Salon: War Room

Obama takes superdelegate lead?

Alex Koppelman — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:04:00 PDT

It has been a very, very good day for Barack Obama. Good enough, in fact, that Time's Mark Halperin is dubbing it "Super Friday" for him. At the moment, he has picked up endorsements from seven superdelegates. And while Hillary Clinton got an endorsement of her own, she also lost one to Obama, so he has netted seven delegates.

The Obama camp has even more reason than just that big score to celebrate with a special happy hour -- according to both the New York Times and ABC News, Obama has now overtaken Clinton and leads her in the two outlets' superdelegate tallies. (A lot of the big media outlets have their own unique tallies; in some, Clinton still leads or is tied with Obama.)

McCain defends comments about Hamas, Obama

Vincent Rossmeier — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:16:00 PDT

Today, John McCain blamed the curiosity of American voters for a comment he made suggesting Hamas wants Barack Obama to be president. Appearing with Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman at an event in New Jersey, McCain tried to clarify a statement he made on "The Daily Show" on Wednesday night, in which he alleged that Hamas approves of Obama:

It's very obvious to everyone that Sen. Obama shares nothing of the values or goals of Hamas, which is a terrorist organization ... But it's also fact that a spokesperson from Hamas said that he approves of Obama's candidacy. I think that's of interest to the American people.

Ignoring McCain's altruistic invocation of the American populace, his comment may foreshadow how Republicans will attack Obama's foreign policy positions in the general election. Writing for conservative blog Hot Air, "Allahpundit" sums up the Republican outlook nicely:

McCain's point here goes right to the heart of Obama's foreign policy. Yes, it's true that ObamaÃ¢ÂÂs stance towards Hamas, incoherent though it is, isn't much different from the GOP's, leading one to wonder then why Ahmed Yousef should have any strong preference for him instead of McCain. The answer: Because he knows that the Messiah's willingness to engage in "aggressive" diplomacy with one set of terrorist slackjaws means he's more likely to adopt that policy towards other sets.

On Thursday, in a response to McCain's charge about Hamas, Obama portended a general-election strategy of his own. Obama told CNN, "For [McCain] to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination."

Obama's "losing his bearings" nudge elicited a strong rebuke from McCain aide Mark Salter. Obama "used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue," Salter said on Friday. "This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning."

So, who's getting excited for the general election?

Clinton makes another electability argument

Vincent Rossmeier — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:23:00 PDT

Hillary Clinton's campaign is apparently hoping that if impassioned pleas won't persuade superdelegates to support Clinton, snazzy graphics will.

The campaign has sent a PowerPoint presentation to superdelegates that illustrates her primary success in what it terms the "tough districts." According to the chart, she has won 16 of the 20 districts that went in George W. Bush's favor in 2004 but turned around and elected freshman Democrats to Congress in 2006. The presentation reiterates the message the Clinton campaign has repeated frequently lately, that Clinton is the better general-election candidate because she can win the votes of blue-collar whites, the elderly and Hispanic voters, while Obama cannot.

Separately Friday, Clinton aides also announced that they are willing to continue their campaign past the final primaries on June 3. Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said, "If neither of the candidates gets to 2,209 [delegate votes], then the [nominating] process continues."

Double, double toil and trouble in Berkeley

Katharine Mieszkowski — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:51:00 PDT

Since last fall, Code Pink, the women's peace activist group, has been protesting the U.S. Marine Corps' operating a recruiting center in downtown Berkeley, Calif. Yet, raucous crowds and even the Berkeley City Council have not succeeded in banishing the Marines from this famously liberal enclave. So, on Friday, Code Pink decided to bring on the witches.

In a call to activists on the Web, the antiwar group appealed to "witches, crones and sirens" to come to the center to "cast spells, weave magic, invoke the foremothers, share wisdom, lead rituals to banish war and violence and bring peace" on Friday morning. At 8:15 a.m. there wasn't a lot of spell casting going on, and the crowd numbered only about a dozen protesters and counterprotesters, but there was plenty of chanting and sign waving for the Fox News cameras, which were there to capture the showdown between the Code Pink's theatrical coven and counterprotesters from the pro-military group Move America Forward, which had vowed to stage a "witch hunt" in response to Code Pink's eye-of-newt action. The antiwar activists wielded pink signs reading "Leave my grandchild alone" and "End the occupation now!" The pro-Marine protesters chanted "Witches out of Berkeley, al-Qaida out of Iraq," while one waved a sign invoking "The Wizard of Oz" that read: "Dorothy would drop her house on Code Pink witches!"

No one was burned at the stake, but the Move America Forward crew brandished broomsticks and cartons of Morton salt, along with American flags. "We're here to tell the old crones to load up on their broomsticks, and fly out of here. Leave our Marines alone!" said Melanie Morgan, the chairwoman of Move America Forward, who wore a white sweatshirt bearing the slogan "Our troops, our heroes." (The salt, another counterprotester explained, was to create a circle of salt around the recruiting center to protect it from any nefarious spells the witches might cast.)

Morgan comes from a family with six generations of military service, and says her youngest son is 16 and has been talking to the Marines about enlisting when he's of age. She believes that the Iraq war has made Americans safer and stabilized the Middle East: "Global jihad is a real and present danger, and anyone who believes otherwise is delusionally suicidal."

Zanne Joi, a Code Pinker, explained that the group's witch, crone and siren theme was part of a week of actions at the Marine recruiting center aimed at reclaiming Mother's Day's radical roots. Joi quoted the words of Julia Ward Howe, the social activist and author, who in her 1870 Mother's Day Proclamation declared: "We, the women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country, to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

Radical witches, OK. Activist crones, sure, why not? But who ever heard of a protesting siren? "Sirens entice men to do things that they don't want to do," Joi explained. "The Marines don't want to leave Berkeley, and Bush doesn't want to leave Iraq. But they must."

Whither John Edwards?

Vincent Rossmeier — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:10:00 PDT

Did John Edwards admit that he voted for Barack Obama in the North Carolina primary? That's the question that has had political blogs all aflutter since Edwards' appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Friday morning. Asked about his vote, Edwards said something that sounded like "I just voted for him on Tuesday," but could have also been "voted for them." (You can watch the full video below.)

Edwards, who has yet to officially endorse either Hillary Clinton or Obama, almost immediately told USA Today's Susan Page that he had not said "him." "I said I voted for 'em," Edwards said. "I'm a Southerner ... It wasn't meant to be male or female."

Debates about accents and syllables aside, Edwards spent a great part of Friday morning extolling Obama. Edwards also appeared on the "Today" show Friday morning and said of Obama: "What he brings to the table is the capacity, No. 1, to unite the Democratic Party ... No. 2, to bring in new voters, to bring in people who haven't been involved in the process over a long time and to get people excited about this change."

Kennedy dismisses idea of joint ticket

Alex Koppelman — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:19:00 PDT

Sen. Ted Kennedy, who has been a prominent supporter of Barack Obama's for some time now, sat down with Bloomberg's Al Hunt -- at Kennedy's home, no less -- for an interview that's airing this weekend. And during the interview, Kennedy threw cold water on the idea of a joint ticket of Obama and Hillary Clinton. Asked by Hunt about the prospect, Kennedy flatly responded, "I don't think it's possible."

Hunt then asked Kennedy what kind of person he sees as Obama's running mate. Kennedy said:

Well, the first is always a demand that you're going to have someone that's going to be able to assume the responsibility. I would hope that he would also give consideration to somebody that has -- is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people. And I think if we had real leadership -- as we do with Barack Obama -- in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful.

Kennedy also discussed Clinton's recent arguments about the demographics of the support for her and her opponent, which he seemed to attribute more to the Clinton reputation than anything else. "I think the fact that she is able to draw on her constituency is as much a reflection or more of a reflection of the fact that she has been around. President Clinton has been around for a long time," Kennedy said. "Many of those groups have great confidence in the Clinton brand, so to speak ... I think the great challenge that Barack has had is getting around and getting out. And the idea that you can go into a state and have just a handful of rallies, because there's so many of these primaries, and expect to alter and change some very fundamental voting patterns just doesnÃ¢ÂÂt take place."

Rumsfeld blamed generals for lack of forces in postwar Iraq

Vincent Rossmeier — Fri, 09 May 2008 09:49:00 PDT

Donald Rumsfeld must not have a whole lot of faith in Americans' memories.

A New York Times story last month revealed that ever since the lead-up to the Iraq war, the Pentagon had colluded with retired generals in a deliberate campaign to spread the Bush administration's policy messages on TV news shows. The article produced angry rejoinders from some congressional members, and in response, the Pentagon has begun to release a large number of internal transcripts and other documents on its Web site. On Thursday, Think Progress picked up on one particularly interesting exchange that occurred during a 2006 Pentagon briefing.

After Gen. Eric Shinseki stated in February 2003 that it would take "several hundred thousand soldiers" to stabilize postwar Iraq, Rumsfeld famously told Congress that "the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark." But in the newly released transcript, Rumsfeld seems to blame the generals for the low troop levels in Iraq.

In the 2006 briefing, Rumsfeld said:

Now, it turns out he [Shinseki] was right. The commanders -- you guys ended up wanting roughly the same as you had for the major combat operation, and thatÃ¢ÂÂs what we have. There is no damned guidebook that says what the number ought to be. We were queued up to go up to what, 400-plus thousand ... They were in the queue. We would have gone right on if they'd wanted them, but they didn't, so life goes on.

RNC debuts attack against Obama

Alex Koppelman — Fri, 09 May 2008 08:19:00 PDT

The Republican National Committee has just rolled out a new Web site -- and a new Web ad -- devoted to attacking Barack Obama. The site and the video share the same title, "Can We Ask?" and portray Obama as "a questionable candidate."

And apparently even Republicans are hip to this whole Web 2.0 thing. If you have questions of your own for Obama, you can submit them, either in writing or via video from YouTube. Current text questions include, "Sen. Obama, Why do you talk about going against decades of U.S. foreign policy -- policies supported by Presidents of both parties -- and talk with our enemies? How do we know you won't 'negotiate with terrorists?" as well as "Have you ever passed anything meaningful while in the US Senate? It seems like you've been running for President ever since you got there?" and "how dose he intin .pay for medicare and social security. prescription drug plan medcaide."

According to the New York Times' Caucus blog, Obama spokesman Bill Burton's response to the Web ad -- which can be viewed below -- was, "If the best they can do is a series of answered questions set to the aspirational tones of our campaign in a ham-handed Web video, I sense this is going to be a long general election for the status quo crowd in Washington supporting John McCain."

Obama basically concedes two upcoming primaries

Alex Koppelman — Fri, 09 May 2008 07:03:00 PDT

Hillary Clinton has, at this point, very little -- if any -- chance of winning the Democratic nomination. But that doesn't mean that she won't win a couple of more states as she heads toward the exit. And on Thursday, Barack Obama acknowledged that she's almost certain to win two of the upcoming contests.

Speaking to reporters from the floor of the Capitol Rotunda, where his presence had reportedly caused something of a mob scene, Obama said, "Senator Clinton is a formidable candidate; she is very likely to win West Virginia and Kentucky; those are two states where she's got insurmountable leads. We are going to spend some time there, but we are also going to be going to Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico."

Of course, with the discussion of demographics still looming constantly over the campaign, it's worth pointing out that Clinton will likely win West Virginia and Kentucky simply because of the advantage she has enjoyed with white working-class voters.

Rick Santorum's twisted logic

Alex Koppelman — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:31:00 PDT

Rick Santorum is upset. No, not about men and dogs -- this time it's about those liberals in the Bush administration who want us to stop calling terrorists "Islamo-fascists."

In his latest column for the Philadelphia Inquirer, Santorum writes:

It's official: We're fighting ... terrorists.
You can also call them violent extremists if you like, but never use jihadist or mujahedeen or Islamo-fascist to describe our enemy. These words are deemed pejorative and offensive, according to a recent Bush administration memorandum to federal employees whose jobs involve explaining our ongoing war to the public.

Actually, that's not really what the memo says. As the Associated Press pointed out, what the memo says is that the banned "words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates ... U.S. officials may be 'unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims.'"

But Santorum doesn't stop there. At one point he complains:

Our government in this memo is teaching us a politically correct version of the truth. For example, it tells us that democracy and Islam are compatible. But Islam is less compatible with democracy than is Christianity. Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." There was from the beginning a recognition of two realms -- the sacred and the secular. From Islam's inception there has been one realm. Islamic law (sharia) is the law of the government.

But there are some Christians who disagree with Santorum, and they're hardly on the fringe. For example, there's George Grant, who coauthored a book with former Arkansas Gov. -- and recent Republican presidential candidate -- Mike Huckabee. In a book of his own (edited and with an introduction by a man who advocates a return to the stoning of disobedient children) Grant wrote:

The goal of Christian political action is not to usher in a theocracy but to acknowledge the theocracy that already exists (Proverbs 3:6) ...
Christian political action is supposed to place politics openly and publicly under God, in the same way that Christian action in every other area of life does. Civil government is not uniquely immune from the rule of God. Nothing is immune from the rule of God.

And in one interview, when asked, "Wouldn't a Christian Republic run according to God's Law become oppressive to non-Christians?" Grant said:

When we start to pick and choose which Old Testament laws we will adhere to and which ones we won't, we ultimately set ourselves up as judges over God and over all of history. If we start to pick and choose which parts of the Old Testament Law we like and which parts we think are judgmental and which parts are helpful, we have established man as the ultimate standard, the ultimate arbiter of all of law. That means we are ultimately vulnerable to whoever is in power, whoever has control, whoever is able to wield the most authority in the society. That puts us in a very vulnerable state.
I would much rather be judged by God than by a man who I do not know. I would much rather be judged by the merciful, loving Creator of heaven and earth than by an accumulation of men, however wise they may be, and no matter how educated they may be. The foolishness of Christians in our day to negate God's law in favor of politics is absolutely frightening. What we are saying is that we would prefer man-made law over God. Didn't we see enough of that with Hitler and the tyrants of the world?
In the history of the world, societies that adhere to biblical principles are always the most free -- economically, socially, culturally, racially -- if we want freedom, opt for the freedom giving, liberty giving standards of Almighty God. If on the other hand, you like the standard of Stalinism, Leninism, Nazism, or Maoism, then go ahead and walk down the path of the wisdom of the 51 percent, the wisdom that flows out of the barrel of a gun.

McAuliffe: "I don't see it going to the convention"

Alex Koppelman — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:29:00 PDT

Even Terry McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman who's been one of Hillary Clinton's most passionate surrogates, seems to be conceding some major points to Barack Obama these days.

Sure, McAuliffe has largely kept up a game face, and he's been saying most of the right things. But in two interviews on Thursday, McAuliffe told interviewers he does not believe the Democratic presidential race will continue to the convention in August. There's little, if any, chance that Clinton could become the Democratic nominee without a battle at the convention.

On NBC's "Today" show, McAuliffe said, "I don't see it going to the convention ... after June 3rd, I think this will come to a conclusion."

June 3 marks the final Democratic primary; after that, McAuliffe said, he believes the remaining uncommitted superdelegates will announce their decisions.

McCain and the Latino vote

Alex Koppelman — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:52:00 PDT

I've been thinking for a couple of days now about something Fox News anchor Brit Hume said recently: "Politics is about addition, not subtraction." No, I don't normally ponder the witticisms of Hume for days on end, and no, this wasn't an especially unique thing to say. But it did come at a time when the presumptive Republican nominee is trying to add to his coalition for the general election, while some of his fellow Republicans are screaming for ever more subtraction.

Whatever you think of Karl Rove, give him this: The man can see a demographic trend. He saw that Latinos were fast becoming one of the nation's critical demographic groups, and that something had to be done if the majority of Latinos were to become something other than permanent Democrats. And he actually succeeded in winning some Latino support for George W. Bush. But in 2006, as talk radio stoked a nativist strategy, Republicans gave up what inroads they had made into the Latino community. Ever since, a Mack truck has been heading the party's way. The Republican base is getting older, whiter and more conservative and now the party has alienated a growing segment of the country.

With that in mind, John McCain may have been the best possible candidate for the Republicans this fall. He hasn't been shy about reaching out to the Latino community, and supported so-called amnesty measures even as the rest of his party was screaming bloody murder. As the party's presumptive nominee, he has continued to try to reach out to Latinos. His campaign recently announced that he'll attend the La Raza Annual Convention in July, and it just released a Spanish-language Web ad, which can be viewed below.

But, of course, the nativists have no intention of going along with this quietly, and their anger may well torpedo Republican chances at winning over Latinos again. Michelle Malkin, for example, has been hyperventilating about McCain's appearance at the La Raza convention. This sort of thing may well be a preview of what's to come for McCain later this year.

Update: Just after posting this, I noticed a report that -- for the first time ever -- in Florida, there are now more Latinos who are registered Democrats than there are Latinos who are registered Republicans. Assuming that's part of the broader trend in the community and not just a reflection of the general shift to Democrats this year, that's really, really bad news for the Republican Party.

Clinton writes to Obama

Alex Koppelman — Thu, 08 May 2008 12:36:00 PDT

Hillary Clinton's campaign is distributing a letter she has apparently just sent to Barack Obama. Don't get too excited: It's not that kind of letter. Instead, it's a plea for help -- and an attack -- focusing on the disputed delegates from Michigan and Florida.

In the letter, Clinton writes:

I have consistently said that the votes cast in Florida and Michigan in January should be counted ... When efforts were untaken by leaders in those states to hold revotes to ensure that they had a voice in selecting our nominee, I supported those efforts. In Michigan, I supported a legislative effort to hold a revote that the Democratic National Committee said was in complete compliance with the party's rules. You did not support those efforts and your supporters in Michigan publically opposed them. In Florida a number of revote options were proposed. I am not aware of any that you supported. In 2000, the Republicans won an election by successfully opposing a fair counting of votes in Florida. As Democrats, we must reject any proposals that would do the same.

(The full, unedited letter can be read after the jump.)

If the delegations from Michigan and Florida were to be seated, and apportioned according to the votes there, Clinton would reportedly pick up a net gain of about 60 delegates. That would bring her closer to Obama but wouldn't put her ahead of him. (In Michigan, Obama's name was not on the ballot -- if the Clinton camp gets its way, delegates would be given to Obama based on the percentage of the vote there that went to the "uncommitted" choice that was on that ballot.)

Clinton's letter:

Dear Senator Obama,
This has been an historic and exciting campaign. Millions of new voters have been brought into the process and their enthusiasm for the Democratic Party and the principles for which you and I have fought and continue to fight is unprecedented.
One of the foremost principles of our party is that citizens be allowed to vote and that those votes be counted. That principle is not currently being applied to the nearly 2.5 million people who voted in primaries in Florida and Michigan. Whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee will be hamstrung in the general election if a fair and quick resolution is not reached that ensures that the voices of these voters are heard. Our commitment now to this goal could be the difference between winning and losing in November.
I have consistently said that the votes cast in Florida and Michigan in January should be counted. We cannot ignore the fact that the people in those states took the time to be a part of this process and to make their preferences known. When efforts were untaken by leaders in those states to hold revotes to ensure that they had a voice in selecting our nominee, I supported those efforts. In Michigan, I supported a legislative effort to hold a revote that the Democratic National Committee said was in complete compliance with the party's rules. You did not support those efforts and your supporters in Michigan publically opposed them. In Florida a number of revote options were proposed. I am not aware of any that you supported. In 2000, the Republicans won an election by successfully opposing a fair counting of votes in Florida. As Democrats, we must reject any proposals that would do the same.
Your commitment to the voters of these states must be clearly stated and your support for a fair and quick resolution must be clearly demonstrated.
I am asking you to join me in working with representatives from Florida and Michigan and the Democratic National Committee to arrive at a solution that honors the votes of the millions of people who went to the polls in Florida and Michigan. It is not enough to simply seat their representatives at the convention in Denver. The people of these great states, like the people who have voted and are to vote in other states, must have a voice in selecting our party's nominee.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton

What did Clinton do wrong?

Alex Koppelman — Thu, 08 May 2008 11:04:00 PDT

With everyone pretty much declaring the Democratic nomination race over, the finger-pointing has begun, and people are beginning to examine why Hillary Clinton -- once considered the inevitable nominee -- has apparently lost her bid for the presidency.

Time magazine's Karen Tumulty has a good analysis of what went wrong. She lists five big mistakes: "She misjudged the mood," "she didn't master the rules," "she underestimated the caucus states," "she relied on old money" and "she never counted on a long haul."

As I said, it's a good analysis, made all the better by a very interesting if ultimately fairly minor scoop. Tumulty reports on a Clinton strategy session held last year:

As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put [Clinton] over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified -- and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories.

I'd add one other thing to Tumulty's list. The Clinton campaign focused on making its candidate seem inevitable; it spent almost no energy making her seem human. There's still a lot of distaste for Clinton remaining from her husband's administration, a lot of it coming out of a sense that she's only a political creature, caring only about what will get her elected president. And the Clinton camp's strategy has played into that. Meanwhile, I know a few people who've spent time hating Clinton and who were swayed by a close encounter with her. She may not have the big-stage charm of her husband, but by all reports she's got charisma and warmth to spare. Her campaign never even made an effort to show that, and instead sent her out to say ridiculous things that made her look even more craven. The policy gaps between Obama and Clinton are not that wide, and the campaign had to be prepared for the race to come down to personal character -- Obama obviously had the advantage there, but still, the Clinton camp didn't need to play right into Obama's hands as it did.

One other interesting thing from Tumulty's story, by the way. Discussing why Clinton is still in the race, Tumulty reports, "Clinton's calculation is as much about history as it is about politics. As the first woman to have come this far, Clinton has told those close to her, she wants people who invested their hopes in her to see that she has given it her best."

"There's a pattern emerging here"

Alex Koppelman — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:35:00 PDT

In an interview with USA Today that is already becoming one of the day's hot items, Hillary Clinton told the paper that she has "a much broader base to build a winning coalition on" than Barack Obama does. And she referred to an Associated Press article that, she said, "found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," Clinton added.

This kind of argument coming from her isn't surprising -- as the Clinton camp has found itself in ever more dire straits, it has made ever more unsubtle arguments about the demographics of the campaign. But just because it isn't surprising doesn't mean it isn't silly.

There are two problems with what Clinton said. First, there's the assumption that voting patterns in the primaries accurately predict voting patterns in the general election. That's not a good place to start an argument from.

But even if we concede the above point, there's still the matter of the unspoken demographic problem Clinton herself faces. African-American voters are absolutely critical to the Democratic Party. And while it's true that Obama trails behind Clinton in winning support from white working-class voters, it's not as if he's getting no support from that group whatsoever. Clinton, on the other hand, has almost no support left from African-American voters. Even George W. Bush captured a larger share of the African-American vote than she has in some recent primaries. In 2004, Bush got 11 percent of the African-American vote. In the Indiana Democratic primary on Tuesday, Clinton got the same percentage Bush did in '04 -- in North Carolina, though, she took just 7 percent.

"You can't win this nomination"

Alex Koppelman — Thu, 08 May 2008 07:21:00 PDT

In the video below, which is getting passed around now thanks to a link from Matt Drudge, Jeff Greenfield delivers a big -- if not especially shocking -- piece of news. "One of the Clintons' top strategists told CBS News that he had told Sen. Clinton, 'You can't win this nomination.'"

McCain's judicial philosophy

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:29:00 PDT

Here's this week's video for our partners at Current. In it, I talk about a big speech John McCain gave on Tuesday about his judicial philosophy.

As I mention in the video, it was an interesting speech, not for what McCain revealed about his thoughts on judges -- that wasn't a surprise -- but for what it said about the tightrope he'll have to walk as he starts his general election campaign in earnest. On the one hand, he has to keep up his image as a moderate and play to the center; on the other, he has to keep the Republican base happy and motivated. This time around, he played that game by using all the familiar dog whistles about activist judges and the template for justices he'd appoint to the Supreme Court, but I also noticed he never mentioned the word "abortion."

"Crank That (Mike Gravel)"

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:39:00 PDT

Well, it's finally happened -- Obama Girl has jumped the shark. And by shark I mean failed Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel.

By the way, is it just me or is Gravel's singing voice a little reminiscent of late-period Lou Reed?

Candidates go a-courtin'

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:00:00 PDT

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are looking to pick up some support from uncommitted superdelegates, and soon. They each have their own different reasons, of course: Clinton needs some good news, and can use every delegate vote she can get at this point. Obama, on the other hand, comes closer to clinching the nomination with every superdelegate he adds to his corner. Obama's superdelegate pickups will also help him increase the perception of inevitability currently surrounding him.

Wednesday is apparently Clinton's day to make her pitch -- she's reportedly using the office of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to meet with some superdelegates. (This despite a story from the Drudge Report, attributed to an unnamed congressional source, that Clinton is "having trouble finding superdelegates who will meet with her.")

Obama, meanwhile, will reportedly be heading back to Washington on Wednesday night to prepare for a round of meetings with uncommitted supers that will happen on Thursday.

Clinton backer McGovern now wants her to drop out

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 07 May 2008 11:09:00 PDT

A tough double whammy for Hillary Clinton on Wednesday -- not only is Rush Limbaugh now backing Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton has lost George McGovern as well.

McGovern, a former representative and senator from South Dakota who was the Democratic presidential nominee in 1972, had been publicly backing Clinton. But on Wednesday, he came out for Obama and called for Clinton to leave the race. A friend of the Clintons, he said he called Bill Clinton to personally inform him of the decision -- he's also calling friends to urge them to make a similar switch.

McGovern told Fox News, "She's waged a very valiant campaign, but the mathematics [are] against her at this point. I don't see how she has much chance of pulling out the nomination now ... I think it's important for Democrats to get united to win the general election in November."

Clinton loses Limbaugh endorsement

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 07 May 2008 10:23:00 PDT

Sometimes, Rush Limbaugh seems like nothing so much as a man who has a pathological need for attention. Fortunately for him, he knows exactly how to get what he craves.

The Politico's Ben Smith reports that -- in between bouts of exultation over the apparent success (I remain very skeptical) of his "Operation Chaos" strategy in Indiana -- Limbaugh has now changed his mind about who he wants to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

Previously, Limbaugh had been telling his listeners to go out and vote for Hillary Clinton, both because that might prolong the Democratic race and because he saw her as more easily defeated in November. Now, he's singing a different tune.

At one point in his show on Wednesday, Limbaugh said, "I'm now tempted to tell superdelegates to pick Obama because I now believe he would be the weakest nominee." Later, he made it official, saying, "I now urge the Democratic superdelegates to go publicly make your mind up for Obama."

Dems hold dueling conference calls

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 07 May 2008 09:31:00 PDT

You almost had to feel sorry for a few of Hillary Clinton's senior advisors on Wednesday morning. Starting their conference call with reporters may have been, I imagine, something like walking out to face the firing squad. They tried to put on a game face, but they didn't always sound as if they believed their own spin, and they knew that waiting on the other end of the line was a pack of reporters just salivating, waiting for their turn to ask the next in a long line of skewering questions.

It would have helped, certainly, if they had had some better news to deliver. But from the beginning of the call, when strategist Geoff Garin told reporters that "in the sweep of things," her squeaker of a victory in Indiana "represents significant progress for Sen. Clinton," the campaign's spin was coming up limp. Spokesman Howard Wolfson said later, "These were two states we were supposed to lose. We won one of them." And, Clinton aides said, Indiana was a comeback victory for Clinton -- the campaign's internal polling, they claimed, had once shown her 8 points behind there. Garin also asserted that North Carolina's results represented "progress" for Clinton. Drawing an analogy to Virginia, Garin said she'd done better with white voters in North Carolina on Tuesday night than she did in Virginia, adding, "We started even in North Carolina among the white electorate just two weeks ago and ended up earning a very significant win of 24 points among those voters. We obviously did not do as well as we would want or needed to among African-American voters."

Both Garin and Wolfson hit familiar messages about swing voters and swing states as well, saying Clinton is better positioned than Barack Obama to beat John McCain this fall. "Sen. Obama has not yet proven he can win key swing states, has not yet proven he can win among blue-collar workers," Wolfson said. And they renewed their calls for delegates from Michigan and Florida to be seated at the Democratic convention this summer.

But the pair also confirmed what seems to be bad financial news for the Clinton camp: a series of loans from the candidate to her campaign. Wolfson told reporters Clinton had made three recent loans: $5 million on April 11, $1 million on May 1 and $425,000 on May 5. That prompted questions from one reporter about where that money had come from -- counting the previous loan Clinton had made, she now seems to have lent more than she has earned from her books and Senate salary combined, which suggested that she was drawing on assets held jointly with husband Bill Clinton. "I dispute the notion there is a distinction between her share of their joint assets and her money," Wolfson said. Asked if there was a limit to what she'd be willing to commit, he said, "Legally, she is entitled to use up to 50 percent of her jointly held assets."

And the two were, of course, challenged by some reporters. Mother Jones' David Corn asked whether the Clinton camp foresees any problems for a nominee hypothetically chosen at the Democratic convention while trailing in both the popular vote and the pledged-delegate count. To that, Wolfson responded, "Look, I've always said that we expect that when we get to June 3 that we'll have a very close result. It raises the question of how close is close, and it will be a little harder to tell because of Michigan and Florida. But in the polling data I've seen there's hardly been a dispositive result among the electorate itself that the party leaders ... have to rigidly follow the pledged delegates."

And another reporter pointed out that while the Clinton camp has repeatedly denigrated Obama for his inability to capture the white working-class demographic in the primaries thus far, Clinton has shown herself unable to win a key Democratic group, African-Americans. The Clinton aides had little response.

A conference call held by the Obama campaign, meanwhile, was much more upbeat. Campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters, "We can see the finish line here" and said Obama had netted 13 delegates Tuesday night. Sen. John Kerry, an Obama supporter, was also on the call. "Last night Barack Obama took a decisive stride towards the nomination," Kerry said. "He clearly did more than he had to, and [Clinton] did not achieve what she had to."

"We lost this thing in February"

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 07 May 2008 07:07:00 PDT

There must be very little joy in Hillary-land this morning -- the once-mighty campaign struck out Tuesday night, and now the only question being asked in the media isn't how Clinton can win the Democratic nomination but when she'll bow to what now seems inevitable and get out of the race.

Clinton needed something big to happen on Tuesday -- she needed to get the fabled "game-changer," something that would convince superdelegates that Barack Obama's momentum had stalled, that despite his lead he was too damaged by a string of negative stories, that for the good of the party she should be the Democratic nominee. She needed to move within striking distance. What she got was a trouncing in North Carolina and a photo-finish victory in Indiana, where she'd long been favored to win.

So late Tuesday night and early Wednesday the drumbeat began. A powerful union that's already backing Obama labeled him "the presumptive presidential nominee." Tim Russert told his viewers, "We now know who the Democratic nominee's gonna be." That moment -- video of which is viewable at the bottom of this post -- prompted the Drudge Report to post a big headline declaring Obama "THE NOMINEE." An unnamed "senior Clinton official" went off to tell reporters at the Washington Post, "Absent some sort of miracle ... it's going to be tough for us. We lost this thing in February. We're doing everything we can now ... but it's just an uphill battle."

Elsewhere, the New York Times' Patrick Healy delivered what must be sobering news for Clinton supporters: The Clinton campaign, he said, "is deep in debt and believed to be near broke, and her advisers made the unusual move on Tuesday night of refusing to confirm or deny whether Mrs. Clinton had made a loan to her campaign to keep it afloat ... Even some of her most optimistic supporters were measured in their comments on Tuesday night about how well-positioned she was to stay in the race." Healy also found an unnamed "top fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton and longtime friend of [both Clintons]" who told him, "I wouldn't be surprised at all if a [Pennsylvania Gov. Ed] Rendell or a Vernon Jordan was prepared to weigh in with the Clintons, because the path to the nomination is just looking tougher for us. Many of us thought she had to win both Indiana and North Carolina."

In this race, it has been hard to say what's ultimately more important -- the actual numbers that say who's really ahead, and who's really behind, or the media narrative about the campaign. For Tuesday night at least, though, it wasn't just the narrative coming out of the night that will hurt Clinton; it's the numbers as well. She needed to cut Obama's lead, but he extended his advantage in pledged delegates and in the popular vote, and there's already talk that his campaign will be rolling out more superdelegates soon, if not today, and that some might even come out of her column.

For the moment, though, the Clinton campaign is still trying to put a happy face on the situation. It has continued to press its case for seating delegates from the disputed Michigan and Florida delegations, added another event to Clinton's schedule for Wednesday and is reportedly asking supporters and superdelegates to "take a deep breath" before doing anything drastic.

Networks call Indiana for Clinton

Katharine Mieszkowski — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:16:00 PDT

With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton has won the Democratic primary in Indiana, according to CNN, MSNBC and Fox. Clinton won by a much slimmer margin than expected, taking 51 percent of the vote.

Will tonight be a "tiebreaker" or a "game changer?"

Katharine Mieszkowski — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:05:00 PDT

With North Carolina in the bag for Barack Obama, and the Indiana contest still too close for most of the networks to call, both candidates riffed off what the other said about the significance of the contests before they occurred.

Back in early April, Barack Obama suggested that the outcome in Indiana could be a "tiebreaker," saying: "You know, Senator Clinton is more favored in Pennsylvania and I'm right now a little more favored in North Carolina, so Indiana right now may end up being the tie-breaker. So we want to work very hard in Indiana."

Meanwhile, just days ago, speaking in North Carolina, Clinton said that "this primary election on Tuesday is a 'game-changer.' This is going to make a huge difference in what happens going forward. The entire country, and probably a lot of the world, is looking to see what North Carolina decides." (See the video of her remarks here.)

On Tuesday night, both candidates attempted to appropriate the other's preprimary rhetoric. In his victory speech from North Carolina on Tuesday night, Obama referenced Clinton's game-changer line, saying, "You know, there are those who were saying that North Carolina would be a game changer in this election. But today what North Carolina decided is that the only game that needs changing is the one in Washington, D.C."

And in the very first lines of Clinton's speech from Indiana, she said: "Not too long ago, my opponent made a prediction. He said I would probably win Pennsylvania, he would win North Carolina, and Indiana would be the tiebreaker. Well, tonight we've come from behind, we've broken the tie, and, thanks to you, it's full speed on to the White House." The Clinton camp also sent out an e-mail to reporters bragging about Clinton's showing in Indiana. The subject line of that e-mail was "Tie-Breaker."

So, will Tuesday be a "game changer" or a "tiebreaker" in the Democratic primary? At this late hour, the game still goes on.

Clinton says "full speed on to the White House"

Alex Koppelman — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:48:00 PDT

When she took the stage to speak to supporters in Indiana on Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton was ready to declare victory in Indiana's Democratic primary. The networks were not so quick to call a winner, and plenty of doubt seemed to remain about who the winner would eventually be, but it didn't seem to matter to Clinton -- Barack Obama had already all but conceded, and Clinton's message was that she was taking victory and pressing on to the contests that will come over the next month.

The words of Clinton's speech said that she was confident and upbeat about her performance on Tuesday and her prospects for her future. Her demeanor, her tone and the body language of her husband standing behind her sometimes told a different story, though. Hillary Clinton sounded tired, and Bill Clinton looked it -- both seemed deflated at times.

Clinton began her speech with a little dig at her opponent -- he'd started with a similar one at her -- as she said, "Not too long ago, my opponent made a prediction. He said I would probably win Pennsylvania, he would win North Carolina, and Indiana would be the tiebreaker. Well, tonight we've come from behind, we've broken the tie, and thanks to you, it's full speed on to the White House."

And from there Clinton tried to exult more, but as she told her supporters, "For all those who aren't in the headlines, but have always written America's story, tonight is your victory right here in Indiana," she sounded fatigued, not excited.

From there, she was on to a plea for money from her supporters. It was an odd placement, having the plea so early, as it broke up the flow of her speech and got her back on an underdog's footing, but this is a tactic that has worked for her campaign before.

Much of Clinton's message for the night was familiar, as she painted herself as the race's champion of the working and middle classes, and even brought up the gas tax summer holiday proposal that has brought her so much grief from experts and the media for the past week. "I have met so many people here in Indiana and across America who feel invisible," Clinton said, adding:

You sure feel invisible when you're paying $60 or $70 to fill up your tank. You feel invisible when the money you took to the grocery store no longer meets your needs for the next week.
You feel invisible when your health insurance disappears and college is out of reach.
And you can't believe how invisible you feel when your loved one who served our country in war is ill-served back at home. But I know these stories. And I see you and I hear you. And I know how hard you're working, working for yourselves and working for your families. And I will never stop fighting for you, so that you can have a future ...
Tonight, Hoosiers have said that you do want a president who stands strong for you, a president who is ready on Day One to take charge as commander in chief and keep our families safe, a president who knows how to make this economy work for hardworking, middle-class families ...
Fundamentally, I believe that Americans need a champion in their corner, that for too long we've had a president who has stood up and spoke out for the wealthy and the well connected ... And I think standing up for working people is about the American dream and the Democratic Party. And I think standing up for the middle class is about who we are and who we can be, if we stick together.

Clinton did promise to continue campaigning for the Democratic nomination, saying, "It is on to West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon and the other states where people are eager to have their voices heard ... I'm going to work my heart out in West Virginia and Kentucky this month, and I intend to win them in November in the general election." She also made a call, as she and her campaign have in the past, for the Democratic Party to seat delegates from the disputed Michigan and Florida primaries -- that call inspired a chant of "Count the votes, count the votes" from her supporters. But, importantly, she also made something like the call for unity to which her opponent devoted so much of his speech for the night, saying:

I can assure you, as I have said on many occasions, that, no matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party, because we must win in November ...
I know that Senator Obama feels the same way, because we have been on this campaign trail now for a long time.
And we know how desperately people want to see a change, and it will not be a change if the Republicans keep the White House. It will be more of the same, something that no one, no matter what political party you may be, can afford.

How important is the Rev. Wright to voters?

Mike Madden — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:45:00 PDT

Raise your hand if this surprises you -- what people think about how important "the situation with" Barack Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (as the network exit polls phrased the question), depends on whether they support Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Clinton's supporters in both Indiana and North Carolina believed strongly that Wright was an important issue, with 72 percent of Clinton voters in Indiana and 59 percent in North Carolina saying they felt that way. Obama's voters were just as certain that Wright didn't matter -- 67 percent in Indiana and 71 percent in North Carolina said the dust-up wasn't important.

Exactly what that means is hard to say, since the question the poll asked about Wright was extremely open-ended: "In your vote in today's presidential primary, how would you rate the importance of the situation with Rev. Wright?" "The situation," of course, has gotten wall-to-wall coverage on networks, in newspapers and, yes, on Salon since Wright embarked on a publicity tour about a week and a half ago. So it's unlikely that anyone who voted today needed much more prompting about Wright in order to answer the question. But it's still fairly devoid of context. That may be because writing a question that gives much background would bias responses in one direction or another, though.

At any rate, the exit polls also found a narrow majority in both states said Wright wasn't important. That may be what finally persuades the media to let the story drop -- voters, apparently, already have.

Indiana race pulling closer

Alex Koppelman — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:34:00 PDT

Going into the night, Hillary Clinton was widely expected to win Indiana's Democratic primary. And CBS News has already declared her the victor. But the other networks are still holding off on making a call, and as the night's been progressing the results have looked progressively more perilous for Clinton.

As of this posting, Clinton still leads Barack Obama. She has 52 percent of the vote to his 48 percent, which translates into a margin of just more than 40,000 votes. But a county that's expected to be a source of strength for Obama is still counting, and will even be checking absentee ballots, so we probably won't know those results until about midnight EDT.

Meanwhile, we're hearing the Obama campaign expects Indiana to be close.

In speech, Obama looks to be a uniter

Alex Koppelman — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:54:00 PDT

Barack Obama's surrogates were dancing on Hillary Clinton's grave Tuesday night. But in his speech for the night, Obama himself was a uniter, not a divider -- at least when it came to the Democratic Party.

Obama did get in a couple of jabs at Clinton, but for the most part his message was conciliatory, and aimed at bringing together the Democratic Party -- and the American people generally -- to change the country and, of course, to guarantee a Democratic victory over presumptive Republican John McCain this fall.

"Tonight, many of the pundits have suggested that this party is inalterably divided -- that Senator Clinton's supporters will not support me, and that my supporters will not support her," Obama said. "I'm here tonight to tell you that I don't believe it ... This fall, we intend to march forward as one Democratic Party, united by a common vision for this country ... We can't afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush's third term."

The speech was also a way for Obama to get over the fighting that has dominated the Democratic race recently, and return to the message of post-partisanship that has been so successful for him in the past. And at times, Obama's speech was exceedingly sharp in how it dealt with the questions about Obama's patriotism that are already being brought up in some corners on the right. "We believe that we have a larger responsibility to one another as Americans, that America is a place -- that America is the place -- where you can make it if you try," Obama said. (A Sly and the Family Stone reference? I, for one, hope so.) Obama also used his own family history to make his point about the U.S., saying:

This is the country that gave my grandfather a chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill when he came home from World War II, a country that gave him and my grandmother the chance to buy their first home with a loan from the government.
This is the country that made it possible for my mother -- a single parent who had to go on food stamps at one point -- to send my sister and me to the best schools in the country on scholarships.
This is the country that allowed my father-in-law -- a city worker at a South Side water filtration plant -- to provide for his wife and two children on a single salary. This is a man who was diagnosed at age 30 with multiple sclerosis -- who relied on a walker to get himself to work. And yet, every day he went, and he labored, and he sent my wife and her brother to one of the best colleges in the nation. It was a job that didn't just give him a paycheck, but a sense of dignity and self-worth. It was an America that didn't just reward wealth, but the work and the workers who created it ...
[The promise of America] is the light of opportunity that led my father across an ocean.
It is the founding ideals that the flag draped over my grandfather's coffin stands for -- it is life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Finally, included in his message of post-partisanship was a plea for a different kind of race -- a break from the kinds of distractions that have hampered Obama's campaign recently -- but a recognition that the other side might not play along. Obama told his cheering supporters:

We know what's coming. We've seen it already. The same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn't agree with all their ideas. The same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along ... This is what they will do -- no matter which one of us is the nominee. The question, then, is not what kind of campaign they'll run, it's what kind of campaign we will run. It's what we will do to make this year different. I didn't get into race thinking that I could avoid this kind of politics, but I am running for president because this is the time to end it.
We will end it this time not because I'm perfect -- I think by now this campaign has reminded all of us of that ... We will end it by telling the truth -- forcefully, repeatedly, confidently -- and by trusting that the American people will embrace the need for change ...
So don't ever forget that this election is not about me, or any candidate. Don't ever forget that this campaign is about you -- about your hopes, about your dreams, about your struggles, about securing your portion of the American dream.
Don't ever forget that we have a choice in this country -- that we can choose not to be divided, that we can choose not to be afraid, that we can still choose this moment to finally come together and solve the problems we've talked about all those other years in all those other elections.
This time can be different than all the rest. This time we can face down those who say our road is too long, that our climb is too steep, that we can no longer achieve the change that we seek. This is our time to answer the call that so many generations of Americans have answered before -- by insisting that by hard work, and by sacrifice, the American dream will endure.

Race and the race

Alex Koppelman — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:47:00 PDT

Going into Tuesday's primaries, the question of race and the racial divide in the Democratic electorate weighed heavily on observers' minds, as it always seems to lately.

Well, no surprise, it turns out that Democratic voters are still divided along racial lines, and that divide seems to have played a role in the night's results.

In Indiana, the electorate was 81 percent white, 15 percent African-American, 2 percent Latino, 1 percent Asian and 2 percent other. (The only numbers for candidate preference that we have from exit polling are for whites and African-Americans, however -- the same is true of North Carolina.) Whites went for Hillary Clinton, 60-40. African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, 92-8.

Exit poll respondents in Indiana were also asked whether the race of the candidate was important. Fifteen percent said it was -- they broke for Clinton, 57-43. The 84 percent who said it was not important also went for Clinton, but by a smaller margin, 51-49.

In North Carolina, the percentage of voters who are African-American was much larger. That was expected -- in many Southern states where party identification is polarized along racial lines, African-Americans make up a substantial and critical portion of Democratic voters. Sixty-two percent of voters in North Carolina's Democratic primary were white; they went for Clinton, 60-40. Thirty-three percent of the electorate were African-American; they went for Obama, 91-6.

North Carolina voters were also asked whether race had been important to them. Seventeen percent said yes. Obama won that group, 62-34. Eighty-one percent said no; Obama won that group as well, but by 54-42.