Wow, it is really happening: Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. Only eighteen months after the Democratic Party elected Nancy Pelosi the first female Speaker of the House, we our now the first major party to nominate an African-American for President.
Just let that sink in for a moment. It is pretty amazing.
I also encourage you to think about the role of the Democratic Party in the United State for a moment. Consider the following:
Non-Christians support Democrats by a 3-1 ratio. Both Buddhists and both Muslims in Congress are Democrats. Only three of the 43 Jewish members of the House and Senate are Republicans. . I'm also going to take a guess here and state that there are no publicly declared atheist Republicans in Congress.
But wait, there's more! Union members, single women, and whites who self-identify their religion as either "none" or "other" than the main world denominations also vote for Democrats by more than 2-1 margins. (The "nones" are more than 3-1). Even the nerds vote for Democrats, as 58% of those with post-graduate degrees support Dems. (You can find sources for all of the voting statistics citing so far here, here, and here.)
Whatever its flaws, the Democratic Party really is the party for "everyone else" in America. Virtually every ethnic, religious and sexual minority votes for Democrats by overwhelming margins. Vulnerable economic groups, such as single women, union members, and low-income voters also break for Democrats by overwhelming margins. Fewer than 50% of the Democrats in the United States House and United States Senate combined are white, male, straight and Christian. Even the elites of the Democratic Party are very different, on demographic level, from the elites in the media and business community in America.
For quite some time, the Democratic Party struggled with a "loser" image nationally. Given its minority heavy, downtrodden heavy, freaks and geeks membership, it isn't a huge secret how it developed that negative brand. However, over the last few years, something unusual is starting to happen: traditionally under-represented groups are starting to occupy leadership roles in the party, and the party is starting to win a lot of elections. Now, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, Democrats hold 235 seats in the House (a number that is soon to rise quite a bit), even though the highest Republicans ever reached was 232. In addition to holding the majority of Governors, state legislatures, and members of the U.S. Senate, all of those majorities are expected to expand significantly in 2008. To top it all off, the Democratic presumptive nominee for President, Barack Obama, is expected to become the next President of the United States.
A shift of electoral power toward the Democratic Party actually means a broad shift toward more pluralistic control of our government. The minorities, the downtrodden, and the freaks and geeks are taking over. While I have little doubt that I will continue to be something of a party gadfly, and that I will continue to hold an oppositional, progressive stance toward the leadership on fairly regular occasions, sometimes it is good to remember that the Democratic Party is, in some very important ways, actually pretty good. Today, I am very happy to be a part of it.
Project Vote normally uses this update to give news roundups on voting rights-related stories from the past week. However, with the reverberations from the Supreme Court's Crawford vs. Marion County voter identification decision just starting to filter down into statehouses across the country, we felt it was necessary to spend this update concentrating solely on voter ID, giving progressives a concise summary of the problems associated with it and offer some framing devices to help fight against it.
House Democrats continued to block passage of a terrorist surveillance bill today, rejecting a measure by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) to add the Senate-passed FISA bill to the fiscal 2009 Intelligence authorization bill. The amendment was defeated by one vote in the House Intelligence Committee, the latest proof that the Senate bill would pass the House if Speaker Nancy Pelosi allowed it to come to the House floor.
There are 12 Democrats on the Committee and 9 Republicans, which means that we lost a Democrat on this vote. The members are Silvestre Reyes, Leonard L. Boswell, Robert E. (Bud) Cramer, Jr, Anna G. Eshoo, Rush D. Holt, Dutch Ruppersberger, John Tierney, Mike Thompson, Jan Schakowsky, Jim Langevin, Patrick Murphy, and Adam Schiff.
Of these, only two signed the letter asking the House to pass retroactive immunity for telecom companies, Bud Cramer and Leonard Boswell.
Boswell faces a progressive primary challenger, Ed Fallon. An extremely vicious Iowa establishment and a complicit Iowa media has been denying Fallon the oxygen he needs to win because they just don't like him. Fallon and Boswell lawn signs are popping up in the district, with Fallon signs situated next to 'Vote Hope' signs and Boswell signs next to 'Hillary' signs. Boswell is leading by about 20 points or so in the latest polling.
It's a low turnout primary in June, and the media narrative has focused on Fallon's support of Nader in 2000 rather than Boswell's voting record for the past five years. Boswell in fact won't debate Fallon, saying that he's just too busy in Washington to respond to misinformation that would inevitably arise. So Boswell's voting record is completely unscrutinized.
If I were Fallon's campaign, I would be sending an open letter to Boswell asking if he voted to allow AT&T to break the law by wiretapping American citizens. That committee vote should have been 12-9. It ended up being 11-10. Was it Bush Dog Boswell who helped out his campaign contributors and in the process covered up Bush administration crimes? We know he voted for the war, for the Protect American Act, and for hundreds of billions in war funding. We know he's funded by corporate PAC money. It seems like a logical question.
As Matt noted below, Congress has finished the Farm Bill and is due to send it to the President. Bush says through his Agriculture Secretary that he will veto it.
The issues at stake are discussed in my earlier post and comments thereto. The Farm Bill sets food policy for the next five years. This year, despite the efforts of reformers, food advocates and environmentalists, Speaker Pelosi essentially gave into farm interests in setting the level of direct subsidies, mostly for corn, wheat, rice, soybeans and cotton, but added substantial funds for food stamps, nutrition programs, conservation, organic farming and marketing assistance for growers of fruits and vegetables to get the bill passed. More money for special interests was added in conference to gain more adherents, including a $126 million subsidy for raisers of thoroughbred horses, a sop to Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
The conference negotiators did lower the income levels beyond which direct subsidies would begin to be capped to an adjusted gross income of $750,000 for farmers and $500,000 for landowners, however this would still allow couples with $2.5 million in income to receive subsidies at a time of record crop prices. And it still enacts the expensive new program for "permanent disaster aid" for plains farmers in marginal areas just when global climate change may shift the optimum areas for growing crops.
Barbara Boxer deserves kudos for preventing subsidy advocates from taking the funds from conservation and food programs. But the $300 billion bill that is left is bloated and Bush threatens a veto. Congressional leaders hope to override because of all the goodies, including much-needed food aid, that would be lost if the prior program has to be extended. But remember that the folks who can't quit subsidies for rich non-farmers are some of the same folks who can't fund educational subsidies for our troops or an expansion of the SCHIP children's health program because of "budget concerns." This is lawmaking at its worst, when a supposed "win-win" turns into a big loss for the public interest.
Here is a round-up of what has been a series really bad bits of news for Hillary Clinton's campaign today:
Obama will never fall behind in any overall delegate count, every again. Obama will be ahead of Clinton is delegates even if Florida is seated as is, and even if Obama gets zero delegates from Michigan, and even if Obama dails to net anymore superdelegates. Polling conducted before Indiana and North Carolina projected Clinton to net 31 pledged delegates from the remaining six contests. However, Democratic Convention Watch projects Obama ahead by 37.5 delegates even if Florida is seated based on January 29thth results, and even if Obama receives zero delegates from Michigan. In other words, there is no conceivable delegate count under which Clinton will ever be ahead, ever again.
Of course, that above situation, where Obama can't lose, assumes that polls won't get any worse for Clinton. However, Obama is surging in the Rasmussen tracking poll to the point where Rasmussen announced it will discontinue the tracking poll.
Of course, that above situation, where can't lose, assumes that Obama will receive zero delegates from Michigan. However, the entire leadership of the Michigan Democratic Party now supports giving Obama 59 delegates from Michigan.
The nomination campaign is rapidly collapsing. Given how fast this is taking place since pundits declared the race over, it appears that the national media could have done this anytime since Wisconsin if they so desired. Sad to say it, but they really do still have the power.
I mentioned this in a post the other day, but I wanted to add some more thoughts about it: I don't think when Hillary decides to get out matters very much at all. All the media obsession with "will-she-stay-or-will-she-go" is just another long line of media obsessions about things that don't matter very much. The trickle of superdelegates to Obama is soon going to become a river big enough that he might have a majority even before the final primaries are over on June 3rd.
The only thing that matters now is not when but how she chooses to get out. It is my fervent hope that this horrible-sounding "Obama's support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening" quote was just a tired fumbling of words, not intended to sound as rotten as it did. I know that the Hillary that I came to like and respect so much in my years at the White House never would have said such a thing. But if quotes like that signal an intent to end on a slash-and-burn note, it will hurt Obama and the party badly. It will also permanently and irrevocably tarnish the Clinton legacy and reputation for all time.
I know there are some of you who think that has already happened. I don't. It's been a very tough campaign, and I haven't liked a lot of her tactics, especially over the last few weeks, but if she winds this campaign down gracefully, and then does everything possible to help the ticket win, as far as I'm concerned, that will earn her the gratitude and respect of Democrats and progressives. But if that quote signals where she's going in this endgame, she will earn the permanent enmity of most Democrats and progressives, and history will not treat her kindly either.
By overwhelming margins and in both parties, Vito Fossella's constituents want him to stay in office. I guess this is the ultimate example of that quintessentially irritating 'I hate Congress but my Congressman is great'.
The New York Times and the Washington Post confirm that McCain did not vote for Bush. Arianna reported that McCain told her this, and the McCain camp had this to say.
"She's a flake and a poser and an attention-seeking diva," Mark Salter, one of Mr. McCain's closest aides, told The Washington Post.
A top Clinton official is shopping around for a book deal, or so reports Keith Olberman on Dailykos. The race is over. The Clinton campaign knows it's over. This is not a surprise.
I haven't watched Survivor since the original "Richard Hatch" version but I read about something unusual that happened on the show last night which may provide a blueprint to team Clinton.
Underdog "Erik" had won immunity for this week and was seemingly a lock to continue for another week. But the four remaining women convinced him to give one of them the immunity as a sign of loyalty to the tribe. He did and they promptly voted him off the island.
So what does this mean for the Democratic Primary? Well, all team Clinton has to do is convince Obama that, in the spirit of unity and loyalty to the Democratic party, and to heal the rift and allow Clinton to exit gracefully, he should allow the MI and FL delegations to be seated as is (i.e. no MI delegates for Obama). Then, they go on to win 5 of the remaining 6 contests, do better than expected in Oregon, convince uncommitted superdelegates that Obama is too dumb to be President and then vote him right out of the convention.
Survivor's "Erik" is now considered the dumbest contestant ever on that show (and that's saying something). You think Obama could fall for the same gambit?
Before I discuss my critiques of McCain's speech yesterday on judicial activism, as a partisan Democrat, I'd like to request that he continue to give more speeches along these lines.
Given all the internecine fighting among Democrats over the course of the presidential campaign, I can think of few better ways to unite the Democratic party than hearing McCain loudly proclaim his desire to move the Supreme Court rightward. As much as Clinton supporters may loathe Obama and Obama supporters may loathe Clinton (and those numbers will go down drastically over the course of the general election), many will be scared shitless by the prospect of President McCain replacing the aging "liberal" justices (more on that later), Stevens (age 88), Ginsburg (age 75), Breyer (age 69) and Souter (age 68) with "people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist." (As an aside, I'm curious why McCain repeatedly leaves out Scalia in naming his model justices...)
Join the book club for David Sirota's upcoming book, The Uprising, due out on 5/27.
The issue of race makes a lot of folks uncomfortable - and that's especially true right now when the nation is closer than ever to electing the first black President of the United States. As my new newspaper column this week shows, many Serious People who dominate our political debate have reacted to this historic election and their own queasiness about race by exposing their prejudices.
Open Left is hiring for two part-time positions. Both positions will start as five-week pilot programs but, if successful, will be expanded into long-term positions.
Researcher: Open Left is looking for an online researcher to assist in online research and the production of one front-page article a day. Access to academic databases such as Lexis-Nexis, as well as a writing background, are pluses. Fifteen hours a week
Administrator: Open Left is looking for someone to manage regular, small website fixes and outreach to social networking sites. HTML experience and familiarity with websites such as Facebook and Digg are a plus. Ten hours a week
Salary details will be given upon request. Interested applicants should send an email to me, Chris Bowers, at christopher_j_bowers@yahoo.com. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply.
Less than a month before the Democratic primary to represent Iowa's third district, Ed Fallon is trying to make Congressman Leonard Boswell either debate him or pay a political price for refusing to debate.
Join me after the jump for more on that and other recent developments in the race.
