Category: Democrats

Debated, Belated.

So, for the first time and by a (statistically-insignifcant) margin of 32% to 30%, Barack Obama has moved ahead of Hillary Clinton in the polls. And, in more good news for the Obama camp, this poll was mostly taken before last week’s first Democratic debate, so there might still be a bump to come. For, at least to my admittedly jaundiced eye, Obama came across as far and away the most impressive candidate last Thursday. I feared he might seem callow and inexperienced going in, but Obama came across to me as thoughtful, nuanced, and, when needed, decisive…in short, he seemed suitably presidential, while still exuding that youthful flair and enthusiasm that makes him such a potentially exciting vehicle for generational political change in 2008. (And, boding well for the general election, Obama also seemed well-practiced in the art of debate jujitsu, deftly tossing aside at least two clear trip-up questions — on shady campaign contributors and Israel — with remarkable ease.) As for Clinton, well, it’s not entirely her fault, I guess — unlike Obama, she’s been with us for a decade and a half now, and is nothing if not a known quantity. But she came across to me as the same cautious, methodical, triangulating centrist she’s shown herself to be over the past fifteen years in public life, and it’s getting harder to imagine myself being anything but underwhelmed by her as a candidate in the general election.

John Edwards still seems the best of the rest, but he didn’t do much on Thursday to stand out, I thought. (I expect he’ll do better as the candidates decrease in number.) I found Richardson surprisingly uninspiring, given all the good things often said of him. (The Governor really needs to work on his presentation — he kept scowling and frowning his way through every question like Old Man Potter.) Biden came across as better than usual but still interminably Bidenish — that cute one-word answer couldn’t mask his Senate-honed penchant for blathering and monologuing. Distinguished and discerning, Dodd actually seems like he’d make a fine president, if money and star power weren’t so often the defining factors in this business. (As it is, it doesn’t look good.) Speaking of which, the 2008 Kucinich seemed Kucinich-lite next to the throwback rantings of Mike Gravel, who was intermittently amusing with the Admiral Stockdale-isms at first, but who grew wearisome, in my opinion, by the end. (I’m all for the idea that the military-industrial complex has ballooned into a monstrosity, but saying things like America in fact has no enemies sounds a bit naive after 9/11, and is the type of thing the GOP agitprop hounds tend to have a field day with.)

Blue Skies Ahead? | The Other Side of the Aisle.

“‘A Democratic candidate could go out there and muck it up and raise questions about his or her competence or judgment,’ says Andy Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. ‘But the landscape really is tilted in a Democratic direction.’” In USA Today, Susan Page lists five reasons why 2008 is looking Democratic. But, don’t tell these guys: The Republicans go at it tonight at the Reagan Presidential Library, 8pm, MSNBC.

Congress Steps Up.

“‘How many more suicide bombs must kill American soldiers before this president offers a timeline for our troops to come home?’ asked Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), a freshman Iraq war veteran who lost nine fellow paratroopers this week in one of the deadliest attacks of the war. ‘How many more military leaders must declare the war will not be won militarily before this president demands that the Iraqis stand up and fight for their country? How many more terrorists will President Bush’s foreign policy breed before he focuses a new strategy, a real strategy? This bill says enough is enough.’” By a vote of 218-208 in the House and 51-46 in the Senate, the Democratic Congress — living up to their promise in 2006 — calls for a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq. Dubya has said several times that he’ll veto the bill, and is expected to do so in short order.

Aboard the Clinton Dreadnought.

“Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign was designed and built to be a dreadnought, an all-big-gun battleship that would rule the waves without being dented, slowed or thrown off course. But it has been caught off guard by a submarine named Barack Obama, running silent, running deep — until he surfaced with a spectacular showing in the first round of fund-raising numbers.” TIME’s political bureau looks in on the Clinton campaign’s likely response to the threat of Obama (which reminds me, the first Democratic debate is tonight, 7pm EST, on MSNBC. [Previews: WP | Newsweek | The State | The Times and Democrat]) “Hillary Clinton is also banking on the grueling schedule of debates, which is ‘where she will shine,’ says a strategist. ‘This will be her strongest point. She knows this stuff inside out.’ But her team says she is not yet ready to begin challenging Obama directly on his lack of specificity. That’s because going on the attack could further boost her negatives and create an opening for Edwards, who has offered far more detailed plans than she has on issues like health care. ‘They are worried about both Obama and Edwards,’ says an outside adviser. ‘They think if Obama flames out, Edwards rises.‘”

We’re coming to get you, Karl.

“‘We will take the evidence where it leads us. We will not leave any stone unturned.’” Well, Sheryl Crow’s the least of his worries now. Based on the fact that several different current investigations seem to point his way, the White House’s Office of Special Counsel opens an inquiry into Karl Rove, to ascertain if (and how often) he’s violated the Hatch Act. “‘This is a big deal,’ Paul C. Light, a New York University expert on the executive branch, said of [Special Counsel] Bloch’s plan. ‘It is a significant moment for the administration and Karl Rove. It speaks to the growing sense that there is a nexus at the White House that explains what’s going on in these disparate investigations.’” And, in related news, John Edwards calls for Rove’s firing, based on his refusal to testify about the persecuted prosecutors.

A Chicken in every pot, a plunger in every terrorist.

“If one of them gets elected, it sounds to me like we’re going on the defense. We’ve got a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. We’re going to wave the white flag there. We’re going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We’re going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We’re going to cut back on interrogation. We’re going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we’ll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense.” Meanwhile in related news, Rudy Giuliani lapses into aggro fearmonger mode to try to shore up his right-wing cred. That accompanying giant sucking sound you might hear is all of Hizzoner’s legitimately-earned but now hopelessly squandered Churchillian cred going right out the window…He seems to have reverted to his true colors much earlier than I anticipated. Said Barack Obama, correctly, of Rudy’s pathetic stunt, “[Giuliani has] taken the politics of fear to a new low…We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure. The threat we face is real, and deserves better than to be the punchline of another political attack.” Touche.

Palmetto Parley | Obama Equalizes.

TiVo time for the political junkies among us: Campaign 2008 begins in earnest this Thursday evening, when the first Democratic debate will take place in Orangeburg, SC. “Thursday’s debate will air live on MSNBC from 7 to 8:30 p.m. and stream live on MSNBC.com.“

And, in related news, a new Rasmussen poll has Obama now tied with Hillary at 32%, with Edwards coming in at third (17%). “Thirty-three percent (33%) of Likely Voters say they’d definitely vote for Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D). That’s the highest total received by any of ten leading Presidential hopefuls included in the poll…Opinions are most solid concerning the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, New York Senator Hillary Clinton — 78% have an opinion of whether they’ll definitely vote for or against her regardless of who she runs against. That includes 30% who would definitely vote for the former First Lady and 48% who would definitely vote against her.“

A Taxing Time Ahead.

“‘What strikes me now is the degree to which the fairly fiscally irresponsible policies of the last six years have put Democrats in a box,’ Mr. Greenstein said. ‘They’ve got these large tax cuts in place, they have even larger fiscal problems in the coming decades and they have large unmet needs right now, such as 45 million uninsured people. Addressing all three of those things will be very difficult.’” The NYT discusses briefly how the 2008 Dems are planning to approach Dubya’s tax cuts — As you might expect, everyone agrees that the giveaways to the tiny percentage of wealthiest Americans, those with incomes over $200,000, will have to stop. “‘Yes, we’ll have to raise taxes,’ Mr. Edwards declared in February in one of the first statements by a Democratic candidate on the issue.”

The Audacity of Tolerance.

“Skeptics derided JFK, as they now do Obama, as callow and ill-versed in substantive issues. And yet Obama, similar to JFK, manages to inspire people with sex appeal, cerebral cool, and a message of generational change.” Rutgers University professor David Greenberg examines the similarities between Senator Obama and President Kennedy, and argues that Obama’s team might just be taking a page from the JFK campaign’s Catholicism playbook with regard to race in 2008. “Having passed a threshold among most white voters, his race can implicitly encourage them to feel that a vote for Obama is a vote for tolerance, for a future free of the constricting prejudices of the past, and for a sense of hope that Jack Kennedy once evoked.“

Far Away, His Well-Lit Door.

“It was handled incompetently. The communication was atrocious. You ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered, and I believe that the best way to put this behind us is your resignation.” Despite having had weeks to prepare, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has a terrible, no-good, very bad day on the Hill, one that results in even ultraconservative Tom Coburn (R-OK) demanding his dismissal. [Transcript: I, II, III.] I only got to hear twenty minutes or so of the hearings today (Feingold-Sessions-Schumer) while in a cab heading downtown, and Gonzales sounded absolutely terrible: He was at turns combative, befuddled, and amnesic. And when even a White House shill like Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is giving you a hard time and telling you “your ability to lead the Department of Justice is in question,” it seems pretty clear the jig is just about up.