This weekend Nomadic Theatre is putting on "The Exonerated", about the experiences of six people who were wrongfully convicted but still lost years of their lives on death row.*

Our justice system, though, is systemically unjust. It is racist, ineffective at deterring crime, often erroneous, and extremely expensive.

And yet... almost all our Democratic candidates -- including every single frontrunner -- support the death penalty. Clinton is a long-time advocate. Edwards believes "some crimes deserve the ultimate penalty". Obama, for all he is touted as a religious and moral man, and for all he believes that the death penalty "does little to deter crime", still would execute prisoners.

Perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised, but Kucinich is in the only one on the field who vocalizes what I am convinced is the only appropriate approach. "Morally," he writes, "I simply do not believe that we as human beings have the right to 'play God' and take a human life – especially since our human judgments are fallible and often wrong." Along with him comes Gravel, who has been silent on capital punishment so far in this campaign but was opposed at least back in 1972, when his book Citizen Power came out.

I'm dismayed that once again, it's only the "crazy" and "ridiculously unelectable" candidates who are talking sense. (It reminds me incredibly of that debate where it was only these two who would lower the drinking age so that young people who are called to die for our country could also buy a beer. Yeah.)

Why is that? I think Liliana Segura has it pegged: "They know that as long as no one holds them accountable, it is a political stance that costs them nothing. It’s their “soft on crime” trump card." Kucinich (and to some extent Gravel) can say these things only because he isn't considered a real candidate.

Cynical? Yes. Unfortunately, it also rings true. How crazy is Kucinich really?

*It was a wonderful performance, and one that I suggest you all look into attending before the show ends this weekend.

read more...

When I first read in the Washington Post about the Walter Reed scandal involving the mistreatment of soldiers returning to Iraq, I should've been surprised. I should be shocked that our President, a man who "supports the troops", would allow such a thing to happen, but after Hurricane Katrina and Iraq, all I can do is simply shake my head and sigh.

In today's NY Times Paul Krugman wrote an article about something that was also not very shocking. To no one's surprise, the veteran's hospitals have, of course, been privatized and care has severely restricted. For those of you who do not pay to see the editorial, here are just a couple points (in my words) that Mr. Krugman makes:

- Many services to our soldiers are no longer free. Now they must pay hundreds of dollars a month just for the food.
- Any soldier who is making over $27,000 and is not facing a combat-related condition or has not been in combat recently will be denied assistance.

This is all of course on top of the neglect of soldiers who have fought virtuously in Iraq only to be repaid with the stupidity of the Bush administration, who once again thought they could contract out the work of the government. The government can be messy and inefficient, but groups like FEMA and the Dept of Veterans' Affairs and THE US MILITARY were (and at least in the military still are) not known for being cold, uncaring, and being all about the dollar. At least under Clinton all three were able to work efficiently without Halliburton (two of the CEOs of the companies given private contracts were former Halliburton employees, go figure).

What this administration doesn't get, and what Walter Reed makes clearly obvious, is that there are some things that are best not to contract out. Outside companies are always looking to fatten their own wallets, and some things are best left to a government which isn't always looking for a profit (not to mention the brain drain at FEMA and Walter Reed caused by privatization). I think it's time we stop handing money over to people who want to get rich and start using it for the people who have needed it, Iraqis, Louisianans, and our soldiers.

read more...

With Vilsack dropping out of the race, the fundamental dynamics of the race for 2008 have changed. Vilsack was never a big player, but the fact that he was from Iowa had a chance of putting one of the three frontrunners in a devastating fourth place finish.

No longer is that possible. With Vilsack out, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards will surely each place in the top three, meaning Iowa is now a less decisive state, since no one will be eliminated or severely weakened by Iowa. The field will merely be sorted.

With Iowa and New Hampshire likely to each move up a week, Nevada actually becomes more important, and so do New Hampshire and South Carolina. If any of the top three win in Iowa, it may or may not give them momentum into New Hampshire, which will likely give Obama or Clinton a win. If Clinton were to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, I think there is really no chance of preventing her steamroll to the nomination. But if Edwards or Obama wins in Iowa, and Obama wins in New Hampshire, Nevada becomes a contest between Obama and Edwards and South Carolina a contest between all three candidates. Even if Biden or Richardson or Dodd were to win second or third in any of these contests, the sheer number (approaching 20 now) of states with wealthy media markets on February 5th eliminate the chance of any of the second tier candidates winning without coming in first in one of the first four states. With the possibility that Florida could move up to the middle of January, that will probably boost Clinton, and give her a delegate lead heading into February 5th.

February 5th could, if Clinton wins the first four or five contests, be a coronation. If the top three split the first four or five states, I think you are likely to see Clinton emerge with a delegate lead but just barely, with Obama winning a huge chunk of delegates and Edwards taking a number of states himself.

With this split decision, each of the other second tier candidates will drop out and Edwards, Clinton, and Obama will split up the rest of February's winnings until the minnier Super Tuesday on March 6th.

That day will likely see Ohio, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Maryland take center stage, and you can expect Obama and Edwards to do better than Clinton in those states.

We are then likely to see no candidate emerging with a majority of delegates and head into the August convention with no clear winner. There will be a convention fight and after one or two ballots, Edwards, who I think will come in third, will throw his support to Obama and give him the nomination over Clinton.

I know this seems biased, but I think that unless Clinton wins Iowa and New Hampshire, this is the situation that will play out. Tell me what you think.

read more...

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are in a cat fight! As Kramer would say, maybe they'll start kissing!

Kucinich auditioned in Nevada (make sure you pronounce it right or you'll be Stephanopoulosed) yesterday to be Spinning-Instructor-in-Chief.

Mike Gravel has a $250 suit. When asked whether it was made by American workers, he said it was made in the land of has-beens and long-shots.

Bill Richardson wants Democrats to run a positive campaign. Didn't he get this memo?

Al Gore will win the Oscar for Best Documentary on Sunday. When asked what he will wear, he said it would be a carbon-neutral Gucci see-through dress.

Prince Harry wants to go to Abu Ghraib prison when he gets to Iraq. He hears the sex there is kinkier than at Buckingham palace.

That's a wrap!

read more...

As most of you know, I'm a big fan of Barack Obama. But as a political handicapper, I can be somewhat objective. I'll take the time now to predict the outcomes of the Presidential nominating fights on both sides.

Let's start with the Democrats. Assuming New Hampshire isn't a jerk, and Florida isn't stupid, the order of the primaries will be Iowa on January 14th, Nevada on January 19th, New Hampshire on January 22nd, and South Carolina on January 29th, with a barrage of states on February 5th, with California, New Jersey, Florida, and Michigan likely participating. That day will include more than a dozen contests, with possibly as many as a third of the Democratic convention's delegates at stake on that one day. At least that's the situation for the Democrats.

The Republicans will hold their Iowa and New Hampshire contests on the same day as the Democrats, but will hold South Carolina a few days after the Democrats do, but before February 5th. The February 5th national primary day will be the same for the Republicans.

So, this is where I think the race stands. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are competing for the top three spots in Iowa with former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. None of the other candidates realistically think they have a shot in Iowa with those four in the race. Because Vilsack is from Iowa, he is in an impossible situation. He must come in first in Iowa just to be a viable candidate, but a win in Iowa is no guarantee he will be a factor anywhere else. If Vilsack comes in anything less than first, he will drop out of the race.

Edwards, because he is the Iowa frontrunner and came in a close second three years ago, he also must win the Iowa caucuses. A second place finish will not kill him, but he'll be sigificantly weakened. A third or fourth place finish would nearly end his campaign. Obama and Clinton, because of their national organizations and frontrunner status, can afford a second or third place finish without being significantly wounded. A first place finish would give either of them unstoppable momentum, but a fourth place finish for either would weaken them severely. The point is, one of those four will be nearly kicked out of the race from Iowa. Iowa is an eliminator.

So then we go to Nevada. Edwards, because of his union support, must get first or second here, anything less would be deadly to him. Bill Richardson, who is from the Southwest and is Latino, must also come in first or second in Nevada to have any relevance in the process whatsoever. Clinton and Obama must come in at least third place, or will be viewed as weak and won't be able to recover. Therefore, Nevada is an eliminator, as one candidate won't survive it.

Next is New Hampshire, where Clinton and Obama are viewed as strongest. This contest will be decisive, as both Obama and Clinton must win, and definitely not come in less than second. Chris Dodd has also staked his claim to the nomination on New Hampshire, since he is from New England. He must place at least third to remain in the game. An Edwards finish lower than fourth would also kill his campaign. Therefore, New Hampshire will eliminate a candidate or severely wound them as well.

Finally, South Carolina is a must win for both Obama and Edwards. Edwards, who won South Carolina in 2004, was born there, and is a son of the South. If he loses the primary, he will be finished. If Obama, who is black, loses a primary where almost 50% of the electorate will be African-American, he will also be finished. Clinton must, simply because of her status, get at least third here. Joe Biden has decided his strategy to the nomination runs through South Carolina, and therefore, a less than third place finish here will kill him.

So after these four contests, where seven candidates all must score in the top three at some point, at least four will be eliminated, and the contests will sort the remaining three in terms of strength. Therefore, our party goes into February 5th with no more than three candidates, with one or two probably stronger than the rest.

Therefore, February 5th has the power to decide the nominee or prolong the fight till early March, when another Super Tuesday will occur. The only people who will have the standing and the money to win on February 5th are Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, and if one of them is already eliminated before that day, it will be decisive. Unfortunately for Edwards, out of the four big states, New Jersey, Michigan, California, and Florida, that hold contests that day, he has no strength in any of them. Therefore, the outcome of that day could depend on whether Clinton or Obama win big on the 5th.

In the end, I think that Edwards will probably not do as well as expected (it's hard when you're the frontrunner in Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina, you've got to place first in all three or look weak), and Clinton will probably place low in a number of the early contests, weakening her. I think all of the second tier candidates will all flounder, with maybe one exception, who will be eliminated after February 5th. On February 5th, Edwards, who will already be weak form the first few contests, will not do well, eliminating him. Obama and Clinton will probably pretty evenly split wins on February 5th, which will set up a contest leading up to the next Super Tuesday in March. Obama will probably do well in Ohio and some other states that day and Obama and Clinton will be neck and neck until the convention. In fact, I see a convention fight as likely in 2008. I know I'm out there in left field with this thinking, but I believe that Edwards will probably stick it out to the end, as a distant third place, and one of the lesser candidates will also have a sizable delegate count and will stick it out till the convention too. With Hillary and Obama nearly even in the delegate count and both with less than 50% of the delegates, I think we will see this fight go to a second ballot at the convention. The second ballot will probably see some of Edwards' votes go to Clinton and Obama pretty evenly, and Edwards will decide to endorse one or the other on the third ballot, and then we will have our nominee. I think Edwards is likely to endorse Obama, but who knows.

As for the Republicans, who I know a lot less about, I think Iowa will be very decisive. McCain is strong there, but Brownback and Huckabee might surprise some people. I think McCain may end up losing Iowa in an upset, and Brownback and Huckabee will be propelled into the top tier. New Hampshire will be a fight among McCain, Giuliani, and Romney for the country club Republican vote, which I think Rudy will win. We then go to South Carolina, where McCain, who will be weakened at this point, will square off against Gilmore, Hunter, Brownback, and Huckabee. The winner of that primary, and the second place finisher, will set up a contest between Rudy, McCain, and either Brownback or Huckabee. I do not think that Romney stands a chance, and I've spoken to evangelicals who tell me that Mormonism is going to really hurt him. We then will go to February 5th, where the conservative alternative, likely Huckabee or Brownback (all the former governors and congressmen in the race will have dropped out by now and Gingrich won't run) will not do very well. Rudy and McCain will clean up, and they will fight it out till March, when a bunch of Southern states will support the conservative alternative. I think, similarly to the Democrats, Republicans will have a brokered convention, where Giuliani and McCain will be roughly tied in the delegate count, and the conservative alternative will have a substantial 10%-20% of the vote. This will set up a second ballot that I think will escape from Rudy to McCain and the conservative and eventually Rudy will endorse McCain on the third ballot in exchange for a VP slot. McCain, in my opinion, will turn out as the nominee.

That's my view of the race, what's yours?

read more...

One of the most important developments in the history of political campaigning happened late last week, and (almost) nobody noticed.

“What?” you ask. “Of course everyone noticed! Are you kidding? The first woman and the first African-American with serious shots at winning a major party nomination announced last week! You’d have to be living under a rock not to know that, just shut up about Barack and Hillary and glass ceilings already, and let me go back to [insert personal activity of choice here: flossing my teeth, procrastinating at Midnight Mug, liberating silverware from Leo’s, etc.] in peace!”

While Senators Obama and Clinton have indeed walked into the history books with their groundbreaking campaigns, that’s not what I’m talking about.

What I’m talking about is Hillary Clinton’s decision to forgo federal matching funding in both the nominating and general election campaigns. While many candidates have opted out of public financing for primary campaigns before, Sen. Clinton is the first to declare that she is capable of raising more than the $150 million that would be provided to her under the federal program for the 2008 primary and general campaign elections. Sen. Clinton’s decision to ask donors for a maximum donation of $4200 at this point in her campaign—rather than the $2100 maximum donation she would receive were she to accept federal matching funds in the general election—will set off a chain reaction among her opponents, making prospects difficult for candidates who aren’t capable of raising such huge sums on their own.

The federal matching funds program, introduced in 1976, works as follows:
-Any primary candidate who raises at least $100,000 in personal donations receives federal money to match the first $250 of each donation. For 2008, candidates could received matching grants of as much as $25 million for the primary season and about $15 million for a nomination convention.
-In the 2008 cycle, general election candidates could received up $83 million.

However, with Sen. Clinton’s decision to decline federal matching funds (with opponents expected to follow suit, although opponents including Sen. Obama declined to comment on any similar decision), analysts are expecting the two candidates who make it to the general election to raise more $500 million each—meaning a presidential campaign that will end up costing more than a billion dollars come November 2008.

Already, the New York Times is reporting that John McCain has begun to solicit private donations for both the primary and general elections, with the option of returning them. Sen. McCain, who has long been a proponent of campaign finance reform, removed his name as a co-sponsor of a bill to expand the presidential public financing program.

If the two frontrunners for their parties’ nominations—Clinton and McCain—do indeed make it Election Day 2008, we can say good-bye to the days of public financing. Candidates these days spend as much time fundraising as they do campaigning. This is positively absurd—do you think of any other position where you spend more to get the job than you make once you have it? Though the Supreme Court struck down spending caps on campaigns as an unconstitutional abridgment of your right to free speech, it is time to consider new alternatives for a broken system. What about lowering the donation threshold from, say, $2100, to $500? This would greatly increase the ability of your average Joe to participate as fully in the political process as his wealthier fellow citizens, and for all the ado that was made about Howard Dean’s ability to fundraise using small donations through the internet, the reality is that the majority of campaign funding still comes from influential donors who have as many votes as the rest of us do—one—but exercise outsize influence on democratic process. While I am by no means a proponent of full federal financing for all campaigns (the taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill for vanity campaigns of candidates like the Rev. Al Sharpton), there must be a solution here. Our Founding Fathers—who considered it embarrassing to personally campaign for the presidency, let alone raise money for advertising—would be aghast at the feeding trough our presidential electoral system has become. Something must be done before this system gets even more out of hand—I want my vote to count just as much as anyone else’s, don’t you?

read more...

Zogby's Iowa Telephone Polling from January 15-16

DEMOCRATS

Edwards 27%
Obama 17%
Vilsack 16%
Clinton 16%
Biden 3%
Kerry 3%
Kucinich 1%
Richardson 1%
Not sure 13%

Read the entire article on the John Edwards blog:
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/17/162741/659

read more...

Oh, it wouldn't be a Wednesday if Ann Coulter didn't put out another wonderful ranting. Since last week's column was as delicious as this week's, and because I, like all of you, have finals, we will combine her last two columns into one conservative screeching.

The sheer lunacy of Coulter's two columns these last two weeks raise new questions about her mental health. In last week's column, she advocates for torture. Reviewing an interview that Matt Lauer had with President Bush over the 9/11 anniversary, she claims that a) waterboarding (making someone experience drowning) Khalid Sheikh Muhammad is actually a "reward", b) Guantanamo Bay prisoners get "chocolate eclairs", and c) Americans actually love to know that we're torturing suspected terrorists. Well, funny enough, I know no Americans who think waterboarding is a rewarding experience, but that's very anecdotal. And I ran a google search and funnily enough, no chocolate eclairs have been served in Guantanamo, not even the ice cream bars.

But I'm particularly surprised by her allegation that Americans like torture, I mean, that's what I thought, but it's pretty interesting to look at the polling on this. ABC, the dastardly liberal news organization that is owned by the Disney Corporation (turning our kids homosexual with their singing mice), commissioned a poll that pretty clearly makes Coulter look like an ass.

According to the poll, 63% of Americans say that torturing supected terrorists is never justified. Wow, what a bunch of liberal lefties that live in this great country of ours. But that is just media spin, those Americans must think torture means ripping off people's limbs and feeding it to them. Waterboarding, forced nudity, electric shocks, and sexual humiliation are no biggies, and Americans must support those activities. Well, actually, not so much. According to the poll, only 16% think it is acceptable to sexually humiliate terrorist suspects (guess they aren't in love with Abu Ghraib), only 17% like electric shocks, only 19% like forced nudity, and only 21% accept waterboarding as acceptable.

Oh my God, or maybe I should say ya Rabbi, which is the Arabic, cause this nation is made up of a bunch of terrorist sympathizers. It seems that 80% of this country wants us to treat suspected terrorists with, dare I say it, a basic amount of human dignity. Astonishing really! But it's ok for Coulter, it's not like she needs to check her facts before she writes this bullshit. She's a right-winger, and when you're lucky enough to write this crap for a bunch of horny conservative teens who yearn for a date with Coulter at some club that sets Jane Fonda on fire, you don't need facts, hey, you can even make em up as you go along.

But Coulter gets better this week. Her piece is riddled with delicious bits of pure insanity. Take this, when she notes that antiwar Democratic veterans ran and won this year:

To the credit of the voters -- especially the American Legion and VFW -- the Democrats didn't fool enough Americans to even match the average midterm gains for the party out of power.

Well, interesting observation, Ann. Forgetting about 2002, and 1998, when the party out of power in the White House actually lost seats, but looking back before that, we see that the GOP picked up 52 seats in 1994. In 1990, Democrats picked up 7 seats. In 1986, Democrats picked up 5 seats. In 1982, Dems picked up 27 seats, in 1978, the GOP picked up 15 seats, in 1974, Dems picked up 49 seats, and in 1970, Dems picked up 12 seats. Now, I'm no mathematician, but if I'm correct, out of the last seven midterm elections, not counting the last two "flukes", the average gain for a party out of power is 23 seats, and if I included the negative outcomes for 1998 and 2002, the total would be lower. But funny enough, Democrats picked up 30 seats this cycle. I can't add, I'm in the SFS after all, but 30 seems bigger than 23 to me, how about you?

But Ann doesn't need to be correct about the facts, she can just make up her own.

Then there's this nugget:

But the point is: You can't run as a phony patriot and then claim your victory is a mandate for surrender.

Well, I googled every one of the new Democrats elected to Congress this year, and not one of their websites had the words "phony patriot" in them. And I googled the Speaker-designates website and she doesn't have the word "surrender" anywhere on there. Funny Ann, you're wrong again.

Then she goes mouthing off on the geriatrics over at the Iraq Study Group. She said that Vernon Jordan got his claim to fame "getting Monica Lewinsky a job at Revlon when she was threatening Bill Clinton with the truth." I don't know, but I think a guy who can find a job for someone in this economy is pretty impressive. But what's more interesting here is that Ann reveals that Monica was "threatening" the President; this new information should alert the Secret Service, and I call on them to begin an immediate investigation into this likely terrorist Monica Lewinsky. We really should waterboard her, since the American people would be 100% behind it.

Oh, Ann, give us more, we yearn for more:

Have things changed on the ground in Iraq? Are our troops being routed? Hardly. The number of U.S. fatalities has gone from a high of 860 deaths in 2004 to 845 in 2005, to 695 through November of this year. If the Islamic fascists double their rate of killing Americans in the next month, there will still be fewer American fatalities in Iraq this year than in the previous two years.

Admittedly, it would be a little easier to track our progress in Iraq if the Pentagon would tell us how many of them we're killing, but apparently our Pentagon is too spooked by the insurgents posing as civilians to mention the deaths of our enemies.

Moreover, it might seem churlish to mention the number of Islamic lunatics we've killed during the holy month of Ramadan. Half the time we do anything to them, it's "the holy month of Ramadan." It's always Ramadan. When on Earth is Ramadan over?

Well, I for one, am glad that 695 Americans have died, because it's less than the year before. I would have been even happier if 844 Americans died this year, because it would have been one less than last year, and that's a victory, especially when you compare it to all those terrorists we're killing over there. I mean, it's about 3,000 a month, and when everyone with half a brain says those are civilians, they're clearly crazy. Those deaths, all Iraqi on Iraqi, are actually American soldiers killing terrorists. The amazing thing is, that General Abizaid says there are only about 10,000 foreign fighters in Iraq total, so my question for Ann is, if these are all terrorists dying, we've completed the mission, right? Let's go home, then.

But I really got to give it to Ann, these Muslims really keep complaining that it's Ramadan, Ramadan, Ramadan. Well, Schmamadan, it's funny that Ramadan has been over for a couple of months now.

But Ann's conclusion tops it off with a call for 6,000 Americans to die necessary deaths in Iraq. Don't believe me:

If absolutely nothing changed in Iraq over the next few years -- if it didn't continue to get better and if the savages never lost heart (I'm assuming they subscribe to "TimesSelect") -- by 2010, 6,000 brave American troops will have died to prevent another 9/11 terrorist attack on American soil for a decade.

If that's a war Americans think we're "losing," Osama bin Laden was right: We are a paper tiger.

Well, great, four more years, 3,000 more deaths, probably another trillion or two spent, our reputation even more in the toilet and down the drain, I'm glad we have Ann rooting for the team. What a patriot that heinous (fill in the blank) is!

And seriously, in the comments, fill in the blank, and be creative!

read more...

You rarely see the name “Hillary Clinton” without the phrase “frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic nomination” surgically attached to it, and for good reason.

Or so it would seem, anyway.

Sen. Clinton certainly makes a good case for a possible presidential run. Supporters (and not a few detractors) point to two main talking points as to why the senator is the prohibitive favorite to win the nom: 1) Name recognition (undeniable) and 2) An insurmountable fundraising advantage (ditto). As if to prove it, Sen. Clinton spent a record $36 million to ensure a “blowout” reelection victory over her Republican opponent in New York. The money helped Sen. Clinton win by over 30 points—and also made the junior senator from New York the biggest campaign spender this cycle. (The #2 spender? Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who spent $24 mil to get his butt handed to him by Bob Casey.)

I want to direct you to a recent New York Times article on the subject. Since Sen. Clinton took office in 2001, she has spent at least 36 million smackaroos on her reelection, which she won with 67%. In contrast, her colleague Chuck Schumer spent less than half that—about $15.5 million—to get reelected in 2004, and won with 71% of the vote, four points more than Hillary did this year. Sen. Clinton also won a smaller percentage of the vote in New York this year than did Gov.-elect Eliot Spitzer, who won 69% in his successful campaign.

Sen. Clinton’s reckless spending has left more than a few Dems a little PO’d. Clinton spent heavily in an effort to win in a blowout that would showcase her nationwide as a candidate who can appeal do independents and Republicans as well as true blue Dems, setting her up for a White House run. But the strategy may have backfired on the good senator.

Netroots bloggers are criticizing Sen. Clinton of “blowing” an appalling $36 million to win what was always a shoo-in campaign, and many longtime supporters and fundraisers are criticizing campaign aides for a “lack of discipline” in spending.

All of this broohaha blows huge holes through the pro-Hillary arguments longtime advisors like James Carville and Mark Penn have been making in private and in the press for the past year and a half. One—that Hillary isn’t as divisive as she is stereotyped, and could win a large segment of moderates and independents—is immediately cast into doubt by the huge amount of money she spent in New York this cycle to create her landslide victory. It was smart strategy; Among other things, her 2006 reelection campaign created a convenient excuse to keep Hillary in New York and out of early primary and caucus states like Iowa and New Hampshire, continuing the aura of mystery that has surrounded Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 intentions for some time. (Don’t worry about her primary prospects too much, though—Bill was out there instead, doing more than a big of glad-handing in Cedar Rapids and Manchester—a worthy surrogate to be sure.) But the result—spending an absurd amount of money that could have been spent in battleground states like Tennessee—may come ‘round later to kick good ol’ Hil in the butt, should she ultimately decide to run.

But the other consequence of Sen. Clinton’s heavy-handed spending habits may be more problematic in the short term. One of Sen. Clinton’s strongest advantages among the field of possible Democratic contenders is her unsurpassed ability to fundraise and tap donor databases worth millions more than any other candidate. But Hil’s spending—which included $27,000 for valet parking and $13,000 worth of flowers—left her with a much-depleted war chest. As of mid-October (the last time her campaign filed a disclosure with the FEC), she had about $14 million CoH, far less than the $20-30 million her advisers predicted she’d have post-election. This puts the esteemed senator in the same ballpark as fellow '08 hopefuls John Kerry ($13.8 million as of 9/30) and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana ($10.6 million).

Whether her 2006 spending will become an issue in the '08 primaries is certainly a big question (it's easy to forget that the Iowa caucuses are actually more than a year away), but it certainly warrants asking the question we've all been thinking anyway: How electable is Hillary Clinton?

read more...

What a day, yesterday! I was myself surprised by the results, which are still forthcoming. Let's take a look state by state.

In Vermont, no surprises, everyone won their respective nominations by large margins, with Independent Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic nomination, even though he plans to renounce it.

In New Hampshire, the only competitive race was for the right to face off against Congressman Jeb Bradley on the Democratic side. Stunningly, Carol Shea-Porter, a anti-war activist, won by an 18-point margin in a surprising upset over Democratic House Minority Leader Jim Craig. With little cash and little political experience, Shea-Porter stands little chance of defeating Bradley, but with her focus on the war, she may be able to focus the state's voters on Iraq, helping GOP Rep. Charlie Bass' opponent, Paul Hodes.

In Rhode Island, Senator Lincoln Chafee held on to his seat after a very strong challenge from ultraconservative Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey. Laffey ran an anti-Washington, anti-establishment campaign that was populist in nature. He ran against taxes, government spending and corruption and for a renewable energy economy (surprisingly). In another year, Laffey may have made the race against Democratic nominee and former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse, but in this Democratic year, the race would have been too easy for Whitehouse. Because of that, I was rooting for Laffey to win the primary on the GOP side, enabling Whitehouse to pick up a Democratic seat in the Senate. Unfortunately, Chafee, being strongly backed by the NRSC, which along with the NRCC has gotten surprisingly involved in a numbe rof primaries this year, was able to pummel Laffey with negative advertising and pull out a strong Independent turnout that supported Chafee. But Chafee is hardly a shoo-in, as polls show Whitehouse ahead by a very small margin. If Whitehouse convinces Rhode Island voters that Chafee's positions on issues don't matter as long as he votes for Republican leadership and Republican committee chairmen and allows radical right-wing Republicans to control the Senate agenda, he will win. If this is a race between the two on issues, Whitehouse may lose because the two don't disagree on all that much. In the race for renomination of pro-life Democratic Congressman Jim Langevin, liberal professor Jennifer Lawless lost by 25 points.

In New York, soon-to-be Governor and Presidential Candidate Eliot Spitzer cruised to a landslide 70-point win over Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton crushed anti-war Jonathan Tasini 83-17. Unfortunately, former HUD Secretary and Governor Mario Cuomo's son, Andrew Cuomo, won the Democratic nomination in New York (I really dislike Cuomo, who I find very pompous, and I really love Mark Green, who lost by a big margin but who is a very upstanding politician). In NY-19, in the race to face off against vulnerable Republican incumbent Sue Kelly, John Hall beat New York Times endorsed Judy Aydelott to face Kelly. The race leans GOP, but Hall has a good shot if there is a strong wave in New York, as there should be with both Clinton and Spitzer winning more than 65% of the vote. In the race to succeed Major Owens in NY-11, Councilwoman Yvette Clarke beat Carl Andrews, David Yassky, and Owens' own son, Chris Owens to succeed Owens.

In Minnesota, things went as expected and Keith Ellison, in MN-05, won the Democratic nomination to replace Rep. Martin Sabo, who is retiring, beating a Sabo aide in the process. Ellison will be the first black congressman ever from Minnesota and the first Muslim-American ever elected to Congress. Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) and Attorney General Mike Hatch (D) each won their respective primaries, as did Amy Klobuchar (D) and Mark Kennedy (R) for the Senate. Pawlenty and Klobuchar are favored in the fall.

In Wisconsin, the only race was the Democratic nomination for retiring GOP Congressman and Gubernatorial candidate Mark Green in WI-08. In the race, wealthy physician Steve Kagen won the nomination over four others. With the ability to self-finance his campaign, this race is a toss-up in the fall when Kagen faces State Assembly Speaker and Republican John Gard.

In Delaware, there are no competitive races for the fall, and the primary winners merely competed for the right to be sacrificial lambs in the fall to Senator Tom Carper (D) and Rep. Mike Castle (R).

In Arizona, the only competitive primaries were in AZ-08, a moderate district currently represented by the only openly gay Republican in Congress, Jim Kolbe, who retired this year. For the Republicans, Randy Graf, a hardline conservative whose anti-immigration views will make it nearly impossible for him to win in this increasingly Hispanic district. Gabrielle Giffords, a former state Senator, is the perfect candidate for Democrats this year, and most analysts now believe AZ-08 to be a lean Dem district with Graf's and Giffords' wins over their opponents.

In Maryland, Congressman Ben Cardin won by a small margin over former Congressman Kweisi Mfume, 44-40, with sixteen others getting the rest. The suprising race of the night was Donna Edwards' suprisingly close second place finish to incumbent Congressman Al Wynn (CD-4). Edwards got 47% of the vote to Al Wynn's 51%, and while there are still more votes to count (Montgomery County had enormous electronic voting machines and provisional ballot problems, thanks Diebold and HAVA), Wynn is favored to hold his nomination. But expect Edwards to run again two years from now and probably win. Wynn's corporate ties and support of the bankruptcy bill and the Iraq War made the black congressman unpopular in this heavily African-American and liberal district. Edwards, also black, is staunchly liberal, and was able to galvanize people over Iraq war anger. In CD-3, Senator Paul Sarbanes' son, Jon, won a multiple candidate race for the nomination to succeed Congressman Ben Cardin. The CD-3 and CD-4 seats are staunchly Democratic, so both Wynn and Sarbanes will be Congressman next year.

Finally, in our home the District of Columbia, Adrian Fenty won the mayoral nomination (tantamount to the general election in DC) by an unsurprisingly large margin. And Vincent Gray was nominated for Council Chair.

read more...

I thought it would be good to take a look at the upcoming landscape for the 2008 Presidential race. I'll update this monthly and hopefully try to keep my personal preferences out of the objective analysis (I love Barack Obama and wish he gets into the race, I am also working for Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana). Here we go:

The Democratic Side

Clearly, Hillary Clinton dominates any analysis of the race, and each candidate in the race will have to work to take her down. In fact, Democratic candidates in this race has a doubly difficult effort -- take down Hillary Clinton and overcome all of the other candidates to look like the best alternative.

Hillary Clinton will start out with enormous advantages (money, establishment support, great staff, a brilliant husband, huge name recognition, rock star status, and a very talented political instinct). She, however, is vulnerable. Hillary's move to the right (actually, I think Senator Clinton has always been more conservative than her critics give her credit for, after all, this woman was a Goldwater girl in 1964, and she was President of the Wellesley College Republicans) will make her extremely vulnerable on the left of the party, among those who are looking for someone who will espouse traditionally liberal Democratic values.

But a candidate coming from the left won't do it alone. Democrats want it all in 2008; they want a Democrat with a spine, someone who will stand up to Republicans, a candidate who can win the general, who inspires, who will be an excellent President, who has experience, and who will leave the Democratic Party in better shape than he/she found it. A candidate who fits this profile will win the nomination.

John Kerry is seriously done with presidential politics. Though he is clearly running for President, he has zero chance of winning as he is registering at about 15% in national primary polls, even though he was our nominee in 2004 and has 100% name recognition. John Kerry, even though he has shown spine with his call for a troop withdrawal by the end of 2006, still cannot shake the flip-flop nature of his political persona.

Tom Daschle, while an exemplary public servant, has no chance of winning the Presidency (he is seriously considering it, as he has made numerous trips to Iowa.

Wesley Clark, a fantastic retired General, does not have the domestic or political credentials necessary to win the nomination.

Russ Feingold, once thought to be the challenge from the left that would give Senator Clinton a run for her money, has appeared recently to be a gadfly in the race. He has recently called for federal gay marriage (a position I wholeheartedly support), a position that will crush him in the general election. Senator Feingold no longer seems serious about being elected President, a sad change of affairs since he is so good at communicating progressive positions. His unelectability will kill him in the nomination fight, though he may gain some netroots support early on that may make him a force in New Hampshire.

This brings us to the serious contenders in the race for President. Many believe that a red state governor is necessary to win the White House, a theory I think is speculative at best. Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Mark Warner, and Evan Bayh all fit this profile. However, many who have heard Tom Vilsack and Bill Richardson speak realize that their ability to communicate to big crowds is inadequate at best. Bill Richardson, a Latino governor of a red state in the Southwest, a swing region, who has enormous foreign policy credentials, would make a formidable Vice-Presidential candidate. Tom Vilsack won't win his home state of Iowa in the primaries, and he will drop out after that.

Mark Warner and Evan Bayh are different. Mark Warner, an extremely popular governor of a red state, has achieved star status in the progressive blogosphere, even though his positions on issues is less than progressive. He is a one-term governor, the only elective office he has ever held, and has no foreign policy experience, and has a very undeveloped understanding of foreign policy. But he is loaded, estimated to be worth $200 million, enough to go head to head with Senator Clinton's estimated fundraising ability.

Evan Bayh has a great story. He was elected five times statewide in a red state, a very red state, that hasn't voted for the Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslides. Bayh has won each election by huge margins and remains immensely popular. He was a popular two-term governor, who has a host of accomplishments to tout, and he has extensive foreign policy experience, being on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees in the Senate. He has a demonstrated fundraising ability; he has $10 million in his bank account now, the thrid highest among Democratic candidates (Kerry has $15 million and Clinton has $20 million). But he has problems, he is a virtual unknown throughout the country and is more likely to get confused with his father, Birch Bayh, who was also an Indiana Senator. He also has very centrist positions on most issues, including abortion, which has angered abortion rights activists. He will need to raise an enormous amount of money, campaign heavily in Iowa and New Hampshire to raise his name recognition, and prove to the left that he is a mainstream Democrat who cares about progressive Democratic values.

Then there is Joe Biden and John Edwards. Joe Biden is a great and brilliant Senator, but he lacks charisma and tends to go on speaking like a professor. He is very smart, understands his crowd extremely well, and can articulate a message better than most Democrats. But he lacks stature. He cannot muster the left or the center, he brings no state to the fold, he lacks executive experience, and he has low name recognition.

John Edwards is a force to be reckoned with. He has very high name i.d. He is a rock star in the Democratic party, registers high in Democratic primary polls, second only to Senator Clinton, is an impressive speaker with a great social justice, pro-labor, anti-poverty message, can raise impressive amounts of money from trial lawyers and labor, and has built up a network in Democratic politics, and has loyal supporters still in Iowa and New Hampshire. He is young and attractive, smart and charismatic, and has already done well in Iowa (he came in second to Kerry with 32% to Kerry's 38% in 2004). If he can raise money, convince Democrats that Senator Clinton is unelectable, and garner the support of the left, he will be a formidable candidate. However, he is a former Senator, and is running from no current office. His relative inexperience may hurt him, and he will need to work overtime to convince the entire party that he is the strongest general election candidate, the strongest liberal, the most courageous partisan, and the best President.

But this all depends on the fortune of Senator Clinton. Many say she is unelectable in the general election. But Senator Clinton is one of the smartest and most talented politicians around. She will no doubt barnstorm through Iowa and New Hampshire and galavanize women, African-Americans, and other Democratic groups. Unless most Demcrats are convinced Senator Clinton is entirely unelectable, not liberal enough, too politically calculating, and would not make a good President.

The only person I can see beating Senator Clinton with little difficulty isn't running. Barack Obama could definitely beat Senator Clinton, yes, but I was actually referring to another Clinton, first name Bill.

Republican nomination outlook coming up tomorrow.

read more...