After about a five minute ovation, which he practically had to beg to a close, Bill Clinton put on a clinic tonight on how you break down the opposition, and lay out the issues at stake in an election. He went way off the reservation, delivering a "foreign policy" speech that was about two-thirds about the economy. But he did it damned well. Coupled with Hillary's performance yesterday, it's safe to say that the Clintons are in fine political form. Great job. (And did you peep the Kendrick Meek star turn, introducing Big Bill? I see a big job at the Clinton Foundation in somebody's future...)
Meanwhile, I disagree with the pundits who are saying that Joe Biden's less than soaring delivery of a solid speech is a problem. Biden is the regular guy in this equation. He's not supposed to deliver soaring rhetoric. He's supposed to deliver punches.
Other than that, I could have done without the excessive references to what a great guy John McCain is, from many of the speakers last night and tonight (including both Clintons, Biden and John Kerry, who otherwise delivered the reddest meat of the night, complete with calling Republican attacks "desperate" and "pathetic." He also introduced Barack's white uncle. Take it in, Pat Buchanan, it's not too late to get on board...) Apparently, the Obama communications team still believes they can win this election without going nuclear on John McCain. They shouldn't expect the same courtesy next week, when the Republicans hold their Wide Stance convention in Minneapolis.
Also, I get the feeling that Barack Obama will bring change... the talking points were in full effect.
Most inspiring moment: the roll call that made Obama the nominee by acclamation earlier in the evening. My pal Sonja was in the convention hall tonight. I await the pics in my camera phone...
Has anyone checked David Gregory's car for a McCain '08 bumper sticker?
Reinforcing why I would literally quit watching "Meet the Press" if he became the moderator, David "Stretch" Gregory, who has made a faux reputation as a tough Washington reporter while simultaneously serving as Dubya's sweetheart, did an entire segment with surrogates for Barack Obama and John McCain (Tim Kaine, who did very well, by the way, and the very strange Bobby Jindal, who does the creepy eyes, if you know what I mean...) on the subject of Georgia, without once asking Jindal the following question (or something like it):
"Is it appropriate, in your opinion, for John McCain to have as his top foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann, who not only lobbied on behalf of the Georgian government, but who also lobbied John McCain?"
Nor did Gregory quiz Jindal on the McCain campaign's crass politicization of the Georgia crisis, After all, his own network has reported on it, and in the previous segment, Gregory had just talked to Condi Rice ... about Georgia... Another issue that went un-asked, and thus un-answered, McCain's newly minted ties to Jack Abramoff scandal-tainted "Christian" lobbyist Ralph Reed, another issue reported by his very own network, NBC.
Instead, Gregory lobbed such softballs at Jindall as, "are you going to be vice president? ... are you sure ...? Is that a Shermanesque 'no' or a fakey-fake one...?"
Just for giggles, let's check out the first question to Kaine and Jindall this morning. First, Kaine. Gregory asked him:
Let's get right to it. We both heard Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talking about the situation in Georgia, Governor Kaine. Senator Obama was criticized by the McCain campaign this week, particularly for his comments that there should be restraint on both sides after the invasion. Was he too weak in his initial response?
...a fine imitation of Stephen Hayes or Bill Kristol, but trotting out the RedState.com meme of the month is not an auspicious start for a so-called "straight reporter." Now, let's take a look at Jindal's first at-bat, which came moments later:
Governor Jindal, just as Senator Obama's criticized, Senator McCain, too, was criticized by an adviser to Senator Obama, who said that some of his initial tough talk was shot from the hip and was actually belligerent, in the words of one of Obama's advisers.
Okay, not bad, although it was a bit more than just Obama advisers that were having a go at McCain for trying to restart the Cold War ... anyway, now let's look at the next 10 questions Gregory asks the two surrogates, and I'm going to put them in the exact order in which they appeared in the program and transcript, without the responses, for the sake of time. Here we go...
1. MR. GREGORY: Let's turn to domestic matters in this campaign, and The New York Times reporting some criticism of Senator Obama now. And the headline reads like this: "Allies Ask Obama to Make Hope More Specific. [Democratic] party leaders in battleground states say the fight ahead against Senator John McCain looks tougher than they imagined, with Mr. Obama vulnerable on multiple fronts. ...
"These Democrats - 15 governors, members of Congress and state party leaders - say Obama has yet to convert his popularity among many Americans into solutions to crucial electoral challenges: showing ownership of an issue, like economic stewardship of national security; winning over supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton; and minimizing his race and experience level as concerns for voters. ...
(plays some tape)
2. MR. GREGORY: Governor Kaine, has Senator Obama wasted time here?
3. MR. GREGORY: But understands the economy, but has Senator Obama owned this issue?
4. MR. GREGORY: Are some of these criticisms of Obama coming out of the Clinton camp in your judgment?
5. MR. GREGORY: But is unity a problem right now in the party?
6. MR. GREGORY: There may be agreement there, but that doesn't sound like there's unity within the party, to hear some of the criticism about Obama.
(Kaine says you'll see unity in Denver)
7. MR. GREGORY: But it's not there yet.
Okay, now, for question number 8, with the set-up:
MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to Governor Jindal and Senator McCain.
In some of his ads, this is how he's talking about America today, watch.
(Videotape, campaign ad)
Announcer: Washington's broken. John McCain knows it. We're worse off than we were four years ago.
(End videotape)
8. MR. GREGORY: That's a pretty direct swipe at President Bush, isn't it, Governor?
Say WHAT??? So Gregory spends about five minutes haranguing Tim Kaine about Democratic disunity, Obama squandering bad economic news and general doom and gloom for November, and then serves up a golden ticket for Bobby Jindal to distance his candidate from President Bush, which just happens to be precisely the McCain campaign strategy??? namely, DISTANCING THE CANDIDATE FROM PRESIDENT BUSH? Gregory, are you serious?
Let's go on:
9. MR. GREGORY: Governor, do you agree with Senator McCain that America's worse off than it was four years ago?
Again, nothing about McCain's comment, just the night before, about $5 million in income being the floor for being rich. Nothing about his 95-100 percent voting record with President Bush, in contrast to the message in the ad Gregory just ran; in short, nothing at all that an actual reporter, and not another campaign surrogate, would ask. Do we dare try question number ten? Oh, why the hell not. It's late and I'm an insomniac...
10. MR. GREGORY: You've talked about the crisis within the Republican Party, that it lost its way, that it used to be the party of big ideas. And now you back Senator McCain. What's the big idea Senator McCain is campaigning on?
Okay, here's where I start poking sharp sticks in my eyes. Why not just ask, "Governor Jindall, what is John McCain's plan to make America a better place for all of us to live?" Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Well, at least there was a follow up:
GOV. JINDAL: Well, I think there's several, but certainly when it comes to domestic issues, he understands the energy crisis is probably the biggest economic obstacle we face and he understands that it's not one silver bullet, that we do need more domestic oil and gas production. We do need nuclear power. We need clean coal. We need conservation. We need renewables.
MR. GREGORY: But those were Bush-Cheney big ideas in 2000. Where are the new big ideas of the Republican Party that John McCain is, is championing?
Wow. Give that man a Pullitzer.
Of course, after that, Gregory went right for the Jindal jugular with his very next question:
MR. GREGORY: Governor Jindal, would you like to be vice president?
Well that's it, folks. David Gregory: crack reporter, killing "Meet the Press" in 11 questions or less.
After forking over $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last year, the Connecticut Democrat-turned-Independent has written a second $100,000 check to DSCC chairman Chuck Schumer in recent days, according to a people familiar with the situation.
“Basically, he doesn’t want everybody to hate him,” one Lieberman-friendly Democrat said. “Plus he wants to keep his committee.”
Lieberman caucuses – awkwardly -- with Democrats at their weekly meetings but is on the outs with many in his longtime party for turning his back on Barack Obama, who refused to campaign against him in 2006 during his bitter re-election contest against Ned Lamont. More than a few have talked about stripping him of his committee post after November.
Lieberman likes to pretend he doesn't care what his former fellow Democrats think of him, and that he's proud of his pro-McCain, anti-Obama stance. In fact, Lieberman has become McCain's lead attack dog against Obama, including in frequent Florida appearances where he goes after Obama's character and insinuates frightening associations when talking about the candidates with Jewish groups.
But at the end of the day, this is a man who was desperate enough to hold onto his Senate seat that he dropped his affiliation to the Democratic Party after Conneecticut Democrats chose someone else as their nominee. He wants to hold that seat, and his chairmanship, in the worst way. But speaking at the GOP convention, trashing Barack Obama and cuddling up to both John McCain and the strategy of endless war in the Mideast aren't a good look for Joe. And he knows it.
My vote? Take his money, and then, when the Dems increase their majority in the Senate, take his chairmanship, too.
If you haven't done so already, sign the petition to boot Joe out of the Democratic Caucus steering committee. He cannot and should not be trusted, and shouldn't be privy to anything the Democrats are planning, especially regarding the campaign. Raise your hand if you think he DOESN'T report anything he knows directly to the McCain campaign. |
Michael Mukasey has proved to be only slightly less detrimental to the Constitution than his idiotic predecessor, Alberto Gonzales. Mukasey's refusal to do his job, when that job would have anything to do with enforcing laws broken by the Bush administration, has so frustrated Congress, that even the Bushwhacked, spineless, impeachment-wary Democrats are ignoring him. I guess they figure that insulating the telcoms and the president from prosecution and impeachment are enough dirty work to keep the anonymous Bush staffers from mailing the contents of the wiretaps on their homes and offices to pre-jail Robert Novak and Matt Drudge...
So what is Mukasey asking for that he ain't getting? Try a declaration of war ... perpetual war ... against al-Qaida ... forever:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress should explicitly declare a state of armed conflict with al Qaeda to make clear the United States can detain suspected members as long as the war on terrorism lasts, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said on Monday.
Mukasey urged Congress to make the declaration in a package of legislative proposals to establish a legal process for terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo, in response to a Supreme Court ruling last month that detainees had a constitutional right to challenge their detention.
"Any legislation should acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us," Mukasey said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute.
"Congress should reaffirm that for the duration of the conflict the United States may detain as enemy combatants those who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully supported al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations," he said.
Mukasey was not asking for a formal declaration of war, which would trigger certain emergency powers under the Constitution and international law, a Justice Department spokesman said. U.S. President George W. Bush has on numerous occasions said the United States was "at war" against terrorists and cited that as a basis for his powers.
New legislation should also prohibit courts from ordering a detainee to be released within the United States. It should protect secrets in court hearings, ensure that soldiers are not taken from the battlefield to testify and prevent challenges from delaying detainee trials, he said.
In other words, anyone the president decided was a terrorist could be held by the U.S. in secret detention forever. With no legal recourse. Forever. To Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark "The Mustache" Hosenball:
Mukasey's plea for quick passage of a significant new counterterrorism measure essentially fell on deaf ears—at least from the Democrats who control Congress. "Zero," snapped one key lawmaker, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, when asked the likelihood that Congress will rush to pass the kind of law Mukasey and the Bush administration are seeking. "We don't have to pass anything," said Nadler, who chairs the House subcommittee that has primary jurisdiction over the issue, in a brief hallway interview with NEWSWEEK. "Let the courts deal with it."
The derisive comments from the feisty New York liberal—just moments after Mukasey issued his strong appeal in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee—underscores the huge and poisonous gulf that now exists between the White House and Congress on virtually every issue related to the War on Terror. No Democrats on the judiciary panel endorsed Mukasey's call Wednesday for new counterterrorism legislation. None of them even bothered to ask him any questions about it. Instead, they essentially ignored what the attorney general portrayed as the Justice Department's top priority for his final six months in office.
Not that the Democrats really intend to stand up to Bush ... that's simply not done in the House that Nancy built. In fact, fellow House Diva Jane Harman proposed a law, H.R. 1955, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," which would open up all of our Internet communications to administration scrutiny, and it sailed through the House, bringing Traitor Joe Lieberman closer to his dream of excising all Muslim traffic from Youtube. It's just that the Dems have finally figured out that it's summer: they don't have to do the White House's bidding until AFTER the Democratic convention, when the RNC ads about them being "soft on terror" start running.
An escalating number of voters registering as Democrats is providing evidence that the 2008 election could produce a wave of support for Barack Obama — and trigger a decades-long shift of party allegiance that could affect elections for a generation.
The numbers are ominous for Republicans: Through May, Democratic voter registration in Broward County was up 6.7 percent. Republican registrations grew just 3 percent while independents rose 2.8 percent.
Democrats have posted even greater gains statewide, up 106,508 voters from January through May, compared with 16,686 for the Republicans.
"It's a huge swing," says Marian Johnson, political director for the Florida Chamber of Commerce. "I looked at that and said, 'Wow.'"
And here's why it matters: party "brand loyalty" tends to be strongest among new voters:
Michael Martinez, an associate professor of political science at the University of Florida, said there aren't many people shifting from the Republicans to the Democrats. But the allegiance of first-time voters is significant.
"New voters tend to identify with the hot party at the time. In the 1980s, a lot of new voters were identifying with Reagan, because he was sort of the hot commodity," Martinez said.
One of the saddest outcomes of the scorched earth Hillary Clinton for President campaign has been the impact it has had on her husband, former President Bill Clinton. For years, Clinton occupied rarefied air inside Democratic circles -- a president who remained popular, even through impeachment, and who became even more so after he left office. Bill Clinton was so beloved by Black Democrats (even was benighted "the first Black president for a time,) he could waltz into any Black church, even into the funeral for the late Coretta Scott King, and chastise the crowd for being discourteous to George Bush.
Clinton's presidency was looked upon, by all but the most liberal Democrats, as a good time in America -- imperfect, and certainly not free of scandal -- but also full of opportunity and possibility, fueled by the explosion of the Internet, a strong and growing economy, and, say it with me, "22 million new jobs." It was good to be Bill.
Now, in part by his own heavy hand (in South Carolina), and as his wife's burning ambition, which failed to make her the Democratic nominee, has nonetheless led the mainstream media to crown her the new "feminist hero" -- Bill Clinton is shrinking. The all-out war to defeat Barack Obama took him from rock star ex-president to red-faced husband almost overnight, and from philanthropic juggernaut to common political attack dog. Worse, his efforts, and those of the team he bequeathed on Hillary (Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, Harold Ickes and others,) bloodied Obama but ultimately failed, leaving most of the stains on Bill. Because while all Hillary lost was the nomination, Bill Clinton lost something that it turns out, seems to have meant much more to him -- he lost the love.
The shrinking of the president has been a sad spectacle for those of us who supported him, even during the dark days of impeachment, and who continued to look upon "Big Bill" with favor: he was the white guy with the "Black passport" -- they guy who works in Harlem -- someone so likable, even women would give him a pass to on "the Monica thing."
For black America, the fall has been especially steep. His once bulletproof approval ratings with African-Americans have now dropped so much, they have helped pull his overall approval rating among Democrats into the negative for the first time, according a March NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Bill's negative rating in the current survey: 45 percent. His positive number: 42.
Clinton's response to the decline has been to get mad. According to press reports, he's mad at Barack Obama, whose campaign he is sure "slimed him," and falsely tagged him and his wife as racists. He's mad at the winning Democratic campaign which he apparently believes, was run largely as a repudiation of his eight years in office. Tom Edsall of the Huffington Post writes:
Some say Bill Clinton not only wants Obama to reach out to him, but to also promise to lift the cloud of alleged racism -- an accusation that continues to eat at the man once dubbed the nation's "first black president." Clinton, these folks suggest, wants Obama to publicly exonerate him of the charge that he played the race card in the primaries.
Beyond that, some associates say, Bill Clinton wants Obama to reach out to him as a mentor, a guide who can lead Obama through the labyrinth of a tough presidential election. "Bill wants to be honored, to return to the role of Democratic elder statesman, and get rid of this image of him as a pol willing to do anything to win," said one associate.
"He is still bruised from the trail, really hurt about the racist charges leveled against him, and convinced the Obama campaign fomented it," said another source familiar with the former president's attitude. "What he would really like is for Obama to apologize, but on one level he knows that is never going to happen," a third source said.
But for all the blame game, the people Bill Clinton may, secretly, be most angry at, should be himself, his wife, and his wife's campaign. After all, it was the former president who so damaged himself by appearing to dismiss Obama's South Carolina primary win with the nonsequitor, "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."
It was Hillary who chose to shade the fact that she knows darned well that Obama, her Senate colleague, is no Muslim, Hillary who declared that the "hard working, white voters" of West Virginia were in her pocket, and Hillary who made that horrifying reference about the assassination of RFK in explaining why she was staying in the race until June.
It was Bill Clinton's political attack dogs, on loan to Hillary, who implemented the now notorious "kitchen sink" strategy against Obama, a man more similar to the Bill Clinton of 1992 ("the man from Hope," no less,) than Bill might want to admit. And it was Howard Wolfson and company's bully-boy tactics with the press that ramped up the adversarial relationship the president and his family remembered all too well from the 90s. And it was Clinton supporters who raised the ugly specter of race as a reason to oppose Obama's candidacy, or to diminish it, from Geraldine Ferraro to the 2 in 10 Democratic voters in some primary states who stated openly that they would not vote for a black candidate, to Harriet Christian, the ignorant woman fron New York who derided Obama as an affirmative action hire, or an "inadequate black man."
It wouldn't be surprising, given all of this, that the Obama camp might be reluctant to give Bill Clinton the public embrace he seems to crave (and I have no reporting to suggest that such reluctance exists.) But the embrace will come anyway, mark my words. There is too much at stake for the Obama team to leave even a single vote on the table, and bringing Clinton supporters into the fold will prove to be a higher priority than nursing resentments against the former first lady, much less the lone two-term Democratic president in many of our lifetimes.
So Bill will get his rehab, probably in the form of a "Clinton night" during the Denver convention, and strategic appearances with Obama, at which the latter pours on the praise for the 1990s, and publicly seeks Clinton's council (maybe even accompanying him to a black church, or to the "Tom Joyner Morning Show," where both men have a friend in the host.) Still, many black voters I've talked to are hard-pressed to forgive, at least for now. And during the campaign, Bill Clinton's role will likely be limited to wooing rural and southern white voters -- the ones he and Hillary bonded with during the campaign. The real turnaround for Bill Clinton will come after the election, when he goes back to the good works that he has been doing through his Clinton Global Initiative; when his focus is off politics, and back on his impressive humanitarian projects and outreach to the world.
The good news for the Clintons is that if Obama wins the White House in November, all will be forgiven (except Bob Johnson -- he's good and done.) Things could get more complicated if Obama falls short in November, and his supporters blame the bruising primary, or some outgrowth of it that McCain or the GOP figure out how to successfully exploit. In that case, we could see a real fracture in the Democratic Party, which unfortunately, will be generational, income based, and and least partly down to race.
UPDATE: Bill Clinton says Barack can "kiss his ass???" ... Seriously???
The San Francisco Chronicle reports, former Bush spokesguy Scott McClellan is considering jumping off the GOP ship:
Scott McClellan - the longtime supporter of President Bush who served as his White House press secretary for nearly three years - said Tuesday he hasn't ruled out registering as a Democrat or voting Democratic for president this year.
"I haven't made any long-term decisions," McClellan said after an address to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, where he received a warm reception from an audience numbering in the hundreds at the Fairmont Hotel.
Hey, you go where it's friendly. Meanwhile, Scotty reveals a serious lack of love for Dick Cheney:
McClellan pointedly warned both campaigns to be particularly attuned to a crucial decision, one that had a huge impact in his former boss' administration: picking a vice presidential candidate. Vice President Dick Cheney, he said, "had a terribly negative influence over this president ... and was shown too much deference" on major decisions, including Iraq. ...
... McClellan who is clear that he has no great admiration for Cheney, joked to the audience that his national book tour has given him some ideas for book titles Cheney might consider: "The Lies I Told," or "I Upped Halliburton's Income - So Up Yours." He also said that during his two terms, Cheney has increased the power of the vice presidency, which was "one of the vice president's pet projects."
McClellan painted a painful portrait of Bush, whom it's clear he still has affection for, as a man surrounded by sharks (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Condi Rice,) who would have gone into Iraq even knowing what we all know now. The president, he thinks, would not, if he could have foreseen the casualties and calamities (somehow, given his animal- and pledge-torturing history, I doubt that, but Scott's entitled to his affections...)
Why did the Democrats capitulate on FISA? Was it cowardice? Election year politics? Or as Keith Olberman puts it, not FISA but CYSA?
Back in 2001, with 9/11 fresh in the minds of Americans, many Congressional Democrats decided it was better to switch than to fight the administration of George W. Bush. Karl Rove did his job, frightening both the country and the Congress into handing over to Mr. Bush extraordinary powers the likes of which this country hasn't seen since it divorced George III.
Now, seven years later, Democrats control the Congress, even if barely in the Senate. Bush is a lame duck and by almost everyone's calculation, a failure as president. One of his many illegal acts and outrages upon the Constitution -- the warrantless wiretapping of Americans -- comes before the Congress, mainly because they choose to bring it t the floor, and rather than allow the Constitution to prevail, House Democrats cave to a president they no longer have to fear, by retroactively legalizing the wiretapping, and granting immunity to the telecom companies who participated, illegally, in it.
The U.S. House of Representatives has approved legislation that would continue a controversial surveillance program at the U.S. National Security Agency with limited court oversight, while likely ending lawsuits against telecommunications carriers that participated in the program.
The House on Friday voted 293 to 129 to approve a bill that was a compromise between congressional Democrats and U.S. President George Bush.
The bill would extend the NSA surveillance of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the U.S., while giving the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) an opportunity to review Bush administration requests for wide-ranging surveillance powers. The bill, called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act, allows the NSA to receive blanket surveillance orders covering multiple suspects of terrorism and other crimes.
The compromise also sends the dozens of outstanding lawsuits against telecom carriers for their alleged participation in the NSA program to a district court, which will review whether they should be dismissed. The lawsuits would be thrown out if telecom companies can show that the U.S. government issued them orders for the surveillance that were presented as lawful.
U.S. President George Bush has pushed for the legislation, saying it's needed to protect U.S. residents from terrorism. For nearly a year, the Bush administration has called on Congress to pass long-term changes to the nation's surveillance laws. Congress passed temporary surveillance legislation, called the Protect America Act, in August 2007, but its provisions expired in February.
February ... and what was the urgency of passing hurry-up protection for the administration today? Nancy Pelosi pushed for this bill -- the same Nancy Pelosi who was "read into" the spying program, along with other intelligence chairs and ranking members, including Senator Diane Feinstein. (Pelosi's number two, Steny Hoyer, crafted the compromise bill, and is now being derided as "the new Joe Lieberman.") Could it be that Pelosi and other Dems are exercising the art of self protection?
Senator Russ Feingold called today's vote what it is:
“The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.”
Let's hope he's ready with a Senate fillibuster.
The big loser today was the Fourth Amendment, which is essentially gone now. The winners: the telcos:
"Congress seems to be on the verge of negotiating away our basic constitutional protections," Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington, D.C., legislative office, said during a press conference on Wednesday.
The compromise will give Bush "pretty much unfettered authority to engage in surveillance of Americans," Fredrickson added. "The bill still allows mass, untargeted surveillance of Americans by permitting the government to gather all calls and e-mails coming into and out of the country."
The compromise provides little additional oversight of the surveillance program, Fredrickson said. If there's any delay in the FISA court's approval of a government surveillance request, the NSA can move ahead of surveillance without court oversight, she said.
There are 47 outstanding lawsuits related to the surveillance program and 35 lawsuits with telecoms including AT&T, Verizon Communications and Sprint Nextel as defendants, Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said at the same press conference.
"Congress appears poised to needlessly toss the rule of law out the window and deprive millions of ordinary Americans their day in court," said Bankston, one of the lead attorneys in a class-action lawsuit against AT&T for its alleged participation in the NSA program.
You can find out how your member of Congress voted by clicking here.
On "Elevating the Dialogue" this morning, Congressman Alcee Hastings (FL) told us that he was leaning toward voting yes because Barack Obama was for the bill, and House Democrats "needed to give him some political cover." I'm not sure that's true. Politico reported today that Harry Reid is looking to strip the telecom immunity out of the bill to give cover to Senators who, like Obama, could support the FISA updates, but "loathe the telecom immunity." That's a bit vague, and its not at all clear that Republicans wouldn't stand squarely in the way of separating the bill in two.
While we were on the air, Hastings voted for the bill, which is unfortunate in my opinion. To their credit, Kendrick Meek, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Robert Wexler voted no. Maybe Wexler can convince Obama to reject it when it reaches the Senate.
Democrats including Hoyer sought to put the best spin on the vote today, with Hoyer calling it the best bill they could get. What an endorsement. No wonder Americans' confidence in Congress is at an all-time low... Best quote of the day, courtesy of Politico:
“Let me remind you, that July 4, 1776 was pre 9/11,” said Rep Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) who indicated he would not support the bill because it infringed on Americans civil liberties.
“Heaven help us if those values were shucked aside in fear.”
In the last ten election cycles, Democratic presidential candidates have won Florida just twice -- okay, three times if you count Al Gore. In fact, Gore's close call in Florida seems to be the only reason the state is considered "swing," rather than a ruby red part of the solid Republican South.
Whenever I say that Florida is a red state (as I did on Nick Bogert's Sunday political show on NBC this spring,) I get a chorus of "nays." But I'm convinced. And this year, I'm equally convinced that Florida will be tough -- though not impossible -- for Barack Obama to win. More to the point, if he doesn't win it, I think Florida's political operative class can count on less money, the state's media outlets will see fewer buys, and its voters less candidate attention going forward. Once a state ceases to be competitive, it turns into West Virginia, seen?
Why so downer, when your name is Joy? Let's review.
John Kerry lost Florida by more than 380,000 votes in 2004 -- a year in which Bush's approval ratings had already begun to fall to earth, his war in Iraq having proven to be a sham. Bill Clinton won the state by 302,000 in 1996, having lost it by about 100,000 votes four years earlier. But what helped Clinton win was the favor he curried with Miami-Dade's Cuban-American community, and two other factors: he was facing Bob Dole, who lacked the Bush-Nixon connection to Cuban exiles (not to mention being seriously charisma challenged -- and crowded out by Ross Perot...) and he was a southerner, like the last Democrat to win the state: Jimmy Carter in 1976. To find another Democratic presidential candidate who won Florida, you have to go back to yet another southerner: LBJ in 1964.
It's no wonder then, that Gore, a Tennesee native, fared well here, and that Kerry, the ultimate northeasterner, did not.
This cycle, there is no southerner on the ticket to help the Democrats win north of Orlando, or in the party's perennial great white whale, the I4 corridor (that could change -- the veeps have yet to be chosen) but Florida is currently polling more than 6 points in John McCain's favor.
For Democrats, past performance may be an indicator that the state is becoming less central to the Democratic strategy for winning the White House. And as the party begins to look West, to the reliably Democratic, non-Cuban Hispanic vote (which unlike CubAms, trends 70-30 D,) and since Florida's black vote has underperformed in every election since 2000, Florida will have to put up or shut up this time around to remain relevant for the next time.
FLINT, Mich. (AP) — Barack Obama's campaign envisions a path to the presidency that could include Virginia, Georgia and several Rocky Mountain states, but not necessarily the pair of battlegrounds that decided the last two elections — Florida and Ohio.
In a private pitch late last week to donors and former supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe outlined several alternatives to reaching the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House that runs counter to the conventional wisdom of recent elections.
At a fundraiser held at a Washington brewery Friday, Plouffe told a largely young crowd that the electoral map would be fundamentally different from the one in 2004. Wins in Ohio and Florida would guarantee Obama the presidency if he holds onto the states won by Democrat John Kerry, Plouffe said, but those two battlegrounds aren't required for victory.
The presumed Democratic nominee's electoral math counts on holding onto the states Kerry won, among them Michigan (17 electoral votes), where Obama campaigns on Monday and Tuesday. Plouffe said most of the Kerry states should be reliable for Obama, but three currently look relatively competitive with Republican rival John McCain — Pennsylvania, Michigan and particularly New Hampshire.
Asked about his remarks, Plouffe said Ohio and Florida start out very competitive — but he stressed that they are not tougher than other swing states and said Obama will play "extremely hard" for both. But he said the strategy is not reliant on one or two states.
"You have a lot of ways to get to 270," Plouffe said. "Our goal is not to be reliant on one state on November 4th."
Plouffe has been pitching such a new approach to the electoral map in calls and meetings, according to several people who discussed the conversations on the condition of anonymity because they were meant to be private. Plouffe confirmed the descriptions in the interview.
Plouffe and his aides are weighing where to contest, and where chances are too slim to marshal a large effort. A win in Virginia (13 electoral votes) or Georgia (15 votes) could give Obama a shot if he, like Kerry, loses Ohio or Florida.
The strategy could be risky, unless you consider that Colorado and New Mexico went Bush by a margin of 7 percent or less, and that Virginia is actually trending in Barack's direction. If I'm the candidate, damned if I play the Kerry electoral map and gamble it all on Ohio or Florida (and if I do, Ohio actually looks more possible today.)
I'm not saying that Obama shouldn't contest the Sunshine State. He can, and probably should, win it, based on defections by younger Cuban-Americans who favor his more liberal views on family visits to Cuba, and increased black turnout, particularly in northern Florida (especially Jacksonville,) where black precincts have actually begun to outperform majority black precincts in Broward or Dade. I sat in on a conference call for media last week with the party, in which party leaders made it clear that this year, the emphasis will not be on South Florida alone. The I4, Tampa (the state's largest media market), Tallahassee and Orlando will get just as much, if not more, attention.
So for those of us in the formerly crucial southern part of this southern state, it's put up or shut up time. If we want Florida to count, and we do... if we want to swing this state back into the truly "swing" column, and make Florida relevant to future Democratic candidates, let alone helping to elect Barack Obama, we'd better turn out at the polls like we've never turned out before.
If we don't do it this year, next time it may not matter.
I'll be doing some guest blogging for the Miami-Dade Democratic Party, starting in earnest next week. Feel free to give Larry Thorson and the gang a look-see here (or refer to the blogroll.) I know I live in Broward, but Dade is sort of my home away from home... besides, there's nothing going on up here but foreclosures and the price of gas. Maybe someone will wake Broward from the dead before the election is over...
Then, she and Obama faked out the press corps twice -- once by ditching them on Obama's press plane, and then by forcing all the cable nets to camp outside Hillary's D.C. area home, while the two Senators met privately somewhere else.
Clearly, the adults are back in charge of Hillaryland.
Finally, after months of being mathematically eliminated from the Democratic nomination for president, after race-baiting, fictional sniper fire, hard-working white people, angry white women, big wins in states that couldn't get her closer to the nomination, dubious Osama bin Laden references, the red phone ad, even more dubious assassination references, the Michigan and Florida compromises, Harriet Christian, Barack reaching the magic number plus more than 100 and 24 hours after the worst ... non-concession ... speech ... ever ... Hillary Clinton will finally suspend her wheels-off-the-tracks campaign, mercifully, on Friday. The New York Times reports tonight:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will endorse Senator Barack Obama on Friday, bringing a close to her 17-month campaign for the White House, aides said. Her decision came after Democrats urged her on Wednesday to leave the race and allow the party to coalesce around Mr. Obama.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides said she would “express her support for Senator Obama and party unity” at an event in Washington that day. One adviser said that Mrs. Clinton would concede defeat, congratulate Mr. Obama and proclaim him the party’s nominee, while pledging to do what was needed to assure his victory.
Her decision came after a day of conversations with supporters on Capitol Hill about her future now that Mr. Obama had clinched the nomination. Mrs. Clinton had, in a speech after Tuesday night’s primaries, suggested that she wanted to wait before deciding about her future, but in conversations throughout the day on Wednesday, her aides said, she was urged to step aside.
“We pledged to support her to the end,” said Representative Charles B. Rangel, a New York Democrat who has been a patron of Mrs. Clinton since she first ran for the Senate. “Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is.” ...
Rep. Rangel was apparently one of the prime movers in pushing Mrs. Clinton out of the race. He was visibly angry in an interview with NBC News today, and according to Andrea Mitchell, he told Hillary point blank, along with 23 fellow members of Congress, that she had erred last night in not acknowledging that Barack had reached the number of delegates needed to seal the nomination. Mitchell reported that members were approaching Obama repeatedly on Capitol Hill today and telling him they wanted to move over to him (as many undecided supers are rushing to do before the train is so far out of the station it becomes a puff of smoke,) but Hillary wouldn't release them to switch their endorsement. And Howard Fineman reported that there was a subsequent conference call arranged, no less, by senior Clinton advisers, on which eight senior Senators, presumably including Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Barbara McCulsky and Diane Feinstein, told Hillary it was time to go.
A bit more from the Times:
The desire of the party for Mrs. Clinton to leave the race was signaled — if politely as four top Democratic leaders issued a statement on Wednesday morning asking all uncommitted delegates to make their decisions by Friday. The statement from the party officials — Howard Dean, the Democratic chairman; Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker; Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Gov. Joe Manchin of West Virginia — stopped short of endorsing Mr. Obama, but aides said they would likely move in that direction if Mrs. Clinton lingered in the race.
“The voters have spoken,” they said in their joint statement released before 7 a.m., purposefully timed to set the tone for the day after the election. “Democrats must now turn our full attention to the general election.”
Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat with close ties to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton who had kept studiously neutral throughout the presidential contest, said in an interview that he was “coming out from my desk” to endorse Mr. Obama. “The fact is that he is the nominee,” Mr. Emanuel said
He seemed quizzical at the slowness of Mrs. Clinton’s decision not to acknowledge this. “You don’t answer about whether you want to be about vice president unless there’s no doubt in your mind that he is the nominee,” he said, referring to Mrs. Clinton’s initial reluctance to congratulate Mr. Obama, noting that she told supporters she would be open to be vice president, if Mr. Obama wanted her.
Mrs. Clinton’s initial ambivalence about her future in her speech on Tuesday night stirred concern among some of her top supporters.
“By the time she got on that podium last night, she knew it was over and that she had lost,” Hillary Rosen, one of Mrs. Clinton’s most prominent women supporters, wrote on the Huffington Post Web site. “I am sure I was not alone in privately urging the campaign over the last two weeks to use the moment to take her due, pass the torch and cement her grace.”
Now, Hillary will get a second shot at that moment. Unfortunately, it will have been forced upon her.
UPDATE: Keith Olbermann just reported that Hillary will make some sort of concession-like announcement to her senior staff at her home in D.C. on Friday, followed by a bigger public event on Saturday.
Mark Nicholas picks up on the Chris Matthews reference to Desmond Tutu, and his reaction to the peculiar American drama regarding race. And he links to the Tutu op-ed that says it all:
When I first came to this country in '72, I was quite shaken, actually, by the intensity of feeling that African-Americans had. And I said I couldn't understand: Why are they so bitter, why are they so angry?
There, in South Africa (under apartheid), they told you, "You're nothing, and we're going to treat you like the nothing you are. And don't ever hope to think that you have a chance of being treated differently."
Here, you say to them, "You're equal, and the sky's the limit." And they keep bumping their heads against this thing that's stopping them from reaching out to the stars. And so I understood that it was the illusion of equality -- which is still the case.
You've got all of that going against you, and yet you produce (Obama). Where else in the world would you ever have had anything like that? I mean an African-American being not just a credible candidate but one who has galvanized -- I mean, the number of young people who have come out and said, "Yes, we think it is actually possible to have a different kind of society." Only here.
Watching the DNC Rules Committee's blockbuster meeting, pretty much all morning and afternoon, a few pieces of news have come out of it. (CNN has a breakdown of who's who on the panel here.)
News item #1:
Harold Ickes and the other Hillary supporters on the committee -- about 13 of them -- intend to be very vigorous in pushing the committee to do what's best for HER. That's stunning, considhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifering the responsibility of that committee, ostensibly, to do what's best for the party, and for its voters. It's been rather startling to watch Ickes and other members of the panel, particularly Hartina Fluornoy, a Hillary superdelegate from D.C., advocate essentially as members of her campaign. Ickes, after a particularly contentious exchange with Obama Florida campaign chairman Robert Wexler, even appeared to walk out of the room, although MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell says he actually walked across the room, not all the way out.
News item #2:
Wexler made the most news today, announcing that the Obama campaign would be willing to support the position taken by Florida DNC member Jon Ausman, whose challenge created the core Democratic position of seating all of the state's superdelegates, whose selection depends on their election to Congress or appointment by the local DECs, not upon the date of the primary, and seating half of the pledged delegates. Wexler said the Obama campaign would be willing to allow Hillary to half the maximum number of delegates available to her: 19, as part of a deal, in the interests of party unity.
News item #3:
Michigan Senator Carl Levin made perhaps the most arresting presentation today, walking the panel through the process that he was a part of, going back to the 2004 party convention, to try and change the almost regal status of New Hampshire and Iowa, with their presumed "god-given right" to hold their votes first. Levin was part of a reform panel that included the Rules Committee members, which agreed that at least one caucus would be moved up in the calendar, such that that state -- Nevada -- would caucus after Iowa but before New Hampshire.
New Hampshire, whose secretary of state has the authority to move the state's primary at will, violated that agreement and moved its primary ahead of Nevada's anyway. New Hampshire appealed to the Rules Committee for a waiver, so that it could preserve its status in defiance of an agreed-upon rules change. So Michigan, which has fought, with Levin's leadership, for a more diverse opening to the campaign, decided to apply for a waiver, too, to send a message that if New Hampshire wouldn't comply, somebody had to face down the bully. the committee gave New Hampshire its waiver but denied one to Michigan. In the end, whereas Florida's primary was held at the mercy of the Republican legislature and governor, Michigan's was an act of principled defiance. Given that, Levin said, no further punishment should ensue. To my mind, that was the most compelling argument made today. It certainly moved committee member Donna Brazille.
News item #1:
Howard Wolfson was just on NBC continuing to take pot shots at Barack Obama, and essentially asserting, as did Hillary's advocates before the panel, that they would settle for nothing short of a full seating of both delegations to her advantage, and would concede nothing to the Obama camp in return. They want Obama to get zero delegates out of Michigan, even while they concede that most, if not all, of the 40 percent "uncommitted" vote would favor Obama. And they want the maximum vote in Florida, too (although Bill Clinton may have conceded privately that his wife would wind up with half). So, to quote Pat Buchanan, Hillary wants "the whole hog." Their position is so recalcitrant, and so basically ugly, it makes me wonder if they have any interest whatsoever, in unifying the party, except under Hillary Clinton as nominee (something that would be all-but impossible, since I don't see how she would attract Obama's core supporters, young voters and Black voters, even if she could snatch the nomination away.) Meanwhile, the Obama team seems more reasonable, more willing to compromise and make concessions, and more eager to unify the party. As one reporter put it, the Obama camp is acting "the way a winner acts." That will matter, I think, to uncommitted superdelegates who are observing today's proceedings.
...In many ways, Mr. Obama is wheezing across the finish line after making a strong start: He has won only 6 of the 13 Democratic contests held since March 4, drawing 6.1 million votes, compared with 6.6 million for Mrs. Clinton.
Still, Mrs. Clinton’s associates said she seemed to have come to terms over the last week with the near-certainty that she will not win the nomination, even as she continues to assert, with what one associate described as subdued resignation, that the Democrats are making a mistake in sending Mr. Obama up against Senator John McCain.
One of the last procedural fights took place Saturday in Washington where, with demonstrators supporting Mrs. Clinton marching outside, the Democratic Party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee struggled with the question of whether to seat at the convention members of the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan. Those states have been sanctioned by the party for holding their contests in January in defiance of the primary calendar laid out by the Democratic National Committee.
Mrs. Clinton has kept her counsel about what she might do to draw her campaign to a close and when she might do it. Her associates said the most likely outcome is that she will end her bid with a speech, probably back home in New York, in which she would endorse Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton herself suggested on Friday that the contest will end sometime next week.
Still, she has signaled her ambivalence about the outcome, continuing to urge superdelegates to keep an open mind and consider, for example, the number of popular votes she has won. Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a superdelegate who has been at the forefront of calling for uncommitted Democrats to make a choice soon after the last vote, said in an interview that Mrs. Clinton called him last week and urged him to “keep an open mind until the convention.”
Assuming Mr. Obama reaches the total number of delegates and superdelegates he needs to secure the nomination in the coming week, Mrs. Clinton will be faced with three options, associates said: to suspend her campaign and endorse Mr. Obama; to suspend her campaign without making an endorsement; or to press the fight through the convention. Several of Mrs. Clinton’s associates said it was unlikely she would fight through the convention, given the potential damage it would do to her standing within the party, which is increasingly eager to unify and turn to the battle against Mr. McCain.
Mrs. Clinton would almost surely face the defection of some of her highest-profile supporters, as well as some members of her staff. She would no doubt also face anger from Democratic leaders as she contemplates a return to the Senate and, potentially, another run for the White House. ...
And as for superdelegates:
... “A number of people have reported that various members intend to endorse AFTER the last primary,” said one e-mail message to wavering delegates from Mr. Obama’s supporters, its warning barely couched. “Those members need to understand that they won’t get any visibility from that.”
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who endorsed Mr. Obama nearly two months ago and campaigned with him last week, recently called Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, who has yet to endorse. “Hey Ritter!” Mr. Richardson said. “After June 3, it means nothing. Those who take a little bit of a risk, he’ll remember you.”
On the other end of the line, Mr. Ritter demurred, saying he had pledged to remain neutral until the primary seasons ends.
It was not long ago that Robert Kennedy Jr. endorsed Hillary Clinton, even cutting a campaign commercial for her. And while his uncle, Teddy Kennedy, and his cousin Caroline backed Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has expressed her respect and regard for the Kennedys as a whole.
There has been a constant drumbeat of comparisons between Barack Obama and both John and Robert Kennedy, from the family, and from observers who see Obama as a natural bearer of the torch of Camelot.
More darkly, there has been an undercurrent of fear running through the Black community, that Barack Obama, if elected, would not be safe as president. That his communion with the Kennedys might be too close. I know more than a few Black folk, oder mostly, who backed Hillary Clinton because of that fear -- even saying, "I'd rather have him alive than in the White House."
So why ... why in the name of God would Hillary Clinton make a reference to Bobby Kennedy that even subliminally suggested that one reason for her to stay in the race, is that like RFK, Barack Obama might not make it past June? Why would she say anything that could even have been interpreted as such -- whatever she meant -- given the grim news we learned this week about the last remaining brother of the almost royal Kennedy clan? Here, if you can even fathom it, is what Hillary said:
In an interview with the Argus (SD) Leader editorial board today, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, took the unusual step of invoking the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-NY, when discussing reasons why she was staying in the presidential race.
Asked about calls for her to drop out, Clinton said, “This is part of an ongoing effort to end this before it’s over. I sure don’t think it’s over." She mentioned how non-frontrunners took their delegates to the convention in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992.
Suggesting that Obama's campaign has been the source of stories about a unity ticket with her as vice president, Clinton said, "people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa."
Clinton was then asked if she doesn't think that those calling for the ticket are actually interested in uniting the party.
"I don’t because I’ve been around long enough," she said. "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I don't understand it. And there's lots of speculation about why it is."
Hillary Clinton certainly ended her campaign today. She cannot possibly attract a single new super delegate after what she said in South Dakota. She should pray tonight that she has not also ended her political career.
Hillary has tried to clarify her remarks, insisting she was just referencing her husband's late corralling of the nomination in 1992, and she made a dazed-looking, semi-apology to the Kennedy family, and to anyone "if" she offended them -- though not to Obama -- this afternoon.
That probably won't help.
Because whatever Hillary meant, there simply is no place in politics for associating a candidate with assassination. It simply passes a threshold that Hillary herself lowered when she became the first presidential candidate in modern history to tout white, "hard working white voters" who are voting for her, and not for a black candidate. Hillary has fallen through the floor with this latest comment, and if Rev. Wright is now persona non grata for statements that are arguable, but really not beyond the pale, given what we've subsequently heard from people like John Hagee, how can Hillary continue to campaign after this?
Worse, she has done it before, as the WaPo's Libby Copeland reminds:
In fact, she had used similar, more carefully phrased language back in March, in a Time magazine interview: "Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual."
The fear of a president or a presidential candidate being shot or assassinated is horrifying precisely because recent history teaches us that it can happen. We don't need anybody to remind us, and we certainly don't need anybody to remind whatever suggestible wackos might be lurking in the shadows.
In the context of Obama, Clinton's words broke a double taboo, because since the beginning of his candidacy, some of Obama's supporters have feared that his race made him more of a target than other presidential hopefuls. Obama was placed under Secret Service protection early, a full year ago. To be unaware that one's words tap into a monumental fear that exists in a portion of the electorate -- a fear that Obama's race could get him killed -- is an unusual mistake for a serious and highly disciplined presidential candidate.
It's surprising, too, because something very similar just happened last week, when Mike Huckabee made a joke at an NRA convention about somebody aiming a gun at Obama. He later apologized and called his remarks "offensive." He also could have called them "instructive" for any politician paying attention.
To translate from Desperate Clinton into English: Senator Obama could be assassinated at any moment, and such an event would represent another -- goddamn, this is awful -- another path to the nomination for her. It's all about her path to the nomination. A possible assassination of Senator Obama. Yep. This is what it's come down to.
Coupled with the well-known, ridiculous and dangerous rumors about Senator Obama, invoking an assassination attempt against him represents a new and ghoulish low for already bottom-feeding campaign.
To date, the Clinton campaign has exploited every despicable tactic and mongered every fear. How much more embarrassment and desperation can she heap upon herself and her party?
Hopefully, not much more.
It's time to go, Hillary. You're losing your bearings, and clearly have begun to fixate on the myriad "bad things" that could theoretically happent to take Obama out of the race. It's becoming obsessive. It's becoming a sad circus act. And it's getting creepy. Stop before you completely destroy yourself.
Good news and bad news for Democrats in Louisiana House race
The good news for Democrats is that yet another Republican House seat changed hands yesterday, as a long-held Louisiana House seat switched to the D column. The bad news, is that to win the seat, the candidate had to put miles of distance between himself and the party's potential standard-bearer:
Don Cazayoux, a state representative, defeated Woody Jenkins, a small-newspaper publisher and former legislator long associated with religious-right causes in Louisiana, by 49 percent to 46 percent, in a tight race for a seat left open by the retirement of Richard Baker, a Republican.
Mr. Cazayoux portrayed himself as little different from Mr. Jenkins on social issues, overcoming the Republicans’ depiction of him as a “liberal” in lock step with figures like the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Barack Obama, who shared billing with him in a barrage of Republican attack advertisements.
...Mr. Cazayoux, a low-key member of the State House and a former prosecutor, fit the conservative model Democrats deployed successfully in the 2006 elections when they took seats from Republicans. He was close to Mr. Jenkins on social issues like abortion and guns; he spoke approvingly of Senator John McCain; he rarely if ever mentioned the Democratic presidential candidates; and he suggested he would buck his party if the district’s interests seemed to call for it.
Mr. Jenkins and the Republicans, on the other hand, sought to tie Mr. Cazayoux to his party’s national standard-bearers at every opportunity, especially Ms. Pelosi. Television advertisements paired Mr. Cazayoux with Mr. Obama, and called him a “liberal” — a description that fit uneasily with Mr. Cazayoux’s voting record in the State House of Representatives. He raised nearly twice as much money as his Republican rival, his fund-raising bolstered by Congressional Democrats eager to take the seat.
Lesson for the Dems: a "50 state strategy" won't work in November. There are clearly places -- mainly in the old, Republican South, where Barack won't be able to help candidates win, and where instead, he (with Rev. Wright and all the other media/talk radio driven drivel) will be used against Democrats. Of course, the Louisiana race proves the tactic won't always work, but Team Obama would be wise to pick a running mate who would be more useful in parts of the country outside the South, where the southern political model will be in play (I'm thinking rural Pennsylvania, Ohio and the like, since the Dems aren't winning back the South -- not this year, and certainly not with a black candidate, though Virginia could be an exception, giving the changing demographics there. Outside of that state, the South isn't THAT evolved...)
