Huffington Post speculates that John Edwards will endorse Barack Obama tonight.
The Obama campaign has announced a "major national endorsement" for a rally tonight at 7pm in Michigan, and the rumor mill is swirling that it is none other than Sen. John Edwards.
Is that too late or too soon for Edwards to make his move? After all, he did get 7% of the vote in West Virginia.
Meanwhile, comedian Andy Borowitz is scheduled to be on MSNBC's Morning Joe tomorrow at 8:45AM. My sister went to his show at NYC's 92 Street Y last night and said he was "fabulous". Borowitz is a regular contributor of political satire on HuffPo.
We all know that this play looks increasingly like a Greek tragedy. I've already suggested the worst-case scenario. That's the "Train Wreck in the Station" that turns the Denver Democratic Convention into a modern-day "Chicago '68". There is also the more insipid, but similarly destructive possibility for which there is already evidence in the tone of the campaign and polls of Democratic voter attitudes. That is, the nominee is selected "free and fair", but fails to win a significant share of the other contender's support, allowing McCain to slide through in November. The chances for this outcome could improve the longer this race drags on.
No wonder the pundits are now wringing their hands in search of an elder statesman to save the day. Albert Hunt sees the need for someone to sort out the Michigan/Florida mess. After all, if George Mitchell can hammer out a plan for Northern Ireland and the Middle East, as well as professional baseball, he can certainly work out something for the DNC. I concede that these renegade states are important to the Democrats’ electoral total in November. But solving the problem created by the queue-jumpers may not solve the Clinton-Obama stalemate, only prolong it.
I am happy to admit that my previous post may have reflected an overly pessimistic view of the state of play in the current race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. It was probably most affected by the negative attacks in the last debate, the "invisible" looks I got from many whites when they saw my Obama button and witnessing the abject poverty in which many African-Americans live in South Carolina. But I kept at my main task, knocking on doors to advocate for Obama's election. And I am proud to have been a small part of this amazing grass roots effort, and of the postive, uplifting message with which Barack Obama acknowledged the victory.
Let's Make February 4 a SHOW HOPE DAY.
I will write more specifically about my experiences in the coming days, For now, I propose the following. Let's get every Obama supporter to wear a t-shirt, button, hat or sticker on Monday, February 4. We can show America how far and wide the grassroots movement has spread on the eve of Super Tuesday.
We do this to demonstrate:
Our commitment to Change in the conduct of American politics and our Hope for the future of our country.
If you agree, please forward the link to this diary or spread the idea to all your networks.
UPDATE: Confirm your intention to participate by going to the event link for SHOW HOPE DAY.
Ezra Klein makes the case for the role John Edwards has played in pushing the Democratic field to the left:
Much more so than Obama, it's been Edwards who forced a new style of politics, untethered by the fear and timidity of the 90s, adamant that liberalism was an electoral boon and economic justice a popular sentiment. Knowing they had to defend against his challenge, both Hillary and Obama edged closer to his appeal.
This left the Edwards campaign without much substance on which to distinguish itself, but it left the Democrats in a much stronger position overall, and forced them to argue for, and commit to, a much broader and more inspiring agenda than we otherwise might have seen.
No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, the fact remains that the Edwards campaign has set the domestic policy agenda for the entire field.
And there is some truth to this, but at the same time, it's easy to forget the titantic impact that Obama himself had on the presidential field. It was Obama, not Edwards, whose entrance essentially drove moderates like Evan Bayh and Mark Warner out of the race. The ideological homogeneity of the race owes a lot to this dynamic.
I wonder if California SEIU and other state SEIUs now regret throwing their support to John Edwards so early in the race. Given how Edwards seems to be really fading, and that Nevada SEIU has now backed Obama, would there be a wider call to support Obama?
Reading this gives me some hope:
Now other unions also are starting to hedge bets. Edwards was once the front-runner for an endorsement from the 1.9-million-member Service Employees International Union. Now SEIU President Andy Stern encourages locals to back Obama. The California Nurses Association is signaling a tip toward Obama with an ad campaign highlighting the Illinois senator's opposition to forcing individuals to buy health insurance.
Barack Obama is a MUCH better friend to organized labor than he's given credit. His record and consistency is truly progressive. I hope other unions in turn make a firm decision to back Obama in case the field narrows to Barack and Hillary.
This diary is about Honesty. But it is also about Fashion. For these are two aspects of the campaign in NH that struck me after leaving the Granite State and in preparing for the upcoming Nevada caucus (which is probably the most problematic contest in the long primary season and subject of my next post, but you can always check Las Vegas Diary: High Stakes Game in Nevada Desert to get the idea).
Although the Democratic presidential contest has not been entirely dominated by fashion and style, it has had an impact on the race.
Some early examples include:
-- the cost of John Edwards haircuts (at odds with his new populist image),
-- Hillary Clinton's cleavage in Senate committee meetings (evidence of persistent sexism), and
-- Barack Obama's tie-less look (run alongside photos of similarly-attired Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while Howard Wolfson declaimed Obama's readiness to talk to Holocaust deniers).
Of course, these details distract us from the more painful issues consistently dominating canvassing New Hampshire voters. Like how to get out of Iraq, where our soldiers are being blown up, while al Qaeda regroups in Pakistan. Or health care. Or education, taxes, loss-of-jobs and the environment. But fashion is what you are likely to get from a media and in a culture obsessed with the antics of Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears. So don't hold it against Barack Obama for allowing himself to grace the cover of the September GQ, when becoming known by the public was his number one challenge.
By now you know how it turned out. Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, getting 2.6% more votes than Obama. It is certainly true that her campaign very successfully mobilized support from women of all ages to deliver a narrow winning margin. But to understand how close the outcome was, consider that Clinton and Obama both took the same number of delegates, 9 each (Edwards won 4). And Obama, with 3 of 5 of the state's superdelegates (Dem officials), has effectively "won" the NH delegate count.
In my opinion, what really happened Tuesday is that a "perfect storm" of expectations-driven behavior, combined with the sympathy generated in the closing days by the debate and Hillary's highly publicized weeping, gave her the narrow win. Obama "lost" the New Hampshire primary to the general expectation of a large win following Iowa. Public opinion polls on the last day before the primary had Obama ahead by 10-13%. This expectation stimulated voter behavior, particularly among Undeclared (independent) cross-over voters and anti-Hillary Democrats, that would probably have been very different if the polls had been able to convey the degree to which the race had narrowed by Tuesday.
Iowans have spoken, with over 200,000 caucus participants. Iowans have given Barack Obama a victory with what looks like 37% of the delegate count. For the first time in the 2008 cycle, we have real numbers expressing voters' preferences, numbers which point to what may happen over the next five weeks. Below, some analysis of how tonight's results may affect what happens in New Hampshire on Tuesday, and the rest of the nation from there.
Pronunciation: "vI-&-'bil-&t-E
Function: noun Inflected Form: plural-ties : the quality or state of being viable : the ability to live, grow, and develop
So, the question is this, who is the candidate/s running a smoke and mirrors campaign? Or is one being run?
Who is talking the talk, but in the end can he/she "walk the walk."
December 26. Nine days until Iowa voters caucus, thirteen days until New Hampshire voters go to the polls. The campaigns are making their final push to the first voting states, and the push promises to be more intense than what Democratic voters have seen in years.
Below the jump, details on the various campaigns' activities this week, and some context for how 2008 is different than 2004.
I want to first disclaim that I really don't like writing hit diaries, but I feel this is a "expose hypocrisy" diary, so it's at least a bit better. I'm sure anyone here can pass on the story in a better form. I encourage it, and please feel free to copy any or all information here if it's useful.
This angers me in a way I have not yet felt in this campaign, in part because I have viewed Edwards as a pseudo-ally all along. I can expect the Clinton campaign to stab us in the front. But for the Edwards folks to do it is a whole different ball game
Democratic Courage, a political action committee dedicated to electing a “progressive, courageous, and winning” Democratic presidential candidate, today released its first television ad, entitled “Blowin’ in the Wind.” The ad is scheduled to begin airing next week in Iowa.
There's more below, and more details here, including how some of the 527s are run by health insurance company lobbyists who were on the payroll of the Edwards campaign before launching the 527.
So I have just found my way here, I am just now getting into the coverage of the campaign. But something's different this time around. I can't quite put my finger on it, but the atmosphere of the left blogosphere has changed. Anybody else agree? More in extended...
"calling all cars, calling all cars, Hillary Clinton is under attack!!!"
Oh, Pahleaze. Are you ready for a laugh?
I mean a real laugh.
Team Clinton is launching the following:
Votingpresent.com and Votingpresent.org are domains hosted by the same IP address as official Clinton Web sites, such TheHillaryIKnow.com, which was launched with much fanfare this week.
Of course, the latter to give you a touchy, feeling side of Hillary.
What we are witnessing is truly incredible. With special interests, the establishment, and, among other notables, a popular former President behind her, Hillary Clinton's leads have disappeared across the board. A new Rasmussen Poll released earlier today shows Hillary leading Obama by a statistically insignificant two points in South Carolina.
While the full poll has yet to be released, Political Wire has gotten an advanced look at a Strategic Vision poll that shows Obama with continued momentum and subsequently increasing his lead in Iowa to a full seven points over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards - 32%-25%-25%.
This is but the latest in a series of early-state polls that show Obama is gaining traction at a torrid pace and largely closing the gap between him and Hillary. Two recent New Hampshire polls show him within single digits of Hillary - a win in Iowa would, without a doubt in my mind, catapult him to the front of the pack in the Granite State just like it did in the case of John Kerry back in 2004.
While it can't be said with certainty before the full results are released tomorrow, I suspect, based on previous polls conducted by the firm, that the Strategic Vision poll will be much more credible than the two polls the Clinton campaign was touting here a couple of days ago. The two polls that showed Hillary in the lead in Iowa had incredibly large margins of error and were sampled over a period of as many as three weeks. The previous three Strategic Vision Iowa polls were taken over a three day stretch and had margins of error of 4-4.5%.
In case anybody doesn't frequent OpenLeft (If you haven't, now's the time to start), Chris Bowers has an excellent rundown of the numbers in Iowa, New Hampshire, and nationally, and what they mean in relation to each other and to election prospects. His analysis is as scientific as can be possible given the unknowns obviously involved.
I think his analysis is probably correct, although I think as of now it leans more towards an uncertain tie and I think we'd agree that at best it leans Obama, things certainly could go that way in the next few weeks. Read below for a quote and more openleft goodness:
There's been quite a bit of buzz about mandated health insurance this week. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have proposed healthcare plans that will make health insurance mandatory for all US citizens. Barack Obama has proposed a healthcare plan that will provide affordable health insurance for all, but Obama's plan doesn't require a mandate. Today John Edwards released some of the details on how he will enforce his mandate, but Hillary Clinton has refused to provide answers as to what will happen if people choose not to abide by her mandate. The state of Massachusetts last year made health care mandatory and while it has increased the number of those covered, there have been quite a few problems.
One month ago, Senator Clinton said: "I'm going to focus on what I would do as president".
Following her rapid decline in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and national polls and also in head-to-head matchups against 5 Republican candidates, the Senator from New York has launched a series of attacks, focusing not on what she would do but on what she asserts Barack Obama won't do.
So, let us set the records straight.
American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians have died in the Iraq invasion. Billions of dollars that could've been used to improve schools in SC, create jobs for thousands of Iowans, provide healthcare to millions of uninsured Americans, fund research on renewable energy and help rebuild the devastation of Katrina is being spent yearly in Iraq. It's easy to forget the past, but the fact is that if Senator Clinton and others had headed the warnings of Barack Obama, 3000 America soldiers would be with their families today. The truth hurts, but if you've lost someone in this war, you will understand why Senator Clinton who did not read the NIE and has refused to apologize for her vote to authorize the war, is most unqualified to lead this country.
John Edwards and other candidates who authorized this war have taken responsibility and renounced their vote, calling it a mistake. They also stood up against the Kyl-Liebermann amendment that George Bush could exploit to invade Iran or extend the war in Iraq. Senator Clinton on the other hand, refused to take responsibility for her decision to authorize the war, instead worsening matters by giving George Bush another blank check on Iran.
As a state senator, Barack Obama stood up to the lobbyists, the drug and insurance companies by successfully passing legislation that offered healthcare to 150,000 additional Illinoisans. Senator Clinton on the other hand failed to stand up to the lobbyists and special interests when she tried to fix healthcare in 1993. The result was a fiasco that has left Millions of Americans without healthcare to this day. Senator Clinton has often shifted the blame to Republicans and lately, her husband has claimed that it was his fault, not hers. In other words, the experience is hers, but the failure is his. Is that an argument voters are supposed to believe?
The bottom line: Senator Obama got it done and Senator Clinton got it wrong!
Senator Clinton often talks about being the most experienced candidate. Such a ludicrous claim isn't justified by her records, most of which Iowa caucus goers will not be able to see in order to determine the validity of her experience claim. It also shows how the Clintons have taken Democrats for fools who will swallow everything they spin. If Senator Clinton believes the solution to the problems facing America's future is an experienced Washington hand, we urge her to drop out of the race and endorse Joe Biden or Chris Dodd.
A few months ago, Senator Clinton said "All Democrats are for universal healthcare". Now that she's on a free-fall, she's attacking Obama for refusing to share her approach that universal healthcare will necessarily be achieved by forcing people to buy health insurance. If mandatory health insurance is what America needs right now, we suggest John Edwards plan instead of Clinton's.
But the fact of the matter is, there is no status-quo on universal healthcare in America, except a failed one authored by Senator Clinton. So it's silly to claim that a particular approach that has never been tested previously is the one guaranteed to work. At least at state level, we know for certain that mandatory health insurance isn't working. Furthermore, a health plan without an enforcement strategy for a mandate is a suspicious plan whose 'terms and conditions' are not completely spelled out.
No problem in America can be solved with a 51% majority. Obama's highest cross-over appeal and highest net positives, nationwide, suggest that he's the best candidate capable of creating a new majority required to pass universal healthcare. With half the country saying it will NEVER vote for Senator Clinton and her negatives at all-time highest, even if she ekes out a victory in November, it is very likely her plan will end up again as nothing but textbook material.
Every election, politicians make sound-bite promises they hardly keep and you applaud. The American people get played for suckers year in year out with meaningless phrases like "ready to lead from day one" that exploit voters' fears. In the end, the "most experienced candidates" lead us into an ill-conceived war, but no real solution to the problems of middle-class folks. Hillary Clinton is part of a failed system that wants to force her down our throats. But she has failed the American people far too many times and does not deserve another chance.
On January 3, Iowans will pass judgment on who has the level-headedness to lead a dangerous world, the humility to listen to the views of the other side, who can be trusted to tell the truth on hard issues like social security, universal healthcare, foreign conflicts and who's better capable to end the war in Iraq - a candidate who authorized it or one who warned against it before it began.
In making your decision, we ask you to judge the character and record of the candidates over the course of their life, not simply based on carefully designed sales pitches suited for the moment. Because you will not get a permanently reliable president from a temporally crafted message!
Signed: Carrington Ward, Jackson Heights, NY; Jimmie Willis, Beavercreek, OH; Victoria von Szelinski, Beverly Hills, CA; Jeff Schragel, Indiana, PA; Gerald Williams, Harrisburg, PA; Stacie Munger, AZ; Danielle Clarke; Rosalind Ware; Sharane Miller; Girish Manchaiah; Sharon Barolet; Jessica Caruso; Deborah Phelan; Pam Riddle; Dixie Siegel; Eileen Prussman; Cyd Reider; Tim Prudhel; Artemis OakGrove; Roberta Kelinson; Gebreyohanns Mehari; J. Ying Williams; Ciara Arnette; Diamond E.; Rosa Velez; Muriel Williams; Kim Slack; Leo Henton.
