pageviews
I don't mind people who support Hillary Clinton. I may make some noise about it sometimes, but I can understand why they do. Senator Clinton is a very smart woman, who understands the minute details of public policy better than also anyone. She is a good speaker and can be very charming in person. She is experienced in both domestic and foreign policy, and has been through enough campaigns to know how to win.
But nominating Senator Clinton is a very dangerous message to send to our country.
Our politics has devolved. Instead of nuanced, eloquent, and substantive debate about very complicated matters of public policy, ethics, culture, and law, we reward politicians who can produce the quickest, funniest, and least threatening one-liner.
Instead of respecting and encouraging a dialogue between those with differing opinions, we belittle the other side's ideas, claiming them to be the product of evil, hatred, and greed.
Instead of getting public policy passed as legislation and enacting important programs and policies, we engage in a protracted game of one-upmanship where the goal is winning elections every year. It seems that many in our politics today hope to win a long-awaited Battle Royale which one day, in the distant future, when the other party is extinct, will produce the agenda we seek.
Instead of bringing new people into the process, and inspiring our citizens to break out of their cynicism and work for a politics of producing a better world, we play to the lowest-common-denominator, producing bland proposals that aim to slightly influence a small set of middle-aged, middle income white men in the suburbs of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
This old politics has to come to an end.
But Hillary Clinton, unfortunately, can't do it.
In fact, her advisors are the problem. Take a look at what her top two advisors, Mark Penn and Mandy Grunwald, thought of the massive turnout of young people that Senator Obama brought to the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Dinner last night.
An estimated 9,000 people showed up here at Veterans Memorial Auditorium Saturday night and the Obama campaign claimed that 3,000 of them were Obama supporters.
“The JJ is a place to deliver a message,” Tommy Vietor, Obama’s Iowa spokesman told me, “but it is also a place to show organizing muscle. It shows you can get people to show up at the same place at the same time.”
At least two of Hillary Clinton’s upper-echelon advisers, Mandy Grunwald and Mark Penn, were decidedly unimpressed .
“Our people look like caucus-goers,” Grunwald said, “and his people look like they are 18. Penn said they look like Facebook.”
Penn added, "Only a few of their people look like they could vote in any state."
Mark Penn would be a top advisor to a President Hillary Clinton. If this is the tone and opinion of one of our country's potential top White House staffers, I think we are safer without nominating Senator Clinton.
We must break out of the cycle of cynicism and the stranglehold that the chattering classes of pundits, consultants, and pollsters have on our political discourse. Mark Penn is a continuation of the past. We should not let him extend into the future by voting for his benefactor.
I like Al Gore. He's a nice guy, obviously very intelligent, a good politician, very experienced, and pretty funny. He also made a great movie and was smart enough to be against Iraq from the start, and he probably has more domestic, foreign policy, legislative, and executive experience than anyone currently running for President. Hell, he was even elected President already!
But I just can't get excited about him. Maybe it's because while I certainly believe that we need to seriously protect our environment and invest in renewable energy, the environment and global warming is not among the top issues for me.
But on a more important note, why would anyone want Al Gore to be President, not that he wouldn't be a very good one, but what urge do you have for him to run, say over someone like Gary Hart or Mario Cuomo or any of the older, more experienced, smart, and great old hands of the Democratic party who have been out of it for a while. Why Al Gore?
Seriously, tell me.
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.
Tom Vilsack dropped out of the race for President today.
I was not a fan of Tom Vilsack, he was a good man, and I hear, from my Iowa sources, a good governor. But he was not particularly inspiring, and I never considered lending him my support.
But I do regret his decision to leave the race. Tom Vilsack was the only serious candidate advocating for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and a cutoff of funding for the war by Congress. He was the only one committed to a carbon-neutral campaign for President, and the candidate with probably the most comprehensive understanding of energy policy, his pet policy.
He couldn't continue the race because of money. With more than two-thirds of the state either already moved up or planning to move up their primaries and caucuses to a six week window between January 1st and February 15th, you would need approximately $50 million cash on hand in January 2008 and probably having raised over $100 million by 2008 to be truly competitive for the nomination.
These are absurd amounts of money, and they rise exponentially each cycle, with the money increasingly going into television advertising that has been proven to have less and less effect on fewer and fewer voters each cycle.
This presidential race is a mess. We need to completely reform the way we run campaigns and hold elections in this country, and we need to do it now.
We need to make some new laws that reform our system, but more importantly, we need to have politicans and political professionals change the way they do business. We need to stop using television advertising. We need to spread out the primary calendar, by having both parties agree to a new timeframe. We need to focus more on real debate, about real ideas and policies and stop having useless debates with time limits and rules.
We've lost our politics, and in a lot of ways, the American soul. If good guys like Tom Vilsack can't run for President because they can't raise the money, then we have a problem. McCain-Feingold was a disaster. We need a public financing system that requires candidates to use a limited amount of taxpayer money and reduces the costs of campaigns. If we need to pass a constitutional amendment to do it, then so be it, but we cannot keep doing what we're doing.
Fifty years ago, candidates for Congress could upset long-term incumbents with $50,000 in today's dollars. Now, you need at least $2 million bucks. That's not right.
The internet provides a new, low-cost method for candidates to use to get their message out. Candidates should use it more and rely on it more to promote themselves and use television less, considering that most people, because of TiVo or Cable or just a general tuning out of commercials really won't be affected by TV ads anymore. For God's sake, most people under the age of 30 barely watch actual television anymore, I know that I basically watch all my TV shows on the internet.
And I really hope that the Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden campaigns can mutually agree to raise and spend less than $50 million total over the next year. It's just not a fair fight when Clinton and Obama have $100 million and Edwards has $70 million dollars and Richardson, Biden, and Dodd have only $20 million. That's just not a contest anymore.
Give me your suggestions on how to fix the system.
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!
My favorite Senate race this year will be in Minnesota, where one of my favorite comedians and now politicians, announced today that he will be taking on turncoat Republican Norm Coleman. Coleman used to be a Democrat who switched parties and has turned seriously conservative since he beat Walter Mondale in 2002 after Senator Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash in October 2002.
Wellstone was a great man, who believed passionately in progressive values, and was quite inspirational right up to death. Coleman's tenure in the Senate has been dissimilarly unremarkable, with him taking a back seat to other Republican Senators and voting the White House agenda 90% of the time since he's been in the Senate. This coming from a guy who only took 49.5% of the vote in 2002 after his opponent died and a washed-up former Vice President ran with only two weeks to campaign. Bush lost Minnesota, which has the record of being the longest-standing Democratic state in the nation, by more than five points in 2004. Minnesota hasn't voted for a Republican for President since the 1972 Nixon landslide. Amy Klobuchar cleaned up in 2006, beating GOP poster boy Mark Kennedy by 22 points.
People say Franken can't win, but he is extremely intelligent (he went to Harvard), grew up in Minnesota (something Norm Coleman did not do, he grew up in New York), and will be able to raise boatloads of cash. Franken connects with Minnesotans who have a quirky Midwestern populist streak, and will be formidable.
Watch this video and I think you'll understand why I think that Franken will be the next Senator from Minnesota.
Obama has quit smoking to run for President. Now, there's a man who is in it to win it!
Also, check out this video from Students for Barack Obama's rally for Senator Obama this past Friday at George Mason University. If you look to the far right of the screen, you may see me wearing a brown Georgetown shirt.
Everyone asks me, why do I support Obama? It's a legitimate question to ask. After all, what has he done in the US Senate after only two years to warrant that he would be a great presidential candidate? I could list the list of bills he's sponsored, he's authored, he's passed. I could talk about his speech on faith, his speech at the DNC in 2004, how he has demonstrated tremendous leadership of example in his trips around the world and in the US.
But those aren't the reasons why I support him. In the end, people can make their own judgments about why a Presidential candidate should get their support. But for me, it's quite simple. I want a President who can analyze policy, synthesize complicated solutions, and articulate an argument to the Congress, the media, the American people, and the World about why it should be implemented.
Intelligence is a key ingredient for me in my selection of a Presidential candidate. I don't doubt that John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, or Tom Vilsack are intelligent or competent, they surely are. Some of them may even know more about particular policy issues that Senator Obama.
But Obama is the full package on intelligence. He reads voraciously, and he has very clearly studied great works of philosophy, literature, history, and theology. He understands the Constitution the way that a constitutional scholar would. He talks about foreign policy the way an analyst at the Defense Department would. He understands health care policy the way a hospital administrator would. He can talk about education the way a teacher or a principal can.
Obama said on an episode of Oprah in October that the most important quality that his mother impressed on him was empathy. She told Obama to constantly understand how other people felt, to step in their shoes, to look through their eyes, to understand what they feel, what they think, and why they act the way they do. Obama approaches every issue from that perspective, he understands people in a gut way, the way Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, and Franklin Roosevelt had the power of empathy.
I just finished a long argument with a friend of mine who is a conservative Republican, a Navy ROTC student, and a very smart kid. We talked about the surge in Iraq and what we thought the best solution to the situation would be. We didn't fight, we didn't yell, we talked calmly, and we didn't interrupt each other, something many of you probably thought I couldn't do.
But my friend and me spoke about American interests, about what we thought our nation really needed, about security in Baghdad, about terrorism, about regional catastrophe. We talked about soldiers on Haifa Street in Baghdad and how an Iraqi unit that was embedded with them accidentally fired on the Americans. We talked about cultural norms in Iraq, about increasing CIA personnel, about increasing the number of Arabic linguists in our Baghdad embassy. We discussed troop levels, but more importantly, we talked about command structure and strategic mission.
This was not a conversation I think most presidential candidates would have. Most would get too frustrated early on, give up, and stick to their position, and probably go over to another person who completely agrees with them and talk about how smart they are. They wouldn't argue, they would listen to the other side, they wouldn't challenge themselves to understand that what the other side has to say is legitimate and that we both just see things a little differently, but that when we listen and talk to one another, we may both come a little closer together in what we think.
I didn't walk away from my conversation with my friend agreeing with the idea of a surge, nor did he come away agreeing that we should redeploy to Iraq's perimeter and change our strategy. But we agreed that the President and the Democratic majorities in Congress should get off their asses and read details about what's happening there, that they should talk and agree together on what ideas are best for the situation in Iraq, that the State and Defense departments should get along for once, that we should try different political strategies in the reconciliation process. None of these ideas are certain to work, and we both agreed on that. But what I really got out of that conversation is an understanding of what my conservative friend thought and why he thought it.
He believed that security fundamentally comes first, and I believed that political reconciliation clearly precedes any advancement in security goals. He believed we had an interest in ending the Iraqi civil war, and I believed our interest lay in preventing a regional war. But we walked away from that conversation with a slightly different perspective, not exactly from each other's eyes, but closer than we had understood each other before.
I don't want our next President to dismiss the other point of view. I also don't want our next President to give in to the other side because it is politically expedient. I want our next President to believe in some strong, core principles and then talk to the other side, learn from them, step into their shoes, and come to an agreeable solution that can produce the smartest, most productive policy.
I've read Senator Obama's two books, I've listened to all of his major speeches, I subscribe to his podcast, and I read his bills. I've done the same for all of the other candidates. But what I see differently from Senator Obama and the other candidates is that the other candidates seem to not really agree with what they're saying. It's either written by a political operative, with views that are different from the views of the candidate, or by a policy wonk that seems to overwhelm the understanding that the candidate has about the issue.
When Senator Obama speaks or writes, he knows what he's talking about. He makes sure of it. He hungers for intellectual discourse, and wants to question his own beliefs constantly. He is an intellectual heavyweight. He wants to talk to the other side, he wants to be convinced of the best policy. He knows what his convictions are, but he's not beholden to a particular policy just because people are for it. He wants to go farther, he wants to be better, he wants to challenge the conventional wisdom and the talking points and delve deeper.
What else should we expect from the President of the United States?
You may not agree, you may think that I haven't provided sufficient information about why Obama is all of the things I just talked about. Maybe it is gut instinct, maybe it is real. But what I am sure of is that my gut, my heart, and my brain tell me that the other candidates, while great, are not the whole enchilada. Neither is Senator Obama, but I think he's closer to it than anyone I've seen in politics in my lifetime.
That's what I think, in all honesty and simplicity. Make up your own mind, but consider the standards you have for a candidate and truly evaluate them, and think, just a little bit, about when a crisis with a country arises, or when a Hurricane hits a major American city, how will that react? Will they rise above the politics, grasp the nation by the hand, inspire us, think deeply about what has happened, pursue alternatives, and choose the smartest policy there is, or will they give up and give in?
That is the test. Obama has passed mine.
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?
As some of you may know, today was a new day for the United States of America. For years, what we have seen in our nation is a reduction in our hope, our belief in a better future, our bond with our fellow Americans. What we have seen is a divided America, intolerant, disagreeable, angry, disappointed, and cynical. What we have seen is our loss of what it means to be an American.
It doesn't have to be that way. Senator Obama is a different kind of politician with a different notion of politics. He believes in the common good, that we all have a stake in each other's lives, that we must work to better all of our lives, that we are all in this grand experiment called America together. And whether you came over on slave ships, the Mayflower, the Bering Strait, or a transcontinental airliner, we are all in the same boat now.
Senator Obama's life is exactly why he understands where we as a country must go. He was born to a Kenyan father and a Kansan mother. He grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia. He overcame economic adversity, drugs, the seduction of a life outside the law, and worked to go to college, graduating from Columbia University with a degree in International Relations. He could have gone anywhere after that, graduate school, law school, investment banking. He chose a different path. He became a community organizer, moving to Chicago, committing to a lower income, and working to help the impoverished, the homeless, the uneducated, and the despondent overcome the odds and achieve what is our country's greatest gift, the promise of the American Dream.
Senator Obama has spent ten years in public service, in the Illinois State Senate and now in the United States Senate. He hasn't passed budget supplementals, learned the powers of committee chairmen, or passed major reform. But in the Illinois State Senate, he fought for universal health care, writing a comprehensive bill to implement it in Illinois. He fought to eliminate poverty by cutting taxes, reform the death penalty by fixing our broken system of obtaining confessions, passed a law banning racial profiling, and increasing funds for education.
In the United States Senate, he has opened up the earmark process to full public disclosure, is the sponsor of the broadest ethics reform legislation in the history of the United States, championed a law to remove nuclear weapons from the hands of terrorists, and has sponsored new and innovative strategies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fight global warming. He has traveled to Kenya, inspiring millions to get tested for HIV/AIDS, and demonstrating that even a US Senator can get tested, with no fear of stigma. He has traveled throughout the Middle East and Central Asia and the former Soviet Union, meeting with world leaders.
Senator Obama opposed the war in Iraq, and throughout 2002, he was a leader arguing that an invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq would be disastrous. He was right. Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards, and all the others running for the Democratic nomination for President supported the War in Iraq. They have admirably recanted, but what their decisions demonstrated was a lack of good judgment. Senator Obama had the foresight, the expertise, and the perspective of someone who had lived abroad, worked in local communities, and understood that an ill-conceived war based on fragile justifications was a recipe for the largest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history.
Senator Obama's strength lies in his detachment from the culture wars of the past. Senator Obama, unlike the politicians of the 1980's through today, rejects the idea that Americans are inevitably divided by values. He believes we all share the same core values that America has instilled in us, hard work, honesty, integrity, compassion, and hope. He has worked with both Democrats and Republicans, not to compromise our principles, but to get things done, bridge the divides, and make America a better place. He transcends the divisions, and is exactly the right man to be President at this time. As President, he will unite our country, renew American leadership and moral authority in the world, and reintroduce the American Dream to those who have lost all hope.
A brighter day is ahead of us, and you can join us at Students for Barack Obama or at Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign.
Watch this video.
And this one.
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...
Ciro Rodriguez won a stunning upset victory in TX-23 yesterday even after this horrible ad ran there calling him a terrorist sympathizer. This gives Democrats 233 seats in the House of Representatives, to 202 seats for Republicans. This could still change if there is a new election in FL-13. But the point is that Democrats, with 233 seats, hold a larger majority than Republicans ever held during their twelve-year Republican Revolution. So for those pundits that say that this country is still a center-right, conservative country, just realize that Republicans have not held this large a majority in the House of Representatives since 1952. And by the way, of the Democrats' 30 seat pick up this year, only half were in states that Bush won in 2004. Therefore, even without those Red-state Democrats winning this year, Democrats would have a majority in the House of Representatives.
Karen Carter lost her race against corrupt Democrat William Jefferson in LA-02. This is a setback, but we will run another Democrat against him in 2008, and this time, we'll beat him, if he's not already thrown in jail by then.
Dennis Kucinich announced he's running for President again. I think Dennis Kucinich is kind of a nutjob and obviously far too liberal for this country, and as a passionate, hardcore liberal, that's saying a lot. But I support his getting into the race, not his candidacy, but his voice. With Russ Feingold out of the race, there are actually few, if any liberals, running in the Democratic primary this year. Barack Obama, John Edwards, and John Kerry come closest, but they are not down-the-line liberals, really. Dennis Kucinich adds a voice, for single-payer universal health care, for gay marriage, for ending the war in Iraq immediately, that no other candidate in the primaries will advocate. We are a big tent party, and it's necessary that we have all ideas in our debates this year, especially so the Democrat who actually becomes President (God willing) will have heard liberal ideas.
Barack Obama, my personal favorite in the 2008 race, gave a roaring appearance in New Hampshire this weekend. He was on the front page of all local, and most national newspapers, after a speech that gave an inkling of the kind of campaign he would run if he decides to make a bid for the Presidency. You can watch the speech here. By the way, for all those detractors that say that Obama has no pieces of major legislation with his name to it, even in the minority as a freshman Senator, take a look at this.
I love Christmas almost as much as anyone else. But I can't believe this. Click on the video at the right and watch it and give me some explanations in the comments for what you think the taxpayer money spent on this could have better been spent on and what things the President, his Cabinet secretaries, and his staff could have spent their precious time on more. I'm gonna say the war, but what do I know?
read more...<>
On Tuesday, TX-23 will have the runoff for their congressional race between Democrat and former Congressman Ciro Rodriguez and Republican incumbent Henry Bonilla. This ad by Bonilla is shameless and doesn't even post a newspaper source to verify its claims. It's completely false. Furthermore, it looks like we could win this race. Ciro is only seven points down in the latest poll, which only had 45% of its turnout model as Hispanic. But the district is 62% Hispanic and Ciro wins Latino voters by a margin of 70-30. I think Rodriguez will win in a nail-biter.
This week, Coulter's column (repulsive rant, more like it) is essentially a follow-up to her last column about Muslims and how we should ban them from flying. In it, she supplies us with words of great wisdom like:
After the attacks of 9/11, profiling Muslims is more like profiling the Klan.Perfect sense, right? The Klan is a group entirely composed of lynching racists, who wear underwear on their heads and poke holes in them for their eyes. They all burn crosses, they all try to kill Jews, Catholics, blacks, and so much more. And according to Coulter, Muslims are kinda the same thing, right? I mean, they all clearly want to kill large groups of innocent people, and they wear turbans, right? And they like to burn crosses every now and then. It's funny, though, cause I just went to Kinko's and a nice Arab man named Ahmad didn't try to kill me cause I'm Jewish. He happened to be polite and courteous and was extremely helpful. Shame on me for not tipping the man!
In fact, I happened to go to Quick Pita the other night and the employees were extremely generous to me. Somehow, I didn't get the feeling that they were plotting how to kill large swaths of ethnic groups and burn religious symbols.
But what do I know? I mean, I'm sure than some Klan members don't really hate black people either. There are exceptions to every rule, right? Well, not really.
Coulter should just come out and say it, she hates Muslims. She hates them because they failed to convert to Christianity, a religion so peaceful that its adherents have spent two millenia killing more people in His name than other any religion in history. Crusades, violence during the Reformation, colonialism, do these sound like actions of a perfect religion?
Organized religion is inherently dysfunctional, and bound to get caught up in violence. But this kind of tasteless banter that demonizes all Muslims and calls for their humiliation and constant surveillance under a cloud of persistent suspicion is inhumane.
If I had my way, I would imprison Ann Coulter in the body of a man named Jesus Christ, a man who, simply because of his faith alone, faced nonstop persecution and eventually death. But what am I saying, I shouldn't be expecting a rigid faith from a woman who spends her life writing about how our society is not stingy, greedy, or intolerant enough!
In the column, Coulter mentions the Hadith, or the sayings of the Prophet, as justification of why Islam teaches Muslims to kill Jews:
At Reagan National this week, Rabbis joined the Muslims at the prayer protest -- though one imagines they did not share this prayer from the Hadith: "And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: 'O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'" In fairness, they usually save that one for the high holidays, like the "Festival of the Six Dead Jews" or "Honor Killing Week."What Coulter clearly doesn't understand is that in Islamic law, the Hadith is subservient to the law of the Qur'an, which precedes all else. And the Qur'an clearly states that Jews are a "People of the Book" and that murder of innocents is always a one-way ticket to Hell.
Nor this one, also from the Hadith: "The Prophet said: 'The Hour will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them. The Muslims will kill the Jews. Rejoice! Rejoice in Allah's victory!'" (Is it just me, or might some fanatic twist those words into an excuse to kill Jews?)
But what should you expect from a she-devil like Ann Coulter? I guess a post next week about how Asians should be kept from driving. It wouldn't surprise me. The Queen of the Wrong never does. read more...
Politicians get a lot of flack for their comments. Joe Biden made a joke about Delaware wanting to be part of the South because it used to be a slave state. But do we honestly believe that Joe Biden is advocating for slavery or supports the ideals of the Confederacy?
Trent Lott remarked that he wanted Strom Thurmond to have been President during Thurmond's 100th birthday party in 2002. He said we wouldn't have all these problems we have today if he were president. Thurmond ran on a campaign of segregation, now and forever. But do we really believe, even with Trent Lott's voting record on racial issues, that Lott actually supports continued segregation?
John Kerry made a botched joke and the media had a field day, but no one really believed that John Kerry was degrading our troops.
Howard Dean made plenty of gaffes in his presidential campaign and said in 2005 that the Republican Party is a party of rich, white men. He made a mistake, obviously exaggerating his point about the GOP's seeming lack of diversity.
The point is, we all make mistakes, we all say things we don't mean, we all exaggerate our point, and we all make sarcastic jokes that sometimes fall flat on their face and offend some.
Even Macaca Felix Allen, Jr. needs to be given an apology for the vicious attacks we laid on him for his Macaca comments. Yeah, it was hugely offensive, but do we really believe that George Allen is a raging racist who considers Indian-Americans lesser human beings, it's a real stretch.
We have to be honest; it's fun to attack politicians we disagree with when they say something stupid like this. But if we really want the media to stop being as lazy as they are when it comes to questioning authority on issues of war and peace, we have to stop feeding their appetite for gorging on the mistakes of politicians. Yes, politicians enter public life and must act responsibly, but they're not gods.
We all make mistakes, and when we do, we apologize, our friends forgive, we move on to more important things, and life goes on. Let's take that lesson to the voting booth.
Ok, so I'm gonna update everyone here about Ann Coulter's weekly rants in what she calls her "column," because if we are to fight the right, we have to know how they rant.
So, Ann Coulter's latest shriek is about the absolute stupidity of Muslims believing that boycotting an airline for discriminating against their right to freely worship will do damage to the airline.
Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.What an intriguing notion! If we dispense of airport security, then white guys like Timothy McVeigh and Richard Reid can blow us up, and you know how safe I feel knowing that white guys kill little innocent babies.
Witnesses also said that the imams were talking about Saddam Hussein, and denouncing America and the war in Iraq. About the only scary preflight ritual the imams didn't perform was the signing of last wills and testaments.Wow, what an indictment! Denouncing America and the War in Iraq, that must mean you're a terrorist. I mean, just how many people on Earth criticize this war. I mean, Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska, was calling for a pullout from Iraq yesterday in the Washington Post, and called the President "arrogant." He should pull out a last will and testament, start praising Allah, and set off his C4 on his belt already, that dastardly terrorist who served and bled in Vietnam.
More from Queen Anne:
One of the stunt-imams in US Airways' advertising scheme, Omar Shahin, complained about being removed from the plane, saying: "Six scholars in handcuffs. It's terrible."Thank you, Anne, your enlightening insights into security policy have truly given me a whole new perspective on terrorism and homeland security. I mean, you've convinced me that we should allow torture, set up secret prisons in Eastern Europe to detain people who may have been suspected of stealing bubble gum in 4th grade, round up people who believe in their One, true God, eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, take library records with no legal authority, and start unnecessary wars that screw up the world.
Yes, especially when there was a whole conference of them! Six out of 150 is called "poor law enforcement." How did the other 144 "scholars" get off so easy?
If we do all that, we'll be safe from the terrorists. read more...
We won this election in 2006 because Americans were tired of seeing these pictures. We can't let those voters down. We can't accept this ludicrous idea from the Iraq Study Group or the Joint Chiefs or John McCain that if we just send more troops, we can win this. There is no definition of victory. There is no meaning to the word "win" here. If we continue to send our troops into the middle of this fight, we will only see more bloodshed. The smartest strategy here is to keep this situation contained, but to withdraw largely from the center of it. We can prevent this civil war from becoming an international headache, but we shouldn't spare another American soldier to make the Sunnis and Shia play nice.
In 2008, I'd like us to have a Presidential nominee who had the good sense to judge this war a mistake from the beginning. Being President of the United States is not something anyone can truly prepare for, but having good judgment on this war is a critical prerequisite for me. Senator Obama and Vice President Gore are the only two possible candidates who opposed this war from the beginning. If Senator Obama does not get in (I hope he does, and Gore is a pipedream to get in), I will have to choose who among the remaining candidates has the greatest judgment on this war, but it will not be easy. Senator Obama should get in, because he is the right person with the right judgment to be President of the United States at this time.
Now, here is what Hell on Earth looks like.
What makes us Democrats?
What makes them Republicans?
It's a fascinating question. Some argue that our socialization as children by our parents shapes our partisan affiliation. And certainly, this is part of it. But there are those who buck their parents and those who change party affiliation over their lifetime.
So for those of us who have been Democrats all of our lives and would rather move to China than become Republicans, what makes us fundamentally Democrats?
Yes, we support Democratic policies over Republican ones. And we may even support our candidates more because they're just better people.
We support raising the minimum wage, getting everyone health care, supporting better education, protecting the environment, supporting civil and equal rights, preserving our Constitutional liberties, building alliances and pursuing diplomacy outside our borders. But what joins these ideas? What is our Democratic philosophy that makes us believe in these policies?
I believe that we Democrats believe in two fundamental ideas. The first is the idea of the American Dream. We Democrats believe that at the very core of America lies an idea that if you are a good person, you help others, you work hard, and you play by the rules, it doesn't matter what your race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, age, or disability is, but you too, in this great, meritocratic, tolerant, generous, and forgiving society that is America, can succeed and give your children better than what you had. This fundamental idea is why we Democrats support a better education, health care for all, support immigrants, want to promote tolerance, respect, and diversity, oppose poverty, and want everyone to have a good-paying job.
The second idea in which we fundamentally believe is the Constitution. To us Democrats, we view this document as a sacred scroll, one that provides us with guidance, directs our moral compass, and provides a framework for how we interact with our fellow citizens in society. We take that preamble seriously, and believe in "form[ing] a more perfect union." We believe in that Bill of Rights, that tell us that generally people can say or practice or express whatever they want, unless they are harming someone else, without any interference from the government, and beyond that, with a great deal of respect and healthy discourse from those that oppose your ideas. This constitution, for which we as Democrats dedicate ourselves, charges us with a civic duty to protect the foundational ideas of our country from radical change from any ideology.
And what do the Republicans believe? I believe, and I can't say for sure because I am not a Republican, that they also support two fundamental ideas as well. Those two ideas are the free market and the Bible. Republicans fundamentally believe in the greatness of the free market and the power it possesses, which leads them to mistrust any government intervention in the economy, through taxes, regulations, or spending. But this idea of the free market extends to social life as well, and tells them that diversity, tolerance, and respect must be met by the forces of social supply and demand, and government should not try to promote liberty and tolerance in places where the political and social marketplace won't accept it. When you tie this belief to a fundamental belief in the divinity and infallibility of the Bible, you get a Republican who believes that the word of Adam Smith and God are the will that they must follow. Their mindset is a core adherence to these principles.
Now I am not trying to say that Republicans don't also support the American Dream and the Constitution. They surely do. And Democrats certainly take the free market and the Bible extremely seriously and follow them too. But the priority of Democrats is to follow the Constitution over the Bible in our political lives, and we believe fundamentally that the free market is a means to the American Dream, not the other way around.
What do you guys think?
Following up on yesterday's post, I will now go through each of the 21 Republican seats up in 2008 and how we can target and win in every single one. So here we go!
Wayne Allard is our best pickup opportunity in 2008. Allard has made hints that he will retire after two terms in the Senate. If he does retire, expect either ex-Rep. Bob Beauprez (who just lost a race for governor by double digits) or Reps. Tom Tancredo or Marilyn Musgrave to run for the Republican nomination. Expect all of them to lose as Rep. Mark Udall is already planning to run, regardless of Wayne Allard's plans. Udall's raised over $1 million and will be formidable as Colorado is a blue state rising, with a Democratic governor, both houses of the state legislature, a majority in the Congressional delegation and one Democratic US Senator in Ken Salazar. Plus, Allard has only a 43% approval rating in the state and has only raised $100,000 for his reelection. This should be our Pennsylvania of 2008.
Oklahoma should be a prime pickup opportunity for us as well. Sen. Jim Inhofe is a crazy anti-gay bigot who claimed that never in his family's history had their been a gay member, proudly proclaiming this fact on the Senate floor with a picture of his family in the background. He is unpopular at home, with only a 43% approval rating and only a half a million dollars raised for reelection. If popular Democratic governor Brad Henry runs for this seat, he will easily beat Inhofe, as Henry has a 69% approval rating and just won his reelection with 67% of the vote against Republican congressman Ernest Istook. If Gov. Henry doesn't run, Democrats hold 7 of the other 8 statewide offices in Oklahoma, where Attorney General Drew Edmondson and Superintendent of Public Instruction Sandy Garrett each received over 60% of the vote this year as Democrats. If Democrats run anyone of these three candidates against Inhofe, they'll be elected to the US Senate.
Though many think it will be difficult to defeat Saxby Chambliss in Georgia in 2008, he is not a popular Senator, with only 47% approval. He barely won election in 2002, after he smeared triple amputee ex-Sen. Max Cleland. If Sen. Cleland returned to fight for his old seat, I think he could beat Chambliss, who has raised over $2 million. It clearly will take a lot of money to dislodge him, but it's possible. Democrats hold three statewide offices in Georgia, including Attorney General Thurbert Baker, who won 57% of the vote this year, and Agriculture Commissioner Tommy Irvin, who won 56% of the vote this year, and Labor Commissioner Mike Thurmond, who won 55% of the vote this year. If any of those three run, they could certainly upset Chambliss with a bunch of money, and none of them would have to give up their jobs if they lost.
Jon Cornyn is one of the most sinister Republicans in the US Senate. If we could take him down, we'd have scored a major victory. His approval rating is 47% and he's raised nearly $3 million. If Congressman Lloyd Doggett, a conservative Democrat from Austin, challenges Cornyn, it could be a race, considering that Doggett has raised nearly $2 million. Austin Mayor Will Wynn is a Democrat who has deep pockets and could make a race out of it. Dallas Mayor Laura Miller could also make a run of it, as could Houston Mayor Bill White or El Paso Mayor John Cook or San Antonio Mayor Phil Hardberger. Winning in Texas will never be easy for a Democrat, but running the right campaign and raising enough money, could put Cornyn out of a job.
John Sununu is a very vulnerable Senator. Barely elected in 2002 over ex-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, he is not wildly popular, with only a 50% approval rating. He's only raised $500,000 and New Hampshire is a blue state rising, with Democrats having just taken over the State House and State Senate for the first time since 1911. If you look back to the last time Democrats controlled the Governorship and both Houses of the legislature, you have to go back to 1874. Having also picked up both New Hampshire congressional seats this year, New Hampshire Democrats are poised for a comeback. Considering the state will still play a huge role in the Democratic Presidential primaries in 2008, the Democratic Party here will be very strong. Democratic Gov. John Lynch is wildly popular, with a 74% approval rating, and having just won reelection with the same percentage. I doubt Lynch would be willing to give up the Governorship (New Hampshire Governors run every two years), but if he did, he would cream Sununu. The races for State Senate President and House Speaker in New Hampshire are underway, but whoever the winners are, they should seriously consider taking on Sununu if Lynch decides against a run. A smart and talented in New Hampshire with a lot of money should easily be able to beat Sununu in this blue and getting bluer state.
Lamar Alexander is waiting for a smackdown in Tennessee. With only a 51% approval rating and only $300,000 in the bank, he's not looking great for reelection. If popular Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen decides to run, he will be slightly favored in this race, and would not have to leave the Governorship if he loses. With a 62% approval rating and having just won reelection with 69%, he is very well positioned to beat Alexander. With Democrats controlling the State House and with only a one-seat deficit in the State Senate and half of the TN congressional delegation, there are plenty of candidates to choose from. While Bredesen would have a great time picking up this seat, there are plenty of Democrats who could beat Alexander too.
Norm Coleman is looking extremely vulnerable in a blue state like Minnesota. The only reason he won in 2002 was because Paul Wellstone's funeral was made into a media animal by the GOP. Had Sen. Wellstone lived, he would have easily beat Coleman. But it looks like Al Franken will make a run against Coleman, and if he does, look for him to score an upset and win. If Franken doesn't run, Democrats have a large bench in the state to beat Coleman, who has a 52% approval rating and almost $2 million in the bank. With Democrats now controlling the State Senate and the State House in Minnesota and a majority in the Congressional delegation, any Democratic candidate could have a great shot at picking up this seat. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, Attorney General Lori Swanson, and State Auditor Rebecca Otto could all make great candidates if Franken decides against a run.
Gordon Smith is a Red Senator in a blue state. Oregon has a deep Democratic bench and control of the Governorship, the State Senate and the State House, as well as five of six Congressional seats. Smith's approval rating is 51% and he has raised over $2 million, clearly afraid of a tough challenge. But Congressmen Wu, Blumenauer, DeFazio, and Hooley are all looking at challenging Smith, with Wu having raised the most with over $500,000 in the bank. Smith is very vulnerable and with a good Democratic candidate, he should be beaten.
Lindsay Graham will be very hard to beat in 2008. And it's not because he's so popular, with only a 53% approval rating and a hatred from SC's right, he could face serious primary opposition in 2008. But with over $2 million in the bank and no Democrat in the state who's popular and holds elective office, it seems difficult to consider beating him. The only Democrat to still hold statewide office in SC is Superintendent of Education Jim Rex, who won this year by 200 votes out of over 1 million cast. Unless there are some strong Democrats in SC that I don't know about, we have very little chance of picking this up, unless Inez Tennenbaum wants to come back and make a run of it.
Pat Roberts in Kansas only has a 53% approval rating and has only raised $700,000 in a run for reelection, signaling a possible retirement. If he retires, it looks like Rep. Moran or Tiahrt will run for the Republican nomination, having raised $1.3 million and $800,000 respectively. But either way, it looks like Democrats have a great chance to pick up this seat if popular Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius runs for the seat. With a 62% approval rating and having just won reelection with 58% of the vote, Sebelius looks well positioned to beat Roberts or take the open seat. But Democrats have a deep bench here, with former Republicans switching to the Democratic Party all over the place and taking a huge number of statewide elected offices. State Attorney General and former Republican Paul Morrison, who just won with 58% of the vote or Lieutenant Governor Mark Parkinson (a former Republican too) could also run, without having to give up their jobs, either, if Sebelius decides against a run. But either way, this looks like a prime pickup opportunity, with Republican defections everywhere.
Even though Chuck Hagel has a 55% approval rating, he has only raised $100,000 for reelection and is widely expected to retire, probably to run for President. If he retires, Congressional candidates Scott Kleeb, Jim Esch, and former Lt. Gov. Maxine Moul, who all did surprisingly well in their congressional races this year, all getting over 40% of the vote in this deep red state, could all run. Though they would have to raise quite a lot of money to combat Reps. Terry or Fortenberry, they could have a good shot at picking up this open seat if they can raise a couple of million dollars.
Larry Craig has been rumored to be retiring and very well could be, having only raised $300,000 and facing a primary challenge from the right in the form of Canyon County Commissioner Robert Vasquez. A grueling primary fight could leave Craig bloodied, and an open seat could give us the opportunity to run ID-01 Congressional Candidate Larry Grant, who came very close to beating crazy Republican Bill Sali. Though this is a longshot, and Idaho is a very Republican state, having voted down every Democrat running for statewide office this year, it's worth a shot. I'm sure Idaho Democrats could find someone credible to give Craig or the Republican nominee a run for his money.
Mitch McConnell will be Senate Minority Leader and has a lot of money in the bank, $2.6 million to be exact. With a 53% approval rating, he is beatable, and with a good candidate, he could be beaten. If Congressman Ben Chandler, Attorney General Greg Stumbo, State Treasurer Jonathan Miller, State Auditor Crit Luallen, or State Senator Dan Mongiardo made a run for this seat, they all could have a great chance of winning it. It will be tough, and McConnell's fundraising prowess will make life difficult for a Democrat, but if McConnell makes himself look like an ass as Minority Leader in the next two years, KY Dems could beat him.
Sen. Elizabeth Dole could theoretically retire, after humiliating herself as NRSC chair this year and being very old, but is likely to run for reelection. If she does, term-limited Democratic Governor Mike Easley, with a 57% approval rating, should run against her. Dole's fundraising has been anemic, with only $200,000 in the bank. If Mike Easley can raise a lot of money, he could definitely beat Dole. If Easley decides against a run, ex-Sen. John Edwards could decide to return to the Senate if he loses the Democratic nomination for President. If both decide against a run, North Carolina has a huge bench of Democratic statewide elected officials who could run against Dole, though Easley is the clearest choice. Dole has a 58% approval rating, which is strong, but remember that Chafee had an approval rating in the low sixties two years out from his defeat this past Tuesday.
John Warner is expected to retire in 2008, having raised only $700,000 for reelection. With the strong possibility that popular former Governor Mark Warner will run for the seat, John Warner will probably retire to avoid a brutal defeat. With an open seat, and Reps. Tom Davis or Bob Goodlatte likely to run for the Republican nomination, it looks like the only thing that will change about the Senator from Virginia will be the first name, from John to Mark. John Warner has a 56% approval rating, while Mark Warner left the governorship with an 80% approval rating. Against Warner or Davis or Goodlatte, Mark Warner should have an easy time winning a seat in the United States Senate, and he would be foolish not to run. With huge popularity, a winning campaign apparatus, Virginia's turn to blue status, and deep pockets to pay for a run, Mark Warner should be our best pickup opportunity in 2008.
Jeff Sessions has a 60% approval rating, has $1.5 million in the bank, and is from Alabama. While it seems nearly impossible to beat him, conservative Democratic Congressman Bud Cramer has $1.7 million in the bank and could beat Sessions if he runs a good campaign. Rep. Artur Davis has also announced he plans to run for the Senate, though his $250,000 in the bank doesn't look like enough for a statewide race. If Bud Cramer runs, this will be a prime pickup opportunity in 2008. If he doesn't run, ex-Gov. and newly elected Lt. Gov (returning to another old job) Jim Folsom, Jr. could run a good campaign and beat Sessions too.
In Wyoming, Mike Enzi might retire, which could allow popular Democratic Governor Dave Freudenthal an easy path to the US Senate. With a 61% approval rating, however, Enzi is not unbeatable in a direct matchup against Freudenthal, who has a 71% approval rating. Enzi only has $200,000 in the bank, and if Freudenthal can raise a lot of money, he should be able to make this a prime pickup opportunity. Having just won 70% of the vote in his reelection, Freudenthal would be formidable as a challenger or in an open-seat race. If he doesn't run, Congressional Candidate Gary Trauner, who could theoretically still win the Congressional seat he's down in by less than a thousand votes after a recount, could run. Trauner would have far less of a chance than Freudenthal, who really should run.
Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens (approval of 59%) looks like he's finally ready to retire, frustrated by his lack of progress on ANWR and having raised less than $200,000 for his reelection. Though Alaska has looked good for us two cycles in a row, with little success, this year could be different. Tony Knowles could run for the third cycle in a row, though I don't think he has the stomach for it. Ethan Berkowitz, the State House Minority Leader, or State Rep. Eric Croft, could run. But Alaska doesn't have a great crop of Democrats in office. That being said, if Stevens' retirement creates a bitterly divisive and nasty GOP primary that bloodies the nominee, Democrats could have an opening here.
Susan Collins is very popular, but also pledged only to serve two-terms and it looks like she might retire, having only raised $400,000 for her reelection. If she runs again, she will be hard to beat, having a 69% approval rating, though attacking her for breaking her two-term pledge in a blue state like Maine could signal her defeat. If she decides not to run, it looks like Rep. Tom Allen, who has raised $440,000, could take this seat. Run, Allen, run!
Pete Domenici, who has been in the Senate for six terms, and has only raised $265,000, looks ready to retire. With a 66% approval rating, he'd be hard to beat without Gov. Bill Richardson, who has a 69% approval rating, running against him. But if he retires, a lot of Democrats could pickup this seat, including Richardson, Rep. Tom Udall (Mark's cousin, who has raised almost $800,000, could we have two Udalls in the Senate?), Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, Sec. of State Mary Herrera, State Auditor Hector Balderas, State Treasurer James Lewis, or Attorney General Gary King. If Domenici doesn't retire, and Richardson isn't the VP or the Presidential nominee, he should run for this seat. Otherwise, we could relatively easily pick this up with an open seat.
Finally, Thad Cochran (69% approval) in Mississippi simply can't be beaten unless he retires. And thank God he looks likely to do just that. After five terms in the Senate, Cochran's retirement could allow former Attorney General Mike Moore, current Attorney General Jim Hood, Congressman Gene Taylor, Secretary of State Eric Clark, or State Insurance Commissioner George Dale to take the seat. Cochran has raised only $350,000, and if he retires, it looks like MS will be a great pickup opportunity for us.
So there you go, every seat. If everything goes well in every state, with the best candidate running on our side, and huge retirements on their side, it looks like there's not a single GOP seat up in 2008 that we can't win. But assuming retirements are slim, and we don't get our best candidates, we still look like we can make about 10 Senate races competitive, and hopefully pick up 5. If we can make 15-18 GOP seats competitive in 2008, we could end up with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2009, which would be terrific.
But let's keep in mind that this list has a number of women, Latinos, African-Americans, and Asian Americans as top candidates for office. As Chuck Schumer works to recruit the best candidate in every seat, he should be mindful of increasing these groups' representations in the Senate in 2009. Tell me all what you think, and let's put the pressure on Chuck to challenge every seat in 2008, and challenge them well. Everyone should individually push for their best candidates in each of their own states as well.
