May 8, 2008

You are currently browsing the daily archive for May 8, 2008.

(Via Politics on The Huffington Post.)

To: Senator Barack Obama
From: Charles Warner

My wife, Julia Bradford, and I have both ardently supported you since the beginning of your campaign when we attended your March, 2007, fundraiser in New York. We are maxed out in our contributions to your primary campaign to become the Democratic Party’s nominee and have given over $1,000 to your presidential campaign because we are convinced that you will be the nominee. I co-hosted a party that raised over $10,000 for your candidacy. We took a bus from New York to Philadelphia the Sunday before the Pennsylvania primary to canvas door to door for you in South Philadelphia.

We believe in you and are convinced you will be a president who America and the world will be proud of. We are convinced you will be a president who will tell the truth to the American people and begin to make some necessary changes that will help to repair America’s reputation internationally and help to save our precious environment.

We did not give Hillary Clinton a penny. Her mendacious, destructive, poorly managed, and pandering campaign has demonstrated how unfit she is to be president. We did not give your campaign money to see it go to her. If your campaign agrees to pay off any of her campaign’s debt in order to bribe her to get out of the race, you will have betrayed our trust in you and you will plummet to her unprincipled level in the gutter.

You have promised to change the ways of Washington politics. Stick to your promise. Don’t bribe her. Don’t give her a dollar - not a penny of our money. If you do, you will not only break your promise of change, you will also not get any more money from us or millions of other people, and, most importantly, you will lose the mantle of idealism and hope that attracted us to you in the first place.

Finally, idealism is nice, but realistically, you don’t need to bail her out. You’re going to win the nomination without bribing her. Save the money and invest it in beating McCain. We’ll help if you keep our faith and the money we’ve already given you.

Tags: , , , ,

(Via RealClearPolitics.)

OK, so Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is staying in the presidential race despite losing among elected delegates, facing a slimming lead among superdelegates, losing the popular vote and behind by 2-to-1 in the number of states carried. She slogs on, hoping against hope for a sudden turnaround in the race.

Apart from the psychological reasons for her stubbornness, is there a more subtle political calculation going on?

Is she continuing her race so as to have a platform from which to continue to bash Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the hopes of so damaging him that he can’t win the general election? Is she doing this to keep her options alive for the 2012 presidential race?

Hillary is obviously entitled to keep running until Obama has secured the votes necessary for the nomination, and it is certainly understandable that she would want to run until the last popular vote is counted. But must she run a negative, slash-and-burn campaign? Must she use her time on the platform and on television to belittle, mock, deride and try to destroy the man who will eventually be the candidate of her own party?

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) felt similarly justified in staying in the race for the Republican nomination until Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reached the majority threshold required for nomination. He contested the Texas primary vigorously, even though his earlier losses in South Carolina and Florida made it most unlikely that he could win the nomination. But he chose to run a positive campaign. He didn’t knock McCain. He just articulated the case for his own candidacy.

But Hillary won’t avail herself of that option because it does not serve her long-term fallback position: a shot at the nomination in 2012. If Obama is elected this year, he will seek reelection in 2012 and Hillary would have to face taking on an incumbent in a primary in her own party if she wanted to run, a daunting task. But if McCain wins, the nomination in 2012 will be open. And it might be worth having. McCain will be 76 years old and the Republican Party will have been in power for 12 years. Not since FDR and Truman has a party lasted that long in power. When the Republicans tried to do so, in 1980 and 1992, they fell flat on their face.

Hillary is using white, blue-collar fears of Barack Obama to try to stop him from getting nominated or elected.

Full story here.

Tags: ,

(Via Los Angeles Times.)

Barack Obama hasn’t managed after months of political combat to force Hillary Rodham Clinton out of the presidential race, so he’s about to try another approach: ignoring her.

Confident that he has built a near-impregnable lead, his campaign aides said Wednesday that Obama would begin shifting his focus toward the general election.

Obama still plans to campaign in states that remain on the primary calendar — he is to appear in Oregon over the weekend — but he may also start showing up in states that are considered important in the November contest: Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. (All three have held their Democratic primaries.)

With Clinton’s hopes of capturing the Democratic nomination dimming, Obama needs to prepare for the prospect of a general election matchup with the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, aides said.

“Everyone is eager to get on with this,” said David Axelrod, the Obama campaign’s lead strategist.

“We’ve got to multi-task here . . . Sen. McCain has basically run free for some time now,” Axelrod added.

Clinton’s campaign cast Obama’s strategy as a show of hubris. Clinton has given no signal she is dropping out of the race after Tuesday’s split results, when she lost decisively in North Carolina and won narrowly in Indiana.

Showing she still believes she can win, the New York senator hastily arranged a campaign stop Wednesday in West Virginia, which will hold its primary Tuesday. “We’ve seen the perils of saying ‘mission accomplished’ too early,” said Phil Singer, a Clinton campaign spokesman.

The phrase “mission accomplished” was famously displayed on an aircraft carrier in 2003, when President Bush came aboard and declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

Full story here.

Tags: ,

(Via CNN.com.)

The drawn out Democratic presidential race is producing “negative dividends in terms of strife within the party,” said a key Senate supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s White House bid.

A day after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries bolstered Sen. Barack Obama’s candidacy, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California and a superdelegate, said she wants to talk to Clinton to “see what her view is on the rest of the race. What the strategy is.”

Feinstein, who described herself as “very loyal” to Clinton, said “the question comes whether she can get the delegates that she needs and I’d like to know what the strategy is to do that.”

Superdelegates — made up of governors, senators, House members and various other party officials or members — are also known as unpledged delegates. They are free to choose the candidate they like, while pledged delegates are assigned in primaries and caucuses.

Full story here.

Tags: , ,

Tags: ,

(Via New York Times.)

Top Democratic officials said privately that Congressional leaders were content to have the race play out as long as it did not take on a negative tone. Attacks on Mr. Obama by the Clinton campaign or its surrogates could lead to a leadership push for superdelegates to show their hand and bring the race to a close, said aides, who did not want be identified discussing internal strategy.

Full story here

Tags: ,

(Via Open Left.)

With 1.5 million donors, this campaign has blown away anything we’ve ever seen in terms of grassroots fundraising. The technology is all centralized, so Obama knows the name, address, giving patterns, and occupation of every donor out there, as well as social networking information, like who the best raisers are. He has bypassed Actblue, and will probably end up building in a Congressional slate feature to further party build while keeping control of the data.

One email from Moveon to their full list can bring in between $100k to $1M for a candidate, with $1M being the very top end of the range. With one good email to his list, in a few months, Obama will probably be able to bring in $1-3M for a Senate candidate under attack or split that among several. 10-20% of the money going to Senate candidates this cycle might come from Barack Obama’s internet operation. Stunning.

Full story here.

Tags:

(Via Newsvine.)

The reaction — or lack of it — by Indiana and North Carolina voters to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary comments emphasizes how deeply entrenched the racial lines of support are for the two Democratic presidential rivals.

It doesn’t seem likely that the renewed focus on Wright has helped Barack Obama, and it is all but certain that he’ll hear more about it from Republicans should he win his party’s nomination. But for now, there’s little evidence it hurt him much in this week’s Democratic contests.

After all the attention to Wright and Obama’s disavowal of his former pastor, exit polls in the two states found that:

_Six in 10 white voters in both states supported Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is waging an increasingly long-shot struggle to become the party nominee. That’s close to the average 57 percent of whites who had backed the New York senator in Democratic primaries since Super Tuesday, which was Feb. 5. It’s also slightly below the 63 percent of whites who voted for her in Pennsylvania and 69 percent in Mississippi, the most recent contests before Tuesday’s voting.

— Whites lacking college degrees favored Clinton over Obama by 31 percentage points in Indiana and 45 points in North Carolina. Since Super Tuesday, she has triumphed over Obama among this group by an average 30 points, including 41 points in Pennsylvania and 55 points in Mississippi.

_White men leaned toward Clinton on Tuesday, as she got 59 percent in Indiana and 55 percent in North Carolina. Clinton got 57 percent of their votes in Pennsylvania and 67 percent in Mississippi.

_About nine in 10 blacks in Indiana and North Carolina voted for Obama, slightly stronger than his usual showing with them. It mattered little whether they said the Wright situation influenced them or not.

Pollsters said there was not enough data to draw conclusions about whether the attention on Wright drove people away from Obama, the Illinois senator, or drew some toward him because of how he denounced the pastor.

“With the singular exception of Wisconsin, we’ve seen these two demographic coalitions facing each other and enduring across every contest,” said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, referring to the groups of voters who backed each candidate.

Other than liberal Vermont, Wisconsin is the only state where Obama has won more than half of whites who have not graduated college.

It’s true that in both Indiana and North Carolina on Tuesday, nearly half of white voters said Wright influenced their pick of a candidate. And of that group in each state, just over eight in 10 voted for Clinton — clearly more than the six in 10 whites who backed her overall.

Even so, those numbers did not seem to change how whites overall voted.

Wright’s more incendiary remarks from past sermons became an Internet sensation in March and there was a renewed flurry of attention to Wright late last month. That’s when he made a speaking tour and reiterated comments that the federal government may have developed the AIDS virus to infect blacks and that the U.S. invited the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Obama denounced the remarks last week.

Yet exit polls gave little indication that late-deciding white voters moved decisively toward Clinton.

In Indiana, about a quarter of whites who picked their candidate within the past month said Wright was a very important factor. Of that group, 87 percent voted for Clinton.

Yet the same proportion of whites in the state who chose their candidate more than a month ago said Wright was very influential, and 86 percent of them voted for Clinton — essentially no difference.

The same was true in North Carolina, where 25 percent of whites who said Wright was very important in their decision picked their candidate within the past month. Ninety-two percent of them voted for Clinton.

That was little different from the 30 percent of whites there who chose their candidate more than a month ago and also said Wright affected them a great deal. Of that group, 91 percent voted for Clinton.

The figures are from exit polling by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for The Associated Press and television networks conducted in 35 precincts in each state.

The data was based on 1,881 people who voted in Indiana’s Democratic contest and 2,316 in North Carolina, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for both states.

Tags: , , ,

(Via The New York Times- msnbc.com.)

After 16 years, the Clinton era may be coming to an end, presenting Democrats with a historic but potentially wrenching transition and a challenge to Senator Barack Obama as he seeks to reconcile a deeply divided party.

Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been at the heart of the Democratic Party since Mr. Clinton steered it back to the White House in 1992, with a campaign that combined a moderate appeal with the hard-edged political tactics that had once been the province of Republicans. Mrs. Clinton seemed poised last year to lead Democrats into the general election campaign if not beyond.

And while the relationship between the party establishment and the Clintons has always been uneasy at best, an entire generation of Democrats has known no other figures as dominant as the two of them.

Full story here.

(Via Salon.)

From watching the coverage of the 2008 race, you’d think that the Democratic Party has never been down this road before — divided along racial lines, mired in a bitter personal battle, seemingly incapable of repairing the divisions in time to defeat the Republicans.

If you believe this, then you probably didn’t experience the 1994 U.S. Senate race in Virginia. For three years leading up to that race, the incumbent, Sen. Chuck Robb, and Gov. Doug Wilder, both Democrats, were embroiled in a bitter dispute. Robb staffers faced federal prosecution for having procured an illegal tape of a Wilder cellphone conversation and then later playing the tape for Washington Post reporters.

In late 1993, Wilder, the first African-American ever to be elected governor of a U.S. state, flirted with challenging Robb in the Democratic Senate primary. He backed away — then changed his mind and entered the race as an independent in 1994. Six weeks before Election Day, Robb was trailing Republican nominee Oliver North by double digits. In a brutal election year for Democrats, the seat looked lost.

Few believed that Wilder could ever be persuaded to give up his campaign, and then endorse and vigorously campaign for his longtime rival. But that’s just what happened — the Democratic Party pulled together, long-standing scores were settled, debts paid, and legacies preserved. Today, some believe that Hillary Clinton will never drop out before Denver, and others ponder what she might want in return for a rapid, graceful exit. In 1994, Robb and Wilder proved that how a campaign ends is often more important than how it is waged — and both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can learn from the way these rivals built a lasting peace. And it all began with that most underrated of campaign rituals– the post-campaign negotiation.

I had a front-row seat to this greatest of all Democratic crack-ups as Wilder’s press secretary. The candidate trailing badly in the polls on Labor Day weekend, our campaign decided that we had only two options left: keep running the same campaign, or sink Sen. Robb.

We wanted to win. We decided to treat the month of September like a “voteless primary”; less charitable pundits might say it was an intra-party divide and conquer. We ignored Ollie North and focused our fire on Robb alone — attacking him from the left in hopes of passing him in the polls and then driving Democrats toward Wilder in the final month as the best Democratic hope of holding the seat.

In the first week of September, Wilder caught a break in a debate when Robb made an astounding gaffe — promising to take food out of the mouths of widows and orphans if that would help balance the federal budget. What followed was a solid week of good press for Wilder as he became the new champion of Virginia’s poor huddled masses. And then, a new round of polls came out, and the news was universally bad. A Mason-Dixon poll showing Wilder slipping to fourth place, far behind North, and even behind independent Marshall Coleman, was our Indiana. It was obvious that Wilder’s campaign was over.

Full story here.

Tags: , , , , ,

« Older entries