David Corn

DC,

"To keep his message of change clear and honest, Obama is going to have to say no to these folks, even though they might come with experience and the best of intentions."

I hope he does say no to the old guard Dems, he doesn't need them to infect his message.

Obama has set the bar way too high even for him. He will be spending most of his campaign defending people he has picked to be part of his team. He is already regreting this by defending Jim Johnson.

On a side note, WSJ new poll shows Obama 47% to McCains 41% after Hillary bows out.

Thats it, a 4% bump from Hillary supporters?

McCain is crushing Obama with the white male voters 55% to 35%.

We haven't even gotten to the tax and spend policies that Obama wants to implement yet.

Will crying 'liberal' help GOP this year? Some think not

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — When U.S. Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., dismissed his Democratic opponent last month as "Nancy Pelosi's chosen recruit" who had "pockets stuffed with cash from Washington liberals," one of the loudest groans came from a fellow North Carolina Republican.

“This shouting Liberal! Liberal! Liberal! stuff is not going to work this year,” Lee Teague, the GOP chairman in Mecklenburg County, which includes Charlotte, e-mailed a reporter.

“McHenry and a lot of other Republicans in Washington need to get a clue,” he added later.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/40591.html

*****

Maybe the "liberal" thing will work, I doubt it but the GOPhers really have nothing so they will try it.

Maybe the liberal thing will work? The Dems are running from it so why not?

Not all Democrats falling for Obama

Jun 12, 7:18 AM (ET)

By BEN EVANS and SAM HANANEL

WASHINGTON (AP) - Nothing personal, Sen. Obama, but our re-election comes first. Barack Obama, for all his attention and primary successes, does not go over so well in a fair number of Democratic lawmakers' home districts. So it seems there is little chance that some will endorse him for president.

Some are counting on Republican votes in their re-election bids. Some are newly minted and in rematches with 2006 opponents. Some may be wary of how their constituents will react to a black presidential candidate. Some, too, have made it a practice of distancing themselves from the national party, fearing the inevitable campaign ad that has their face morphing into Howard Dean, the party chairman, and Obama.

Rep. Dan Boren, the only congressional Democrat in Oklahoma, calls Obama "the most liberal senator" in Congress and says he has no plans to make a public endorsement.

"We're much more conservative" in eastern Oklahoma, Boren said. "I've got to reflect my district."

Georgia Rep. Jim Marshall, a Democrat and Vietnam veteran who won his last election by about 1,800 votes, said he admires both Obama and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., but feels no obligation to state a preference.

"If it turns out one of them is an ax murderer or something like that I'll make a choice," he joked. Otherwise, "I don't think I need to get involved."

For most of these fence-sitters - at least 14 as of Wednesday - it boils down to political necessity: They are vulnerable Democrats in conservative-leaning districts who take pains to avoid aligning closely with the national party.

McCain has his own issues in his party. Many conservatives opposed the four-term senator, who has worked with Democrats and strayed from GOP orthodoxy on some issues, before he sealed the GOP nomination in February. Many still express reservations about him as the party leader.

Because McCain secured the party nomination much earlier in the campaign season, Republicans have not been pressed about their endorsements like Democrats have. But only a handful have publicly withheld their support for him. That includes Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who long has bucked the party hierarchy, and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who is running his own presidential campaign.

On the Democratic side, Boren said he, like most of the undecideds, will go along with nominating Obama at the Democratic convention in Denver in August.

Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki challenged Boren over his assessment of Obama and said the candidate had worked with Republicans in the Illinois Legislature and in Senate.

Obama, seeking to become the first black president, is hardly the first Democratic candidate to face such resistance. Over the years, moderates and conservatives have avoided associating with nominees going back to George McGovern in 1972 and including John Kerry in 2004. Public endorsements were not an issue in 2004 since Kerry had wrapped up the nomination early.

"They are all scared to death about getting beat by a Republican," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., one of Obama's most prominent supporters. "I don't think that if the good Lord himself had been nominated as a Democrat that some of those folks would have endorsed him. They are afraid of looking too much like a Democrat because of the kind of districts they're from."

As in the past, many uncommitted Democrats are from the South, which has favored Republicans in recent elections.

Although Obama swept the region in the Democratic primaries with near-universal support from black voters, he often fared poorly among working-class whites. As a result, he is seen as an asset in some districts but a question mark at best in others.

Rep. John Barrow, for example, represents a coastal Georgia district where blacks make up more than 40 percent of registered voters, mainly in urban areas around Savannah and Augusta. Not surprisingly, Barrow - who won his last election by fewer than 900 votes - endorsed Obama in February.

But Marshall, the Democratic incumbent in a neighboring district in rural central Georgia, has stayed quiet.

Marshall's district is less than one-third black, and he needs the support of white Republicans to win, including votes from the military community around Robins Air Force Base. He faces a fresh challenge this year from a retired Air Force general.

Republican campaign strategists already have shown they want to link Democratic candidates with Obama and other national figures, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor.

In special elections last month in Mississippi and Louisiana, Democratic candidates Travis Childers and Don Cazayoux faced television ads attempting to make those connections.

But Childers and Cazayoux won surprise victories, raising questions about the strategy's effectiveness.

Still, Childers is staying out of the presidential race, as is his fellow Mississippi Democrat Gene Taylor. Cazayoux recently announced he is backing Obama.

Obama's campaign has made some progress in converting the holdouts. Freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, who had insisted she would not budge from the undecided column, budged on Wednesday and endorsed Obama.

Boyda "has been impressed with Senator Obama's campaign because they're willing to take their discussion to all 50 states, rather than just the swing states," spokeswoman Liz Montano said.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, a Democratic House leader who helped orchestrate the party's strategy for winning control of Congress in 2006, argues against reading too much into the holdouts. He said most of them always stay out of national politics and that the party is generally unified around Obama.

"They're just going to stick to their knitting," he said. "It's not that they're anti-Obama."

Obama/McCain Voting Blocks Already Established?I know it's foolhardy to read too much into any single poll, but I thought the demographic groupings on display here are interesting. I wonder if the allegiances of these subgroups will hold through November. MSNBC:

Obama has opened up a six-point advantage over McCain (47%-41%) in the latest NBC/WSJ poll...

Obama leads McCain among African Americans (83-7),

Hispanics (62-28),
women (52-33),
Catholics (47-40),
independents (41-36)
and even blue-collar workers (47-42).

Obama is also ahead among those who said they voted for Clinton in the Democratic primaries (61-19).

Meanwhile, McCain is up among

evangelicals (69-21),
white men (55-35),
men (49-41),
whites (47-41),
and white suburban women (44-38).

White women are viewed as a crucial swing vote — Republicans almost always win white men, but whichever party takes white women usually takes the White House. Currently, Obama beats McCain among white women 46-39.

(MoJo)

Keeping his campaign "pure" is going to be tough. Isn't it true that Obama is already the number one recipient of contributions from hedge fund managers?

And not taking money from "lobbyists," but taking millions and mllions from upper-income Democrats who are all de facto invested in the status quo... (their own deep investments in the consumption patterns and elite privileges of the well-heeled classes...) is really only a distinction without a difference.

The thing is, if you actually take a stand on the issues... (i.e. explain how you're actually going to pay for your promises... spell out WHO you're going to sharply raise taxs on, or what programs you're going to significantly cut...)

...then the "influence" thing doesn't matter... you've made commitment that people can hold you to...

But in the absence of concrete promises, people inevitably start reading the contributors lists and advisers' names to try and guess who you're going to favor and who you're not... who you "owe"...

Hillary dispatched succinctly the criticism about taking lobbyists' money... "Show me in my record where I've voted for any lobbyists special interest over the interests of average Americans?" In other words, I have a record...show me where you think I've been influenced. Put up or sh... etc.

Something to think about (math lesson):

Obama has said repeatedly that he'd pay for many things with the money saved from ending the Iraq War...

....Problem is, the Iraq War is not being "paid for" as it is.... Neither are Bush's "tax cuts." They're all red ink.... If you eliminate the war and roll back the tax cuts, all you've done is eliminate some red ink....

....but it doesn't somehow mean you suddenly now have "money to spend..."

That's why keeping on eye on who the influence peddlers are on his staff makes a big difference... They give a clue on how he REALLY might govern... (We're all guessing). Unfunded promises are meaningless.... Once you place a marker financially, then the game begins... Do we have to wait until Jan. 20, 2009?

(Speaking of voting records, don't forget, Mr. Obama, who takes money from nuclear power "individuals," voted for the Bush/Cheney energy bill when Hillary voted against it.)

RUSSERT: The fact is you are different than George Bush.

SEN. McCAIN: No. No. I-the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.

(huffpo)

****

"That's not change we can believe in my friennnnnnnndsh"

Obama outlined the choice the voters in Wisconsin have, saying that McCain will “dust off the old political play book” of Bush’s with “disastrous” tax policies and told the crowd that ¼ of McCain’s tax cuts will go to households making more than $2.8 million a year.

“Now, I don’t want to embarrass anybody but how many people here make more than $2.8 million a year?” Obama asked the middle-class crowd amid giggles and then joked, “If you’re there, I wanna know you because we’re still fundraising!”

Obama reminded the crowd that McCain sides with Bush tax cuts and had once said that it was irresponsible to cut taxes during a time of war.

“But now he’d continue running up hundreds of billions of dollars in debt while spending billions of dollars a day in Iraq. There’s nothing conservative about that. There’s nothing fiscally prudent about that but that’s John McCain’s plan.”

(ABC)

Iowa Students for Hillary Chair trashes Obama, endorses McCain, recommends McKinney as plan B

By Soren Dayton

This is so awesome. The Chairman of Iowa Students for Hillary endorses John McCain in a big ole letter to his organization. Needless to say, they don't like Barack Obama. Here's how much they don't like him:

We will put up someone who has been to Iraq once for a photo-op against someone who has a son serving in Iraq and has been there countless times, with Senator Clinton in some instances.

They don't think that Obama is qualified:

Senator Obama is unqualified for the job of Commander in Chief. He has said this himself at a press conference after the 2004 election after winning his Illinois seat. He has said he would invade Pakistan if necessary to attack al-Qaeda elements, which is a bad idea seeing how Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is unstable right now. His remarks on Pakistan sparked rioting there last year.

They point out that if you can't stomach John McCain, there is always Cynthia McKinney:

We think the endorsement will make more impact if it goes to John McCain, but we see Cynthia McKinney as a viable alternative and someone more qualified than Senator Obama to be President having served for longer in Congress.

Frightened Dems pull party apparatus back to Chicago
DNC to be near Barry's freinds and mentors.

By Mark Kilmer

I think, deep down, quite a few of us all liked Howard Dean, insofar that his rhetoric was over-the-top funny and his instincts were… well, "YEAAARRRRGH!" And, as Rush Limbaugh reports, Howard knows the score so far. Spake Limbaugh into his Golden EIB Microphone on Wednesday:

I had a plant today in a Howard Dean breakfast with reporters, and I just got the report from the plant who attended the Howard Dean breakfast, and this is what he said. He said, "Democrats are nervous about Obama's chances in November, but Howard Dean called such unease healthy." I know they're nervous. They have been nervous when the guy started losing primary after primary after primary in major states to the witch [Hillary?]. They were bugged by this. They were troubled by it. He did not get votes from traditional Democrat constituencies. You know they're worried! So my plant at the Howard Dean breakfast confirms this. Dean says, "I'm actually thrilled that they're nervous. I think it's about time. Last spring there was this feeling of confidence, that we're just going to roll through everything, and that's how you lose elections. So I'm delighted that Democrats are really worried about whether they can win or not. I'm just delighted about this! It's absolutely going to be close."

There is no way that Howard Dean is excited that they are worried.

Obama's nervous, as evidenced by the fact that he is moving Howie and the party apparatus from DC to Chicago. Ben Smith at Politico.com tells us:

Supreme Court Judges Obama Right on Constitution

When the U.S. Senate voted in September, 2007, on whether to restore habeas corpus protections for those detained by the United States, the senators who would emerge as the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees for president parted company.

Illinois Democrat Barack Obama embraced the basic Constitutional principle that individuals who are detained by the U.S. government have a right to challenge their detention -- no matter where they are held.

Arizona Republican John McCain rejected the wisdom of the founders of the American experiment and voted against restoring habeas corpus protections for foreign suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and others who are detained by U.S. authorities.

Today, the Supreme Court said Obama was right and McCain was wrong.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/328968

*****

It will be interesting to have a president that knows a little about the constitution. Anything is an improvement over someone who thinks it is a GD piece of paper.

Obama's decision to include in his VP "search/vetting committee" a person with credentials among Big Business Democrats was correct. He should include people with "Big Business Democrat" credentials in any search - vetting committees he puts together. It would be just as much a mistake to exclude the "Big Business" constituency of the party as it would to exclude the African American constituency, or to exclude the progressive constituency.

That said, Obama made a big mistake in initially defending the decision to include Johnson on the committee, once it was revealed that Johnson had benefited from what appeared to be "sweetheart" loans. Much better would have been to acknowledge that his campaign, like the rest of humanity, operates with imperfect information, and that whenever new information comes to light that suggests a decision needs to be re-evaluated, that decision will be re-evaluated.

AND that as President, Obama will follow the same prudent practice: Whenever new information comes to light that suggests that a Presidential decision needs to be re-evaluated, he will reconsider the decision, in light of all the information, including any new information that suggests he needs to change his decison.

Obama has been inviting the Old Guard into his campaign for a while now -- starting with those old rovers, Teddy Kennedy & Chris Dodd.

His "Change" message is ephemeral at best.

If Barack would just disassociate from all established Democratic party members and never take any money from rich folks - THEN he will really be about change.

lololololol

Oh, McCain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qha3pZTflzY

*****

Poor old guy just can't get a break.