Category: Barack Obama

Looking Forward At the Democratic Nomination

It’s the morning after Whatever People Finally Decided To Call It Tuesday. As the polls consistently showed going in, Clinton won Ohio, withstanding late tightening. She also won the Texas popular vote; though many polls showed Obama taking a small lead, it was (as far as I recall seeing) always within the margin of error. Unfortunately for the Clinton fans, while the delegate count is still ongoing, it looks highly unlikely that Clinton will make any noticeable inroads into Obama’s current delegate lead.

Chris Bowers’ run-down of the results, what they mean, and what we should expect moving forward is a sober account of where we stand.

Looks like Clinton will net about 10-15 delegates tonight, along with about 250,000 popular votes. Overall, Obama will now lead by about 600,000 votes, and 145-150 pledged delegates. Toss in superdelegates, and Obama’s lead cut to about 100-110 delegates. Add in Florida, and Obama leads by about 300,000 votes, and about 65-70 delegates. Throw in a Michigan delegate with zero votes for Obama, and Clinton takes an infinitesimal lead in both counts.
This is why Obama is still the favorite. In order to even force a virtual tie, Clinton needs three contingencies to break her way. Obama, by contrast, will probably wipe out Clinton’s March 4th delegate gains in Wyoming (March 8th) and Mississippi (March 11th), leaving the pledged delegate margin heading into Pennsylvania identical to the margin before yesterday’s contests. However, overall March will still be a victory for Obama, as he continues to cut into Clinton’s superdelegate lead. Rumors are that many more are on the way, too. Overall, despite her wins tonight, at the end of March, Clinton will probably be further behind in delegates than at the start of the month.

I also think Bowers is right in the expectation that the two campaigns will increasingly get nasty with each other. We saw the rhetoric and the attacks heat up over the last two weeks. If that’s a preview of coming attractions, then the next seven weeks are going to be very uncomfortable.

I heartily agree with both Steve Soto’s take on what he’d like to see Hillary Clinton doing as the campaign moves forward with regard to shifting attention to John McCain and Big Tent Democrat’s recognition that the best case scenario is one where both candidates follow Soto’s suggestion.

I believe Steve Soto is on to something when he writes:

What if [Hillary Clinton] instead starts attacking McCain and making the case that she is better able to run as a true Democrat against McCain’s strengths and weaknesses than Obama can? What if she draws the contrast with Obama not with personal or character attacks, but with direct arguments that she is a better advocate for progressive causes and concerns against McCain on issues such as the economy, health care, protecting Social Security, tax fairness, the Supreme Court, energy independence, and the environment? In other words, what if she runs more as a Democrat than he does?

I think Steve’s advice is sound, but not just for Clinton, but for Obama as well. Let’s let the candidates demonstrate who the best candidate to run against McCain is BY RUNNING AGAINST JOHN McCAIN AND THE GOP NOW! Don’t just tell us you would be better against McCain and the Republican Party. Show us!

If I’m stuck with a contest race, despite a current set of rules and delegate math that make it highly unlikely that Clinton can secure a nomination before the Democratic Convention, I’d hope that the candidates recognize that they have the opportunity to prove their general election mettle against John W. McCain now. He’s the target for either nominee and the more energy we can put behind legitimizing attack narratives now – he’s a 3rd Bush term in waiting, he’s beholden to lobbyists, he would take us to war with Iran – the easier it will be for our eventual nominee to fight McCain, uncrippled by a prolonged nomination.

The only way I see us avoiding what Bowers thinks will happen between now and Pennsylvania – and realistically the Soto-BTD vision for attacking McCain is something of a pipe dream when the nomination is still up for grabs – is if the nomination is resolved in the short term. Marc Ambinder notes that “Barack Obama will almost certainly win more delegates in Texas than Clinton.” Couple that with the long delegate math and the contingencies identified by Bowers, and Clinton has very slim chances at the nomination. One thing that repeatedly has been coming up in news coverage of the race is the question of how Clinton staffers are thinking about their chances of winning. Ambinder writes:

Again, a Clinton “recovery” and nomination is not impossible. It just isn’t likely. In the gut of many Clinton advisers 48 hours from now may be the sense that the confetti is ephemeral.

If that happens, if upon reflection and sober strategizing the odds are seen as too long, the contingencies that have to happen too many, it’s possible that senior Clinton staff and advisers will turn against the notion of continuing to fight for the nomination. In that case, we might be able to avoid what at minimum could be a seven week version of Andy Capp vs Florrie Capp tumult of dust and fisticuffs (and at maximum, a fight that extends to the Convention floor in early September).

I don’t have a dog in this fight and, right now at least, I don’t want to make any normative judgments about what either candidate should be doing. As I said above, I’d love to see both focus on attacking McCain and not each other, but that’s wishful thinking. I’ll be curious to see the final vote totals and how yesterday actually impacted the state of the race.

Super Tuesday Remix

Turkana at The Left Coaster has what I think is the most sober assessment of how possible outcomes tomorrow in Ohio and Texas will impact the state of the race. The short version is that Clinton has to win the popular vote in both states (which would presumably give her a delegate win in Ohio and risks a delegate loss in Texas if the popular vote is close), while Obama has to win the popular vote in Texas or Ohio.

A large part of the assessment of how the outcome of tomorrow’s primaries will have on the Democratic nomination will be how it impacts the media narrative. A Clinton popular vote win in Texas that fails to be accompanied by a delegate total win still has the chance of being spun as a justification of Clinton’s continued presence in the race, particularly if she also holds on to win Ohio. While small Clinton victories in Ohio and Texas (say by 5% of the popular vote) are almost certain to not significantly impact Obama’s delegate lead, they would also assure that Clinton has justification for staying in the race in the eyes of those crafting the narratives of this race. Winning both would show Clinton’s continued appeal and success in very large states.

I don’t buy that winning big states by small margins is any meaningful signifier for how Clinton would perform there in the general election – just as I don’t think Obama’s failure to win California or New York had any impact on his ability or likelihood to win there if he is the nominee. But I also don’t doubt that if she wins Ohio and Texas, the Clinton campaign will be pressing the “Obama can’t win big states” narrative very hard.

Given current polling in Ohio and Texas, I think the chances of Obama winning the popular vote in one of these states is very good. We’ll see what happens in the only polls that matter tomorrow.

New DipDive Video

I think Hollywood has shown yet again that they are far more in tune to what is resonating with voters this year than the traditional, inside the Beltway ad makers who turned out Hillary Clinton’s fear mongering ad today.

As a friend often says, the DipDive / will.i.am work shows how far ahead the entertainment industry is from the political world when it comes to the internet. I’m glad they’re on our side.

Infrastructure, Obama, & Dodd

Harry Moroz has a post on the DMI Blog about the need for a national infrastructure bank as a means of building a lasting system for improving, maintaining, and creating our infrastructure:

The National Infrastructure Bank is a first step in creating a coherent vision of American infrastructure. First, the use of bonds – rather than a pay-as-you-go system that relies on yearly revenues – allows the federal government to develop a stable, long-term strategy for economic growth based on infrastructure improvements. Such a financing stream is less subject to political whims and to revenues, which fluctuate with the economy and with legislative action (and inaction). Second, federal funding for infrastructure – in particular, for the transportation system – is often diverted by state governments to other (sometimes) worthy, yet non-infrastructure, projects. Puentes of Brookings points out that the Government Accountability Office has called the federal transportation fund a “cash transfer, general purpose grant program,” and that “the U.S. code neuters the federal role and states specifically that the appropriation of highway funds ‘shall in no way infringe on the sovereign rights of the States to determine which projects shall be federally financed.’” The National Infrastructure Bank would ensure that federal funds are used by state and local governments for specific infrastructure projects, rather than diverted to make up for, say, underfunded federal mandates.

Perhaps most importantly, the selection criteria required by the National Infrastructure Bank would encourage the federal government to undertake projects that are significant to the country’s long-term well-being: rather than stop-gap measures to repair existing problems, such projects would take into account new challenges like climate change, the growing importance of urban areas, and the need for more affordable housing, while at the same time confronting the more typical concerns associated with economic growth (increased air, highway, and port traffic). A database with details about each infrastructure project and its funding would provide at least some public oversight.

The National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007 (S. 1926), introduced by Chris Dodd and Chuck Hagel, would go a long way towards solving America’s infrastructure construction needs. David Sirota recently noted that Barack Obama had unveiled a similar plan for an infrastructure bank, with the duel goals of adding two million new jobs and building a better giving America the system of roads, bridges, and tunnels that we deserve. Obama, as well as Hillary Clinton, are now both co-sponsors of the Dodd bill,  S. 1926,  a sign that there is will at the top of the Democratic Party for better using money currently spent rebuilding Iraq to rebuild America.

ArchPundit on Russert, Farrakhan

ArchPundit:

Timmeh took his cue from Richard Cohen in the Washington Post column:

Barack Obama is a member of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama’s spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright’s daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said “truly epitomized greatness.” That man is Louis Farrakhan.

Except, Timmeh, got the facts wrong on top of it.  Wright didn’t say Farrakhan epitomized greatness, that was a part of the Trumpet Magazine award to Farrakhan.  Wright is the CEO of the magazine, but his daughter Jeri is the publisher.  While those ties might be relevant, it’s very different from Jeremiah Wright saying that.  And, in fact, the magazine split off from the congregation in September of 2005.

The thing is, everyone is missing the point about how fucking stupid this line of questioning was. When was the last time Timmeh took on some right wing fundamentalists for being anti-semitic?   So why isn’t George Bush asked about every anti-semitic rant by LaHaye or Wildmon since by the transitive property Timmeh is invoking, Bush has close spiritual advisors who work closely with them?

I’d guess that’s because Russert thinks Democrats, by definition, are weak creatures to be battered with irrelevant or offensive questions and Republicans are tough guys that are fun to have cocktail weenies beers with. Republicans are normative America for Russert and Russert would never do or say anything to cast aspersions on normative America.

Was Russert Push-Polling America?

I’ll pull the transcript when I can, but the line of questions on Louis Farrakhan and Libya was beyond the pale. What would Obama’s jewish supporters think if…?
The questioning of Clinton on her personal finances and her public schedule was equally badgering, though on a somewhat less explosive issue.

The last 10 minutes of the debate – with questions towards both candidates – have been shameful.

Post Title Disclaimer: There have been a lot of blog posts and diaries on the occurrence of push polling. In almost all cases, push polling isn’t actually taking place and obviously a question in a debate is not a push poll. But speculating on how information about Libya, Farrakhan, or Farrakhan’s specific statements would impact Obama’s support in the Jewish community is simply disgusting. It looked like Russert wanted Obama’s supporters to get new information that caused them to bolt, which is generally what push polling aims to do.

Update:

Here’s the transcript of the exchange between Russert and Obama on Farrakhan:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, one of the things in a campaign is that you have to react to unexpected developments.

On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: “Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago.” Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy. (Laughter.) You know, I — you know, I — I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.

MR. RUSSERT: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism “gutter religion.”

OBAMA: Tim, I think — I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That’s why I have consistently denounced it.

This is not something new. This is something that — I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I’ve been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.

RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, “Audacity of Hope,” you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan “epitomizes greatness.”

He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, “your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell.”

RUSSERT: What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it’s Farrakhan’s support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?

OBAMA: Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign. And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel’s. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct, and that the United States is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community.

And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community.

You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans, who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.

But, you know, the reason that I have such strong support in the Jewish community and have historically — it was true in my U.S. Senate campaign and it’s true in this presidency — is because the people who know me best know that I consistently have not only befriended the Jewish community, not only have I been strong on Israel, but, more importantly, I’ve been willing to speak out even when it is not comfortable.

When I was — just last point I would make — when I was giving — had the honor of giving a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in conjunction with Martin Luther King’s birthday in front of a large African-American audience, I specifically spoke out against anti- Semitism within the African-American community. And that’s what gives people confidence that I will continue to do that when I’m president of the United States.

The two sections in bold from Russert strike me as the most outlandish, offensive lines coming from this alleged journalist. Russert was suggesting that Obama either was or was vulnerable to being perceived as anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. That suggestion simply has no basis in reality and is part of a disturbing trend that every crazy thing either (a) some objectionable black person says or (b) any person Obama has ever met will be something that the media and Obama’s opponents demand he to respond to. Lastly, as a Jewish Democrat, I found it offensive that Russert would persistently suggest that Obama would have to defend himself from charges of anti-Semitism because an anti-Semite whose support he denounced happened to support him.

For what it’s worth, Russerts line of questioning here strikes me as worse than David Shuster’s “pimp” line regarding Chelsea Clinton.

Update II:

Speaking of denounce or reject, Clinton’s pushback on Obama’s Farrakhan answer was pretty bad, too. Aswini Anburajan of MSNBC’s First Read adjudicates the definitions of the two words in question:

For the word-o-philes out there, Obama wins with the word denounce which is more applicable to use when you find someone’s positions distasteful

re·ject -a verb used as an object…
1. to refuse to have, take, recognize, etc.: to reject the offer of a better job.
2. to refuse to grant (a request, demand, etc.).

de·nounce -verb (used with object), -nounced, -nounc·ing.
1. to condemn or censure openly or publicly: to denounce a politician as morally corrupt.

So that settles that.

Dodd for Obama

Video via Scarce.

A bit over a month ago I wrote a post on the upsides of Dodd as a vice presidential pick for Barack Obama. I thought it’d be worth going through the upside of that again today.

Dodd’s experience would be a tremendous asset for any of our nominees. From two and a half decades on the Foreign Relations Committee and extensive work negotiating ends to wars in Latin America and Northern Ireland, to one of the longest resumes of landmark domestic legislation with his name on it, to longtime experience monitoring the financial sector, Dodd brings tangible experience as a guy who gets things done in Washington. If a large part of Obama’s critique of DC partisanship preventing our government from getting substantive results for the good of the country, Dodd stands clearly as an example of someone who has been able to build bipartisan consensus around progressive Democratic principles. That strikes me as valuable.

A post-Cheney VP will have to redefine the role of the office (as well as reaffirm its existence as part of the executive branch). But that doesn’t mean that we need to regress to Dan Quayle contradicting school children on the spelling of “potato.” I don’t see inherent harm in structuring an administration in such a way that the other elected member of the executive branch plays a formative role in governance outside the halls of the Senate.

If I were Barack Obama, I would establish the role of his VP in advance of being elected and use it as a hammering point on the campaign trail. In the case of Dodd, the natural role would be as the person tasked with bottom lining the success of Obama’s legislative agenda. Obama and his policy team should pick what they want to get done in his first term and then hand the ball off to Vice President Dodd to get it done. Be up front about it: Dodd will quarterback Obama’s legislative agenda and he will get it done.

I think it’s an easy sell (but then again, I’m something of a partisan). In Obama’s narrative, change is a means to secure results. The Dodd campaign was largely framed around his career of getting results, so he could slot in on the back-end of the Obama message with relative ease while not taking away from the primacy of Obama’s change candidacy. In this scenario, Dodd is Obama’s answer to how he will ensure that an Obama presidency can bring change. Obama will be able to answer questions of his ability to get results in DC with extreme confidence, “What, are you kidding me? Dodd’s my guy – together we’ll get it done. I trust him and he’s extremely well respected on both sides of the aisle in DC. If you don’t think VP Dodd will get it done, you don’t know a one thing about Washington.”

In short, I agree with [Douglas Burns of the Iowa Independent] that Dodd probably adds a tremendous amount to an Obama ticket. I’m not going to go into the comparative merits of Dodd over any other Democrat out there (though I cringe at Burns’ list including two prominent Republicans, Dick Lugar and Bobby Jindal). This is an exercise in pure political speculation.

I’ll say now what I said a month ago: I do not know if Dodd would seek or accept a spot on Barack Obama’s ticket (or Hillary Clinton’s). This is just my analysis of what makes Dodd an attractive VP pick for Obama and what role Dodd could play on the campaign trail and in an Obama administration.

A look at some of the likely downsides of Dodd as the lower-half of an Obama-Dodd ticket can be seen here, though I’m mostly rebutting likely Beltway press narratives.

Update:

Dodd on being VP:

Dodd told ABC News he has no interest in the second slot on the Democratic ticket.

“Who would want to be vice president?” Dodd chuckled.

But remember the rule for vice presidential candidates is they’re not allowed to every show the slightest interest in the job until it’s offered to them, remarkably out of the blue as if no one had realized that the VP would have to be selected from a small number of qualified Democrats. It’s profoundly silly, but that’s those are the rules and Dodd is playing by them.

Update II:

Here’s the full video of Dodd’s speech

Obama on the Constitution, Dodd

Yes, please:

We know it’s time to time to restore our Constitution and the rule of law. This is an issue that was at the heart of Senator Dodd’s candidacy, and I share his passion for restoring the balance between the security we demand and the civil liberties that we cherish.

The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I’ve been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America – no one is above the law.

It’s time to reject torture without equivocation. It’s time to close Guantanamo and to restore habeas corpus. It’s time to give our intelligence and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to track down and take out terrorists, while ensuring that their actions are subject to vigorous oversight that protects our freedom. So let me be perfectly clear: I have taught the Constitution, I understand the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution when I am President of the United States.

Finally, it’s time to once again inspire this nation to rally behind a common purpose – a higher purpose. Throughout his campaign, Senator Dodd spoke eloquently about the need to turn the page to a new era of public service. That is the legacy of his own family – the legacy of a father who stood up to the Nazis at Nuremberg, and a young man who enlisted in the Peace Corps after he heard President Kennedy’s call to service on a cold Inauguration Day.

Hat tip to Dean Barker for highlighting this passage. I’d read the full speech earlier today but had only linked to it. This passage was definitely worthy of more attention, though.