Overlooked so far in the coverage of the John Edwards endorsement is that a new and clear path has opened to resolve the controversy over the Florida and Michigan delegations in a way that satisifes the demands of both states, both candidates, and preserves the integrity of the DNC.
Lets recap what everyone wants out of this deal:
The DNC wants their pound of flesh for rulebreaking
Obama wants delegations seated in a way that does not penalize the candidates or the other 48 states that played by the rules
Hillary wants the delegations apportioned based on the actual primary votes.
The states want their delegations seated.
Believe it or not, thanks to yesterdays endorsement, I think everyone can have their demands met at this point. I explain all after the jump:
Josh Marshall, Matt Yglasias, and Marc Ambinder all have posts today highlighing the contrast between Hillary on economists today compared to her husband in 1992 -- noting a certain 1992 ad.
My wounded pride requires me to note that I made this exact point, here in the DKos diaries complete with the video, Sunday night. Link Here
Today, in responding to the universal panning of the McCain/Clinton gas-tax holiday, Hillary said:
"I'm not going to put my lot in with economists," Clinton said in an exclusive appearance on a special edition of "This Week" from Indianapolis.
Compare that to how the Clinton's felt about economists in 1992:
Yet another example of how far the Clinton's have sunk
Speaking of math -- the Obama campaign rolls out another former DNC chairman's endorsement on Friday: Paul Kirk, a superdelegate who led the party from 1985-1989, is coming out for Obama -- a day after Andrew's switch, an Obama campaign official tells The Note. (And don't count on that being it for the day, as the dribble continues.)
Another big win in the ongoing media narrative for Obama.
UPDATE: WOW! Thanks everyone. I posted the diary, put my kids on the bus to school, and came back to find my post on the recommended list!!! My first time!
Also, I fixed the ABC link. I'm not so hot at the techie stuff.
In 1992, I graduated college and – largely due to the excitement of that year’s presidential campaign – embarked on a career in Illinois politics and government. I entered the area as a "Clinton Democrat", as started down a path in party politics that included all of the cynicsm and triangulation that comes with the Clinton territory.
Today, I feel like I am nearing the end of a painful journey. I thought I would share the arc of my progression from rabid Clinton democrat to a person who feels very strongly that the party MUST move in a new direction
Summer, 1992: Attended the historic post-convention bus stop in Vandalia, Illinois. Inspired by the hope offered by the Man from Hope, I engage in politics in a meaningful way for the first time ever. Start working as a full-time volunteer for Illinois Clinton Campaign.
Last night, as Obama left PA and headed for the new battleground of Indiana, key advisors David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs were wearing new T-shirts with the catchy slogan:
"Stop the Drama, Vote for Obama"
A catchy slogan that I desperately hope points to a new message in the final weeks, and serious shift in tone from the Obama camp.
The gloves are already off, for both candidates. The only question at this point is how tough you are going to be. Hillary has thrown the kitchen sink, while Barack has thrown a few dishes at best.
You have a $40 million cash on hand advantage -- it is time to lower the boom. Why are discussed after the jump:
Not always a big fan of Jake Tapper, but he scores an interview with an unnamed DNC member who brands the Clinton campaign strategy as well as any I've seen
The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.
The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?
What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?
She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.
"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?" The Tonya Harding Option -- the first time I've heard it put that way.
It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn't get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama win the gold.
The Tonya Harding Option indeed...we all should start using that phrase now.
My nearly 18 years working professionally in the field of politics – the career that has put the roof over my head, two cars in the garage, and the three kids fed – began in the early winter of 1992 when I was inspired by then Gov. Bill Clinton’s quest to end politics as we knew it, and to forge a new way.
My decision to get involved then led to a robust and rewarding career professionally running campaigns and advising elected officials, and now, lobbying for a not for profit organization.
I feel I owe a lot to my early connection to the Clinton movement. And even though I have been a supporter of Barack Obama – due in large part to the fact that I’ve known him since he first came to the Illinois State Senate – I have always maintained that I’d be, for the most part, happy with any of our Democrats as the nominee.
Until now. I cannot turn a blind eye any longer to the damage the Clinton’s are willing to inflict on the party in their pursuit of power
Like many, I am terribly frustrated and angered by Hillary Clinton’s decision to effectively endorse John McCain foreign policy credentials over those of her party colleague, and nomination front-runner, Barack Obama.
It is especially frustrating to me because I remember with great clarity those days in 2002, when I desperately hoped that someone from that small group of Democrats with a truly national profile would speak in opposition with clarity, and help lead the party to a position of opposition.
We got that leadership from Al Gore, unfortunately, less than 2 years from the controversial Florida recount, he wasn’t given the serious attention he deserved at that time.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand – as the party’s best known and most visible elected official at that time – could have made a difference.
I believe it’s time for Obama to make that explicit case. Thoughts on how after the jump:
In the fall of 2000, I was still an active political operative within the Democratic party in the state of Illinois. Focused on primarily on state-level politics, I was not actively involved in the Presidential campaign that year between Al Gore and George Bush.
I watched the race that year with a certain detached interest – in the same way one casually watches their favorite sports teams. I was rooting for Gore, but not invested. I had other political issues closer to home that had my attention, and really, I just wanted to Gore to do well enough that the down ballot races I really cared about didn’t get hurt by a blowout.
I'm a lurker, not a regular poster here. However, the news that Democrats in the Senate plan to force a filibuster on the Iraq vote compels me to write with a simple request of my Democratic leaders:
Don't do me in favors here. Either go all in, or don't waste my time.
Comey's testimony says they would not re-authorize wiretapping, but I have read that the program had to be re-authorized by DOJ as legal every 45 days -- and the program had already been operating for 2 years.
Do we know if DOJ had been authorizing the program previously? Or was this the first time they got to look at the program?
Does anyone know or can they direct me to a link that explains?
I posted the following on my blog, and thought I would share it here as well...
Dear Mom, Brothers and Sister,
All this craziness about Terri Schiavo has compelled me to write you this open letter. I wanted to make sure you knew something very important.
When it comes to decisions about me, I trust my wife more than I trust you. And, when any of my children reach the age of 21, I will also trust them more than I trust you.
Now, don't get me wrong. I love all of you dearly. But please don't think for a second that, because we lived under the same roof when I was a child, that you can even pretend to know my wants or desires. You can't.
