I think we all remember the 2008 Democratic primaries, that exciting and epic battle. In many ways the campaign caused more excitement than the general election, whose result was never really in doubt (especially after the financial crisis).
Both candidates drew upon distinctly different coalitions. In an influential article, Ronald Brownstein analyzes the difference this way:
Since the 1960s, Democratic nominating contests regularly have come down to a struggle between a candidate who draws support primarily from upscale, economically comfortable voters liberal on social and foreign policy issues, and a rival who relies mostly on downscale, financially strained voters drawn to populist economics and somewhat more conservative views on cultural and national security issues.
President Barack Obama assembled a coalition from the former, these "wine-track" Democrats. When most Americans think of liberals, they think of wine-track Democrats. Mr. Obama, then, was the liberal candidate; Mrs. Clinton the "beer-track," working-class representative.
So candidate won the most liberal place in America?
The answer below (or, alternatively, in the title).
You will be shocked, shocked to hear that a Blue Dog Democrat who made a career out of undermining his own party is sucker-punching them on his way out. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana abruptly announced this week that he would not seek reelection in November. Bayh's departure is ratcheting up insecurity in the Democratic caucus at the very moment they need to take decisive action to pass health care reform.
Bayh could easily have won a third term, but it's unclear whether any other Democrat can hold the seat. To add insult to injury, Bayh waited until 24 hours before the filing deadline for Democratic primary candidates, sending Indiana Dems scrambling to find a candidate to run in his place. Bayh's tardiness was calculated. Since no Democrats were ready to file by the deadline, the Indiana Democratic establishment will get to handpick Bayh's successor.
In a call with state Democratic officials, Bayh said his abrupt departure is for the best, as Evan McMorris-Santo reports for TPMDC. According to Bayh, he's doing the party a favor by sparing them a contentious primary process. Thanks a lot.
What does this mean for health care reform?
What does Bayh's departure portend for health care reform? Monica Potts of TAPPED argues that replacing a conservative Democrat like Bayh with a moderate Republican won't make that much difference. Bayh was never a reliable Democratic vote.
But Tim Fernholtz of TAPPED dismisses this view as naive. Fernholtz predicts that, for all of Bayh's faults, the senate will be much worse without him: "In essence, the difference between this insubstantial Hoosier and, say, GOP hopeful Dan Coats, is simple: You can buy off Bayh." Bayh voted for health care reform and the stimulus, no Republican, no matter how "moderate" is going to vote that way.
Anyone who expects a moderate Republican from Indiana to support any part of the Democratic agenda is deluded. On the other hand, the Senate Democrats already passed their bill, their only remaining task would be to pass a "fix" through budget reconciliation to make changes in the legislation that would be acceptable to the House. Of course, reconciliation will be a bitter political fight. One wonders whether the demoralized Senate Democrats will have the stomach for it.
About that health care summit...
Note that congressional Republicans have yet to commit to attending the "bipartisan" health care summit that they called for. Christina Bellatoni of TPMDC reports that yesterday White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wondered why the Republicans were for the summit before they were against it:
"Right before the president issued the invitation, the-the thing that each of these individuals was hoping for most was an opportunity to sit down on television and discuss and engage on these issues. Now, not accepting an invitation to do what they'd asked the president to do, if they decide not to, I'll let them leap the-leap the chasm there and try to explain why they're now opposed to what they said they wanted most to do," Gibbs said.
Busting the filibuster
On the bright side, the Democrats still have a sizable majority in the Senate, with or without Bayh. Republicans would have to beat all 10 vulnerable Democratic incumbent senators in the next election in order to regain control of the Senate. The more immediate threat to health care reform and the Democrats' ability to govern in general is the institutional filibuster. Structural reform is needed to break the impasse. Lawyer and author Tom Geoghegan talks with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! on strategies for busting the filibuster.
Public option resurfacing
Mike Lillis of the Washington Independent reports that four senate Democrats have thrown their lot in with progressives clamoring for a public option through reconciliation. Sens. Sherrod Brown (OH), Jeff Merkley (OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) and Michael Bennet (CO) argue for the public option in an open letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid. The letter reads:
There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach - its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option....
Big pharma's lobby
That's nice, but let's not forget who's really in charge. In AlterNet, Paul Blumenthal recaps the sorry history of collusion between the White House, the pharmaceutical lobby group PhRMA, and the Senate. According to Blumenthal the White House steered pharmaceutical lobbyists directly to Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), chair of the powerful Finance Committee, who was entrusted with crafting the White House's favored version of health care reform.
Abortion and health care reform
As if we didn't have enough to worry about, Nick Baumann of Mother Jones notes that the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) is making abortion is an obstacle to passing health care reform through reconciliation. The NRLC is insinuating that Bart Stupak (D-MI) and his coalition of anti-choice Democrats will vote against the Senate health care bill because it it's slightly less restrictive of abortion than the bill the House passed. The good news is that it's procedurally impossible to insert Stupak's language into the Senate bill through reconciliation. The bad news is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) needs every vote she can get to pass the Senate bill and anti-choice hardliners could be an obstacle.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Obama's appearance on Fox News today is predictably giving the blogosphere fits. Personally, I don't really care. Fox News isn't going away. Anyone who thinks so is kidding themselves.
Nevertheless, we are seeing the typical bile from the HRC crowd. Exhibit one is Jerome Armstrong's typically bitter response to it. As always, his guiding principle is based on cynicism. "See. Your candidate panders just as much as ours does."
As I see it, there are about two lines of attack on Obama from HRC supporters.
Both Edwards and Hillary Clinton were on The Colbert Report last night (Obama was too, live from satellite). He was broadcasting (live?) from Philadelphia. Needless to say, the Colbert Report writers had written some hilarious material for both of them.
Clinton came on first, to thunderous applause, and delivered her joke flawlessly and got a great response. Edwards then came on for an even longer cameo and inadvertently showed the real reason he lost the nomination.
The jokes were great. His delivery was AWFUL. It was almost like he didn't even get the jokes. He didn't know where to pause, he didn't know what words to emphasize. It was like a vacuum of charisma.
That is the reason I think he lost the primary so quickly (he faced some strong competition). His policy is dead-on, but his charisma and likability are totally absent. Others have commented about how the media and reporters just don't like him. Someone, I can't remember who, made the comment "Edwards couldn't get the [political reporters] to like him if he personally had sex with all of them." Edwards has the looks to be President, and quite possibly the qualifications and correct agenda, but he just doesn't have the charisma (neither does John McCain for that matter,although reporters do like him, which is why I don't think he's a threat to Obama, Huckabee would have been worse). Its a serious problem for Edwards that he comes off as even more unlikeable than Hillary (although technically has lower negatives). Even when making jokes he just sounded like another empty suit politician.
A whole lot of alt-rock stars with activist consciences today endorsed Steve Novick's run for Senate in Oregon, to face Gordon Smith in the fall. Michael Stipe of REM, Stone Gossard of Pearl Jam and Krist Novoselic of Nirvana and now Flipper joined Portland based stars like Colin Meloy of the Decemberists, Thomas Lauderdale of Pink Martini and Corin Tucker of Sleater-Kinney in their letter of support for Steve. {pdf}:
We wanted to write you a short letter asking you to join us in supporting Steve Novick for the U.S. Senate. We know that we aren't the typical people you hear from about an upcoming election, but Steve is certainly not the typical candidate.
Steve is a principled progressive who will take on the tough challenges we face today.
The upcoming election offers us a real opportunity to turn the page on the failed policies of President Bush and bring progressive change to Washington D.C. Steve Novick could be a real leader for change in the Senate and we hope you'll join us in supporting him this election.
Sincerely,
Colin Meloy (The Decembrists)
Thomas Lauderdale (Pink Martini)
Stone Gossard (Pearl Jam)
Michael Stipe (REM)
Britt Daniel (Spoon)
Chris Walla (Death Cab for Cutie)
Krist Novoselic (Nirvana & Flipper)
Dave Dederer (Presidents of the United States)
Corin Tucker (Sleater-Kinney)
Rufus Wainwright
The traditional media is missing a major part of the story over Hillary's Bosnia lie.
Hillary's lie doesn't just tell us that she inflated her national security experience, or that she is this week's target in the all too familiar game of "gotcha" the traditional media plays ever election cycle, rather, the process by which the Bosnia lie became the story of the week tells us about Hillary's political instincts and judgment. Instincts and judgment that can play a major role in her success or failure as President
I've noticed something this primary season. Even though we are told that a double standard doesn't exist, it surely does. There were obvious examples of sexism during this heated primary season... like Chris Matthews gaffes that ended with a public apology. But there have been others. Recently, my mother forwarded me an essay by Robin Morgan of the Women's Media Center called Goodbye To All That #2. Robin wrote Goodbye To All That (#1) back in 1970, when she and other feminists took over a counter culture magazine called Rat.
"Whatever those candidates say today, remember what they said before: Iran must be stopped at all cost. The fact that Iran stopped pursuing nuclear weaponry four years ago is more than an inconvenient revelation for those candidates. It's an indictment of their judgment and their qualifications to lead this nation."
You know, the more you hear the facts it just starts to sink in: Dennis Kucinich has been right! And consistently right, where our leading Democrats have been wrong.
Well, after so many grossly unfair debate formats that virtually tell each audience which candidates they are supposed to be interested in, Dennis Kucinich finally figured out a way to highlight this fundamental absurdity to his own advantage: Socratic Irony!
Now that Mr. Reid will be making a critical decision on the FISA legislation and we need so desperately our Representaitives to be vocal about their opposition to immunity, let's be clear about where Kucinich stands:
"I object to any immunity for telecommunications companies and demand a full accounting of these companies' involvement to Congress and to the American public. When corporations cooperate with the government to strip people of their Constitutional rights, that is a text book description of fascism. There must not be any place in America for this type of conduct." -Dennis Kucinich
As Bob Fertik points out, Dennis Kucinich's leadership against the Iraq war/occupation has not only been prescient and consistent, but comprehensive and definitive:
Something's happened to Dennis Kucinich. There's a newfound confidence; a deeply resigned, yet boldly assertive tone gathering in his voice. I don't know what it is. Maybe it's his recent progress in major polls and grassroots support. Maybe it's the fighter coming out, now that impeachment has gained some life. Maybe it's the realization that a majority of Americans side with him on the issues and that he is the one pushing this party back to the people. Or maybe it's that he's been the candidate who has best exercised the leadership and judgement on huge issues, such as Iraq, the Patriot Act, Iran, Trade, and Impeachment.
A completely useless flame war is going on over Edwards' refusal to say whether he would support Hillary Clinton in the general election if she were the nominee.
So let me say it here:
I will not lift one finger to campaign for Clinton. And if she is the nominee, I simply won't vote for a presidential candidate. She will never get my vote.
The damage she would do to progressivism and the Democratic Party as President will be much greater than four more years of a Republican president. And I hope no one is kidding themselves: our troops won't come home any faster under a Hillary Clinton presidency than under a Guiliani presidency.
Why not support Hillary? 2010. Redistricting. Congressional majorities. Anti-populist, free-trading New Democrats who speak out of both sides of their mouth. Scandals. Corruption.
If Hillary Clinton is President, we will see a Republican Renaissance in 2010. That means we get creamed in the midterms. That means we lose ground at the state and local level, which will hurt us in the redrawing of congressional districts for the decade.
Again, no one is coming home from Iraq under Clinton, and our chances of attacking Iran are probably the same. A vote for her won't save anyone's life, but it could kill the Democratic Party for another 10 years.
No way. One 4-year term of Hillary Clinton isn't worth the long-term destruction to the Democratic Party that she will inevitably leave. To those who want proof: we had 8 years of it under Bill. NAFTA, Welfare Reform, Telecom mergers. A Republican Congress. No thanks.
The DFA Presidential Pulse Poll ends tonight at Midnight Eastern/9:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, which only gives us a few hours to cast our votes. So far, over 130,000 votes have been cast, making it the largest presidential poll of progressive activists this year. I am genuinely proud to write that Dennis Kucinich currently leads with over 30% of the vote.
The latest Rasmussen poll in New Hampshire shows Dennis Kucinich in fourth place, tied with Bill Richardson at 7%. This shouldn't come as such a surprise, however.
John Nichols, writing for "The Nation", has just written a kind of intellectual "call to arms" regarding, what is quite possibly, the most important issue facing the United States right now: Iran.
For reasons I have written about on OpenLeft.com in the past, I don't have the strong anti-Clinton feelings that many people in the OpenLeft.com community have. In fact, in many ways, I like her, so I wasn't waiting around for the ideal anti-Hillary candidate to emerge like some folks were. I think she is both a better person and candidate than some of my fellow OpenLefties feel. But even so, I was intrigued by the potential of a Barack Obama campaign when the possibility surfaced late last year. Like everyone else I know, I was blown away by his 2004 convention speech, and was delighted by his charisma. I had gotten to know him a little bit on a personal level, and was impressed by his intelligence and insight. Being the Midwesterner through and through that I am, I also liked a lot of the old, sensible Midwestern staffers he had surrounded himself with.
The other thing that really heightened my interest was that as the campaign started to gear up, all the staffers I knew were talking about how this was going to be a really different campaign, that they had a unique kind of candidate and were going to run a truly innovative campaign, and that conventional wisdom on issues and strategies were going to be thrown out the window. The idea of such a campaign run by an African-American son of an immigrant, someone with the kind of compelling vision of American progressivism shown in his 2004 speech, had me really fascinated.
I got to thinking about all this anticipation, and the campaign we've seen since, after reading Matt Stoller's post here on Friday about all the disappointment and cynicism in the blogger community about Obama right now.
It is by no means time yet to do an Obama post-mortem, as he is still very well positioned to win Iowa, has a remarkable field operation there and in NH, and has the money and internet donor base to sustain a campaign through February 5th, no matter what happens in the early states. There is still plenty of time to change the dynamics of this campaign. But there also isn't any doubt he is having problems: he has slipped in the polls nationally, he has slipped in Iowa, and he has slipped in NH. The bloggers Matt cited aren't the only ones wondering what is going on with the campaign.
The great mystery of the Obama campaign so far is when they have such a unique and compelling candidate with such a fresh voice, why are they running such a conventional wisdom campaign? From their issue positions to their debate strategy to their day to day tactical positioning, they have run a campaign that keeps neatly within the lines of the campaign lane they've picked out to drive in. Every time he does a policy speech it fits within the outlines of Democracy policy establishment conventional wisdom. Every ad they do feels just like all of the usual political ads you see on TV. The strangest thing to me is that the kind of campaign they are running feels exactly like the others I've seen before. It's the politics that is broken, upper middle income-oriented, tired of partisan bickering campaign that Gary Hart, Bruce Babbitt, Paul Tsongas and Bill Bradley all chose to run. The weird thing is, none of those guys won the primary, let alone the general election. I guess maybe the veterans of past campaigns felt like with a charismatic guy to wage that kind of campaign, it would finally win. But right now, it feels like it's headed into the same ditch as all those other campaigns did.
I remain mystified as to why Obama has not followed his own rhetoric and run a truly different kind of campaign, one that has an innovative approach to the big issues, one that embraced bold goals and ideas for how to solve the messes Bush has left behind for the next President. (If I'm missing something in terms of boldness and innovation on either policy or political strategy, let me know, Obama fans.) Maybe if he started to do that, his campaign would suddenly get interesting and start to catch fire again.
Like I said, there's still plenty of time, and he is without questions within striking distance in Iowa. But I'm still waiting, and I think a lot of other folks are as well, for the creativity, courage, boldness, and different kind of campaign that I was expecting when this race began. If he starts to finally show that, he might yet be our nominee. If he keeps doing the same old, same old, you have to bet on Hillary.
Dennis Kucinich has the been the only candidate willing to consistently speak out against the unjust efforts to privatize the national oil wealth of the Iraqi people to multinational oil companies. He was the first to speak out against the hydrocarbon law, a key Iraqi benchmark of the Bush Administartion, which, in effect, would privatize over 90% of Iraqi Oil reserves to multinational companies, particularly U.S. oil companies. Further, it not only gives the rights to these oil companies to do business in Iraq, but enables them to have power in making the decisions over the contracts themselves. That is, a Federal Council is established to make decisions upon oil contract negotiations, which allows these private oil companies to be represented on the "Federal" board and thus influencing the approval and terms of contracts.
