Take Me To Your Leader

Rasmussen is polling Republican voters about who they view as the leader of the rapidly shrinking GOP. Compared to Rasmussen's March 2009 numbers, the search for a new leader reveals a roster of golden oldies emerging to fill the power vacuum. Who has stepped forward to become the leading Goposaur?

	Mar-09	May-09
John McCain	5%	18%
Michael Steele	5%	14%
Sarah Palin	1%	10%
Mitt Romney	N/A	8%
Rush Limbaugh	2%	6%
Dick Cheney	N/A	4%
No Clear Leader	68%	37%
Not Sure	17%

Earlier this month, Rasmussen reported deep dissatisfaction among the Republican faithful regarding their congressional leadership, with 69% saying they have lost touch with their base nationally.

Maybe an "O" Would've Been Smarter?

The first hint there was something fishy about Ashley Todd's allegations was the backwards "B" carved into her face. Since when does the Obama campaign use his first initial?

Now that the story has been revealed as a hoax perpetrated by an ill young woman, three things come to mind about the state of our media.

1) Isn't it ironic the most prolific purveyors of propaganda (Drudge and Fox News) were so easily drawn into this hoax? Is it because they are blinded to facts and reality by the way they conduct business on a daily basis?

2) Is Matt Drudge nothing more than the "Little Man Behind the Curtain" from Oz? For over a decade the Internet spinmaster has been viewed as the Freak Show's conservative Master of Ceremonies, the media maven with the uncanny knack to uncover the 'below the fold' stories, elevate and manipulate them to help shape media narratives to Republican advantage. Mark Halperin has written:

"The Drudge Report is really unique in being able to drive stories in the mainstream media. Republican operatives use him…. Drudge has become the ultimate insider in being able to effect the public narrative that is so important in political campaigns.”

Does this signal the end of this Drudge mythology? Is this nothing more than a mirage? I wonder how many of these 'scoops' (complete with blaring red siren, of course) turn out to be hoaxes. Does the Monica scoop forever innoculate him to irresponsible, unsourced irrational reporting? Probably not.

3) How does Fox News escape the trap they set for themselves? Who would've predicted it would be Fox News the first to declare the McCain campaign D.O.A.?

Fundamentally Wrong

The Wall Street meltdown has refocused the presidential campaign on the economy. Strategists on both sides of the aisle acknowledge this benefits Democrats up and down the ticket.

Clearly, TeamObama senses the game has returned to their turf and comes out swinging at the tone-deaf McCain, who provided a fundamental assist on the campaign trail.



Maybe this will silence the Democratic Party's anxious Chicken Littles for a few days?

Meanwhile, the McCain team has releaseds an ad (called "Crisis") contradicting their claim that the economy is fundamentally sound. Which is it, Sen. McCain?



Traditionally the more adept party at staying on message, Republicans have been reduced to incoherent stuttering on the issue that matters the most to American voters. Perhaps that's because their failed, laissez-faire, trickle down economic theory doesn't work?

McCain: Ready to Lie

What does it say when Karl Rove thinks you've gone too far?




It's only a matter of time before John McCain's infamous temper explodes and destroys his candidacy.

Something to Talk About

The NY Times graphically shows the partisan differences between the convention speakers:

What stands out from this chart is:

Joe Lieberman said NOTHING.

Bill Clinton strayed from the foreign policy message the Obama camp had wanted -- but was rendered a non-issue considering his full-throated endorsement of the Democratic nominee.

Sarah Palin attacked the Dems less often (or perhaps less overtly) than my initial, real-time impression. Does this means her vindictiveness was subtle and snarky? If so, this is a trecherous path for a new candidate (at the risk of being called a sexist, it's especially perilous for a female) to tread.

Moreover, the Republicans simply echoed the call for change. Since anyone with half a brain has known since the 2006 midterms this would be a change election, it seems they're playing a desperate game of catch-up.

The Clock is Ticking...

In the wake of the Republican Rapture in St. Paul it might be easy to overlook the potentially fatal weakness still haunting the McCain campaign.

McCain's desperate need to solidify his base going into St. Paul (resulting in the electrifying "roll of the dice" pick of pistol-packing Palin) means he lost his biggest opportunity to address the concerns of moderate voters.

Obama has been speaking to the middle/independent voters for MONTHS - even while the campaign was still battling Hillary in full primary mode. And what was McCain doing on Labor Day? Shoring up his far right base. Nothing that he or his surrogates said in Minnesota was aimed at attracting the middle or addressing the top concerns of the American electorate. It was nothing more than red meat for the Red Staters.

For a candidate who represents a shrinking party, playing to the base is simply not enough to win an election. It's clear McCain remains months behind with only two months ago.

Politics 101 says playing to your base this late in the game is a sure way to lose an election. Of course, as with almost everything else that has happened in this crazy campaign, this may rule may not apply.

The Game Has Changed

I am coming to the conclusion that the Palin pick was, indeed a game changer. A few things worth watching over the next couple of weeks:

1) The Palin image is still under construction - and the jury may be out for quite some time regarding how she will be ultimately perceived. Despite today's media hyper-speculation I don't think tonight's speech is actually a "make or break" situation. Think about how many moments over the past 18 months that the chattering class made a similar prediction about Obama's situation. Her sixty-day introduction to the American people is going to be a minefield for the McCain campaign. This morning some media are reporting Palin may not be out on the campaign until after Sept 11 - when her son ships off to Iraq. Will she be seen as a reformer? Or a hypocritical opportunist?

2) Will McCain's camp be successful in deflecting criticism of Palin by using the "sexism" card? Campaign surrogate Carly Fiorina was on MSNBC this afternoon using a diabolical argument that went along the lines,

"The Democratic Party stood by while Hillary Clinton was subjected to incredible sexism in the media. The Republican Party is not going to stand by. And I don't believe that millions of American women are going to stand by. Whether they agree with Sarah Palin or not, I think women are highly sensitized now to sexism. And when someone of accomplishment is described more as a show horse than a work horse women recognize that for what it is. It's sexism."

Somehow, the Republicans think they're going to claim the mantle of post-partisan feminists. It's a classic Rovian twist - take one of your opponent's strengths and turn it into a potential point of weakness. In this case, they've been lured by the Angry Hillary Voter, believing they can continue dividing the electorate - and convincing some disaffected group to vote against their own self-interest. It's coupled with their tried and true attacks on the media as biased against conservatives.

3) How does the 'love affair' between McCain and the media end? Typically, relationships built on illusions and deception come crashing to bitter ends, with recriminations all around. The media had been awakening to the real McCain (if he ever was a 'maverick,' he certainly hadn't been acting like one during the primaries) over the summer. I don't think the total surprise of the Palin pick is going to wear well within the tradmed, his core constituency.

Remember those old "I Can't Believe It's Butter!" commercials where the woman cloaked in flowing white bellowed, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!!!" Well, the media is another -(un)natural force and I don't think they like being played for fools or targeted as scapegoats. The media was clearly frustrated by Obama's 3AM text message to supporters announcing the Biden pick (as it took them out of the dialogue). That frustration may have been overwhelmed by the absolute surprise of McCain picking Palin. Already disoriented by their rapidly evolving and now less familiar role in modern politics, these latest developments may have awakened a docile press corps. Both campaigns could be subjected to heightened scrutiny as a result.

4) Where is the storyline about the disunity in the Republican Party? After the breathless media coverage of the barely existent "Hillary-Bill-Barack" schism leading up to Denver, the silence about the Ron Paul shadow convention going on in Minneapolis, the bruised Romney ego after being shunted aside as a VP, and the reopened rift between Dubya and McCain is remarkable.

The fact that the Palin pick plays well within the convention hall (she gets louder applause than McCain does almost universally) means there are far more differences within the Republican party than the media is covering. In fact, her selection by McCain is an admission of his own unpopularity with the base. But, the question lingers, "Are the establishment republicans (fiscal conservatives and national security hawks) happy about this pick?" They're being drowned out on the convention floor (and the spinners are remaining faithful to the RNC talking points) but are these rank-and-file voters energized or disheartened by Palin as the number 2?

5) The Palin pick has electrified the base on social issues and has threatened to subvert BOTH campaigns' main messaging objectives. Obama and the Democrats want to talk issues - economy, Iraq, energy - while the McCain camp wanted to resurrect his moderate maverick image. Everything is being drowned by social issues. Within the St Paul cocoon this may seem smart, but whether this translates into a successful general election campaign is uncertain. The elevation of the divisive social issues may -incite- excite the conservative base but there is a huge risk (for Republicans) that a significant backlash from the middle could overwhelm them.

A week ago, in the wake of Obama's once in a lifetime speech, I thought 'the only thing the Dems are missing this year is a 1992 Pat Buchanan hate speech from the GOP convention.' At the time, it was pure fantasy. Now, after watching the conservative rapture in St. Paul, I wouldn't be surprised if someone unpacks the pitchforks tonight.

It's been said before but it's worth repeating: this is the election year of a lifetime.

GALLUP: Campaign 2008 Cliff Notes

Gallup's "Quick Read on the Election" provides a presidential campaign overview as we approach the unprecedented "back-to-back" party conventions. After the two week hiatus provided by the IOC, the roller-coaster is about to begin. How do the "experts" see the general election shaping up?

Not surprisingly, the Gallup Gate Keepers reinforce the traditional media's prevailing narrative. Despite the Democrats' "structural" election advantage (Democrats are viewed much more favorably than the GOP and more Americans are identifying as Democrats), Obama is underperforming in national polls. His average lead of three points throughout the summer indicates a third straight close election. While both nominees-in-waiting have solidified their partisan coalitions (despite the coverage some outlets have provided to the PUMAs), neither McCain nor Obama has exhibited either partisan cross-over appeal or the ability to build a significant lead among independent voters necessary to alter this "50/50 Nation" dynamic.

Pattern of candidate support is similar to 2000 and 2004 elections. Obama's strengths: non-white race and ethnic groups, including blacks and Hispanics; 18-29; those with postgraduate educations; women; those with very low incomes; those who have no religious identification/for whom religion is not important/do not attend church; those who are unmarried. McCain's strengths: non-Hispanic whites; 65 and older; those who are married; white Protestants and non-Catholic Christians; whites who attend church frequently/for whom religion is important.

Ever-helpful, the pollsters also raise a couple of red flags for the Obama campaign, reinforcing the nervous hand-wringing among nervous Democrats watching national and state polls tightening.

Current position of the candidates predicts little. In previous two elections, both candidates who lead polls in summer, pre-convention (Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004), ended up losing the popular vote.

History predicts modest bounces for candidates when they make their vice presidential announcements and after their conventions. This year, all of this will be compressed in a short two-week period in late August/early September. Back-to-back conventions are unprecedented. Voters will have a steady stream of election input. Bounce will likely follow bounce. This could be one of most fascinating times in presidential election history. Standings after conventions will be critical.

Earlier this summer, Gallup reminded political junkies that the July polling leader has lost six of the last nine close presidential elections. History clearly isn't on Obama's side, the chattering class warns. The failure to close the deal (despite leading McCain in national polling since February, which is VERY different from the polling swings witnessed in both 2000 and 2004) means Obama's candidacy could be following Gore and Kerry to electoral defeat. As if on cue, a chorus of "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" has risen from Chicken Little Democrats who fear yet another defeat in the wake of what was once deemed near-certain victory.

And don't overlook the 2008 convention calendar quirk. The back-to-back conventions – particularly during this era of the 24/7 never-ending news cycle – may negate the Mile High Convention/VP selection bounce many Democratic activists and media talking heads anticipate. The electorate's short attention span and the media's rapid transition from Denver to St. Paul may lessen (or even erase) the Democratic bounce. If this happens, expect the chattering class to start more clucking about Barack's "failure to seal the deal." The fate of his candidacy will come down to the debates. The punditocracy will fretfully ask, "Will Obama lose the election with a "Gore sigh"? And Democratic partisans will sweat it out, fearful of history repeating itself.

But, wait. Not so fast.

Gallup provides Obama a lifeline. And it's one Team Obama has been aware of all along.

Turnout will be a key factor. Obama would benefit from unusual (and unprecedented) enthusiasm among young voters and minority voters. McCain would benefit from a more typical higher turnout among Republicans, highly religious white voters. Results of likely voter modeling this summer so far have been mixed.

Note what they're saying here. It is young voters (who until this past primary season had historically been one of the least engaged voting blocs) who hold the key to an Obama victory. The Democrats' unprecedented investment in field offices, grassroots organizing, voter registration and Election Day GOTV efforts is critical and unpredictable. If the pollsters can't confidently identify which voters will actually show up at the polls, it is difficult to provide accurate polling numbers. If the Democrats are successful in increasing the youth vote (combined with even a slight uptick in minority participation), the polls may be irrelevant – and horrifically inaccurate. This is without considering the underrepresentation of voters under 35, whose reliance on cell phones places them beyond the reach of traditional polling.

At the same time, McCain is forced to rely on an unmotivated (and shrinking) Republican base. Nothing indicates the enthusiasm gap the Democrats have enjoyed (in fundraising, voter id and voter interest) over the past year and a half has closed. On the eve of the Mile High convention, Pew tells us the electorate is much more interested in the Democratic shindig than the Republican pow-wow. Unless the conventions and VP picks dramatically alter the dynamics, Obama's investment in grassroots infrastructure may be the difference-maker this November.

Finally, Gallup's last point moves beyond the horse race and to the issues which may determine how the electorate will decide:

Top voter issues this year skew towards the domestic, in particular economy and energy. Iraq, healthcare, and terrorism remain important. Obama's perceived strengths: domestic issues, compassion, empathy, bringing about change. McCain's perceived strengths: experience, international issues, terrorism, viewed as capable commander in chief. A continuing uptick in consumer confidence and increase in perceived success in Iraq could benefit McCain.

I don't agree with Gallup's conclusion. Following months of an economy mired in a severe stall, it's rather late in the game for an "uptick in consumer confidence" to make a difference in how Americans feel about the general direction of the country. If Team Obama succeeds in tying McCain to the Bush economic policies, it's difficult to see how the Republican can overtake the Democrat on these domestic concerns.

The electorate's feelings about Iraq also seem firmly set. McCain will continue and elevate the fearmongering. The Islamofascist threat, memories of 9-11, a new Cold War with the Russians on the march – every fear card the Republicans have in their ghoulish deck will be played as they hope to divert the public's attention from the pocketbook issues. Foreign policy remains a wild card, but Joe Biden as a VP pick minimizes McCain's advantage, at least at first glance. Essentially, the last eight weeks of the general election campaign is going to come down to whether Americans want change or the status quo.

Who is winning this war for oil?

Keith O and Rachel Maddow turned to the topic of Straight Talk Express' derailment over McCain's war for oil comments tonight. As we've come to expect, Rachel proves she is one of the sharpest Talking Heads in Punditland.

Rachel M: The press corps has not been enthusiastic about following up on John McCain gaps. This one seems to me to be such a big one on such a big important issue. And, it's on tape. There's video that it has to be followed up on. So, he's either going to need a new explanation or he's actually going to have to run with it and defend this idea. I think he might actually end up defending it.

Keith O: Well, I mean, this, this raises the point that Bush and Cheney have raised recently. Oil, the price of oil, the idea of Al-Qaeda getting hold of the control of oil as a justification for staying in Iraq. And that bring you this, to McCain. Five years ago anybody who suggested there was the slightest hint of a connection, a rumor, of a hint, of an innuendo of a connection between going into Iraq and the price of gas was considered a lunatic, unpatriotic, terrorist,lefty. How and why did this suddenly change into John McCain's campaign platform?!"

Rachel M: I, I honestly think that the most likely outcome here is that McCain end up defending this, at least at the end. But then, Karl Rove has recently – and I realize he's not in the White House anymore. But, he's still influential for these guys, especially for their talking points. He has recently raised the prospect of $200 a barrel oil if we leave Iraq. So, they are explicitly willing to tie oil and gas prices to what's going on with that conflict and what our troops are doing.

The problem is, though, if you actually make the case to the American people that we are there for oil, well, we've spent a trillion dollars, we've lost four thousand Americans, we've spent five years and now we're paying $4 a gallon? We are not the beneficiaries of the War for Oil. It does not redound to the American consumer.
I think the real Mission Accomplished moment right now, that we can see in Iraq, is when the oil companies getting precleared by the Iraqi government to bid on the Iraq oil fields service contracts ended up on the front page of the business section last month instead of the front page of the international section.

Straight Talking: War for Oil

McSame stumbles into a political minefield. At a forum in Denver, the Republican admitted what many opponents of the Iraq Quagmire have claimed all along:

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will - that will then prevent us - that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

Chris Matthews was atwitter about this new Straight Talking. He asks his panel, "How does McCain explain this one away? Just when have we gone to war over oil?"

Clinton Triangulating May “Starve the Beast?”

The historically high price of gasoline – and political pressure to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT – has drawn a distinct difference between the Democratic challengers while blurring the difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

This afternoon MSNBC played a couple of dueling sound bites:

Clinton is shown on the campaign trail trumpeting a populist message. "At the heart of my approach is a simple belief. Middle class families are paying too much and oil companies aren't paying their fair share to help us solve the problems at the pump."

Barack responds, "We're arguing over a gimmick to save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say that they did something. Well, let me tell you something: This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer. It's an idea designed to get them to an election." (emphasis mine)

Once again, we've got someone speaking the truth – even though it isn't a political winner in the short-term. His opponent, on the other hand, has chosen one of the golden oldies of presidential politics, "the Populist Pander." In doing so, Hillary has embraced an ill-advised, Republican-inspired proposal and sacrificed bedrock Democratic ideals all for the sake of Hoosier and Tar Heel votes.

Never mind that her plan echoes much of McCain's "gas tax holiday." It may never come to fruition because it requires the unlikely passage of a new tax on oil company windfall profits (try getting that through the 60 seat cloture vote, Hils). Also ignore the fact it represents a complete reversal of the fundamental New Deal philosophy that public works spending jumpstarts a sputtering economy (the plan could put hundreds of thousands of highway workers out of work). None of that is Hillary's cardinal sin.

Well then, what is?

In her analysis of Clinton's proposal, Republican pollster Kellyann Conway provides the answer

"In fact, some her words today sounded exactly like John McCain's gas tax holiday proposal from just a couple of weeks ago. So, I think right now they're playing to two different audiences. Perhaps Senator Clinton is feeling quite bold given all of her new poll numbers and the fact that this has become a tightened race. But I think what is really key in the whole discussion about a tax gas holiday is this: that, instead of just talking about the oil companies, instead of just talking about the price of gas, people will become that much more aware across this country that the federal government benefits tremendously from taxes on gasoline. And that's meant to go to repair our roads and our bridges. And everybody knows that our bridge and road repair are, they are in disrepair. So, I think it's important that we starve the beast – the federal, state and local governments – who rely upon taxes at the pump while people are trying to fill up the tank just to get around to their jobs and schools."

Way, to go, Hills. You've provided the Republican spinmeisters an opportunity to promote neoconservative Grover Norquist's governing philosophy goal to "shrink government to a size you can drown in the bathtub." No wonder the Republicans are so delighted to see your candidacy continue.

Triangulation Triumphant? Is that what a Clinton restoration will mean?

But, thankfully, we have a candidate who refuses to pander. Listen to him, folks:



UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal discusses how the Clinton/McCain "holiday" would actually raise prices by increasing demand. It's time we elected politicians who talk honestly about the difficult times ahead.

McCain's Blurry Vision

This isn't about whether or not the septegenarian needs bifocals (although how would we know since he hasn't fully released his medical records?) Rather, we've got some striking news from Gallup.

Only one third (33%) of Americans believe John McCain has a clear plan to solve America's problems. That's a nine point drop since mid-March. Yup, it seems that despite his month-long free pass to define himself to the American voter as the Democrats continue their deathmatch nomination battle, McCain has presented himself and Americans simply aren't impressed.

But, the good news for Democrats (particularly Hillary Clinton) doesn't stop there. Gallup measured eight "character" ratings for the three leading presidential candidates. McCain's image among Americans slipped in seven. While Obama's numbers also softened, it was McCain who experienced the steepest decline. Considering the ongoing Democratic intramural fighting, it is surprising Hillary Clinton saw her image actually increase in response to most questions. There is a huge red flag for her, however. More than 6 out of ten don't view Clinton as trustworthy.

Overall, Obama has a significant lead (4 points or larger) over his rivals on three questions. McCain leads on two while Clinton, despite her improving numbers does not lead both her rivals on any question.

Comparing the two Democratic rivals, Obama holds leads over Clinton on four questions. The most striking is the "trust gap" of 23 points. Clinton has cut into Obama's lead on empathy (cares about people like you) and pride (proud to have as president). She holds on three questions, (has a plan, leadership and management) manifestation of the "experience" mantle she has worked to claim throughout the nomination battle.

In head-to-head matchups, McCain now trails both Democrats on three questions. He trails Obama on two more (values and pride). Clinton's "trust gap" with McCain is even larger (28 points). Conversely, McCain trails Clinton as the problem solver in the race by double digits (15) and is viewed as being unaware of the average American's problems (10 points).

	Clinton	McCain	Obama
Cares about the needs of people like you.	57 (+3)	52 (-2)	62 (-4)
Is a strong and decisive leader.	62 (+1)	66 (-3)	55 (-1)
Is honest and trustworthy.	37 (-7)	65 (-2)	60 (-3)
Shares your values.	46 (+1)	47 (+1)	51 (NC)
Has a clear plan for solving the country's problems.	47 (-2)	33 (-9)	40 (-1)
Understands the problems Americans face in their daily lives.	60 (+2)	50 (-5)	63 (-4)
Is someone you would be proud to have as president.	48 (+1)	51 (-4)	55 (-2)
Can manage the govt effectively.	54 (+3)	55 (-5)	48 (NC)
MoE = +/- 3%.

Who's Got the Teflon Armor?

The juxtaposition of two Gallup polls today provides an interesting snapshot of the American electorate in the midst of one of the most unpredictable presidential contests.

They contain promising news regarding the "macroclimate" for Democrats in the about-to-begin general election campaign but some troubling signals regarding presumptive GOP nominee John McCain's early strength.

The first shows Bush hitting historic lows. He's at 28% approval - the worst rating in the 70-year history of Gallup's presidential polling. Makes me wonder what McCain's strategists are thinking by continuing to embrace a failed presidency. What's the point of "shoring up the base" when they're abandoning their standard-bearer in record numbers? Or, can McCain escape (and perhaps reverse) the downward spiral of the Republican brand?

The second poll also contains good news for Barack Obama. It hints that Obama may indeed be the 21st century's first teflon candidate. Despite the media's pitbull tenacity about the "bitterly clinging" comments, today's poll shows only 26% of voters view Obama as "looking down on them." More (32%) view Hillary Clinton as the elitist in the nomination contest.

But before Democrats get too overconfident, there's another candidate for the Teflon Candidate. Fewer voters (only 22%) view McCain as less out of touch:

Is this more evidence the Democratic infighting is hurting Clinton and Obama while elevating McCain? It's also an early and worrisome signal that McCain may not have the Bush legacy as an albatross around his neck.

It's time for Democrats to end the intramural death match and move on to target McCain.

This is just a start from the DNC:

The Sunday Muse

Random Green thoughts...for Earth Week 2008.

At BushCo, the EPA's Acronym Stands for Everybody Pollutes Anyway! The National Journal reports the reign of current administrator Stephen Johnson may mark a historic low in the efficacy of the nation's pollution police. For those that remember James Watt and Anne Gorsuch Burford during the Reagan years, that's a pretty low bar to duck under. But is anyone really shocked that a BushCo agency is ignoring scientific advice, promoting incompetent sycophants, rolling back regulations, slashing agency funds and kowtowing to business interests? Anyone?

How Green is Your Governor? California's Governator and governors from 17 other states have signed an agreement urging the next president quickly adopt aggressive limits on greenhouse grasses. Breaking with his party's "head in the sand" environmental policies, Schwarzenegger proclaimed, "Washington is asleep at the wheel, and we can't wait for them." Of the eighteen states, only three (CA, CT and FL) are led by Republican governors.

Big Brother Isn't Watching Big Business: The Treasury Department is asking hedge fund managers to voluntarily police themselves and provide greater transparency. Besides the fact only a handful of the 800 registered fund managers have signed on to the idea, I ask, "Can anyone remember the last time this 'less regulation is better' BushCo approach actually worked? Does anyone (beyond McCain, that is) believe the subprime crisis was due to too much regulation? Or unsafe imports from China occured because of too much government oversight?

BushCo's "Transparency" Becomes a Continental Affliction: BushCo is hosting the leaders of Canada, Mexico in New Orleans to meet with corporate execs of major multinationals (think Chevron, Wal-Mart) to discuss a Security and Prosperity Partnership with our continental neighbors. What are they discussing? In the grand tradition of the Cheney Energy Task Force, we really don't know:

What’s on the table? Not much is public, but we do know that the executive powers of the three countries are hammering out regulatory changes that they claim do not require legislative approval. And given who’s in the room, it’s a safe bet that these changes will favor narrow corporate interests over the public good.

Don't worry. I'm sure the Democratic Congress is all over this. They'll call hearings, discover the American public is getting hosed by corporate greed and declare, "See? We did something? Without us in the majority you would've never known how you were being screwed! At least now you know!"


Straight Economic Talk About John McCain. Bloomberg debunks McCain's claim to fiscal responsibility. Sustained tax cuts and a balanced budget are impossible. At least he can say, "I told you I don't know much about the economy."

McSame As It Ever Was

As if you needed any more evidence that a McCain Administration would amount to four more years of failed conservative policy, Progressive Media USA provides more:

Hey, Europe, Can You Spare a G.I.?

With renewed violence in Iraqi cities claiming more lives, it appears our military is scrambling to find 7,000 soldiers to combat a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

Is our military stretched that thin? For quite some time our military leaders have been warning the Bush/Cheney/McCain warhawks that they are simply asking too much from our men and women in uniform. Now, it looks like we're forced beg our allies for reinforcements but:

A majority of America's NATO allies continue to balk at U.S. requests to send thousands more of their troops to Afghanistan. At the same time, the renewed violence in Iraq and the White House decision to suspend further American troop withdrawals from Iraq this summer will make it harder for the Pentagon to send more American forces to Afghanistan next year as President Bush has promised.

"I'm deeply concerned," Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last Thursday. "In this economy of force operation, we do what we can. Requirements exist that we simply cannot fill and won't likely be able to fill until conditions improve in Iraq."

If our country is facing an endless, multiple front war isn't it irresponsible to NOT have a draft? Shouldn't this question at least be asked of the candidates running for president (and Congress)?

Pat & Hillary, Sitting in A Tree, KAY, EYE, ESS, ESS, EYE, AND GEE

I'm spewing my no foam, low fat latte across the computer screen this morning.

Pundits are swarming like hungry sharks, accusing Barack of elitist condescension toward small town America. I'm watching conservative populist Pat Buchanan on MSNBC trumpeting the same -crap- talking points Hillary Clinton is using in her newly revised stump speech. Does anyone in Hillaryland see ANYTHING WRONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC POLITICIAN cozying up to Pitchfork Pat, for chrissakes???

Small town America has suffered for decades with few answers coming from our leaders in Washington. The Free Trade agreements pushed by the Clinton and Bush Administrations (Hillary may hear "Ka-Ching," but small-town Americans hear Perot's infamous "sucking sound") have accelerated the Heartland's economic decline.

As The Boss sings, "these jobs are going, boys and they ain't coming back..."



This latest media feeding frenzy over our presidential contest is diminishing BOTH Democratic candidates and threatens to result in a fratricidal outcome. The "chum" this weekend (full quote included, bolded section is the sound-bite focused on by Clinton, McCain and the "media"):

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Senator Obama's use of the word "bitter" may have been a miscue. But for Clinton to seize upon a word and divert attention from the real debate about lost jobs, economic dislocation and healthcare only aids McCain's general election chances.

It's clear Clinton and McCain don't understand the realities of 2008: When over 80% of respondents say they believe this country is "ON THE WRONG TRACK" most Americans are bitter about what has happened to this country.

And, I've got news for you: it's not just about lost jobs.

It's about shredding the Constitution. It's about warrantless wiretaps and granting the telecoms retroactive immunity. It's about an ill-advised war with no end in sight. It's about $4.00/gallon gasoline when oil companies make record profits. It's rampant foreclosures and a bailout of Wall Street while Main Street continues to suffer.

This is why Americans - in small towns and big cities - are angry.

I shudder to think what may happen to this nation if you take away the one thing we have left:

HOPE.

The GOP Playbook: "Mommy vs. Daddy"

Former Clinton strategist and pollster Dick Morris (the one who departed the Clinton inner circle before Mark Penn and has a long history as a hatchet man for the Republicans) has a revealing article in The Hill discussing a recent Gallup poll in which he selectively distorts the numbers to push the "Obama is weak/McCain is strong" narrative into the Beltway consiousness.

This poll was released by Gallup in mid-March under the headline, "Perceived Honesty Gap for Clinton Versus Obama, McCain." The pollsters summarized their findings as follows:

It is clear that voters are able to distinguish among the three major presidential candidates and rate some areas as strengths and some areas as weaknesses for each. Clinton would appear to have more weaknesses in the public's eyes than McCain or Obama, though that might reflect the fact that she is a better-known figure (and has lower favorable ratings). Currently, she holds a significant lead over Obama on only 2 of the 10 character dimensions evaluated here (strong and decisive leader, and having a clear plan for solving the country's problems) and McCain on one (clear plan). Despite this, she remains competitive with McCain in general-election matchu.ps and she has held off Obama's attempts to wrap up the Democratic nomination

Morris chose to focus on the secondary headline, "McCain most likely to be viewed as a strong leader" and push this as the narrative. Just as the Rove Republican smear machine labeled Kerry as a "flip-flopper" in the spring of 2004, the 2008 strategy is to define Obama as weak and indecisive. It is important to understand this effort is already well underway. Morris even admits the Right needs to soften him up now for the general election campaign: "the pressure the right brings to bear on him will cause him to appear weak in the face of attacks."

But a close look at the numbers doesn't show a huge difference between Obama and McCain at this stage of the campaign. Let's look at the numbers Morris is using. According to Morris:

Obama won:
• Cares about the needs of people like you, 66% to 54%
• Shares your values, 51% to 46%
•Understands the problems Americans face in their daily lives, 67% to 55%

McCain won:
• Is a strong, decisive leader, 56% to 69%
• Is honest and trustworthy, 63% to 67%
• Can manage the government efficiently, 48% to 60%

Neither won:
• Has a clear plan for solving the country's problems, 41% to 42%
• Has a clear vision for the country's future, 67% to 65%
• Would work well with both parties in Washington to get things done, 62% to 61%
• Is someone you would be proud to have as president, 57% to 55%

The toe-sucker didn't indicate what the MoE was on this poll. It's plus or minus 3%, which means the separation between Obama and McCain on the "honest and trustworthy" and "shares your values" traits are statistically insignificant.

These numbers fit into one of Morris' favorite memes: Democrats are the (empathetic) Mommy Party and Republicans the (efficient) Daddy Party. The conclusions he draws are selectively simplistic and spun to fit into his oft-stated worldview. Morris goes once step further, diminishing Obama's general election chances and elevating McCain's by pulling out the Republican trump card, 9-11:

in an age of terrorism, weakness is a capital crime. McCain needs to base his campaign on establishing Obama’s weakness and his own strong leadership by comparison.

Morris's analysis depends on spinning these numbers in three subtle (yet sinister) ways. Ignoring the positive, redefining the term "weak" and exaggerating the negative.

Ignoring the Positive: At this stage of the campaign, both candidates have a positive national image. Morris fails to note that both Obama and McCain exceed 50% on all but two questions. Obama almost cracks the 50% threshold on efficient management while McCain is only slightly under that mark on the "shares your values" question. Both fall short on the same question: Neither is viewed as having a clear plan for the country's future.

Redefine "Weak:" Fifty-six percent say Obama is a decisive leader and sixty-five percent says he has a clear vision for the country's future. Only in the view of a GOP-spinmeister could Obama's respectable and competitive numbers translate into being "weak."

Exaggerate the Negative or How deep is that "Strength"? Additionally, the points that McCain has "won" are likely to be very much in play once the Democratic nomination battle is settled and the Democrats turn their unified energies to McCain. It will be a Democratic priority to morph McCain's steadfastness into Bush's seven years of stubbornness. The Dems will also make the argument that the neocon laissez-faire economic ideology embraced by McCain simply amounts to four more years of Bush's disastrous domestic policies. Once this happens, I cannot see McCain maintaining a significant advantage on the leadership or management questions. Conversely, can anyone see McCain closing the gap on the "empathy" questions once the general election campaign is underway?

Morris fails to consider the dramatic changes underway within the 2008 electorate and dismisses the 2006 results. He basically admits the only path to a GOP presidential victory depends on convincing a majority of voters that foreign threats are more important than domestic economic concerns. Will the Republican Party be successful once again playing the politics of fear?

Perhaps counter-intuitively to progressive activists, Morris is correct in stating Iraq may be McCain's strongest (and perhaps only) winning general election issue. This is why Obama doesn't want to be talking about Iraq 24-7 in the summer and fall. He should (and I believe he will) focus on the economy.

McCain's March Deposits: $15M

While the MSM frets over the potential divisiveness of the Democratic Party's never-ending nomination fight, the Republican Party continues to struggle to close the "enthusiasm gap" with the Democrats.

The latest omen: The WSJ reports presumptive GOP nominee John McCain raised a paltry $15 million in March. This is far smaller than the enormous mountains of cash raised by the Democratic contenders (Obama's $40M+; Hillary's $20M). McCain is succeeding at gathering the party faithful (Bush '04 donors are now giving) to his cause. But how can that be a good thing when the Democrats are attracting money (and votes!) from indies, young people, and new voters at unprecedented rates?

McCain: "This Meeting Is Over"

John McCain's recent "Service to America" introductory tour was a biographic trip down memory lane for the presumptive GOP nominee. Designed (perhaps by Karl Rove?) to reacquaint Americans with a political leader who has been lurking in Washington for nearly as long as Bob Dole and whose public image has been burnished by a lovesick corps of reporters, the S2A Tour ran into an unanticipated speed bump at McCain's alma mater, Episcopal High in Alexandria, VA.

The tough question comes from a high school student, Katelyn Halldorson who asks(h/t to Media Matters):

"We were told that this isn't a political event. So, what exactly is your purpose in being here?

McCAIN: I knew I should have cut this thing off. This meeting is over.

It takes a teenager to ask the real questions? Shouldn't this inquiry come from the professional journalists at CNN? Perhaps MSNBC?