Archive for the '2008' Category

From the Hotline blog:

For months, Clinton strategist James Carville has been telling anyone who would listen that he's convinced ex-VP Al Gore will run, Gore's deflections to the contrary.

Here's how we're translating Mr. Carville:

He might think Gore will actually run.

Also, the more Dems pay attention to Al Gore, the less they'll pay attention to Sen. Barack Obama.

The more there's talk of a Gore run, the more impetus there is for a Draft Gore movement, the more pressure Gore feels compelled to run, the more excited some Democrats become, about a Gore run, etc, the more they compare Gore and his resume to the rest of the field...

The Clinton people fear two things above all else -- the entry of Al Gore into the race, and the clear emergence of an "anti-Hillary" candidate.

There's no reason for them to do anything to prompt Gore's entry into the race. So they must be confident that Gore is solidly out of the race. That way, their little misdirection campaign can safely inject enough confusion into the race to keep Obama (or Edwards) from becoming that dominant anti-Clinton candidate.

Update: Atrios isn't the only one.

Apparently I'm the only person who is bothered by this, but it's probably inappropriate for "Clinton strategist" James Carville to maintain his pundit seat at CNN during the primary season.

Really, that's the big question that would turn Virginia from a second-tier challenge to one of the top ones in 2008.

Former Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner is being courted by national Democrats to run for the U.S. Senate seat now held by John W. Warner (R-Va.) and is seriously considering the 2008 challenge, several Capitol Hill and state sources said.

Mark Warner had dinner with Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) last month, and the two have since talked regularly about the contest, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because a final decision has not been made.

Mark Warner, 52, has said in the past that he would consider a Senate bid only if the seat were vacant. But he is not ruling out a bid even if John Warner, a five-term incumbent and friend of the former governor, runs for reelection, the sources said.

M. Warner has made it clear that he plans to run for one of two offices in the next two years -- either the Senate race or the governor's one in 2009. While J. Warner has said he's not running again, we've seen such proclamations discarded in the past. And this article makes clear that the J. Warner crowd is actively working on its Plan B -- Rep. Tom Davis, while past articles have noted J. Warner's distress at his state's increasing leftward tilt and the aggressive tactics that brought down George Allen.

For perspective, note that it wasn't until late 2005 that Webb even appeared on the radar screen. His trial balloon interview in the San Diego Union Tribune took place October 31, 2005, while his formal announcement wasn't until March 26, 2006.

We've got time.

Update: Link fixed.

David Yepsen, the dean of the Iowa political press, writes:

Tom Vilsack's withdrawl from the 2008 race for president is bad news [...] For those offering the most strident anti-war messages. (They also didn't go the distance for Howard Dean four years ago.) [...]

Vilsack's departure is also evidence a strong anti-war message isn't enough. Today, everybody wants out of Iraq and bashes the war. The question is finding a credible way to do it, and Democrats are having trouble agreeing on a plan.

Bullshit. Vilsack was never a credible anti-war voice. Someone who led the premier pro-war "Democratic" organization in the land (the DLC) had no credibility turning 180 degrees and trying to claim that "anti-war" mantle for himself. It was a sick joke, and few bought it.

Does Yepsen really think that Obama's Iraq message is materially different than Vilsack's used to be? The difference being that Obama has credibility on Iraq. Vilsack had none.

In reality, Vilsack's departure is bad news for 1) those without credibility on Iraq, and 2) for no-name obscure candidates easily overshadowed by the Democratic titans slugging it out at the top.

It says nothing about the anti-war message. And watch, by early 2008, even Hillary will have found religion on Iraq.

Mark your calendar for the Yearly Kos convention, Aug. 2-5. Why? You remember how much fun we all had last year, right? How much you hated missing out on it, right? But now there's even greater incentive. Why? Because it will be your best opportunity to evaluate the Democratic field of Presidential candidates, up close and personal.

Today, organizers of Yearly Kos '07 are announcing an unprecedented forum featuring potential 2008 presidential candidates. From the press release:

"We are inviting the presidential candidates to join in a first of its kind dialogue with citizens and the netroots," said Gina Cooper, YearlyKos Convention Executive Director. "Successful candidates are learning to authentically engage citizens in an emerging, increasingly participatory society, and we want to ensure that technological progress brings about meaningful social change."

To foster a conversation that has the breadth, depth, and authenticity of a diverse voting public, this event, marking the first ever collaborative presidential forum with both a respected blogger and a leading member of the traditional media, will be moderated by Matt Bai, writer for The New York Times Magazine and author of a forthcoming book on Democratic politics, and Joan McCarter, contributing editor at Daily Kos. Dr. Jeffrey Feldman, author and blogger at Frameshopisopen.com, will ask questions submitted in advance from tens of thousands of blog readers and will facilitate questions from convention attendees.

Organizers are also asking the candidates to spend time in individual, unscripted "citizen dialogues" with convention attendees, encouraging substantive discussions that transcend the competitive nature of most joint appearances on the campaign trail. The events and conference are open to media and blog coverage

This really will be an incredible opportunity to spend some time with Dem candidates in an unscripted, personal, and informal manner.  Matt and I will try our best to keep things lively in the forum, covering a wide range of topics and issues. This isn't going to be a traditional, presidential debate. It's going to be a conversation between us, the candidates, and you. Beyond this forum, the candidates are going to be available for small group discussions with convention attendees. That's you and the candidate, and a few dozen of your fellow Kossacks, sitting down for an intimate conversation with someone who will very likely be the next President of the United States. It doesn't get any better than that. Kudos to Gina and the rest of the organizing team at Yearly Kos for putting together this one.

Don't pass up this opportunity to meet your candidates. Register for the convention, and if you are in a position to help realize the full potential of the combined forces of the netroots, all in one place at one time (look out Chicago!) please consider making a donation.

Just a reminder, spurred by this Atrios post:

Gallup. 2/9-11. Adults. MoE 3% (no trend lines)

[The media has] spent a lot of time discussing whether an African-American or a woman will have a hard time attracting votes. Meanwhile, opinion polls tell us that most people are fine with voting for people who fit those descriptions, but that people are less fine voting for an old guy, a twice-divorced guy, or a Mormon. The media coverage of these issues has been backwards relative to what the polls say. In decreasing order, people happy to vote for: black guy, chick, Mormon, twice-divorced guy, old guy. Judging by the news coverage you'd think the first three are the most troublesome for voters, when opinion polls tell us that it's actually the last two.

Those defending the Democratic debate on Fox News are getting sillier by the minute.

D. Taylor, Secretary–Treasurer of the 60,000-member Culinary Union called on those who have focused on Fox to look at the larger political picture. “Nevada was chosen as an early caucus state because of its diversity.

Nevada has lots of blacks, Asians, and Latinos. Hence, Democrats should go on the alll-white Fox News Channel instead of media venues frequented by that diverse population. It's that kind of brilliant thinking that has made the Nevada Republican Party so dominant in a state which should be far more competitive.

It's increasingly clear that Nevada didn't deserve to be moved up in the calendar. They apparently don't understand that Democratic caucuses have nothing to do with the Republicans watching Fox News.

They think that being on Fox News will win over converts, apparently unaware that the pundit heroes of those watching Fox News (Hannity, O'Reilly, Hume, Bennett, etc) will mine the debate for hours and days for ways to bash those Democrats. Who will viewers believe? Evil Democrats, or their favorite Fox talking heads?

This is on Dean and Reid, who are happily legitimizing the right-wing's favorite propaganda outlet. And it will be on any Democratic candidate that decides to appear at the debate.