Election 2008

AlterNet's election coverage.

Lieberman: Hamas Endorsement Shows Difference With McCain
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on May 12, 2008 at 4:00 PM.

Shortly after promising not to engage in these kinds of attacks, John McCain went after Barack Obama a few weeks ago over an ostensible "endorsement" from a Hamas spokesperson. It was a cheap and ridiculous move -- especially given the fact that McCain and Obama have the same position on Hamas -- which Time's Joe Klein accurately described as "gutter crap."

It was therefore not surprising at all to see Joe Lieberman repeat and legitimize the bogus line yesterday on CNN.

Lieberman began by complaining about Obama's "lost his bearings" comment, insisting, "[T]o say he lost his bearings suggests something more fundamental and personal." (It really wasn't.)

But when Wolf Blitzer noted that McCain and Obama have the same position, Lieberman conceded that this was true and acknowledged that Obama “clearly doesn’t support any of the values and goals of Hamas.”

But then he had to add: “But the fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question, ‘Why?’ And it suggests the difference between these two candidates.”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

McCain's Not-So-Straight Talk on the Environment
Posted by Howie Klein, Down With Tyranny! on May 12, 2008 at 8:34 AM.

I was just reading some more of Lincoln Chafee's fascinating book, Against The Tide, the chapter about how the Senate dealt with environmental issues in light of Cheney's success in persuading Bush-- if it took much, or even any persuasion-- to do a 180 on his campaign promises to be an environmentally friendly president. When Cheney announced to a gathering of Republican senators that the Regime had decided to throw away all their environmental pledges, the crowd burst out into a chorus of cowboy whoops and cheers. But Chafee-- at least in the part of the chapter I finished over dinner last night-- named McCain as one of the small cadre of Republicans who helped save ANWAR from the oil companies (a passion of Chafee's).

Today's Washington Post gets further into the weeds. Basically McCain is significantly better than Global Warming deniers like Inhofe... but not as good as the worst, most reactionary Democrats, anti-environmental hacks Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Max Baucus. There are also 9 Republicans with consistently better environmental voting records than McCain (Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Judd Gregg, Gordon Smith, Arlen Specter, John Thune, John Sununu, Bob Corker, and Norm Coleman-- all of whom have barely mediocre environmental voting records).

The Post makes a point that McCain is "the most unpredictable, erratic" Republican who sometimes support pro-environmental policies.

McCain has made the environment one of the key elements of his presidential bid. He speaks passionately about the issue of climate change on the campaign trail, and he plans to outline his vision for combating global warming in a major speech today in Portland, Ore.

"I'm proud of my record on the environment," he said at a news conference Friday at the Liberty Science Center in Jersey City. "As president, I will dedicate myself to addressing the issue of climate change globally."

But an examination of McCain's voting record shows an inconsistent approach to the environment: He champions some "green" causes while casting sometimes contradictory votes on others.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Missouri Amendment Would Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote
Posted by Attaturk , Firedoglake on May 12, 2008 at 6:58 AM.

Here's to you Milliard Fillmore, the nation's Lou Dobbs viewers turn their bitter eyes to you!

Now that the Supreme Court has issued its execrable decision allowing more strict voter identification at the polls, though no evidence of widespread voter fraud has ever been produced, the nativist still do not think it is enough. Now, it is about disenfranchisement of groups that vote against conservative agendas and nothing less.

The battle over voting rights will expand this week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote.

The measure would allow far more rigorous demands than the voter ID requirement recently upheld by the Supreme Court, in which voters had to prove their identity with a government-issued card.

How bad is Missouri's plan, pretty damn bad:

The Missouri secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who opposes the measure, estimated that it could disenfranchise up to 240,000 registered voters who would be unable to prove their citizenship.

In most of the states that require identification, voters can use utility bills, paychecks, driver’s licenses or student or military ID cards to prove their identity. In the Democratic primary election last week in Indiana, several nuns were denied ballots because they lacked the required photo IDs.

Measures requiring proof of citizenship raise the bar higher because they offer fewer options for documentation. In most cases, aspiring voters would have to produce an original birth certificate, naturalization papers or a passport.

So how many of you walk around with your birth certificate, how many of you actually have a passport, how many of you carry it around with you?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Will Clinton Try to Force a "Dream Team?"
Posted by Jill Hussein C., Brilliant at Breakfast on May 12, 2008 at 5:01 AM.

I vote for nightmare. After trying mightily to do what she can to make Barack Obama unelectable, from sending black surrogates out to brand him as an ex-drug dealer to telling newspapers that the IMPORTANT people, the WHITE people, will ONLY support HER, Hillary Clinton has not been running the kind of campaign that should be rewarded by giving her the VP nod. And frankly, the so-called "feminists" who are supporting her and threatening to vote for McCain if she isn't nominated ought to be ashamed of themselves, particularly if a President McCain gets to nominate a few more Sammy the Stem Cell Alitos to the Supreme Court and they or their daughters end up back in the coathanger-and-drinking-lye days of reproductive self-determination.

Now it seems she's going to strongarm her way into the #2 spot:

Clinton "is trying to figure out how to land the plane without looking like surrender," a prominent figure in the Obama camp said Friday. This means, in all likelihood, bringing her campaign to a close in the next few weeks and trying to leverage her way onto an Obama ticket from a position of maximum strength, said several knowledgeable sources.

A person close to her, with whom her campaign staff has counseled at various points, said this week, "I think the following will happen: Obama will be in a position where the party declares him the nominee by the first week in June. She'll still be fighting with everybody -- the Rules Committee, the party leaders -- and arguing, 'I'm winning these key states; I've got almost half the delegates. I have a whole constituency he hasn't reached. I've got real differences on approach to how we win this election, and I'm going to press the hell out of this guy. ... Relief for the middle class, universal health care, etc.; I'm Ms. Blue Collar, and I'm going to press my fight, because he can't win without my being on the ticket.' "

Another major Democratic Party figure, who supports her for president, agreed: "It's not going to be a quiet exit. ... Obama has got a terrible situation. He marches to a different drummer. He won't want to take her on the ticket. But he might have to, even though the idea of Vice President Hillary with Bill in the background at the White House is not something -- especially after what [the Clintons] have thrown at him that he relishes. I believe she'll go for it."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Missouri Nuns Fight Voter Disenfranchisement
Posted by Jill Hussein C., Brilliant at Breakfast on May 9, 2008 at 5:00 PM.

Because Nuns. Kick. Ass.

Surely, our majority-Catholic Supreme Court should have known better than to get on the wrong side of the Sisters. As we wrote earlier, the first victims of the new ruling on Voter ID were elderly nuns in Indiana. This just in, in my emailbox: The nuns of Missouri rap the Supreme Court's knuckles with a great big ruler:

Nun of the Franciscan Sisters of Mary comments on Voter ID disenfranchisement

WHO: Missourians for Fair Elections

WHAT: Press Conference on the impact of legislation to require government-issued photo ID to vote

WHEN: 1:00 PM, Thursday, May 8, 2008

WHERE: League of Women Voters, 8706 Manchester, Jefferson City, MO 63144

JEFFERSON CITY, MO – On Thursday, May 8, three Missouri voters who lack government-issued photo IDs as well as Secretary of State Robin Carnahan and community leaders will discuss the potential impacts of legislation currently being pushed through the Missouri General Assembly. The proposed legislation would make Missouri one of the toughest states in the country for eligible citizens who want to vote by requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polls. If passed, these changes could be in place by the November general election and could put the voting rights at risk for up to 240,000 registered Missouri voters.

"This may sound like a good idea at first," stated Sister Sandy Schwartz of the Franciscan Sisters of Mary regarding voter ID requirements, "but once you stop to think about who would really be affected, this is going to keep a lot of our loved ones from being able to vote." Yesterday in Indiana twelve nuns in their 80s and 90s were turned away from the polls because they lacked the needed IDs to vote. Sister Schwartz and others are concerned about the difficulties the policy change would create for elderly Missouri nuns, as well as other senior citizens, the poor, and minorities.

Awesome.

(h/t)

Editor's Note: The issue before the Missouri Legislature actually has two moving parts: a new photo ID requirement AND a proof of citizenship requirement for new voters. That second piece – requiring that voters produce papers documenting their citizenship is nothing to sneeze at. In Arizona, where such a law has been in place since 2004, approximately 17 percent or some 30,000 voter registration forms have been rejected because of the failure to produce citizenship documents. And it’s not just minorities who are affected. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School reported in November 2006 that slightly more than 50 percent of all married women lack birth certificates with their married names on it. Of course, poor people and the elderly also are disproportionately affected.

We’ll be watching Missouri next week, when the state Senate is slated to pick up the voter ID bill as it ends its legislative session. --Mike

We'll "Never" See McCain's Tax Returns?
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on May 9, 2008 at 3:16 AM.

The Obamas released tax returns for both Barack and Michelle. The Clintons released returns for both Bill and Hillary. But when John McCain released his tax returns a few weeks ago, Cindy McCain’s tax documents will remain private.

It’s not too hard to understand why. The McCains are extraordinarily wealthy — one might even be tempted to call them “elites” — and Cindy McCain’s assets are estimated to be about $100 million, including a private jet, which her husband has been borrowing at a reduced rate.

Given the other candidates’ disclosures, and McCain’s own alleged commitment to transparency, will we ever see Cindy McCain’s returns? She was asked on the “Today” show this morning, and said, politely, “Never.”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Unfortunate Racial Talk Creeps Back into the Democratic Campaign
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on May 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM.

Hillary Clinton still clearly hopes to make a case to the Democratic Party that she’d be the strongest candidate in a general election, but I have a hunch she’d like to take this one back.

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

USA Today described these as “blunt remarks about race.” When a candidate equates “hard-working Americans” with “white Americans,” I can’t help but wonder if “blunt” is a strong enough adjective. (The Obama campaign called Clinton’s remarks “not true and frankly disappointing.”)

Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Clinton’s comment was a “poorly worded” variation on the way analysts have been “slicing and dicing the vote in racial terms.”

The remark came the same day chief Clinton strategist Geoff Garin also made a similar case for her electability in rather explicit race-based terms.

Atrios noted that there’s nothing especially wrong with a campaign talking about targeting specific groups of voters, but added, “What the Clinton campaign is doing is saying that Obama has electability problems, and using their support from white voters as evidence of that. That’s a wee bit problematic, and not just because it doesn’t follow logically any more than the other electability arguments such as Obama can’t win the election because he can’t win the primary in big states.”

Quite right.

Let’s put aside the unfortunate wording of Clinton’s statement in which she equated “hard-working” with “white,” and consider the merits of her broader point.

Clinton has done well with white “hard-working” Americans, especially in states like Pennsylvania. But her argument is premised on the notion that White Joe Six Pack who votes in a Democratic primary would rather support a Republican than Obama. Where’s the proof to bolster this claim? There isn’t any.

By the logic of Clinton’s argument, we should also note that her support among African Americans is quite poor, and the “pattern” is pretty clear. Are we to assume that if she were the nominee, those same voters would back McCain over her? That Clinton couldn’t possibly win because she’d never get the support of African-American Dems? Of course not.

Why, then, characterize the race in this illogical, race-based way?

For that matter, Steve M. raises a very important point.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama's Consolidation of the Party
Posted by Matt Stoller, Open Left on May 8, 2008 at 7:47 AM.

Brownsox blogs.

Over 1.25 million Indianans voted yesterday for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primary.

Over 1.1 million Indianans voted for Jill Long Thompson or Jim Schellinger in the Democratic primary for Governor of Indiana.

In 2004, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry received 969,000 votes in the state of Indiana...in the general election.

That is stunning. The primary has been exceptionally good for party building. Obama has created a number of significant infrastructure pieces through his campaign, displacing traditional groups the way he promised he would by signaling the end of the old politics of division and partisanship.

Voter Registration: Obama has launched a 50 state registration drive.

"That's why I'm so proud that today our campaign announced a massive volunteer-led voter registration drive in all 50 states to help ensure every single eligible voter takes part in this election so we can take back Washington for the American people."

I have heard from several sources that the Obama campaign is sending out signals to donors, specifically at last weekend's Democracy Alliance convention, to stop giving to outside groups, including America Votes. The campaign also circulated negative press reports about Women's Voices Women's Vote, implying voter suppression.

Obama Organizing Fellows: Here's Obama describing them:

Basically what we've done is we've been attracting so much volunteer talent, so many young people who have gotten involved in the campaign, that we wanted to give a handful of them an opportunity to have some more intensive training. So we've asked them to apply for fellowships. I think they're called Obama Fellows. They will get intensive training, and they will be put on staff and will have an experience, starting in June.

These are unpaid positions, and they will be used to do field organizing, message, and helping to "continue to build the movement". This is pure leadership development, though it continues the class-based diminution of talent by refusing to pay, a problem outlined in Crashing the Gates.

Money: MyBarackObama.com: With 1.5 million donors, this campaign has blown away anything we've ever seen in terms of grassroots fundraising. The technology is all centralized, so Obama knows the name, address, giving patterns, and occupation of every donor out there, as well as social networking information, like who the best raisers are.  He has bypassed Actblue, and will probably end up building in a Congressional slate feature to further party build while keeping control of the data.

One email from Moveon to their full list can bring in between $100k to $1M for a candidate, with $1M being the very top end of the range. With one good email to his list, in a few months, Obama will probably be able to bring in $1-3M for a Senate candidate under attack or split that among several. 10-20% of the money going to Senate candidates this cycle might come from Barack Obama's internet operation. Stunning.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Newt Gingrich: Republicans Face Real Disaster
Posted by Cliff Schecter, Cliff Schecter's Blog on May 8, 2008 at 4:30 AM.

What? The hyper-organized, disciplined, get-out-the-message, self-righteous Republicans are in trouble? Quick! Call for help! Look up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s… it’s … ::cricket, cricket::

Shellshocked House Republicans got warnings from leaders past and present Tuesday: Your party’s message isn’t good enough to prevent disaster in November, and neither is the NRCC’s money.

Oh no! What’s a Republican to do? Ooo! Ooo! I know! Pick me! Solution: Every man for himself!

The double shot of bad news had one veteran Republican House member worrying aloud that the party’s electoral woes — brought into sharp focus by Woody Jenkins’ loss to Don Cazayoux in Louisiana on Saturday — have the House Republican Conference splitting apart in “everybody for himself” mode.

This is one dire situation. There’s gotta be a superhero around here somewhere. Wait! Who’s that undressing in that phone booth? Why, it’s Newt “Looks-Unappealing-In-Tights” Gingrich!

In a piece published in Human Events, the Republicans’ onetime captain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, warned his old colleagues that they face “real disaster” on Election Day unless they move immediately to “chart a bold course of real reform” for the country.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Clinton Camp: “There Are No Rules”
Posted by Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet on May 7, 2008 at 9:14 AM.

Anyone who thought Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) might reconsider her presidential bid after her big loss in North Carolina and narrow victory in Indiana on Tuesday are mistaken.

In fact, in a conference call with the national media on Wednesday morning, the campaign’s top strategist, Geoff Garin, and top spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said the fight would almost surely last past the final primaries and be taken up by the Democratic National Committee’s standing committees, starting with the Rules and Bylaws Committee on May 31.

“There really are no rules,” Garin said, when asked about the seating of delegates from Michigan and Florida – two states stripped of delegates for holding early primaries – and about any scenario where the campaign is behind in the delegate count won in the primaries and caucuses, or the popular vote total. “You make a conscious decision of what is in the interest of the country.”

“The DNC will engage in an adjudicary process to seat the delegates,” Wolfson said, referring to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC), and then the Credentials Committee, which under the DNC rules hears appeals of RBC decisions.

Wolfson also said the number of delegates needed to win the nomination was not 2,025, as both the Clinton camp and campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) have said in previous conference calls with the media earlier in 2008.

“That is not the operative number,” Wolfson said. “The number is 2,209.”

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 »

Voter Suppression Happens (in Indiana)
Posted by dday, Hullabaloo on May 6, 2008 at 5:19 PM.

The primary results from Indiana and North Carolina should be pretty much projected by 8:00ET or so. But we already know who's won, at least in Indiana - voter suppression advocates like the 9 robed figures on the Supreme Court.

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.

"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Democracy Corps: Youth for the Win!
Posted by Mike Connery, AlterNet on May 6, 2008 at 9:42 AM.

Democracy Corp has issued a new poll of young voters: