First, if you’re wondering what I as a Hillary supporter think about Hillary’s decision to continue running after yesterday, the answer is I don’t know what I think of it as a strategy. Naturally I would like to believe that she could still somehow prevail. I am not sanguine. People are speculating that she is now running for the VP slot. We’ll see.
But — and this matters more to me — I most definitely admire her for her unswerving commitment to see the process through. Despite the pissing and moaning in the media, and whatever the outcome, I predict that the day will certainly arrive when people will look back with awe and amazement at Hillary’s insistence in going the distance against all odds and wish that they had chosen her. She is indomitable. I like that in a Democrat and so should other Democrats. Alas, many of them are so beguiled by the media myths about Hillary that they just can’t see what a force of nature she really is.
Obama could learn a lot from her and he’d be a better (future) president for it. Instead, I imagine we’ll be stuck with him in his current incarnation — all rhetoric, all the time.
March 27th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Right now the conventional wisdom is that growing party divisions due to the bitter battle between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama seem to suggest the Democratic party’s outlook for regaining the White House is increasingly iffy. But is that accurate?
The Christian Science Monitor says no. In an article, the Boston-based newspaper suggests that although the Democrats are getting battered beating each other up, the party’s long-range prospects are not bleak at all. It first provides the political context, which includes this:
Both Clinton and Obama are taking a hit in their poll numbers. Clinton, fresh from the embarrassing revelation that she had misremembered landing under sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia in 1996, is now viewed positively by only 37 percent of voters, according to the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Obama’s positive rating has held mostly steady – now 49 percent in the same poll – but following the flap over his former pastor, his image as a uniter has declined. A CBS poll shows 52 percent of voters believe Obama would unite the country, down from 67 percent last month.
Perhaps most alarming for the Democratic Party, several polls also show that at least 20 percent of Democrats would vote for Senator McCain in November if their preferred Democrat does not get the nomination. If such a high defection rate were to hold all the way to November, that could hand the election to McCain.
“A lot of this is fallout from this dragging on too long and from open sores that are smarting,” says John Zogby, an independent pollster. “It’s going to be difficult healing these wounds.”
But Staff Writer Linda Feldmann points to a variety of factors that indicate the Democrats as a party are perhaps now being underestimated by the latest media conventional wisdom. She quotes TMV favorite Larry Sabato, one of the most reliable political analysts around:
Of course Democrats are concerned,” says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “They’d love to have a nominee organizing for the fall. And they are concerned about the vicious things being said back and forth.”
Still, he adds, “I’ll bet you a dollar to your dime that the Democrats come back together and unite behind their candidate…. In the end, it’s the big things that matter. People will vote on the economy and the war and their feelings about President Bush and their feelings about the two candidates, period.”
And some of the positive factors for the Democrats are noted:
–The Democrats’ huge fund-raising advantage over the GOP.
–The Democrats’ record turnout during the primaries.
–Democratic registration in Pennsylvania:
The news this week that Democratic voter registration in Pennsylvania has surged to record levels, more than 4 million, compared with Republican registration of 3.2 million also bodes well for the Democrats. Some of those new “Democrats” are reportedly Republicans who plan to vote for Clinton to keep the Democratic nomination race going, but analysts say mischiefmakers are not a large part of the total. The registration numbers out of Pennsylvania “may be the most underrated news of the week,” says independent pollster Del Ali.
–Voter self-identification now works against the GOP:
Nationwide, voter self-identification also shows a major tilt toward the Democrats. According to the Pew Research Center, voters who call themselves Democrats or independents who lean Democratic now outnumber Republicans and Republican leaners by 14 points – 51 percent to 37 percent. That’s up from just a three-point gap four years ago. The wider voter-ID gap is a result of declining identification with the GOP, not a rise in identification with the Democrats.
Put it altogether and there still seem to be built in advantages for the Democrats. The Democrats’ biggest problem continues to be the solid appeal McCain has for many independent voters — even some who don’t agree with him on the war issue.
But the biggest advantage the Democrats will have is the fact that after some 8 years of the Bush administration, the Iraq war, and the decimation of the American economy there will likely be many voters who don’t have blogs or run talk radio shows who’ll decide it is simply time to “throw the bums out” and get a new bunch of bums in to try and fix the problems.
These are the voters who won’t be voting to follow the bidding or Rush Limbaugh or Randi Rhodes or any bloggers but to get some new eyes in the White House, rather than get an administration drawn from the same party that has been in charge for most of the past 8 years.
Perhaps we should call them The Big Broom voters — because their goal will be to sweep the government clean and put a new crew in.
February 28th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Here is another Guest Voice by Joel S. Hirschhorn who is highly critical of both parties.. Guest Voice columns do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.
God Bless Ralph Nader
by Joel S. Hirschhorn
Because he wants to salvage American democracy and help Americans, Ralph Nader is running for president again. He deserves the support of all Americans that see themselves as progressives, dissidents, independents, and patriots who want to remove the stranglehold of the two-party plutocracy on our political system.
When it comes to being an honest, proven and trustworthy change agent, Nader is the gold standard. So why are so many Democrats going ballistic and spewing hate towards Nader?
They are in denial about both Obama and Clinton. Both owe much to the corporate and business world that Nader has waged war against for decades. Like Clinton, Obama has taken huge amounts of money from several business sectors. Both refuse to advocate a single payer universal health care system that Nader champions; this protects the enormously profitable health insurance industry.
They are crazy-glued to their misplaced blame of Nader for the Bush victory in 2000, even though several other indisputable factors also explain Gore’s loss, including his poor campaign that was unable to deliver his home state of Tennessee, the incompetence of the Democratic Party to stop the Supreme Court’s disgraceful action, and the cowardly behavior of the Democratic Party over many decades that kept them from working to replace the Electoral College with the popular vote. And rather than blame Nader for the Iraq war, the Democrats have only themselves to blame, not only for authorizing the war but for many assaults on the Constitution that Bush has gotten away with.
They fear the public becoming more aware of the many policy positions of Obama and Clinton that are downright asinine, in contrast to Nader’s sound positions. For example, Nader is against nuclear power, while Obama has had a very cozy relationship with powerful people in that industry. And Nader wants a carbon pollution tax to combat global warming, that neither Obama nor Clinton favor. And no surprise, Nader makes the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney that Obama and Clinton are too cowardly to embrace. He also straightforwardly supports total public financing of political campaigns – the only way to rid our political system of corrupt forces. Meanwhile, Obama is backing away from his written commitment to using public financing for the general election.
They fear Nader siphoning enough votes away from the Democratic nominee to make McCain president, despite Nader having little campaign money compared to the Democratic nominee. What happened to all that yes-we-can confidence? Read the rest of this entry »
February 24th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Onetime iconic consumer advocate Ralph Nader has announced yet another run for the White House — but past-campaign political hubris plus a loss of a big chunk of his previous voting constituency is unlikely to make him a major factor. Even so: his presence in the race threatens to siphon some votes away from the Democratic Party’s 2008 nominee.
Several factors have converted Nader from a onetime-youthful consumer advocate, idolized on college campuses, to what he is today: the modern Harold Stassen whose philosophy, resentment towards both major parties and apparent love of the national political spotlight probably means he’ll run again until his aging legs can’t carry him. The news reports give you some of the story and his prospects — but not all of it.
Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will “shift the power from the few to the many.”
Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt.
“You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected,” he said. “You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts.”
“In that context, I have decided to run for president,” Nader told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Nader also criticized Republican candidate John McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton for failing to support full Medicare for all or cracking down on Pentagon waste and a “bloated military budget. He blamed that on corporate lobbyists and special interests, which he said dominate Washington, D.C., and pledged in his third-party campaign to accept donations only from individuals.
The AP story also noted that Republican former Gov. Mike Huckabee said that GOPers will welcome Nader into the race, since he draws votes away from Democrats.
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader said on Sunday that he is launching another long shot independent campaign for president of the United States.
Nader, who will turn 74 this week, announced his presidential bid on NBC’s “Meet the Press” saying that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are addressing the problems facing Americans.
Nader also ran for president in 2000 when he got about 2.7 percent of the national vote as the Green Party candidate and played a role in deciding the final presidential outcome. He also ran as an independent in 2004 and got only a tiny fraction of the vote.
Many Democrats blame Nader’s participation in the close race between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George Bush in 2000 for tipping the election in favor of Bush. They believe that but for Nader’s name on the ballot in Florida, Gore would have been the clear winner and president today instead of Bush.
Nader called Washington “corporate occupied territory” that turns the government against the interest of its own people.
The days of a third-party candidate claiming a large share of the American vote — such as the nearly 20 percent that H. Ross Perot won in 1992, playing a role that many Republicans will never forget — may be gone.
Yet, with elections contested on the margins in many states — from Iowa to Wisconsin, and from New Hampshire to Florida in recent years — any active third-party candidacy could have an impact on the Electoral College balance.
And already this year, sizable numbers of people have voiced discontent with the leading candidates — discontent manifested in the campaign of Republican Ron Paul, for instance. So the question looms this year: Might Nader play the spoiler once more?
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that current Democratic party primary front-runner Senator Barack Obama professes not to be concerned:
Barack Obama said today during a visit at the Ohio State University Medical Center that he wasn’t terribly concerned about the prospect of a Nader campaign. “I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference.”
An email to supporters from Nader’s presidential exploratory committee ticked off a list of issues that have been “pulled off the table by the corporatized political machines in this momentous election year,” including defense budget cuts, opposition to nuclear power, and a single-payer national health insurance system.
Obama responded to criticism from Nader, who has suggested that the Democratic hopeful lacks substance, by noting that Nader has reached out to his campaign. “My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies thinks you’re not substantive,” Obama said, before praising Nader as a “heroic” and “singular figure in American politics.
So that gives a clue how Obama — if he wins the Democratic spot — will deal with Nader, respectfully but assertively. It sounds as if Obama won’t ignore the Nader challenge but won’t kowtow to it.
In realistic political terms, three party bids have been losing propositions in American politics because of our winner-take-all system. Third parties have (a) influenced the future policies of a major party, (b) didn’t have much of an impact, or in some close races (c) siphoned votes away from a major political party, often giving victory in some cases giving victory to the party the siphoning party’s voters agreed with the LEAST.
Even though his followers and third party advocates hate to hear it, there is virtually no chance Nader can win. And his influence on the American electoral scene has waned from the days when he was an iconic young crusading lawyer taking on the car manufacturing corporations in his landmark book Unsafe At Any Speed.
I was then a student from Connecticut — his home state. Nader would be often be on the radio, on TV talk shows — he was the epitome of the serious, incorruptible, idealistic young crusader with his devoted “Nader’s Raiders” followers all over the country.
What has happened to him since is sad because he became overexposed politically and weighted-down with hubris — so the most he will gain in 2008 would indeed be siphoning-off Democratic votes if it’s a razor-thin-victory-margin election. He is not an up and coming force — or even as respected as he once was — any longer.
February 17th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
It’s becoming a pilgrimage, of sorts. First, Senator Hillary Clinton visited former Senator and former Presidential wannabe John Edwards — seeking his endorsement and support. And now, in yet another meeting at Edwards’ home, Senator Barack Obama has visited Edwards.
The goal of each campaign: get Edwards’ endorsement and, not parenthetically, his delegates — particularly as the battle between Clinton and Obama goes down to the wire amid predictions that, if one of them doesn’t pull ahead, it could come down to a party-splintering convention where “superdelegates” could make the final decision.
The most intriguing report about the Edwards-Obama visit comes via ABC’s Political Radar …particularly the last line of it, which will have pundits trying to read the political tea leaves:
ABC News’ David Wright and Sunlen Miller Report: Mother Nature may have called a cease-fire in the snows of Wisconsin, but Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., appears to have put the time to good use.
A helicopter cameraman for ABC’s Raleigh-Durham affiliate WTVD spotted Obama leaving former rival John Edwards’ house on the North Carolina.
Such secrecy. (Who does Obama think he is? Tom Cruise?) MORE:
Clinton met with Edwards on Feb. 7.
Obama speaks with Edwards over the phone regularly. On Wednesday at a campaign event in Racine, Wis., Obama said, “He is going to be a major voice in the Democratic party for years to come, and I want him involved and partnering with me in moving this country forward.”
But much had happened in terms of political junkie stories before that:
–A story came out saying Edwards was seriously considering endorsing Clinton, because he didn’t think Obama was tough enough to do what it took to change some aspects about America.
–Other stories said Edwards had decided to remain neutral like former Vice President Al Gore.
And now?
The weather helped the meeting take place this time, as Obama’s event in Appleton, Wis., was cancelled because of snowy conditions. Obama, who had spent the night at home in nearby Chicago, took advantage of the unexpectant gap in his schedule and flew down to Raleigh early afternoon. Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth, was present for the meeting.
Apparently, Obama and Edwards hugged at the conclusion of the meeting.
So what does that mean? To play the speculation game:
–He is going to endorse Obama in the end.
–He isn’t going to endorse Obama, but respects him and wishes him well
–He’s going to remain neutral but had a good session with him.
What would an endorsement mean? Firstly, if the timing came soon, it could influence the remaining primaries.
Endorsing Clinton would signal Edwards is in-effect saying “Whoa. Wait a minute. I don’t care what Ted Kennedy says, this dude isn’t really ready for prime time. We need someone who has more experience and is tougher.” Endorsing Obama would likely carry a lot of weight right now, it’d be a signal of yet another prominent Democrat who feels Obama is tough enough to bring about some changes but also can combine that with political skills so that he could bring about substantive change without polarizing the country.
And if Edwards stays neutral?
It would signal that Edwards, seeing how close the race is, is keeping his options open so he can be the Kingmaker/Queenmaker at the Democratic convention (on the other hand, a Clinton adviser says nothing really matters since Mrs. Clinton will win all the superdelegates in the end and be nominated, no matter what happens in future primaries).
Here is a cross section of other weblogs indulging in some tea-leaf reading and reaction:
An endorsement from Edwards could be very beneficial to either the Obama or Clinton campaigns, which are in a virtual dead heat at this point. Clinton has moved on in her campaign from Wisconsin to Texas in an attempt to rally her support there.
They hugged as Obama left John Edwards’ home after their sit-down today. Elizabeth was at the meeting too.
More tea-leaf reading anyone? Will Edwards wait until after March 4 and Ohio and Texas to announce his endorsement or will he give a much needed boost to Obama in those states? Or, could he be considering endorsing Hillary?
I wrote before that I think Edwards has waited too long to announce an endorsement for it to really sway anyone. But Obama and Clinton clearly disagree, so what do I know? It occurs to me that Obama is also on the lookout for a running mate and Edwards may help bring some of the southern states which in Obama vs. McCain matchups seem to be going overwhelmingly to McCain. People are talking about a Republican Southern Sweep. That’s got to have Obama worried.
CNN: Elizabeth Edwards was also in the meeting. Obama campaign said it was about the campaign and the issues that are facing America. Edwards looking for two things: who will be most effective in carrying on his message RE: fighting poverty; which of these candidates is most electable? He wants to make sure that whoever he backs can beat a Republican. Notes that Edwards has not committed to endorsing anyone at all — wanted to keep out of the endorsement business for a long time. Notes that an endorsement from today would make a lot of impact in Wisconsin. Notes that it was planned in advance, not a detour due to the weather (so I was wrong?). Planned in advance to essentially talk about an Edwards endorsement. Notes that endorsement will likely carry either candidate over the top in Ohio.
Note that Elizabeth Edwards was reportedly lobbying her husband in favor of Sen. Obama, per a CNN report which the family later denied.
John Edwards is still very popular here in Wisconsin–he lost narrowly to Kerry here even after Sen. Kerry had built up momentum. (I’ll always remember being on the stage in Middleton, chatting with Kerry’s siblings and meeting Sen. Max Cleland ,while we waited for the results to be final in 2004.) The day before our Feb. 19th primary would be the perfect time for an endorsement of Sen. Obama.
Barack Obama avoided a snowbound Wisconsin today and flew to North Carolina for a visit with John Edwards. The reasons for this meeting are probably obvious. Edwards has had a lot of attention lately, particularly from Hillary Clinton. This quiet meeting may turn out to have been more definitive as Obama edges ahead of Clinton in the primaries. But no one’s talking right now.
What’s the ground look like in California right now for the primary candidates? For one thing, it’s a pretty blue state, even if we’re talking about Michael Bloomberg. From the California Progress Report:
In a dizzying week of polls on all subjects near and dear to our state’s voters, today’s offering from the California Field Poll showing that only one in four California registered voters would even consider voting for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg if he were to run for President sends a clear message.
62% of the voters in the largest state in the nation, according to Field, say they “would definitely not support him.” [Emphasis added] This includes 68% of Democrats and 66% of Republicans and even a slight plurality of “non-partisan/others) would not countenance the thought.
…
When asked if a Bloomberg independent candidacy would be a good thing or bad thing, California’s registered voters are perhaps a bit more charitable, but Read the rest of this entry »
Many analysts have expected Ohio to matter in the Republican nominating contest, but most assumed the Democratic primaries would wrap up before Ohio. That’s because more than 20 states, from New York to California, will hold primaries on Feb. 5, known as Super Tuesday, when 1,678 Democratic delegates will be won.
It was assumed that either Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards would pull ahead in the early races and keep the lead on Feb. 5, compiling the necessary number of delegates by then 2,025 to secure their party’s nomination.
But with the Democratic race heading to South Carolina Saturday, it is still neck-and-neck.
Matters are complicated by the crazy-quilt method many states use to award delegates, assigning some in a manner proportionate to how each candidate finishes in each congressional district. Even losers can win some delegates. Read the rest of this entry »
December 24th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
For months former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s campaign for the 2008 Presidential nomination has been atop of the GOP front runner polls but now some stumbles and sagging poll numbers raise the question: is Rudy Giuliani’s campaign a campaign with “legs”?
“Legs” is the Hollywood term that has a few meanings but the basic one is that it means a movie that debuts will continue to make strong grosses due to word of mouth and repeated viewings.
In Giuliani’s case, a series of poor early decisions, bad publicity and perhaps rolling out his 911 message so soon and using it so often that it became a comedian’s punchline have removed him as clear front runner at the worst possible time. Do we see a bit of bad political advice and overexposure here?
Rudolph W. Giuliani has entered a turbulent period in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, marked by what his aides acknowledge are missteps, sharp shifts in strategy and evidence that reports about his personal life have hurt his national standing.
Sharp shifts in strategy are particularly perilous in primary campaigns, when candidates’ constituencies are party activists who are seeking above all someone who they can trust to do what they say.
A $3 million investment in radio and television advertising in New Hampshire, a belated effort to become competitive in this state, is now viewed by the campaign as a largely wasted expenditure.
A Boston Globe poll published Sunday found that support for Mr. Giuliani had dropped in New Hampshire over the past month, even before any fallout from the decision on Wednesday by an ailing Mr. Giuliani to have his campaign plane turn around and take him back to St. Louis, where he spent the night in the hospital.
Some of Mr. Giuliani’s advisers are frustrated at the extent to which his decision not to compete aggressively in Iowa has pushed him to the side of the stage at a moment when the political world’s attention is focused on the caucuses there that will kick off the election season in less than two weeks.
Will a Republican presidential victory in 2008 do permanent damage to America’s ties to Europe? According to this op-ed article from Financial Times Deutschland columnist Thomas Klau, ‘A Democratic President or a woman President would be seen as a symbol of change. But if a Republican wins the U.S. election of 2008, the long-term Atlantic rift will be insurmountable.’
By Thomas Klau
Translated by Julian Jacob
December 13, 2007
Germany - Financial Times Deutschland - Original Article (German)
A Democratic President or a woman President would be seen as a symbol of change. But if a Republican wins the U.S. election of 2008, the long-term Atlantic rift will be insurmountable.
In their annual report on global security last week, the U.S. intelligence services averted the threat of air strikes on Iran - for now. So we non-Americans can now breathe a sigh of relief and focus on the drama that residents of the global village are offered every four years.
In three weeks, the citizens of Iowa will signal the opening shot of a U.S. presidential election year that could make cultural history. With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the Democrats have fielded two candidates that stand for much more than just new policies at the White House.
There is currently a fashion among political analysts to warn of excessive expectations on this side of the Atlantic, and to recall that even a Democratic President could disappoint hopes for a Europeanized-U.S. policy. Of course, American policy is rooted in a continuum.
But those who look only at roots easily miss the forest. A President Hillary Clinton - and even more so - a President Barack Obama, would be perceived beyond U.S. borders as a new beginning with which Americans could reconnect to the progressive momentum of earlier decades. That alone would have an impact on whoever holds the office.
Some experts say that after the debacle of the Bush years, a period of introspection lies ahead – especially if a Democrat replaces Bush. But the comments and inclinations of the party’s most prominent candidates are in a different language.
SAVIOURS OF AMERICAN PRESTIGE
Hillary Clinton has a burning interest in foreign policy, and Barack Obama sees the world from the perspective of his youth in Indonesia and Hawaii - which is less nationally-influenced than other American politicians. Anyone who listens to them comes to the conclusion that besides taking active leadership of America, both would seek a more active role in the world, for example in formulating a new global climate protection policy. Actively working to restore America’s global prestige and U.S. leadership in general is a central theme in the election campaigns of both politicians. They can count on the support of a large portion of their electorate, as polls among Democratic supporters consistently show.
But it’s not impossible that in three weeks, Iowan voters will bury the hopes of Clinton and Obama under a crushing pre-election defeat. Competing with the two media stars is the third Democratic favorite, John Edwards, who appears to many of his supporters as the only safe choice. The doubt that Americans will actually elect a woman or an African-American as their 44th President remains a factor in the electoral calculus. One must assume that when in doubt, Republicans will try anything to awaken resentment in the White men of the American republic - against the reign of a woman or the son of an African.
America knows that 2008 will test and set new limits on its own capacity for social change. But Americans may not realize that this election also tests future relations with Europe. In the debates and their explanations of intent, Democrats find Europeans more worthy of confidence and even cross party lines to show it; while the discussions of Republicans - with their dual focus on religion and the threat of terrorism - act to contrast them, making them seem like strangers with whom one is no longer related.
I wrote here about a blood and bone marrow transplant screening drive held in the facilities of the congregation I now serve as pastor, Saint Matthew Lutheran Church in Logan, Ohio. Members of Saint Matthew spearheaded the event. Its members and neighbors here in Logan, touched by the illness of a young woman from Saint Matthew, responded with an impressive love of neighbor.
One thing I neglected to mention in that original post is that two community groups had a major hand in the event: the county Democratic and Republican parties, who provided a good deal of the refreshments and foods.
I loved this because it demonstrates a simple truth about America that gets lost in the sludge emitted by political professionals in Washington and by a vast, undiscerning cadre of journalists and bloggers. That truth is that while Americans may have their political preferences, they still can and do live together, work together, and respect one another. They’re grown-ups.
This truth was underscored for me when I read David Broder’s latest column, one that looks at the findings of widely-respected (and admittedly Democratic) pollster Peter Hart and at a book by former Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein.
Broder reports Hart’s finding that three words describe the mood of the US public as we approach making decisions in the 2008 presidential election. The words? Transparency, authenticity and unity.
Transparency, as explained to Broder by Hart, entails “honesty, openness, forthrightness in expressing views and clarity about the sources of the candidate’s support, I said that sounded right.”
That, I suppose, is something Americans have always expected of their leaders. Or, in more naive times perhaps, thought that they enjoyed it.
But authenticity and unity, which from my interactions with people I believe are major yearnings. They seem to especially flow from the public’s survey of today’s sorry political life.
Americans are tired of being played by partisan hucksters who chant proscribed ideological mantras to rile their bases and then hope to win just enough of those nonpartisan voters who haven’t given up on the political process altogether to win in November.
Then, when these people get elected, instead of thinking, instead of working together, instead of GOVERNING, they carpet bomb each other with bromides and cliches all designed to gain advantage for the next election.
The politician who doesn’t employ political strategy rarely gets elected and is even less likely to be re-elected. I get that. I even respect it. But can you imagine Washington or Lincoln accepting stalemate and policy paralysis as an ongoing feature of American life? Or, for that matter, lesser figures like John Tyler or Millard Fillmore?
This is no way to run a country. No matter what the partisan bloggers and their acolytes say, Americans don’t want partisan robots in the White House or the halls of Congress. Nor do they want actors so tied to their talking points that they’re incapable of governing.
That’s why the yearning for unity may be the most important of the three little words uses to identify what Americans are looking for as we head for the 2008 election.
Writes Broder:
The hankering for unity is…palpable and reflects the conspicuous absence of agreement — and excess of partisanship — in the contemporary political scene. I have been saying for months that voters care less whether the next president will be a Democrat or a Republican than that the person moving into the Oval Office be someone who can pull the country together to face its challenges.
For most of the past few months, I’ve felt that the 2008 presidential race was the Democrats’ to lose. Frustration with the war and increasingly alarming news about the economy appear to give the Democrats a built-in advantage for next year.
I still think that’s the case. And Democrats, as indicated by campaign contributions, turnouts for candidates’ rallies, and various polls, are more excited about the upcoming election, not to mention more satisfied with their field of candidates.
But there are also signs of disaffection with the way the current, unnecessarily long campaign is unfolding. In both parties. Especially in the early states in which candidates are pouring most of their attention and energy. Recent polls in Iowa, for example, show that Senator Barack Obama is tied with or is surpassing Senator Hillary Clinton. In that same state, former Arkansas governor is within shouting distance of the longtime frontrunner there, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
What do Clinton and Romney have in common? They each strike many voters as flip-floppers too clever by half, as careful parsers of verbiage designed to rile their parties’ bases. In short, they’re difficult to see as transparent or authentic. And, given their deeply partisan and shallow rhetoric, is it easy to see how they intend to work with others.
Obama and Huckabee, in contrast, although obviously both committed to some core principles, also seem willing to look beyond the political cliches and work with others. Obama speaks eloquently about the need for compromise and cooperation. Huckabee describes himself as someone who’s conservative, “just not mad at anybody.”
Whether or not Obama or Huckabee are authentic or they can overcome the enormous money advantages enjoyed by Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani is anybody’s guess.
But that increasing numbers of Americans are alienated from the political process, as evidenced by their failure to vote, or that they want political leaders who cooperate, even when they disagree, is undeniable.
They want an end to what Broder calls, “a dysfunctional political environment that has poisoned relationships between the executive and legislative branches and made this session of Congress notably acrimonious and unproductive.”
Americans want their leaders to be as grown up as the Republican and Democratic parties in Hocking County, Ohio.
November 15th, 2007 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
Look, she’s on CNN tonight in the debates.
What do you call it when a person talks about how strongly they’ve made things work legislatively, despite obstacles that men have put in their way? Wouldn’t that be the Gender card?
What do you call it, when a person complains when media comments on their age, face, hairdo, manner of dress? Gender card, no?
What do you call it when a person gives extra thought to dressing in a way that is careful and thought out, sort of in the Goldilocks mode, not too soft, not too cold, but somehow ‘just right’ according to some formula kept in a safety deposit box at Fort Knox? This seems like Gender card being played.
What do you call it when a person carefully crosses their legs when seated and makes much of rearranging the folds of their clothes so nothing that shouldn’t be seen, isn’t? Seems like Gender card, doesn’t it?
What do you call it when a person puts their fingers delicately to their lips while they’re listening to other debaters? Gender card, right?
What do you call it when a person bats their eyes? Gender card?
What do you call it when a person is interrupted in the debate and smiling sweetly, they say some version of, ‘Come on you guys, I’m speaking.’ Definitely Gender card.
If these are playing the Gender card, then someone ought to tell all the male candidates to just quit it already. We’ve had enough of men playing the Gender card. Honestly. 200 years of men playing the Gender card. Geez. It’s SO over.
CODA
I know, I know, my try at comedy might not be ready for prime time? In my other life I just wanted to make people laugh. I hope you are. At least a little. And if you watch the debates, the batting of eyelids by all candidates goes on fairly consistently. It’s one of the body’s cues, actually, that a person is thinking and formulating. So, batting those baby blues, browns or greens, is actually a sign of lights on, yes, someone really is home in there.
November 6th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Dracula has risen from the grave.
Just when you think Dracula is dead, he rises again. He rises to prey, suddenly on the unsuspecting and unprepared — and suck their blood.
Now, just when Californians thought a widely-condemned and widely-characterized-as-partisan attempt to make California a special place where the usual rules of winner-take-all electoral college Presidential tallies would not apply was dead….it has arisen again.
With new fat-cat (Republican) financiers.
Its aim: to scuttle the winner-take-all electoral college vote distribution in California. Or, some believe, to suck the Democrats into battling it when it’s on the ballot as an initiative and to suck their financial resources so there will be fewer big bucks left for the general election, even if the initiative is beaten back.
Democratic Party activists responded with renewed concern Monday to the news that reports of the death of a GOP initiative to divide California’s electoral votes had been greatly exaggerated, and that a new round of financing from wealthy Republicans had resurrected the proposal.
The Republican proposal would alter the method of apportioning California’s 55 electoral votes, moving from a winner-take-all system based on the popular vote to one that awards one vote for each congressional district a candidate wins.
Such a plan would alter the political geography of the current presidential contest, shifting as many as 20 consistently Democratic electoral votes from safe Republican districts into the GOP column.
Party leaders in Washington and Sacramento moved quickly to launch a revived push to kill the initiative once and for all, setting up a new effort to challenge the legitimacy of the signatures being gathered to qualify the measure for the California ballot.
Opponents are also simultaneously laying the groundwork for an eventual legal fight over the constitutionality of the proposal.
The aggressive push back from Democrats reflects the deep concern throughout the party about the consequences of the California ballot initiative.
“I think Democrats should plan for the worst and hope for the best,” said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist spearheading the opposition to the GOP plan. “I don’t think Democrats can ever breathe easy in this campaign.”
Republican donors have given about $540,000 to help qualify a ballot measure that could give the 2008 GOP presidential candidate a bounty of electoral votes from California.
The group needs to gather about 650,000 valid signatures by the end of the month to qualify the measure for the June ballot. That effort will take at least $2 million, according to David Gilliard, who is managing the campaign.
Gilliard said the campaign has less because it has been raising money for just 10 days.
“A lot of the people on there are capable of contributing quite a bit more,” he said. “They’re also the types that are able to attract others.”
Darrell Issa, a wealthy Republican congressman from the San Diego area, gave $50,000, according to the fundraising report filed Tuesday with the secretary of state’s office.
Floyd Kvamme, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who is supporting Rudy Giuliani for president, also gave $50,000. Jerrold Perenchio, the former head of Univision, gave the same amount.
Currently, California gives all 55 of its Electoral College votes to the statewide winner in the presidential race.
The proposal would change that so the statewide winner received two electoral votes and the rest were apportioned to the winner of each of the state’s 53 congressional districts.
So far there is no word about whether these Republicans (and Republicans elsewhere in the country) are going to clamor for the same rule to ALSO be put into place in states such as:
The strong, civic desire to give voters a fair shake seems to be curiously restricted only to California (which coincidentally usually votes Democratic and has a lot of electoral votes) with big chunks of money for the initiative coming from (coincidentally) Republicans, including a Giuliani supporter (again, probably just happenstance).
Read our previous posts on this issue HERE
and HERE.
For more than 30 years, professor and political scientist Larry Sabato has been examining the workings of the U.S. Constitution - in the classroom, in the court room, on the campaign trail, and at the ballot box. He talks with Diane about why the Constitution is in need of updating and offers 23 specific proposals to end the political dysfunction in America today.
Larry Sabato, founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia and author of some 20 books.
You know him best through Sabato’s Crystal Ball…. and, speaking of the Crystal Ball, there’s a new installment today:
In his new book A More Perfect Constitution (Walker & Company, 2007) Larry Sabato, the founder and director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics lays out a series of twenty-three proposals for constitutional revision. These amendments would, he argues, bring the Constitution into the twenty-first century by making the structures of our government more fair, more representative, and more effective.
Most of us are instinctively leery of major structural changes to the Constitution, and with good reason - it’s lasted for more than two centuries, and has served the United States well. At first glance, some if not many of Sabato’s proposals seem unnecessary, unpalatable, or both. But after reading his justifications for them, I was convinced by both the desirability and the necessity of nearly all of them.
Since Sabato’s stated purpose with his book is to promote a great debate over these ideas, and to prompt what he terms a “generational process of moderate, well-considered change,” I’d like to begin a discussion here of his proposals by outlining them in brief and adding my own views as they currently stand (I will admit that some of them changed just in the course of reading this book). I will attempt as much as possible to keep Sabato’s proposals separate from my own opinions so as not to influence others’ perceptions of his ideas, but I do encourage everyone interested in this discussion to read his book, where he makes his case in much greater and persuasive detail.
It would not be surprising if the most important single primary in 2008 takes place in California. But don’t look for it to be the presidential primary on Super-Duper Tuesday Feb. 5. Look instead to the state primary on June 3, up to now a low-profile event that could become fraught with significance if some California Republicans succeed in getting a highly controversial proposition on the ballot.
If successful, it would ensure the party’s nominee 20 or so electoral votes from California next fall, even if the GOP candidate loses the state for the fifth straight election. And if the 2008 election is as close as the last two been have been, that could be enough to keep the White House in Republican hands.
The political weapon of choice for the GOP is a plan that would distribute electoral votes to congressional district winners (one per district, plus two to the statewide winner of the popular vote) instead of the winner-take-all format that nearly every state currently favors. The plan was submitted as a ballot proposal to California election officials in July by a law firm that has represented the state Republican Party.
The district plan has been employed for years by two small states, Maine and Nebraska, with results consistently the same as winner-take-all. But if the plan were applied in California in 2004, the state’s electoral vote would have shifted dramatically–from 55-to-0 for Democrat John Kerry (a 10 percentage point winner in the state’s popular vote) to 33-to-22 Kerry, with Bush taking one electoral vote for each of the 22 congressional districts that he carried.
In one swoop, Bush would have won more electoral votes in California than he did in capturing the highly-priced battleground state of Ohio (worth 20 electors).
And in one instant, the nationwide electoral vote tally would have shifted in Bush’s favor from 286-to-251 (with one “faithless” Democratic elector in Minnesota) to a more commanding 317-to-221. The district plan would have transformed Bush’s narrow Electoral College victory–where Kerry could have won the election by taking Ohio–into a decisive triumph.
If applied nationally over the last generation, the district plan would have reversed the outcome of the 1960 election, electing Richard Nixon rather than John F. Kennedy, would have produced a 269-to-269 electoral vote tie between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford in 1976, and would have consistently tightened the Electoral College outcomes in every presidential election from 1960 to the end of the 20th century–with the winning candidate losing electoral votes and the losing candidate gaining some each time.
However, in both 2000 and 2004, the district plan would have actually expanded George W. Bush’s electoral vote margins–from a razor-thin five in 2000 to 38, and from 35 in 2004 to 96.
September 28th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
So who was behind the GOP effort that recently collapsed to pass an initiative that would make California’s votes be distributed via proportional representation rather than the more traditional winner-take-all method?
A close friend and major fundraiser of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has identified himself as the mystery financer of the proposed California initiative to apportion the state’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district instead of winner-take-all.
He is New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. He said he provided the $175,000 to initially finance the petition drive to get the measure on the June 2008 ballot. But as The Times’ Dan Morain revealed in an exclusive story on this website last night, the drive has foundered on internal disputes and lack of further financing.
Here in California, expect this to be a story with “legs.” And it will not be something that will look good for Giuliani or the Republicans because it seemingly underscores what Democrats and those critical of the plan have said from the outset: this did not seem to be a plan to make for more effective government, but to bring to power one party in government by instituting this only in California — not demanding it in states such as Ohio, Florida, Texas and others. MORE:
The petition drive’s backers had remained a mystery since the effort was first revealed here in a July Top of the Ticket item. Democratic critics portrayed it as a power grab to wrest away some of the state’s electoral votes, which have all gone to the Democratic candidates for the past four presidential elections. Some 19 of the state’s 53 congressional districts would seem likely to vote for a GOP presidential candidate, enough to swing some recent national elections.
The Giuliani response is predictable:
A Giuliani campaign spokeswoman, Maria Comella, said today that Singer’s donation “was completely independent from our campaign.”
That kind of explanation will not be accepted at face value by many voters, unless they believe furry bunnies hide painted eggs in their houses on Easter Sunday. These are the days of government credibility gaps. There have been too many stories in the past decades of dirty tricks and the use of the phrase “plausible deniability” in news stories and in popular culture, such as films.
Singer oversees Elliott Associates, an $8 billion investment fund. He is also chairman of Giuliani’s northeast fundraising operation that produced a third of the New Yorker’s $33.5 million campaign war chest in the first six months of 2007. Singer and his employees have donated at least $182,000 to the Giuliani campaign so far this year.
“I made the contribution without any restrictions,” Singer’s statement said. Some Democrats have threatened legal action, complaining that federal campaign finance laws were violated if the Giuliani campaign was involved.
Tonight, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, issued a statement demanding to know “the truth about Rudy’s involvement in and knowledge about this shameful effort to disenfranchise voters.”
The problem for Giuliani: it won’t just be Howard Dean and the DNC that will be pressing this. But the L.A. Times now has a red hot, story that it broke and developed. Other outlets will want to do their own or find new twists. And Times editors will legitimately ask their reporters if there is more to learn — and see if they can track down how this idea came about, whose idea it was, and who signed-off on it.
The only certainty: it was not an initiative brought about by high-minded citizens who sought more effective elections for California.
See our earlier post HERE which also notes that Democrats also sought this unsuccessfully in one state (but didn’t try to do it in Massachusetts, New York or New Jersey).
The Chronicle reported earlier this week that Missouri-based attorney Charles Hurtt III was the legal agent for a tax-exempt corporation called “Take Initiative America,” which provided the sole donation - $175,000 - into the effort to qualify the measure for the California ballot.
But Hurtt and his organization would not reveal the source of their money - even as Democrats in California threatened legal action and charged the GOP-backed effort smacked of money laundering. They suggested there were numerous links between the ballot effort and the Giuliani campaign, and challenged the former New York mayor’s campaign aides to reveal where the money originated.
Giuliani spokesman Jarrod Agen told the Chronicle earlier this week “we are absolutely not involved in that effort. We’ll play by whatever the rules that Californians decide are in their best interest.”
The Presidential Election Reform Act would have changed the winner-take-all election rules for the 55 electoral votes in Democratic-leaning California. It would have required the electoral votes to be distributed based on the popular vote winner in each individual congressional district. Many political observers said that would likely have provided an unexpected windfall for Republicans - perhaps as many electoral votes as could be gained in a major state such as Ohio or Pennsylvania - and possibly changed the outcome of the 2008 presidential election.
PREDICTION: This story will NOT play well with Californians for the GOP or Giuliani and will not advance the state Republican Party’s chances during Election Day. And, as noted, it will NOT play well with independent voters and make Giuliani and the Republicans more endearing to them. Just watch upcoming polls.
September 4th, 2007 by DAVID SCHRAUB, Assistant Editor
The faux-reform of electoral college vote allocations in California isn’t just another Republican dirty trick. In all serious and in no hyperbole, its passage would threaten the very foundation of our democracy.
August 26th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
California Republicans are pressing to replace the “winner take all” awarding of electoral votes in California and convince voters to approve a proportional distribution.
Which raises the question: is this more fair or an attempt to change the rules of the game in just one state while most other big electoral states (some of them favoring the GOP) continue to award electoral votes in one big chunk? The New York Times has a piece that outlines the story here:
California Republicans are floating a ballot initiative that would change how the state awards its 55 electoral votes, a whopping prize that Democrats have come over the past four presidential elections to regard as theirs.
Under the current format, the winner of the state’s popular vote takes all electoral votes. The initiative proposes to award one electoral vote for every congressional district a candidate wins, with the statewide winner getting two more electoral votes.
Is this being done to make it more fair? Or can there be other reasons? The story goes on:
Had such a system been in place in 2004, President Bush would have come out of California with 22 electoral votes instead of zero. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) would have gotten only 33.
“It has a gut-level appeal to it,” said Kevin Eckery, a GOP consultant supporting the initiative, which would be put before voters in June. “It sounds fair, and it is fair.”
Democrats emphatically disagree and are mounting their own campaign to derail the initiative, which strategists say could easily alter the outcome of the 2008 contest.
“You’re looking at between 19 and 22 votes that would shift to the Republican side,” said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist mobilizing against the proposal. “The electoral math becomes very challenging.”
Have the Democrats ever tried to do this in states where they weren’t winning? Actually, yes…in North Carolina.
So how many other of states are doing it?
Only Maine and Nebraska currently assign electoral votes in the manner proposed in California. Colorado voters in 2004 soundly defeated a proposal to adopt the same system.
That plan was a brainchild of Colorado Democrats, who had seen all of their state’s votes awarded to the Republican candidate in five of the previous six elections despite reliable Democratic showings in some districts.
“It failed miserably,” said Craig Hughes, research director of RBI Strategy & Research, a Democratic consultancy. Hughes said the proposal was hurt by ambivalence among Democratic Party leaders, some of whom thought Kerry could carry the state. In addition, “voters take the electoral college very seriously,” he said. “Going out and doing a one-state solution becomes very risky for voters, and they get very, very hesitant about voting for a massive change that has big implications. You could be tipping the presidential race.”
And how do Californians react? A poll shows most think it’s a good idea — until they find out a bit more about what it would have done and might do:
‘Californians are only beginning to hear about the idea, but a statewide Field Poll this month found 47 percent favoring the change, with Democrats evenly split at first blush. Democratic support faded sharply when pollsters pointed out what the new system would have meant to the GOP in the last presidential election.
That made Republicans like the idea even more, of course, and at the close of questioning overall support for the change stood at 49 to 42.
Which raises a question. What does California’s Big Guy think? Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has made it clear he doesn’t like the idea because it’s changing rules in the middle of the game.
And, indeed, there are two points about this idea:
(1) Many Americans have long felt there must be a better way to go than the electoral college set up as it exists. But most of the calls over the years have been for election by popular vote (usually by political partisans who feel there candidate would have triumphed). There has been no massive clamor across the country for proportional representation of electoral votes or even a substantive call for it by pundits (mainstream media or new media) over the years.
(2) If the change takes place and it’s only in California and a few smaller states, many will consider it changing the rules of the game in only part of the game and a bit hypocritical. If the idea is a valid one, then why not do it in California plus other big states — such as Ohio, Florida, Texas and Massachesetts? Will the GOP be pressing for the same fair distribution of electoral votes in states where it usually wins? At this point: it looks like a tactic to shave off California votes while still taking winner take all votes in states where it usually wins.
According to the Times, winning a “no” is usually not that hard if a proposal starts out with less than 50 percent. BUT the Times notes that those trying to get the California rules changed have pointedly tried to get it slated in June — and NOT in Feburary:
The electoral initiative would not appear on the ballot until June, when relatively low turnout for local primary contests might amplify the effect of motivated Republicans.
“The fact that they picked the June primary is not coincidental,” Lehane said. “In addition to gaming the electoral college so they can rig it, they’re also trying to game the election cycle.”
This doesn’t qualify as voter suppression, but once again (if the Times story is correct) the GOP is trying to bring about change by mobilizing its base rather than opting to seek broad across-the-boards consensus and support from a large spectrum of the electorate.
The proposal to divide California’s electoral votes has served to remind citizens of the continued dysfunctional role played by the electoral college — which should be eliminated by constitutional amendment. The idea of passing state laws to divide votes between candidates is at least an improvement — moving away from the winner take all approach. In California, it is clearly [being] advanced for partisan reasons to help the next Republican nominee. However, despite the motivation, it is a worthy goal.
Meanwhile, the LA Times, in an editorial, has rejected the GOP’s idea and backs a Democratic counter proposal to award votes via the popular vote:
It’s odd, to say the least, for such a sweeping alteration of California’s voting power to come up in the middle of a presidential campaign. The primary is Feb. 5, the general election is the following Nov. 4, yet the ballot measure changing the rules of the game would reach voters right in the middle, on June 3. Even Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger questioned the timing. GOP candidates must have discovered that they aren’t making any headway here. But the responsible course is to reconsider their message, not to look for ways to blunt the state’s voting power.
Democrats, in response, are dusting off a proposal to circumvent the electoral college by committing all of California’s electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote — but only if states representing a majority of electoral votes do likewise and thus render the electoral college moot. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is going a step further, calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college.
Either move would be smarter and more equitable. Republicans should support one or the other, and drop their current ploy, if they truly want to put presidential elections in the hands of voters once and for all.
SOME OTHER INTERNET SITES COMMENTING ON THIS DEVELOPMENT INCLUDE:
