Showing posts with label 2008 Presidential Primary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Presidential Primary. Show all posts

Monday, January 21, 2008

Sparks Fly In South Carolina Showdown

In the most heated debate of the cycle, the three Democrats on stage tonight in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, noted clear distinctions of both policy and personality. The increased ferocity comes both as an extension of the typically behind the scenes surrogate fight that has been going on for weeks and as a signal of the increased stakes after split decisions in Iowa and New Hampshire with February 5 looming on the horizon.

Both Clinton and Obama dug into the opposition research file tonight, frequently referencing past votes and apparent contradictions. Obama appeared eager to stand up to the Clinton machine and prove he has the fire to withstand the grueling election season. Obama's frustration at weeks of Clinton needling was visible throughout much of the first hour. Obama and Clinton traded blows over Bill Clinton's role in the campaign, Obama's praise for Ronald Reagan, health care plans, economic stimulus offerings, and the Iraq War. Obama went to great lengths to defend himself from every change, which made him seem either sharp or defensive, depending on one's perspective.

Clinton, for her part, was not about to back down, though her aggressiveness was pushed into outright anger at times. Responding to Obama's suggestion that she was a "corporate lawyer on the board of Wal-Mart," Clinton sharply replied that Obama was "representing your contributor Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago." That exchange was the perhaps the most heated of the night, but it certainly wasn't the only tense moment.

All things equal, John Edwards was the clear winner of this debate. He made the most of his time--rising above the Clinton vs. Obama tit-for-tat and backing up his points with a wealth of specifics. All things, of course, are not equal, but Edwards showed he remained a formidable debater with courtroom prowess. Unlike previous debates, this wasn't a two-on-one against Hillary Clinton, rather Edwards frequently teamed up with the former first lady to drive a point against Obama. On issues like health care and voting 'present' in the Illinois Senate, Edwards was unusually sharp against his oft ally. Without a doubt, Edwards was good, but did he do enough to change the momentum of his campaign?

In the end, the trio offered interesting contrasts on a variety of issues, with differing visions of leadership beyond 2008. With a supportive audience, the King holiday as a backdrop, and a lead in the state's polls, Obama is our default winner, though none of the three should leave the debate disappointed.

Clip of a few of the bitter exchanges in the SC Debate.


Cross-posted at Political Realm.

Friday, January 18, 2008

A Discussion About Race & The 2008 Presidential Primaries

Hear an NPR discussion about Race and Politics, led by News and Notes host Farai Chideya. The discussion specifically looks at the Clinton Campaigns use of surrogates & coded racial language. The participants include Professor Charles Ogletree
and Professor Jewelle Taylor Gibbs.

Hear an analysis from the previous day, featuring Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, which also looks at how race is being used in the Democratic Primary, and the use of coded language in particular.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Kucinich Was Excluded from Nevada Debate Afterall


I had a feeling that this was going to happen. At the last minute, NBC appealed a lower Court judges ruling that Kucinich should be included in last nights debate. Just a few hours before the debate was to begin, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of NBC, which wanted Kucinich out of the way.

The other candidates, especially Hillary Clinton, were scared to death about the prospect of having Kucinich in the debate. I may have spoken too soon when I suggested that Clinton had not yet bought the State of Nevada. Clinton already has the mainstream media on her side (which is how she gained her frontrunner status) and has been their favorite all along. Look at the lengths that NBC and Clinton's minions were willing to go through to keep this man out of the debate. Unbelievable!

Kucinich tried to use the Civil Courts to get a temporary restraining order preventing NBC's effort to exclude him, but he ran out of time. Read up on how they hustled him out of the debate. Folks... I predicted this kind of nonsense before the campaign season even started. It's the same thing every 4 years.

Just another episode in America's False Democracy. If you thought that you lived in a free Country with an electoral system that is truly free & fair, then you thought wrong.

And the debate itself was pretty much recycled from many of the previous events. The moderators spent the first 45 minutes talking about trivial nonsense, attempting to fan the flames between the candidates in an effort to boost their ratings. I can understand one or perhaps even two questions...and then let's move on. But these hosts just didn't want to leave the subject alone. They didn't touch on any of the important issues that Americans are concerned about in the first hour or so of the debate.
_______________________

Related Posts

NBC Tries to Pick the Next President

Read more about the Kucinich Lawsuit

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Dennis Kucinich Back On Lie Patrol - Judge Rules that He Cannot Be Excluded From Nevada Debate

A Nevada Judge has ruled that Dennis Kucinich must be allowed to participate in the Nevada debate scheduled for later today. This is a big victory for Progressives.

Although Kucinich has no chance of winning the nomination, his participation will change the whole atmosphere of the debate- just by his very presense. This will pose a problem for Hillary Clinton. She will not be able to float through the debate and lie about her record, inflate her qualifications, or distort facts. Too often, the moderators of these debates allow her to get away with her lying by failing to challenge her, simply because she is Hillary Clinton. This is where Kucinich comes into play. He may be key to keeping her on the Defensive. Unlike Obama, who doesn't want to really go on the attack or say anything that would be deemed as wrong or "too negative" about Clinton, Kucinich has nothing to lose and nothing to gain. Without the burden of "political correctness" weighing him down, he will be free to tell the truth. I am quite sure that the Clinton camp is scrambling to adjust their strategy as I type.

The Clinton Camp would have loved to see Kucinich banned from the event, just like in New Hampshire. I guess she couldn't buy Nevada in time for this one.

Report from the AP

Judge grants Kucinich entry to NV

LAS VEGAS - A Nevada judge said Monday that Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich must be included in Tuesday's candidates' debate in Nevada.

Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson said if Kucinich is excluded, he'll issue an injunction stopping the televised debate.

The judge sided with a lawyer for the Ohio congressman, who says debate host MSNBC at first invited Kucinich to take part and then told him last week he couldn't.

A lawyer for the network said MSNBC decided to go with the top three candidates after the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.

The judge called it a matter of fairness and said Nevada voters will benefit if they hear from more than just Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

The cable network and the Democratic Party are calling the 9 p.m. EST debate a chance to hear issues from Nevada's minority communities. Tim Russert and Brian Williams are moderating.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Senator McCaskill Endorses Barack Obama

This is a good ensorsement for Obama because it has the potential to make him a little more competitive in Missouri. Hillary has been leading in the polls here by a substantial margin.

There is no doubt that McCaskill has solid support in the State, despite a Republican Governor. She has particularly strong support in the urban Centers of St. Louis and Kansas City, both of which put her in the Senate in 2006.

The question is, will White voters in the State support Obama and will the Clinton's mythical support among Black voters wane enough for Obama to gain any ground?

McCaskill formally backs Obama
By STEVE KRASKE
The Kansas City Star

Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri on Sunday endorsed fellow Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for president, calling him a “once-a-generation leader.”

The nod from McCaskill capped a prosperous few days for Obama, who also received the backing of several other prominent Democrats in recent days.

Among them: Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano.

The backing comes at a critical time in the Democratic fight as Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton battle for supremacy in the upcoming primary and caucus states of Nevada, South Carolina and Florida.

Elected in 2006, McCaskill was widely believed to favor Obama. The question was whether she would publicly announce her support before the Feb. 5 round of primaries in Missouri, New York, California and a host of other states.

Both U.S. senators in Missouri have now endorsed candidates. Republican Kit Bond backs former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. In Kansas, Sen. Sam Brownback has endorsed John McCain while fellow Republican Pat Roberts has not declared a preference.

In a conference call Sunday with reporters and Obama, McCaskill acknowledged the decision was difficult because of the historic first-woman nature of Clinton’s campaign. But she said Obama was a new-style leader whose freshness and smarts presented a rare opportunity for America.

He is, she said, “a gift,” a man unafraid to pursue new ways.

“I honestly believe that only once a generation a leader comes along who has that particular gift,” McCaskill said. “It will be a terrible disappointment to our country if we didn’t grab this opportunity right now.”

Referring to Obama’s stump speech reference to Martin Luther King Jr. who coined the phrase “the fierce urgency of now,” McCaskill added that she feels the same need to rush. “I feel it in my bones,” she said. “I get the fierce urgency of now.”

Obama and McCaskill have worked on several issues together, including support for military veterans.

Obama campaigned for McCaskill in Kansas City and St. Louis during her nip-and-tuck 2006 Senate race against Republican incumbent Jim Talent.

McCaskill said she realized early on that Washington was broken and saw in Obama a leader who could help fix it.

Waiting for four or eight years would be a mistake for Obama; McCaskill said the delay could rob Obama of the bold approach he advocates.

McCaskill said she didn’t expect to have a formal title or role in the campaign, but pledged to stump the state on his behalf.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Out Of New Hampshire: The Race Is On

Wow. What a difference a few hours can make! Going into tonight, many were writing the Clinton campaign obituary and now she is perhaps the favorite again. The Obama campaign expected to win. Heck, even the Clinton campaign expected Obama to win. All the pundits, Political Realm included, were wrong and the race was turned on its head.

How did Clinton do it? In New Hampshire, Clinton dominated the female vote, easily out-pacing Obama, who had won the group in Iowa. Whether that's the result of Clinton's near tears yesterday or a more open campaign that shifted focus somewhat, we don't know. The polling we've seen over the past few days gave Obama a lead of nearly 10 points, but perhaps those numbers were simply soft. Perhaps there were a significant number of late deciders that broke for Clinton. Perhaps the questions raised about Obama's experience, record, and readiness to lead paid off for the Clinton campaign. Perhaps the voters of New Hampshire wanted this thing to turn into a race, rather than a coronation.

In the end, it seems like we simply misjudged the state of the race. Obama was over-hyped out of Iowa, while everyone underestimated Clinton's superior organization, establishment backing, and appeal with voters in New Hampshire. Most suspected the vast number of independents would provide fertile soil for Obama, especially compared to Iowa. However, the number of first time participants was down tonight from Iowa and it's likely that those independents fit right into Clinton's target profile--blue collar workers. We do know one thing--the Clinton campaign won't badmouth New Hampshire as it did Iowa a few days ago.

Of course, let's not get ahead of ourselves again. The narrative out of the first two contests is decidedly unclear. Barack Obama's Iowa victory was a huge shock to much of America. Will this Clinton win be as surprising? For political junkies, sure it is, but for the average voter who may not be as tuned in to this race I'm not so sure. The Obama campaign will be quick to point out that Clinton had a lead in New Hampshire just a week ago. To the contrary, the Clinton campaign is hoping that she will be portrayed as the "Comeback Kid" tomorrow, just as her husband was 16 years ago. Indeed, the shift in the Granite State over the past few hours has been simply stunning. For all the talk that Iowa and New Hampshire hold too much power, look at what they have given us--a real race on both sides.

So where do the Democrats go from here? It's on to Nevada and South Carolina, where Obama seemed to have all the momentum this morning. He is apparently going to pick up a major union endorsement in Nevada tomorrow--one earned more because of his victories (they were likely assuming a New Hampshire win just like everyone else) than because of his positions. Many believed that endorsement could have gone to either of Obama's key rivals and we have to wonder if the union is rethinking things tonight. In South Carolina, Obama's Iowa victory showed black voters, who will make up much of the electorate, that he can win in white America. Clinton, however, has strong ties in the black community, so will a New Hampshire win bring those voters back to her campaign?

The campaigns of John Edwards and especially Bill Richardson will likely reevaluate after tonight's results. Richardson clearly has no chance of winning this thing, while John Edwards is all but out of it as well. Both campaigns should be running out of funds soon, making it even more difficult to compete going forward.

On the Republican side, things played out in a much more expected manner. John McCain was the clear winner, though his margin was surprising to some. He overcame a campaign in shambles this summer, a media that left him for dead, an unpopular immigration plan, and support for a surge in Iraq that wasn't working. In the end, the campaign was tightened up, the media came back to him, his immigration position remained unpopular, but better explained, and the situation in Iraq started to improve. He is now well positioned for the contests to follow in Michigan and South Carolina and the win tonight will infuse some much needed cash.

For Romney, the collapse is shocking. His control of the first two contests looked insurmountable this summer and into the fall and now he finds himself in perilous position. He has family ties in Michigan, but faces McCain with momentum and Huckabee in a more friendly environment. If he can't somehow defy the odds there, Romney is certainly done. Fred Thompson has already moved on to South Carolina and Huckabee will join him there tomorrow. Huckabee's strong third tonight--New Hampshire was never expected to be his state--sets up the rest of the race as seemingly Huckabee vs. McCain. Giuliani, though happy that the early contests are producing mixed results, has seen his national lead deteriorate. In Florida, a state where he has devoted much of his recent attention, he now finds himself in fourth place in a new poll.

What do we take away from tonight? Both sides have major comeback stories--Clinton in the short term and McCain in the long term. There are no frontrunners anymore. Look for a fresh set of presidential rankings from us before the week is out as the campaign resets for the next phase. Without a doubt, the race is on.

Cross-posted at Political Realm.

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

The Impact of Corporate Media

The media that sold the War in Iraq, is the same media that determines who will be President of the United States.

Amy Goodman - Excerpts from Media In Time Of War Speech


Amy Goodman - Independent Media in a Time of War Documentary


The Garbage that is Big Media


The Importance of Independent Media

The Rise of Obama - Can He Win A General Election?


And Why I Supported John Edwards

None of the candidates were really a choice for me. However, out of the line-up that was presented, I would have preferred to see John Edwards get the nomination. But the corporate media decided over a year ago that John Edwards would not be President.

The Obama/Clinton Show represented the biggest ratings draw and the biggest money maker for the networks, and therefore the media set the agenda for voters and decided who the “favorite” candidates were going to be. The media clearly decided (for the people) who the favorites were, and have spent the last 18 months bombarding the American public with coverage….herding the public in the direction of the media’s choosing.

Americans vote how they are told to vote….always have. This year will be no different. Like obedient sheep, Americans will participate in the Obama/Clinton made for TV Movie. I will watch the movie, but i’m not participating in the production.
I have never participated in an American election ceremony, and never will. But I will remain an avid observer.

My cynicism has not gone anywhere. If anything, this election cycle is (so far) only making me more disgusted with the political system, and the electoral process in particular. This election is a sham to me…..as all recent elections have been. The media has more influence in choosing Presidents than voters do. THAT IS A PROBLEM.

In my case, John Edwards is (or “was” now…because he’ll be done here pretty soon) …but he was the only candidate with a message that resonated with me. He was the only candidate with poverty as a focus of his platform. He was the only candidate with Hurricane Katrina as a part of his platform…and he had a plan for Katrina… (how many of the other candidates went down to volunteer numerous times…when the cameras were not there?). He was the only candidate with a focus on the working poor… And in my view, he would have been more electable in a General Election. He’s a Southern Democrat…just what the Democratic Party needs for a nominee. It’s no coincidence that the last 2 Democratic Presidents were Southern Democrats… the last 3 if you count Gore. lol.

He’s not the perfect candidate… But he had “great” President potential… almost Kennedy-esqe (not that i’m a big fan of Kennedy).
But Black folks (as a whole)… are some of the most loyal Sheep in the electorate…. so it’s no surprise that folks would vote for someone who looks like them, but has not necessarily articulated a plan or platform that best represents their interests.

To me, Obama seems to be more along the lines of an elitist Wall Street corporate Democrat…. willing to negotiate with entrenched corporate interests….and “hope” that they come to their senses….rather than someone who will fight his ass off for my best interests (at least some of my interests) as a Black man struggling in the working class…and stuck in the working class. (See great commentary "I Don't Need A Candidate To Hope For Me, I Need One To Fight For Me"). His stump speeches and his message never really caught on for me. And being staunchly independent, I had no interest in jumping on his bandwagon just because he was Black. That whole idea is insulting to me…. I hate when people bring this up… assuming, in a roundabout way, that I should automatically back the man because of our shared skin pigment.

I recall Obama saying just last week at a rally that he helped put together legislation that prevented Senators from accepting meals from lobbyists… But who cares about a f—-ing meal when lobbyists are still buying members of Congress and literally writing the legislation. K Street is as strong as ever. In other words, he’s too superficial in his challenge of the Washington DC culture and corporate control of our government. He should be talking about closing K Street down… PERIOD. These lobbyists have all sorts of special access to elected officials…both in Congress and the White House. Yet the citizens have zero access. Ironically… the original meaning of “lobbyist” referred to a time when the average citizen would go to Congress to lobby their elected officials. Access was practically open at that time. Try reaching your elected official today. Good luck! Good luck even getting a response to a letter. If you are lucky…. IF you are lucky, you will get a form letter back, thanking you for your effort to contact Sen. or Congressman Joe Blow.

But the test now for Obama will be winning a General Election. That’s the true test… winning purple States. He will need more than “hope” and a smile to overcome the brutal beating that the Republican attack machine & Conservative corporate media is about to put on him. AND FOLKS… THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE PRETTY…. IT WILL NOT BE FOR THE FAINT OF HEART. I can’t stress that enough.

People say…well he won in 2 White States… well that was a Caucus and Primary, with mostly folks from his own Party participating. That will not necessarily translate into success in a General Election….even with some support from independents.

But if he wins the nomination… I will support him. Because the alternative is just unthinkable. Two of the Republi-CON candidates- Romney and Huckabee- want to turn the State into an Imperialist Theocracy, and the other two top candidates- Giuliani and McCain- are warmongering lunatics who will give us the Bush+ Plan… The same Bush administration policies on steroids. It will essentially be an extension of BushCo. Both McCain and Giuliani have the most prowar military and foreign policy teams and they have both expressed an interest in taking the nation into more wars. John McCain is the biggest warhawk in the U.S. Senate…has been for many years.

The problem with Obama is that I just don’t think he can beat a top Republican in a General Election. If McCain gets the nod… Obama will be in trouble.
And he could also struggle with any of the other top Republicans.

Obama as an ideal opponent for the Republicans, because they see him as one of the most beatable Democrats.

At any rate… this year will be interesting on many levels.

Saturday, November 03, 2007

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Small Donors Rewriting Fundraising

From Politico.com

Small donors rewrite fundraising handbook
By: Jeanne Cummings
Sep 26, 2007



KANSAS CITY, Mo. — On a table near The Cashew’s upstairs bar, Nicola Heskett is laying out an array of pens and donor information forms as Jason Moehlman strolls in, still sweaty from the muggy evening’s air.

He slaps down a $20 bill to cover the recommended contribution for the Kansas City Lawyers for Barack Obama Happy Hour. “Uh, would you mind using your credit card? I think it’s a little cleaner,” says Heskett, 36, a first-time, small-time bundler for Obama who is helping to rewrite political fundraising playbooks this cycle.

The rise of the baby bundlers — people who ask friends and family to donate for a candidate and then direct the money to the campaign — is adding a face-to-face dimension to tactics used in 2004 to spur an explosion of Internet donations.

The influx of these new players, combined with unorthodox appeals by the candidates, also is fundamentally reshaping the parties’ donor bases.


The surprising end result could be that the Democratic nominee will buck historic trends and have a significant financial edge in a cycle when the nominees alone are expected to spend an unprecedented $1 billion.

Obama on Monday e-mailed supporters to report he had 75,000 new donors in the third quarter, which ends Sunday.

That figure nearly matches the entire Republican field’s donor base in the first six months of the year.

According to an August analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute done in partnership with Politico, 87 percent of the donors to Democrats in the first six months of this year didn’t give money to any candidate in the party’s crowded 2004 primary, the first presidential race after passage of the McCain-Feingold reform law that put a premium on limited individual donations.

There’s also a significant infusion of new blood on the GOP side: Among Republican givers, 89 percent of donors did not give to President Bush in his 2004 reelection race.

That figure could reflect two trends: the engagement of new donors such as those backing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney from the Mormon community and the fatigue or disenchantment of Bush-Cheney donors.

Several high-ranking members of the president’s 2004 campaign finance team haven’t written a single check to a 2008 candidate.




Rest of the article is here:

I think this is interesting, because it means that this isn't the same old financial pie that they are cutting from. They are creating entirely new pies, which is something that hasn't happened before. Howard Dean was the first one to tap into this new financial way of doing things, but 'The Establishment' still had relative control over the money. With the kinds of money that candidates like Obama is bringing in, this is an entirely new group that ' The Establishment' hasn't been able to reach out to before and get to donate.

Of course, all of this could be settled with public financing of campaigns, but that would be too much like right.