Two new Obama ads to run in battleground states, and both finally take the fight to McCain. The first one actually uses the L word, accusing McShame/Caribou Barbie of lying. The second attacks Walnuts Depends for taking money away from public education.
Enjoy.
Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.
The day before Barack Obama fought Hillary Clinton to a draw on Super Tuesday (or by some calculations, actually won decisively), Ben Carter and Joe Sonka of BlueGrassRoots wrote a brilliant analysis of why Edwards supporters should change their allegiance to Obama.
There's a lot of crap on the Internet right now from fanatic Clinton and Obama partisans, as well as the usual gag-making pablum from the usual DLC mush-mouths.
This, however, is the kind of sharp, clear, make-no-bones endorsement that once upon a time graced the nation's finest newspapers. It strikes the perfect balance between practicality and idealism, avoiding both cynicism and cult hysteria.
I trust Ben and Joe will forgive me for excerpting most of their post here, because it's just too well-written and closely reasoned to edit.
We believe America has a fight on its hands. Entrenched powers have trillions of dollars riding on maintaining the status quo and if Americans want cleaner energy, more wholesome food, safer and cheaper prescription drugs, and a health care system that treats all of us like we’re human beings, well, we’re going to have to fight for it.
In this Democratic primary, there have been two (viable) candidates that have advocated for these changes—John Edwards and Barack Obama. The difference between them, from what we can tell, came only in their envisioned means of change. As John Edwards said, “(Obama) believes you can create change by bringing everyone to the table and talking about it. That drug companies and energy companies will voluntarily give up their power. I don’t think it works that way. I think we’ve got a fight on our hands.” Amen.
With John Edwards out of the race, we turn to Barack Obama. We are hopeful, especially because of something he said after the New Hampshire primary. In response to John Edwards, he said, “I believe everyone deserves a seat at the table, including drug companies and energy companies. But that doesn’t mean you let them buy every chair.”
This rhetorical flourish provides an appropriate transition to the other reasons why we are supporting Obama, some principled, others pragmatic. First, the man can inspire. Wow! We see in Barack Obama the same kind of transformative political figure for the Democratic Party as Ronald Regan was for the Republicans. We believe he has the ability to forge a new American majority and achieve change, not through half-measures, triangulation, and compromise, but by inspiring the American people to demand the kind of fundamental change we need. Instead of doing only what is politically possible, we believe he can expand the field of what is possible by tearing down fences on the political landscape so long established others accept them as natural.
Second, Barack Obama was right on the war. He was right in 2002 and he’s right today. The war in Iraq has been America’s greatest foreign policy disaster in a generation and enabling it is the Democratic Party’s great shame. Related to this issue is America’s desperate need to restore its image abroad. To use the language of Madison Avenue: we have a branding problem. We believe Barack Obama can enunciate to the world a vision that resonates across cultures, across nations, and across religions. Amen.
Third, we mentioned some of our reasons were pragmatic. Above, we spurned the cynical view that politics was the art of the possible. However, the tension in politics must always be between that cynicism and idealism. We temper our idealism with pragmatism. We may support Dennis Kucinich, but we could never support him. Our support of John Edwards stemmed in part from our desire to have a candidate who could put all fifty states into play for the Democrats. We believed a John Edwards candidacy could have reclaimed part of the South for Democrats, and a strong Southern Democrat would certainly have made life more difficult for Mitch McConnell in this fall.
While we are reticent to use a term crafted in the bowels of the DLC—electability—at this point it would be foolhardy not to look at the dynamics of the race ahead. It is clear to us that the Republican’s only hope of retaining the White House is John McCain. They seem to be figuring this out, as well, and we presume he will be their nominee this fall. Against McCain, we believe Barack Obama is our only chance.
A Clinton/McCain duel would be fought along conventional lines with conventional weapons and we believe McCain wins that duel. Hilary Clinton is too polarizing to inspire, too entrenched in traditional political calculus to adapt, and too wedded to big business to convincingly articulate a different vision for America. Against McCain, we will need someone who can change the political calculus and inspire new alliances.
Barack Obama, his communications staff, and his campaign managers have demonstrated a remarkable ability to craft a message that endeavors to create new political realities. This work requires courage, creativity, and conviction, all of which Barack Obama has in abundance. BlueGrassRoots is proud to endorse Barack Obama for President of the United States.
Remember the neighborhood kid who always bossed everybody around, loudly demanding that everybody obey the rules, only to go behind your back and cheat to get ahead?
Well, she's all grown up now and she's running for president. But she knows she can't draw enough real votes to win if she plays by the rules, so she's cheating.
No, I'm not talking about New Hampshire ballots; I'm talking about Michigan primary delegates. Hillary is stealing them.
156 delegates is more than Hillary has acquired from actual voters so far. And it's 156 more than she actually earned in Michigan.
Last year, the Democratic National Committee, in a desperate effort to prevent states from moving their primaries back before Halloween, dropped a sanctions anvil on Michigan and Florida.
For the crime of moving their primaries ahead of Stupid Tuesday (h/t, salon commenter "sforme"), the DNC stripped both states of all their delegates. Go ahead, hold your primaries whenever you want, the DNC said; come the convention, your count will be zero.
All the Democratic presidential candidates went along, agreeing not to campaign or compete in either state. John Edwards and Barack Obama went so far as to have their names removed from the Michigan ballot.
Hillary did not. When Michigan democrats voted on January 15, the only names on the ballot were Hillary Clinton and Dennis Kucinich. Hillary took 55 percent of the votes. Which is actually pretty pathetic, considering that "uncomitted" got 40 percent.
But it doesn't matter because those delegates don't count, right?
Today, Hillary announced that she will demand the DNC seat Michigan's and Florida's delegates. Delegates that only she - in violation of DNC rules - competed for. Delegates that her underhanded manuevering kept away from Obama and Edwards. Delegates she lied, cheated and stole to get.
She also admonished Edwards and Obama to keep their promise not to campaign in Florida, whose primary is next Tuesday. Convenient for her, that they should not have a chance to counter her blatant delegate-pander to Florida voters.
Playing hardball with your competition is fine, but playing the voters for chumps is likely to backfire.
Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.
Roper: "So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?"
More: "Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?"
Roper: "I'd cut down every law in England to do that."
More: "Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
"Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake."
---A Man for All Seasons
UPDATE Below
TPM Muckraker has the list of the Teleco Ten, the "Democratic" Senators who voted this afternoon to kill a FISA bill that did NOT give amnesty to lawbreaking telecommunications companies.
The final tally was actually 60-36, not 60-34, and the full list of Dems voting to kill were: Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Tom Carper (D-DE), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and Ken Salazar (D-CO).
I just got this email from Edwards. He stops short of calling for Obama and Clinton to go to Washington but he does say all of the right things otherwise. I think those calls and emails are helping.Dear Jim,
When it comes to protecting the rule of law, words are not enough. We need action.
It's wrong for your government to spy on you. That's why I'm asking you to join me today in calling on Senate Democrats to filibuster revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would give "retroactive immunity" to the giant telecom companies for their role in aiding George W. Bush's illegal eavesdropping on American citizens.
The Senate is debating this issue right now -- which is why we must act right now. You can call your Senators here:
Mel Martinez, (R): (202) 224-3041
Bill Nelson, (D): (202) 224-5274
Granting retroactive immunity is wrong. It will let corporate law-breakers off the hook. It will hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program. And it will flip on its head a core principle that has guided our nation since our founding: the belief that no one, no matter how well connected or what office they hold, is above the law.
But in Washington today, the telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press for retroactive immunity. George Bush and Dick Cheney are doing everything in their power to ensure it passes. And too many Senate Democrats are ready to give the lobbyists and the Bush administration exactly what they want.
Please join me in calling on every Senate Democrat to do everything in their power -- including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation -- to stop retroactive immunity and stand up for the rule of law. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price.
Thank you for taking action.
This is it. Tomorrow morning, Harry Reid is planning to ram through the Senate a FISA bill that not only hands Smirky/Darth all the dictatorial domestic spying powers they want, but also gives giant telecommunications companies amnesty for illegally spying on the phone calls, emails and text messages of millions of innocent American citizens for the past seven years.
He's doing it over the objections of Democratic Senators Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold, even though Reid always honors such "holds" by republican senators.
He's doing it just as Democratic senators prepare to jet off to Switzerland for a "retreat." This timing forces Dodd and Feingold to launch a filibuster that ruins their colleagues' nice European vacation.
Reid's throwing everything he's got at these lonely defenders of the Constitution and the Rule of Law because the last time he tried this, in November, a concentrated grassroots protest forced him to back off.
We've got to do it again, only harder, faster and better.
The same coalition of progressive groups and bloggers that stopped the wiretapping amnesty train last time is back on the case, this time with a new tactic:
Demanding former Senator and Presidential Candidate John Edwards take the lead as the only presidential candidate backing Dodd and Feingold's Last Stand Defense of American Liberty.
Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald write in an email:
John Edwards should challenge his rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to go back to Washington, DC and fight against retroactive immunity for the telecoms.
Without the help of the presidential candidates, we are doomed to lose this fight. And all their calls for change will ring hollow if they allow George Bush to railroad this bill through a supine Democratic-controlled Senate because of their absence.
You can email Senator Edwards directly at john@johnedwards.com.
UPDATE II: For what it's worth (not all that much), both Obama and Clinton have told Markos Moulitsas, in response to being asked, that they oppose telecom immunity and support Dodd's filibuster. Far more active efforts than that would be necessary to have an effect.
On a separate note, Christy Hardin Smith has the contact information for the 14 Senators who seemed prepared to support Dodd's filibuster back in December. It's probably worth calling as many of them as possible -- including Dodd -- to encourage them to do so again.
Every Presidential Election year around June, people start complaining about how "the media" annointed a party nominee in February, before half the nation had voted for a primary candidates or half the delegates had been awarded.
Yeah, the Tweetys and the Russerts are assholes, but why do supporters of the second- and third-place candidates let themselves be fooled?
I'm starting to hear totally unwarranted panic from Obama supporters and even less-warranted surrender from Edwards supporters, all of which feeds directly into the Big Lie of Hillary inevitability.
Salon commenter CarolynETaylor makes some good points about why the real "Comeback Kid" in New Hampshire is Edwards:
Yes, it was disappointing to Edwards' supporters that he didn't do better than he did with 17% but that sentence should say "even better" in light of his own progress among New Hampshire voters.
He received nearly twice as many votes as he did in New Hampshire in 2004, going from 26,000 to 48,000, which, given the overall increase in voters meant going from 12% to 17%. That too is significant, although given the agenda of the MSM, it will, I bet, never show up at all, so "lost" in the obsession over this being a Clinton-Obama race, period.
I think it's safe to say that Southerners have tended to have an extra hurdle to mount in NH primaries. In 1992, the very time when placing 2nd made Bill Clinton the "comeback kid," Clinton received 41,540 votes (compared to Tsongas' 55,000). That 1992 Bill Clinton vote count is 6,500 FEWER votes than Edwards received there yesterday.
It all depends on what the media choose to focus on. If they single-mindedly focus only on horse-race results and do not see under the first-place finishes what other data are there to mine which may stand in some contradiction to the more simplistic storyline, then that too is part of the problem. Sure, Hillary is lead story today, but is her new "comeback kid" story the ONLY story out of NH?
Why can't the media just as easily be saying, Wow, Edwards finished 2nd in Iowa over Clinton despite being vastly outspent, now he nearly doubled his numbers in New Hampshire over his previous election, if he can repeat his victory of 2004 in South Carolina (despite the media bandwagon for his opponents), he's just as much in this race as anyone.
Edwards supporters, late-primary states and lovers of Demcracy: rejoice! We might just have a real Democratic primary race here.
At this point four years ago, John Kerry was the nominee and the Swift Boat ads were in the can.
Now, the repug attack wing may not find out until May whether they have to deal with the Muslim, the Fag or the Bitch.
I'll go out on a limb again and say that Edwards and Obama are in a good position. Nevada and South Carolina voters now have reasons to look much more closely at the candidates themselves rather than following Iowa or New Hampshire results like sheep.
Corpus Juris at Watching Those We Chose has the video of a New Hampshire focus group acting as the Greek Chorus predicting Hillary's downfall.
As I said in comments on that post:
I thought Hillary's constant appropriation of Bill's accomplishments as her own was blatant and stupid - which is why I love it.
She is really, really pissed that this campaign is revealing her for the corporate tool she is and always has been - so pissed she can't hide it any more.
If there were just a few more days before New Hampshire, I think she'd implode completely and end up in fourth place behind Richardson.
As it is, I think her extremely bad performance last night is going to lose her lots of votes, possibly dropping her to third.
The only question is whether enough of them will go to Edwards to keep him in the race.
If it's true, as so many letter-writers on Salon's Iowa coverage believe, that the MSM is shilling for Hillary by ignoring Edward's second-place finish, I think there might be a backlash coming in New Hampshire.
My initial reaction last night was to predict that Obama would win even bigger in New Hampshire with more than 40 percent, Hillary would fall under 20 percent and Edwards would barely hang on in second place with maybe 25 percent.
But there's a lot of fury out on there Edwards' behalf - and not just from Edwards partisans - that he could turn to his advantage, if he plays it right.
I'm going to say that the cold fact that he beat the presumptive nominee despite being outspent 5-1, plus Elizabeth's determination, plus having nothing to lose, might just propel John Edwards to a close second in New Hampshire, and leave Hillary even further back in the dust. That will be enough to keep him alive through South Carolina and to Super Tuesday, where southern states will propel Edwards past Obama.
I'm sticking with my repug predictions, being on a roll. That scream of terror you heard last night came from Wall Street, where they can't write enough zeros on the checks they're sending to John McCain. The Stop Huckabee attacks are going to make the Anybody-But-Dean movement of 2004 seem like a knitting circle.
As for Willard, is there a repug out there who could really respect a front-runner who lost big to Gomer, despite out-spending him about 20-1?
And Rudy - please, please, please stay in the race. I promise you, Florida's going make you a winner. Really. Seriously. N-Pod swears it.
Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.
More tomorrow, after digestion and cogitation, but for now, some first impressions:
Hillary is wounded and deeply humiliated. I've never believed she has Bill's political smarts, charisma, courage or strength. This loss in a race she thought dems would hand her on a silver platter is going to crack that pretty shell and reveal the shallow tool she's always been.
Edwards beat Hillary. That's a victory, no matter what anyone says. I sent money to him this morning, and I bet I'm not the only one.
Obama. I'm actually fucking choking up here. As a Southerner of a certain age, I'm moved by his win in ways that you youngsters can't appreciate. As Molly once wrote, all liberal Southerners who grew up in the South before civil rights come from the same place: race.
I still say the winning team next year is going to be Edwards-Obama, but right now I want to find every Iowan who caucused for Barack and hug them.
Huckabee, Huckabee, he's our man! If he can't kill the republican party, nobody can!
OK, slow news weekend, holiday coming up and all that, so since I'm finished my Christmas preparations, I'm going to get a jump on the presidential primary predications coming January 1 (since the Iowa caucus is Jan. 3) and make my own semi-baseless predictions:
Republicans:
Huckabee is peaking perfectly but broke. He'll win Iowa, drop to third in New Hampshire then disappear for lack of money.
McCain will turn up a surprising second in Iowa, rake in the dough from grateful Wall Street types terrified of Huckabee and win the nomination.
Romney and Giuliani will tie for third in Iowa, with Mitt coming a not-close-enough second in New Hampshire and disappearing in South Carolina. Giuliani will have a foam-at-the-mouth public freakout over losing to hick Huckabee, tank in New Hampshire, and spend the rest of 2008 tearing down McCain and whining about how he should be the nominee.
Democrats:
Edwards will win in Iowa, possibly drop to a close second in New Hampshire, rebound in South Carolina and win the nomination.
Obama will come in second in Iowa, a close first or second to Edwards in New Hampshire, a further-back second to Edwards in South Carolina, and end up the vice-presidential nominee.
Hillary will come in a close third to Edwards and Obama in Iowa, but tank in New Hampshire as her supporters reel from the shock and her money dries up.If Dodd's on the ballot in South Carolina, he might beat her.
A couple of notes on methodology, or rather the lack of any:
I've been predicting Iowa and New Hampshire would kill Hillary's campaign since last spring, about the same time I predicted Edwards/Obama would be the nominees. At the time I thought the desperate repug wingnut freakazoids would nominate Brownback. Although it seems that Huckabee has stepped into that darling-of-the-jayzus-humpers position, believers don't really choose the republican nominee; Wall Street does.
Yes, my prediction for Edwards has a little wishful thinking in it, as I'm a strong Edwards supporter, but I also think McCain is the strongest possible republican nominee and therefore hoped his summer-fall swoon would be permanent. No such luck. As Rudy, Mitt and Fred reveal their fatal flaws to the faithful, and as Huck's skeletons begin to spill out of the closet, politically rational republicans (the ones with the money and power) are realizing McCain is their only hope.
It's 12 days to the Iowa caucuses; 19 to the New Hampshire primary. At the speed this race is changing, that's plenty of time for Tom Tancredo and Joe Biden to leap out front.
But what's the fun in waiting until it's all over?
I don't know if any of the other Democratic presidential candidates are paying this kind of attention, but John Edwards' campaign is sending emails to all of the Kentuckians on its email list encouraging them to vote for the Democratic candidates this Tuesday.
This Tuesday, you can help us start building Democratic Party majorities around the country, starting right here in Kentucky.
For information, go to www.kydemocrat.com/our_party/2007_candidates
At a time when the disgraced policies of George Bush are dragging down Republicans in state-level races in nearly every district in the country, Democrats in Kentucky know that, starting Tuesday, this coming year could be more than just an election year -- it could be the year when a fundamental realignment takes place, from the Kentucky state house to the White House.
John Edwards is committed to expanding the map and turning red states into blue states. Time and time again, opinion polls show John is the one Democratic candidate for president who can win in red states, blue states -- and across our nation.
So this Tuesday, please take time to vote for Democratic Party candidates running statewide in Kentucky -- and join John in changing America over the next 12 months.
Sincerely,
David Bonior
National Campaign Manager, John Edwards for President
November 3, 2007
Note: no request for money. Just an unadorned demonstration of Edwards' committment to growing and strengthening Democrats at the grass-roots level in every single state, no matter how "red."
'Course, Edwards probably has a soft spot for Kentucky after the incredible reception he got in Columbia last month. And the Kentucky Governor's race has a high national profile. But are any other Democratic presidential hopefuls making this kind of effort? If you've gotten any similar communication from Kucinich, Gravel, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Obama or Clinton, let me know in comments.
UPDATE Below
They laughed back in June when Shawn Dixon launched his impossible crusade to bring a presidential candidate to his minuscule hometown of Columbus, Kentucky, population - wait for it - 229. That's two hundred and twenty-nine whole, entire people.
They were laughing in triumph Thursday when more than six times Columbus' population showed up to cheer Shawn and his guest, Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards.
Shawn was previously known as one of the geniuses behind Ditch Mitch KY, the galactic effort to unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, next year. DMKY's coverage includes fabulous YouTube video from Kentucky blogging legend Jim Pence of Hillbilly Report(scroll down for two videos.)
Oh, yeah, some local rag inside the Beltway sent a reporter, too.
UPDATE, 6:55 p.m.Check out this great photo album of snapshots from the event. Note Best-of-America crowd shots of ages one month to 80 years, white 60-something male Vietnam veteran next to African-American female 30-something. Yes, that's the Mississippi River in the background, and that good-looking kid with the Better Hair Than John Edwards is Shawn Dixon Himself.
Cross-posted at Watching Those We Chose.
Kentucky ranks at the top of world-class lists in just three areas.
We got world-class horses.
We got world-class bourbon. (By federal law, if it ain't made in Kentucky, it ain't bourbon.)
And we got world-class poverty.
And not just any old world-class poverty. World-class presidential-candidate-attractin' poverty.
Robert Kennedy found us first, back in the '60s (although Eleanor Roosevelt knew about us in the '30s.)
Bill Clinton came a-callin' in the '90s, not being above stealing a good Kennedy idea.
And today it's John Edwards.
Don't get me wrong; I'm a strong Edwards supporter. If Elizabeth Edwards were a religion, I'd have to convert from Pastafarianism.
But Appalachia is the Iraq of the War on Poverty. Sure, the intentions are good, but the policy is weak, the strategy non-existent and the tactics akin to emptying the ocean with a teaspoon.
Not to mention the utter bloody-mindedness of the natives, who are less than appreciative of the economic, environmental and social devastation wrought by the various "foreign occupiers," including the timber industry, the coal industry, the pharmaceutical industry (Oxycontin) and bottom-feeding "employers" like telemarketers and chicken-processing plants.
Life in Eastern Kentucky, even for the poorest, is certainly far better than in was in 1962, when Harry Caudill published his passionate expose Night Comes to the Cumberlands. But it still lags far behind the rest of the nation, as the Herald-Leader explains.
The Herald's poll has 59% agreeing that Edwards' visit is a publicity ploy. I agree, but I don't think it's publicity for himself. I think it's publicity for the issue of deep-seated poverty, which hasn't registered on the national radar for more than a quarter-century, since Ronald Reagan taught us that only rich people really matter.
John Edwards isn't making speeches on this Poverty Tour - he's listening to people's stories, hoping to publicize the crisis and maybe gain some insight. So that's a step forward.
And I believe that John Edwards sincerely, genuinely, passionately wants to end poverty in this nation and will do his damndest to succeed.
If a visit to Eastern Kentucky doesn't dash his hopes on the cold, stony ground of Appalachian reality, then he's got a level of progressive determination this nation hasn't seen since FDR.
Who actually DID reduce poverty in Eastern Kentucky.
Posts
All Comments
