Just the Facts, Please

A great way to keep tabs on the TRUTH during the upcoming campaign, check out Fact Check.org:

Visit Fact Check

More about the "double standard" in the Hillary-hating MSM

Editorial today from Geoff Garin, strategist for the Clinton campaign:

Fair Is Fair

By Geoff Garin
Friday, April 25, 2008; Page A23

What's wrong with this picture? Our campaign runs a TV ad Monday saying that the presidency is the toughest job in the world and giving examples of challenges presidents have faced and challenges the next president will face -- including terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mounting economic dislocation, and soaring gas prices. The ad makes no reference -- verbal, visual or otherwise -- to our opponent; it simply asks voters to think about who they believe is best able to stand the heat. And we are accused, by some in the media, of running a fear-mongering, negative ad.

The day before this ad went on the air, David Axelrod, Barack Obama's chief strategist, appeared with me on "Meet the Press." He was asked whether Hillary Clinton would bring "the changes necessary" to Washington, and his answer was "no." This was in keeping with the direct, personal character attacks that the Obama campaign has leveled against Clinton from the beginning of this race -- including mailings in Pennsylvania that describe her as "the master of a broken system."

So let me get this straight.

On the one hand, it's perfectly decent for Obama to argue that only he has the virtue to bring change to Washington and that Clinton lacks the character and the commitment to do so. On the other hand, we are somehow hitting below the belt when we say that Clinton is the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what's right for the American people, while leaving the decisions about Obama's preparedness to the voters.

I keep saying that at some point we are going to make sense of the hostility the Hillary Clinton receives from the media and theorize as to its root cause. In the meantime, voters are going to have to come to terms that Barack Obama is a politician, just like Hillary. That's not a bad thing, folks. The 'game' being played (and it is a 'game' with serious real world consequences) is POLITICS. It is best conducted by those who understand how it works. And, so, the 'game' continues.

The PA Primary is finally here

To all my friends who are Obama supporters, and one obvious piece of advice to the Obama campaign:

Want Hillary out of the race? Beat her today in the Pennsylvania primary. Not a 'moral' victory, not "we closed the gap to only 5 points". Win.


All those who have been calling for Hillary to get out of the way of Obama's nomination continue to ignore the obvious. If Barack would just win PA (of if he had won OH) then it's over. Hillary would be out of the race in 48 hours.

If HIllary does win PA today, as is likely, then I think we need to acknowledge that there is a flaw in the Obama movement. I will embrace the nominee of the party when all is said and done. For now, I will continue to point out the shortcomings of the Obama campaign. Winning important states like Ohio, PA, Florida, NJ is critical for the nominee of the Democratic Party, we all know that. Utah and South Carolina will not be in the Democratic column in November.

The MSM beats the drum of Clinton's 'improbability'

Great column on the RealClearPolitics site written by Fromma Harrop about how the Media have embraced the idea that Hillary has virtually 'no chance' of winning the nomination:

The latest collapse started some days ago on what is normally a four-star destination for good journalism, PBS's "NewsHour." The news summary started off with this: "Clinton's fellow Democrat in the Senate, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, today urged her to leave the race for the good of the party."

The "fellow Democrat" also happened to be one of Barack Obama's most ardent supporters, but whoops, they forget to mention that. For days even mainstream media were portraying Leahy, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and other members of the Obama team as "elders" thinking only of the party.

David Brooks and misogyny

In today's column, David Brooks spews the typical hostile rhetoric that Hillary Clinton has been facing lately. To wit: "why would she insist on pursuing her campaign now that the odds of her winning the nomination have narrowed? what an egomaniac! What a monster! She is bent on destroying the party!"

With all the attention on race in this campaign, it seems that no one is noticing the gender issues. Does anyone think that such attacks would be levied at Hillary if she were a man? Folks, it's classic. If Hillary were a man, the narrative would be about Clinton's brave effort to continue a difficult campaign, complete with lots of war/warrior terminology. I cannot recall any other primary battles where the underdog was so dismissed and disparaged.

Bad Arguments Against the Candidates, Will they influence the election?

As I was deciding which candidate would get my support in the Democratic primaries, I heard folks make this argument against Hillary Clinton:

She is divisive. People hate her. If we nominate her, the right wing will be foaming at the mouth and use the dirty tricks of the 90's, so she should not get the nomination.

More recently, I have heard Obama's supporters make similar claims. i.e. Hillary can't bring the country together because so many conservatives hate her. Barack can bring the country together. In fact, this idea of "unity under Obama" seems to be one of the most powerful arguments in his favor, after his inspirational oratory.

I think in the last few days we are seeing what the right wing is going to be doing to candidate Barack Obama. Radio personality Bill Cunningham attacked Obama as a 'Chicago Hack' and repeatedly used his middle name. Afterwards he disingenuously claimed that he meant nothing by it. Hogwash. Of course Cunningham and the others who are doing this intend to inflame racism and suspicion of Muslims, and imply that by virtue of his name, Senator Obama has some connection to "our enemies in the Islamic world." A Republican member of Congress appeared on MSNBC earlier this week, and attacked Obama's patriotism because Obama does not wear an American flag lapel pin. Host Dan Abrams immediately pointed out his hypocrisy given that the congressman himself was not wearing one. Now, McCain distanced himself from Cunningham (but, so far not from Rep. Jack Kingston), but this is not going to stop the 'haters' like Cuningham, like Rush Limbaugh from proceeding to cast these aspersions on Obama.

So, I ask you, can Obama be the messenger of Hope and bringer of unity, if these hateful right wingers are going to impugn his patriotism at every turn? They will point to the misinterpreted 'no-hand-over-his-heart' photo, gleefully display the picture of Obama wearing the garb of his father's homeland, crow about the flag lapel pin, and on and on. Even if McCain distances himself from this at every turn, it will not matter. The public will be barraged with these hateful messages and lies. How, then, can we Democrats get our positive message out and win the election? For all those who are excited about Senator Obama's message of Hope and Unity, please be prepared to have to fight a very different battle: a battle over lapel pins and patriotism. I've already found myself telling people that Obama is not a muslim (in response to the infamous email going around) and then doing my best Seinfeld "not that there's anything wrong with that."
We Democrats may want to wage a campaign about Hope and Unity, but I fear "the right wing freakshow" has a very different battle in mind.

I do not present this as a reason why we should not nominate Obama. I rejected this argument when I heard its corollary against my first choice candidate, Senator Clinton, and I reject it now. I do want my friends who do support Obama to be ready for the kind of campaign we are going to have. Those who chose Obama because they wanted to avoid a 'dirty' or divisive campaign need to know the politics of America in a post-Bush/Cheney world won't allow it. Prepare for battle.

Hillary Gets Key Ohio Endorsement

From this week's Akron-Beacon Journal (and Ohio.com):

For President

Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary

Published on Sunday, Feb 24, 2008

Listen to her closing words in the CNN debate on Thursday evening, and Hillary Clinton offered a concise reminder of the virtues of her candidacy, and the difficulty facing her campaign. No matter what happens, she relayed, the country will be best served by the Democratic Party coming together and achieving victory in November.

Hard to imagine now, even with primaries looming in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, that Barack Obama will not be the party's nominee for president. The crowds greeting him have been large and enthusiastic. He has captured 10 consecutive states, in primaries and caucuses, in the north, south, east and west, and by wide margins, eroding the base of much Clinton support.

Many Ohioans surely will join the chant ''Yes, we can!'' in the coming days. They may do so thinking about ''electability.'' This editorial page has in mind the question of which candidate would make the stronger president, which candidate is more prepared for all the Oval Office presents its occupant, and the many challenges before the country at home and abroad.

We recommend a vote for Hillary Clinton in the March 4 presidential primary.

Her many critics, in the media and elsewhere, point to the struggling campaign, most notably, the muddled messages. They point to Bill Clinton playing too prominent, and clumsy, a role. Even admirers ask: Does the country really want to go from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton, potentially for 28 years? Or return to the political wars of the 1990s?

The regrettable thing is, too little time in this campaign has been spent acknowledging the past eight years that Clinton has spent representing New York in the U.S. Senate. She has moved beyond those harshly partisan times. She has worked effectively with Democrats and Republicans, even those who once pushed for the impeachment of her husband. She has won praise from the Pentagon for her work on the Armed Services Committee.

Many military officers recognize she would be a formidable commander in chief.

Her resilience has deserved more attention, too. Many Clinton watchers point to her grit. There is something larger at work: Her temperament stands out as one of her finest qualities. Lose in a bid for sweeping reform of health care, and Clinton comes back with a program less ambitious but still substantial, achieving broader insurance coverage for children. The 1990s taught lessons, Clinton shedding much self-righteousness, acquiring the skills to navigate successfully in Washington.

Most impressive is her keen intelligence. No candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat, can match her command of issues, foreign and domestic. Consider health care and education, two of the country's highest priorities. Clinton speaks to each with depth and clarity, articulating, say, the value of universal health coverage or ways to repair the troubled student loan program.

This race hardly has left room for fiscal discipline, amid all the promises and plans. Yet Clinton has demonstrated the most restraint. She articulates an approach overseas that involves this country playing a leading role, yet finding ways to work with others, understanding that issues such as combating terrorism, curbing climate change and opening trade require global strategies.

If her vote authorizing war in Iraq has harmed her candidacy in this primary season, she has been the more thoughtful and honest about the road ahead.

Many people in the Barack Obama camp cite his superb campaign organization as evidence of his capacity to do more than deliver inspiring words. They are correct. Obama can point to impressive achievements in the Illinois Senate. He played a leading role via style and substance. He has made a strong start in the U.S. Senate. Yet there remains so much that is uncertain and unformed about Obama. Bill Clinton was looking for a tactical advantage when cautioned that electing Obama would be a ''roll of the dice.'' There is an element of truth in his words.

For many Democrats, obviously, the risk is well worth it. It is hard not to be stirred by his promises of ''change,'' of breaking tired patterns in the halls of Washington. That said, once in office, the words give way to decisions, and all the fine talk loses its luster as a president struggles with deeds.

One frequently noted virtue of Hillary Clinton is that she is battle-tested, ready for whatever the Republicans throw at their opponent. Actually, she is tested in a more telling way. Neither John McCain, nor Barack Obama, nor Hillary Clinton has much direct management experience. Still, of the three, Clinton has been on the scene in the governor's office and in the White House, alert to the pace and the breadth of the job. That makes a difference. She understands well the unique demands of the presidency.

Obama presents himself as a transforming figure. Actually, his campaign approach is familiar, just as his proposals are more conventional, more candy-for-everyone than he suggests, his recent pandering on the trade issue especially disappointing. He is running as the classic outsider. The truth is, Washington won't be changed in a dramatic way. Partisan clashes are expected, even promoted.

If both candidates represent a certain change, one seeking to become the first black president, the other the first woman president, the country is best-served by the president with the knowledge, savvy and temperament to push Washington forward, building coalitions at the political center. Barack Obama carries much promise of doing so. Hillary Clinton is the more proven leader.

Listen to her closing words in the CNN debate on Thursday evening, and Hillary Clinton offered a concise reminder of the virtues of her candidacy, and the difficulty facing her campaign. No matter what happens, she relayed, the country will be best served by the Democratic Party coming together and achieving victory in November.

Hard to imagine now, even with primaries looming in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, that Barack Obama will not be the party's nominee for president. The crowds greeting him have been large and enthusiastic. He has captured 10 consecutive states, in primaries and caucuses, in the north, south, east and west, and by wide margins, eroding the base of much Clinton support.

Many Ohioans surely will join the chant ''Yes, we can!'' in the coming days. They may do so thinking about ''electability.'' This editorial page has in mind the question of which candidate would make the stronger president, which candidate is more prepared for all the Oval Office presents its occupant, and the many challenges before the country at home and abroad.

We recommend a vote for Hillary Clinton in the March 4 presidential primary.

Her many critics, in the media and elsewhere, point to the struggling campaign, most notably, the muddled messages. They point to Bill Clinton playing too prominent, and clumsy, a role. Even admirers ask: Does the country really want to go from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton, potentially for 28 years? Or return to the political wars of the 1990s?

The regrettable thing is, too little time in this campaign has been spent acknowledging the past eight years that Clinton has spent representing New York in the U.S. Senate. She has moved beyond those harshly partisan times. She has worked effectively with Democrats and Republicans, even those who once pushed for the impeachment of her husband. She has won praise from the Pentagon for her work on the Armed Services Committee.

Many military officers recognize she would be a formidable commander in chief.

Her resilience has deserved more attention, too. Many Clinton watchers point to her grit. There is something larger at work: Her temperament stands out as one of her finest qualities. Lose in a bid for sweeping reform of health care, and Clinton comes back with a program less ambitious but still substantial, achieving broader insurance coverage for children. The 1990s taught lessons, Clinton shedding much self-righteousness, acquiring the skills to navigate successfully in Washington.

Most impressive is her keen intelligence. No candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat, can match her command of issues, foreign and domestic. Consider health care and education, two of the country's highest priorities. Clinton speaks to each with depth and clarity, articulating, say, the value of universal health coverage or ways to repair the troubled student loan program.

This race hardly has left room for fiscal discipline, amid all the promises and plans. Yet Clinton has demonstrated the most restraint. She articulates an approach overseas that involves this country playing a leading role, yet finding ways to work with others, understanding that issues such as combating terrorism, curbing climate change and opening trade require global strategies.

If her vote authorizing war in Iraq has harmed her candidacy in this primary season, she has been the more thoughtful and honest about the road ahead.

Many people in the Barack Obama camp cite his superb campaign organization as evidence of his capacity to do more than deliver inspiring words. They are correct. Obama can point to impressive achievements in the Illinois Senate. He played a leading role via style and substance. He has made a strong start in the U.S. Senate. Yet there remains so much that is uncertain and unformed about Obama. Bill Clinton was looking for a tactical advantage when cautioned that electing Obama would be a ''roll of the dice.'' There is an element of truth in his words.

For many Democrats, obviously, the risk is well worth it. It is hard not to be stirred by his promises of ''change,'' of breaking tired patterns in the halls of Washington. That said, once in office, the words give way to decisions, and all the fine talk loses its luster as a president struggles with deeds.

One frequently noted virtue of Hillary Clinton is that she is battle-tested, ready for whatever the Republicans throw at their opponent. Actually, she is tested in a more telling way. Neither John McCain, nor Barack Obama, nor Hillary Clinton has much direct management experience. Still, of the three, Clinton has been on the scene in the governor's office and in the White House, alert to the pace and the breadth of the job. That makes a difference. She understands well the unique demands of the presidency.

Obama presents himself as a transforming figure. Actually, his campaign approach is familiar, just as his proposals are more conventional, more candy-for-everyone than he suggests, his recent pandering on the trade issue especially disappointing. He is running as the classic outsider. The truth is, Washington won't be changed in a dramatic way. Partisan clashes are expected, even promoted.

If both candidates represent a certain change, one seeking to become the first black president, the other the first woman president, the country is best-served by the president with the knowledge, savvy and temperament to push Washington forward, building coalitions at the political center. Barack Obama carries much promise of doing so. Hillary Clinton is the more proven leader.

Can't we all just get along??

Paul Krugman hits the issue on the head again today in his Column:

The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.

I'm sorry, but there just aren't enough significant policy differences between our two leading candidates for there to be this kind of intensity and antagonism. I am a strong supporter of Senator Clinton, but if Obama is the nominee, I will support him strongly as well. We all need to agree that we need a Democrat in the White House. I expect Obama's supporters to return the favor. To not do so reveals a selfishness and a lack of understanding of the political situation in this country. It reminds me of the catastrophic mistake made by left-leaning voters in 2000 to turn their backs on Al Gore, and look what that wrought.

We've already had Barack stating publicly that his supporters "might not support her in the fall," and Michelle Obama said in an ABC interview that she might not be able to bring herself to vote for Hillary. What is this nonsense? Could it be policy based or is it really just about personalities and pettiness. I keep hearing Bill Clinton talk about all the great choices in this primary season and how they would all make great presidents. Imagine the outburst of Clinton-hating that would occur if Bill said he may not be able to support Barack in the fall??? This brings me to another excerpt from Krugman's column about 'Clinton rules' that the Obama supporters better keep in mind, because the MSM will turn them in to 'Obama rules' soon enough if he is the nominee or President at some point:

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent . . .

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.

I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.

For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.

For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.

That's it for now. I'd love to write more about the sexist coverage at MSNBC, but I'll save that for another day.

Every Vote Counts!

If you think that a single vote can't make a difference (do people STILL think that after all the close elections in recent years?, take a look at this:

Dead heat: Obama and Clinton split the Syracuse vote 50-50

February 7, 2008

In the city of Syracuse, the strangest thing happened in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary.

Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama received the exact same number of votes, according to unofficial Board of Election results.

Clinton: 6,001.

Obama: 6,001.

"Wow, that is odd," said Jay Biba, Clinton's Central New York campaign coordinator. "I never heard of that in my life."

The odds of Clinton and Obama tying were less than one in 1 million, said Syracuse University mathematics Professor Hyune-Ju Kim.

"It's almost impossible," said Kim, who analyzed the statewide and citywide votes.

Lisa Daly, Obama's Syracuse campaign coordinator, said she thought a mistake had been made when she was first told the tally by the Board of Elections.

What are the chances of it happening?

"Good thing it wasn't a mayor's race," quipped Grant Reeher, a political science professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

A total of 12,346 votes were cast for Democrats in the city. Four other Democrats also received votes: John Edwards, 114; Dennis Kucinich, 113; Bill Richardson, 90; and Joe Biden, 27.

Is this going to be what we hear about for the next two months?

Interesting bit from the Sunday Telegraph of London:

As a fluent public speaker, independent-minded wife, devoted mother and professional woman, Michelle Obama has been hailed as an invaluable asset to her husband Barack's mission to capture the Democratic 2008 presidential nomination.
Yet, while her style and performance are winning plaudits on the campaign trail, a little-reported business interest of Mrs Obama's has opened her husband up to one of the criticisms that politicians fear most - the taint of hypocrisy

She is taking a break from her main job, as a well-remunerated Chicago hospital executive, to campaign for her husband. But she has just been re-elected to the board of an Illinois food-processing company, a position she took up two years ago to gain experience of the private sector.
And the biggest customer for the pickles and peppers produced by Treehouse Foods is the retail giant Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation and the bête noire of American liberals, including Sen Obama, for its employment practices, most notably its refusal to recognise trade unions.
As the Illinois senator prepared to join the presidential fray late last year, he threw his weight behind the union-backed campaign against Wal-Mart. He declared that there was a "moral responsibility to stand up and fight" the company and "force them to examine their own corporate values".
According to the couple's tax returns, Mrs Obama earned $51,200 for her work as a non-executive director on Treehouse's board last year, on top of the $271,618 salary she was paid as a vice-president of the University of Chicago Hospitals.

She also received 7,500 Treehouse stock options, worth a further $72,375, as she did the previous year, when she banked a $45,000 salary from the company.
The apparent contradiction between Sen Obama's political calculation to join the Wal-Mart-bashing lobby, and his wife's profitable role with a company that makes money from Wal-Mart, is being closely scrutinised by "opposition" research teams working for rival White House candidates

Now, Hillary Clinton once served on the board of Wal-mart, where she asserts she fought for workers rights. I found the piece above of interest as an example of the kinds of opposition research, journalistic 'digging' and attacks we could be in for over the coming weeks, and certainly in a general election.

going into Super-Duper-Tuesday

Some good analysis from NCEC. Two pieces worth mentioning, the first shows how well Hillary did in Florida (despite the lack of delegates 1.7 million voters cast ballots in the Democratic primary:

More than 1.7 million Democratic voters cast ballots in Tuesday's primary, the largest presidential turnout in the state's history, exceeding the previous 1976 high by more than 400,000 votes and more than doubling the 2004 turnout and tripling the 2000 turnout. The winner, Senator Hillary Clinton, amassed more votes than did any previous Democratic contender, including two past southern presidents -- Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Read more

NCEC also reports that going into S-D-T, the race is tightening even here in NJ, where Hillary's lead is down to 6 points. Obama is in the state for a major rally today, and Chelsea is stumping for mom at a famous diner here in North Jersey.

As we approach Super Tuesday, it is extremely hazardous to formulate predictions. Here is what we do know: The national polls show an ever-tightening race. Obama has drawn close to the margin of error with Clinton . Moreover, a poll in New Jersey , released today by Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg and Al Quinlan, revealed that the Clinton margin is down to 6%.

We should anticipate something of a mixed verdict on Tuesday. While Senator Clinton is likely to carry New York , and is favored in California and New Jersey by diminished margins, and is also expected to carry Arkansas , Senator Obama is thought to be ahead in Alabama , Georgia , Kansas , and his home state of Illinois . A state to watch is Missouri , with a large African-American vote, and a proximity to Illinois . The winner there, in a quintessentially red state, will boost either candidate. Read more

Hey, Dems, Let's Not Snub Florida!

Ok, so I don't make much out of Obama's so called 'snub' of Hillary last night, but I am more concerned about the party snubbing Florida voters, who are turning out in large numbers today despite being told by the DNC that they will not seat FL delegates at the convention in August.
We need to win Florida and Michigan in November, and while I respect the DNC for laying down some rules and trying to control the primary calendar, we are kidding ourselves if we think we won't seat the delegates from these two swing states in Denver.
What will the media make of today's results in Florida? My guess is that they will discount it as 'irrelevant' because the delegates 'don't count'. But, here's the thing: millions of voters in Florida are voting today. Should we count their votes? (Hey, does THAT sound familiar???) The lack of delegates is a DNC procedural issue. The voters in Florida have been exposed to the media coverage of the campaign for weeks. Both the Clinton and Obama campaign have aired ads that were seen by Florida voters. The expression of the Democratic voters in Florida will be an accurate reflection of their choice for President. It counts.

Why Hillary?

I have been attempting to articulate my choice of Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama for some time now. My natural inclination would be to be very attracted to Obama's message of hope and unity, but you see, I lived through the 90's. Bill Clinton's message in the '92 campaign was one of hope and unity as well (see: "I believe in a place called Hope" from the campaign and "there is nothing wrong with America that be cured by what is right with America" from the inaugural). As a young person just out of college, I was very inspired. Unfortunately, the right did everything it could to discredit a sitting Democratic President, they had no care, no USE, for bi-partisanship and unity.
Paul Krugman does a much better job of explaining this in his column today:

First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them.

So, as I look around at the young people all around me who are excited by Obama's message, I too get excited. Without the mobilization of the youth vote, the US will never break the chokehold the right has on our country. I just remember what happened to the last guy, and I have no reason to expect anything less from the right in the years ahead.

The 'bonus' in this primary election is that we have an extremely qualified candidate in Hillary Clinton, who KNOWS the battles ahead. She's lived through them in the past and has learned from them (see her successful work in the Senate).

I hear many people say we cannot afford to fight the battles of the 90's again. I agree. That's why my choice for President is Hillary. She won't have to learn how to do the job, she is ready from day one.

Also, Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office represents CHANGE. Change from the damaging policies of the Bush administration in EVERY way, from foreign policy to domestic and economic affairs. Inaugurating our nation's first woman president will send a signal throughout the world that we have changed and America can go about restoring its place in the world.

None of this should be construed as an attack on Senator Obama, who is an inspirational figure. In fact, I very much want him to be on the scene, what could be better than a Clinton-Obama ticket in the fall? His presence on the ticket would continue to mobilize and inspire young voters. Now, if we can all just get though the next few weeks of primary season without tearing each other down, we can make sure that the person sworn into office in January 2009 will be a Democrat.

Liberal. Liberal! LIBERAL!!!!

"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor." -- Matt Santos, The West Wing

Hillary Wins NH, Obama coming to Saint Peter's in Jersey City

Well, looks like Hillary pulled a big upset and is now "The Comeback Gal"!
I thought this blogger post on "Open Left"does some interesting delegate math.


Meanwhile Senator Obama is coming to my workplace!:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4vyz8

In New Hampshire

I'm watching the debates tonight from the Current TV storefront here in Manchester, NH. I'm up here to see the retail politics of the New Hampshire primary up close. Today, I saw Huckabee, Kucinich and Bill Clinton. I was just interviewed by Joan Walsh of Salon.com, and I 'came out' as a supporter of Hillary Clinton. I am ready to embrace her as the nominee. The right wing echo chamber is going to play dirty against our nominee, and I am convinced that Senator Clinton is our best hope to defeat them and put a progressive in the White House.
I'll write more later about my experience up here, but I could not pass up a post from this unique venue sponsored by Current TV. There are multiple TV screens here and iMacs and interested folks watching. They also have a little production booth here for citizens to video their thoughts to be posted on the current.com site. (Here's a sample one by Ms. Walsh herself).

The trip up here was neat, I took a flight from LaGuardia. Had Bill Schneider from CNN and GOP Rep. Peter King on the prop plane with me. Saw Tom Brokaw and George Stephanopolous at the gates. Downtown Manchester is chock full of campaign workers, signs, media ... it's all here.

My good friend Chuck put together this excursion, he brought his wonderful 12 yr old daughter up to New Hampshire for her first taste of politics, and she was great, asking Mitt Romney a serious question about torture at a Q&A on Friday.

Saw Gov. Huckabee at an event with Chuck Norris and his much younger wife in the morning:


After the debate, went to the Clinton 'afterparty' and got to see and hear the Clinton's up close:


and I got to chat with Chelsea and she was kind enough to pose for a photo:

What does Huckabee's win in Iowa mean?

As I predicted some time ago, Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus. With his evangelical populism, Huckabee is anathema to many traditional fiscal conservatives.
A possible rise in popularity for Gov. Huckabee (lets say he has a good showing in a few more states with evangelicals like South Carolina) might signal the beginnings of collapse for the social conservative/fiscal conservative/corporate Republican coalition that has been so successful for Republicans in national elections.

Gore and the Media in the 2000 election

I caught up to this article in Vanity Fair while visiting my brother for the holidays, it was in the October issue:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710

Now, my friends might very well tell me to get over the 2000 election already, but part of me never will. Moreover, we still have much to learn from what happened. With the 2008 election battle heating up, I hope some of those same mistakes don't happen again.

The piece does an excellent job of detailing how two reporters, Katharine Seelye of the New York Times, Ceci Connolly from The Washington Post lead the way in beating up on Gore with distorted information and misquotes. The entire MSM latched on to the 'exaggerations' storyline and went into a feeding frenzy over irrelevancies like Gore's "sigh's" during the first debate with Bush. We are given several examples of the outright distain for Gore and cynicism that carries through the news articles. This type of journalism is a long way from the work of the legendary "Johnny" R. W. Apple, who covered camapaigns and was the Washington Bureau chief for the Times for years.
On the editorial pages, Maureen Dowd belittled Gore at every turn.
So, the question is, what happened? Why did the national media cover Gore with distain and Bush with kid gloves? Were they manipulated? Was this the outcome of a self-loathing "liberal media" turning on a progressive politician? After the Clinton years was the MSM overly cynical?

Perhaps the MSM just acted like sheep:

The trivial continued to dominate during the postmortem following Gore and Bush's first debate, on October 3, 2000. The television media were sure Gore won—at first. But then Republican operatives promptly spliced together a reel of Gore sighing, which was then sent to right-wing radio outlets. Eighteen hours later, the pundits could talk of little else. "They could hear you audibly sighing or sounding exasperated as Governor Bush was answering questions," Katie Couric scolded him the next day on the Today show. "Do you think that's presidential behavior?" For the Times's Frank Bruni, the sighs weren't as galling as Gore's familiarity with the names of foreign leaders. "It was not enough for Vice President Al Gore to venture a crisp pronunciation of Milosevic, as in Slobodan," he wrote. "Mr. Gore had to go a step further, volunteering the name of Mr. Milosevic's challenger Vojislav Kostunica."

Which candidate can do the best job fighting against this in 2008? I have to think it's Hillary Clinton, given all of her experience in the battle with the 'vast right wing conspiracy'.

For more on the MSM echo chamber read Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/items/200612160001

Thoughts?

Al Gore in the Oval Office again.

What a photo:


Gore visited the White House this week as a Nobel Prize winner.

Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Does this make up for getting robbed of the Presidency?
I wish he could run, but he won't and it's probably the right thing for him but . . .