I’d like to see Obama and Clinton really go at it on the issues. But they should do it with
the facts. Yesterday
in Denver, Obama said something interesting in his stem winder stump speech.

“It’s time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq; who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don’t like, and who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed.”

You know, I really want to believe. I do. Because if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee I’d like to support him with everything I’ve got. But he sure doesn’t make it easy; not for anyone who’s looking beyond the flash.

Seriously, does he deserve a pass for this? I’m asking this honestly, because I just don’t
get it. Obama claims he’s saying only positive things, then in one paragraph
unleashes four whoppers aimed at Clinton. Now mind you, she can take care of herself, so tough attacks are fine, but fabrications don’t convince me he’s going to be a good nominee.

Of course, I know this bothers people, but I simply don’t get why everyone
is giving Barack Obama a pass on having no other record on Iraq since coming
into the Senate. Mind you, he deserves ample credit for the speech in 2002.
But why should one Iraq war speech be used as bona fides for the judgment to
be commander in chief?

”But, I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,” Mr. Obama said. ”What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.” (source: NY Times, 2004)

“The case was not made,” said Obama. Absolutely, he’s right
about that one. Again, give him credit for it. But why is he saying that he
doesn’t know what he’d have done?

Clinton can never take back her Iraq war vote. She’s still paying for it and
every single senator who voted for this hell on earth war deserves the pain
they feel. But she’s also taken on the Pentagon on preparing withdrawal plans,
as well as offered up legislation challenging Bush on his “enduring relationship”
with Iraq, which Obama has agreed to sign on to, after being challenged about
it in the last debate. What has Obama done on Iraq since he landed in the Senate,
minus one bill one year ago? But people think one anti Iraq war speech gives
him bragging rights going on six years later. I’m not impressed.

I’d like to submit that neither Clinton or Obama deserve credit for what they’ve
done in the Senate on Iraq. No Democrat does and it’s why I think the November
election will be much tougher than others expect. Both Clinton and Obama are
a wash on Iraq. If you’re a supporter hanging on to his 2002 Iraq war speech
as “judgment,” then please tell me why he didn’t know what he would
have done at the time if he’d been in the Senate. Right, he’s changed his tune
on that one; he would have voted against the war. That’s not what he said when
first asked.

But back to the speech yesterday. Obama’s statement in the above paragraph
on Iran is factually wrong. Clinton
February 14, 2007:

“It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.”

Obama’s comment in the above paragraph about “not talking to leaders”
is also factually incorrect, ethically disingenuous, and even mendacious. While
Obama agreed to meet personally with dictators around the world in his first
year in office, Clinton dissented to do it personally as president,
but absolutely
agreed to talks.

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

Obama’s comment about Clinton
on torture is also wrong:

When I opposed the Military Commissions Act in 2006, I made my position clear: torture violates the fundamental rule of law and the institutions of justice, it does not bear reliable fruit in intelligence gathering, and it undermines our moral strength in a conflict that cannot be won solely with military might. It should never be the policy of the United States to torture.

It’s hard to have any enthusiasm for treating the guy fairly when one paragraph
of one new stump speech is full of holes. And I’d still like to have an answer
to why a 2002 anti Iraq war speech gives Obama judgment credentials over Clinton
when nothing has been done by him since.

When Bush gave his speech at the National Cathedral after 9/11, I wrote about it applauding him, because it was something few of us will ever forget. I wanted to believe, because
it gave us all hope we so badly needed at the time. Seven years later we’re all still waiting for him
to deliver on it.

Share

Sean Hannity is channeling this
Jake Tapper headline: Bill: “We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy”
to Fight Global Warming. That’s how this works on wingnut radio and in
the traditional meda.

This is Bill Clinton’s actual quote:

“But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.”

See Brad at Sadly, No!
Priceless take down of Tapper.

As for this
ABC story on Clinton and WalMart, listen to this push
back from none other than Carl Bernstein. He equates Clinton’s lunch bucket
values to John Edwards. Crooks
and Liars has the tape.

Bernstein: Hillary Clinton’s economics, the ones she preached to her husband in the White House are much closer to John Edwards then you would think. She argued with Bill Clinton when she was First Lady, her husband, she said ‘Bill, you are doing Republican economics when you are doing NAFTA.’ She was against NAFTA. And if she would somehow come out and tell the real story of what she fought for in the White House and failed in a big argument with her husband she would end up moving much closer to those Edwards followers.

Let’s also not forget that it was just last April that Obama backed a non union
candidate over another very pro union opponent: Obama’s Forgotten Wal-Mart Endorsement. Let them all eat cake!

TM Note: Headline title meant with all due respect to Dr. Atrios, of course.

Share

The above video comes from Barack Obama’s official presidential website. It’s
meant as proof that his “present” votes on choice were the right thing
to do and supported by Illinois NOW. However, the truth is quite different from what Lorna Brett is saying
in the video. How do I know? Just recently I’ve traded emails with Bonnie Grabenhofer, IL NOW State President.
She’s pushing back hard on the outright misinformation in Obama’s YouTube video,
because what Brett is saying is evidently pure fabrication.

Below is part of the email Grabenhofer sent out, which I received via email from
readers. I have confirmed with Bonnie she sent it. She’s also very adamant about
getting the truth out about Obama’s “present” votes, which don’t pass
the smell test any more than Lorna Brett’s video that was made on Obama’s behalf.

I thought I’d take a moment to try to add some clarity to the anti-choice Present votes in IL. Lorna Brett was president of CNOW from 1996-1998. She was not president at the time we were lobbying on these bills. Five of those votes occurred in the 92nd General Assembly session in 2001. NOW records indicate that she hasn’t been a member since 1999. She was not there when we were lobbying against these bills. She is using her very old affiliation with NOW to try to validate her criticism of Hillary Clinton. Voting Present on those bills was a strategy that Illinois NOW did not support. We made it clear at the time that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the awful anti-choice bills being put forth. Voting Present doesn’t provide a platform from which to show leadership and say with conviction that we support a woman’s right to choose and these bills are unacceptable. The Present strategy was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district; he could have voted No with very little negative consequence in his district. – Bonnie Grabenhofer IL NOW State President

Obama’s “present” votes do not explain his willingness to provide
cover for conservatives when he was in the Illinois senate, at the expense of taking a stand on women’s civil rights, which is his record.
Frankly, I could care less what rating Mr. Obama gets from Planned Parenthood
or any other group. I care what he does when asked to take a stand.
His actions do not match his talk. That’s because Obama’s willingly to reach
across the aisle and bring people together, while also offering cover to conservatives, trumped taking a stand on an issue critical to women’s civil rights. His let’s make a deal style belies the substance at the heart of this issue. It’s also anything but leadership.

Share

The Presidential Library of George, and Bill’s Foundation

All of these libraries are obscene, the money, the me-me-me idea of them, all
of it. Now I know each president has to have one. It’s tradition. But it really
now has gone over the top, mainly because we don’t know how they’re funded. After all, we are talking about the presidency. The same goes for foundations, regardless of the good they do.

Money is coming into George’s library and we don’t know the half of how and
who’s giving it. He’s also embroiled in a real face off with one local Texas
Methodist Church over the location. It’s been going on for quite some time.
Some Methodist ministers are against
the library location.

Some Methodist ministers are making a final yet improbable attempt to stop George W. Bush’s presidential library, museum and public policy institute from being built at Southern Methodist University. They say United Methodist law requires approval from the church’s South Central Jurisdiction, whose 290 delegates meet in July. The opponents say at least one-third of the delegates are against the Bush institute because it will promote his administration’s policies that they feel conflict with church teachings.

George’s executive
Order 13233 protects the presidency now, shrouding so much in secrecy that
Bush has come to know and love. But there’s no disclosure of presidential libraries
either and this has got to change.

Second, there is the pesky issue of fund-raising. Following the corruptive path blazed by White House predecessors, Mr. Bush and members of his library committee apparently plan to spend the administration’s remaining days trying to coax huge contributions to the budding library complex from friends and well-heeled special interests. Under present law, the identity of presidential library donors, and the amounts they contribute, need not be disclosed. The George W. Bush Library: Scholarly Mecca or $500 Million Oxymoron?

One of Hillary Clinton’s pledges is to reverse this presidential secrecy fetish,
which can’t come soon enough. But some people don’t trust she’ll do it. A story about her husband today likely makes people wonder about it all the more.

Today we’re reminded of the problems that can arise when it doesn’t happen.
The New York Times is reporting on a doozy of a foundation story about Bill. It’s embarrassing
for him. Hillary Clinton’s statement on the alleged Kazakhstan – Bill Clinton deal matters, which appears in the same article.

… .. Mrs. Clinton co-signed a commission letter to the State Department that sounded “alarm bells” about the prospect that Kazakhstan might head the group. The letter stated that Kazakhstan’s bid “would not be acceptable,” citing “serious corruption,” canceled elections and government control of the news media.

The rest of the article is about Bill, who denies helping Giustra get a mining
deal, or that the donation to his foundation had anything to do with their meeting. This also
has nothing to do with Mrs. Clinton, but she’ll get hit with it anyway. Frankly,
this is what weighs on many voters minds. It’s also what it looks like and people
aren’t willing to extend the benefit of the doubt and who can blame them. We’ve been burned by Bush, with negative stories about Bill worrisome, even as he moves towards more transparency on his foundation. The can she control her husband? line some are pushing comes to mind as well. The objections from Hillary Clinton about Kazakhsan’s bid indicates
she’s quite capable of separating herself from what her husband might do,
again, even though he denies any quid pro quo. The question is whether primary
voters will give her the chance.

Share

The Anybody But McCain faction is in free fall and it’s only going to get worse
from here.

After all those hours of venting, the head blowhard was scrambling. After Florida was called for McCain, with the his radio ego on the line, the guy simply had to come up with
something good, really, really good. He had to find some way to explain how John
McCain won Florida. After all, when the P.T. Barnum of wingnut radio singularly
targets one politician, that person, in this case a man because we are talking
about Republicans, has got to bend to Rush’s will. The electorate and his witless audience must follow the wingnut’s leading pied piper’s orders, like the rat pack in “Ratatouille” smelling out garbage for supper.

But it didn’t happen.

So since the listeners didn’t wrap themselves around Rush’s every word, voting
en masse against John McCain. El Rushbo wrapped John McCain around his words
himself. There’s only one problem. McCain was a Reagan man long before Limbaugh.
Tut-tut, facts never get in the way of a wingnut on damage control. Regular listeners of my radio show know this plot already.

RUSH: My friends, my friends, there is reason for optimism, there is reason for hope. By the way: “Change” is a stupid slogan, and so is “hope,” but I know some of you want hope. Be of good cheer. From the shadows of this setback, let me offer this uplifting thought. In Florida, half the liberals voted for Mrs. Clinton. One-third of the Republicans voted for Senator McCain. Our friends in the media predicting my demise (boos) talk about how conservatism is dead. Let me ask a simple question, ladies and gentlemen. Why is it that all of the Republican candidates claim, to now carry the mantle of Ronald Reagan? Senator McCain is the most recent. “McCain Claims Conservative Mantle.” Said McCain (doing McCain impression), “It shows one thing: I’m the conservative leader who can unite the party.” How can I be said to have lost, ladies and gentlemen, when what I stand for is rock-ribbed conservatism, and each one of these candidates — each one of them flawed, by the way, which has caused many conservatives to be wandering aimlessly in the electoral woods. How can it be said that I have lost or that conservatism has lost, when all of our Republican candidates claim to be conservative and to carry the conservative mantle? AUDIENCE: Rush! Rush! Rush! Rush! RUSH: In fact, it looks to me like Fred Barnes’ candidate, Rudy Giuliani, has now dropped out. It looks like David Brooks’ candidate, Mike Huckabee, has no traction — he hasn’t won anything since Iowa — and he needs to get out. Tom Brokaw’s candidate, Hillary Clinton, she’s in deep trouble going into Super Tuesday. The race card didn’t work. She needs the “firewall” of the Latino vote. But Tom Brokaw’s candidate is floundering. Tim Russert’s candidate, Barack Obama, seems to be doing better than expected. Good for you, Tim. I’m proud of you. Olbermann’s candidate, Kucinich, is now gone. He’s back in Ohio, trying to keep his seat against a primary challenger. Mort Kondracke’s candidate, Ron Paul, gets weirder by the minute. (boos) Thank you. And I want to stress once again, ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you for your support, and I want to assure you that I cannot — and I will not — leave the Golden EIB Microphone. (applause) I will not retire. I will not concede. (cheers and applause) I will not drift away! I will not fade away, until every American agrees with me– Rush Does Not Concede, Vows to Fight On

It wasn’t that the listeners didn’t heed the head guy’s call. It’s that McCain started using Rush’s Reagan lingo. Operation save Rush Limbaugh’s ego had succeeded, as long as the audience bought the bit.

On another wingnut outlet later, after the debate at the Reagan Library, coming after McCain’s win, his
endorsement by Rudy and rumors of another one coming out of Cal-ee-for-nee-a, Mary
Matalin appeared on Fox’s “Hannity and Colmes” to blow smoke up Hannity’s
horn, praising the entire conservative radio crew, even naming the big ones by name, asking for guidance from the Anybody But McCain mob. The usual confidence of Ms. Matalin had vanished. But I guess after being 0 for 2 that will do it to anyone; the crash of George “macaca” Allen, then grandpa Fred Thompson was just too much. Boy, Mary can sure pick ‘em.

This is happening every day on a wingnut channel near you or streaming on the web. If you’re not listening to conservative talk radio right now. You just don’t know what you’re missing.

Share

Case closed.

I’ve already proven this (also see here and here), but the videos above, via Mark Ambinder (don’t forget “The View’s” Whoopi verdict), add the final gavel on this case. Body experts are even weighing in now, with one guy on Fox “News” busting Claire McCaskill for smirking when Obama gave his second excuse, proving to the expert that McCaskill was in on the truth, which was that Obama did indeed snub Clinton. Even Chris Matthews came to that conclusion. Put it in Obama’s “you’re likable enough, Hillary” file.

But when something political makes “Inside Edition,” you know you’ve reached critical mass. Seriously, this is political gold for Clinton. The Snub has now gone cultural.

The end.

Share

by Paul Szep

Talk about a comeback. It’s the mother of all comebacks, baby. Don’t miss Ann Telnaes on McCain today! Oh, and did you see Mr. 9/11 endorsing “Mack,” as in “Mack is back,” today? Unity and bliss, at long last.

Mr. Toe Sucker, now reformed I’m sure, gets to the heart of it: McCain may win, Romney can’t.

Tonight, we’ll get to see if McCain can lock it down. If he attacks Romney,
Slick Mitt might crumble. But if Romney has decided he wants to fight it out,
he’s got to attack Mack on immigration. But in Reagan’s domain will they? Oh, and don’t forget the Huck. He might even help out. None of these guys like Mitt.

Stay tuned.

Whose that other guy? Oh right, Ron Paul. They just can’t get rid of him.

5:04: Are you better off today than you were 8 years ago? To Slick Mitt first… He slithers out of it, turns it around. Anderson says, no you didn’t! Romney won’t claim Bush! EVERYBODY DRINK! … … See Mitt squirming here. Ruh-oh. Bad start for him. … ..

“Overall better off,” says McCain. Straight talk: goes right into an economy riff. He’s feeling good.

Huckabee: “I don’t think we are.” But it’s not Bush’s fault. Congress sucks. … .. Truckers are “hurting.” Populism spasm.

Ron Paul: “We’re worse off.” Bush and Congress to blame. … .. Straight at Iraq and Bush’s empire fetish, my words. .. .. Game on. … ..

5:13: Mitt on Mack over immigration. Knew this was coming. NY Times endorsement = not a conservative. Mack smacks back: your papers endorsed me, and so will Arizona’s conservative paper, nya-nya. … .. National security here. You raised taxed, Mitt. Bad conservative, take that! … ..

5:22: McCain, “I’m a federalist.” Kissing up to Ah-nold here. Climate change talk here. Republicans in the audience starting whispering loudly, “what’s that?… huh?… does not compute.” … .. Disagrees with Bush on climate change, green technology, etc. Channeling Teddy Roosevelt. Doubt the wingnuts appreciate that at all. … .. NUKES! These guys love nukes. See the CNN reaction meter rise. … “Green technology.” The word “entrepreneurship” attached with “green technology” made the CNN reaction meter go to 90. …

Slick Mitt is scoring huge on the CNN reaction meter. I think I’m hypnotized. … .. “They don’t call it America warming. They call it global warming.”

27 minutes in and I think Ron Paul has started coloring. .. … Got one question then— Anderson gave him the hook. Poor Ron Paul. I think he’s still raising more money than Huck. .. …

5:47: Anderson is afraid to touch Ronald Reagan’s diary. This is creepy. … ..

Share

The clip above speaks for itself. There’s nothing to add.

And here’s the quote of the day, from January 2001, via ABC’s Jake Tapper:

“The proof in the pudding is looking at the treatment of the other Bush nominees,” Obama said. “I mean for the most part, I for example do not agree with a missile defense system, but I don’t think that soon-to-be-Secretary Rumsfeld is in any way out of the mainstream of American political life. And I would argue that the same would be true for the vast majority of the Bush nominees, and I give him credit for that.” Obama in 2001: Rumsfeld in the Mainstream

UPDATE: Couldn’t make the media call when this was announced because of my radio show. But this is a huge event created for Clinton: CLINTON TOWNHALL. Sign up!

Share

Edwards Returns to New Orleans updated

Taylor Marsh LIVE!
3:00 p.m. eastern – 12:00 pacific
Missed the show? Podcast is up.

His bid for the presidency is over, but the cause of his life, as well as his wife, lives on.

Earlier on MSNBC, Mudcat Saunders made a comment regarding Clinton that does a disservice to Edwards, as well as his supporters and what his campaign stood for. When asked if Edwards would endorse Clinton or Obama, Saunders snidely replied that he intends to do everything he can to keep John Edwards from endorsing Clinton. Needless to say, Norah O’Donnell was stunned. Mudcat went on to talk about NAFTA, but also cited the 22nd Amendment. It was as ungracious a moment I’ve ever seen, with him stepping all over the Edwards message to get in his angry white male point of view. It’s a vein in the campaign that did not serve John Edwards at all. Everyone can understand initial bitter feelings, but you don’t need to act on them, especially before the candidate himself makes a public appearance and we hear Edwards’ own words. Today it’s in especially poor taste.

I do feel compelled to say a word to the traditional media. The treatment Edwards got from the U.S. media at large was a disgrace from the start.

If you want to read one post that illustrates how I feel about John Edwards, read “It’s Not the Haircut”:

… .. John Edwards is different. He talks of poverty, peace and something beyond perpetual war, which completely flummoxes Republicans. The truth is that the reason Republicans want Edwards gone is that they can’t attack his message, because they don’t understand it, are even scared of it, dread facing it. The haircut is easier to ridicule, as they hope to capitalize on the juvenile mind set of the average American voter who is too busy working two jobs and is willing to hate anyone so rich, good looking and who has succeeded where they have failed. Edwards is a wealthy man who came from nothing who is now making his life’s work the poor; people to whom Republicans can’t relate, but to whom they continually sell their policy propaganda to, but which will never set them free. Nothing is scarier than the thought of the poor rising up and realizing that the talk of the American dream through Republican policies (and the cheerleading of talk radio) will never reach that far down to them. If the truth be told to the masses, Republicans would never win another election and wingnut radio hypocrisy would be finished forever. That’s why Edwards must not only be defeated, but destroyed; like Kerry the veteran turned against war had to not only be stopped, but the symbol he represented obliterated and neutralized. Antithetical notions to Republican thinking are not allowed to thrive in the American dialogue, and the messenger will not survive to sell his story. … … Ironically, John Edwards has lived the life Republicans tout they believe can be for everyone. The life Rush and Sean and all the wingnut blowhards on radio say is the Republican dream, the American ideal. A boy who grew up poor and pulled himself up by his own initiative to become wealthy, happy and successful; but also faced adversity and came out the other end stronger and unbowed, even in the face of crushing loss and personal tragedy he continues to live through each day. Unfortunately, he is also a Democrat. So they hate him for who he was, has become and wants to be, because he’s lived the Republican dream, but disavows their beliefs, because they inherently leave the poor behind. Something John Edwards has experienced first hand. Edwards is the embodiment of Republican self reliance. That he turned into a Democrat is his burden. It’s why Republicans can’t have him win. … ..

Both Clinton and Obama made it a point to honor Edwards in statements and appearances. It’s where we all should agree to stand as a fine man, a great patriot, John Edwards, leaves the presidential race. No matter what happens and regardless of if Edwards makes a tough decision to eventually endorse, nothing will alter the respect I have for him. I send another nod towards his family, but most especially Elizabeth Edwards, as brave an individual as you’re ever going to find. They both embody the heart of America and symbolize what makes this country so great.

Share

getty images

“Well, I reached my hand out in friendship and unity and my hand is still reaching out,” she said, lapsing back into the dissed-woman mode. “And I look forward to shaking his hand sometime soon.” … .. Given her brazen quote to ABC News, Obama is right to be scared of Hillary. He just needs to learn that Uncle Teddy can’t fight all his fights, and that a little chivalry goes a long way. Seeing Red Over Hillary, by Maureen Dowd

That’s so true; a little chivalry does go a long way. But it seems Obama’s too intent on looking tough, while overplaying it and being down right rude. We’re almost into Freudian territory now. Recalling a time when Clinton rebuffed Obama, Dowd ascribes the classic rejection emotion some males feel and often don’t know how to deal with, especially in professional settings. Dowd also has a point about Uncle Teddy, and
what Obama seems to think he can do for him. It reminds me of Kerry saying he’ll
fight for Obama, as if the latter needs protection from Clinton, while Kerry actually hopes to salve his own political wounds from a past contest. But the real focus is that this formidable woman in red is challenging Obama in a way he finds disconcerting, leaving him less than confident on how to react. It’s either way too little or over the top.

But now The Snub plot thickens:

Sources: Senior Obama staffers rejected proposal for their candidate to sit with Clinton at State of the Union. Leading Democrats wanted rivals to sit together for the sake of party unity. Clinton was willing, but Obama chose to sit with newly-minted supporter Ted Kennedy. Obama strategist David Axelrod to The Page: “No such invitation ever came from Senator Clinton. Had [she] made such a proposal, we would have adjusted our plans.” “The Snub” Before “The Snub”

What is this, high school? But considering Mr. Axelrod’s
commentary on The Snub was a total fabrication, seen
through art, as was Obama’s first two explanations of it, how can we believe them about the Pre Snub?

Good grief.

Share

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd: Edwards Dropping Out updated

John Edwards will end his presidential campaign today, a source close to the Edwards campaign confirmed today. The former senator is scheduled to speak in New Orleans this afternoon — an appearance billed as an ani-poverty speech that is now expected to serve as the platform for ending his White House bid. … .. John Edwards to Quit Presidential Race

This story just broke on MSNBC.

No statement yet from the Edwards campaign.

CNN confirms, also adding he isn’t expect to endorse anyone at this time, but no one knows.

More when it comes out.

Now here’s my take on it. This isn’t a given that it benefits Obama. What Edwards talks about has been the core of Clinton’s support, the lunch bucket Democrats. If Edwards endorses, that could matter. But that said, there will be Edwards supporters who won’t be able to endorse Clinton. These voters, however, could also think that Obama is more talk than action. Clinton, for all the criticism, is a serious old school Democrat, with the values and beliefs to go with it. She is a partisan, though after standing her ground, she’s more than capable and willing to reach across to find common ground. With Obama, he sends signals that he’d reach out first in a let’s make a deal mode, almost selling out the Democratic ideals because he is not himself an ideologue. Edwards, for all his vast appeal, is more of an ideologue and so are his supporters. But then again, I cannot see people like David Sirota backing Clinton. All this boils down to a muddle with no clear conclusion to draw. Tomorrow at the debate there will be only two people on stage, Clinton and Obama. We’re getting down to it.

UPDATE III (12:34 pm eastern): Peter Daou, Clinton’s Internet director just posted on DailyKos regarding Edwards. Speaking of bloggers, I can’t say enough about Tracy Russo, who took care of the interaction with Edwards’ and bloggers. She is quite simply the best.

UPDATE II (12:00 pm eastern): Clinton’s homepage features a dedication to the Edwards: “We Salute John and Elizabeth Edwards.” Obama’s site, at this hour, features Ted Kennedy’s endorsement. Just sayin’. See MyDD

UPDATE: Obama’s statement on Edwards:

“John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn’t popular to do or covered in the news. At a time when our politics is too focused on who’s up and who’s down, he made a nation focus again on who matters – the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington. John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this – that two Americans can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose. So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America,” said Barack Obama.

Share

via Matt Stoller

Covering the primary contest takes up all the oxygen around here right now, but following all the news is my job, even if I’m not writing about every subject. Looking at the Republicans for 2008, believing it will be McCain, unless he implodes in the debate tonight, and because electability matters and Slick Mitt is an easier target, things like honoring the Constitution come into sharp focus.

Senator Russ Feingold has a way of putting things into a soundbite. For my money, Russ Feingold is one of the best senators we’ve got. I am in awe of his dedication and continual courage to always go out on a limb. He doesn’t get half of the credit he has earned.

A lot has been going on regarding FISA and telecom immunity as some of you are likely aware. Glenn Greenwald believes we’re screwed:

After vowing yesterday to veto a 30-day extension of the Protect America Act, the White House and Congressional Republicans today agreed to a 15-day extension. The Senate will now proceed to vote on the various amendments pending on the Cheney/Rockefeller bill and will then almost certainly vote in favor of that bill in some form, granting amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms and new warrantless eavesdropping powers to the President. Realistically, there are really only two possible ways for all of this to be derailed: (1) the Senate passes one or more pending amendments which is unacceptable to the White House and thus provokes a veto of the bill Congress passes (the most likely candidates: Sen. Feinstein’s amendment declaring (again) that FISA is the “exclusive means” for eavesdropping and/or Sen. Feingold’s amendment compelling the disclosure to Congress of the secret FISA court rulings which the White House claimed prompted the need for changes to FISA in the first place); or, (2) the House stands firm with the bill it already passed and refuses to provide telecom amnesty and new warrantless eavesdropping powers, even once the Senate does so. At this point, option (1) seems far more likely, as the Blue Dogs can single-handedly fulfill all the President’s demands by voting (along with the Republicans) in favor of the Senate bill. The White House — understandably — is extremely confident that they will win, as they always do, telling “conservative journalists” with whom they met today: “once the Senate votes to make FISA permanent — including immunity for the telecoms — the House will acquiesce.” … .. “Trust Us” Government

Congressional Quarterly has more on the two week extension.

TM NOTE: This is a FISA thread.

Share

Donna Brazile: ‘Clinton Gets Bragging Rights’ updated

“Clinton gets bragging rights,” Donna Brazile said to Wolf tonight. She also went on to say, and I’m paraphrasing loosely here, that Democrats in Florida and Michigan should each move forward, vote on a plan, then make sure their voters are counted and delegates seated at the convention.

Someone tell Barack Obama. He’s
in complete denial.

“Obama and Clinton tie for delegates in Florida,” read the missive. “0 for Obama, 0 for Clinton.”

Ah yes, Mr. Hope’s flip side: Mr. Class. If Mr. Obama believes the Democratic party will end up ignoring Florida voters and delegates,
maybe everyone supporting him should reconsider. Two words: election 2000.

As for me, I only hope the Iowa – New Hampshire “duopoly,” as Kilgore calls it, is at an end.

But it was clear tonight that Hillary Clinton, after getting close to 800,000
votes in her column (so far), has sent a message to everyone. After her win
in Florida, Clinton took the stage with elected Florida Democratic colleagues.
Bill was nowhere in sight. He’s a terrific surrogate, but Hillary Clinton can
do this on her own. She’s done it in debate after debate and she did it tonight
after her win.

Watch the video. Classy. Focused. On message.

Anyone who thinks she’s not the one in charge is not paying attention, or refuses
to weigh the evidence. From the Clinton campaign:

Hillary will end up with more votes than John McCain. She won women, men, and just about every age category. She won the youth vote. She won 6 in 10 Latinos and nearly 3 in 10 African American voters. Well over 1.5 million Democrats cast their ballots, more than twice the number of voters who came out to vote in the 2004 primary. Among those who decided on Election Day, a plurality of those chose Hillary.

As per Barack Obama’s usual tactics, his campaign put out a statement slamming
Clinton and her big Florida win. Like my big brother says, you learn more about
a candidate when he loses. Obama refuses to acknowledge his main rival’s win,
whether it is in Nevada or Florida. Someone around him should remind Obama that he hasn’t won the nomination, and continually reminding people of how small and petty he is isn’t a winning strategy for Super Tuesday and beyond. Consider it free advice. Evidently, he could use it.

To add… Craig Crawford just mentioned something, which is at the heart of my dissent on ignoring Michigan and especially Florida in order to prop up Iowa and New Hampshire. That Gov. Crist has become so strong, proving tonight he can deliver for Republicans, that Florida could move away from Democrats in November. Frankly, I think this has been handled poorly and putting Florida on the block over this could be a huge mistake.

UPDATE (1.30.08): Barack Obama in a Sunday interview, reported today (h/t reader FNelson):

Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he’s the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he’ll seat a Florida delegation at the party’s national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it. Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then. Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa. But after the fundraiser at the Hyde Park home of Tom and Linda Scarritt, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there. The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as “campaigning,” and those include “holding news conferences.” Obama seemed unaware the pledge he signed prohibits news conferences. Asked whether he was violating it, he said, “I was just doing you guys a favor. … If that’s the case, then we won’t do it again.” … ..

Share

“I am thrilled to have this vote of confidence you have given me today…” – Hillary Clinton

After 2000, Florida matters.

We’re calling this a win, a big win. No Democrat campaigned in Florida, but
Clinton got the most votes by a mile. Obama can continue his sour
grapes strategy, even with a Florida cable ad buy. We gave him credit where it was due
for South Carolina. It would be nice to see some class from him, but after The Snub I won’t hold my breath. Today, Clinton wins Florida and she won it big.

CNN has called Florida for John McCain. Rumors are flying that Rudy will endorse
him soon.

Share

Florida, Florida, Florida updated

It wouldn’t be Florida without voting problems.

McCain and Romney are in a real battle. Some are saying McCain will be near broke after Florida, so he needs this one. We know Slick Mitt will try to buy the nomination. As for issues, the economy helps Romney. But McCain really tried to turn it towards national security, succeeding somewhat. Terrorism was mentioned as the number two issue; however, the economy was number one.

NRO, which will no doubt be following the Republicans until this is decided, has a post up on initial exit poll numbers, including absentee:

The first wave of exit poll numbers, including absentees: McCain 34.3 percent, Romney 32.6 percent, Giuliani 15.3 percent, Huckabee 12 percent.

As for the Democrats, anyone thinking Florida doesn’t count isn’t thinking big picture. I’ve been against the Iowa – New Hampshire – DNC muscle game from the start. As goes Florida… Simply put, Clinton outplayed Obama on this one and now he’s worried about it. Even Eugene Robinson said that much today on MSNBC. No doubt Obama’s people want everyone to ignore Florida. Yeah, that’ll work. Clinton didn’t campaign, but she’ll be in Florida at the end of this big day. Obama didn’t campaign, but he did run a cable tv ad. And I’m including this MyDD diary, because John Edwards has earned it.

Oh, almost forgot, some guy named Rudy is in the race too. He’s supposedly got a private jet fueled and ready to go to California after a big win. However, it he comes in third (or even fourth), flight plans will likely be refiled for New York.

Stay tuned. Keep track of the results (h/t reader LivetoTell); or go to CNN (h/t reader CognitiveDissonance); and the Times (h/t reader FNelson).

Share