JUSIPER
Thursday, January 31, 2008
A 39 point gender gap in Massachusetts?
Wow. Survey USA has Obama even with Clinton among men, and 39 points behind her among women.
11:43 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Martin Peretz on Obama and Israel
Important. These are the concluding paragraphs:
Obama's points, which he has made many times, should reassure anyone who is concerned about what his presidency would mean for the security of Israel. And yet many are not reassured. They are alarmed by e-mails, saying that Obama's middle name is Hussein (true, and so what?), that he is a Muslim and not a Christian (untrue, and so what if it was?), that he took the oath of office as a Senator on the Koran rather than the Bible (utterly untrue and, once again, so what?). All these charges have been aired and negated often enough that anyone interested in hearing the truth about them has heard it. But another charge, circulating on the Internet, has not yet been sufficiently refuted. This is that he has advisers on the Middle East who despise Israel.
Let's take one example. There are all kinds of spooky rumors that a man named Robert Malley is one of Obama's advisers, specifically his Middle East adviser. His name comes up mysteriously and intrusively on the web, like the ads for Viagra. Malley, who has written several deceitful articles in The New York Review of Books, is a rabid hater of Israel. No question about it. But Malley is not and has never been a Middle East adviser to Barack Obama. Obama's Middle East adviser is Dan Shapiro. Malley did, though, work for Bill Clinton. He was deeply involved in the disastrous diplomacy of 2000. Obama at the time was in the Illinois State Senate. So, yes, this is a piece of experience that Obama lacks.
11:41 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
More on Obama and gays
Remarkable:
These days, Bernard and Gifford have realized the race has become very personal. "Usually you like to keep some distance in case your candidate loses," says Gifford, "but this one has been different."
They started to feel a true fondness for the candidate back in August, when he appeared at a gay forum televised on the LOGO cable network. After the show, Bernard and Gifford organized a gay fund-raiser at Area, a nightclub on La Cienega Boulevard. In just a few hours, they raised more than $100,000 from 400 gays and lesbians, and Obama gave a speech that some saw as exceptional.
"It was truly phenomenal," says Gifford. "He equated all social injustices with the injustices gays and lesbians have to face."
Just before Obama vanished into his motorcade that warm evening last summer, he draped his arms around Bernard and Gifford and asked them if he did them right. Bernard looked at him, "Senator, you always do us right. This time, you did us proud."
Gifford, the urban sophisticate, started to choke up. Not only did he realize he was finally doing something that would matter, but he seemed to be getting results. On that August night, he thought, possibly the next president of the United States was standing there for all to see, literally embracing him and his lover.
11:27 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Obama's gay goldmine
Glad to see that some people are done with HRC... and the HRC.
7:17 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Former Fed chair Paul Volcker
Endorses Obama!
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker is the latest big-name endorsement for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, lending his gravitas in the financial world to a presidential candidate whose biggest hurdle is to convince voters he is experienced enough to be president.
“After 30 years in government, serving under five Presidents of both parties and chairing two non-partisan commissions on the Public Service, I have been reluctant to engage in political campaigns. The time has come to overcome that reluctance,” Mr. Volcker said in a statement today. “However, it is not the current turmoil in markets or the economic uncertainties that have impelled my decision. Rather, it is the breadth and depth of challenges that face our nation at home and abroad. Those challenges demand a new leadership and a fresh approach.”
He concluded: “It is only Barack Obama, in his person, in his ideas, in his ability to understand and to articulate both our needs and our hopes that provide the potential for strong and fresh leadership. That leadership must begin here in America but it can also restore needed confidence in our vision, our strength, and our purposes right around the world.”
Mr. Volcker, a Democrat, was appointed to the Fed chairmanship by Jimmy Carter in 1979 and replaced – with Alan Greenspan – by Ronald Reagan just a couple of months before the 1987 stock market crash. He is widely respected among central bankers, Wall Street and economists for breaking the back of inflation in the 1980s – at the cost of the deepest recession the country has seen since the Great Depression. An economist, he was earlier president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1975 to 1979 and an under secretary of the Treasury from 1969 to 1974.
6:54 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Obama ahead by 5 in Alabama
Nice. It also looks as if he's ahead by double digits in Georgia, with Edwards out of the race.
Meanwhile, McCain, it appears, has become the de facto nominee of his party. Republicans' fascist brain chemistry kicks in pretty quickly:
. Gallup Poll Daily tracking data from Jan. 28-30 shows McCain with a 15-percentage point lead over Mitt Romney. McCain is the top choice of 37% of Republican voters nationwide, compared with 22% for second-place Mitt Romney. In Wednesday's release, the gap between McCain and Romney was 11 points (32% and 21%, respectively). Mike Huckabee is holding steady in third place at 17% in the current numbers. Giuliani was included in the Jan. 28 and 29 interviewing, but removed from the ballot last night. The one-night interviews from Jan. 30 -- with Giuliani out of the race -- show a substantial increase in McCain's support, suggesting his lead will likely expand in the coming days.
Gallup's national tracking poll, meanwhile, has Obama just 4 points behind Clinton, but finds no preliminary evidence that Edwards' departure has aided either candidate overall. But as I wrote earlier, expect to see major regional disparities with the Edwards vote.
Recent polling suggests Clinton should win Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Utah, as well as New York and New Jersey. Obama, meanwhile, should have a fighting chance at Colorado, Minnesota, Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Alabama and Georgia. There's little polling on Kansas, Delaware, Idaho or Missouri. But the bottom line is that if Obama gets near even nationwide, a whole lot of states become winnable.
6:37 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Larry Craig is back in the Senate
And he seems to be having a good time. Key quote: “They’re reciprocating.”
1:08 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Rasmussen
Nationwide polling for the Democratic nomination:
In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it’s now Hillary Clinton 42% and Barack Obama 35%. (see recent daily numbers). Last night was the first night of interviews without John Edwards in the race. For last night’s data alone, Clinton and Obama were essentially even. Samples for individual nights are very small and results should be interpreted with caution.
12:31 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
CT, CA, MA within reach?
Obama has allegedly pulled to within 3 in California, but many have already voted. Connecticut, according to Rasmussen, is 40-40 (pre-Edwards pullout). And in Massachusetts, Obama has gone from 30 points behind to just six, 43-37-11.
So what will happen to Edwards' 11%?'
Even before the news that Edwards was leaving the race, just 46% of his supporters were certain they would stick with him until Election Day. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Edwards voters in Massachusetts have a favorable opinion of Obama while 58% have a favorable opinion of Clinton.
In the South, the Edwards vote is a populist, protectionist, pro-white male vote. In the Northeast, it's a left-leaning change vote. So while Hillary may now have a real shot at Alabama and Georgia, she may now lose Massachusetts and Connecticut.
10:30 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
McCain still lost conservatives last night
So it's very important for him that Huckabee remain in the race, and maybe even win a few primaries. If Mitt only wins Utah, California and the entire Northeast go to McCain, with Huckabee getting a bit of the South, the nomination will be practically decided.
An interesting bit from the exit poll:
Among the 43% of Republicans who are pro-choice, McCain beat Romney 45-26, Huckabee with 5% and Giuliani with 19%. Among pro-lifers, Romney beat McCain 35-29, with Huckabee at 21%.
5:34 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Oh my goodness....
It was the Hispanics who killed Romney yesterday! Talk radio is going to go ballistic.
According to the exit polls Mitt Romney and John McCain tied 33% to 33% among the 89% of the Florida voters last night who were not Hispanic. Among Hispanics, who where 11% of the Florida GOP electorate last night, the vote was 54% McCain, 24% Rudy and 14% Romney. So it was the vote of Hispanic voters who put John McCain over the top in Florida, and gave him the most important win of his fight for the GOP nomination.
4:46 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
"It makes everything you've said and done publicly worse."
Andrew Sullivan on the W-Frank exchange.
4:43 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
So whom did Edwards make a deal with?
Painful as it is to contemplate, but I have to assume it was the Clintons, whose politics are in so many ways antithetical to those he claimed to have stood for. Let's hope it isn't so. As it is, his departure makes Obama victories next Tuesday that much more of an uphill climb.
4:33 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
McCain wins Florida!
That should give him a big leg up on Super Tuesday, and an infusion of cash that his campaign desperately needs. Since Giuliani should be out of the race within days, McCain should be able to scoop up the lion's share of his vote.
10:19 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
The next 7 days
Represent one final attempt to take back the Democratic Party for social justice and against social oppression.
Major figures in the party understand this. And that is why the idealistic wing of the party is moving, en masse, to endorse Barack Obama--and at real personal political risk, given the poor odds of victory.
If Hillary wins 15 of 20 primaries next week and sweeps to the presidency, the lesson she draws will be the the same her husband did in 1992: that she didn't need the left to win the presidency. And like Bill Clinton, she will govern accordingly.
Don't let that happen.
Donate, organize, find events to participate in. Do what you can.
1:44 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Andrew Sullivan
Today:
Ted's endorsement:
"With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion. With Barack Obama we will close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay."
On that latter point, no other candidate has defended gay people as "brothers and sisters" without prompting in front of a non-gay crowd in the height of an election campaign. The Clintons don't do that. In fact, they have often done the opposite, using the fear of gay people as a way to triangulate for their own purposes. That matters to me. It should matter to gays and straights who care about equality under the law. On policy, there is no difference between Clinton and Obama. In terms of character, there is all the difference in the world.
12:57 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Monday, January 28, 2008
Clinton's Super Tuesday strategy
Split browns from blacks:
Clinton's double-digit lead in California polls over Sen. Barack Obama is misleading. Subtract a Latino voting bloc whose dependability to show up on Election Day always has been shaky, and Clinton is no better than even here, with Obama gaining. To encourage this firewall, the Clinton campaign may be drifting into encouragement of Hispanic vs. black racial conflict by condoning Latino hostility toward the first African American with a chance to become president. [...]
The poll's demographics are more important. Clinton has dramatically lost support among blacks, now trailing Obama 58 percent to 24 percent. It is a virtual dead heat among white non-Hispanics, 32 percent to 30 percent. The 12-point overall lead derives from a 59 percent to 19 percent Clinton edge among Latinos.
In California, the Latino vote is notoriously undependable in actual voting, especially when compared with African American turnout. How the Clinton campaign deals with Hispanic voters is a sensitive matter, and sensitivity has never been a hallmark of the Clinton style.
Insensitivity was reflected in a recent issue of the New Yorker, when Clinton's veteran Latino political operative Sergio Bendixen was quoted as saying, "The Hispanic voter -- and I want to say this very carefully -- has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."
That brief quote from an obscure politician has generated shock and awe in Democratic circles. It comes close to validating the concern that the Clinton campaign is not only relying on a brown firewall built on an anti-black base but is reinforcing it. A prominent Democrat who has not picked a candidate this year told me, "In any campaign I have been involved in, Bendixen would have been gone."
But not in Clinton's campaign. At the Jan. 15 debate, before the Nevada caucuses, where the Latino vote was important, NBC's Tim Russert read the Bendixen quote and asked Clinton, "Does that represent the view of your campaign?" Her response was chilling: "No, he was making a historical statement."
Asked whether Latinos will refuse to vote for him, Obama got a laugh when he replied: "Not in Illinois. They all voted for me."
But this is no laughing matter for Democrats. The Clintons are making a risky gamble that black voters will not be offended by Clinton attacking Obama for legally representing a Chicago slumlord or for clearly identifying him as the black candidate for president. They are betting that African Americans will forget the slurs of January and loyally troop to the polls in November.
7:04 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Andrew Young in December, 2007
Embarrassing.
Civil rights icon Andrew Young says Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is too young and lacks the support network to ascend to the White House.
In a media interview posted online, Young also quipped that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has her husband behind her, and that “Bill is every bit as black as Barack.”
“He’s probably gone with more black women than Barack,” Young said of former President Clinton, drawing laughter from a live television audience. Young, 75, was quick to follow his comment on Bill Clinton with the disclaimer, “I’m clowning.”
Still more on his appearance:
To an African-American audience, Young pitched the message that Barack Obama is too young, not black enough, doesn't have enough black friends, and hasn't slept with enough black women. Young came close to calling Obama "Boy." He implicitly charged miscegenation, telling a lie that Obama is part Chinese. Obama's mother is a white American. If his exact same words has been spoken by some Good ol' Boy it would have been understood as old school, Strom Thurmond racism.
It was subtle, but Young managed to sneak in all of the old racist canards. It was something no white supporter of Hillary Clinton could have gotten away with. Only someone with the reputation of Young could have taken up the role of Lester Maddox.
Obama will have to withstand this test because Huckabee, Giuliani, or Romney will certainly be more blatantly racist should they have a chance. Still, it is disappointing and no less disgusting that the first person in the 2008 election to play the Race Card against Obama was Andrew Young on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
3:05 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Friday's ARG poll out of South Carolina
Had it Obama 39, Clinton 36. The website suggested that Clinton could actually win if white turnout were high enough. It is very hard indeed to write out Obama's 27 point victory.
8:25 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Ed Rollins should be out talking about this
It was a huge scandal when he did it for Christine Todd Whitman, but it's just fine when the Clintons did it, only to no end.
One of our correspondents was responsible for turnout at a precinct in the county the Wall Street Journal wrote about earlier this week. She reported 689 votes for Obama, about 120 for Clinton and 25 for Edwards.
This was one of those areas where the Clintons had bought off some black preacher promising to deliver votes. Brotha man got paid, but the people didn't follow.
And don't miss Jack and Jill's Clinton timeline. The entry for 2008, detailing black voters' "Post-Obama Relationship" with the Clintons, is simply devastating.
The mass incarceration of black men, due largely to a failed "War on Drugs" which is as farcical as our current "War on Terror." In 1995 Bill Clinton had a chance to bring crack and cocaine drug sentencing into line. He did not. A generation of black men got their education in the prison industrial complex.
There was the deregulation of the banking industry under Treasury Secretary Rubin which created the incentives and lack of oversight that allows the current subprime crisis. Rubin came in from Wall Street and returned a hero.
There was the expansion of media consolidation, one of the most insidious attacks on our democracy. Media ownership. Communications licensing. All sold off to the most moneyed of interests.
There was the missed opportunity to set us on a path of a sane energy policy that would anticipate the coming supply crunch rather than wallow in the temporary glut of low prices. No energy efficiency. No investment in renewables. Just the digging of a deeper hole.
(Update: I left this out but twas on my list. A commenter reminded me). There was "welfare reform" which forced mothers into the workplace with nowhere near adequate health or child care options
There was the sitting by and watching millions of people get butchered in Rwanda
There was the set of trade deals that lowered our standards and helped gut America's ability to provide for itself, setting the stage for our current vulnerable position
It turns out that Bill Clinton didn't just fail to persuade African Americans to vote for Hillary; he may have caused a large scale re-evaluation of his presidency among them--something I thought impossible less than a week ago.
So, thank you, Bill Clinton, for freeing the party from your spell.
8:00 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
From the comments at Jackandjillpolitics.com
Nice:
IMO, these Black Middle and Upper Class folks see THEMSELVES in Obama. They completely identify with him, and his 'struggle' in White Corporate America. The Arena is Politics, but it's just the same to them as the Corporate America in which they travel everyday.
They see in Obama, someone who is playing by a set of rules NOT for him, doing pretty well, and just as he's about to truly succeed, THE RULES CHANGE.
The script is flipped and rules that never were there suddenly are.
Someone pointed out this week, on a board that, in addition to the attempts by the media to go along with the Three-Fifthsization of the South Carolina Primary, there was also other caveats that come out of nowehre, like, Obama just couldn't win, but he had to win BIG in order for it to begin to ' actually count'. I was like WTF? Hillary Clinton can win NH by 3 points, and it's the second coming, but Obama had to win HUGE in South Carolina, because, somehow, Black votes are less than others.
See - rules change out of nowhere.
The Black Middle and Professional Classes know this; that's why this Dogwhistle Politics is ringing in their ears LOUDLY. They see themselves in Obama, and they understand TO THEIR SOULS how wrong he's being done.
Another part of this is that, since Obama began this campaign, he has been criticized by some, for not 'changing message' for Black folks. I had always argued that he couldn't. In order for him to win, he had to stay pretty consistent with his message.
Black folks are also mad at the Clintons because, though it took them nearly a year, for the most part, I believe our community had made peace with the fact that Obama had to be The Candidate Running for President Who Happens to Be Black instead of The Black Candidate. And, just when 'WE' accept that, here come THE CLINTONS....NOT Republicans, but THE CLINTONS, trying to turn Obama into The Black Candidate. It burns.
Meanwhile, the knives are out, not only for purveyors of evil and morons like Johnsons Bob and Magic, but the many eminent civil rights figures who acted as accessories in the Clinton racial strategy:
Clinton keeps a well-worn copy of Lee Atwater's playbook in his back pocket for occasions such as this... i suspect this will get nastier as we lead up to Super Tuesday... there are just too many delegates for the Clintonistas to pass on!
and the only two states on February 5th with the numbers of Black voters that even comes close to south carolina are georgia & alabama... i assure you that the Clintons will continue to work their "southern strategy" until they've alienated even the most trustworthy "house negroes" on their payroll (john lewis, andrew young, pastor butts, bob johnson, magic johnson, etc.)!
7:43 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
It's not just symbolic
More on the Kennedy endorsement:
"The America of Jack and Bobby Kennedy touched all of us. Through all of these decades, the one who kept that flame alive was Ted Kennedy,'' said Representative Bill Delahunt, A Quincy Democrat who is also backing Obama. ``So having him pass on the torch [to Obama] is of incredible significance. It's historic.'' [...]
While polls show Clinton ahead in some large states, including her home state of New York and delegate-rich California, the Kennedy endorsement gives Obama a stamp of approval among key constituencies in the Democratic party that could make Super Tuesday more competitive.
Kennedy plans to campaign actively for Obama, an aide said, and will focus particularly among Hispanics and labor union members, who are important voting blocks in several Feb. 5 states, including California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona and New Mexico.
Anything that helps Obama among non-college educated white voters, seniors, and Hispanics is very, very bad news for Hillary Clinton.
7:33 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
CNN: Ted Kennedy set to endorse Obama
This is now a race for the ages: the idealistic wing of the Democratic Party versus yesterday's corrupt Third Way machine.
1:30 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Clay Aiken on rehearsing for Spamalot
"I'm sore. I couldn't even get off the toilet the other day. It hurts so bad. I don't know if it's I'm not coordinated or using muscles I never had to use before."
2:03 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Saturday, January 26, 2008
No race card?
Thingkagain:
"They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender. That's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," the former president said at one stop as he campaigned for his wife, strongly suggesting that blacks would not support a white alternative to Obama.
Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South.
The Clintons didn't deserve any thinking progressive's vote in the 1992 primary, and they don't today.
11:58 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Four years after telling John Kerry to throw gays under the bus
Hillary Clinton has discovered the issue of gay teen suicide! Must mean she's worried about the gay white male vote in California: Obama is about even with her among white voters in California. Hillary is ahead in the state because of her support from Hispanics. So any erosion among white gay males would be hugely damaging.
But she probably doesn't have to worry; gay voters will stick with the man who brought them DOMA and don't-ask-don't tell. And they don't have to worry either, at least for the next few months. Hillary won't throw any surviving gay teens under the bus until after the convention.
11:28 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
"A President Like My Father"
Caroline Kennedy endorses Barack Obama.
10:36 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Edwards wins the white vote
Early exit polls:
African-Americans: Obama 81%, Clinton 17%, Edwards 1%
Whites: Edwards 39%, Clinton 36%, Obama 24%
8:00 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Is the right right on the Clintons?
Jonathan Chait's thoughtful, accurate essay in today's Los Angeles Times. I don't want to quote it in full; it's definitely worth a read.
7:55 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
And an explanation
Oh my:
MSNBC is rolling out some of their exit poll numbers. They asked voters if Senator Obama and Senator Clinton were unfair in their attacks on their opponent. 56% said Obama was unfair, 70% said Clinton was unfair. Looks like Obama's "she'll do or say anything to win" meme is winning the day. Perhaps more significantly, a full 75% of black voters feel Clinton was unfair to Obama.
Which presumably means 65% of white voters think the Clintons were unfair, given that half the electorate was black. Now that is interesting, and possibly very good news for John Edwards.
7:30 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Odd exit poll factoid
Hmm:
Roughly half the voters said former President Clinton's campaigning for his wife was very important to their choice.
7:27 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Forgotten detail
People have been voting in Florida since mid-January. While I have written against early voting many times, the practice ought to help John McCain, whose victory in New Hampshre made him the mainstream candidate to beat until only recently.
6:22 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Attorney General John Edwards?
Sounds perfect to me. But it will never, ever happen under the Clintons. Writes a horrified Robert Novak:
Illinois Democrats close to Sen. Barack Obama are quietly passing the word that John Edwards will be named attorney general in an Obama administration.
Installation at the Justice Department of multimillionaire trial lawyer Edwards would please not only the union leaders supporting him for president but organized labor in general. The unions relish the prospect of an unequivocal labor partisan as the nation's top legal officer.
In public debates, Obama and Edwards often seem to bond together in alliance against front-running Sen. Hillary Clinton. While running a poor third, Edwards could collect a substantial bag of delegates under the Democratic Party's proportional representation. Edwards then could try to turn his delegates over to Obama in the still unlikely event of a deadlocked Democratic National Convention.
6:10 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
The latest in the Clinton scorched earth campaign
Todays target: John Edwards.
6:03 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Friday, January 25, 2008
Found on YouTube
A comment on Smokey's last great pop hit, "One Heartbeat."
Smokey could sang the drawz off a giraffe.
10:10 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
South Carolina
An interesting statistic from PPI's final poll: among Democrats primary voters who listed "moral and family values" as an important issue, Obama gets 65%. Hillary Clinton gets 3%.
7:33 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
McCain
He would be as reliable a friend on a number of Hispanic-related issues as Hillary... according to The National Review.
We all know John McCain is terrible on immigration. For years he held America’s sovereignty and security hostage to amnesty and increased immigration, and his newfound support for “enforcement first” is so insubstantial and transparently insincere that it insults our intelligence. He’s so bad that Americans for Better Immigration ranks his performance in office as the worst of all the presidential candidates — including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. (See the GOP grid here and the Democratic one here.) And as Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has pointed out, passage of McCain’s bill “would represent the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years.”
But his support for de facto open borders is merely one manifestation of a larger problem — John McCain is a multiculturalist.
I don’t mean he eats tacos at the Cinco de Mayo parade (nothing wrong with that!) — I mean he’s an ideological multiculturalist. Francis Fukuyama has described (PDF) the ideology of multiculturalism this way: “not just as tolerance of cultural diversity in de facto multicultural societies but as the demand for legal recognition of the rights of ethnic, racial, religious, or cultural groups.” At almost every turn over his entire public career, John McCain has supported the pluribus over the unum.
The evidence that follows is actually pretty convincing. And it's one of the reasons Rush Limbaugh is right: a McCain presidency would, indeed, mean the end the Republican Party as we know it.
1:17 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Where Has Bill Clinton Been?
Lifted from Andrew Sullivan
A democrat vents:
"A Democrat vents:
Where the hell has this red-faced, angry, combative Bill Clinton been for the last eight years?
Did Bill get angry and demand that wrongs be righted after the Florida miscount? After Bush v. Gore? After Bush, Cheney, and Rice blew off his concerns about terrorism for 8 months? After Bush's unpreparedness for, inadequate and incomplete response to, and unconscionable exploitation of 9/11? After the unfair media and GOP attacks on Al Gore, Howard Dean, and John Kerry? After Katrina? Plame? The US Attorneys? The "lost" emails? The countless other mistakes and malfeasances of the Bush administration?
Sorry, Bill -- by remaining silent in the face of so many grave catastrophes, you forfeited your right to attack Obama..."
Sullivan adds:
But Bush didn't really challenge the Clintons' power, did he? In fact, it was vital for the Clintons that Kerry be defeated in 2004 in order for the Restoration Project to continue. If you want to find a red-faced Democrat who actually cares about the country, the Constitution and the world, Al Gore has been your man for the last eight years. The Clintons only care about themselves. True now as it has always been.
12:59 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Early post-debate prediction
Willard Mitt Romney will defeat John McCain in the Florida primary. His performance tonight was poised and commanding... and also a first impression for most GOP voters in that intellectually malnourished state. Thus, it may also have been decisive. And the New York Times endorsement can only hurt McCain.
If Willard wins, it will be portrayed as a huge victory. He will be in a commanding position going into Super Tuesday. But he is truly hated by the other candidates--particularly McCain and Huckabee, who should win a lot of delegates that day. And that means that a brokered convention remains a possibility unless Mccain's stumbles or Huckabee fails to cause real damage in the South.
12:37 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Interesting statistics on abortion
From an evangelical blog:
• A survey of 30,000 Missourians found the percentage of "strongly pro-life" teenagers and young adults under 30 years old increased 13 percentage points, from 23 percent to 36 percent, between 1992 and 2006, while self-identified "strongly pro-choice" Missourians under 30 dropped 21 percentage points, from 39 percent to 18 percent.
• A June New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll found a substantial majority (62 percent) of 17- to 29-year-olds felt abortion should either "not be permitted" (24 percent) or "more strictly limited" (38 percent) than it is now. [...]
• A Hamilton College poll of high school seniors found 72 percent of female students said they would not consider abortion if they became pregnant, and only 13 percent said they would counsel a pregnant friend to consider an abortion.
Until 2000, I believed that there were only two things Bill and Hillary would not compromise on: choice (pro!) and the death penalty (really, really pro!). But I was wrong on one of those. In 2005, when Hillary believed she would be crowned the nominee, she gave a major speech on abortion, in which she said:
"There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate. We should agree that we want every child in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved," Mrs Clinton said. "We can all recognise that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic, choice to many, many women."
She also praised religious groups which have run chastity campaigns for young people, encouraging millions of teenagers to pledge sexual abstinence before marriage. Last week in Boston, Mrs Clinton spoke of God more than a dozen times and stated that she had always been a "praying person".
Backing President George W Bush's faith-based initiatives, which offer federal money for religious groups' charitable works, she said: "There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles."
Addressing a crowd including many religious leaders, she said there must be room for religious people to "live out their faith in the public square".
Amazingly, this was a bizarre attempt to get black voters in her camp, and not just white evangelicals who would never dream of voting for a Clinton.
Since November's election, the Democrats have engaged in a prolonged bout of introspection as to how to woo religious voters, who care profoundly about moral issues, particularly abortion. Many are angry with Mr Bush for failing to ban the procedure altogether.
Mrs Clinton may also be hoping to mobilise the black vote, which also has a big Christian element. Her husband had a genuine rapport with many blacks which paid off at the polls.
Ironic, isn't it, that this is the same woman who push polled women in New Hampshire to question Barack Obama's record on abortion. Small wonder that the former director of NOW in Chicago renounced her endorsement of Hillary Clinton and now supports Obama.
Hillary will protect the right to choose more than any Republican will. But the statistics above should make anyone question Hillary's fundamental commitment to choice, and, for that matter, the separation of church and state. If the polls are ever bad enough on either issue, Hillary will compromise. Pro-life Democrats, Catholic bishops and evangelical ministers controlling government supported political slush funds should take heart. Executing the retarded is now the only sacrosanct position for Bill and Hillary Clinton.
12:30 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Is South Carolina tightening?
I can't even tell anymore. But it might be.
9:29 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Still more cheating
Now documented in this week's issue of The Nation, a left wing publication whose enmity could only please the Clintons.
9:27 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Why is Barack carrying women in South Carolina?
Interesting:
Lester Spence, a Johns Hopkins political scientist, said to me recently that he is skeptical of any attempt to describe in shorthand the influence of black voters' personal histories, and their generational memory, on their choice in the Democratic primary. Spence cautions that the archetypal "black woman voter" does not exist. Still, by his review of the poll data--information he admits can have its limitations--Spence believes it is probably accurate to say that the segments of black voters most likely to go for Hillary Clinton are older women and working-class women who hold fondly to the notion of bringing back President Bill Clinton.
Then he mentioned something that instantly, viscerally resonated with me, as the mother of an 8-year-old black girl and a 4-year-old black boy:
"If that voter is a black woman who is a bit younger, who is working hard to keep it together, and especially if she has sons, her support will be for Barack. Especially if she has sons," Spence said.
"Because, let's be real: the most at-risk population in America is not girls, black or white, and it certainly isn't white women. It is black boys, and the mothers of black boys are going to go all out for Barack Obama."
9:25 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Robert Reich denounces Bill Clinton
He was Clinton's Secretary of Labor:
I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party. While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair – indeed, it’s demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama’s anti-war position is a "fairy tale") or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it. Meanwhile, the attack ads being run in South Carolina by the Clinton camp which quote Obama as saying Republicans had all the ideas under Reagan, is disingenuous. For years, Bill Clinton and many other leading Democrats have made precisely the same point – that starting in the Reagan administration, Republicans put forth a range of new ideas while the Democrats sat on their hands. Many of these ideas were wrong-headed and dangerous, such as supply-side economics. But for too long Democrats failed counter with new ideas of their own; they wrongly assumed that the old Democratic positions and visions would be enough. Clinton’s 1992 campaign – indeed, the entire "New Democratic" message of the 1990s – was premised on the importance of taking back the initiative from the Republicans and offering Americans a new set of ideas and principles. Now, sadly, we’re witnessing a smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics.
9:16 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
McCain tries to use Hillary to win Florida
But I have a feeling it won't work. And I suspect that if the primary were today, Romney would win.
5:16 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
How Clinton could win South Carolina
By turning out the white vote, according to the American Research Group:
The chart above indicates the percent of vote for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the South Carolina Democratic primary based on the racial composition of the vote. Using our latest survey (an update will be available tomorrow), if the composition of the vote were 50% white and 50% African American, Obama would lead Clinton 47% to 37%. If the composition of the vote were 60% white and 40% African American, Clinton and Obama would be tied at 41% each. And if the composition of the voter were 70% white and 30% African American, Clinton would lead Obama 45% to 36%.
While a win is a win in a primary, Obama's strength among African American voters in South Carolina may suggest to primary voters in other states that Obama is simply the black candidate in the race. (Our latest survey in Florida, an uncontested state for Democrats, indicates that this is already the case.)
The racial divide is real in South Carolina and an Obama win based on that divide will be reported widely beginning Saturday night. The Obama campaign has an opportunity to confront this before the primary in an attempt to reset the debate. Doing so might be Obama's only hope of avoiding the fate detailed by Pat Buchanan and Dick Morris.
5:08 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Bill Clinton
Black people's votes don't matter all that much, so why pay attention to them?
5:03 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |