Well I suppose it's not a surprise that Obama is going to be our nominee, with him claiming a majority of pledged delegates. What is odd is how badly the Clinton campaign is performing; Hillary Clinton, though pretty much no one else in the campaign, must still believe she can win, because going into a $31M debt at this point makes no sense otherwise.
Jeff Merkley narrowly won the primary against Steve Novick. Novick pledged to help Merkley. Congratulations, Senate Guru, your guy won, and Merkley's pretty progressive. Now let's beat Smith in the fall.
Lunsford beat Fischer by 51-33. Fischer just did not have enough time to make this competitive.
Minority Leader Boehner wants illegal wiretapping protections and $1M for himself.
We're at 60 contributors for our OpenLeft fundraiser. That's amazing. Join in and help us expand this summer as the general election ramps up. Whatever you can throw in, even if it's a small amount, makes a difference. And thanks to everyone who has chipped in so far.
Here's Jay Inslee on the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq.
Paul Tewes will apparently take over from Howard Dean at the DNC when Obama formally takes the nomination.
The new SUSA poll in Kentucky is out, and Lunsford is way up, 47-26. Fischer has actually lost ground since the last poll, and Lunsford has consolidated his support. Lunsford will be the Democratic nominee in Kentucky, which is a shame. Establishments are strong, and Chuck Schumer wins a lot, though this one is going to end up with Mitch McConnell staying in the Senate.
Novick leads Merkley by 29 percent to 23 percent among likely Democratic voters, but 43 percent of the voters are still undecided. The poll has a margin of error of 4.8 percentage points, meaning the numbers could be off by that amount in either direction.
Undecideds are the overwhelming proportion of the vote, so the ground game is incredibly important. Who has the activists, and who is handing out flyers to uncommitted Obama supporters? I'm going to guess Novick is the candidate of change, but it's a guess.
Well that's a big Obama rally in Oregon. 75,000 people? I wonder how much that indicates general voter interest and how much that indicates lower coordination costs. As Seth Godin notes, the "web is notoriously bad at reaching the unreachable".
Merkley and Novick are basically tied, 31-27 Merkley-Novick, with a huge swath of undecideds.
SUSA is coming out with a new poll between Fischer and Lunsford today. Lunsford's people are going around the state pretending Fischer has endorsed Obama; Kentucky is similar to West Virginia in demographics, so this is a nasty and effective tactic.
New Jersey Senate primary candidate Rob Andrews is now saying that his co-sponsorship of the Iraq war resolution was 'responsible'.
As a co-sponsor of the resolution, Andrews concedes he did talk to other Democrats to vote in favor of the resolution and defends the vote, saying the intelligence presented at the time made it a "responsible vote."
"I think I made the right decision" at the time, said Andrews, quickly pointing out Lautenberg, out of office at the time, also supported the war in 2002 in his campaign to return to the Senate.
Putz.
McCain is facing problems among young voters. I watched a youth-oriented show called 'Greek' on youtube while traveling, and one of the characters was a Republican Senator with great hair who denied global warming and cheated on his wife. That's how Republicans are seen by 21 year olds today, I suppose.
The DSCC has been buying time in Oregon to soften up Republican Senator Gordon Smith, who is one of the most moderate Republican Senators out there and who will probably lose in November (he's below 50 against both Democrats running against him). Oregon has a particularly genteel political culture, with the incumbent Democrat, Ron Wyden, refusing to campaign against Gordon Smith. This gentility, though, masks a strong establishment culture that is helping Jeff Merkley stay in the primary against a much more charismatic and interesting candidate, Steve Novick.
The primary is getting somewhat nasty, though after it's over the party should rally around the eventual winner. One of Merkley's consultants actually ripped off the design work of one of Novick's staffers in putting together the attack site Novick InsultsDemocrats, a site listing the litany of criticisms Novick has leveled against Democrats for their failure to stand tall enough against George W. Bush. It's rather interesting, actually; Merkley's implicit argument is that criticism of Democrats is bad, whereas Novick's activist background is considered a liability. Merkley's record as the Speaker of the House in Oregon is set against Novick's quirky career pushing from the outside.
The Senate Guru and MyDD, along with the DSCC, are more sympathetic to Merkley. The DSCC has actually set up Merkley with around $100k in help.
It's not news that House Speaker Jeff Merkley was recruited to run for the U.S. Senate by officials from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and that the committee staffers helped stage his campaign kickoff in September.
It turns out that it was nearly 100k worth of help. The Bend Bulletin (subscription fee required) reports that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee paid $73,000 to an Arkansas company for an advance team to help stage his kickoff as well as $20,000 for research.
People like Sherrod Brown (who apparently attempted to recruit progressive establishment Oregonian Senate candidates), Chuck Schumer, and the existing Senatorial class do not quite want to believe that Novick has a chance. He's four foot eleven and he has a hook for his left hand, and has released a set of interesting and quirky campaign commercials. Novick has a variety of impolitique statements out in public, including attacks on Barack Obama. Merkley is much more establishment oriented, though progressive.
This is a fascinating contest of an establishment-progressive versus an activist-progressive. While I have a great deal of sympathy for Merkley and his adherents, I support Novick in this race. Sherrod Brown was celebrated as a great progressive hero in 2006, and he has begun to carve out a nice path in the Senate. But I've also been in meetings with his staffers, and they are extremely clear that his first priority is working the local politics of Ohio. It is a perfectly reasonable, even good, political choice. Brown builds coalitions for his state, he does not put up censure resolutions like Russ Feingold. It is my belief that Novick would be a politician more like Russ Feingold, and that Merkley would be more like Brown.
At this moment in history, we need more Steve Novick's. Congress must be full of troublemakers, people willing to reclaim Congress's role as a co-equal branch by bucking the status quo, by speaking plainly, and by being a little different.
So far, I've mostly liked Oregon Senate candidates Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick (who are competing in a May 20 primary to take on Gordon Smith). But then I read this in Politico:
Merkley spokesman Matt Canter said Novick's base is from the liberal heart of downtown Portland, which he likened to the "inner circle of the Kremlin."
Personally, I don't think it's right for a Democrat (or anyone) to compare one of the most democratic, tolerant, and progressive areas in the country to a totalitarian regime. Canter is showing real contempt for the constituents Merkley will need in the fall if he does win the nomination. The Merkley campaign should be working to win Portland residents' votes, not insulting them a la Rush Limbaugh.
Unless Merkley sanctioned this comparison himself, it's urgent that he distance himself from it and sanction Canter. Besides the sheer absurdity and wrongness of the comparison, it's just dumb politics.
- Glenn Hurowitz is author of the book Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party and will be discussing the book in an Open Left book salon at 4 pm ET on Wednesday, May 14.
Jeff Merkley is running his latest attack video where he takes out-of-context quotes from Steven Novick's blogging past and uses them against him.
Quoting someone's published work to criticize them is totally fair. Quoting someone's published work from two-years ago--before the presidential primary--out-of-context to make them appear to say what they were not saying is dirty, but may be fair--this is politics.
I am not really concerned with fairness; I am very concerned about the precedent being set, and the actual message of the attack, which are:
if you have political ambitions (especially in Oregon), do not post your thoughts critical of fellow Democrats within the progressive blogosphere because the establishment candidate, or some campaign surrogate or operative will use them against you.
when you look at the context of the quotes (which are below the fold), what we actually have is Jeff Merkley attacking Steve Novick for positions that are highly progressive.
Cut defense spending by eliminating weapons systems? Check.
Let the estate tax repeal expire? Check.
Don't susbsidize corn-ethanol? Check.
Don't ban flag-burning? Check.
Don't vote for stupid illegal wars? Check!
The real message of the ad is that Steve Novick is too progressive and has strayed from the pack. This is not the first time Merkley has attacked Novick from the right either.
Let me emphasize what I said above: everything anyone ever posts on the internet is fair game. We see this all the time when the right-wing hacks in the traditional media go quote farming on dkos to brand us all as the looney left. However, the progressive blogosphere is supposed to be a place where progressives discuss and disseminate progressive ideas with each other, not a place where what you say is going to be distorted against you by fellow "progressives" in attempt to further their electoral goals. What kind of candidate does this?
To those of you who have been following the oregon senate race closely it is not be news that chuck schumer and the dscc have descended upon the beaver state to put their thumb on the scale weighing in on behalf of steve novick's primary opponent (jeff merkely).
early in the campaign it was common knowledge that schumer had brought their man in oregon back to recruit him to run again gordon smith, though it wasn't clear what financial, strategic or infrastructural resources they had offered him (or how it would affect that campaign he would run). as it became clear that the dscc was involved in the primary the merkley campaign took two tactics to deflect the issue:
the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee paid $73,000 to an Arkansas company for an advance team to help stage his kickoff as well as $20,000 for research.
Now, from Roll Call via Loaded Orygun the whole saga is laid out in more explicit terms, the Hill see's it as a power stuggle between schumer himself, and the grassroots campaign being run by steve novick.
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
Smith supported the invasion and largely voted with the Bush administration and fellow Republican backers in Congress until he broke from his party and president in a December 2006 Senate floor speech. Since then, he has taken a number of positions that aligned with those of congressional Democrats. Smith has said he wants to bring home U.S. troops "safely, swiftly and with honor," Hammond said. And he has supported timetables for withdrawal and called for a small U.S. military presence in Iraq to fight terrorists, but not to serve as a police force there as they have in the current "troop surge" mission.
"He is already advocating for a lot of things that are here," said Hammond, adding that while Smith did not explicitly endorse it, "the plan is headed in the right direction."
Hammond also said Smith helped shape it through his discussions with some of the plan's authors.
So if Smith helped shape the plan, then surely he'd endorse it, right? Not quite. You see, that would actually involve breaking from his party on something when it matters. I'm going to follow up on this shortly.
Meanwhile, Freedom's Watch, the $250M Republican soft-money group, has gone after our candidates. This was in an email from Bradley A. Blakeman, the group's President.
Now, a new group of liberals wants to get in on the act, setting up a new coalition called "The Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq" - but their plan is anything but responsible.
It calls for an end to all military action in Iraq, and instead encourages the U.S. to end the conflict using "diplomatic, political, and economic power." There's a word for this strategy: surrender.
The NRCC has called this plan the same old liberal politics, Freedom's Watch dubs this surrender, and yet Gordon Smith is claiming authorship.
I'm a fan of Steve Novick in Oregon, but Jeff Merkley is a good candidate as well. That Gordon Smith is literally arguing he authored a plan to remove all troops from Iraq without endorsing that plan should give you a sense for how precarious the Republican position really is.
3500 people and more than 50 Democratic congressional candidates have endorsed a Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. I've been asking these candidates all day what they would ask Petraeus were they in Congress. Here are some of their questions.
Darcy Burner, Democratic candidate for WA-08:
Gen. Petraeus, in March 2007, a few weeks after taking charge of U.S. military forces in Baghdad, you said, "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq." More than a year later, rockets are still falling in the Green Zone and Iranian-backed Shiite militias are fighting each other for power in Baghdad and Basra. The political reconciliation the surge was intended to foster has not happened, nor has any significant diplomatic breakthrough been achieved. So, given that we agree that there is no military solution to the problems we face, is our costly open-ended military commitment to Iraq really making the Unted States safer?
1) The hope of the surge was that it would create the space for political reconciliation and compromise in Iraq. But the Iraqi government and other power centers in the nation remains mired in disagreement with little real progress. Last week, it was the Iranians that reportedly brokered a truce between the Iraqi government and Sadr's Mahdi Army. The level of violence has settled back to 2005 levels. Where is the light at the end of the tunnel?
Jill Derby, NV-02:
"The question I would ask Gen. Petraeus is this: 'The Army is saying that more than 25 percent of soldiers on third or fourth tours suffer mental health problems and Army Chief Of Staff General Casey called the Army "out of balance." What are we doing to help our troops, vets and their families deal with these issues?'"
Donna Edwards, MD-04:
My first question for the General is: When are you prepared to discuss and implement a multi-tiered approach to Iraq that includes economic, diplomatic, and political options to bring stability and sustainable progress to Iraq? Has the war in Iraq made the United States safer? Is the current U.S. force level in Iraq covering up the lack of political progress in the country and isn't that troop level unsustainable? Doesn't the violence of the last several weeks demonstrate that the central government is weak and that the Iraqi forces are not trained or prepared to defend against the insurgents?
I believe "The Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq" is a critical step in the right direction and is the kind of discussion we need to start having in Washington and across the country."
"The question that needs to be asked is how is our current policy making us safer and why we wouldn't be better off spending that money to address problems at home?"
Don Wiviott, NM-03:
Has the War in Iraq actually made America safer?
What plans are in place to both get our troops out of Iraq and give the Iraqi army a chance to step up to the plate and protect their own country?
Since there is no military solution in Iraq, what steps are we taking to ensure Iraqi officials are working together and moving towards lasting political reconciliation?
The President and other top officials talk about winning the war. What criteria constitutes "winning" the war in Iraq? How will we know when we have "won"?
Leslie Byrne, Democratic candidate for VA-11:
General Petraeus: Since our National Security is at risk from a "broken military" according to many of your peers, how do you plan to salvage the military, given the lack of political and economic progress in Iraq, which after all you said was the purpose of the "Surge"?
Chellie Pingree, ME-01:
The number one question General Petraeus should have to answer is this: Has the war in Iraq made America safer?
Eric Massa (NY-29):
"General depending accounting used, this war will cost us from $2 - 3.5 trillion. Help me explain to my constituents why it is more important to rebuild Iraq and not rebuild America."
After five years in Iraq, are we really any safer?
Tim Cunha (FL-06):
When General David Petraeus and U. S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker meet with Congress Tuesday and Wednesday, Tim Cunha, Democratic 6th district congressional candidate, wants them asked: "Is the continued American involvement in the Iraq civil war making America safer?"
Steve Harrison, Democratic candidate for NY-13:
1. General do you believe advocating for a withdrawal from Iraq necessarily indicates either a lack of support for our troops, or a lack of patriotism?
2. General, troop withdrawal is a military operation. Given the current conditions in Iraq, in your expert opinion, what would be a reasonable time frame for complete withdrawal assuming the planning started tomorrow?
3..General, Prime Minister Maliki's surprising attack on the Sadr militia last week showed great weakness in the government's ability to provide security as well as weakness in the government's political ability to unite the country. It also showed great lack of judgment in the capabilities of his military. The Iraqi situation shows no signs of near term stability and it does not appear American military presence has facilitated that goal. In the absence of being able to meet that political goal, what other military goals, in your opinion justify American military presence in Iraq?
"If the United States removed the combat forces in Iraq, would there be any direct threat to the United States? If any threat, what would it be and how could it be mitigated?"
In July of 2006, The Lancet, a British Medical Journal, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion. According to Opinion Business Research, those estimates have risen to over 1 million dead. General Petraeus, how do you ascribe the term "victory" in these circumstances? Additionally, how do these deaths make America safer?
Senator Obama shares my deep concern about the attempts to produce nuclear weapons by a nation whose President has called for wiping Israel off the map. But he correctly recognizes that reckless saber-rattling is precluding constructive dialogue and diplomacy with Iran. Instead, he makes it clear that if Iran is willing to give up its nuclear program, and cooperate in fighting terrorism and ending the violence in Iraq, we will welcome Iran into the family of nations.
Gordon Smith of Oregon is a conservative senator in a progressive state. And he's up for re-election in a year when Democrats will swarm to the polls to elect only the second Democratic president in 28 years. So why, in a state run by Democrats, has Gordon Smith managed to avoid a top-tier opponent?
STATE BLOGS
