Posts by John Nichols

John Nichols writes about politics for The Nation magazine as its Washington correspondent.

Obama-Backing Edwards Elbows Aside Clinton
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on May 15, 2008 at 3:52 AM.

It was a weary and wistful Hillary Clinton who sat down with CNN's Wolf Blitzer and other network anchors for extended interviews in the middle of the day Wednesday. She knew that, no matter what she said, and how well she said it, it would not be enough.

Like the coronation march that her 2008 campaign was supposed to be, her latest gambit would be trumped by Barack Obama's juggernaut.

Yes, she had just been handed a face-saving landslide win by West Virginia Democrats, beating Obama by more than 2-1 in an honest-to-goodness swing state. But Clinton did not seem to be fighting very hard on a day when her senior campaign adviser, Harold Ickes, was disptached to Capitol Hill to reassure congressional supporter that the former frontrunner would remain in the race through June 3.

Clinton used her precious spotlight time to defend Obama as a friend of Israel, describe his supporters as people who thought he would be the best president and promised to "work my heart out for whoever our nominee is." Indeed, if she made news Wednesday, it was with a seeming show of openness to an as-yet-unoffered place on an Obama-led ticket. Clinton did not dismiss the vice-presidential talk – and she certainly did not resort to the old dig of suggesting she might have a place on her ticket for the senator from Illinois – she simply it was "premature" to talk about what she would be doing after her campaign was done.

Perhaps it was. But only by a few hours.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

John McCain: Eco-Warrior
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on May 13, 2008 at 8:19 AM.

Yikes, it's really true. John McCain is running for president as a tree-hugging liberal.

No, not an all-the-time environmentalist -- rather, as a swing-state-savvy, targeted-message-peddling, hoping-to-pick-up- the-votes-of-lifestyle-liberals-who-want-to-address-climate- change-on-the-cheap murky-shade-of-green Republican.

So, today, in the battleground state of Oregon, where a reverence for the outdoors requires that Republican contenders greenwash their appeals, McCain's campaign will begin airing a new television commercial that essentially says: "Look, I'm not like George Bush and Dick Cheney. I don't live in la-la land when it comes to global warming. I actually believe in something I like to call 'science.'"

The senator -- who broke a little bit with Bush and Cheney on environmental issues, but who never really lined up with the serious Republican environmentalists who were isolated by the administration and burn-the-planet GOP leaders like Tom DeLay -- is reinforcing the message with a major campaign swing through the northwest, where he hopes to put the sometimes swinging states of Oregon and Washington in play by presenting himself as John McCain: Eco-Warrior.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee swept into Portlandon Monday to deliver a major address outlining his plan to "re-establish America's environmental leadership in the world." Here's a hint about how he'll do it: The McCain campaign says the candidates wants to "mobilize market forces."

That may sound good, but as Gene Karpinski, the president of the bipartisan League of Conservation Voters, says, "To his credit, Senator McCain wants to do something serious about global warming, but his proposal falls far short of what the science says we need to do today. He has not substantively improved his plan over the bill he introduced years ago -- legislation that the science now shows is out of date."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Barack Obama's Very Good Primary Night
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on May 7, 2008 at 3:47 AM.

The last really good primary night for Barack Obama was February 19, when the senator from Illinois won the Wisconsin primary by a 58-41 margin.

Since then, the candidate who has been on the verge of claiming the Democratic presidential nomination for so very long has struggled to "close the deal."

He did not close it Tuesday night.

But he did have his best finish since February. And that finish all but assures that this most unlikely presidential contender will soon secure the nomination of his party.

The headlines may suggest that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton split Tuesday's primaries in North Carolina and Indiana -- with North Carolina for Obama and Indiana for Clinton.

But it was not an even split.

As Obama secured a landslide win in North Carolina, Clinton barely prevailed in her firewall state of Indiana.

In North Carolina, Obama was ahead 56-42. His popular vote advantage was more than 230,000.

In Indiana, Clinton squeezed out a 50.5 to 49.5 win. Her popular vote advantage was barely 20,000.

Bottom Line No. 1: Obama has come out of a night that was supposed to be a mixed one for him with a solid boost in his delegate total. He now leads Clinton by almost 150 pledged delegates and the gap is widening.

Bottom Line No. 2: Barack Obama has finished the night with a tremendous improvement in his popular vote total -- a boost so significant that it now seems all but certain that he will finish the primary competition with an overall popular-vote advantage.

That's very bad news for Clinton, who really needed to narrow the margin in the delegate race and improve her popular vote position if she was going to make an effective appeal to wavering super delegates.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Democrats Win Another GOP House Seat
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on May 5, 2008 at 5:06 AM.

Democrats took another Republican-held U.S. House seat in a special election Saturday, suggesting that the party remains on track for significant expansion of its congressional majorities in 2008.

Louisiana Democrat Don Cazayoux, a young moderate with state legislative experience, snatched a seat that Republicans had held since the 1970s by a 49-46 margin over a well-funded campaign by veteran Republican legislator Woody Jenkins.

The win extends the Democratic majority in the House to 235-198 and it continues a pattern of special-election wins for the party in seats that have traditionally been thought of as Republican strongholds -- including the Illinois turf of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

But it does something far more significant.

Republicans and their allied special-interest groups had sought to save the seat by "nationalizing" -- or, to be more precise, racializing -- the contest with a campaign that sought to tie Cazayoux to Democratic presidential frontrunner Barack Obama. Hoping to capitalize on concerns about Obama's former minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in order to exploit racial divisions in the south and other regions of recent Republican strength, GOP operatives have developed advertising schemes that feature images of Obama, Wright and local Democratic candidates.

The strategy was implemented in Louisiana and is also being used in an upcoming Mississippi special election.

The Louisiana results had Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen, the able chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, declaring, "Republicans were reminded that 'all politics is local.' House Republicans tried to nationalize this election, illegally coordinated with Freedom's Watch, used false and deceptive special interest smears, and funneled nearly a million dollars into a district that Republicans held for more than three decades."

But don't expect the Republicans, who have struggled to come up with a plan to divert voter attention from economic and foreign-policy concerns, to abandon plans to exploit racial divisions in upcoming contests.

Cazayoux was an attractive candidate with deep Louisiana roots, while Jenkins was a controversial figure even in Republican circles -- in no small part because of his past ties to former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke. And still the final result was a close one.

That has encouraged National Republican Congressional Committee, which argued that the anti-Obama campaigning helped Jenkins make up "substantial ground" in the closing days of the contest.

"This election speaks to the potential toxicity of an Obama candidacy and the possible drag he could have down-ballot this fall," argued the NRCC team in a memo that, despite its sore-loser tone, makes clear the intention of the Republican party to make the fall campaign one very long, and very ugly, "Willie Horton" ad.

Bill O'Reilly's Foxy Lady
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on May 1, 2008 at 12:02 PM.

You can argue with Bill O'Reilly about a lot of things. But the Fox Newsman got something right Wednesday night.

"(The) media in America," O'Reilly explained, "has become very corrupt, partisan."

No viewer of O'Reilly's program could possibly disagree.

Watching him get cozy with Hillary Clinton, his guest on Wednesday night, was one of the creepier moments in the creepy history of Fox's experiment in partisan broadcasting. And the pursuit of their mutual agenda -- discrediting Clinton's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama -- confirmed the the full extent of the corruption that results when a political campaign and a broadcast outlet start working together.

O'Reilly and Clinton tag-teamed Obama on the only issue that Fox covers these days: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright

O'Reilly pitched the softball: "Can you believe this Rev. Wright guy? Can you believe this guy?"

Clinton replied: "Well, I'm going to leave it up to voters to decide."

O'Reilly: "Well, what do you think as an American?"

Clinton: "Well, what I said when I was asked directly is that I would not have stayed in the church.

O'Reilly: "You're an American citizen, I'm an American citizen, He's an American citizen, Rev. Wright. What do you think when you hear a fellow American citizen say that kind of stuff about America."

Clinton: "Well, I take offense. I think it's offensive and outrageous. And, you know, I'm going to express my opinion, others can express theirs. But, you know, it is -- it is part of, you know, just an atmosphere that we're in today where all kinds of things are being said."

Clinton is Fox offended.

Clinton is Fox outraged.

Clinton may never be the Democratic nominee for president.

But she's got the makings of a Fox New analyst: corrupt, partisan and ready to play ball with Bill O'Reilly.

Chimpeach Bush? Only Third Party Candidates are Discussing it
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on April 9, 2008 at 5:53 AM.

Next week, the New Hampshire House of Representatives will be considering State Representative Betty Hall's call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Hall's been a courageous battler for presidential accountability and, during the presidential primary season in her state, she had an ally in Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, whose candidacy she endorsed.

Now that Kucinich is out of the race -- along with Delaware Senator Joe Biden who also dared to utter the "I" word -- the remaining Democratic contenders, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are shying away from even the minimal discussion of accountability that they entertained when they were running in Iowa and New Hampshire.

They're playing it so safe that, when it comes to Constitutional concerns, former Georgia Republican Congressman Bob Barr -- a recently announced Libertarian contender -- is doing a better job out outlining the high crimes and misdemeanors of the president and vice president than are the contenders for the nomination of the supposed opposition party.

Green Party contender Cynthia McKinney, a former Democratic congresswoman from Georgia, actually introduced an impeachment resolution before she left the House in 2006. She continues to be solid on these issues.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Hillary's NAFTA Lies Kill All of Her Credibility on Trade
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on March 22, 2008 at 7:24 AM.

What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate) -- that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement?

Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?

Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?

As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."

But the White House records confirm that this is not true.

Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

David Paterson: a NY Activist, Progressive, and Now Governor
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on March 13, 2008 at 7:25 AM.

In 1999, when New York City activists organized civil disobedience to protest the police shooting of African-immigrant Amadou Diallo, one of New York state's most prominent legislators arrived at police headquarters in Manhattan to be arrested as part of the a remarkable civil rights protest.

The veteran state senator who was rising to a leadership role in Democratic circles took a place symbolically blocking an entrance to One Police Place and held his wrists out. Police officers attached plastic handcuffs and led the distinguished gentleman away to be charged with disorderly conduct.

The legislator's name was David Paterson.

On Monday, he will become the 55th governor of New York state.

Little known outside New York until now, Paterson becomes an instant political celebrity as he prepares to replace scandal-plagued Governor Eliot Spitzer, whose career was ruined by his association with a money-for-sex scandal.

Paterson is a radically different political player than Spitzer, a wealthy lawyer who grabbed headlines for battling Wall Street insiders but who always acted a little more like the bankers and brokers he challenged than the victims of corporate excess.

There was nothing grassroots, neighborhood-level or community-based about Eliot Spitzer's activism. As New York's Attorney General, he would as an outgrowth of the controversy surrounding Diallo's death, announce plans to conduct inquiries into police practices.

But Spitzer did not get his hands dirty in that fight or many others, and he did not hold them out to be handcuffed.

That's why, when Spitzer prepared to seek the governorship, he asked Paterson to run with him. Spitzer recognized that he needed the state senator's credibility with community activists and progressives, even if the gubernatorial candidate never quite embraced his running-mate as a full partner.

As is often the case with lieutenant governors, the No. 2 man in New York was not always treated fairly by the No. 1 man. They clashed a bit during the 2006 campaign, and no one was surprised when Spitzer grabbed all the headlines once the team took office.

But Paterson's decision to accept the second position on Spitzer's ticket in the first weeks of 2006, which many questioned at the time, has two years after the fact made him the man of the moment.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Civil Rights Icon and Superdelegate John Lewis Officially Dumps Clinton for Obama
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on February 28, 2008 at 5:29 AM.

Georgia Congressman John Lewis, the civil right movement veteran whose endorsement was once seen as a critical component of Hillary Clinton's appeal to African-American voters, confirmed on Wednesday that he will cast his superdelegate vote at this summer's Democratic National Convention for Barack Obama.

Lewis, who hinted at the shift several weeks ago after his Atlanta-area district voted overwhelmingly for the Illinois senator, has told the Atlanta Journal Constitution that, "It's been a long, hard difficult struggle to come to where I am. But when I am, as a superdelegate, I plan to cast my vote at the convention for Barack Obama."

"Something's happening in America, something some of us did not see coming," explained Lewis. "Barack Obama has tapped into something that is extraordinary.

The move costs Clinton more than just a prominent endorsement at a time when her campaign has suffered a number of setbacks, including last week's overwhelming loss in the Wisconsin primary.

It suggests that members of Congress who endorsed Clinton early but whose districts have since voted for Obama will come under increasing pressure to "keep faith with their constituents" by casting their superdelegate votes for Obama.

As Obama has surged, his support among superdelegates -- the almost 800 elected officials and party leaders who are guaranteed votes at the convention not by caucus or primary results but by virtue of their positions -- has grown dramatically.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Norman Mailer Brawled With Bush to the Bitter End
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on November 12, 2007 at 6:00 AM.

This post, written by John Nichols, originally appeared on The Nation

There is much, much to be said of Norman Mailer, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and world-class rabble-rouser who died Saturday at age 84.

But the pugilistic pensman would perhaps be most pleased to have it known that he went down swinging. The chronicler of our politics and protests in the 1960s with two of the era's definitional books--1968's Armies of the Night and Miami and the Siege of Chicago, did not rest on the laurels--and they were legion--earned for exposing the dark undersides of the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

He went after George Bush with a fury, and a precision, that was born of his faith that all politicians--including 1969 New York City mayoral candidate Norman Mailer - had to be viewed skeptically. And, when found to be lacking, had to be dealt with using all tools available to a writer who had pocketed two Pulitzers, a National Book Award, a George Polk Award, a Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters from the National Book Foundation and a global prominence rarely accorded the pushers of pens.

Mailer did not hesitate to suggest that Bush and his compatriots were setting up "a pre-fascistic atmosphere in America" and he saw the war in Iraq as an imperialistic endeavor destined--as all such attempts are--to diminish democracy at home.

"Iraq is the excuse for moving in an imperial direction," Mailer wrote on the eve of the conflict. "War with Iraq, as they originally conceived it, would be a quick, dramatic step that would enable them to control the Near East as a powerful base -- not least because of the oil there, as well as the water supplies from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers--to build a world empire."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Kucinich to Force Cheney Impeachment House Vote Next Week
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on November 2, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

This post, written by John Nichols, originally appeared on The Nation

Broadcast media's gate-keeping "stars" have done just about everything in their power to keep the matter of presidential accountability off the radar of the American people. That was evident during the most recent Democratic presidential debate, when NBC anchors Brian Williams and Tim Russert meticulously avoided following up on Congressman Dennis Kucinich's three references to impeachment but somehow found time to grill the contenders on UFOs and what costume Barack Obama would be wearing on Halloween.

Pollsters are almost as bad. Rarely are questions about impeachment included in statewide or national surveys.

Despite the lack of media coverage, however, when citizens are asked what they think about holding members of the Bush administration to account, they respond with an enthusiasm far greater than that displayed for impeaching Richard Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal. It is this reality -- as opposed to the state of denial fostered by so much of the media and the political class -- that Congressman Dennis Kucinich will act upon next week, when he offers a privileged resolution on the House floor to bring articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Kucinich will face an uphill fight in a chamber led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who continues to say that impeachment is "off the table."

The Ohio congressman and long-shot presidential contender may not be following the rules of engagement as dictated by major media and his party leaders. But when Kucinich raises the issue of impeachment, he will be speaking for a great mass of Americans who agree with his argument that, "Congress must hold the Vice President accountable."

How great?

A fresh poll conducted for Vermont's WCAX television station finds that citizens of that state enthusiastically believe that Congress beginning impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

Sixty-one percent of the Vermonters surveyed favor taking steps to impeach the president, while just 33% oppose doing so.

The numbers are even higher for impeaching Cheney. Sixty-four percent of Vermonters favor beginning the process of holding the vice president to account, where only 31 percent are opposed.

The greater level of support for impeaching Cheney parallels the few nationwide figures that have been ascertained. When the American Research Group conducted a national survey in early July of this year, it found that 54 percent of American adults wanted the House to begin impeachment proceedings against Cheney -- with 76 percent of Democrats, 51 percent of independents and a striking 17 percent of Republicans favoring the step.

Forty-six percent of Americans surveyed backed impeachment proceedings against Bush -- with support for impeachment at 69 percent among Democrats, 50 percent among independents and 13 percent among Republicans.

What is notable is that, when Time magazine surveyed Americans in the late spring of 1974, after the Watergate scandal had evolved into a full-scale crisis of confidence in Nixon's presidency, only 43 percent favored impeachment.

A media that actually had a sense of history, not to mention reality, would focus on the fact that Americans are more supportive of a congressional intervention to thwart Bush and Cheney's wrongdoing than they were of moves to hold Nixon to account just months before the former president resigned in disgrace.

Now, it falls to Kucinich to speak the reality that, "The momentum is building for impeachment. Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress rein in the Vice President's abuse of power."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Would a Nobel Prize Victory Spark An Al Gore '08 Presidential Run?
Posted by John Nichols on October 10, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

This post, written by John Nichols, originally appeared on The Nation

Al Gore may well win a Nobel Peace Prize this week, which is no small accomplishment. But the more relentless of the former vice president's political proponents are saying, "Why stop with an trophy when can have it all?"

After all, the "Draft Gore" movement suggests, it is not that great a leap from the awards stage in Stockholm to the presidential campaign trail in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The peace prize winner -- or winners, if deserving Canadian Inuit environmentalist Sheila Watt-Cloutier shares the honor with Gore -- will be announced on Friday.

Then there will be headlines, broadcast reports, interviews with Gore about his Global Marshall Plan to address climate change, and the inevitable flurry of speculation about whether it wouldn't make more sense for Democrats to nominate an internationally acclaimed thinker and activist than a cautious-and-calculating former First Lady or a cautious-but-somewhat-more-inspiring junior senator from Illinois.

Conveniently, the speculation would probably reach a crescendo around the time of the November 2 deadline for entering the New Hampshire primary competition. Imagine the drama of days prior to that deadline, as America awaits the decision of a former congressman, senator, vice president and Democratic presidential nominee to enter the race for an office that -- had only the American political process been structured to accept the popular will of the people rather than the determination of an archaic and undemocratic Electoral College and its Supreme Court manipulators -- he should have held for the past eight years.

"We feel that if he wins the Nobel Prize... then he can't not run for president," chirps Roy Gayhart, a California "Draft Gore" organizer.

Perhaps. But, just in case the reluctant runner needs a push, his line coaches are yelling at the top of their lungs, "Run Al Run."

The crusading campaigners of a "Draft Gore" movement that is decidedly better organized and focused than at least a few of the declared Democratic presidential campaigns operate a sharp website at Draft Gore.com have active organizations in a number of states and are now capitalizing with some skill on the Nobel moment.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »