I think it was Chuck Todd who pointed out that if Hillary had been up 6% to 7% most of Tuesday night and only widened the lead to 9% at the end, the story line would have been very different. The traditional media are very impatient and by around 10pm the story line has to be written—something dictated I suppose by print deadlines and the fact that 10pm to 11pm is the peak hour for election coverage.
In the case of PA, the impatience of the traditional media hurt Obama as it was decided early on that Clinton had won by double digits and crossed some threshold defining a "big win." These dynamics may, however, play to Obama’s favor on May 6.
Apologies if someone has made this suggestion before, but I would strongly suggest that the Obama campaign sieze the iniative on FL/MI by announcing (a) that Obama accepts the Florida vote and (b) that the campaign will raise the money to have a re-vote (not by mail and not a caucus) in MI provided that the vote is held no later than June 3rd. I say this because I think that FL/MI have the potential to be a disaster for the Democrats. And, I say it because the benefits to Obama of doing so far outweigh the risks.
Let’s start by stipulating that the Hillary's "big win" on March 4th, which has been debunked in numerous diaries, was overblown by a media desperately hungry for a prolonged fight. Let’s also stipulate that Hillary can't win the nomination without destroying the party for a generation. That fact will become increasingly clear to SuperDs, who are likely to continue to gravitate in his direction. Even stipulating all of that, I think it’s fair to say that Hillary has taken control of the media narrative since March 4th and thereby increased the odds of a protracted messy fight.
The good news is that in taking control of the narrative, Hillary has planted the seeds of her ultimate undoing and I think Obama began to sieze on that opening today.
As should be apparent to everyone by now, the Dem nomination battle is all about delegates. There's been a lot of confusion about who won the delegate battle on Super Tuesday. Obama claimed victory by 9 delegates, but the actual results have been slow to trickle in. However, we now have enough results to be absolutely certain that Obama won and very likely by double digits. My best guess is +13.
In response to the no confidence vote in the Senate, George Bush said, "They can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/... Doesn't this just tell us everything we need to know about George Bush? Lincoln famously spoke of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Bush fancies himself some combination of Harry Truman, Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. And, what could put the lie to the Lincoln comparison better than Mr. Bush's reference to "my government." Arguably this was a slip of the tongue and Bush meant to refer to "my administration." But, all indications are that Bush doesn't understand the difference.
First, bipartisanship does not and must not mean compromise in the sense of splitting the difference. On a core set of issues - minimum wage being the most obvious but not the only example - bipartisanship means inviting the administration to participate in a process whose essential outcome is acknowledged in advance. On some issues like immigration it means finding common ground. And, on some budgetary issues it may well mean splitting the difference. With that understood, I'm all for any kind of bipartisanship that respects the clarity of Tuesday's verdict.
Well, Mark Foley has given us a wonderful gift. Now, the key is to milk it for all its worth. To do that, all we need to is think, what would Rove do? If Karl Rove were sitting in our shoes, I don't think he'd be worrying about trying to get the story all over the MSM (although that would be a very good thing). He'd be trying to hit the GOP where it really hurts.
As those of you who follow various pollsters know, Rasmussen Reports numbers can be a little funky. That said, they are strongly suggesting that Bush's poll numbers began nosediving early this week. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...
There are two views floating around on whether we can take the House. The first view, offered most notably by Charlie Cook (see http://www.cookpolitical.com/...) is that there just aren't enough competitive races; realistically, the Dems can pick up 4 to 9 seats. The counterargument says this misses the forest for the trees. If this is a "tidal wave" election analogous to 1994 (similar dynamics if not the same magnitude), races that don't look competitive now will be, and races that look competitive could go blue en masse.
I apologize for the short diary, but has anyone ever encapsulated the Bush/Rove/Delay approach to governance any better than Ted Stevens in the quote below? This from a Washington Post article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
"I ask every one of you, have you ever come to me as chairman of appropriations and tell me you needed help for your state and I have turned you down?" implored the Republican, who led the Senate Appropriations Committee until term limits forced him to step down this year.
I particularly like the perhaps unintended allusion to the Godfather.
Strange thing happened to me last night. I ended up inadvertenly (more or less) watching a nativity pageant from way up close, best seat in the house, as it were. It was a real eye-opener ... in a couple of ways.
My wife and I took our three year old son up to Rockport, MA yesterday. There was a demonstration of candy-cane making at a local candy factory. Rockport is a charming (in an upscale/touristy way) town northeast of Boston. We figured we'd see the candy-cane making, then hang around Rockport for a bit.
"We want to make sure people in the [Bush] administration know that our news coverage by White House reporters is separate from what appears in Froomkin's column because it contains opinion," Downie told E&P.
One important aspect of Bush's Veteran's Day diatribe has received too little attention: it is simply horrible politics. Rove has proven to be a very skillful at political strategy and politics. When he makes a move that simply defies logic, it is worth taking note. Either he sees something we don't, or the White House is rapidly losing any ability to function. I suspect its the latter.
Like many members of this community, I have given a lot of thought to the issue of "Democratic core values." I've made attempts - some I've diaried on, others I haven't -- to articulate those values. As a community and party, I think we still have a long way to go on this issue. In this diary, I want to take a bit of a different tack. Instead of offering up another list, I want to focus on a phrase that I keep coming back to whenever I think about this issue: "there but for the grace of God go I."
Like everyone else in this community, I am overwhelmed with a combination of heartache and rage at the events in New Orleans and elsewhere. This post, however, is about a small heartwarming story that took place amidst the horror. It is particularly poignant in light of the racial aspect of the catastrophe in New Orleans.
There was an extraordinary editorial yesterday in the Boston Globe by the ex-CEO of John Hancock Financial Services, David D'Alessandro. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/09/sell_art_and_keep_parish
es_open/ The editorial takes dead aim at the Vatican for its moral failures in relation to the epidemic of child rape among Catholic priests in the U.S. D'Alessandro was Hancock's CEO at the time of its acquisition last year by Manulife. At the time, John Hancock was probably earning around $1bn per year, making it one of the largest 500 companies in the world. I am dwelling on D'Alessandro's background because the words he penned are not at all what one would expect from a recent corporate chieftan.
On MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8405365/), Howard Fineman reviews Chimpy's speech. The piece starts off marvelling at what a bold, resolute leader GWB is. But, towards the end, Fineman lets loose with this:
Now, I actually kind of like Laura Bush. And, I thought she was a very effective campaigner last fall. But, yesterday she made one of the dumbest and most offensive statements I've heard in a long time. Here's a link to the story.
The relevent comment was part of a defense of Hosni Mubarak:
"Bush said that sometimes 'you have to be slow' when implementing political freedoms. She noted that the United States allowed slavery long after the Constitution was adopted."
I could not track down the full quote, but it certainly sounds like she is defending the fact that slavery was legal in the United States for nearly one hundred years. No one should get a free pass on a comment like that. And, it really hammers home the cynicism of Bush's freedom for all* policy.
*Does not apply to residents of the following countries: Saudia Arabia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and Egypt. Other countries may also be declared exempt without notice.
