Category: Barack Obama

Dodd on Ending the Primary and the Media’s Role In Prolonging It

Via TRex, my guy Chris Dodd is speaking out with an eye towards resolving the Democratic nominating process.

Look, we’ve got five more months to go before the Democratic convention at the end of August and, candidly, we cannot go five more months with the kind of daily sniping that’s going on and have a candidate emerge in that convention. My hope is that it will be Barack Obama, but if it’s Hillary Clinton, she too will suffer, in my view, from this kind of a campaign that I think is undermining the credibility and the quality of the two candidates that we have. We have two very strong candidates. So I’m worried about this going on endlessly and to a large extent, Linda, the media, a lot of these cable networks, are enjoying this. It’s what is keeping them alive financially. The fact that this thing is going on forever, back and forth every day, all night — I don’t think it’s really helping the candidates or the political institutions.

Asked about the solution to ending the race:

Dodd: Well, the solution is — look, we’ve got a contest coming up in Pennsylvania and one in North Carolina and Indiana very quickly afterwards. In my view, the outcome of those three races will determine — I think the race has been determined, anyway, at this point. I think it’s very difficult to imagine how anyone can believe that Barack Obama can’t be the nominee of the party. I think that’s a foregone conclusion, in my view, at this juncture given where things are.

But certainly over the next couple of weeks, as we get into April, it seems to me then, that the national leadership of this party has to stand up and reach a conclusion. And in the absence of doing that — and that’s not easy, and I realize it’s painful. But the alternatives, allowing this sort of to fester over the months of June, and July and August, I think, are irresponsible. I think you have to make a decision, and hopefully the candidates will respect it and people will rally behind a nominee that, I think, emerges from these contests over the next month. That’s my suggestion. That’s what I would do. [Emphasis added]

Dodd has endorsed Obama and though he’s honest about that support here, I think he’s also recognizing a reality of the numbers that the Clinton campaign has largely resisted. I agree with Dodd that if there is a way for the Democratic Party’s national leaders – Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Chris Van Hollen – to step into the process and bring it to a resolution that gives clarity as to who our nominee is based on the results of the primaries, they do have an obligation to do so and failing to do so would be “irresponsible.” Keep in mind that Dodd was the DNC Chair from 1995-1997, so he knows what he’s asking of the Party’s leadership and I am certain that he does not take this challenge lightly.

I also think Dodd’s media analysis here is incredibly sharp. Here it is again:

the media, a lot of these cable networks, are enjoying this. It’s what is keeping them alive financially. The fact that this thing is going on forever, back and forth every day, all night — I don’t think it’s really helping the candidates or the political institutions.

I don’t recall any elected Democrat putting this sort of argument forward. It sounds more like Digby or Eric Boehlert than, say, the final two candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination. If more Democrats had this sort of analysis, what campaigns choose to make issues with each other (such as who must be fired today and who must be denounced) might look different than the way things currently work. Kudos for your sharp analysis Senator Dodd.

The Spitzer Principle

I don’t know who Barack Obama would pick for his vice president. I would hope that it’s not Michael Bloomberg, but my guess is today’s press slathering from the Beltway Blogs is groundless.

I hope that Obama makes his decision by what we can call The Spitzer Principle, which is, knowing that the Republicans will seek to destroy a successful progressive leader, the selection of the second ranking official should tend towards someone who is a progressive who can continue on the policies of the first official if he or she is force to resign.

I am engaging in wishful thinking, though, at least as far as it comes to Obama. I’m expecting a red state, moderate governor to be Obama’s VP pick.

Obama on Tibet Protests

Barack Obama is the first presidential candidate to put out a statement in response to the protests by Tibetans inside and outside of Tibet and China’s brutal crackdown in response.

I am deeply disturbed by reports of a crackdown and arrests ordered by Chinese authorities in the wake of peaceful protests by Tibetan Buddhist monks. I condemn the use of violence to put down peaceful protests, and call on the Chinese government to respect the basic human rights of the people of Tibet, and to account for the whereabouts of detained Buddhist monks.

These events come on the 49th anniversary of the exile of the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists, the Dalai Lama. They demonstrate the continuing frustration of the Tibetan people at the way in which Beijing has ruled Tibet. […]

Tibet should enjoy genuine and meaningful autonomy. […] Now is the time to respect the human rights and religious freedom of the people of Tibet.

While this is a good statement – far better than what the Bush administration has put out – I agree with Lhasa Rising’s comments at Tibet Will Be Free:

Thank you, Senator Obama.

However, Senator Obama does miss something major. Tibetans aren’t just frustrated at “the way in which Beijing has ruled Tibet.” Tibetans are fundamentally opposed to Chinese rule in the first place. They are calling for independence, not “better” rule by Beijing.

Also, Senator Obama misses the significance of March 10, 1959; in addition to being when His Holiness the Dalai Lama fled into exile, it was when Tibetans across Tibet rose up against the Chinese occupation of their country. So while we appreciate Senator Obama’s support for Tibetan autonomy, we would be much happier if he recognized and supported what Tibetans are literally dying for in the streets: independence.

Indeed. This statement is a step in the right direction, but it falls for the all too common mistake of soft peddling what Tibetans want (freedom) and what they object to (China’s military occupation of Tibet). I know criticizing China isn’t popular in the West, but when the situation is as transparent as it has become this week, you’d think the old standbys for appropriate discourse might be modified to reflect the severity of the situation.

That said, again, Obama’s statement is good and it is certainly an improved articulation of US-Sino-Tibetan policy from what the Bush administration has provided us.

Obama Adviser Calls for Retroactive Immunity

Please make this stop. Think Progress reports the bad news:

One of Obama’s advisers on intelligence and foreign policy advisers, however, is someone who “strongly” supports telecomm immunity. John Brennan is a former CIA official and the current chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance. In a new National Journal interview, Brennan makes it clear that he agrees with the Bush administration on the issue of immunity:

There is this great debate over whether or not the telecom companies should in fact be given immunity for their agreement to provide support and cooperate with the government after 9/11. I do believe strongly that they should be granted that immunity, because they were told to do so by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context, and so I think that’s important. And I know people are concerned about that, but I do believe that’s the right thing to do. I do believe the Senate version of the FISA bill addresses the issues appropriately.

This is much, much more offensive than an ad hominem attack on a candidate. Anti-American, anti-Constitution policy positions like this do not belong in the Democratic Party, let alone associated with one of our presidential candidates.

Think Progress notes that this is not where Obama is on retroactive immunity and Obama’s stance is strengthened by receiving the endorsement of Chris Dodd, who has lead the fight against retroactive immunity. It’s safe to say that Obama disagrees with Brennan. But please, can we not find advisers to Democratic leaders that understand the rule of law? And who won’t casually assert that the telecoms “were told to do so by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context” when it’s just not true?

Calls on Clinton Beginning…

I’m sure it’s happened elsewhere before this, but my RSS reader has produced two  calls for Hillary Clinton to drop out, in the interest of her inability to surpass Obama’s pledged delegate lead, likely inability to pass Obama with super delegates, and a desire to focus on defeating John W. McSame.

Bob Cesca is a big Obama supporter, but he makes passing recognition that Clinton won’t be the nominee.

Jesus’ General is a free agent, having endorsed Dodd during the primary, but since been critical of both candidates. He makes a thoughtful, passionate plea for moving forward on a unified front to defeat McCain. Gen. JC Christian writes:

I think Obama should offer Clinton whatever it takes to accept the vice presidential nomination. If she wants health care, give it to her.

And Clinton needs to to take it and strike her deal soon. Her bargaining power is strong now. She can demand concessions that will give her tremendous advantages in 2016. More importantly, she does not want to become the person whose blind ambition gave the White House to McCain. That’s how she will be perceived if she continues to push the superdelegate strategy.

I think we’re going to see more neutral bloggers write posts like this in coming days and weeks, as it becomes clear that the contest is becoming more of a knife fight than a thoughtful discussion of the future of the country. I also think the idea of a unity ticket will be seen as a bandage to heal the wounds inflicted in this primary. I don’t know whether or not that’s necessary – I don’t see either candidates’ supporters bolting in wide numbers at the end of a prolonged nominating process – but I think the unity ticket will continue to get play.

While I would love to see this primary resolved, I think it’s continuation (for now) is fine if (1) it does not continue to devolve into the nastiness that has defined it the last few weeks and (2) both Clinton and Obama regularly focus their attacks on John McCain. I don’t know how likely these scenarios are and the extend to which they’re not realized, I’ll change my willingness to support a long primary.

Answers Needed

Scarecrow at FireDogLake wants Obama and Clinton to answer some important questions before they take office.

1. Given that the Bush/Cheney regime has been the most lawless and destructive of Constitutional safeguards in our lifetimes, what do you intend to do to bring those who flouted the law to justice? If nothing, how do you expect to restore respect for the Constitution and the rule of law and restore confidence in the Department of Justice?

2. On repeated occasions, far too many Democrats have voted in Congress to enable or immunize lawless actions by the Bush/Cheney regime. What would you do as President to restore respect for the Constitution within your own party?

…

6. How do you intend to pay for the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and prepare the country to fund the public investments you think vital to our economic interests?

7. How do you propose to change the attitudes and mindset that led us into aggressive wars?

I think the first two questions are likely the most important for the health of our country.  I do not want to have a Democratic administration continue to use the powers the Bush administration has illegally seized simply because Congress has failed to repudiate Bush’s actions. Bush may not have succeeded in expanding the powers of the executive branch to the point of complete dictatorship, but he has undoubtedly moved our country away from the rule of law and from the checks and balances set forth in our Constitution. We need Clinton and Obama to confront these issues before either takes office. Not only would it serve assuage fears I have about the health of our democracy, it would provide a marked contrast with anti-Constitution John W. McCain, who offers only a third term for the Bush administration.

The questions Scarecrow poses on war policy play into the health of our nation as well. War and terrorism was the excuse that has shielded most of the Bush administrations expansions of executive power. The shadow of future aggressive wars still hangs over this country, as we’re seeing with the treatment of Admiral Fallon. Beyond timid promises to end the war in Iraq, Clinton and Obama need to speak directly to how they change conventional wisdom on the US of American power. In Obama’s case, this should stem from an explanation as to how he had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq and what structural similarities he sees in the country’s attitudes in 2002 and now. In Clinton’s case, she would have to frame an explanation around what she has learned since voting for war in Iraq.

I do not expect answers to these questions to be forthcoming, which is a sad statement on the health of our democracy, our democratic process, and our capacity for thoughtful engagement of challenging, if unpleasant, questions.

Wow: Texas Will Be in Play

Burnt Orange Report brings the good news – Texas will be in play in the general election.

Survey USA has just completed massive nationwide, state-by-state polling of match-ups in the presidential race. While both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would rack up winning scenarios nationally, what is most stunning is that Texas, yes-Texas, is a swing state.

Crosstabs– 600 Registered voters, MoE 4.1%McCain +1 Over Obama
47% John McCain (R)
46% Barack Obama (D)
07% Undecided

McCain +7 Over Clinton
49% John McCain (R)
42% Hillary Clinton (D)
09% Undecided

This is stunning and I believe a large result of us seeing a presidential campaign here in Texas for the first time.

There is a real benefit to having a contested primary go to places where Democrats don’t traditionally have a say in picking the nominee. Texas got to see two candidates up close and evaluate what they were offering. Obviously enough Texans liked what they saw in both candidates to give either a legitimate chance to beat McCain in the general. As I said earlier this week, the large Texas turnout is a great indication that Democrats will force McCain to spend his limited resources on a traditionally very Republican state.

Florida & Michigan

Over at TAPPED, Mark Schmidt has a sensible solution to the Michigan and Florida delegate situation, though it comes from an Obama standpoint. The short version is that Obama should let Florida’s delegates be seated as is in exchange for a new caucus in Michigan. This would give Clinton a gain in delegates that wouldn’t be fatal to Obama’s delegate lead, while removing a cudgel from Clinton’s hand. Like Schmidt, I doubt Clinton would take this deal, as it would clarify the tiny likelihood that she could overcome his pledged delegate lead.

Jason Rosenbaum has more on the DNC’s stance on a potential do-over.

Today’s Pie Fight

The delegate tallying in Texas from Tuesday isn’t even finished and already the Clinton and Obama campaigns have resumed nasty campaigning on a line that will guarantee even more nasty campaigning in coming days and weeks.

I’m with John Aravosis – Clinton was right in 2000 when she criticized Rick Lazio for not releasing his tax returns.
She should release hers now and her campaign should not falsely compare Obama to Ken Starr.

I was pretty ready for this campaign to be over, so the petty attacks and daily smears could be put behind us and we could focus on defeating John W. McCain and electing a Democrat. I don’t want to fixate on Clinton’s tax returns any more than I want to fixate on her campaigns negative attacks on Obama. But as the election continues, I will inevitably engage in the periodic pie fight because this blog is where I write about what I think and not much else.
Hopefully this pie-fight related post will suffice for today and not contribute to the liberal blogosphere’s descent into irrelevancy.