This goes without saying...

...but since berlin brought it up...

a) Hillary is not the most electable...sweet jesus, no. She's the one candidate that conservatives will show up to vote against even if they're completely and totally uninspired by their own set of candidates.

b) If Hillary wins, Paul Begala and James Carville are once again the spokesmen of the Democratic Party again. Seriously, this is what we are supposed to want?

Read More...

Summary only...

The Mind, It Boggles

Steve Soto is normally one of the shrewder bloggers, but he's come out for Hillary because she's most electable and offers as proof of his wisdom the fact that in 2004 he supported John Kerry for the same reason. And she, like Kerry, will be able to deal effectively with the Repub attacks in the coming campaign.


WUUUHHHHHHHH?????????

Read More...

Summary only...

The E-Word!

Remember the good old days of 2003, when Howard Dean wasn’t electable, but John Kerry was? Well...why hasn’t anybody mentioned the ‘electability’ of Hillary Clinton?

From the "Tell Us Again Why This Isn't a Problem" Department, a new national Mason-Dixon Poll finds 52 percent of Americans saying they wouldn't even consider voting for Hillary Clinton for president.

"Hillary's carrying a lot of baggage," explains Mason-Dixon's Larry Harris. "She's the only one that has a majority who say they can't vote for her."

She’s the only one with a ‘net-unfavorable’ rating. Honestly, she’s the only one that Republicans have a chance against. But I guess she’s not a “crazy” and “angry” “outsider” like Howard Dean...she’s a nice establishment candidate all the way, so it doesn’t really warrant a mention.

Only 491 days to go...

Read More...

Summary only...

Sing-A-Long with Hillary

So it's the moment we've all been waiting for: Hillary has unveiled her campaign song! (thunderous applause)

However, much to my horror, she spoofs the final scene of the The Sopranos on her website as an intro to her campaign song (SPOILER ALERT: it's "You and I" by Celine Dion).

Acting: D (but Bill does a good job looking discouraged by the carrot sticks)
Soundtrack: A (I do love this song)
Cameo: ? (Can't decide that Johnny Sac making an appearance is cool or not)
Overall: Entertaining in that "holy crap! what is this?" kind of way

Read More...

Summary only...

Only 537 days to go...

You mean actual military veterans might not feel the same way as guys like Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney?

But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night's presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation...

These assertions that "torture works" may reassure a fearful public, but it is a false security. We don't know what's been gained through this fear-driven program. But we do know the consequences.

Meanwhile, Gore actually expands on his previous "I'm not planning on running, but who knows?" rationale: he hates politics, and he isn't really sure if that's going to change (via HuffPo).

Then again (also via HuffPo), he shouldn't jump in...there's no point: it's game, set, match Hillary.

Read More...

Summary only...

579 Days to Go...

From Mahablog:

Last night I endured considerable babbling from the television pundits about Barack Obama’s first quarter fundraising results. Consensus among the bobbleheads is that all those little people who gave nickles and dimes to Sen. Obama instead of Sen. Clinton must be (a) angry with her because of the war, or (b) still suffering Clinton fatigue. Or both.

I think both are a factor, but I think there’s another factor the bobbleheads are missing.

For the past few bleeping years the pundits have been telling us that Sen. Hillary Clinton will be the 2008 presidential nominee for the Democratic Party. No doubt about it. She’s got all this money, all these connections, a killer political organization — nay, a machine — behind her. Whether the Democratic Party base wanted her to be the candidate was never questioned. She was who we were going to get, like it or not.

I’m not going to disagree with any of that—it’s all true. However, there’s still one more reason why Obama got donations from 100,000 people or whatever it was: he’s the first truly inspiring personality (who couldn’t quickly be labeled as ‘crazy,’ anyway) since, what, Bill Clinton? JFK? There are still tons of doubts and unknowns about Obama, and I'm not really sure that I like his stances in some areas, but as I've said before...he actually has a healthy amount charisma, and he's shown that he doesn't mind being a wonky guy who learns quickly. I think he'll develop into a pretty decent candidate over the next few months. I hope he does, anyway.

People are tired of Hillary, and people are being tired of told that Hillary was going to be the nominee no matter what, but simply being “someone other than Hillary” isn’t why Obama raised that much, and for all his faults, it’s an insult to him to think that his own personality and qualifications didn’t have something to do with it.

Read More...

Summary only...

Only 580 days to go...

Dana B. has an interesting thought about the "Kos primary" and the netroots' effect on the 2008 race as a whole. It's a unique view, though I'm kinda confused...

Four years ago Markos Moulitsas (left) was a common blogger. Like me (and many others) he became an early fan of Howard Dean, and in the summer was hired as an Internet consultant to the campaign. His suggestions were not followed, he was let go in the fall, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Today his site, DailyKos, and fellow consultant Jerome Armstrong's MyDD are the largest Democratic Party clubhouses on the Internet. They are both best-selling authors, and their communities (not blogs, communities) are where new liberal ideas are tried out, where Netroots consensus is built on politics and policy.

Markos himself has not chosen a candidate (although it won't be Hillary Clinton). He has tried, in this cycle, to act as a reporter, although one with an obvious point-of-view and some self-awareness of his influence. Thus his recent attack on Barack Obama is important, and may have done more than Elizabeth Edwards' cancer diagnosis to raise John Edwards' profile among the Netroots.

Then we have today's news. Obama's $25 million campaign haul, from 100,000 people, $6.9 million from the Internet alone, 100,000 total donors. It's a sign of significant grassroots support, as well as institutional support. Obama has become the Tiger Woods of the Democratic field.

...Kos is as influential as ever, yet Obama raised $7 million off of the internet without him. Kinda contradictory, though Obama's surge is very encouraging overall. We all know about the famed blogroll purge and Amnesty Day and all that (you can read the latest about that the ongoing silliness here...somebody's getting pissy), but I think this proves that the concept of the 'long tail' where the big names in a field--music, books, blogs, etc.--are still the big names, but there are so many other voices out there that the big names cannot dominate simply because they raise their voice. That's a very good thing.

Now, I know a lot of middling blogs have seen their hits drop since the blogroll purge (our own hits have dropped about 30% in the last couple of months, but that has infinitely more to do with less people googling La Fea Mas Bella than it does blogroll purges...since, you know, we weren't on any major blogrolls), but this shows that the smaller voices in the blogosphere still have a voice of some sort.

And meanwhile, I got to listen to Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert on the evening news tonight, telling me how absolutely shocking it is that someone else actually raised some money this quarter and that--clutch the pearls--Hillary isn't the runaway Democratic favorite. Good times.

Read More...

Summary only...

Only 582 Days to Go...

More money = more enjoyable, less negative campaign, right? Ri...right? I mean, jeez...even Bill Richardson and Joe Biden combined for $10 million. Who in the world is giving money to Joe Biden??

Meanwhile, via Avedon, I find this E.J. Dionne write-up from Friday that shows Fred Thompson (??) suddenly getting 12% in Republican polls...4x higher than Mitt Romney, who should go ahead and drop out and save his money. Romney’s gotten lots of attention and a supposedly key endorsement from Ann Coulter, and yet he can only manage 3%. Ouch. I mean, my god...Joementum polled higher than 3% in 2004! However, he did manage to raise $23 million, so...yeah. I guess we’ll find out just how much money talks, eh? Meanwhile, from the same column, here’s an assessment of Hillary/Obama...

David Kusnet, the chief White House speechwriter in the early years of Bill Clinton's presidency, sees Obama and Clinton as having opposite problems.

"A presidential campaign is a contest to define the historic moment, and winning candidates are usually the ones who best do that," says Kusnet, who on the whole likes this year's Democratic field. "Obama has the best definition of the moment but doesn't yet have the substance underneath it. Hillary brings a wealth of experience and ideas to the table, but she needs to offer a definition of the moment."

I think that’s about right. And I think Obama’s problem is much easier to overcome than Hillary’s. Then again, I’m rarely right about these things.

And speaking of Hillary, Booman takes a long look at the DLC. You already know what it says, though, and it’s not favorable.

Read More...

Summary only...

Only 19.5 months to go...

Hillary gets some points added to her tally...

She was the star today. If you were in the room, listening, watching and taking it all in, she simply rose way above everyone else. That she came after Obama did her some good, because she, quite frankly, made him look like an amateur. She was personable. Likeable. Knowledgeable in the extreme. There were also specifics to her delivery that were unmistakable and could not be ignored, except by those who refuse to give her a chance. The voters in the room took to her and got her, responding with laughter and applause. I specifically appreciated her choice to stand rather than sit next to Karen Tumulty, the moderator. She was comfortable and natural in the setting, clearly loving this new role, something I can only imagine she's dreamed of manifesting her whole life. Her Midwestern twang is definitely back, which I can appreciate, though it illustrates something else. Hillary Clinton is coming into her own. She's feeling some momentum or maybe she's just having a damn fine time. Whatever it is it shows.

...and then gets them taken away.

Newer additions to Hillary's fold also suggest that her hawkish profile is about more than just polls. One is her Senate foreign policy staffer Andrew Shapiro. The 39-year-old Shapiro is affable but charged with nervous energy. (Sitting in the audience at a recent Clinton speech on the military, he rocked steadily back and forth like Rain Man at Wapner time.) A Gore-Lieberman campaign aide and Justice Department lawyer, Shapiro was also briefly a research assistant at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a center-right think tank. Shapiro is "a mainstream foreign Democratic policy establishment moderate," says a congressional foreign policy aide. "He's hawkish on defense issues and Israel." It is Shapiro, Hillaryites say, who is in the room for most of her important foreign policy decisions.

There's nothing positive to me about Hillary's "midwestern twang," by the way. Just sayin'.

New odds:
Hillary 45%
Obama 40%
Edwards 10%
Anybody else 5%

Read More...

Summary only...

Hillary, Obama, Gays, and a New Low Post!

In the newest Low Post, Taibbi takes on Hillary’s unforgiveable “Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude” comment regarding homosexuality’s immorality (and Obama’s getting slaughtered for uttering an obvious truth).

Let me get this straight. Hillary Clinton wants the most powerful office in the world, but she can't make her own decision about the morality of homosexuality? She's got to "leave that to others"?

When I read this, I thought to myself: Man, this woman has been living with Bill Clinton way too long. Fifteen years after the 1992 campaign, she's trying to smoke the gay pipe (!) without inhaling. She's just said that homosexuality isn't a choice, that it's something "you are" at birth. If that's what she believes, how could she possibly believe homosexuality is immoral? And if that is what she believes, how could she possibly not answer that question forthrightly? How could she duck Tapper's question there?

There are times, of course, when a politician may be excused for not answering a sticky political question. As the flap over Barack Obama's views about Palestine proved this week, people are not always rational and/or forgiving in the face of political candor. If an Obama can't make a simple declarative factual statement about the suffering of the Palestinian people without being gored on the AIPAC trident and whaled on in a host of heated talk-show segments, it's hard to blame some politicians for keeping their mouths shut when politically controversial topics arise.

...

But that crap doesn't fly with this gay-rights issue. In this case there is no future performance in office one is safeguarding with a careful, poll-tested answer. In this case the very act of answering the question is policy. When you're trying to combat bigotry and ignorance, you need to demonstrate actual human leadership, not computerized hedging. By punting the issue of the morality of homosexuality, Hillary dignifies the question. And let's all be clear about what's going on here. It was the word "morality" that had Hillary spooked.

He then goes on to talk about the worthless pile of crap that is the DLC and their constant need to appease ignorant bigots...like they’re ever going to vote for a Democrat anyway. He’s preaching to the choir, of course, but it always seems worth reading.

Every time Hillary says something horrifically poll-tested and approved by the DLC and James Carville (which, let’s be honest, is at least once a week), I more quickly come to the realization of how much we need Obama* to win. For a number of reasons, he’s the only horse in the race that can both a) serve as the populist force America needs right now (Edwards can do that too), and b) show the world that we regret what’s happened over the last eight years (Edwards can almost do that, but not quite...not yet, anyway).

While I do think Obama has a really good shot to win, there’s still a long battle ahead. Obama was introduced to presidential politics and word-parsing recently when he pointed out something that everybody knows as true—that Palestinians are suffering big-time—and got slaughtered by it, to the point that he had to backtrack and give the standard “We’ll continue to fully support Israel” line.

You mean somebody other than Israelis might be suffering? And...lawdy...we might want to acknowledge it?? Gee, let me find some pearls to clutch. What was he thinking saying something crazy like that? But anyway, that’s the way it is when you’re running for President (as a Democrat, anyway). To some degree, I agree with Taibbi when he says that with the price you pay by being honest, it’s almost understandable when a candidate just goes ahead and toes the party line (in this case, Israel = nothing but good, Palestinians = nothing but evil). That it’s not surprising doesn’t make it okay, as Ali Abunimah summarized below. It’s a long way before the primaries...I still want to aim for idealism and reality in a candidate instead of going into “best of a bunch mediocre options” mode...

If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama's about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power. Palestinian-Americans are in the same position as civil libertarians who watched with dismay as Obama voted to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, or immigrant rights advocates who were horrified as he voted in favor of a Republican bill to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico.

Only if enough people know what Obama and his competitors stand for, and organize to compel them to pay attention to their concerns can there be any hope of altering the disastrous course of U.S. policy in the Middle East. It is at best a very long-term project that cannot substitute for support for the growing campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions needed to hold Israel accountable for its escalating violence and solidifying apartheid.

But to me, Obama* is still the only hope. Hillary is just unbearable at this point. She’s smart, and I’m sure she’d do a better job than a lot of others if she were elected president, but god...the only thing worse than her poll-tested middle-ground I-think-you’re-too-stupid-to-understand-what-I-actually-think statements is when she actually tries to be ‘real.’ Did you hear the accent she adopted when she was speaking in Selma the other day? Does it get any more condescending-sounding than that? I don’t even think she was meaning to do it. I think that was her “in her element,” and she still sounded like she was trying way too hard.

And that’s the primary reason that she can’t be elected. Perception matters, and if Hillary wins, it will look like Democrats and/or Americans are fine with the same-old-same-old of electing politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouth, then create new sides, and talk out of those sides too. The world will continue to think that nothing has changed, even though her stances on issues are (when they’re not exactly the same, anyway) better than Bush’s. Sadly, at best Obama* might only be 10-15% different/better than Hillary or anybody else, and while that does fill me with a bit of a “Why do I even care then?” spirit, that 10% really can matter, especially as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

In other words, Mr. Obama*, I really really want to care and feel passionate about a candidate, and you* are the only hope at the moment. Aim higher.


* Any time you see Obama’s name, you can put “(or maybe Edwards)” in parentheses. He honestly probably has the best ideas at the moment, but I just don’t see him getting off the ground. His only hope, though, is it’s March 2007. Ten months before the primary season. Lots and lots will happen between now and then. But until I see him taking off, it’s Hillary vs Obama.

Read More...

Summary only...

I’ll Now Bump Up the Hillary Odds

Arianna has a good point about Hillary that I failed to take into consideration last week when I said Hillary only had a 10-15% chance of winning the nomination: lots of big-money people feel a (sad) loyalty to her no matter how much Obama or anybody else excites them.

Their struggle is palpable. And understandable. Many of the reasons they give for continuing to support Hillary are good and honorable: loyalty, friendship, duty, a shared history (Hey, remember that time Bill gave you that medal, or that great night we all spent talking in the Lincoln bedroom? And how about that night we honored you at the Kennedy Center? Good times). It's like having kids with someone; you don't just walk away from that without a backward glance-- no matter how passionless the relationship has become.

Of course, some of the reasons people are reluctant to jump ship on Hillary are based on fear: What if she wins and I backed Barack? What if she finds those late night e-mails in which I get all hot and bothered about Barack's Iraq withdrawal plan or those IMs in which I pine over his leadership and maxed out because of his authenticity?

And make no mistake, Team Hillary has made it crystal clear that, at least when it comes to politics, there will be zero tolerance for dalliances.

Of course, this sleaze is all the more reason not to vote for, but it’s all the more reason people will. I will say boo to that, but I will also say that I should bump her odds up to the 35-40% range. So I guess that makes my current forecast...

Hillary 35%
Obama 35%
Edwards 20%
Anybody Else 10%

Read More...

Summary only...

Dammit, Hillary...

...I've never really pretended to like Hillary, but I always finish any rant about her with "...but I realize she stands mostly for the right things, and she'd be better than any Republican opponent she might face." Well, that's over (via Skippy).

"Some people may be running who may tell you that we don't face a real threat from terrorism," she said. "I am not one of those."

If you're going to play the strawman game and create the big liberal boogeyman like only the best Republicans do, then you're officially no better than any Republican you might face. NOBODY THINKS TERRORISM ISN'T A REAL THREAT. I'm trying to give you some credit here, Hil. Make it a little easier on me.

Read More...

Summary only...

Keep talking, James...

Seriously, somebody take the mic away from James Carville. I'm sure he's got quite the death grip on it, and tugging it away from him will be harder than it looks (thin but wiry), but...he's just not in any way, shape, or form relevant to the national discussion any longer. And this crap is just speeding up the inevitable.

There was James Carville on CNN's Situation Room, desperately trying to explain why Sen. Clinton voted for the war, even though other senators who had been given the same faulty intel she had, voted against it: "But they weren't from New York," he said. "Their state wasn't hit. They didn't have to deal with the grief of these 3,000 people."

Apparently, according to James Carville, the only way to appear tough is to tie 9/11 to Iraq. Well guess what, James...you’re done. People want 'smart and strong in your convictions', not 'tough for tough’s sake.'

Then again...

Keep talking, James. Every time you open your mouth, you bring Hillary down even worse than her vote for Iraq does.

This may be naive optimism talking, but I'm really starting to think that Hillary has about a 10-15% chance, at best, of scoring the Dem nod. Maybe even less than that. She can amass the biggest war chest in the history of the world, and I just don't think it's going to happen. As BooMan has pointed out (h/t Avedon), there are severe hints of Muskie bleeding through. Now, I was not alive in 1972 (though I have read Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail...that counts, right?), so I’ll leave that commentary to others, but there are two tremendous factors working against Hillary at the moment.

1. She has absolutely no sense of “realness” to her whatsoever. I have no doubt that she stands for (mostly) the right things, and let’s be honest—I’d vote for her against Sellout McCain or Manwhore Guiliani, but she just can’t open her mouth at this point without betraying a sense of political calculation. She has more charisma (somehow) than John Kerry, but she also has an even bigger hint of calculation, and she’s just taken too damn many positions on too many damn issues to inspire people like a certain other candidate is/will. Which leads to...

2. Obamania. Not saying he’s Bobby Kennedy II, but...what was the line from American President? “They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand”? Well...people are so desperate for a Bobby II that they’re seeing what they want to see in him. And who knows...he might actually be the real thing. If he can get through the next 11 months or so without a DeanScream-esque misstep, I think the nomination’s his (sans a change in the game, like if Gore decides to run or something).

The press (and his opponents) can go on and on about his inexperience as a disadvantage, but I honestly think that works to his advantage. He doesn’t have any votes to defend, and that will help him considerably. I don’t personally know what I think of Obama yet (too much touchy feely talk about "coming together," but he still might be the best horse in the race...other than Chris Dodd, of course...but I’m not sure it matters. Four years ago, people were drawn to Howard Dean because he was speaking truth to power. He was the only one saying what thousands of voters were thinking. People are not drawn to Obama for the same reasons, but if he establishes himself in the netroots (and let’s face it, Edwards’ blogger issue can only help that), then I cannot even imagine how much money he will raise. Hillary can get all the big money she wants—people have never been, and will never be, as jazzed to be in her presence as people are for Obama right now. I haven’t seen anything like this, especially this early in the campaign, and at this point, I’d say he’s got about a 60% chance of winning the nod. And if he does, I think he destroys his Republican counterpart. Imagine how old John McCain will seem next to Obama? All it’s going to take is for him not to screw up (and maybe for Al Gore to not enter the race). Then again, plenty of strong-looking candidates have screwed up in the past. This is politics, after all.

And then again, exactly four years ago I thought John Kerry didn't have a shot either, and for a lot of the exact same reasons. So really...whaddo I know? All I know is, James Carville should keep talking. It helps certain Democrats, but not in the way he thinks it does.

Read More...

Summary only...