Beyond the Dome

A bit of late-breaking news tonight: That Federal Election Commission deadlock Barack Obama helped create seems to have solved itself.

Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department lawyer whose nomination to the FEC was strenuously opposed by Obama and other Democrats, withdrew his name tonight after tying up the entire process of filling the commission's vacant seats for months.

Obama and Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold had placed holds on von Spakovsky's nomination because of his civil rights views - he had overruled objections to a Georgia law requiring voters to produce photo identifications at the polls. But Republicans insisted on moving all of the FEC nominations together or not at all.

Given that choice, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada chose the second option and stuck with it. Obama needed a functioning FEC - but neither he nor Reid were willing to pay the price of having von Spakovsky on the commission.

In a statement tonight, Obama said von Spakovsky "disqualified himself from this position by undermining the long tradition of professional, nonpartisan administration of voting rights laws at the Department of Justice."

"I hope that today's announcement removes the last obstacle to reconstituting this important agency," Obama said. Since the entire deadlock revolved around von Spakovsky, it probably will.

To close out the week, here's a quick roundup of some of the best readings about the overlap between the congressional campaigns and Congress.

Now that the House couldn't pass supplemental funding for the war in Iraq, the pressure will be on Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain to decide whether they want to return to the Senate and help their colleagues do it when the bill comes to the floor next week. Here's the rundown of the complicated war funding politics by CQ's John Rogin and Liriel Higa.

One of the most valuable nuggets in Matt Bai's look at John McCain's national security views in Sunday's New York Times magazine is its reminder that he hasn't been a knee-jerk supporter of every U.S. military action. As a House member in 1983, he was just one of 27 Republicans to object when President Reagan wanted to extend the deployment of the Marines in Lebanon. And as a senator in 1993, after U.S. soldiers were ambushed in Somalia, McCain wanted to bring them all home.

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Monica Langley finds out what bugs Mark Salter, John McCain's longtime adviser and speechwriter, about Barack Obama: "Mr. Salter says he finds a "messianic" quality and "youthful conceit" to Sen. Obama, citing the senator's oratory and his appearances before big audiences with his arms outstretched."

And a few other interesting tidbits from around the Web:

Michael Crowley of The New Republic likes one of the newer ideas that has surfaced out of nowhere: former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle as chief of staff in an Obama White House.

David Frum at National Review thinks congressional Republicans who are worried about their re-elections should "treat the presidential election as already lost" and focus all their fire on Obama.

Matt Cooper of Condé Nast Portfolio thinks this will be "the last Clinton election" and throws cold water on all the rumors that she'll become majority leader if she returns to the Senate.

Harvard economist Greg Mankiw says McCain was right to oppose the farm bill, and links to an earlier post explaining why.

And Daniel Finkelstein of The Times of London has a fascinating post (via Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic) about what McCain should expect if he actually brings the House of Commons' "Question Time" to Congress. It takes a lot of time, Finkelstein says, and McCain would have to decide what his real goal is: "Do you try to win the exchange or do you try to win over the public?"

There was another signal from the Democratic party establishment today that it's time to wrap up the nomination. Robert S. Strauss, an uncommitted superdelegate and former Democratic National Committee chairman from the 1970s, declared in a Washington Post op-ed this morning that "the process has been played, and it has been played out."

"Democrats should rally around our nominee as soon as possible so the general election campaign can begin and the contrast between John McCain and the Democratic Party can be drawn for the American people. Having put our party back together after the 1972 convention, I know that every week of delay tempts a hardening of irreconcilable differences. If we are to win for America, the Democratic Party has to unite now."

To put this article in some context, I tried to interview Strauss a few weeks ago for a piece on what the uncommitted superdelegates were waiting for. His assistant told me that Strauss wasn't giving interviews about the presidential race because if he talked to one reporter, he'd have to talk to them all, and because of his age (he's approaching 90), he didn't want to spend his time doing that.

Looks like today's op-ed was his way of talking to them all - and to Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign - at the same time.

Your move, Al Gore.

No, the three presidential candidates weren't around today when the Senate passed the farm bill. But Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton were there in spirit, cheering on the 81 senators who voted for it.

And John McCain was there in spirit, siding with . . . well . . . the 15 senators who voted against it.

The three all put out statements explaining their positions, but there are subtle differences in the way the three senators handled the public relations end of it. In each case, though, the political overtones were clear.

McCain, the 21-year veteran of the Senate, inserted a lengthy statement into the Congressional Record explaining why he voted against such a popular bill - and promptly released it to the public through his Senate press office. McCain is a longtime critic of farm subsidies, and he said the bill continues them at a time when food prices are rising.

He also charged that the legislation was full of "pork barrel spending," and threw in a list of spending projects he objected to - a classic McCain manuever from years of fights against spending bills.

"I recognize that in the days ahead, attempts will be made to use my opposition to this bill for another's political gain, but I have always worked to do my best for America and that is why I must oppose this conference report," McCain said in his statement. "And, the American people deserve to know the truth about this farm bill: It's a bloated piece of legislation that will do more harm than good for most farmers and consumers."

It's not like McCain has nothing to gain from his stand, of course - it will provide more evidence of the fiscal conservativism that has become such a central part of his campaign narrative. Still, he was right about Obama and Clinton. They both pounced on him for his opposition.

Obama, the first-term senator who is just sort of passing through the Senate, issued his statement through his campaign. "By opposing the bill, President Bush and John McCain are saying no to America's farmers and ranchers, no to energy independence, no to the environment, and no to millions of hungry people," Obama said. (Bush has threatened to veto the measure.)

Meanwhile, Clinton - the seven-year Senate veteran who has kept an active Capitol Hill operation even while on the campaign trail - issued statements through both her Senate office and her campaign.

Clinton the presidential candidate blasted McCain for his opposition - and just to make sure no one missed her point, she put out two statements, not just one (the second one is here). Clinton the senator never mentioned McCain.

That statement just talked about how wonderful the farm bill is.

There are some fascinating passages in John McCain's speech in Columbus, Ohio this morning about what he hopes to accomplish by the end of his first term as president. Some of the most remarkable ones, however, are about how far he'll go in using the powers of the presidency - and what lines he won't cross.

Basically, it's one more way McCain is putting distance between himself and President Bush.

Take the issue of signing statements. One of the greatest sources of tension between Bush and Congress has been the way he has used his official written statements, when signing legislation into law, to suggest he would treat some provisions as advice rather than requirements because they intruded on the powers of the presidency.

According to Christopher S. Kelley, a visiting assistant professor of political science at Miami University in Ohio, Bush has used these statements 159 times and has challenged 1,167 provisions of new laws. And one of the most famous examples was the signing statement Bush issued after signing McCain's ban on torture into law in 2005.

So maybe it's not surprising that McCain would take special exception to the way Bush has used signing statements. Here's what he said:

"I will exercise my veto if I believe legislation passed by Congress is not in the nation's best interests, but I will not subvert the purpose of legislation I have signed by making statements that indicate I will enforce only the parts of it I like."

The Senate was briefly tied in knots today when Republicans forced a vote on a veterans' benefits bill co-sponsored by John McCain. But was it presidential politics, or just the Republican senators' way of complaining about their treatment by the Democratic majority?

In a way that's unique to the Senate, it probably was a bit of both.

Democratic leaders were incensed when Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina , one of McCain's closest allies, tried to attach his GI benefits proposal - which is co-sponsored by McCain - to a collective bargaining bill that's a high priority for the Democrats. The surprise move came two days after McCain and Graham had offered in writing to negotiate with Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, who has been working on his own version of the measure since January 2007, and a day after Graham and Webb had talked about setting up the negotiations.

To catch up on the politics of the competing bills, and why Democrats insist the Webb version is more generous, here's the writeup from CQ's Kathleen Hunter, Bart Jansen and Josh Rogin.

The bottom line for the presidential race, however, is that Barack Obama has been attacking McCain for not supporting the Webb version, calling the Republican nominee-in-waiting "one of the few Senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it's too generous."

So when Graham filed his version as an amendment to the collective bargaining bill, Webb called it "an irresponsible act" that was "done in bad faith." And Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois - an Obama ally - griped that "this is about the presidential campaign. This is about Senator McCain's dilemma."

Today, we’re checking in on the activities of two of the most powerful campaign surrogates: House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio, who has been trying to paint Barack Obama as an Israel hater, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who has posted a Web video challenging John McCain’s reputation as a bipartisan negotiator.

So far, neither one seems to have a bright future as an attack dog ahead of him.

Of the two, Boehner’s failure has been especially spectacular, given the subject matter. In an e-mail circulated on Monday by The Freedom Project, his political action committee, Boehner claimed that in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, Obama said ”Israel is a “constant sore” that “does infect” American foreign policy.”

“Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a ‘constant sore’ as Barack Obama claims,” said Boehner, one of McCain’s most vocal surrogates in the House. ”It’s another sign that Obama is part of the broken Washington Americans are rejecting.”

Israel? A “constant sore”? It’s a firestorm! Call the TV pundits!

It’s the kind of thing that easily could have ended up all over the blogosphere, cable news, or both. Except nobody believed it. Boehner had tried to start a brush fire, and the only one who seems to have gotten burned is Boehner.

This time, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton actually said hello to each other.

The two were in the Senate chamber this morning for a series of votes they can use to their advantage in their campaigns – especially their support for a Democratic measure that would require the Bush administration to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which won the votes of 97 senators, and another bill that would give collective bargaining rights to state and local public safety officials.

The last time the two showed up for votes, they carefully avoided any contact. Not today. As the series of four votes dragged on, lasting nearly an hour, Obama casually walked up to Clinton and the two exchanged one of those half-hug, half arm-clasp greetings.

The half-hug was mediated – naturally – by an uncommitted superdelegate, Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado, who laughed heartily with the two presidential candidates.

Don't worry, though. The campaigns have a life of their own. While Clinton and Obama made nice on the floor, Clinton's campaign e-mailed a memo about tonight's West Virginia primary – which she is expected to win easily – called “Why West Virginia Matters.”

A more intriguing development was the series of intense, one-on-one conversations Obama and Clinton had with both of the Michigan senators – Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow – who are anxiously awaiting word on whether the Michigan delegation will be seated at the Democratic national convention in August.

By insisting on including federal aid for nuclear power, John McCain may have made his latest climate-change plan more palatable to Republicans. But he may also have made it less likely that anything that looks like his plan will emerge from the Senate.

In a speech in Portland this afternoon, McCain outlined his plans for a “cap and trade” policy he would pursue as president, in which the government would set limits on total carbon emissions and companies would work out between themselves how much they could generate. This is one of the biggest issues on which McCain parts ways with most Republicans. But he included one concession that might make the plan go down easier with at least some conservatives: incentives to expand the use of nuclear power.

“We must consider every alternative source of power, and that includes nuclear power,” McCain said in his speech. “Here we have a known, proven energy source that requires exactly zero emissions ... It doesn’t take a leap in logic to conclude that if we want to arrest global warming, then nuclear energy is a powerful ally in that cause.”

Nuclear power is considered the only carbon-free energy source that could provide the kind of power big cities need, but its critics contend that its expense, the potential dangers involved, and the waste storage problems make it an unattractive option. Many experts say the only way to make it work is to have government share in the risk, as CQ’s Rebecca Adams wrote last year.

And unless the current balance of power in the Senate changes drastically next year – with just the right combination of pro-nuclear Democrats and moderate Republicans to make a working a majority – a President McCain would lose enough votes in both parties that he’d have a hard time getting his version of a cap-and-trade bill through the Senate.

There’s a subtle, but potentially important, difference between the congressional superdelegates Barack Obama has won since Tuesday’s primaries and the superdelegates Hillary Rodham Clinton has won.

This morning, Rep. Donald M. Payne of New Jersey switched his support from Clinton to Obama, and Rep. Peter A. DeFazio endorsed Obama as well, just in time for the Oregon primary May 20. This afternoon, Rep. Mazie K. Hirono of Hawaii endorsed him too.

Yesterday, Obama picked up Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina and Rick Larsen of Washington state.

Clinton, meanwhile, picked up the support Rep. Christopher Carney of Pennsylvania this morning. Reps. Heath Shuler of North Carolina and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana insist they haven’t officially endorsed her – even though her campaign cited both of them as new endorsements. But both are promising to vote for the winner of their districts if the nomination fight goes all the way to the convention, who just happens to be Clinton.

So here’s the difference: Most of Obama’s new congressional supporters have been around a while, and have pretty safe seats. Even Hirono, the one freshman out of the bunch, won her heavily Democratic district in 2006 with 61 percent of the vote.

Clinton, however, is picking up the first-term Democrats who won their seats away from Republican incumbents. In other words, they’re the ones who made it possible for the Democrats to win the House in 2006.

One of Clinton’s major arguments against Obama, of course, is that she’s winning the swing states and key demographic groups that a Democrat would need to win the White House. But there’s another way to look at the issue: the Democrats only have control of the House because they were able to win 30 seats away from the Republicans. If those first-term Democrats decide she’s the stronger candidate to help them keep their seats – or even if they just feel obligated to vote for her because their constituents did – that’s a trend that should catch the attention of the Obama campaign.

It’s not clear that these Democrats are lining up with Clinton with a lot of enthusiasm. Even Carney, who released a formal statement Friday morning, simply said that “Pennsylvania’s 10th District overwhelmingly chose Senator Clinton in the Pennsylvania primary and I will respect their decision.”

But if Obama wants to assure his Democratic colleagues that he can not only win in November, but help them win too, he may need to devote more attention to the ones that are on the shakiest ground.