(Nice write-up of yet another DCer trying to make "sense" of Montana. - promoted by Jay Stevens)
Unlike in Washington D.C....
Well, The Denver Post put out an interesting analysis of the general campaign's battle for western states. The Post's Karen Crummy, had a pretty "crummy" write up about the state of Montana's electoral and political campaigns in her article today, "Montana: Under the gun on many conservative issues", part of a five article series.
Let's start with "Political Identity Crisis" for $200. I thought that maybe we could continue the theme of exploring our perceptions of just where, on the political spectrum, do we believe our state, our democrats, and ourselves lie, what with all the talk of leftists, progressives, centrists, and Montana dems "walking, talking and acting like republicans." And of course, how the national press sees how the battleground state of Montana is shaping up, what with Obama seemingly blowing in the wind on the issues as of late.
Nothing like challenging our own notions of political identity and loyalty, which seem to have generated so much chatter here at LitW lately. ;-)
Crummy starts off with the assertion that Montana is a one trick pony:
"In Montana, where "opening day" refers to the beginning of hunting season rather than baseball, a candidate's political survival usually hinges on one issue: guns.
A candidate's position on gun rights is the Montana entrance exam. Answer correctly and you can move on to discuss other issues. Give the wrong answer and most voters don't want to hear what else you have to say."
Amidst the obligatory "fair and balanced" sprinkling of quotes from Erick Iverson, Jim Lopach and Brian Schweitzer she gets around to the meat of her story, and that is that Montana is cycling back to voting for democratic candidates, and takes a stab at trying to define why we might do so in the presidential campaign...
(JC addresses a question that's been bouncing around in my head the last few days, after moves by Obama to tack to the "center." He opines we can't really do anything about it...but I'm not so sure. I'll have some thoughts this weekend... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
"Warning: this is one of those brutally frank posts that may well piss you off. Sorry about that"
Given the tenor of several recent diaries here at LitW, I thought it would be a good time to reflect on the issue of accountability during a general election. Having run by Lux's article, and another, "The Obama Problem" at HuffPo by Jason Rosenbaum, I thought I'd throw some of their ideas out to see what people here think. And we haven't had a real barn-burner comment love-fest in what, 2-3 days since Wulfgar's "Tepid" diary hit the front page?
So instead of attacking the poster or commenters (me, Jay, Anna, or Mark, or Wulfgar...), let's go at the issue straight up. It's become obvious to progressives and the left that Obama has been moving to the right, and is now campaigning with many centrist positions. And we "Obamabots" have been accused of being delusional because we can't see what is truly happening in the general election.
Rest assured, objective readers, that many Obama supporters the world over can see what is happening, and offer our critiques of his moves, as opposed to resorting to ad hominem "accountability" threats. I had this intuitive notion that holding a general candidate accountable for things like press releases and campaign PR babble was just pissing in the wind. Accountability needs to be reserved for the realm of actions, not postures. Once the election is over, and the candidate has won, then the whole world changes (I'm not talkin' 'bout Obama's "change" agenda here). Reality sets in, the glamor and bubble of electoral politics is burst, and it is time for everybody to get to work--whatever that may be, and make the best out of the next 4 years.
Hundreds [maybe thousands] of Missoula supporters for Senator Barack Obama will gather at Caras Park on Saturday, May 31 from 2-5pm to inspire the community for the June 3rd Primary. The entire Missoula community is invited to attend. There will be good food, live music, games for kids, short talks, and lots of positive fun for the whole family!!!
The event kicks off with a Sidewalk Parade at 1:30pm. Assemble at XXX's for festive musical procession to Caras Park, featuring giant puppets, bag pipes, juggling, drumming and Radical Cheerleaders.
The rally will feature an introduction by Mayor John Engen. That will be followed up by performances featuring the Full Grown Men, drumming and African dance, the Odyssey Band, the Gay Men's and Women's Choir, and more. There will be youth basketball and other speakers from the Missoula community.
Bring a tee-shirt, and get it screenprinted with an Obama design.
Obama's exciting, inspiring appearance in Missoula is still ringing in our hearts and minds. This community rally, Up With Obama, is a celebration of Missoula's important role in the state's primary election.
Yes We Can. We can elect Obama for President! We need to chip in with everything we can, and we can have fun doing it! Let's do our part in Missoula to sign, seal, and deliver Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination!
(It looks like our fun is just beginning. And think -- it could be Montana's young voters that decide who the next president will be. - promoted by Jay Stevens)
Fivethirtyeight.com had an interesting tidbit today. In its article, Can Obama Clinch on June 3rd?" they make the case that given a rules committee vote on how the FL and MI delegates get allocated, that the final pledged delegate victory could be right here, and making the case for him declaring victory in Montana:
"Obama might have another opportunity to declare victory on June 3rd, when South Dakota and Montana conclude the primary calendar. The conditions for doing so are otherwise pretty favorable. He is likely to achieve victory in one or both of these states (his worst case scenario is probably losing one of them -- more likely South Dakota -- by a small margin).
And while Obama could conceivably hold a victory rally anywhere, there is a sound argument for doing so in Montana, a potentially competitive state that symbolizes the Democrats' 50-state strategy (think Brian Schweitzer and John Tester) and their hopes to expand the electoral map in November. But will the math be there to make Montana the state that puts Obama over the top?"
Montana putting the final delegates into Obama's column and holding a victory speech here? Maybe in Missoula Montana?!!! Only in our wildest dreams. Denny Rehberg, get your coat, you're going home.
(Isn't journalism done well a thing of beauty? - promoted by Jay Stevens)
Last night's interview of Jeremiah Wright by Bill Moyers was fascinating. So much so, that after watching the dvr recording of it, instead of deleting it, I decided to save it to show to my daughter, and to other people who might be interested, or to watch it again.
It wasn't what I expected. Moyers gracefully allowed Jeremiah Wright to unveil himself in front of a national audience. Gone were the gotcha moments and sound bite-seeking furies of so many other interviews we've seen through this campaign cycle. Moyers skillfully worked Wright's history, the history of black America, and current political events together with religious history to build the context, so painfully absent in today's main stream media, needed to understand Wright's remarks. And with that we begin to understand not only Barack Obama's association with Rev. Wright, but we take another step forward in the discussion on race that Obama began with his speech in Philadelphia.
For any who want to discuss the Wright affair, this show is a must watch. Anytime anybody wants to point to Wright's remarks as a reason to denigrate Obama, I will say: "have you seen Wright's interview with Moyer where he builds the context for his statements?" And if they say no, or refuse, then there is little to talk about. I don't know how I can convey the subtleties and nuances of the Moyers/Wright interview to people who have no knowledge of the black church, prophetic preaching, or liberation theology.
Now if only we could get other interviewers and reporters to follow Moyers' lead. And I'd love to see Moyers do a followup on this story with Barack Obama.
We regret to inform you that the proposed Democratic Presidential Debate scheduled for April 27 has been cancelled due to time constraints and logistical issues associated with such a large, national event.
You have shown tremendous passion and interest in being a part of history as Democrats are poised this year to elect the first female or African-American President. However, there were also growing concerns about what another debate would do to party unity. (emphasis added)
We hope your interest in the North Carolina Democratic Party will not end with the cancellation of the debate.
At last, some democrats with some sense!
What would be even better, would be for the somebody like the Montana Conservation Voters to offer to sponsor a presidential debate here in Montana before the primary here. They could promise no gotcha questions, and just ask questions relevant to the west, like:
1) coal development & energy policy
2) the wilderness debate and roadless designations, restorations issues
3) fire fighting policy
4) endangered species and wildlife issues (wolf, grizzly, bison)
5) National park management
6) tribal issues
7) farm & ranching policy
8) hardrock mining
While maybe not a made-for-primetime national ABCNews gotcha debate special, it would be great for the west. What do we really know about Obama and Clinton's stances on these and other issues?
Robert Reich came out and endorsed Barack Obama today on his blog. His explanation of his moves is a very telling story that likely is being played out in many Democratic heavy's heads right about now. It seems like Clinton's campaign tactics are backfiring in a big way.
"She's an old friend," Reich said, "I've known her 40 years. I was absolutely dead set against getting into the whole endorsement thing. I've struggled with it. I've not wanted to do it. Out of loyalty to her, I just felt it would be inappropriate."
So what's changed? I asked Reich.
"I saw the ads" - the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago - "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It's the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we've developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn't possibly believe and doesn't possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I've seen growing in Hillary's campaign. And I've come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can't in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past 20 years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst - and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical.""
I suppose, at this time of revising history in the midst of a heated primary battle--as she retells the stories of flying into Bosnia, or not supporting NAFTA--Hillary Clinton could look back and find the possibly fatal flaw in her campaign: her decision to support her husband after he was impeached for his philandering and lying ways.
While many people applauded her for her dutiful and stoic support in the face of international disgrace, history, as unveiled by this campaign cycle, is beginning to paint a far different story. We can look to the problems of the first Clinton presidency and see how they are coming home to roost as they deploy a drogue chute around Hillary's campaign and drag it down. A drogue chute she would have been well served to jettison years ago.
From the lobbying style of chief strategist Mark Penn, to her husband's insistence to be in the thick of the fray, flinging parsed and nuanced word bombs to the media, one thing after another reminds people of why the Clinton legacy is gathering tarnish: it wasn't all peace and prosperity in the 90's. There was a real messy side to the Clintonian political machine--a messy side that is rearing its ugly head again
Unfortunately, Hillary would have us forget all the problems of her husband's presidency, and choose to run on experience gained at the salad bar of her husband's accomplishments, picking those most likely to enhance her candidacy, while tossing the rest to the compost. Running a campaign based much around her life as first lady, Hillary Clinton has opened a trove of questions and problems for her candidacy.
Bill Clinton's associations with numerous organizations at odds with his wife's stated policy goals--from Columbian trade groups to some of his Foundation's donors supporting China's repression of Tibet--whittle away at her support. Hillary is caught in the unenviable position of having a first-gentleman-to-be who has severe conflicts of interest with her own campaign. And a husband and political team who demand loyalty to political favors delivered years ago.
As Bill Richardson--recently branded "Judas" by Clinton strategist James Carville for not repaying Hillary with an endorsement due from his appointment by Bill as an ambassador and Energy Secretary--exclaimed, the Clinton campaign is "just too messy." And that his loyalty to Bill Clinton does not extend to Hillary. How many other people are in this boat? How loyal to Hillary will the people be who only are extending their support because of favors they owe to Bill?
From sharing a bank account with a man who takes nearly a million dollars for assisting an organization promoting trade agreements she opposes, to filing joint tax returns showing millions of dollars of income related to shady dealings with overseas investors, Hillary Clinton is saddled with problems she doesn't need.
Hillary Clinton is a capable and brilliant politician. After all, she worked out with one of the best for many years. But she should have left it at that. Once Bill had outlived his usefulness in a blue dress moment, she should have struck out on her own--if she had presidential aspirations at that time, which many suspect she had. She has what it takes to be the first woman to run for the presidency and win, without her alliance with Bill Clinton.
Stand Hillary Clinton up on her own, and divorce her from all the pain and troubles of the first Clinton presidency, and she becomes a much more attractive candidate. Take away all of the surrogate, back-stage dealings and whispers and Bill gaffs, and she becomes much more likable. Hillary Clinton doesn't need to be wrapped in a campaign run in the style of the 90's, and built on a Washington D.C. power base that brings the likes of Burson Marstellar along for the ride.
No, the best thing Hillary Clinton could have done for her presidential aspirations would have been to get as far away from the legacy of Bill Clinton as she could have. She could have portrayed herself for the woman and politician that she truly is, and she would have had widespread support for that.
She truly has what it would take to be this country's first woman president. Except that when you figure Bill into the equation, it all starts to slide away. She gambled in a moment of perhaps understandable self-doubt that the prospect of a two-fer was better than a solitary bid. But the blue-light-special package of Bill and Hill isn't a "take what you need and leave the rest" proposition. We get it all: you buy it, you like it. Except many of us don't.
If she does not win this nomination, and has aspirations for 2012, she might be well served to reflect on her ultimate question: whether loyalty to her husband and marriage, or drive to ascend to the presidency is her life's goal. Because it may just well be that one is exclusive of the other.
The Clinton campaign would have us believe the nomination primary is all about taking a look at Barack Obama, and then deciding that ultimately he would not be electable in the fall. And of course, once we were done flirting with the young upstart, the Democrats should turn to Hillary because she is the heir apparent to the Democratic party's throne.
Flip this scenario for a moment--because in the hurry to vet Obama, and all of the attention that the Clinton campaign places on his inexperience or newness to the national political scene, they would have us forget that Hillary herself needs vetting. What better way to deflect the spotlight from one's own past and ambitions than to declare that another's youth and relative innocence on the national scene deserves the broader inspection.
And thank goodness she had a quality candidate in the form of Barack Obama who had the guts and perseverance to run against the "inevitable" candidacy of Hillary Clinton, and to give the campaign time and interest to vet her qualities as a president. If Clinton would have easily glided through the primary campaign without a formidable opponent, there is much that we would never had learned about her until it was too late, and the republicans and media had loaded their gattling guns with raw fodder. She and the American people should be glad that we finally get to see who Hillary under fire really is. If this vetting were to have happened during the general campaign with the Republican attack machine, Democrats worst fears of losing to McCain could have been realized.
If Barack Obama had not pressed her in the primary as hard as he has, Hillary would not have had to spoken to issues like her exaggerations about her foreign policy experience, or her true beliefs on NAFTA. We wouldn't have seen how shallow her judgement was in voting for the Iraq war, and how spineless she was in standing up to Bush' smoke and mirrors. We never would have seen how Bill Clinton could lower himself from the being the elder statesman of the party to engage in dirty political fisticuffs again--the likes of which the country hasn't seen in the modern political era.
Many people were worried about what Bill's place as First Gentleman in the White House would be, and he has revealed himself once again to be no gentleman. Bill Clinton will do much to destroy his presidential legacy, as historians reflect on his acts, veiled words and threats issued in the heat of the campaign, many of which were in stark contrast to the themes he carried through his first two terms.
One is left wondering about how the teamwork in the White House--that Hillary would have us believe led her to gain all that experience--would change once their roles were reversed. One just has to see and hear Bill on the campaign trail to understand that he isn't running to be the First Gentleman. Michelle Obama he is not, and Barack recently remarked at how it is difficult to tell who he is running against, sometimes.
He is running to be a full fledged partner in a co-presidency--the twofer that once was looked positively upon, as the prospect of a woman presidency became a possibility. Until the young upstart Barack Obama came along, that is, with a viable alternative candidacy. Bill Clinton is the quintessential four-termer looking to bend the rules in his quest for power, albeit one who no longer could can be impeached for malfeasance in office--the ultimate smokescreen behind which he could maintain his Cheney-esque drive for power.
I know what the definition of "is" is, and I have no need to watch a snarly politician from Arkansas waggle his finger at good people like Bill Richardson, admonishing them to play by the Clinton rule book, or pay the consequences of failed loyalty. I can see the 3am fight, as the phone rings, and both rush to answer it, ripping the cord out of the wall in the process.
So with Hillary's last-gasp determination to get the country to see, from the Clinton's view, that Obama cannot win, we get to see her and her husband for who they truly are. We get to see the nasty campaigning, cringing at the motherly "Shame on you Barack Obama" that we all hate to hear, our own mothers' chastisement for discovering sex for the first time ringing loudly in our ears. We have wondered how the shrill tactics would play over in a heated battle, and now we know. We need not hear shrill repetition replace thoughtful discourse in a diatribe over, say, Putin's influence in Iran. Shame on you Vladimir!
We get to hear how she puts words in her opponent's mouth and then demands that the public ask him to justify them. Strawman politics at its worst. We get rejoinders back to the politics of fear with the 3am ads. We get to see the negative side of Clinton in a campaign that she wishes had never been. We have become painfully aware of the lack of principled discourse her campaign has put forth; the inclusion of a political hack of the worst sort in the reliance of Mark Penn's slime machine. We get dream sequence retellings of events that never transpired; sniper fire nightmares.
As people have pointed to Obama's having come of age in this primary campaign at the hands of Hillary Clinton, we also need to note that her old-school politics are being retired by the parry of a deft youngster. One can only hope that her concession speech is followed by the lilting refrains from Mrs. Robinson: "We'd like to know a little bit about you for our files. We'd like to help you learn to help yourself." Hey, hey, hey.
I, for one, am glad that Clinton has stayed in the race long enough for the American people to finally get to see her for who she is. Much of what people have feared most about Clinton, though were willing to gloss over--the shrewd, cunning and calculating approach to politics she has--has blurbled to the top, leaving a cauldron of messy politics, desperately in need of tossing out.
Thank you Hillary and Bill Clinton, for letting us see you for who you truly are.
Today Robert Creamer tackled the question about Obama's electability vs. Clinton's. In a very reasoned manner, he applied his experience with dem campaign high-intensity field programs to Clinton's assertion that her ability to win the big states--and thus hypothetically their electoral votes in the genera election--doesn't hold water.
He asserts the following:
Examples abound where the winner of a primary is not the stronger candidate to win a general election. Why? Because the voters who affect the outcomes of general elections are largely different people from those who affect the outcomes of primaries.
He then follows up with a description of who the deciding voters can be:
In general elections, only two groups of people affect the outcome. First are persuadable voters, who always vote in generals, but are switch-hitters. They vote for Republicans in one election and Democrats in the next. And they rarely vote in primaries.
The other group is mobilizable voters. Democratic mobilizables would vote Democratic, but have to be motivated to go to the polls. Sometimes these mobilizable voters can be motivated to vote in a particularly exciting primary. But most don't vote in primaries -- and only rarely in general elections.
He goes on to say that an inspirational candidate (like Obama) can motivate both these voter groups to turn out and vote for him. While other candidates can attract one or the other--persuadables focus on the candidate's qualities, mobilizable voters on the other hand are disengaged, and need to be feel empowered to turn out and vote--Obama is a rare politician that can do both.
Barack Obama's ability to inspire is the quality that makes him such an electable general election candidate. Most candidates are really successful either at convincing persuadables, or motivating mobilizables. Barack Obama can do both
