Who do you think Barack Obama will pick for his cabinet? Post your speculation here.

I predicted before the election that Obama’s cabinet would include at least two Republicans but no Democrats who strongly supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries. However, my brother knows someone who knows someone who knows Obama and thinks that Tom Vilsack will be Obama’s secretary of agriculture.

The two appointments I’ll be watching most closely are attorney general and secretary of transportation. Probably Obama has a long list of people he knows who’d like to be attorney general. I want a strong advocate in that position.

The highway bill is coming up for reauthorization in 2009, and I want the cabinet secretary to push for more balance in our transportation funding, rather than such a huge portion of the federal money going to new road construction. Bill Richardson is my dream candidate for secretary of transportation, but Obama may tap him for secretary of state or some other high-profile job.

UPDATE: I agree with Matt Stoller, Larry Summers would be a bad choice for Treasury secretary.

Daily Kos user Angry Mouse, who was once a talented telemarketer, just published this piece on phone-banking for Barack Obama. I highly recommend it for anyone who has volunteered to work the phones on behalf of any Democratic candidate in the next week.

By the way, Angry Mouse was one of the most dedicated Hillary Clinton supporters at Daily Kos this spring. Like Bleeding Heartland user lorih, Angry Mouse didn’t let her deep disappointment over Hillary’s loss deter her from supporting Obama.

And like lorih, over time Angry Mouse’s feelings about Obama changed. At first she didn’t like him much but figured he was a lot better than McCain and would be a “decent president.” Then, after hearing Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton speak at the Democratic convention, she admitted that she was “becoming a believer.” By the end of the convention, she wrote,

I was convinced.  After nearly two years and endless debate with my family and friends and fellow Kossacks, after my shock and disappointment at seeing my dream candidate defeated, after swallowing my pride and hopes and trying my best to be supportive of our party’s nominee, and after an incredible week of seeing the all-stars of our party make the case, again and again and again, that we desperately need Barack Obama, I am convinced.

And I am fired up.

And I believe in Hope and Change.

I get it now.  I understand.

Yes We Can.

Yes We Can.

Yes We Can.

It is not just a slogan.  It is not just a silly music video made by celebrities who are want to endorse the next hip thing.

It is our truth, as Democrats and as Americans.  

Yes.  We.  Can.

So this, today, is my moment.  This is the moment I went from being a good Democrat to a proud Obamabot.  Because today, I am going to my local campaign headquarters to volunteer for Barack Obama.  Because helping to elect him may be the most important thing I’ve done in my thirty years so far.

Because now, I believe.

Yes We Can.

This is an open thread for sharing any tips you have for door-knockers, phone-bankers or other political volunteers.

Wherever you live in Iowa, listen to abkad:

Go to www.barackobama.com, find your closest office, sign up for just one hour or more, and you can tell your friends that you won the election.

Don’t believe this campaign is over, because it’s not. Don’t think you’re the only one who doesn’t like making phone calls or knocking on the doors of strangers, because you are sure as hell not. And don’t think that someone else will make up for your lack of effort, because they won’t.

Remember, there are many ways to volunteer. Even if you don’t want to canvass or make phone calls, contact the local campaign office to see what kind of help they need.

I used to be a psychologist, and one of the things that I would often tell my clients is that the relationship between feelings and actions isn't one way. People who are depressed tend to isolate themselves even to the point of staying in bed all day. However, if they force themselves to get out of the house, even though they don't “feel like it,” they often start to feel a little less depressed. Sometimes the feelings come first, “I felt depressed, so I stayed in bed.” Other times the feelings come second, “I went for a walk, and I now I better.”

I started to work for the Obama campaign even though I didn't like him much. I did this for several reasons. First, because Hillary asked me to. One thing she said in her concession speech was, “Are you doing this just for me?” This isn't about one candidate, it is about improving our country. I want to get as many democrats in office as possible.  Second, I wanted to work with the Obama campaign to try coordinate our efforts to get Becky Greenwald elected. I traded my services for Obama for their services for Becky.  Finally, I didn't want to be a cry baby like I have seen a few William Meyers supporters, and some Hillary supporters be. I find it absolutely silly, that anyone would support a candidate like McCain or Latham just because the democrat that they wanted didn't win. 

None of these reasons had anything to do with me “liking” Barack. I didn't. But you know what? When I started campaigning for him, I started having to come up with some reason besides “he's a democrat” to support him. And I started to find some reasons. One of the big ones that I tell people is that amazing speaking ability that I once disdained as “just words” could be really useful in a diplomatic situation. And think how much cheaper that is than another war. Also, that “elitist thing” that people say about him–maybe he comes across that way because he is so intelligent. And right now what our country needs is an intelligent president. I don't want someone “just like me” in office. I want someone a whole lot smarter than me in office.

After awhile, just like I used to tell my clients, my feelings followed my actions. And now–I have to admit–I like Barack. I like him a lot. He might not have been my first choice, but he is my choice now. I'm not “holding my nose” and voting for him. I'm voting for him because I like him. That isn't to say I regret the choice I made in the primary. I don't. I like and admire Hillary Clinton now more than ever. However, just like she said in her concession speech:

“So I want to say to my supporters, when you hear people saying – or think to yourself – 'if only' or 'what if,' I say, 'please don't go there.' Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward. Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. We have to work together for what still can be. And that is why I will work my heart out to make sure that Senator Obama is our next President and I hope and pray that all of you will join me in that effort.”

In yesterday’s thread on the race between Dave Loebsack and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, secondtonone referred to the fact that a right-wing Republican group put Miller-Meeks on their “Wall of Shame.”

I assumed that this was related to bad blood from the hard-fought Republican primary in Iowa’s second Congressional district, but a commenter claiming to be a member of that group posted the following:

We would have included anyone from that race on the Wall of Shame. There was no candidate that we could have supported in that race. They all left us wanting. What do you do when it is a trio of unsatisfactory candidates?

It’s a good question, and not just a theoretical one for many of us who follow politics closely. On several occasions I have not been thrilled with any of the candidates in a Democratic primary. Many more times I have volunteered for a primary campaign, only to have a different candidate win the nomination.

What is the best way to handle this situation?

One of my dad’s favorite expressions was, “There is more than one right way,” and I think that fits the bill here.

Many people become active supporters of their party’s nominee. Regular Bleeding Heartland commenter lorih has been out knocking on doors for Barack Obama, even though she strongly preferred Hillary Clinton for president. Bleeding Heartland user secondtonone is supporting Becky Greenwald for Congress, despite having backed William Meyers in the fourth district primary.

A group of bloggers who supported Clinton created the “Clintonistas for Obama” blog, where they write regularly about the race. This group includes a few people who preferred two candidates to Obama–first John Edwards, and then Clinton after Edwards dropped out of the race.

Angry Mouse, who was a tireless and often lonely advocate for Clinton at Daily Kos during the primaries, now writes occasional diaries supporting Obama at that blog.

Another approach is to vote for the nominee you don’t care for, but focus your energy on other candidates you can support wholeheartedly. Anyone who’s been reading this blog since the spring will be aware that I am not satisfied with the representation I get from Congressman Leonard Boswell. Since he defeated Ed Fallon in the third district primary, I have mostly ignored him. Because I want the Democrats to have a large majority in Congress, I will vote for Boswell in November, as will just about every Fallon voter I know. (A few may leave that line of their ballot blank.) But I see no reason to keep re-fighting the third-district primary, even though many of the attacks on Fallon from the Boswell camp were ridiculous.

Obama’s not my favorite politician either, to put it mildly, so I decided to volunteer for down-ticket candidates in Iowa.

The blogger RDemocrat  has also focused his political energy in a constructive way since John Edwards left the presidential race. RDemocrat isn’t a fan of Obama but has spent many hours volunteering for Heather Ryan, the Democratic candidate in Kentucky’s first Congressional district.

Tough primaries are a fact of life. If you think Iowa saw some bruising ones this spring, you should have seen the battle between Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in Oregon. Merkley won that race narrowly, and I think he’s a fantastic candidate, but many Oregon-based bloggers preferred Novick.

Are those activists spending their time taking pot-shots at Merkley? No, if you read the Democratic community blogs Loaded Orygun and Blue Oregon, you will see that they are putting their political energy to use in other ways. Here’s an example of a post in which a Novick supporter gives Merkley some credit, even though he isn’t a big fan of the candidate.

Incidentally, Novick himself has gone above and beyond the call of duty, strongly supporting Merkley’s general election campaign despite what must have been a very disappointing loss in the primary. I remember that Paul Hackett was not nearly as gracious after Sherrod Brown defeated him in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Ohio two years ago.

By the same token, Hillary Clinton has been out stumping for Obama in key states like Ohio and Florida and has raised about $8 million for Obama’s campaign, even as she tries to retire her own campaign debts.

If you dislike your party’s nominee and you can’t find a different candidate you strongly support, I advise you to get involved with a non-profit organization. So many groups can use a few good volunteers, and no matter where you live, I’m sure there is some cause worth your time.

Getting back to the question at the top of this post, what is a voter to do if all of his or her party’s candidates are unacceptable? Some people might vote for a third-party candidate, as Ron Paul is asking his supporters to do in the presidential election.

My preference is to vote for the least-bad candidate if it’s a primary election. If it’s a general election, I usually hold my nose and vote for the Democrat despite my personal feelings. Only on very rare occasions have I written in someone’s name or voted for a third-party candidate rather than for the Democratic nominee.

Use this thread to share thoughts and suggestions for voters who are disappointed in their party’s nominee.

If we’re talking about policy mistakes with disastrous long-term outcomes, it’s hard to top the Iraq War for loss of life and the 2005 energy bill for threats to the planet.

In fact, we could be here all day if we set out to brainstorm all the horrible things to come out of George Bush’s presidency.

But it does seem like the proposed bailout of failing banks is a contender for worst Bush administration proposal ever.

Here are a bunch of links on the subject.

Paul Krugman of the New York Times is updating his blog frequently.

Senator Bernie Sanders: Billions for Bailouts: Who Pays?

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich: What Wall Street Should Be Required to Do, to Get A Blank Check From Taxpayers

Bonddad: This is one of the worst bills to ever be proposed.

Robert Borosage: Financial Crisis: Time for a Citizens’ Plan?

Devilstower: Three Times is Enemy Action

Ian Welsh: How To Bail Out Ordinary Mortgage Holders And Not Just Banks

8ackgr0und N015e wrote a funny piece on one angle of this story that hasn’t received as much attention.

Two of Josh Marshall’s readers ask really good questions.

This post by Matt Stoller includes an excellent statement from Senator Hillary Clinton.

As far as I know, no members of Congress from Iowa have issued public statements about the bailout, but I will post them as they become available.

Watch this fantastic answer by Barack Obama when asked on Thursday why being a community organizer is relevant experience for the presidency:

Greg Sargent posted the video of the entire brief press conference here. I agree with Sargent on Obama’s response to Sarah Palin’s criticism of him:

Great line at the end: “I’ve been called worse on the basketball court. It’s not that big of a deal.”

Dismissive, contemptuous, and perpetually bemused by the new lows of buffoonery and pettiness that the GOP sinks to on a now-daily basis. Keep that tone going.

Obama is really good at staying cool and not rising to the bait. In contrast, John McCain is a hothead, and I expect that comparison to work in our favor as the campaign progresses.

I was less impressed by Obama spokesman Bill Burton’s response to McCain’s speech tonight. It sounds less natural, more like canned talking points.

As McCain was wrapping up his speech, Hillary Clinton released this statement:

“The two party conventions showcased vastly different directions for our country. Senator Obama and Senator Biden offered the new ideas and positive change America needs and deserves after eight years of failed Republican leadership. Senator McCain and Governor Palin did not.

“After listening to all of the speeches this week, I heard nothing that suggests the Republicans are ready to fix the economy for middle class families, provide quality affordable health care for all Americans, guarantee equal pay for equal work for women, restore our nation’s leadership in a complex world or tackle the myriad of challenges our country faces.

“So, to slightly amend my comments from Denver: NO WAY, NO HOW, NO McCAIN-PALIN.”

Great stuff, and I hear she will take this message to Florida on Monday.

By the way, Joe Biden has been campaigning in Florida this week, and here’s a good write-up of a town-hall meeting in Sarasota, with video.

I’ve been saying for months that Obama has no chance of beating McCain in Florida, but I am revising that opinion. Obama’s choice of Biden will serve him well among Jews and voters over 60, while Palin will alienate Jews and probably won’t help McCain with seniors.

Put Biden and Clinton to work in Florida, and Obama has an outside shot at this state with a solid GOTV effort. At the very least, McCain will have to work to hold this state.

After the jump I’ve posted a fundraising e-mail from Obama in response to the way “the Republicans mocked, dismissed, and actually laughed out loud at Americans who engage in community service and organizing.”

I really have no idea how Alaska Governor Sarah Palin went over last night with voters who are not already strongly committed Republicans. I will reserve judgment until we see the next round of polls from must-hold states for John McCain, such as Ohio, Virginia and Colorado.

Huffington Post reported on the reaction from focus groups of married and unmarried supporters of Hillary Clinton. I recommend reading the whole article, but here’s an excerpt:

First, women in both groups were impressed with Palin’s speaking ability and poise. But they were hardly convinced that she was qualified to be vice president, or that she truly represented the “change” they were looking for, especially in light of what was deemed an overly harsh “sarcasm” pervading her address. […]

In the “married” group, when one attendee kicked off the discussion by saying “she’s a good speaker, and a crowd pleaser,” the rest of the room articulated their agreement. “I didn’t expect to be as impressed as I was,” said another respondent. But then another woman added: “Once she started mudslinging, I thought, it’s the same old crap as other politicians. McCain used her to get the women’s vote. And she’s using McCain.”

“Thank you,” another woman responded. “That really upset me; there was no need for that. It was snippy.”

The unmarried group also voiced similar objections to the harsh, partisan edge of Palin’s remarks. “I’m not impressed with her at all as a person,” one said, citing her “finger pointing” and general sarcasm after the group had generally agreed that she was a talented public speaker.

Natasha Chart, who grew up in a conservative, religious family, posted a fascinating commentary on last night’s proceedings at MyDD, complete with King James Bible quotations. She notes that

Jesus didn’t ask the faithful to give good speeches. He didn’t ask of them that they should be from small towns, or some certain geographic region. He asked that they do something real, something material, to lighten the loads of their fellow travelers in this life.

Marc Ambinder thinks Palin may have just made Barack Obama “yesterday’s news”:

Sarah Palin is, quite simply, the celebrity of September. Interest in her will be enormous. Just as Democrats painted on Barack Obama’s blank canvass in January and February of 2007, Republicans and independents will get the chance to fill in their view of Gov. Palin. She’s the new thing. The object of curiosity. The press and the larger media will obsess over her and her family and her life.

TruthMatters thinks the Republicans lost a huge opportunity when they cut the biographical video on Palin out of last night’s program:

First they lead into her with Romney and Rudy, basically putting the country on notice, We Are Republicans And We Mean Business.

They GOP is basically telling us now, that the culture wars are back and they mean it.

Then they go into the prime time hour, the thing millions of American’s are going to see, is nothing but Rudy and Palin non-stop attacking democrats and anyone who is NOT a Republican.

And Rudy really screwed it up, because he ran long and they didn’t play her video. Her Video was suppose to make America fall in love with her, anyone remember, Michelle’s, Hillary’s, Joes, and Obama’s from last week? They NEEDED that video tonight to introduce her, espeically if this was how she was going to come out. She gave no substance, nothing but attacks, she showed us she was a hard right Republican, and she means business.

Now her base loved it. she is getting rave reviews from the right. This from redstate.com says it all “Sarah Palin. An Amazing, Historic, Epic Win.” but here is the problem. In their sheer hubris is all I can say, they seem to think that they are still the majority in this country. What they are ignoring is they are turning off every non-republican in this country. Since the convention and Sarah’s introduction, Obama has taken the lead in independents and increased his Democratic numbers.

The GOP has seem to have forgotten that Sarah was suppose to reach out to independents and the frustrated Hillary supporters, because there aren’t enough GOP voters anymore their party numbers are down. but instead they are now stuck with the 2004 strategy of excite the base and get out to vote.

For a “real vetting roundup” on Palin, read this post by georgia10.

Kos notes that the Republican convention is drawing fewer television viewers than the GOP convention four years ago and a far smaller audience than the Democratic convention drew last week. CORRECTION: the latest ratings show Palin drew almost as large an audience last night as Obama did last Thursday.

I still think selecting Palin was a huge mistake for McCain, whose main talking point against Obama was that he lacked sufficient experience to lead.

Also, give me a break from the talking point about Palin having “more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined,” as if Obama and Biden’s in-depth knowledge and experience crafting federal policy is worth less than being a small-town mayor and serving half a term as governor.

Watch this great clip from last night’s Daily Show, which juxtaposes Karl Rove on Palin’s tremendous experience with what Rove said about Virginia Governor Tim Kaine a few weeks ago. Kaine has served as governor for longer than Palin, managing a state much larger than Alaska. Before that Kaine was lieutenant governor of Virginia, and before that he was mayor of Richmond, a much larger city than Wasilla, Alaska. Jon Stewart noted that “Karl Rove is bitterly divided on the experience issue.”

After the jump I have posted the text of a mass e-mail from Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe. He specifically takes Palin and Rudy Giuliani to task for mocking Obama’s experience as a community organizer. That was certainly one of the low points of Palin’s speech, in my opinion. At least George H.W. Bush pretended to value community activists (“1000 points of light”) twenty years ago.

UPDATE: For the full text of Palin’s speech, click here.

Small-town native Mike Lux had this reaction:

while I appreciated Sarah Palin’s tribute to small-town values at one point in her speech, the values she exhibited in the rest of the speech were not the ones I recognized from the small towns I know. […]

The Sarah Palin I saw last night had a mean streak a mile wide. If me or my brothers and sisters would have been as sarcastic and demeaning to someone as Sarah Palin was last night, my mom would have sent us to our room. I know that Palin was just trying to be funny when she compared herself to a pit bull, but she was just about as nasty as one, and in the dog-loving families I know from small-town America, people generally prefer dogs that will play well with kids and neighbors. And the community organizers that Palin made so much fun of [are] the folks who organized the potluck suppers at church and the Lions Club charities, the ones who really made those small towns go.

Lux should understand that when Palin made fun of community organizers, she wasn’t talking about people who run church potlucks in small towns. I tend to agree with billmon:

Used the way the GOP speakers used the words tonight (i.e. with a sneer), community = ghetto and organizer = activist.

It essentially was a coded way of pointing out Obama’s work in, with and for the black community (see? even I’m doing it) on the South Side of Chicago. Also the fact that his work involved helping low-income people stand up for their legal rights, as opposed to a GOP-sanctioned “real” job like business owner or career military officer (or moose hunter.) They were trying to put Obama back on the same level as Jesse Jackson — i.e., the black protest candidate — and mocking him for it.

If today is John McCain’s birthday, why did he give us a present?

I strongly disagree with the idea that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is a game-changer for the Republicans.

Hillary Clinton gave a strong endorsement of Barack Obama on Tuesday and will be out campaigning for him this fall. I’m supposed to believe that women who preferred Hillary in the Democratic primaries will flock to McCain, with his horrible record on women’s issues, because a conservative woman is his running mate?

I get the rationale for picking Palin, as laid out here by Chris Bowers and in a different way by Iowa blogger Douglas Burns.

But McCain is staking his campaign on persuading Americans that Obama is “not ready to lead.” I cannot see how it helps McCain to choose a running mate who is younger and less experienced than Obama. Palin has served less than two years as governor and before that was mayor of a town with fewer than 10,000 residents.

At 72 years old, McCain would be the oldest president ever elected. He is also a cancer survivor. Can the Republicans make the case that Palin is ready to lead this country should the need arise?

Supposedly the GOP base will be thrilled to see the anti-choice Palin on the ticket. I read some “mommy blogs” written by religious conservatives and will be checking them in the next few days to see how they react to this pick. (These bloggers tended to favor either Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul.)

I assume they will be relieved that McCain did not choose the detested Mitt Romney. However, I am not convinced these rank and file members of the religious right will celebrate Palin’s selection. They believe women should be homemakers who homeschool their children, and they think feminism and the trend toward working outside the home is undermining “Biblical womanhood.”

No matter how enthusiastically the Republican pundits welcome Palin, I suspect that many social conservatives will feel she should be at home, taking care of her special-needs infant and schooling her older children.

The business wing of the Republican base tended to support Romney in the primaries. Mitt himself is reportedly furious at the way McCain strung him along. Look for the knives to come out if anything goes wrong with Palin–for instance, if she gets tainted by the trial of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens.

I’m skeptical that Palin will neutralize Joe Biden (supposedly because he can’t afford to be seen as a bully). Biden has two jobs: to alleviate concerns about Obama’s lack of experience, and to be an attack dog. The first task will be easier with Palin as his counterpart. As for the second, Biden can ignore Palin most of the time and focus his fire on McCain during the only vice-presidential debate.

Choosing Palin looks like a Hail Mary pass from a candidate who knows he will lose unless he shakes things up in a big way. I’m feeling much more optimistic about Obama’s chances than I did five days ago.

Hillary Clinton released her delegates earlier today and told them that they could vote their conscience, but she had voted for Barack Obama.

Later she urged the convention to nominate Obama by acclamation, which it did enthusiastically.

This is an open thread for discussing any of Wednesday’s speeches or other events at the convention. Bill Clinton and Joe Biden will be the prime-time highlights. (By the way, one of my neighbors has put her Biden for president yard sign back in front of her house. She is “fired up and ready to go,” as they say.)

After the jump I’ve posted the text of Governor Chet Culver’s remarks (as prepared) to the DNC yesterday. He focused on energy policy, which is certainly among my top 10 reasons for Americans to vote for Obama.

UDPATE: When Bill Kristol idiotically claimed last night that Hillary Clinton gave a weak endorsement of Obama, he noted that she hadn’t said Obama would be a good commander in chief.

Guess what? Today’s theme is national security, and Bill Clinton has already said,

“In Barack Obama, America will have the national security leadership we need. My fellow Democrats, I say to you Barack Obama is ready to lead America…”

Got that, Mr. Kristol?

I forgot to put up an open thread on the convention last night and only watched Hillary Clinton on the web much later. What an powerful and moving speech. I cried, and I wasn’t even one of her supporters during the primaries.

What was your favorite part? Todd Beeton thought the Harriet Tubman reference (“Keep going!”) was “the moment of the night.”

The sound bites grabbed by most media were “No way, no how, no McCain” and her opening line: “I’m here as a proud mother, a proud Democrat, a proud Senator from New York, a proud American and a proud supporter of Barack Obama.”

I thought she did a great job acknowledging her supporters and then asking those who were considering John McCain whether they were in it only for her or for the people she fought for.

Saying it made sense for McCain and George Bush to be together in the Twin Cities next week, because it’s hard to tell them apart these days, was also a classic line.

Talking Points Memo put her whole speech on YouTube.

Talking Points Memo also found this hilarious “bizarro world” video of Republican hack Bill Kristol saying it was a “shockingly minimal endorsement” of Obama.

This is an open thread for your thoughts on Hillary Clinton, Chet Culver, or anyone else who spoke at the convention yesterday.

UPDATE: Here’s an interesting piece by DemFromCT on how Democratic convention viewership is way up compared to 2004.

Also, Dansac tells you what you probably already know: the mainstream media coverage of this convention is horrible. Better to watch all the speeches on C-SPAN or online.

Most people seem to think Obama’s short list is Biden, Bayh and Kaine, but there’s a lot of late buzz about him surprising us all, perhaps with Hillary.

What do you think? I don’t think he will choose Hillary, because his people stupidly made a big point of saying earlier this summer that he didn’t want her on the ticket. If he chooses her now, it looks like he is acknowledging he can’t win without her, and I don’t think he wants to show weakness.

She would be a good choice, though. The right-wing hate machine has been doing a good job of rallying Republicans around McCain. The argument that choosing Hillary would galvanize conservatives against Obama no longer holds water.

UPDATE: Politico says Hillary was never vetted and Congressman Chet Edwards of Texas is on Obama’s short list. Please don’t let Obama be dumb enough to pick him. If he wants a conservative Democrat, it should at least be someone who puts a state in play. Also, Chet Edwards is not seasoned as a communicator on the national stage.

SECOND UPDATE: A friend of a friend of a source of Matt Stoller says Biden’s family is making plans to be in Springfield this Saturday:

http://www.openleft.com/showDi…

THIRD UPDATE: Marc Ambinder picks up on a chartered flight from Chicago’s Midway airport to New Castle, Delaware…possibly going to pick up Biden’s family?

http://marcambinder.theatlanti…

The Democratic National Committee is putting together a Democratic Change Commission to review possible changes to the presidential nominating process. According to the Associated Press, DNC leaders want to reduce the number of superdelegates and “regain control of the primary calendar”:

A goal of the new commission would be to establish a calendar in which only a handful of states would be allowed to hold nominating contests before March.

This diary at MyDD contains the full text of the press release. Here is an excerpt:

Today the Obama Campaign and the Democratic National Committee announced a proposal to establish a special commission to recommend changes to the Democratic Party’s rules for delegate selection and presidential primary timing for future presidential cycles. The proposal will be presented to the Convention Rules Committee on Saturday in Denver.

The ‘Democratic Change Commission’ will address three issues 1) changes to the opening of the window and pre-window, 2) reducing the number of superdelegates and 3) changes to the caucus system. The goal of the commission will be to ensure that no primary or caucus is held prior to the first Tuesday in March of 2012, with the exception of the approved pre-window states, whose contests would be held during February 2012.

I’m all for reducing the number of superdelegates and strictly limiting the number of states that can hold primaries or caucuses before March.

But if we are going to increase the relative importance of pledged delegates, we need to be aware that the pledged delegate count does not necessarily reflect the will of the people.

Longtime readers know that I am not a big fan of the caucus system even in Iowa, where voters and party officials have a lot of experience with it. I don’t think any of the alleged benefits of caucuses outweigh the barriers to participation that caucuses create.

Furthermore, no state but Iowa can claim any genuine party-building benefit from caucuses, because other states didn’t have multiple campaigns organizing at the precinct level for months.

Many states switched from primaries to caucuses in order to save money, figuring the nomination wouldn’t depend on that state’s vote anyway. As a result, poorly-trained precinct chairs presided over chaos in many parts of Nevada.

Even where caucuses ran relatively smoothly, turnout was unnecessarily limited, and results were skewed.

Consider Minnesota. Probably Obama would have won a primary there, but would he have won it by a 2-1 margin, as he did the caucus delegate count? Seems unlikely.

In Colorado, Nebraska, and several other states, Obama emerged with three or four times as many delegates as Hillary Clinton. Again, he probably would have won a primary in those states, but not by that kind of margin.

Even worse, in Nevada and Texas, Obama emerged with more pledged delegates even though more voters turned out to support Hillary. I would want to change the way pledged delegates are allocated so that no candidate could lose the popular vote in a state while winning the pledged delegate count.

Not only that, one caucus-goer in Wyoming had as much influence over the pledged delegate race as 19 primary voters in California (here is the link). That’s partly because caucuses attract lower turnout and partly because smaller states have a disproportionate number of delegates in the Democratic Party’s current nominating system.

I will be interested to see what this commission recommends with respect to caucuses. My preference would be to ban caucuses for purposes of presidential candidate selection, but I’m sure that a commission created with the participation of the Obama campaign would never agree to that reform. My guess is that they will propose some nominal changes to caucuses but will do nothing to discourage states from holding caucuses instead of primaries.

Before anyone gets upset in the comments, please note that by criticizing the caucus system, I do not intend to excuse the strategic failure of the Clinton campaign to have a game plan for the caucus states.

But if we are going to reduce the number of superdelegates, or require superdelegates to get behind the pledged delegate leader in their states or districts, then we better have a more equitable system for allocating the pledged delegates.

It was wrong for Obama to net as many pledged delegates from a low-turnout caucus state as Hillary netted in the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries. She exceeded Obama’s popular vote count by more than 200,000 in each of those states.

In June, I wrote about a bill passed by the House of Representatives providing $1.7 billion in funding for public transportation.

Noneed4thneed alerted me to this post by Matthew Yglesias, who reports that Hillary Clinton has introduced a companion bill in the Senate. However, only the New York and New Jersey delegations have signed on so far. Some members of Congress are trying to secure earmarks to fund public transit projects in their home states. Yglesias correctly points out that

Organizing needed funding through earmarks, however, is not an especially sound way to proceed. Far better to pass a proper, widely applicable bill that uses the federal government’s ability to engage in deficit spending to help provide some transit stimulus. At a time when booming energy prices are the main factor driving an economic downturn, cutting back on alternative transportation services is extremely foolish and will only prolong economic problems.

With cheap oil a thing of the past, there should be a strong bipartisan consensus in favor of better public transit in every state. I hope Iowa’s senators will support Clinton’s bill on this subject.

On a related note, this past Saturday 1000 Friends of Iowa organized a “tour de sprawl” in northern Polk County as part of its annual meeting. The bus tour took us through several areas in the corridor being considered for a four-lane beltway in northeast Polk County.

It is incredible to realize that Congressman Leonard Boswell will be seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for this road project. A very small number of people would benefit (primarily developers who are buying up farmland near the beltway’s path).

Meanwhile, valuable farmland could be lost and irreplaceable natural areas such as the Moeckley Prairie could be threatened.

The opportunity cost of spending hundreds of millions on a new road heading north from Altoona and then east to I-35 would be enormous. Traffic flows do not justify this project through sparsely-populated rural areas, especially when gasoline is expensive and many Americans are seeking alternatives to driving.

Imagine how many people in the Des Moines metro area would benefit from a significant federal investment in public transit and making roads safer and more accessible for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Either Barack Obama or John McCain may pick a running mate this week, before the Olympics start.

I haven’t heard much buzz lately about McCain’s choice. My money’s still on Mitt Romney, who has a relatively coherent message on economic policy (for a Republican) and can raise a lot of cash.

Word is that Hillary Clinton will address the Democratic National Convention in Denver on the Tuesday night. Since Obama’s running mate is expected to speak on Wednesday night, it seems that Hillary is not under serious consideration for VP.

Matt Stoller is still pushing for Wes Clark, and he and other bloggers have started a draft Clark for VP site, but I see no evidence that Clark is even being vetted by Obama’s team. They seem to want to avoid picking someone who will be seen as “balancing” any weakness in Obama’s resume.

Todd Beeton suspects the Obama team has decided the running mate should have some Washington experience, and he made a fascinating observation at MyDD:

My gut tells me a couple of things. First of all, Barack is not going to pick someone who needs to be introduced to the country. He has enough of an uphill climb introducing himself to the nation, is he really going to pick another unknown quantity for the ticket? So that leaves us with a different list, which, let’s say for argument, looks like this: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Sam Nunn.

Among these possible picks, some are known thanks to their extensive Washington, DC resumes (Clinton, Biden, Nunn, Dodd), some are not (Clark, Edwards, Richardson.) So, which list will Obama pick from? You’ll recall that in the primary, Barack ran against Washington experience and turned what Hillary thought would be her top selling point into an albatross around her neck with one very effective line: “are we just going to keep sending the same people to Washington and expect a different result?” In other words, if you’ve spent a lot of time in DC then how can you expect to change it? He could and should be using the same line against McCain, but he’s not. The other day I noticed him almost say it at one of his townhalls, but he caught himself. Why? My gut is that he’s leaning toward picking a Washington insider for his VP. My guess is it’s Biden.

Biden wouldn’t be my first choice for VP, but he would be a good fit for Obama in many ways. He’s a strong campaigner and could be an effective attack dog. Also, I think he would help Obama with the over-60 voters, where he is relatively weak.

Then again, First Read reports that the press team following Obama will spend 21 hours in South Bend, Indiana from Tuesday evening to Wednesday afternoon. They suspect that Obama might select Indiana Senator Evan Bayh as his running mate there.

Like Biden, Bayh is a Washington insider, but he’s also a former governor of a red state. He endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, so that might be a gesture toward uniting the party.

Then again, Obama may just be planning to hold a few campaign events in Indiana because that state could be competitive this year.

Bayh is way too conservative for my taste; for instance, he voted for Bush’s tax cuts in 2001. More worrying, we would likely lose his Senate seat if he became vice president, unless Jill Long Thompson pulls off an upset in the Indiana gubernatorial race this year. If Obama wants a Washington insider, I’d prefer Biden.

Many people still expect Obama to choose a different red state governor, either Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas or Tim Kaine of Virginia.

For whatever reason, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson doesn’t seem to be on Obama’s short list. That’s too bad, because I like him a lot more than Kaine, and I think he brings more to the table than Sebelius.

I got noticed by Markos on the front page of Daily Kos!

Unfortunately, it was to attack and take out of context what I wrote in this post at MyDD yesterday.

Markos didn’t like my opinion that it would be a political mistake for Barack Obama to choose a woman running mate other than Hillary Clinton.

Actually, “didn’t like” is a bit of an understatement:

This is such a crock of shit. After all the talk of Clinton breaking glass barriers, are her supporters still so hung up on her loss that they’re willing to create a new glass ceiling for women candidates, one that excludes anyone not named Hillary Clinton?

Fact is, the party is united behind Obama. In the latest Research 2000 national poll shows that Obama wins Democrats 82-9 percent, which is little different than McCain’s 83-10. In 2004, Kerry won Democrats 89-11, and Obama will be up in that range when all’s said and done. There are no more “party unity” concerns.

Throw in the fact that Obama has locked down the Latino vote, is winning women handily, has shown surprising strength in the Mountain West, the midwest, and even parts of the South. He has locked down the Democratic strongholds. It’s clear that Obama doesn’t need Clinton on the ticket.

I never said Obama needed to choose Hillary or that he is having problems uniting the party.

And of course I was not a Clinton supporter at any time and have not been advocating for her selection as VP (though Obama could do a lot worse).

Markos goes on to say,

I’ve got several people on my list of veep possibilities that would certainly reinforce Obama’s core message of change, and several are women (mainly Sebelius and McCaskill). I don’t have any inkling where Obama is going with this thing, but I do know that being forced to take women off his shortlist lest he offend some Hillary supporters is asinine. I doubt Clinton fought to shatter one glass ceiling to replace it with another.

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius makes sense in that she is a two-term governor. I also like that she stepped in to block coal-fired power plants from being built.

Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill would be a terrible choice in my opinion. She has less relevant experience than Obama and is on the right wing of the Missouri Democratic Party. She has a much less progressive voting record than Hillary Clinton in the Senate.

My comment in this thread at Daily Kos:

for the record, here is what I said

and did not say.

I did not say Obama needs to pick a woman. In fact, at the end of that very post I said I’d offer it to Wesley Clark if I were Obama.

I did not say Obama has a problem with women voters.

I did not say Hillary is the only woman qualified to be on the ticket.

However, she is the only woman who was the preferred presidential candidate of 17 million plus voters.

I do think that in light of this year’s extraordinary primary battle, it would be a political mistake for Obama to choose a woman running mate other than Hillary.

If Hillary were the nominee, I would also advise her against choosing a black man for VP other than Obama (though many would be qualified, such as John Conyers or Charlie Rangel).

To do so would be viewed as a slap in the face to Obama.

Also, Hillary wasn’t my first, second or third, choice, so I appreciate not being referred to as one of her supporters.

This comment got buried under an avalanche of comments agreeing with Markos and misrepresenting what I believe, but I wanted to set the record straight here.

Use this as a thread for more idle speculation about whom Obama should and should not choose as a running mate.

Several commenters at MyDD made the case for Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, who was an early Obama supporter. I don’t think we have a very deep bench in Virginia. It’s not worth giving up a governor to put Kaine on the ticket.

I still think that if Obama does not want to choose Hillary (and it looks like he doesn’t), he should choose someone close to the Clintons–and not Florida Senator Bill Nelson or Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. Not only are they both too conservative for my liking, we would lose a Senate seat if either of them became vice president.

UPDATE: Yet another report indicates that Hillary Clinton is not on Obama’s short list for VP. As I’ve said, I don’t think he would choose her unless he felt he couldn’t win without her, and he probably can win without her.

There’s a lot of chatter about John McCain picking a running mate very soon to redirect the media’s attention from Barack Obama’s foreign trip.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s star has fallen because of revelations that she used the levers of state power to try to punish a former brother-in-law. Why do elected officials think they can get away with stuff like this? I suppose the answer is that many do get away with it, but it’s still bizarre that she would abuse the power of her office with so much on the line for her.

If McCain wants to pick a woman, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison seems like the most logical choice.

Earlier this year there was some buzz about former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina as a possible VP choice for McCain, but that must be out of the question now. It was Fiorina’s comment about insurance companies covering Viagra but not birth control pills that led to a embarrassing exchange between a reporter and McCain on the same subject. Planned Parenthood Action Fund is using part of that footage in a television ad aimed at women in six states and the Washington, DC area:

If McCain wants a governor, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana or Charlie Crist of Florida seem like the leading options. (UPDATE: Jindal took himself out of the running today.) For reasons I don’t understand, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota doesn’t seem to be mentioned often anymore.

I find it interesting that I haven’t ever seen any suggestion that Mike Huckabee is being considered. He was in Des Moines ten days ago for the Iowa GOP state convention and acted like a team player, urging support for McCain in his speech to Republican delegates. It would seem wise for McCain to at least pretend that he is taking Huckabee seriously, although maybe that would just give Huck’s supporters false hopes.

Some pundits are betting on Mitt Romney because of the money his people can raise. Also, his own presidential run makes him more of a seasoned campaigner and known quantity than some of the governors being mentioned.

Not much news on Obama’s search for a running mate has emerged lately. It seems prudent for him to wait to see what McCain does and how the public and media react before making a decision.

Bill Richardson made some good comments about McCain’s “whining” about not getting an op-ed piece published in the New York Times.

I still find it weird that there’s no sign Wes Clark or Joe Biden were even asked to submit information to the committee that is vetting Obama’s options.

I would be shocked if Obama were seriously considering Hillary Clinton at this point. I still think she wouldn’t be a bad choice for him, but given his small lead over McCain in national tracking polls and some of the key states he lost to Hillary Clinton in the primaries, Obama probably believes he doesn’t need her on the ticket. It’s obvious he would prefer not to have to deal with the Clintons.

Virginia Senator Jim Webb withdrew his name from consideration as a vice-presidential candidate. That’s a relief from my perspective.

According to Marc Ambinder,

A Democrat close to Webb confirms that a request for documents preceded his declaration to the Obama campaign. The Democrat said that Webb did not want to relive the vigors of a campaign so soon after his election to the Senate.

Like I’ve been saying, Webb does not like campaigning enough to be a good running mate.

Meanwhile, John Edwards will debate “Bush’s brain” Karl Rove on September 26. Some people have interpreted the scheduling of that event as a sign Edwards knows he will not be Obama’s running mate.

I still think Wes Clark would be an excellent choice for Obama, despite the recent dustup over comments he made about John McCain.

Some smart people think he will pick Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, but I still think that it would be a mistake for Obama to choose a woman other than Hillary Clinton.

VP search teams for Obama and McCain have both begun vetting candidates. McCain is said to be considering Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

I tend to agree with Douglas Burns, who wrote that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would be a good running mate for McCain.

If McCain is feeling pressure in Florida (a state he must win in order to get 270 electoral votes), he might consider selecting Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Rumors that Crist is gay could be a problem with that scenario. Crist was married to a woman in his early 20s and just got engaged to his current girlfriend.

Put your predictions or opinions about either candidate’s VP choice in the comment section.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton headlined a rally today in Unity, New Hampshire, where each candidate received 107 votes in the January 8 primary.

I didn’t watch any of the footage, but it sounds as if they had lots of effusive praise for each other. The main sound bite from Obama about Hillary was, “She rocks.”

Use this as an open thread to discuss anything related to healing the Democratic Party going into the general election.

As I’ve said before, I think the long primary battle was on balance good for our party.

I still think it’s important for Obama to “do no harm” with his choice of a running mate, which means that if he doesn’t want Hillary Clinton on the ticket, he better choose someone who will not alienate the demographic groups that favored Hillary in the primaries.

UPDATE: You can view loads of pictures from the event in this diary by a college student:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

Ed Kilgore: “The case for an Obama-Clinton ticket, also known as, you got any better ideas?”

Thomas Schaller: “He would lose his claim to being the candidate of change — and probably wouldn’t get any swing states in return.”

Read, then discuss.

I don’t know what the best choice for Obama is. I think Hillary clearly would help him in some swing states, but would she hurt him in others? He is presumably doing the state polling now to figure that out.

UPDATE: In what doesn’t look like a smart move to me, the Obama campaign has hired Patti Solis Doyle, who was responsible for many of the Clinton campaign’s enormous strategic errors, to be chief of staff for Obama’s future running mate.

Insiders are interpreting this as a signal that Obama is not even considering Hillary for VP. Clinton and Solis Doyle have apparently been estranged since Solis Doyle was fired right after Super Tuesday.

If I were Obama, I would not be going out of my way to insult the Clinton camp right now.

SECOND UPDATE: Matt Stoller is still advocating for Wes Clark as VP, and I find it hard to disagree after watching this video:

The VP candidate needs to help build the case against John McCain. Without coming across as strident, Clark makes a very effective case against McCain on national security (supposedly McCain’s strength). Clark’s longtime ties to the Clintons would help unite the party as well.

Over at Iowa Independent, Jason Hancock published this story about a handful of college activists for Hillary Clinton who have either endorsed John McCain or are considering voting for him.

As regular readers of this blog know, I am the last person to sing Barack Obama’s praises. I have deep concerns about him as a candidate and as a potential president.

I am also very familiar with the feeling that the Democrats nominated the “wrong” person. I have been politically aware for eight presidential cycles, and the candidate of my choice has won the nomination exactly once.

I would encourage any Democrat who strongly opposes Obama not to box yourself in by declaring now that you’ll never vote for him.

I also hope that Obama supporters will back off and give their fellow Democrats some space. This passage in Hancock’s article seemed particularly important to me:

Jordan Levine, who served as co-president of the Grinnell College Students for Hillary, said he, too, may support McCain in the fall, but has not made up his mind. In addition to not liking where Obama stands on the issues, he also said the actions of his fellow Democrats are turning him off to their nominee.

“They are being belligerent and trying to push me into supporting Obama,” he said. “That should be a serious concern. I have every right to vote how I want.”

Many of us have heard alienating and counterproductive comments from Obama supporters, but don’t give them more power over your decisions than they deserve.

Levine said his indecision on Obama has nothing to do with emotion and everything to do with issues.

“I just don’t like where he stands,” he said. “One of my main issues is health care, and Obama’s plan has some very big differences with Clinton’s.”

Take it from Elizabeth Edwards, who also preferred Clinton’s health care plan to Obama’s: McCain’s health care proposal would be an expensive disaster. Spend a few minutes browsing the writings of nyceve at Daily Kos for more specifics on why McCain is very wrong on health care.

If nothing else, I hope you will keep the Supreme Court in mind when you vote for president. Making the case for John McCain earlier this year, former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer noted that six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be at least 70 years old on Inauguration Day 2009. If that’s not a reason to be a yellow dog Democrat this year, I don’t know what is.

A John Edwards supporter who is a delegate to the Iowa Democratic Party’s state convention received this letter from Edwards and posted it on a bloggers’ e-mail loop. She said the letter arrived on Barack Obama letterhead:

June 10, 2008

Dear State Convention Delegates and Alternates:

I want to thank you for all that you have done to support Elizabeth and me over the years. It has been an honor to have your support.

We are now at a critical time in this nominating process. And I know that Barack Obama is a good man who will stand up for what matters for the future of this country. I know he carries the same hope in his heart that you and I do. The hope to make this country better, to end 8 long years of division, and to build one America instead of two.

I am asking you today to join with me in publicly supporting Barack Obama. We need you in this cause and in this movement. I always said that our campaign was not about me — it was about a vision for true change in American and the strength to fight for it.

In their search for a candidate to fulfill this vision, the Democratic voters in America have made their choice — and so have I. Barack Obama is the leader we need, and it’s up to each one of us to make sure we elect him President. I hope that I can count on you to join me in this cause.

Again, many thanks for all your past and continued support.

Sincerely,

John Edwards

The Iowa Democratic Party’s state convention was to have been held today, but it was postponed because of the catastrophic flooding in many parts of the state. Party leaders have rescheduled the event for June 28 in Des Moines.

Edwards delegates were able to form viable groups at four of the five district conventions held in Iowa two months ago, but that was before Edwards endorsed Obama.

David Redlawsk, an Edwards supporter from Iowa City who is also a delegate to the Democratic National Convention, had previously said he would encourage Edwards delegates to stay together at the state convention. Redlawsk explained that although he will vote for Obama at the DNC in Denver, he wants to help get more Edwards supporters chosen as Iowa delegates to the convention.

Katie Couric stated the obvious, which is that Hillary Clinton had to contend with a lot of sexist media coverage, some of it coming from NBC reporters and commentators.

For that Keith Olbermann calls Couric “the worst person in the world.”

I’ve written before about why Hillary lost the Democratic nomination, and I don’t think sexism was the main reason.

But you have to be blind and deaf not to acknowledge that a lot of sexist coverage and commentary was directed at her, and MSNBC personalities were among the worst offenders:

For a thoughtful analysis of how sexism affected Clinton’s campaign, read this essay by Trapper John.

If I were Barack Obama, I don’t know whom I would choose for a running mate.

In a typical year, it would be enough to select a VP candidate who balances the ticket, or helps deliver a key state.

This year, with Obama just barely winning the most hard-fought nominating contest in living memory, it is vital for him to choose someone who can unite the party.

Some Clinton supporters think the only way for him to do that is to “throw the Hillary haters under the bus and ask Hillary to be his running mate.”

I am not convinced that Hillary is the best choice for Obama, but she’s far from the worst choice.

It would be much worse for Obama to choose someone who would particularly alienate the very voting blocs that favored Hillary in the primaries.

Two great posts by Natasha Chart make this point better than I can:

Veepness stakes: Please no Webb, DINOs

Veepness stakes: Securing the Clinton bloc

Do click over. These are worth your time.

UPDATE: Longtime Edwards supporter Neil Sinhababu gives you “Ten Good Reasons for an Obama/Edwards ticket.” I’m not sure that would be Obama’s best move, but he could do a lot worse. Edwards has said publicly he’s not interested in running for VP again, though.

SECOND UPDATE: David Yepsen looks at the pros and cons of having Hillary on the ticket and concludes, “Don’t Go There, Obama.”

Anyone out there watch the speech?

Hillary’s internet director Peter Daou posted the text here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

Use this as an open thread to share your thoughts on her concession, prospects for unifying the party, or any other relevant topic.

If you’re one of the people who swore she’d never support Barack Obama, and even falsely claimed (as I saw in countless blog posts elsewhere) that she had “endorsed” McCain over Obama, now would be a good time to apologize to the Clinton supporters you know.

UPDATE: If you’re still nursing a grudge that Clinton didn’t drop out sooner, read this comment Open Left user FuzzyDunlop made a few days ago:

Its also worth keeping in mind (4.00 / 12)

that no candidate with a position nearly as strong as hers (and many with positions much weaker) has not taken the fight to the convention.  I don’t expect Clinton to do that, nor do I think she should.  But people need a reality check.  If she ends up dropping out and not bringing the fight to Denver, that will be a move that is historically unprecedented.  If anything, she should be lauded for not prolonging the fight, as all her forebearers in similar positions have, rather than being skewered at every opportunity for not dropping out sooner or for using her leverage to win some concessions.

With the renewed talk in a “dream ticket”, I thought it might be a good idea to look at who might be stepping into the Hill-ster's old Senate seat should she be movin' on up. (Ed. note–nearly all the news links on this are from the first time this speculation went around, last fall, when the Clinton campaign was on top. Forgive the Spitzer references.)

The rules of the game are slightly different than in Illinois in the case of Sen. Obama. The governor appoints someone to partially fulfill the term of the seat in question with no vote or vetting by the party. That person then holds the seat until 2010, when a special election would be held. Should the same person win, they then serve two more years until 2012–the original end of Sen. Clinton's current term. Therefore, whoever it is better be up for campaigning twice in four years–and winning.

The Magnificent Six:

1. NY Gov David Patterson

    Prior to his ascension to the Governor's office, Patterson was considered the odds on favorite to take the seat. He himself reportedly expressed interest in it on several occasions, both to the media and privately to then-Gov. Eliot “Number 9” Spitzer. If he's still interested in the job, he first must appoint a suitable Lt. Gov to take over his job before Jan. 2009, and then simply sign off on his own promotion. It remains to be seen however, if he can hold his current seat–let alone a Senate position.

2. Fmr. Pres. Bill Clinton

    Let's get this one out of the way early. There is talk that appointing Bill to the senate would solve “the Bill problem”. Some have said that Bill would likely chafe with boredom as the Second Gentleman, and appointment to the Senate would keep him engaged and in power–and he would, by all indications, be a great senator. And there is historical precedent. Both John Adams Quincy and Andrew Johnson both served in the Senate after their terms in office.

3. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    As one Kennedy star sets, could another be on the rise? Prominent environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been quoted as saying “If Hillary left the Senate, I might run for that seat.” However, there is no coronation yet for this dynastic son. He's pro-life and strongly Catholic, which may turn off some voters, also he's inherited the Kennedy family skeleton closet. However, the compelling justice of Kennedy ascending to his slain father's Senate seat may be just what NY voters (and the nation at large) are looking for.

The big news of the day is that Barack Obama has picked up enough superdelegates, along with delegates pledged to John Edwards, to clinch the presidential nomination.

I’ve been trying to tell people at Daily Kos for months that the superdelegates would bring down the curtain after all the states had voted.

I think the extended primary season was on balance excellent for the Democratic Party, and I couldn’t disagree more with those who have been badgering Hillary Clinton to drop out for the past two or three months.

Early returns from South Dakota indicate that Hillary will win that primary, by the way.

Polls close soon in Iowa, and I will update this diary when I have some results to report.

UPDATE: With 46 percent of precincts reporting Boswell leads Fallon 56 percent to 44 percent. Not clear whether absentee ballots have already been counted. I would expect Boswell to have an edge there. Also not clear whether the big Des Moines precincts have reported.

UPDATE 2: Not looking good for Fallon–Boswell leads 57-43 with 60 percent of precincts reporting.

The GOP Senate candidates are bunched closely together with 25 percent of precincts reporting.

Still only 4 percent of precincts reporting in IA-04. Greenwald leads, but it’s way too early.

Peter Teahen is ahead in the GOP primary in IA-02 wih 30 percent of precincts reporting.

UPDATE 3: The Des Moines Register has called the IA-03 primary for Boswell. He leads 60-40 with 90 percent of precincts reporting.

Becky Greenwald has a huge lead in IA-04, with 52.6 percent of the vote after 59 percent of precincts reported. Kurt Meyer is in second place with 26.6 percent; William Meyers has 12.1 percent, and Kevin Miskell has 8.7 percent.

Mariannette Miller-Meeks has a small lead over Peter Teahen, 44.3 percent to 42.3 percent with 82 percent of precincts reporting.

The GOP Senate race is very close with 79 percent of precincts reporting: Christopher Reed has 35.4 percent, George Eichhorn has 34.9 percent.

UPDATE 4: There may need to be a recount in IA-02. With 98 percent of precincts reporting, Miller-Meeks leads Teahen by fewer than 100 votes, 43.5 percent to 43.0 percent.

The GOP Senate primary is also a squeaker, with fewer than 200 votes separating reed and Eichhorn.

Boswell leads Fallon 61-29 with 98 percent reporting.

Greenwald leads Meyer 51-27 with 84 percent reporting.

All the Democratic House incumbents who had primary challengers held on to their seats.

Jerry Sullivan won the primary in House district 59 with 78 percent of the vote despite the robocalls against him that I wrote about last night.

FINAL UPDATE: It looks like Obama won the Montana primary and Clinton won the South Dakota primary.

I didn’t see Obama’s speech to a huge crowd in the Twin Cities, but I am amused that John McCain stupidly scheduled a speech for this evening. His speech got cut off so the tv networks could devote coverage to the big story (Obama winning the nomination) and Obama’s big speech (which was apparently great).

In IA-03, Boswell beat Fallon by 61-39 percent with all the precincts in. That is comparable to Representative Jane Harman’s victory over Marcy Winograd in a California Congressional district two years ago. Harman’s voting record reportedly improved after that primary. Let’s hope we can expect the same from Boswell.

Final results from the IA-04 primary: Greenwald 50.7 percent, Meyer 27.6 percent, Meyers 13.2 percent, Miskell 8.4 percent.

Christopher Reed won the GOP Senate primary by about 400 votes out of about 70,000 votes cast. He had 35.3 percent of the vote, George Eichhorn had 34.7 percent, and Steve Rathje had 29.9 percent.

IA-02 race called for Miller-Meeks. She won by a margin of 109 votes out of nearly 17,000 votes cast.

Nothing on the Des Moines Register’s site about recounts in the GOP Senate primary or Congressional primary in IA-02.

With only days to go before the June 3rd primary, it looks like some basic facts are finally coming out about Iowa'a 4th District congressional candidate Kurt Meyer. This past Friday, the Des Moines Register wrote about Kurt's tenuous connection to Iowa.

1. Kurt Meyer has not filed an Iowa tax return in TEN years!
2. Kurt Meyer officially got his Iowa driver's license on Dec. 31st, 2007.
3. Kurt's son attends school in Minneapolis – 4 years after Kurt MOVES to Iowa.

Kurt claims he moved back to Iowa in 2004, but the facts don't back this up.

Additional evidence of Kurt's purposeful deceit is found in a number of political donations that Meyer and his wife have made over the past several years.

If Kurt moved to Iowa 4 years ago, why have 4 out of 5 political donations to political candidates and the Iowa Democratic Party list his suburban Edina, Minnesota address?

1. Most recently Kurt donated $1,000 to the IA Dem Party on Oct. 17, 2007 and Meyer's put down the address of his home the wealthy suburb of Edina, Minnesota.

What's up with that?

2. A month earlier – Sept. 18, 2007 – Kurt's wife (Paula R Meyer) made an $1,800 donation to Hillary Clinton for President and listed their St. Ansgar home as her residence.

3. In 2006 Kurt donated his first $400 to the IA Dem Party and again used his upscale suburban Edina, Minnesota address.

4. Also, in 2006, Meyer's wife donated $250 to Spencer for Congress, again listing the Edina, Minnesota.

5. Another 2006 donation from Mrs Paula R Meyers for $500 for Klobuchar for Minnesota is listed at the Edina, Minnesota address.

Why did Kurt decide to run for Congress from Iowa rather than Minnesota where his high school aged son still lives?

No Iowa taxes no residence. What is Kurt hiding?

Iowa is obviously a great place to live, but is a person who has only lived in the state for a few months in his second home qualified to represent Iowans true needs.

Kurt's entire campaign has been dishonest about his limited connection to Iowa and Iowans deserve an explanation…

Maybe Meyer should try running in Minnesota next time, these are not deceits that Iowans will take lightly in November's election. The Democratic Party would do well to heed this warning or we will be sending Tom Latham back to Congress once again.

Below is a list of donations made by Minnesotan Kurt Meyer and his wife Paula R Meyer:

The pundit class and blogosphere are in full-blown hyperventilation mode because Hillary Clinton alluded to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in June 1968.

True to their habit of ascribing the most evil motives possible to everything Hillary does, some people are assuming that she made the comment because of an expectation or “morbid fantasy” that something terrible will happen to Barack Obama.

Take a step back and look at what she said in her meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board:

HRC: … You know, I have been willing to do all of that during the entire process, and people have been trying to push me out of this ever since —

Q: Why?

HRC: I don’t know, I don’t know.  I find it curious, because it is unheard of in history.  I don’t understand it.  And you know, between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this.  And, you know, historically that makes no sense.  So, I find it a bit of a mystery.

Q: You don’t buy the party unity argument?

HRC: I don’t.  Because, again, I’ve been around long enough – you know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June.  Right?  We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.  You know, I just – I don’t understand it, and, you know, there’s a lot of speculation about why it is.  But —

Q: What’s your speculation?

HRC: You know, I don’t know.  I find it curious.  And I don’t want to attribute motives or strategies to people who I don’t really know …

Though I wouldn’t have recommended using that analogy, it seems clear to me that Hillary was referring to the fact that RFK was still campaigning (not having wrapped up the nomination) in June at the time of his assassination.

Many bloggers, including Iowa’s own John Deeth, are mad that Hillary didn’t reference different historical events, such as the Democratic nominating contest in 1972 or the Republican one in 1976. Deeth is convinced that she must have been voicing “a subconscious wish to whack a rival.”

None of us are mind-readers. It’s a sad day when so many Democrats are quick to assume the worst about the Clintons. If I want to hear why everything Hillary does reflects her malicious desires, I can turn on some right-wing radio show.  

And for those who claim Hillary is too smart and politically astute to make any comment by accident, think about it: Does it make sense that Hillary would expect to gain political advantage from mentioning RFK’s assassination?

Isn’t it obvious to anyone who has been watching this campaign that such a comment would cause a firestorm of outrage that would benefit Obama politically?

I am giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt. While explaining that it is historically not unusual for a presidential campaign to go on until the summer, she used unfortunate words. We all make mistakes.

Frankly, I am more bothered by the recent comments of Hillary’s chief fundraising official, businessman Hassan Nemazee:

“There’s a desire on the part of the party to come together under any circumstances, and Hillary and her supporters will do everything in their power to help Obama win, should he become the nominee, whether or not she’s on the ticket,” Nemazee said to me this morning.

“But there’s a risk that if she isn’t invited on the ticket, Hillary’s political and financial supporters may not feel compelled to be as integrated and involved in the Obama campaign in order to provide the maximum support that he’ll need to prevail in November.”

To paraphrase Fat Albert, this guy is like school in the summertime–no class.

On one level, he is just stating the obvious: Hillary’s supporters will be more active in Obama’s campaign if she is on the ticket, the same way John Edwards’ supporters became more enthusiastic about John Kerry.

But I don’t care for the thinly-veiled threat to withhold financial support from Obama. This was no slip of the tongue. This was a clear hint that Obama will pay a price if he doesn’t pick Clinton for vice-president.

The Clinton camp should not be making this argument. They can provide other reasons for choosing Hillary as VP without making threats.

I also agree with TomP, who wrote yesterday that this kind of pressure is counter-productive if your goal is to get Obama to pick Hillary:

Hillary Clinton would not be my first choice for VP, but that is up to Obama.  The problem she is creating now, however, is that attempts to blackmail Obama in to giving her the VP nomination, which is how I read Mr.  Nemazee’s comments, push Obama into a position where he must refuse her.

If Clinton threats pushed Obama into offering her the VP, he could easily be attacked as “weak” and unable to stand up to Hillary.  Think how McCain and his surrogates would use that.

For the record, I wouldn’t advise Obama to offer Hillary the VP slot, and I wouldn’t advise Hillary to accept it if offered.  

Ben Smith put up a post about Barack Obama’s prominent early supporters, who came on board when he was seen as having little chance of beating Hillary Clinton. Here is his list:

Senator Richard Durbin

Former Majority Leader Tom Daschle

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller

Oprah Winfrey

Iowa Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald

Former Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Gordon Fischer

Ted Sorensen

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine

Alabama Rep. Artur Davis

New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes

It’s easy to forget now that Gordon Fischer was on the fence between Clinton and Obama for some time last summer. He told the story of how Obama’s campaign hooked him in an interview with New Yorker journalist Ryan Lizza:

Obama, who had sometimes seemed to eschew the details of campaigning which Clinton appears to revel in, has become more enmeshed in the state’s idiosyncratic politics. Consider the conquest of Gordon Fischer, a former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. Every campaign wanted Fischer’s endorsement, but the Obama campaign pursued him relentlessly. At a recent lunch at the Des Moines Embassy Club, a restaurant on the forty-first floor of the tallest building in the state, Fischer explained how Obama’s Iowa operatives used his closest friends to persuade him to back Obama. One, Lola Velázquez-Aguilú, managed to decorate part of Fischer’s house with photographs of Obama that featured thought bubbles asking for Fischer’s endorsement. (“Has anyone told you how great you look today?” an image of Obama taped to a mirror said. “So, are you ready to sign a supporter card?”) When Obama staffers learned that the late Illinois senator Paul Simon was a hero of Fischer’s, they asked Simon’s son-in-law, Perry Knop, to call Fischer and make the case for Obama. At one point, Obama himself invited Fischer onto his campaign bus and told him that he had to stay aboard until he agreed to an endorsement. When Fischer insisted that he had to make the decision with his wife, Monica, Obama demanded Monica’s cell-phone number, and he called her at once. “Monica, this is Barack Obama,” he said when her voice mail came on. “I’m with your husband here, and I’m trying to go ahead and close the deal for him to support my candidacy. . . . Discuss it over with your man. Hopefully we can have you on board.” The Fischers were sufficiently impressed to endorse him, two weeks later. “I think the Iowa campaign has been run better than the national campaign,” Fischer said.

When I read Lizza’s article last November, I showed that passage to my husband, who remarked, “That’s actually a really good argument for scrapping the caucuses.” I’m sure that wasn’t Fischer’s intention, though!

But I digress.

Ben Smith’s post reminded me that I’ve been meaning to put up a poll about which candidate had the best celebrity supporters.

For the purposes of this diary, I am focusing on celebrities who publicly endorsed or campaigned for a candidate. Lists of famous donors can be deceiving, since many rich and famous people give large sums to multiple candidates:

Actor Michael Douglas, for example, has contributed to five current and former Democratic presidential candidates. As of Sept. 30, the latest reports available, he had donated the maximum $4,600 $2,300 for the primary campaign and $2,300 for the general election to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd, and $1,500 to Dennis Kucinich.

[…]

Another serial donor in the current election is Paul Newman, who gave the maximum contribution to Obama, Clinton, and Dodd, and $2,300 to Richardson.

Some donors have spread the wealth around but have decided to back one candidate. Barbra Streisand gave $2,300 each to Clinton, Edwards and Obama, and $1,000 to Dodd, but recently endorsed Clinton for president.

[…]

Steven Spielberg and Rob Reiner are two other celebrities who donated to multiple presidential candidates four a piece before settling on Clinton. Reiner also shot a spoof video for Clinton’s Web site.

Actress Mary Steenburgen gave money to both Edwards and Clinton, but has backed Clinton, a friend for three decades, from the get-go. Steenburgen, a native of Newport, Ark., met the Clintons when Bill Clinton was in his first term as governor of Arkansas.

Last month the Huffington Post published this piece on the top ten celebrities for Clinton and Obama. Here is their list for Obama:

1. Oprah

2. will.i.am

3. the Kennedy women (Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg and Maria Shriver)

4. Ben Affleck

5. George Clooney

6. Scarlett Johansson

7. Samuel L. Jackson

8. Chris Rock

9. Robert De Niro

10. Jennifer Aniston

At least I have heard of these people. When I first saw will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” video, I swear that the only person I recognized was Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

HuffPo’s list of top ten Clinton supporters:

1. Ellen DeGeneres

2. Elton John

3. Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen

4. Jack Nicholson

5. Natalie Portman

6. Mario Lavandeira (I never heard of him, but apparently he is the celebrity blogger Perez Hilton)

7. America Ferrera (star of “Ugly Betty”)

8. Magic Johnson

9. Barbra Streisand

10. Eva Longoria Parker (star of “Desperate Housewives”)

The list of other famous people who have donated to Obama or Clinton is of course very long. I know that Bruce Springsteen and Tom Hanks are also public Obama supporters. If I’ve left out celebrities who played an important public role in either candidate’s campaign, please let me know in the comments.

John Edwards: A bunch of big Hollywood names donated to his campaign, but most of them did not play any public role, and many also gave money to other Democratic candidates.

I was fortunate enough to see one of the mini-concerts Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne did for Edwards in Iowa last November. They also campaigned for him in New Hampshire. Tim Robbins came to early-voting states to stump for Edwards as well. I heard from a friend who saw Robbins in Des Moines that his first comment to the crowd was, “I’m not Oprah.” Ben “Cooter” Jones, former Congressman and star of the tv show “Dukes of Hazzard,” also campaigned for Edwards in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

UPDATE: I can’t believe I forgot that Madeleine Stowe, Kevin Bacon, and James Denton (of “Desperate Housewives” fame) also came to Iowa to help out Edwards. In addition, Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte endorsed Edwards. Jon Mellencamp not only supported Edwards, he also invited him on stage during a concert in Des Moines.

Bill Richardson: Again, a lot of big Hollywood names maxed out to his campaign, but most of them didn’t endorse him. The exception was Martin Sheen, who came to Iowa in December to go out on the stump with Richardson. Sheen endorsed Obama after Richardson dropped out.

Joe Biden: The famous people listed here as his donors mostly contributed to other candidates as well. I cannot recall any celebrities coming to Iowa to campaign with Biden, but please correct me in the comments if I am wrong. He was often accompanied by family members, especially his sons Beau and Hunter. (UPDATE: I forgot that Richard Schiff, who played Toby the communications guy on “The West Wing,” came to Iowa to campaign with Biden.)

Chris Dodd: Many of the famous people who donated to his campaign also donated to other candidates. However, it is worth mentioning that singer-songwriter Paul Simon campaigned with Dodd in Iowa last July, and former Democratic Senatorial candidate Ned Lamont campaigned with Dodd in Iowa last November.

Dennis Kucinich: Viggo Mortensen came to New Hampshire to campaign with Kucinich after the candidate was left out of the last presidential debate before that state’s primary. Apparently Sean Penn gave Kucinich money during the 2004 campaign.

I am not aware of any celebrity supporters of Mike Gravel.

Click “there’s more” to take the poll after the jump.

Michelle Cottle recently wrote a fascinating and thorough account of where Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign went wrong. Click that link to read the whole article at The New Republic, which is the “exclusive story of Hillary’s fall, as told by the high-level advisors, staffers, fundraisers, and on-the-ground organizers who lived it.”

Markos has a simpler explanation:

If Clinton hadn’t voted for Bush’s war, and compounded that grievous mistake by voting for that Iran bill, she’d likely be the nominee.

John Judis largely agrees with Markos but adds a few other points. For instance, he notes that Clinton waited a long time to go negative on Obama, and then when she did, she did it in a way that backfired with certain Democratic constituences and the political/media class.

Clinton supporter “lombard” posted his or her own list of reasons Hillary lost at MyDD.

I think there is some truth to all of these explanations. It could not be more obvious that Mark Penn believed his own spin about Hillary being so far ahead almost everywhere that the nomination would end on Super Tuesday. The Clinton campaign had no game plan for the nomination battle going beyond February 5.

Meanwhile, Obama started out so far behind, and had such good fundraising, that he was working on building an organization in every state to counteract Hillary’s advantage.

I think Iowans were bound to go for an alternative to Hillary, which is one reason why I was saying all last year that she would finish no better than third here. We knew that if Hillary won Iowa, the race was over. The battle was over who would be the “not Hillary” to win Iowa. But if the Clinton campaign hadn’t made other strategic errors, they would have been able to ride out losing Iowa.

I would add that the media strongly favored Obama over Clinton, especially between October and February. The debate on October 30 was one of the turning points in this election. Obama had plenty of missteps in various debates during 2007, but he never got hammered the way Hillary did after that debate. It was her worst debate of the year, but really, she didn’t do that badly.

That was right around the same time the media bashed Clinton on other things too (including the false story that she and her entourage didn’t tip the staff at an Iowa diner). And after failing to gain traction against Hillary for months, Obama started moving up in national polls soon after that October 30 debate.

I wouldn’t say the media were the main factor in Hillary’s loss, but they had their thumb on the scales for sure. (Judis mentions this in his piece as well.) In part, journalists were probably bored with Hillary being ahead and wanted a closer horse race. Also, it can’t be denied that Obama simply appeals more to the pundit class than the Clintons ever did.

I can’t put it any better than Matt Stoller did did in late January (keep in mind that Stoller prefers Obama to Clinton):

For now, Matthew Yglesias, K-Lo at NRO’s the Corner, Andrew Sullivan, and Josh Marshall are all effusively praising Obama.  There’s something of a DC-New York Ivy pundit crush on Obama that I’m seeing all over the place.  The Village is happy as a clam to see Hillary and Bill go down.  And be aware that the Village doesn’t like us and wants us to shut up and stop bothering them about silly things like civil rights and the Consti-whatever it’s called.  And oh yeah, Iraq.

So as you are seeing the primary play out, note that Obama’s coalition is resting on what is potentially a very fragile foundation.  I find Obama’s organizing capacity remarkable and wonderful for all sorts of reasons, and I’ll have more on that soon.  But keep in mind that the weird alliance between the pro-Obama netroots, the DC Villagers and media, the right-wing establishment, business leaders, social justice activists, and black elites is temporary.  These varying interests only intersect on one thing, and that is taking down the Clinton’s.  A Village temper tantrum against the Clinton’s happens periodically, and it is never a good thing.  Ever.  And if and once the Clinton’s have lost, the fraying of this coalition will happen instantly and unpredictably, depending on Obama’s personal allegiances and the various political interests and their calculations.  

Speaking of Hillary, go read American007’s diary about what she may want to bargain for in any negotiations with Obama.

I’m not sure I’ll be able to log on later to update this diary with the results, but please use this thread to discuss how things went tonight.

There will be frequent updates at:

http://www.dailykos.com

http://www.mydd.com

What will tomorrow’s headlines be?

Tomorrow’s primary day in Kentucky and Oregon.

Chris Bowers has the latest polling averages for both states.

I’m going with Clinton winning Kentucky 65-30, with Edwards pulling 5 percent. I have no idea why he is still on the ballot there, but apparently he is, as he was in West Virginia (where he got 7 percent).

I’ll pick Obama to win Oregon 58-42. I have no clue what will happen in the Democratic Senate primary in that state.

If you like scenario spinning, go read DavidNYC’s projection of how Obama could win Mississippi this November. Doesn’t sound likely to me against a Republican military hero, but I suppose stranger things have happened.

Finally, political junkies should read Benny’s diary on the right hand side of your screen.

Kevin Miskell, candidate in the IA-04 primary, will be liveblogging at the EENR blog this Wednesday, May 21, from 6 to 7 pm.

Ed Fallon will be liveblogging at EENR on Thursday, May 22, from noon to 1 pm.

Benny’s diary has instructions for registering at EENR, if you are not already a registered user, and for submitting questions for Fallon in advance.

UDPATE: Turns out Markos and I are on the same wavelength with our predictions:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Click the link to read what Poblano and others project.

A little more than two weeks before the Democratic primary in Iowa’s third Congressional district, Ed Fallon has challenged Congressman Leonard Boswell to shift his support as a superdelegate from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.

It’s a shrewd move for several reasons.

First, Iowa’s third district went for Obama in January, as yesterday’s press release from Fallon underscores:

Fallon says, “Even though Hillary Clinton finished behind Barack Obama and John Edwards in the Third Congressional District, Congressman Boswell continues to ignore the will of the majority by saying he will cast his superdelegate vote for Clinton.”

Fallon worked with John Edwards through the Iowa Caucuses and then endorsed Barack Obama in February. Fallon says, “Both Obama and Edwards are people whose principles reflect my belief that we need to get big money out of politics and stand up to the special interests to accomplish real change in this country. It’s time to come together and focus on defeating John McCain in November.”

As I’ve written before, Fallon yard signs are often seen in the same yards as the Obama “HOPE” signs, while Boswell’s yard signs are frequently paired with Hillary signs.

Any further publicity that aligns Fallon with Obama, and Boswell with Clinton, can’t hurt the challenger and may even sway some undecided Democrats.

Second, Obama is coming back to Des Moines this Tuesday for a victory rally on the night when he is expected to win a majority of the Democratic Party’s pledged delegates. This will surely be a big media event.

Fallon spoke at a Nation for Change rally supporting Obama in Des Moines last month. Whether or not Fallon is able to address the crowd this coming Tuesday, Obama’s visit may generate some media coverage about which prominent Iowans are supporting Obama, and which are still with Clinton.

Third, since Boswell has rejected all invitations to debate, Fallon will not have many more opportunities to trip up the incumbent before the June 3 primary. Challenging Boswell to back Obama is a way to shift the media narrative.

Speaking of debates, Boswell has said he could not spare the time for them because he is too busy working on the farm bill and other legislation. But Congress has already sent the farm bill to President Bush and is likely to be in recess during the last week in May. It’s too bad that Boswell can’t be straightforward about his reasons for not debating Fallon.

A final note before I end this post: after trying for more than a week, I have so far been unable to get any comment from Boswell’s campaign or his Congressional office on whether Boswell was the Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who on May 8 supported a Republican effort to add the Senate version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (which includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies) to the fiscal 2009 Intelligence authorization bill.

I am still trying to get someone who works for Boswell to confirm or deny this speculation and will bring you up to date on this soon.

I was reading this post by Fmr. Clinton Labor Secretary (and current Obama supporter) Robert Reich that lays out three scenarios for why Hillary is staying in the race. Here are the condensed versions:

1. The Clintons still think they can win.

2. Hillary is positioning herself for a run in 2012 or 2016.

3. Hillary is looking for the best deal from Obama. (I would add the DNC to this deal-making)

Dr. Reich's analysis concludes that it's a mixture of all three, and I agree. I also agree that by this point, most of her motivation has to be coming from the second and third. With that in mind, I want to look at some very specific things she might be negotiating for.

Short Term Goals:

    1. Campaign Debt Relief

     Hillary is in hock by at least $21 million dollars, and she's written off millions of dollars in personal loans. Obama, on the other hand is sitting on over $200 million dollars and a massive donor list. While campaign finance laws mean that he can't simply write her a big Publishers' Clearinghouse sized check–he can fundraise for her and let her in on his donor list. And, as this LA Times article suggests, many Obama supporters would be glad to write Hillary a check if she buries the hatchet. Just as long as she doesn't bury it in Obama's back. 

    2. Seat the Michigan and Florida Delegates

    As Dr. Reich points out, this would be a huge moral victory for Hillary. It would also keep Michigan and Florida happy, avoiding a convention rules fight and sore feelings in the general election. If nothing else, it would allow Hillary the high note on which to end her campaign and change the media message, which otherwise dwell on her “failed campaign”. Not to mention that it would put her in good standing in those state should should she take a run in 2012 (God forbid) or 2016.

    3. A Hand in Choosing Obama's Vice-President

    If Hillary can't be Obama's vice-president (and it's looking like a remote possibility that she can), she more than likely wants to be in on the selection process. If she's positioning herself for a 2012 or 2016 run, she needs to keep her position as the preeminent female Democrat. Obviously it's going to make a political comeback down the road much more difficult if she has to square off against Vice President Kathleen Sebelius in 2016, (or VP candidate Sebelius in 2012). 

    My guess is, she would like to see a VP candidate who is sympathetic to her and appealing to her supporters, as well as (and this is key) someone who would make a backroom pledge to step aside in either 2012 or 2016 should Hillary want to run again.  Evan Bayh, Wes Clark, and Bill Richardson would all fit the bill nicely.

I've got a long diary coming in the next week or two on tips for Barack Obama's volunteers as they reach out to Democrats who did not support Obama in the primaries.

For today, I have just a short message for you.

Heaping scorn on those who supported Hillary Clinton and are disappointed that she is losing does not help your candidate.

If you care about beating John McCain, show a little more empathy and a lot less hostility toward the hardcore Clinton supporters. Otherwise you will only deepen the alienation they feel from the Obama-loving crowd.

When talking to someone who is disappointed that Obama will be our nominee, try to focus on positive reasons to support him, delivered without gloating.

Someone has urged me not to pay much attention to the electoral vote trackers

on the front page of MyDD, because in some respects they differ from state polling averages you will find at pollster.com or at Real Clear Politics.

Jerome Armstrong, the founder of MyDD, addressed concerns about the electoral vote tracker in this post:

As it says, when you click on either of the map counters of EV’s:

“This Electoral Vote Map is updated constantly to forecast the 2008 Presidential election based on the latest available state polling.”

The very latest poll in each state, without weighting or averaging.

There isn’t a bias as to the pollster, if you see the poll listed as credible on Pollster.com, or RealClearPolitics.com, it’ll be included. But, if the latest poll is tied, then the result remains the same as the previous latest poll.

This is a forecast made by the very latest poll. If you see a mistake, perhaps a poll was missed that is the latest, then point it out, and one of the admins will make the change.

The forecast isn’t a prediction of the election, but a simple up-to-the-minute poll temperature of the state polling.

(update) And yes, you can edit the map yourself, as one user explains:

1) When you first log onto mydd, it populates the two maps with the most recent single poll for each state.

2) If you then click on the map and change it (for example, you don’t believe that Hillary would lose WA to McCain), the numbers update to your settings – now it becomes like an EV calculator

3) The next time you log on, or refresh the page even, the counters go back to their poll-generated state.

Polling averages (for instance, of the five most recent polls in a state) are great when you have several polls taken within a short period of time, as we’re likely to have this fall.

But I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to average the last five polls in a state if that takes you back a couple of months.

Some people have objected that the MyDD tracker recently showed Iowa in Clinton’s column against McCain. That was based on a Research 2000 poll taken on April 22 and 23, which showed her slightly ahead of him, 43-42. Currently, the most recent poll is from Rasmussen on May 13, which showed McCain beating Clinton in Iowa 45-42. As you can see if you click over to MyDD, Iowa is now red for McCain against Clinton.

You may prefer polling averages to whatever the latest poll says, and I will too, once we start getting more frequent releases of state polls. For now, I think that MyDD’s methodology is sound.

Armstrong is probably the blogosphere’s most prominent Obama critic, and Clinton supporters usually dominate the recommended diary list at MyDD, but I encourage you not to write off everything you see at that site, even if you don’t like Clinton. Anyway, front-pager Jonathan Singer is a big Obama advocate.

I figured that if John Edwards hadn’t endorsed by now, he would wait until all of the states had held their primaries, but he proved me wrong today.

The video of his speech endorsing Barack Obama, as well as his interview on Larry King Live this past Monday, can be found here in NCDem Amy’s diary.

I find it interesting that they chose Michigan as the venue for the big endorsement rally. Obama may realize that he could be in some trouble in Michigan, since he didn’t campaign there before the January primary and didn’t get behind any re-vote plan for the state.

The timing of the endorsement stepped on Hillary Clinton’s big victory in West Virginia yesterday. Still, I am glad that Edwards paid tribute to Hillary today as well:

It is very very hard to get up every day and do what she’s done. It is hard to get out there and fight and speak up when the odds turn against you. What she has shown is strength and character and what drives her is something that each and every one of us should appreciate. She cares about working people…men and women in Iraq…she is a woman made of steel and she is a leader in this country not because of her husband but because of what she has done…When this nomination battle is over, brothers and sisters, we must come together as Democrats and in the fall stand up for the future of America to make America better. We are a stronger party because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat…and we will have a stronger presidential nominee in the fall because of her work.

I don’t think Edwards is a good match for Obama as a VP candidate, but I would like to see him out there campaigning for Obama in the coming months. I believe that he could help Obama in states such as Michigan and Ohio.

According to the electoral vote counter on the upper left side of the front page at MyDD, John McCain is currently projected to defeat Obama 290-248. Obama would win the Kerry states minus Wisconsin, Michigan and New Hampshire, plus Iowa and Colorado–not nearly enough.

Ironically, Hillary is currently in a much stronger position against McCain, even though she has in essence no chance of winning the Democratic nomination anymore. The electoral vote counter for her, on the upper right side of the front page at MyDD, has her beating McCain 291-247. Hillary would be projected to win the Kerry states minus Wisconsin and Michigan, plus Ohio, Florida and Iowa.

UPDATE: At MyDD, Josh Orton notes that Elizabeth Edwards was not up on the stage with her husband tonight. One might interpret this to mean that she disagrees with the endorsement (she has already said she prefers Hillary’s health care reform plan). However, my hunch is that she is limiting her overnight travel away from their two school-age children. There was no compelling need for her to be there. After such a long campaign, during which the kids traveled with Elizabeth much of the time, she may just prefer to be at home.

At TalkLeft, Big Tent Democrat had high praise for Edwards’ speech and made an interesting point I hadn’t thought about:

John Edwards, populist hero with a proven record of connecting with white working class voters has vouched for Barack Obama. Does Kentucky buy it?

The Kentucky contest, previously a foregone conclusion for the Media, now becomes a test. For Barack Obama. He needs to go in to Kentucky, WITH John Edwards, and fight for their votes. He needs to show he cares about the voters of Kentucky. Particularly white working class voters. An interesting development indeed.

My money is still on a Clinton blowout in Kentucky next Tuesday.

Hillary Clinton trounced Barack Obama in West Virginia. With 95 percent reporting, she has 67 percent and he has 26 percent. Clinton received approximately 140,000 more votes than Obama. I don’t know why John Edwards was still on the ballot in WV, but he seems to have gotten almost 7 percent of the vote.

In her victory speech, Hillary mentioned Dalton Hatfield, an 11-year-old from Kentucky who sold his bike and video games to donate about $400 to the Clinton campaign. This prompted an Obama supporter to post an idiotic diary at Daily Kos, suggesting that Hillary had “sunk lower” than Richard Nixon did when he delivered his famous “Checkers” speech in 1952.

Clinton supporter Trix had the ultimate comeback:

 Something tells me that… (11+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

   Rimjob, dhonig, wader, desmoinesdem, homogenius, Lying eyes, rcald, Mikesco, Barry in MIA, lineatus, Namtrix

if this were a story about a kid selling his bike to donate the proceeds to Obama, you’d be going on and on about how inspiring Obama is to children.

Hillary Clinton turned me into a newt. I got better.

by Trix on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:13:56 PM PDT

On the Republican side, John McCain only managed about 76 percent of the vote in WV, with 10 percent going for Mike Huckabee and 5 percent choosing Ron Paul.

I have to agree with isucyclones94, though, who commented in the previous thread that Democrat Travis Childers’ victory in the special election in Mississippi’s first Congressional district is the biggest story of the night.

This is a district with a partisan index of R+10, and the Republicans worked hard to link Childers to Obama and Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

Yet Childers won by a margin of 54-46. I totally agree with Jonathan Singer’s take on this outcome:

  1. I don’t want to go so far as to say that this is the end of the Republican Party, because it’s not. But this is as bad news as the GOP could possibly get at this point. They lost a district that leans 6 points more Republican than the nation as a whole in Illinois in March. They lost a district that leans 7 points more Republican than the nation as a whole earlier this month in Louisiana. Now they lost a district that leans 10 points more Republican than the nation as a whole in Mississippi. If they can’t win in Mississippi’s first congressional district, where can they win?

  2. The Republicans tried to make this election about two people: Barack Obama and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And despite running this type of campaign, they lost. While it is true that Childers distanced himself from his party (and implicitly from Obama), the fact is that the Obama/Wright smears simply DID NOT WORK. The Republicans are going to have to get a new game plan, and the establishment media are going to have to get a new meme. Sorry folks.

The head of the National Republican Congressional Committee didn’t even try to spin the loss (click the link for his full statement).

Also, in the Democratic primary for the open U.S. Senate seat from Nebraska, netroots hero Scott Kleeb beat Tony Raimondo by a large margin, 68-25. Kleeb came pretty close to winning Nebraska’s third Congressional district in 2006, despite a very strong Republican tilt in that district. Raimondo is a Republican who switched parties just so he could run for the U.S. Senate. Good for Kleeb.

In a state as red as Nebraska, Republicans are favored to hold this Senate seat, but Kleeb will make them work for it.

The demographics are horrible for Obama, and he has hardly campaigned in the state, while Clinton has spent a lot of time there.

I’m going with 62 Clinton, 38 Obama.

For good on-the-ground reports about the campaign, read diaries by “Carnacki”:

http://www.mydd.com/user/Carnacki

The tv ad Obama ran in West Virginia can be viewed here:

http://link.brightcove.com/ser…

It’s not a bad ad, but I don’t like the halo around his head when he’s standing in front of the cross. I understand why he wants the cross in there, to combat rumors he is a Muslim, but I find the halo irritating.

At least he didn’t run on “clean West Virginia coal”!

Put your predictions for today’s primary results in the comments.

As I have said before, I think Hillary Clinton was wrong to make a summer gas tax holiday the centerpiece of her campaign for several weeks. I am glad that didn’t pan out for her in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

However, as bad an idea as a gas tax holiday would be (delivering more profits to oil companies, not really helping consumers, not helping to reduce our demand for oil), it would only be bad for a few months.

Take a look at the ad Obama is now running in Kentucky:

Also view the direct-mail piece the Obama campaign has sent out in Kentucky.

Now, maybe Obama is only pandering to Kentucky Democrats to avoid a blowout in the May 20 primary, but my fear is that if elected he would actually follow through and invest more national resources in so-called “clean coal.”

Every new coal-fired power plant built is a 50-year investment in the wrong direction, with much worse long-term consequences for our climate and environment than any summer holiday from the federal gas tax.