Effective Progressive Future Ad Running in Swing States
I hadn't seen this until today, but it seems to be a decent-sized buy. I think it's pretty effective. Thoughts?
Advertisement
The AP's new Fournier talking points
Calderone at Politico has an email distributed by the AP's vice president for corporate communications, Ellen Hale: http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0908/AP_issues_talking_points_over_Fournier.html?showall
Despite the fact that none of the points Hale makes address the actual substantive arguments against Fournier, I think this is actually a positive development. Here's why:
The tone of this email is fairly defensive and only lightly hits back at the left's complaints. I think there is already some fractures within the Associated Press, due primarily to the many members who do not believe in Fournier's style of journalism. To those who have an interest in the matter and actually read these talking points, this will validate any building doubts.
Mostly, I think this shows that they're feeling the heat and change is coming, because those of us criticizing the AP won't stop until improvements are made (or an exponentially better argument on their behalf). Concern is mounting among those who have the power to make a difference. Let's hope we can keep the pressure on while saner AP members get some control.
Ickes' Rabid (Literally?) Drive for Superdelegates
Since I haven't seen this posted (maybe I just missed it) the LA Times has a profile of Harold Ickes and his attempts to "sway" superdelegates to endorse Hillary. Among the more interesting (and scary) parts:
Aggressive, profane, openly scornful of rivals, Ickes rules Clinton's superdelegate operation with an intimidating style and a mythic persona. He is "advisor, consigliere, enforcer and strategist" all rolled into one, says Dick Harpootlian, a former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party who backs Obama.
What's more, Harpootlian says: "He's like a shadow. You hear he's here, you hear he's there, but you never actually see him."
In a Clinton campaign that can seem machinelike, Ickes is conspicuous for his idiosyncrasies. A female aide said that when she noticed his dress shirt unbuttoned practically to the navel, it was like glimpsing an unzipped fly.
"I thought someone should have pulled him aside to tell him. I later came to realize that's how he wears his shirts."
And the man in charge of Clinton's feverish effort to lock up superdelegates is Ickes, whose enthusiasm for no-holds-barred politics sometimes rattles friends and foes alike. Ickes once got so carried away that he bit another political operative on the leg. Now, some 35 years later, at age 68, he has mellowed so little that it could happen again.
Advertisement
Today's Goal: Get One Hillary Supporter to Denounce the Kitchen Sink
From Bob Herbert's column today:
"We have seen election after election in which candidates have won by fanning the anxieties of voters. Elect me, or something terrible will happen to you!
"We have seen election after election in which candidates have won by fanning the anxieties of voters. Elect me, or something terrible will happen to you!
That is now the Clinton mantra, which is a measure of how grim our politics have become."
Okay, not exactly an unbiased source. But I don't think it's a novel concept that there is something wrong with what Hillary Clinton is doing.
Obama supporters are not guilt-free, but most of us will admit that the personal attacks from some posters are wrong. As much as Clinton's actions have bothered me, I think it is hypocritical and unproductive to attack other Democrats.
What strikes me about different posts I've read is that Clinton supporters rarely if ever admit that what she is doing is wrong. If you truly believe it is okay--just normal politics--than I submit that there is a serious rift in our party.
But if you have a problem with it--as a Democrat--say so. Here, I'll even give you a template:
"It bothers me that she has chosen this type of destructive politics. I don't condone it. But [insert poster's name] is naive, cultish, [insert further recycled descriptors]. Obamabots are all selfish, need to grow up......[continue with whatever you want]"
I will repeat: there are a number of Obama supporters who are just as guilty when it comes to blind insults. I think it is obvious, reading various posts, that most of us don't do this (we may not post as often, but we're here).
However, despite the many sane Hillary supporters I've seen, none address her current strategy other than to say it's "normal politics".
So, if just one of you--ONE--will denounce, reject, hesitantly suggest--whatever-- that the kitchen sink approach is wrong, hurts the party, or is counterproductive, it will restore my faith in the party.
Please. For my own peace of mind.
The Butterfly Effect: The Presidency and a Sustained Progressive Movement
Not too long ago 2008 was looking like a very exciting year for Democrats. Public opinion had shifted to the left on almost every major issue, the Republican party had failed to distance itself from the Bush administration, and pieces of the most influential voting block in America--Evangelicals--had started to focus on humanitarian issues instead of gay marriage and its progeny.
The Iowa caucuses rolled around. It became clear that Democrats had an amazing field of candidates and enthusiasm was higher than it had ever been. Since then we have seen record turnout in almost every state. Record fundraising, too.
It's now been two months since Iowa and few people still exhibit the unbridled optimism. Part of this is just downright fatigue--this has been an amazingly long, dense election. Most of it is the direction the campaign has taken. I could continue with my opinion on the source of this, but we've all seen enough of that.
We have also seen references to the importance of down-ticket success, the Supreme Court, and the next election cycle. I would like to lay out an argument for securing what I think is a once in a lifetime opportunity for progressives. I believe the Democrat's chosen nominee will make a big difference in areas much more important to the long-term stability of this movement.
Congress
It appears we will hold a majority in the Senate this cycle, but we've all seen what little that means. The Republicans have invoked cloture at a rate that destroys previous records. Our Senators seem unable to stand up to the Republicans and even themselves sometimes.
But there is a slim chance of obtaining a super-majority--something most of us will probably never see again in our lifetimes. At the very least the count could get to 56 or 57, negating the inexplicable defections of a few Dems on almost every single issue.
Two things need to be done to accomplish this: nurture the current climate and block any conservative countermovement.
Since 2004 Democrats have made inroads in Congress, the state gubernatorial count, and control of state legislatures. I believe a Barack Obama candidacy has no chance of inhibiting this trend and will greatly expand it.
Okay, a number of you have just sighed and are moving the cursor towards a different link: Yet another Obamabot or Obamamaniac or whatever it is you're calling us these days. Please hear me out--I think this is reasonable.
Worst case scenerio: the excitement for Obama dies out, he loses to McCain, and we have a new nominating process in four years. The groups of new voters and crossovers will be dismayed and disenchanted, but John McCain will not draw them back to the neocons or some new, yet-to-be-defined conservative movement. The worst we can expect is apathy. Not a good thing, but fairly easy to overcome and not a death blow to the slim edge we have on the Republicans nationwide.
Best case scenerio: Obama wins the GE, continues to inspire voters (or at least hold on to those he's already inspired), and the shift to the left we're seeing in young voters and red states proves overwhelming to Republicans in every branch. We have legitimate shots at electing Democrats in states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, and Kansas--possibly even winning a few in the general.
(See this recent New York Times article and this SurveyUSA map)
A result like this would undoubtedly spread to state and local elections. If people in consistently red areas like what they're seeing from the face of the Democratic Party, they'll be much more likely to vote for other Democrats.
Now, with Hillary Clinton I think it's a different story.
Best case scenario: Hillary wins the presidency, Democrats are still able to ride the current wave to a large majority in Congress, and we can begin undoing the terrible things that have been done over the last eight years.
Pretty good, on its face. I don't think this has the staying power an Obama presidency could have, however. Hillary Clinton is a very polarizing figure; I think we all can admit that. I know she and her supporters think that fighting and being able to attack the Republicans are good traits. This is what most of us have been looking for the last eight years. But this is not the mentality that will spread progressive ideas into the minds of center-leaning Republicans and independents.
Seeing a liberal majority governing in the same manner we have been exposed to recently will turn a number of people away--even liberals. (No, I am not saying Clinton will do the things Bush has done, but governance founded on fighting your opponent is not what most of America wants)
We have no chance of shifting the politics of Republican strongholds with her as the face of the party. None. We may be able to do some good in the short term, but support for an all-encompassing flood of progressive policies will be impossible.
Worst case scenario: Well you can imagine what I think this is. Democrats lose to McCain and, despite the unorganized, demoralized Republican outlook, the new type of progressive supporter will be convinced that their hopes were misguided and misdirected. Some shift back to the right, some revert to the apathy I previously mentioned, and some go even farther, unable to even pull the lever next to D in indifference.
I know the argument against this is that the characterization of Clinton's politics is the only way to get anything done. The Republicans won't stop just because the Democrats do. But people have already shown their ready to reject angry, petty politics. If Obama is successful the Republicans will just dig themselves deeper trying to continue attacking.
The Court System
First let me point out that Gary Rees posted a very rational argument for voting Dem in November despite the nominee. As usual the comments reverted to name-calling and drive-by mud-slinging.
So this is in part an extension of that post and my reaction to it.
The importance of securing a liberal majority, or at least stemming an expansion of the current conservative majority, on the Supreme Court is undeniable. The effect of a chosen nominee on the Judicial Branch goes far beyond the Sup.Ct., however.
The current shift in judicial decisions we are seeing is largely a result of a concerted Republican effort initiated in the Reagan era. Despite the idea's aversion to normal Republican theory, they had the foresight to reap the benefits of a bottom-up conservative movement in the judicial system. The Federalist Society expanded rapidly; young people were instilled with the goal of achieving political results through legal avenues. Conservative judges were put in place at every level throughout the country. It didn't take long for this to affect the Supreme Court and, in many ways, the political fate of our country.
Fortunately, there is now a countermovement among progressives and non-partisans alike. I encourage anyone remotely interested in reversing the current trend to join the American Constitution Society and contribute anyway they can. This is a rapidly growing group that has already had success educating and encouraging people at every level of the judicial process.
It is this type of vision that is more important to sustain long-term than an appointment on the highest court. Failing to mobilize this force will render any one-term shift in ideology irrelevant--the next chance the Republicans get they will have any number of super-conservative justices to choose from.
I believe an organized, widespread progressive movement accomplishes this. I have already discussed why I think this is a more likely accomplishment under an Obama presidency than a Clinton one.
Presidency/Conclusion
As Clinton supporters have pointed out repeatedly in attempts to get Obama supporters to vote Dem no matter what, the candidates' policies have only minor differences. I agree. But this is exactly why the candidate as a person matters.
At TPMCafe you can read Michael Connery's recent argument for a potential progressive majority among youth. I believe this does not need to wait for all the Millennials to reach voting age.
We can do this now. The time is ripe and we cannot waste it by turning away voters eager to join the movement. Our choice of president will not just cause a ripple among the electorate.
The single act of nominating a candidate will cause a wave throughout the public sphere--activists, youths, moderates, even non-voters. We can ride this wave to a long due progressive movement or we can crash it against the ebbing neocon tide. One will engulf any remaining Republican hope and the other will break us up as it destroys them.
The Iowa caucuses rolled around. It became clear that Democrats had an amazing field of candidates and enthusiasm was higher than it had ever been. Since then we have seen record turnout in almost every state. Record fundraising, too.
It's now been two months since Iowa and few people still exhibit the unbridled optimism. Part of this is just downright fatigue--this has been an amazingly long, dense election. Most of it is the direction the campaign has taken. I could continue with my opinion on the source of this, but we've all seen enough of that.
We have also seen references to the importance of down-ticket success, the Supreme Court, and the next election cycle. I would like to lay out an argument for securing what I think is a once in a lifetime opportunity for progressives. I believe the Democrat's chosen nominee will make a big difference in areas much more important to the long-term stability of this movement.
Congress
It appears we will hold a majority in the Senate this cycle, but we've all seen what little that means. The Republicans have invoked cloture at a rate that destroys previous records. Our Senators seem unable to stand up to the Republicans and even themselves sometimes.
But there is a slim chance of obtaining a super-majority--something most of us will probably never see again in our lifetimes. At the very least the count could get to 56 or 57, negating the inexplicable defections of a few Dems on almost every single issue.
Two things need to be done to accomplish this: nurture the current climate and block any conservative countermovement.
Since 2004 Democrats have made inroads in Congress, the state gubernatorial count, and control of state legislatures. I believe a Barack Obama candidacy has no chance of inhibiting this trend and will greatly expand it.
Okay, a number of you have just sighed and are moving the cursor towards a different link: Yet another Obamabot or Obamamaniac or whatever it is you're calling us these days. Please hear me out--I think this is reasonable.
Worst case scenerio: the excitement for Obama dies out, he loses to McCain, and we have a new nominating process in four years. The groups of new voters and crossovers will be dismayed and disenchanted, but John McCain will not draw them back to the neocons or some new, yet-to-be-defined conservative movement. The worst we can expect is apathy. Not a good thing, but fairly easy to overcome and not a death blow to the slim edge we have on the Republicans nationwide.
Best case scenerio: Obama wins the GE, continues to inspire voters (or at least hold on to those he's already inspired), and the shift to the left we're seeing in young voters and red states proves overwhelming to Republicans in every branch. We have legitimate shots at electing Democrats in states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, and Kansas--possibly even winning a few in the general.
(See this recent New York Times article and this SurveyUSA map)
A result like this would undoubtedly spread to state and local elections. If people in consistently red areas like what they're seeing from the face of the Democratic Party, they'll be much more likely to vote for other Democrats.
Now, with Hillary Clinton I think it's a different story.
Best case scenario: Hillary wins the presidency, Democrats are still able to ride the current wave to a large majority in Congress, and we can begin undoing the terrible things that have been done over the last eight years.
Pretty good, on its face. I don't think this has the staying power an Obama presidency could have, however. Hillary Clinton is a very polarizing figure; I think we all can admit that. I know she and her supporters think that fighting and being able to attack the Republicans are good traits. This is what most of us have been looking for the last eight years. But this is not the mentality that will spread progressive ideas into the minds of center-leaning Republicans and independents.
Seeing a liberal majority governing in the same manner we have been exposed to recently will turn a number of people away--even liberals. (No, I am not saying Clinton will do the things Bush has done, but governance founded on fighting your opponent is not what most of America wants)
We have no chance of shifting the politics of Republican strongholds with her as the face of the party. None. We may be able to do some good in the short term, but support for an all-encompassing flood of progressive policies will be impossible.
Worst case scenario: Well you can imagine what I think this is. Democrats lose to McCain and, despite the unorganized, demoralized Republican outlook, the new type of progressive supporter will be convinced that their hopes were misguided and misdirected. Some shift back to the right, some revert to the apathy I previously mentioned, and some go even farther, unable to even pull the lever next to D in indifference.
I know the argument against this is that the characterization of Clinton's politics is the only way to get anything done. The Republicans won't stop just because the Democrats do. But people have already shown their ready to reject angry, petty politics. If Obama is successful the Republicans will just dig themselves deeper trying to continue attacking.
The Court System
First let me point out that Gary Rees posted a very rational argument for voting Dem in November despite the nominee. As usual the comments reverted to name-calling and drive-by mud-slinging.
So this is in part an extension of that post and my reaction to it.
The importance of securing a liberal majority, or at least stemming an expansion of the current conservative majority, on the Supreme Court is undeniable. The effect of a chosen nominee on the Judicial Branch goes far beyond the Sup.Ct., however.
The current shift in judicial decisions we are seeing is largely a result of a concerted Republican effort initiated in the Reagan era. Despite the idea's aversion to normal Republican theory, they had the foresight to reap the benefits of a bottom-up conservative movement in the judicial system. The Federalist Society expanded rapidly; young people were instilled with the goal of achieving political results through legal avenues. Conservative judges were put in place at every level throughout the country. It didn't take long for this to affect the Supreme Court and, in many ways, the political fate of our country.
Fortunately, there is now a countermovement among progressives and non-partisans alike. I encourage anyone remotely interested in reversing the current trend to join the American Constitution Society and contribute anyway they can. This is a rapidly growing group that has already had success educating and encouraging people at every level of the judicial process.
It is this type of vision that is more important to sustain long-term than an appointment on the highest court. Failing to mobilize this force will render any one-term shift in ideology irrelevant--the next chance the Republicans get they will have any number of super-conservative justices to choose from.
I believe an organized, widespread progressive movement accomplishes this. I have already discussed why I think this is a more likely accomplishment under an Obama presidency than a Clinton one.
Presidency/Conclusion
As Clinton supporters have pointed out repeatedly in attempts to get Obama supporters to vote Dem no matter what, the candidates' policies have only minor differences. I agree. But this is exactly why the candidate as a person matters.
At TPMCafe you can read Michael Connery's recent argument for a potential progressive majority among youth. I believe this does not need to wait for all the Millennials to reach voting age.
We can do this now. The time is ripe and we cannot waste it by turning away voters eager to join the movement. Our choice of president will not just cause a ripple among the electorate.
The single act of nominating a candidate will cause a wave throughout the public sphere--activists, youths, moderates, even non-voters. We can ride this wave to a long due progressive movement or we can crash it against the ebbing neocon tide. One will engulf any remaining Republican hope and the other will break us up as it destroys them.
