will support the "popular vote" winner.
Color me skeptical. We all know that Corzine and O'Malley are Hillary stalwarts. Corzine was willing to put his own money into potential Florida and Michigan revotes. O'Malley was one of the first superdelegates to endorse Hillary, and has even been mentioned, as least by the local press, as a potential running mate. Is this just a precursor for Hillary to argue that she is the popular vote winner, using creative math? Or am I just too cynical.
Here's a question I've been wondering about -- where is Rendell's power base? Strickland's endorsement seems to have been very important to HRC's Ohio victory particularly in the Appalachia area where he's from. In contrast, Martin O'Malley was really of no use to her here in Maryland, among other reasons, because his base is mostly in the Baltimore area, where she had no chance.
Is Rendell's base still mostly Philadelphia and potentially nullified by favorable demographics? Or has it grown substantially in his time as governor? How is his tenure as governor viewed by most democrats in the state?
Incidentally, Rendell spoke at my law school graduation shortly after being elected mayor of Philadelphia for the first time. Worst graduation speech ever. Forty five minutes on how great he was. His recent appearences suggest nothing has changed, and its no surprise he's fast friends with the Clintons.
on the remainder of this race if he endorses and campaigns for Obama.
I have long thought that Edwards had missed his opportunity to give a meaningful endorsement of either candidate after Super Tuesday came and went without him doing so. Last Tuesday changed my mind.
As pointed out by others here, Obama performed horribly with the Appalachia portion of Ohio. This region will, however, be critical in several of the remaining primaries -- PA, WV, and Kentucky and is the one of the main reasons that HRC is favored to win these primaries. It seems unlikely that Obama will pull out victories in any of these states without making significant inroads with these voters.
John Edwards, I think, can speak to these voters better than obama or HRC. He could help Obama craft his message to better appeal to them. Ideally, he could campaign in these areas as Obama's surrogate as Bill has done for HRC. If he was willing to undertake these efforts on Obama's behalf, it would have a huge change on the dynamics of the remaining races.
Further, Edwards was very effective at taking HRC on without appearing overly negative. As a surrogate, he could help Obama on this front as well.
What do you think?
I am pretty depressed about the results last night like many others here. I know things are still pretty dismal for HRC, but I hate to see her win the perception game. However, we can only change the future, so here's my kitchen sink list of strategic issues which need to be dealt with (not necessarily in order of importance):
If you have any time on your hands today, please make some calls for your candidate.
We have what is considered bad weather here -- a light coating of snow and unusually cold with more wintery precipition predicted for tonight. Believe it or not, this is enough to close some schools.People here are not use to and don't like winter weather so it could have a negative effect on turnout.
A phone call may be all it takes to convince a voter to head out to the polls.
First, I'm not a Hillary hater, and though I won't vote for her in the primary, I would vote for her over McCain. Further, I think Hillary is smart, and tough. Which is why it drives me absolutely insane that she plays the victim card so frequently.
My point is that Hillary could and should be running on her strengths only. But that isn't happening. It started with the Philadelphia debate with the complaints about the "boy's club" and the piling on. Come on -- Hillary is a great debater, she had a bad night. Why not just move on, and not blame it on gender. Then, the infamous crying incident, not itself a big deal, except it has been followed by a sympathy/victim incident every evening before a primary/caucus-- most recently the teary-eyed Yale reunion, and the overblown reaction to the MSNBC comment (a simple request for an apology would have been sufficient). Further, the reliance on Bill as an attack dog in Nevada and South Carolina also made her look weak.
Hillary doesn't need us to feel sorry for her in order to suceed so I wish she'd stop playing the victim card. I certainly don't want my daughter to think a woman can win political office only by garnering sympathy.
Recommended by westwoodmom04
- Public Policy Polling has just surveyed 24 House districts currently occupying by Republicans. In 17 of them, a generic Democratic candidate is ahead, in 4, a generic Democrat is ahead when the ...266 comments 444 Recs
- Get this : Shame. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Wednesday moved to end the Senate debate on whether to confirm Chuck Hagel to become the next ...363 comments 695 Recs
- Yesterday, Kos had a FP post about the Hagel nomination and I wanted to respond to it then but work took up my time. Anyway, the gist of it was the hilarity of republicans eating one of their own ...43 comments 25 Recs
- I hunt. Much of the meat that my family eats during the year comes from local wild game and I derive great satisfaction from the experience of hunting and the ability to feed my family locally ...466 comments 1083 Recs
- From the WSJ: The Treasury's bank strategy is twofold. One, get enough capital into the 19 biggest banks so ...380 comments 293 Recs
- I enjoy Daily Kos. I am a newbie. I got here in March last year just after the Clinton boycott so I probably have no business writing a meta diary. But the truth is that DKos has become an ...1161 comments 1141 Recs
- The story has been writing itself longer than Adam Nagourney has been penning his "Dems Divided" excuses for journalism in the New York Times: Democrats lose an election (stolen or otherwise); ...1079 comments 892 Recs
- Reno was hot this weekend. I had high hopes. I imagined when I went out to canvass for Obama that everyone I talked to would say, "I've had enough!" That every Republican would admit their party ...325 comments 1041 Recs
- Todd Harris, a GOP strategist who is close to the McCain campaign, says Palin won't be available to the press for about two weeks. His defense? She might make "a mistake." If she goes ...621 comments 858 Recs
- We must STOP visiting Drudge Report . Drudge Report is the clearing house for media - old and new - where shows get their talking points and truth is decided on. Drudge is also ...64 comments 19 Recs
- No current results.
- No current results.