It is Over, Let the General Election Begin.

by icebergslim

Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:38:23 AM PDT

cross-posted @ This Week With Barack Obama

For Clinton reality is harsh and brutal, but even more so for her supporters. Unfortunately, this is a Washington Post reporter who is not only frank but brutal. This is a reporter, who just ran it down about resources and why they are not being allocated to the "green party." And if anyone has been paying attention, the press has scaled back huge on Hillary Clinton, when you lose the press that is a message that you are done.

But as many of us have stated, the game changer was supposed to be the Indiana/North Carolina primaries. And what happened is that Obama came off of some of the most terrible news coverage combined with the still Reverend Wright fiasco, to the bitter comments, but was able to win North Carolina by 15 points and almost upset Clinton’s applecart with her winning by less than 1 percent in Indiana.

• icebergslim's diary :: ::
• 
  

That was the chance to make any headway for Clinton, to win North Carolina or come in very close and blow Barack out in Indiana. It did not happen. So, now the superdelegates have moved on past the primaries and are now focused on the general election.

I've spent the past several months talking to as many super-delegates as any reporter in America, I'd guess, since I cover on a day-to-day basis about 280 of them here on Capitol Hill.

I hate saying this, because all the Clinton people are going to flip out and say, You're biased, you're biased, you're biased. So go ahead and flip out if you want, but the simple basic truth is that the super-delegates stopped paying attention to the Clinton-Obama race about a couple days after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

They've stopped paying attention to the primary, and instead they're focused on an Obama-McCain matchup in November. That's the basic, simple, definitive reality that has happened in this race. The "undecided" super-delegates at this moment are not going to "decide" any time soon, because to them the race is over, they're just waiting for Clinton to drop out.

Ouch.

But that is the reality here. Yes, we have to deal with more pastor problems from the Obama Campaign. It also means all these so-called "left wing, progressive blogosphere websites" must make a decision. They either stand with Obama, or go to McCain. Simple as that. And yes, that means Armando over at Talk Left, who was/is pushing the Father Plfeger comments at Trinity United. I guess he thinks or assumes this will make a difference with superdelegates, but it won’t.

Let me be clear here. Barack Obama has nothing to do with what Father Plfeger had to say at TUCC, nothing what so ever. In fact, he was in Connecticut giving the Wesleyan University Commencement Address. And he must not and cannot be a target for guilt by association for everything someone has to say. IF that is the case Hillary has a lot to explain for all the indicted fundraisers or associates with her campaign, as well as McCain who is firing someone with deep lobbyist ties on a daily basis.

The stunt Armando unleashed at Talk Left, I expect from the GOP, but not when we have a presumptive nominee here. It is over for Hillary Clinton and let me be even more harsh, after her RFK stunt, yes a stunt because the Clintons don’t do anything without measuring the political impact, she totally disqualified herself from the VP process and left a cold, hard reality to democrats.

Sure, she may not have meant it, but you don’t put assassination in your speak unless you meant something, or was insinuating or implying something. That is the problem with her.

So, these so called "progressive websites" must make a decision. You either get behind the nominee, which is going to be Barack Obama, or join the right and destroy him. That is on them. But come to the reality, on both sides that this is over after Tuesday, period.

And won’t peace be grand, if only for a temporary moment?

::

p.s. When you speak to folks with the usual talking points from the "internet" send them this link.

::

Donate Here.

Tags: barack obama, hillary clinton, 2008, election, john mccain, democrat, president (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Female VP hopefuls contrast with Clinton

Ben AdlerWed May 28, 6:51 PM ET

Like Hillary Rodham Clinton, the three other women most frequently mentioned as possible running mates for Barack Obama are widely recognized as shrewd, trailblazing politicians who would provide critical ballast to an Obama-led presidential ticket.

But according to interviews with Republicans in their home states, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill differ from Clinton by two important measures: They’ve managed to win elections without developing polarizing personas, and they’ve shied away from emphasizing gender in their campaigns.

The distinctions are important for Obama, the front-runner in the Democratic nominating contest, as his campaign begins the process of thinking about possible running mates. Selecting a woman might serve to mend the gender-based rifts that have surfaced as a result of Clinton’s historic candidacy — and Sebelius, Napolitano and McCaskill all possess red-state political portfolios that would make them attractive vice presidential candidates.

Some common themes emerge when talking to Republicans who have battled them. All three are respected for their ability to win in difficult political environments for Democrats, and all are credited with having done so by successfully tacking to the center, reaching out to Republican voters by crafting an independent image. In part, that’s why Napolitano and Sebelius made Time magazine’s “5 Best Governors” list in 2005.

Napolitano draws praise from the other side of the aisle for managerial competence and canny political skills. Arizona Republicans describe the former federal prosecutor as extremely smart, noting that she has adeptly handled hot-button issues such as immigration.

“I think Gov. Napolitano, to the dismay of a lot of Republicans in this state, has been effective because she has governed from the center,” said Jaime Molera, a Republican political consultant in Phoenix. “She has not been seen as a partisan Democrat.”

Molera points to her successful budget compromises with the Republican state Senate last year as a prime example.

Napolitano’s opponents also agree that her pragmatic approach is an asset — though critics say it reflects a lack of core principles.

“I can’t help but wonder if her strengths and weaknesses are one and the same. She’s a highly calculating politician. She does not make a move without considering the political implications,” said Republican consultant Garrick Taylor. “That has benefited her in a traditionally Republican state, but she runs the risk of being cast as a typical politician.”

In Kansas, where Sebelius has managed to frustrate the Republican political establishment while winning over GOP voters, opponents also view her with a kind of grudging admiration. Though conceding she is warm and persuasive in small settings, Republicans gleefully note that she fell flat in her first moment in the national spotlight — when she delivered the Democratic response to the president’s State of Union speech in January.

But more than anything else, Sebelius’ foes generally agree that she has a great talent for recognizing and seizing opportunities in a state where the Republican majority has been bitterly divided between conservatives and moderates.

“She ran as a conservative. She won [reelection] in Kansas because she’s adopted whatever things the Legislature has done,” said Republican state House Speaker Melvin Neufeld. “She takes credit for whatever happens, which a good politician does.”

When Sebelius first captured the governorship in 2002, she did it with a Republican business executive as her running mate. Four years later, in her 2006 reelection, she stunned the state’s political establishment by selecting a new lieutenant governor candidate to run with — the state’s former Republican Party chairman.

“Kathleen has done a good job of walking through fissures in the Kansas Republican Party,” said Republican state Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt. “She’s governor because our party has been fairly deeply factionalized since the late '90s, particularly during the last two gubernatorial cycles.”

McCaskill is also respected for her savvy political instincts, winning credit for her campaign trail work ethic and for not making the same mistakes twice.

In an unsuccessful 2004 run for governor, she concentrated heavily on urban areas and got beaten badly in rural counties. When she won her Senate seat in 2006, it was with a populist flavor and a more pronounced focus on rural Missouri.

“She learned that a Democrat in Missouri can’t just focus on urban areas,” said Jared Craighead, executive director of the Missouri Republican Party. “You need to focus on rural areas.”

“Claire McCaskill is a crafty politician who campaigns hard,” added Gregg Keller, a Republican consultant who managed Talent’s 2006 campaign.

Curiously, while Sebelius and Napolitano both do well among women voters — according to 2006 exit polls, Napolitano won 66 percent among women in her easy reelection win — McCaskill’s advantage seems less pronounced. In 2006, she won 51 percent among women in a narrow victory.

Like Sebelius and Napolitano, McCaskill did not highlight the gender factor. “I frankly hope gender is not an issue in this campaign at all,” she told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 2006. “This is not something we’re stressing around the state.”

In Arizona and Missouri, Republicans also said gender has been a political nonissue.

“The story in Arizona is that we’ve had a number of female chief executives,” said Taylor, the Republican political consultant. “So [Napolitano’s gender] has been part of a story line but hasn’t been part of her narrative personally.”

“I don’t know that [Sebelius’] gender has played a big role, other than that her percentage of female appointees has been greater than most governors,” said Kansas state Senate President Stephen Morris.

Regardless of the strengths Sebelius, Napolitano and McCaskill might bring to the ticket, home state Republicans insist that none of them could deliver their respective states if they were on the ticket.

McCaskill has narrowly lost and narrowly won Missouri in her two most recent elections, and her popularity doesn’t rank with the two governors. Kansas, which delivered 62 percent to President Bush in 2004, is not considered a competitive state for the Democratic nominee. As for Arizona, local Republicans say any boost Napolitano might provide would be washed out by the presence of another home-stater on the ballot — presumptive Republican nominee and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

--
Rejoignez le forum MONDE-HISTOIRE-CULTURE GENERALE
http://vuesdumonde.forumactif.com/
Défendez une juste cause
http://tirailleursafricains.blogspot.com/
OPERA AGENDA EST.
LA CONNAISSANCE NE VAUT QUE SI ELLE EST PARTAGEE

Slavery alive and well in U.S.

By Glenn Beck
CNN

Editor's note: "Glenn Beck" is on CNN Headline News nightly at 7 and 9 ET and hosts a conservative national radio talk show.

Glenn Beck says he doesn't believe there are jobs Americans "just won't do."

NEW YORK (CNN) -- "Jobs Americans just won't do."

I can't stand that line, but more importantly, I don't even understand it.

Americans spend months at a time at sea fishing for crab or drilling for oil; two of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Americans clean bathrooms, subway stations and crime scenes. Americans man toll booths, pave roads, embalm bodies and inspect sewers. Yet people really expect us to believe that they won't pick strawberries or oranges?

It just doesn't add up.

Earlier this week The Wall Street Journal published a story about a shortage of H-2B visas, which are issued twice a year to nonagricultural seasonal employees. Because our government can't get out of its own way, they recently let an important "returning workers" provision expire resulting in thousands of foreign workers being shut out of the country this summer.

That's inexcusable. I know this will come as a huge shock to those who only like to hurl insults, but I think we should be issuing more work visas, more student visas, and more green cards. And I think we should cut the red tape and bureaucracy that's constantly blocking the front door.

But until that happens people are left looking for loopholes and excuses, and "jobs Americans won't do" is the gold standard.

The Journal article offered an example of a couple that sells food at fairs around California each summer. They say that because of the H-2B visa shortage most of their seasonal employees aren't able to enter the country.

So why don't they just hire Americans instead? Good question. Her answer? "This is a hard job."

I find it pretty hard to believe that there aren't a few college students who wouldn't want to drive around California and work outdoors all summer, but let's assume that's true. Let's even assume that none of the other 1.1 million Californians who were unemployed as of April are interested in the job either. Isn't anyone wondering why?

Well I'm not a labor consultant, but I am a thinker. Maybe the problem isn't that the job they're offering is "too hard," maybe it's that the wages they're offering are "too low."

No one paints the undersides of bridges for fun, they do it for the money. That's how capitalism works.

How capitalism does NOT work is when we collectively look the other way as companies exploit illegal labor for their own benefit.

The unspoken truth is that these businesses don't hire illegal aliens because they can't find American workers, they hire illegal aliens because they don't want American workers. And it has nothing to do with wages.

Illegal aliens mean no workers' comp claims, no age, race or sex discrimination lawsuits, no healthcare premiums, no unions, and no demands for raises, vacations or bigger offices. In fact, illegal immigrants are the perfect employees because they're not employees at all; they're corporate slaves.

Economist Dr. Thomas Sowell once said, "Blacks were not enslaved because they were black, but because they were available." Can't the exact same thing be said for illegal aliens? They're available and we're allowing them to be exploited in the name of cheap groceries.

Is the price of fruit really the standard we want to live up to as a country? Is that really who we've become?

Many Americans believe that cracking down on the businesses that hire illegal aliens (the current maximum federal fine was recently raised to a laughable $16,000) would hurt these hardworking people too much. A bad job is better than no job, we tell ourselves. But that's catalogue compassion. If you want to understand the real impact of these decisions you've got to get off the couch and go see it for yourself.

Don't Miss

• Glenn Beck on Headline News
• Beck's new book: 'An Inconvenient Book'

Back in 2005, Newsday did an investigation of the living conditions of immigrants in the New York area. In the city of Westbury (median income: $83,000/year) officials found twelve immigrants living in a basement flooded with sewage.

In Southampton (median income: $64,000/year) officials found immigrants living in sheds with no plumbing or heat.

In New Cassel (median income: $62,000/year) officials estimated there were dozens of "shift-bed houses" where immigrants literally rent mattresses for a few hours a day to catch some sleep.

Is compassion looking the other way while immigrants who come here for the dream end up living a nightmare smack dab in the middle of some of our wealthiest communities?

Is compassion ignoring stories that reveal the truth, like the recent raid of a squalid "drop house" in Los Angeles where 57 illegal aliens were being held against their will?

Is compassion not wanting to hear that a woman was raped in that drop house, or that many more would have been if not for the screams of their children disrupting the attackers?

If that's compassion, then I guess I'm happy to be accused of having none.

The problem with the debate over illegal immigration right now is that special interests have been successful in making us think with our hearts instead of our brains. We've been persuaded to believe that real compassion can only be achieved by following their agenda. But look where that's gotten us. And more importantly, look where that's gotten the people they're supposedly trying to help.

If you really want to be compassionate, then help immigrants get jobs here the right way. Help put crippling fines on the employers who knowingly hire illegal workers, help expand and simplify the visa process, and, most importantly, help get people to start thinking with their brains again.

After all, compassion without common sense may feel good but it doesn't achieve anything. If you need proof then go out and give $1,000 to every homeless person who asks you for change. I bet your heart would be full, but your wallet would soon be empty. And all those people would probably still be homeless.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

Athletes for Obama?

Athletes for Obama?

May 28: Tiki Barber explains that political involvement among athletes is steadily increasing, much in part because of Barack Obama.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24857432#24857432

Clinton's Two-State Two-Step

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, May 28, 2008; A13

On Saturday, when the Rules Committee of the Democratic National Committee meets to determine the fate of Florida and Michigan's delegations to this summer's convention, it will have some company. A group of Hillary Clinton supporters has announced it will demonstrate outside.

That Clinton has impassioned supporters, many of whom link her candidacy to the feminist cause, hardly qualifies as news. And it's certainly true that along the campaign trail Clinton has encountered some outrageously sexist treatment, just as Barack Obama has been on the receiving end of bigoted treatment. (Obama has even been subjected to anti-Muslim bigotry despite the fact that he's not Muslim.) But somehow, a number of Clinton supporters have come to identify the seating of Michigan and Florida not merely with Clinton's prospects but with the causes of democracy and feminism -- an equation that makes a mockery of democracy and feminism.

Clinton herself is largely responsible for this absurdity. Over the past couple of weeks, she has equated the seating of the two delegations with African Americans' struggle for suffrage in the Jim Crow South, and with the efforts of the democratic forces in Zimbabwe to get a fair count of the votes in their presidential election.

Somehow, I doubt that the activists opposing Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe would appreciate this equation.

But the Clintonistas who have called Saturday's demonstration make it sound as if they'll be marching in Selma in support of a universal right to vote. The DNC, says one of their Web sites, "must honor our core democratic principles and enfranchise the people of Michigan and Florida."

Had Florida and Michigan conducted their primaries the way the other 48 states conducted their own primaries and caucuses -- that is, in accord with the very clear calendar laid down by the DNC well before the primaries began -- then Clinton's marchers would be utterly justified in their claims. But when the two states flouted those rules by moving their primaries outside the prescribed time frame, the DNC, which gave neither state a waiver to do so, decreed that their primaries would not count and enjoined all presidential candidates from campaigning in those states. Obama and John Edwards complied with the DNC's dictates by removing their names from the Michigan ballot. Clinton did not.

Seating Michigan in full would mean the party validates the kind of one-candidate election (well, 1.03, to give Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel, who also remained on the ballot, their due) that is more common in autocracies than democracies. It would mean rewarding the one serious candidate who didn't remove her name from the ballot when all her rivals, in deference to the national party rules, did just that.

What's particularly outrageous is that the Clinton campaign supported the calendar, and the sanctions against Michigan and Florida, until Clinton won those states and needed to have their delegations seated.

Last August, when the DNC Rules Committee voted to strip Florida (and Michigan, if it persisted in clinging to its date) of its delegates, the Clinton delegates on the committee backed those sanctions. All 12 Clinton supporters on the committee supported the penalties. (The only member of the committee to vote against them was an Obama supporter from Florida.) Harold Ickes, a committee member, leading Clinton strategist and acknowledged master of the political game, said, "This committee feels very strongly that the rules ought to be enforced." Patty Solis Doyle, then Clinton's campaign manager, further affirmed the decision. "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," she said, referring to the four states that the committee authorized to hold the first contests. "And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC-approved nominating calendar."

Not a single Clinton campaign official or DNC Rules Committee member, much less the candidate herself, said at the time that the sanctions imposed on Florida or Michigan were in any way a patriarchal plot or an affront to democratic values. The threat that these rules posed to our fundamental beliefs was discovered only ex post facto -- the facto in question being Clinton's current need to seat the delegations whose seatings she had opposed when she thought she'd cruise to the nomination.

Clinton's supporters have every right to demonstrate on Saturday, of course. But their larger cause is neither democracy nor feminism; it's situational ethics. To insist otherwise is to degrade democracy and turn feminism into the last refuge of scoundrels.

meyersonh@washpost.com

Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House

By: Mike Allen May 27, 2008 09:34 PM EST

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence. Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95): • McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war. • He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war. • He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.” • The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts. • McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity. A few reporters were offered advance copies of the book, with the restriction that their stories not appear until Sunday, the day before the official publication date. Politico declined and purchased “What Happened” at a Washington bookstore. The eagerly awaited book, while recounting many fond memories of Bush and describing him as “authentic” and “sincere,” is harsher than reporters and White House officials had expected. McClellan was one of the president’s earliest and most loyal political aides, and most of his friends had expected him to take a few swipes at his former colleague in order to sell books but also to paint a largely affectionate portrait. Instead, McClellan’s tone is often harsh. He writes, for example, that after Hurricane Katrina, the White House “spent most of the first week in a state of denial,” and he blames Rove for suggesting the photo of the president comfortably observing the disaster during an Air Force One flyover. McClellan says he and counselor to the president Dan Bartlett had opposed the idea and thought it had been scrapped. See Also A guide to undisciplined messaging How small stories become big news Obama looks westward in electoral map play But he writes that he later was told that “Karl was convinced we needed to do it — and the president agreed.” “One of the worst disasters in our nation’s history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush’s presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush’s second term,” he writes. “And the perception of this catastrophe was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath.” McClellan, who turned 40 in February, was press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006. An Austin native from a political family, he began working as a gubernatorial spokesman for then-Gov. Bush in early 1999, was traveling press secretary for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and was chief deputy to Press Secretary Ari Fleischer at the beginning of Bush’s first term. “I still like and admire President Bush,” McClellan writes. “But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. … In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.” In a small sign of how thoroughly McClellan has adopted the outsider’s role, he refers at times to his former boss as “Bush,” when he is universally referred to by insiders as “the president.” McClellan lost some of his former friends in the administration last November when his publisher released an excerpt from the book that appeared to accuse Bush of participating in the cover-up of the Plame leak. The book, however, makes clear that McClellan believes Bush was also a victim of misinformation. The book begins with McClellan’s statement to the press that he had talked with Rove and Libby and that they had assured him they “were not involved in … the leaking of classified information.” At Libby’s trial, testimony showed the two had talked with reporters about the officer, however elliptically. “I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood,” McClellan writes. “It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn’t learn that what I’d said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later. “Neither, I believe, did President Bush. He, too, had been deceived and therefore became unwittingly involved in deceiving me. But the top White House officials who knew the truth — including Rove, Libby and possibly Vice President Cheney — allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie.” McClellan also suggests that Libby and Rove secretly colluded to get their stories straight at a time when federal investigators were hot on the Plame case. “There is only one moment during the leak episode that I am reluctant to discuss,” he writes. “It was in 2005, during a time when attention was focusing on Rove and Libby, and it sticks vividly in my mind. … Following [a meeting in Chief of Staff Andy Card’s office], … Scooter Libby was walking to the entryway as he prepared to depart when Karl turned to get his attention. ‘You have time to visit?’ Karl asked. ‘Yeah,’ replied Libby. “I have no idea what they discussed, but it seemed suspicious for these two, whom I had never noticed spending any one-on-one time together, to go behind closed doors and visit privately. … At least one of them, Rove, it was publicly known at the time, had at best misled me by not sharing relevant information, and credible rumors were spreading that the other, Libby, had done at least as much. … “The confidential meeting also occurred at a moment when I was being battered by the press for publicly vouching for the two by claiming they were not involved in leaking Plame’s identity, when recently revealed information was now indicating otherwise. … I don’t know what they discussed, but what would any knowledgeable person reasonably and logically conclude was the topic? Like the whole truth of people’s involvement, we will likely never know with any degree of confidence.” McClellan repeatedly embraces the rhetoric of Bush's liberal critics and even charges: “If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. “The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.” Decrying the Bush administration’s “excessive embrace of the permanent campaign approach to governance,” McClellan recommends that future presidents appoint a “deputy chief of staff for governing” who “would be responsible for making sure the president is continually and consistently committed to a high level of openness and forthrightness and transcending partisanship to achieve unity. “I frequently stumbled along the way,” McClellan acknowledges in the book’s preface. “My own story, however, is of small importance in the broad historical picture. More significant is the larger story in which I played a minor role: the story of how the presidency of George W. Bush veered terribly off course.” Even some of the chapter titles are brutal: “The Permanent Campaign,” “Deniability,” “Triumph and Illusion,” “Revelation and Humiliation” and “Out of Touch.” “I think the concern about liberal bias helps to explain the tendency of the Bush team to build walls against the media,” McClellan writes in a chapter in which he says he dealt “happily enough” with liberal reporters. “Unfortunately, the press secretary at times found himself outside those walls as well.” The book’s center has eight slick pages with 19 photos, eight of them depicting McClellan with the president. Those making cameos include Cheney, Rove, Bartlett, Mark Knoller of CBS News, former Assistant Press Secretary Reed Dickens and, aboard Air Force One, former press office official Peter Watkins and former White House stenographer Greg North. In the acknowledgments, McClellan thanks each member of his former staff by name. Among other notable passages: • Steve Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, said about the erroneous assertion about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium, included in the State of the Union address of 2003: “Signing off on these facts is my responsibility. … And in this case, I blew it. I think the only solution is for me to resign.” The offer “was rejected almost out of hand by others present,” McClellan writes. • Bush was “clearly irritated, … steamed,” when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: “‘It’s unacceptable,’ Bush continued, his voice rising. ‘He shouldn’t be talking about that.’” • “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.” • “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.” • McClellan describes his preparation for briefing reporters during the Plame frenzy: “I could feel the adrenaline flowing as I gave the go-ahead for Josh Deckard, one of my hard-working, underpaid press office staff, … to give the two-minute warning so the networks could prepare to switch to live coverage the moment I stepped into the briefing room.” • “‘Matrix’ was the code name the Secret Service used for the White House press secretary." McClellan is on the lecture circuit and remains in the Washington area with his wife, Jill.

© 2007 Capitol News Company, LLC

McCain 'doesn't want to be seen' with Bush

McCain 'doesn't want to be seen' with Bush

May 27: Sen. Barack Obama criticizes Sen. John McCain for holding a close-door fund raiser with President George Bush.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24843807#24843807

No Clear Map For Clinton's Political Future

By Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 27, 2008; A01

In August 1980, with no hope left of winning the nomination, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy conceded defeat to incumbent Jimmy Carter in the Democratic presidential race.

"For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end," Kennedy said at the Democratic National Convention in New York. "For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

And with that, at age 48, Kennedy returned to the Senate, where he committed himself to a career as a legislator, crafting landmark bills on health care, education and immigration. Many Democrats are now pointing to the Kennedy model as a path for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to reshape her own political career, assuming she is unable to wrest the nomination from Sen. Barack Obama.

"I loved the Senate before I ran for the president," Kennedy explained in an interview before his recent cancer diagnosis. Losing to Carter, he said, made him appreciate the opportunities in Congress all the more. "I think I became a better senator, with greater focus and attention," Kennedy said. But he added: "It all depends on the attitude, what's in the mind of the person."

Clinton, Kennedy continued, must decide where her heart lies. "She's got great capacity -- she was a good senator before, and she can be a great senator in the future," he said. The question, he said, is "what she does with this experience."

When Kennedy returned to Capitol Hill before the 1980 election, the Massachusetts Democrat was in a similar fix. Like Clinton, he was the heir to a powerful political legacy. But the climate was volatile, and voters were in the mood for change. Kennedy was rejected by many of his Senate colleagues, despite Carter's sagging popularity, and he won just 10 primary states. But like Clinton, he hung on until the bitter end.

Yet Kennedy was an 18-year Senate veteran who had already risen to chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a health subcommittee. Clinton faces few options for quick advancement should she give up her presidential bid, prompting some to speculate that she may look elsewhere for a prominent political post, possibly the governorship of New York.

The climate on Capitol Hill has changed considerably in the 18 months since Clinton began her presidential campaign. The Senate leadership path that she had once viewed as a viable alternative is now all but blocked. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) has gained clout in his role, and he will grow even more powerful if Democrats succeed in expanding their narrow majority in November by up to half a dozen seats.

Reid's deputies, Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) and Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), also have enhanced their status in recent months and are quietly laying the groundwork to succeed Reid whenever he decides to step down.

"Within the caucus, there's strong support for Senator Reid, and those who speculate otherwise don't understand the Senate," said Durbin, who was the first senator to endorse Obama. When Clinton returns to her old job, assuming she does not win the nomination, Durbin added, "she will be an important part of the future. But I can't tell you that anyone has approached me, or anyone in the caucus, with any specific suggestions about what she would do."

When Clinton announced her bid in January 2007, she was the prohibitive favorite, and most of her Senate colleagues appeared ready to rally to her side. But as her primary battle with Obama draws to an end, with the senator from Illinois almost certain to emerge the victor, Clinton has discovered that the reservoir of Senate goodwill was not so deep after all.

Clinton collected 13 endorsements from her Senate colleagues, compared with 15 for Obama, and she has not added a name to her list since early February, even though she has won significant contests since then.

"I'm sure she'll remember, for the rest of her life, who was with her and who wasn't," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who ran unsuccessfully this year and then endorsed Obama.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, many Democratic senators said they expect Clinton to work doggedly for Obama this summer and fall, and they agreed that if she does, whatever hard feelings that linger from the primary race will vanish.

But a bigger question is whether, like Kennedy, she will shelve her presidential ambitions, especially if Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) wins in November. The 2012 election would coincide with the end of Clinton's second Senate term, effectively turning her into a lame duck. A run for New York governor would hasten Clinton's departure by two years.

But if Obama wins in November, her next likely opportunity for the presidency would be in 2016, when she would be 69. If Clinton makes it clear her future is in the Senate, she could find several paths open to her, aides and colleagues said.

One would be to champion a major piece of legislation, such as the health-care bill Obama has promised early in his first term.

A member of three prominent committees, Clinton remains a junior member on all three panels and does not stand to become a committee chairman for at least another decade.

But another option would be to assume the chairmanship of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, a demanding but high-profile post that is an appointment by Reid. Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.) is a potential successor to Schumer, who has led the committee for four years, but Democratic sources said Clinton could get the job if she wanted it.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) pointed to the late Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minn.) as one example of life in the Senate after a losing White House bid. A senator in the 1950s and '60s, Humphrey became vice president in 1965 and then narrowly lost to Richard M. Nixon in the 1968 presidential election. He won another Senate term in 1970 and returned as the most junior member. "He realized he could command an audience anywhere in the world. He threw himself into the issues. He had the time of his life," Leahy said.

On the other hand, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) returned to the Senate after his failed 1988 presidential bid and became a formidable voice on both the Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees.

With or without a prominent post, Clinton will possess unrivaled clout, her colleagues said. "She is the single most powerful woman in America, and that will be solidified by this race, not diminished by it," said Biden, who has not endorsed a candidate after dropping his own bid earlier this year.

As the former first lady, Clinton arrived in the Senate in January 2001 already a political celebrity, and her status was acknowledged with an appointed leadership position as head of the Steering Committee, with the task of interacting with outside liberal groups.

But colleagues said Clinton showed no interest in using her perch to work toward more powerful posts inside the Senate. Rather, she spent much of her time traveling the country to help Democrats in presidential battleground states, and raising money through her leadership political action committee, HillPAC. She also committed herself to advancing New York state interests, numerous colleagues and senior aides said.

Regardless of which route she now chooses, colleagues who have run failed campaigns said she must first readjust to life in the Senate.

"When you're out on the campaign, you've got to make decisions every hour, every minute," said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). "Then you come back to the Senate and it's like a cocoon."

The Running Mate Choice

May 27, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

By DAVID BROOKS

My first thought on the running mate question is that to balance his ticket, Barack Obama should pick a really old white general. Therefore, he should pick Dwight Eisenhower. John McCain, on the other hand, needs to pick someone younger than himself. Therefore, he also should pick Dwight Eisenhower.

My second thought is that most of the commentary on vice president picks is completely backward. Most discussion focuses on what state or constituency this or that running mate could help carry in the fall. But, as a rule, recent vice presidential nominees haven’t had any effect on key states or constituencies. They haven’t had much effect on elections at all, except occasionally as hapless distractions.

A vice president can, however, have a gigantic impact on an administration once in office (see: Cheney, Richard). Therefore, a sensible presidential candidate shouldn’t be selecting a mate on the basis of who can help him get elected. He should be thinking about who can help him govern successfully so he can get re-elected.

That means asking: What circumstances will I face when I take office? What tasks will I need my chief subordinate to perform to help me face those circumstances?

If Barack Obama is elected, his chief challenge will be that he hopes to usher in a new style of politics, but he has no real strategy for how to do that.

He will find himself surrounded by highly partisan Democratic politicians, committee chairmen and interest groups thrilled to finally seize power. Some of them might have enjoyed his lofty rhetoric about change, but in practice, these organization types have no interest in changing politics. They just want to take the money and patronage that has been going to Republican special interests and give it to Democratic special interests.

These entrenched Democrats are more experienced than Obama. They know how to play the game better. The effect of their efforts will be to turn his into a Potemkin administration filled with great speeches but without great accomplishments or influence over legislation.

Obama will need a vice president who knows the millions of ways that power is exercised and subverted in Washington. He’ll need someone who can be a senior, authoritative presence in a cabinet that may range from Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to the labor leader Andy Stern. He’ll need someone who can supervise his young reformers and build transpartisan coalitions more effectively than Obama has as senator.

Sam Nunn and Tom Daschle seem to fit the bill. Nunn is one of those senior Democrats (like David Boren and Bob Kerrey) who left the Senate lamenting the dumbed-down nature of modern politics. Daschle was more partisan as majority leader, but he is still widely trusted and universally liked. As experienced legislators, both could take Obama’s lofty hopes and translate them into nitty-gritty action.

If John McCain is elected, he’ll face a political culture threatening to split at the seams. In defeat, Democrats will be enraged at everything and everybody. The Republican Party will still be exhausted and divided. McCain will find it hard to staff the administration since so many Republican advisers were exhausted over the previous eight years.

Amid these centrifugal forces, McCain will need somebody who radiates calm. He’ll need somebody who can provide structure and organization. He’ll need somebody who enjoys working with budgets.

With the Democrats controlling Congress, McCain will have no chance of winning big, ideological fights. He will need someone who can help him de-ideologize the climate, who can emphasize making things work rather than fighting philosophical battles.

McCain seems to be looking at business leaders like Meg Whitman. But among politicos, the shining stars would seem to be Rob Portman and Tim Pawlenty. Portman is an Ohioan with the mind of a budget director and a mild temperament that is a credit to his Midwestern roots. His résumé is ideal: He directed legislative affairs for the first President Bush, served in Congress for more than a decade and managed the Office of Management and Budget under Bush the younger. He excelled in every role.

Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota, is one of the G.O.P.’s leading and most likable modernizers. The son of a truck driver (his mother died when he was 16), he is the godfather of Sam’s Club conservatism, the effort to reconnect the party to the needs of the working class. Pawlenty could help McCain play the Theodore Roosevelt-style role — reforming the nation’s institutions to fit a new century and epoch.

Both presidential candidates are surrounded by campaign advisers, campaign coverage and campaign frenzy. But the vice presidential pick is not really a campaign decision. It’s the first governing decision — and a way to see who is thinking seriously about how to succeed in the White House.

On the Trail, One Aide Looms Over Obama

May 27, 2008

By ASHLEY PARKER

In the last year, Barack Obama has learned a thing or two about running for president, and Reggie Love has learned a thing or two about Barack Obama.

Mr. Love now knows that when it comes to food, Senator Obama “eats pretty much anything, from chicken wings and barbecue and ribs to grilled fish and steamed broccoli.” But when he is campaigning in a small town with limited options, a cheeseburger is always a good bet. (“Cheddar is the cheese of choice,” Mr. Love added.)

He knows that “the boss,” as he calls Mr. Obama, likes MET-Rx chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew — Black Forest Berry Honest Tea. He keeps a supply of both on hand.

And he has learned that all campaigns have their superstitions — Senator John McCain has a penchant for heads-up coins — and that Mr. Obama is no exception. That means that Mr. Love and Mr. Obama, for luck, play basketball every primary day.

Mr. Love, 26, is Mr. Obama’s body man, the personal aide who shadows the senator and anticipates everything he needs — and everything he does not need. He is not a bodyguard (security is provided by the Secret Service), but rather the ultimate assistant, rarely more than a body length away from the candidate.

Young, eager campaign aides are stock characters in movies and on television, but few have quite the élan of Mr. Love, who, at 6-foot-5, is about three inches taller than the tall candidate, fitter than the fit candidate (he can bench press more than 350 pounds) and cooler than the cool candidate.

“There’s no doubt that Reggie is cooler than I am,” Mr. Obama said, laughing, in a phone interview. “I am living vicariously through Reggie.”

Mr. Love, who played football and basketball at Duke, usually starts the day with Mr. Obama with a dawn workout in the hotel gym. They end the day more than 15 hours later, often unwinding before bed by watching ESPN’s “SportsCenter” or that night’s big game. (Mr. Obama sometimes flosses his teeth to ESPN while lying down.)

What a body man does depends on the politician. Senator John Kerry’s aide for his presidential race in 2004 was dubbed “part butler, part buddy.” Bill Clinton’s aide when he was president said their relationship sometimes felt more like that of an old married couple. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has a body woman, the efficient and glamorous Huma Abedin. On NBC’s “The West Wing,” President Josiah Bartlet treated his body man, Charlie Young, like a son.

Mr. Obama said he regarded “my guy, Reggie,” as the kid brother he never had. “But maybe I’m saying that just because he technically could be my son,” the Illinois senator said. “I don’t want to admit my age.”

Mr. Love said he had been hired with “no job description whatsoever.”

“It was just like, ‘You just go out there and — Take. Care. Of. Stuff,’ ” Mr. Love said, taking his time with each word.

Some of the “stuff” Mr. Love takes care of: When Mr. Obama makes calls to woo superdelegates, Mr. Love is at his side with a briefing book, dialing the numbers. When an outdoor speech ended on a windy day in Noblesville, Ind., he appeared behind Mr. Obama as he shook hands on the rope line. “Jacket?” he asked, a coat draped at the ready over his arm.

When Mr. Obama dropped food on his tie while eating in the car between stops, Mr. Love was ready with a Tide pen. He always carries one, along with ballpoint pens, and has turned himself into a walking dispensary of Sharpies, stationery, protein bars, throat lozenges, water, tea, Advil, Tylenol, Purell and emergency Nicorette, not to mention his ever-present iPhone, BlackBerry and Canon Rebel XT digital camera. (Mr. Love keeps a photo journal of the campaign, and has more than 10,000 pictures so far).

Compared with the even-tempered and self-controlled Mr. Obama, Mr. Love is raffish, always joking with the Secret Service, offering closed-fist high-fives to members of the news media and making frequent appearances in the daily pool reports. At a V.F.W. hall in Indiana, he helped out when the senator did not want a second Budweiser, taking it off Mr. Obama’s hands.

Mr. Obama often mentions that Mr. Love was a wide receiver on a football scholarship at Duke who also walked onto the basketball team. At a rally a few weeks ago in Mr. Love’s hometown, Charlotte, N.C., the candidate led the crowd in a chant of “Reggie, Reggie, Reggie!”

After the Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia in April, Mr. Obama borrowed a move from the rapper Jay-Z and mimed brushing off his shoulders, but it was Mr. Love who had uploaded his music to the senator’s iPod in the first place — a silver Nano that he bought the senator for his 46th birthday.

“So I’ve gotten pretty fond of Jay-Z,” Mr. Obama said. “He’s broadened my horizons in the hip-hop world.”

In turn, Mr. Obama said he had gotten Mr. Love into “everything from John Coltrane to Frank Sinatra.”

“I think he’s got the most eclectic music of any 26-year-old,” the senator said.

Along the way, some unofficial rules have emerged between the candidate and his aide. From Mr. Obama: “One cardinal rule of the road is, we don’t watch CNN, the news or MSNBC. We don’t watch any talking heads or any politics. We watch ‘SportsCenter’ and argue about that.”

And from Mr. Love: Expect to be grilled about everything as if you were a first-year law student.

When Mr. Obama hits a rough patch in the campaign, Mr. Love is sympathetic. In college, embarrassing pictures of an inebriated Mr. Love from a fraternity house party surfaced on the Internet. “You make mistakes and you learn from them, and you try to use them to make you a better person,” he said. After graduating with a degree in political science and public policy, Mr. Love had summer try-outs with the Green Bay Packers in 2004 and the Dallas Cowboys in 2005 before being cut.

Which is how, in 2006, after applying for an internship on Capitol Hill, Mr. Love ended up interviewing with Robert Gibbs, Mr. Obama’s communications director, for a position in Mr. Obama’s Senate office. “It’s the only time I’ve ever interviewed somebody whose work experience included the Green Bay Packers and the Dallas Cowboys,” Mr. Gibbs said.

Sports these days, for the candidate and his aide, are limited to morning workouts. And, of course, the primary day basketball games.

“He’s quick and he’s strong,” Mr. Love said of Mr. Obama. “A lot of people still don’t know that he’s left-handed, so he can get to the basket and get his shot off, even though he’s not the most explosive or tallest player on the court.”

If Mr. Obama thinks Mr. Love is dogging it on the court, he can come down hard, shouting at him to hustle, said someone who has played basketball with the two of them.

But on the day of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, Mr. Love and Mr. Obama played at noon and kept up an easy rhythm. “Sorry, Reg, I missed you,” the senator said after a pass to Mr. Love was intercepted. Later, on a fast-break, Mr. Obama dribbled up the right side of the court and passed the ball ahead to Mr. Love, who slam-dunked it.

Later that night, after the senator gave his victory speech in Raleigh after winning the North Carolina primary, Mr. Love rode to the airport with Mr. Obama, who was flying to Chicago. Mr. Love was staying behind in his home state to catch up with friends. (His parents now live in California, and Mr. Love managed to squeeze in a visit there last weekend.)

“Michelle was like: ‘Where are you staying? Don’t get into too much trouble,’ ” Mr. Love said of Mr. Obama’s wife.

Waiting ahead, after all, were more early mornings in the gym and more long days on the road.

Hold the Mayo

As Senator Barack Obama’s body man, Reggie Love makes sure the candidate has plenty of the things he likes — and makes note of those things he would rather avoid.
Here is a partial list, provided by Mr. Love.
¶ Planters Trail Mix: Nuts, Seeds & Raisins
¶ Roasted almonds
¶ Pistachios
¶ Water
¶ Dentyne Ice
¶ Nicorette
¶ MET-Rx chocolate roasted peanut protein bars
¶ Vegetables, especially broccoli and spinach
¶ Handmade milk chocolates from Fran’s Chocolates in Seattle

¶ Mayonnaise
¶ Salt and vinegar potato chips
¶ Asparagus (“if no other vegetables are available, he’ll eat it”)
¶ Soft drinks (he prefers water)

A Sensible Path on Iran

By Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom
Tuesday, May 27, 2008; A13

Current U.S. policy toward the regime in Tehran will almost certainly result in an Iran with nuclear weapons. The seemingly clever combination of the use of "sticks" and "carrots," including the frequent official hints of an American military option "remaining on the table," simply intensifies Iran's desire to have its own nuclear arsenal. Alas, such a heavy-handed "sticks" and "carrots" policy may work with donkeys but not with serious countries. The United States would have a better chance of success if the White House abandoned its threats of military action and its calls for regime change.

Consider countries that could have quickly become nuclear weapon states had they been treated similarly. Brazil, Argentina and South Africa had nuclear weapons programs but gave them up, each for different reasons. Had the United States threatened to change their regimes if they would not, probably none would have complied. But when "sticks" and "carrots" failed to prevent India and Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons, the United States rapidly accommodated both, preferring good relations with them to hostile ones. What does this suggest to leaders in Iran?

To look at the issue another way, imagine if China, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a country that has deliberately not engaged in a nuclear arms race with Russia or the United States, threatened to change the American regime if it did not begin a steady destruction of its nuclear arsenal. The threat would have an arguable legal basis, because all treaty signatories promised long ago to reduce their arsenals, eventually to zero. The American reaction, of course, would be explosive public opposition to such a demand. U.S. leaders might even mimic the fantasy rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding the use of nuclear weapons.

A successful approach to Iran has to accommodate its security interests and ours. Neither a U.S. air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities nor a less effective Israeli one could do more than merely set back Iran's nuclear program. In either case, the United States would be held accountable and would have to pay the price resulting from likely Iranian reactions. These would almost certainly involve destabilizing the Middle East, as well as Afghanistan, and serious efforts to disrupt the flow of oil, at the very least generating a massive increase in its already high cost. The turmoil in the Middle East resulting from a preemptive attack on Iran would hurt America and eventually Israel, too.

Given Iran's stated goals -- a nuclear power capability but not nuclear weapons, as well as an alleged desire to discuss broader U.S.-Iranian security issues -- a realistic policy would exploit this opening to see what it might yield. The United States could indicate that it is prepared to negotiate, either on the basis of no preconditions by either side (though retaining the right to terminate the negotiations if Iran remains unyielding but begins to enrich its uranium beyond levels allowed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty); or to negotiate on the basis of an Iranian willingness to suspend enrichment in return for simultaneous U.S. suspension of major economic and financial sanctions.

Such a broader and more flexible approach would increase the prospects of an international arrangement being devised to accommodate Iran's desire for an autonomous nuclear energy program while minimizing the possibility that it could be rapidly transformed into a nuclear weapons program. Moreover, there is no credible reason to assume that the traditional policy of strategic deterrence, which worked so well in U.S. relations with the Soviet Union and with China and which has helped to stabilize India-Pakistan hostility, would not work in the case of Iran. The widely propagated notion of a suicidal Iran detonating its very first nuclear weapon against Israel is more the product of paranoia or demagogy than of serious strategic calculus. It cannot be the basis for U.S. policy, and it should not be for Israel's, either.

An additional longer-range benefit of such a dramatically different diplomatic approach is that it could help bring Iran back into its traditional role of strategic cooperation with the United States in stabilizing the Gulf region. Eventually, Iran could even return to its long-standing and geopolitically natural pre-1979 policy of cooperative relations with Israel. One should note also in this connection Iranian hostility toward al-Qaeda, lately intensified by al-Qaeda's Web-based campaign urging a U.S.-Iranian war, which could both weaken what al-Qaeda views as Iran's apostate Shiite regime and bog America down in a prolonged regional conflict.

Last but not least, consider that American sanctions have been deliberately obstructing Iran's efforts to increase its oil and natural gas outputs. That has contributed to the rising cost of energy. An eventual American-Iranian accommodation would significantly increase the flow of Iranian energy to the world market. Americans doubtless would prefer to pay less for filling their gas tanks than having to pay much more to finance a wider conflict in the Persian Gulf.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser in the Carter administration and is the author, most recently, of "Second Chance." William Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general, is a former director of the National Security Agency. Both are affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Obama's Patriotic Call

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008; A13

If the 2008 election is to be a debate about the true meaning of patriotism, then bring it on.

Ever since Barack Obama took off his flag pin, Democrats and liberals have had a queasy feeling that talk of patriotism would be a covert way to raise the matter of Obama's race; to cast him as some sort of alien figure ("You know what his middle name is?"); and to paint him as an effete intellectual out of touch with true American values.

I have no doubt that these things will happen. Moreover, John McCain's sacrifice for his country will be a central theme of the Republican campaign. And why not? Yes, many Republicans refused to honor John Kerry's service during the campaign four years ago, but McCain wasn't part of that, and his service deserves the praise it gets.

Yet Obama cannot simply cede the terrain of patriotism to McCain, and progressives should not assume that patriotism is somehow a bad thing, akin to jingoism or nationalism.

The reaction of too many progressives to patriotism is "automatic, allergic recoil," say two young Seattle writers, Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer, in their important book "The True Patriot."

Instead of recoil, they offer rigorous standards for what patriotism should be. "True patriots," they write, "believe that freedom from responsibility is selfishness; freedom from sacrifice is cowardice; freedom from tolerance is prejudice; freedom from stewardship is exploitation; and freedom from compassion is cruelty."

Their new progressive patriotism bears some resemblance to the old progressive patriotism of Theodore Roosevelt. "We cannot meet the future," Roosevelt said in a 1916 Memorial Day speech, "either by mere gross materialism or by mere silly sentimentalism; above all, we cannot meet it if we attempt to balance gross materialism in action by silly sentimentalism in words."

For good measure, the trust-buster also declared that "the big business man" must "recognize the fact that his business activities, while beneficial to himself and his associates, must also justify themselves by being beneficial to the men who work for him and to the public which he serves."

As Liu and Hanauer and and Roosevelt suggest, anyone who enters into a serious discussion of patriotism is required to offer more than bromides about love of flag and of country. Patriotism has to involve definitions, commitments and actions.

Obama already has the template for moving the debate in this direction. In December, he gave one of his best, and least noticed, speeches: a call to national service. The policies he proposed include a doubling of the Peace Corps and an expansion of the AmeriCorps program from 75,000 to 250,000 slots. (President Bush, by the way, deserves credit for saving AmeriCorps from the hostility of some in his own party.) Obama would link his $4,000 tuition tax credit to a service requirement.

He also suggests ideas that conservatives should embrace, including a Social Investment Fund Network and a Social Entrepreneur Agency that would encourage the innovations of the private, not-for-profit sector.

But Obama's speech was about more than programs. It was suffused with the rhetoric of a reformer's patriotism. "I have no doubt that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it," he said. "Loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the Fourth of July; loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it."

Obama's is just one approach to patriotism and service. Sen. Jim Webb's new GI Bill of Rights is an essential step toward honoring those who have sacrificed in Iraq, and Sen. Chris Dodd has proposed important interim steps toward expanding AmeriCorps by bringing its rewards to those who perform service more closely in line with current college costs.

Dodd says he always explains his decision to join President John F. Kennedy's Peace Corps by saying, "The president asked me." He wins nods from youthful audiences when he says, "Let me tell you what it was like to be young, to be an American and to be asked."

Dodd was campaigning for Obama in South Dakota last Friday when he spoke with me, and he seems to have gotten this message to his candidate. Pinch-hitting for Ted Kennedy as the commencement speaker at Wesleyan University on Sunday, Obama revisited the themes of his December speech and explicitly renewed JFK's call, promising that "service to a greater good" would be "a cause of my presidency."

A competition between Obama and McCain over who can issue the most compelling summons to service would serve the country far better than an empty rhetorical skirmish over which of these candidates is the true patriot. And, yes, it's a good thing that Obama has been seen wearing the flag pin again.

postchat@aol.com

Clinton's Grim Scenario

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, May 27, 2008; A13

If this campaign goes on much longer, what will be left of Hillary Clinton?

A woman uniformly described by her close friends as genuine, principled and sane has been reduced to citing the timing of Robert F. Kennedy's assassination as a reason to stay in the race -- an argument that is ungenuine, unprincipled and insane. She vows to keep pushing, perhaps all the way to the convention in August. What manner of disintegration is yet to come?

For anyone who missed it, Clinton was pleading her cause before the editorial board of the Sioux Falls, S.D., Argus Leader on Friday. Rejecting calls to drop out because her chances of winning have become so slight, she said the following: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it."

The point isn't whether you take Clinton at her word that she didn't actually mean to suggest that someone -- guess who? -- might be assassinated. The point is: Whoa, where did that come from?

Setting aside for the moment the ugliness of Clinton's remark, just try to make it hold together. Clinton's basic argument is that attempts to push her out of the race are hasty and premature, since the nomination sometimes isn't decided until June. She cites two election years, 1968 and 1992, as evidence -- but neither is relevant to 2008 because the campaign calendar has been changed.

In 1968, the Democratic race kicked off with the New Hampshire primary on March 12; when Robert Kennedy was killed, the campaign was not quite three months old. In 1992, the first contest was the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 10; by the beginning of June, candidates had been battling for about 3 1/2 months -- and it was clear that Bill Clinton would be the nominee, though he hadn't technically wrapped it up.

This year, the Iowa caucuses were held on Jan. 3, the earliest date ever. Other states scrambled to move their contests up in the calendar as well. When June arrives, the candidates will have been slogging through primaries and caucuses for five full months -- a good deal longer than in those earlier campaign cycles.

So Clinton's disturbing remark wasn't wishful thinking -- as far as I know (to quote Clinton herself, when asked earlier this year about false rumors that her opponent Barack Obama is a Muslim). Clearly, it wasn't logical thinking. It can only have been magical thinking, albeit not the happy-magic kind.

Clinton has always claimed to be the cold-eyed realist in the race, and at one point maybe she was. Increasingly, though, her words and actions reflect the kind of thinking that animates myths and fairy tales: Maybe a sudden and powerful storm will scatter my enemy's ships. Maybe a strapping woodsman will come along and save the day.

Clinton has poured more than $11 million of her own money into the campaign, with no guarantee of ever getting it back. She has changed slogans and themes the way Obama changes his ties. She has been the first major-party presidential candidate in memory to tout her appeal to white voters. She has abandoned any pretense of consistency, inventing new rationales for continuing her candidacy and new yardsticks for measuring its success whenever the old rationales and yardsticks begin to favor Obama.

It could be that any presidential campaign requires a measure of blind faith. But there's a difference between having faith in a dream and being lost in a delusion. The former suggests inner strength; the latter, an inner meltdown.

What Clinton's evocation of RFK suggests isn't that she had some tactical reason for speaking the unspeakable but that she and her closest advisers can't stop running and rerunning through their minds the most far-fetched scenarios, no matter how absurd or even obscene. She gives the impression of having spent long nights convincing herself that the stars really might still align for her -- that something can still happen to make the Democratic Party realize how foolish it has been.

Clinton campaigns as if she knows she will leave some Democrats with bad feelings. That's the Clinton way: Ask forgiveness, not permission. But every day, as more superdelegates trickle to Obama's side, it becomes a surer bet that she will not win. She and her family enjoy good health and fabulous wealth. They'll be fine -- unless, while losing this race for the nomination, Hillary Clinton also loses her soul.

The writer will answer questions at 1 p.m. today athttp://www.washingtonpost.com. His e-mail address iseugenerobinson@washpost.com.

Post a Comment

Montana's huge black population gives Obama the edge

by kos

Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:29:02 PM PDT

Census numbers:

Black Persons, 2006: 0.4%
White Persons, 2006: 90.8%

The rest are either Latino (2.5%) or Native American (6.4%).

Montana is also the nation's fifth poorest state. It's poor, it's white, and has no African Americans to speak of. Therefore, if what the Clinton campaign and its apologists say is correct, if what the political news media tell me is accurate, Clinton should have another 30-point blowout in store. Right?

Mason-Dixon for Lee Newspapers. 5/19-21. Likely Democratic primary voters. MoE 5% (12/17-19 results)

Obama 52 (17)
Clinton 35 (29)

I expect the Clinton campaign to spin bullshit. It's been the entirety of their campaign now for several months. But it's shocking to me how difficult it has been for the political media to distinguish from Obama's Appalachian problem and his non-existent problems with white voters at large.

Then again we can always ju jitsu this and ask, "Why is Clinton suddenly having a hard time with working class whites? Are they now abandoning her?" Such a question would be bullshit, of course. Obama has always done very well west of the Mississippi, and Clinton poorly outside of the Latino vote in the southwest. But if they want to deal in bullshit, we can always oblige.

M-D also polled general election matchups, and this state, which Kerry lost by 20 points, is a single-digit affair for Obama.

Mason-Dixon for Lee Newspapers. 5/19-21. Likely Democratic primary voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines)

Total Men Wom Rep Dem Ind
McCain (R) 47 50 44 85 12 39
Obama (D) 39 37 41 4 77 41

McCain (R) 51 48 48 91 7 50
Clinton (D) 40 38 42 2 88 33

There's an obvious typo there -- McCain can't be winning both women and men with 48 percent of the vote, and overall 51-40. Regardless, once Obama brings home Democrats to Clinton-like levels, it'll tighten Montana that much more. With his lead among independents and the larger number of undecided Republicans willing to give him a shot, Montana is definitely going to be in play.

And favorability ratings:

McCain: 46 favorable, 35 unfavorable, 19 neutral
Obama: 41 favorable, 38 unfavorable, 21 neutral
Clinton: 29 favorable, 50 unfavorable, 21 neutral

It'll be nice heading into this general election without having to deal with Clinton's sky-high negatives.

• ::
• 
  

Tags: Barack Obama, president, 2008, Hillary Clinton, John McCain (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

The Obama Connection

May 26, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

By ROGER COHEN

It’s the networks, stupid.

More than any other factor, it has been Barack Obama’s grasp of the central place of Internet-driven social networking that has propelled his campaign for the Democratic nomination into a seemingly unassailable lead over Hillary Clinton. Her campaign has been so 20th-century. His has been of the century we’re in.

That’s not surprising. Obama spent only 10 years of his adult life in the split world of the cold war, double that in a post-Berlin Wall world of growing interconnectedness. MAC — mutually assured connectivity — has replaced the MAD — mutually assured destruction — of cold-war days.

For Clinton, born in 1947, that ratio is different. Her mental paradigm is division. When her husband last ran for president in 1996, the Internet was marginal. The thinking and people from that campaign have proved unable to fast-forward a dozen years. They’ve been left like deer blinded by the Webcam lights of the Obama juggernaut.

This cultural failure has been devastating for Clinton. As Joshua Green chronicles in an important piece in The Atlantic, Obama has used social networking and his user-friendly Web site to develop the money machine, and the youthful engagement, that has swept him forward.

Green notes, “Obama’s claim of 1,276,000 donors is so large that Clinton doesn’t bother to compete.” He gives some other Obama campaign numbers: 750,000 active volunteers and 8,000 affinity groups. In February, a month in which he raised $55 million ($45 million over the Internet), 94 percent of donations were of $200 or less, a number dwarfing small contributions to Clinton and John McCain.

Obama has been a classic Internet-start up, a movement spreading with viral intensity and propelled by some of Silicon Valley’s most creative minds. As with any online phenomenon, he has jumped national borders, stirring as much buzz in Berlin as he does back home.

He could not have achieved this without a sense of history, a conviction that the nature of the post-post-9/11 world — the one beyond war without end — is going to be determined by sociability and connectivity. In the globalized world of MySpace, LinkedIn and the rest, sociability is a force as strong as sovereignty.

I’ve searched in vain for a sense of this pivotal historical moment in Clinton. Her threat to “totally obliterate” Iran, her stomach-turning reference to the June 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy as a reason to stay in the race, her Bosnian fabrications, all reflect a view of history as something that’s there for political ends rather than as a source of inspiration or reflection.

It’s history as “Me, me, me.” That tends to be blinding.

Her most crippling blindness has been to networks, national and global, the threads that bind and have changed society. As David Singh Grewal writes in his excellent new book, “Network Power,” a core tension in the world is that: “Everything is being globalized except politics.”

Grewal continues: “We live in a world in which our relations of sociability — our commerce, culture, ideas, manners — are increasingly shared, coordinated by newly global conversations in these domains, but in which our politics remains inescapably national, centered in the nation states that are the only loci of sovereign decision making.”

The Bush administration has accentuated global awareness of this disjuncture. Connected people around the world were appalled by Bush policies — from the trashing of habeas corpus to renditions — but felt powerless to influence them.

The overwhelming global interest in the current U.S. election is tied in part to a spreading belief that America’s leader may be as important to French lives, for example, as the incumbent in the Élysée Palace.

Obama’s people get that. Connectivity means going it alone is a fool’s errand: that’s a basic lesson of Iraq. If Obama has promised to appoint a chief technology officer, to open up government via the Web, and to make dialogue rather than war a centerpiece of policy, it’s because he knows he must speak to a 21st-century world.

Grewal writes: “Politics is the only effective countervailing power that we have with which to refashion the structures that emerge through sociability.” Accumulated personal choices expressed through networks fashion sociability. Short of global governance, only sovereignty can channel that will.

In concrete terms, you won’t make globalization more equable in its distribution of income without politics. But first you must see sociability for what it is: a form of 21st-century personal sovereignty that rivals national sovereignty.

Clinton never saw this. McCain, whose Internet fund-raising has been negligible, also shows little grasp of MAC.

Of course, connection is no panacea, or guarantee against violent threats: Al Qaeda uses the Web effectively. But without understanding connectivity, you can no more beat terrorism than win an election.

It’s the networks, stupid, and the generations that go with them.

Blog: www.iht.com/passages

Aide Sees Obama Clinching Nomination in June

May 26, 2008

By BRIAN KNOWLTON

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama’s chief strategist said Sunday that he believed Mr. Obama would by the first week of June reach the absolute number of Democratic delegates needed to clinch the party’s presidential nomination.

The strategist, David Axelrod, was asked on the ABC News program “This Week” whether Mr. Obama might “go over the top” after Puerto Rico votes on June 1, and Montana and South Dakota hold the final primaries two days later, presumably bringing new superdelegates to him. “I believe that we will,” he said.

“By any calculation, we’re within striking distance of getting the absolute number that we need,” he said, “and I’m confident — I’m confident that we will.”

Mr. Obama has already attained a majority in the pledged delegates, but remains short of the overall majority — including superdelegates — needed for nomination. A count by The New York Times shows the Illinois senator leading Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York by 1,965.5 delegates to 1,775, with 2,026 delegates needed for nomination.

Spokesmen for Mrs. Clinton, for their part, took to the Sunday morning news programs to try to stem the criticism of her for her remark on Friday that she was staying in the race because earlier nominating races had remained unresolved into June — including in 1968, when Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated.

Her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, appeared irritated at the way the remark had taken on life. “She was referring to the timeline, how these events had gone into June,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” He said a “hyped-up press” had twisted Clinton’s words, and he noted that Robert Kennedy Jr., the son of Senator Kennedy, had said he had taken no offense.

Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s communications director, made a similar point on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” asserting that both the news media and the Obama campaign had been fanning the flames in this controversy. Mrs. Clinton and her aides have insisted that she was merely making a point about the length of past campaigns.

Mr. Axelrod, on ABC, reiterated that the Obama campaign wanted to move on. “We take her at her word, and we’re beyond that issue now,” he said.

Mr. McAuliffe declined Sunday to say whether Mrs. Clinton might battle on to the Democratic convention in August, but said he expected the nominating process to “be over shortly.”

He also said that reports that Bill Clinton wanted his wife to be Mr. Obama’s running mate if he wins the nomination were “100 percent not true” and that no talks had been held to discuss such a ticket.

Both candidates campaigned in Puerto Rico over the weekend, although on Sunday Mr. Obama returned to Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., to deliver a commencement address. Standing in for Senator Edward Kennedy, who was recently diagnosed with brain cancer, he urged the young graduates to look past material gains and work for the country’s “collective salvation.”

The Clinton campaign is hoping for a favorable decision when the Democratic Party’s rules committee meets Saturday to decide whether to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan at the nominating convention, although the states broke party rules by scheduling early primaries. Mr. McAuliffe was asked whether the senator might ignore an unfavorable ruling and fight on.

“I’m not saying that today,” he said. “We’ll see where we are.”

The Clinton campaign is quickly running out of time to make its argument that Mrs. Clinton is the Democrat best qualified to take on Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee.

A new survey by Newsweek, however, gave her campaign some comfort. It found that Mrs. Clinton would do substantially better among white voters, in a matchup against Mr. McCain, than Mr. Obama would do. Both Democrats trailed Mr. McCain among white voters, but Mrs. Clinton lagged by 4 percentage points and Mr. Obama by 12 points. Among voters over all, Mr. Obama tied Mr. McCain, 46 percent to 46 percent.