MyDD

What's going on this Saturday night?

A few things in my RSS reader:

• Hertzberg, back in 2001, on the too-late Jesse Helms

• Mark Leibovich (he wrote that stinging Chris Matthews profile) examines one of John McCain's greatest electoral challangers: the teleprompter.

• Rumor is that Obama might give a speech at the same Berlin location where Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to "tear down this wall."

• Maybe we should calm down about Obama's recent late-term abortion statements.

• Russ on FISA:
  

  
  

Tags: Open Thread (all tags)

I'm about to take on a new job that will prevent me from blogging about electoral issues through November, so I'd like to lay out what I see the general arc of the race being from now until election day, and where the progressive movement fits into that story line.

Barack Obama will no doubt continue moderating his positions, as most politicians do in general elections. Hell, he might even moderate his stance on Iraq a bit, though I doubt it will be significant. It will continue to piss progressives off, as it should.

Eventually, most folks will realize that Barack Obama is basically saying, "Trust me," as he did Thursday with his response to the anti-FISA group on my.barackobama.com. Once again, I feel this is pretty typical. Politicians make all sorts of campaign promises, both explicit and implicit. Obama will moderate his stances in an ambiguous way while trying to reassure progressives he doesn't really mean it, or at least that when it comes time to sort out those ambiguities, he'll come out on our side.

Eventually, I'd hope that progressives realize the answer to Obama's strategy is to outflank him, positioning ourselves to hold his accountable to his statements in the way that we want. Electoral strategy says define your opposition before they define themselves. If Obama can be considered "the opposition" once he's elected - and I think he can - then we need to position ourselves to define him as a progressive president as soon as he gets in office. We must keep track of his statements and his rhetoric, and being ready to use it to push him towards progressive policies or use it against him if necessary.

This positioning won't be easy. It will help if progressives make a point to reward good behavior during the electoral season. We should loudly cheer Obama's progressive positions, and certainly pressure him however possible to adopt more of these positions. He'll probably ignore these efforts for the most part, or at best acknowledge the opposition without changing his position. But through these efforts we keep our integrity. Over the election season, progressives can develop a critique of Obama and keep their credibility, both of which can be effectively used to push him once he's in office and we have actual leverage for accountability.

On a more specific level, though the presidential election tends to suck all the fundraising money into their vast machine, we should try and focus on building strong progressive institutions. Grassroots groups like MoveOn.org, think tanks like the Center for American Progress, and netroots activists like Blue America will need to be at their best to effectively move an Obama administration in a progressive direction.

**************

No president was every great without strong forces pushing him towards greatness. Even FDR experienced strong pressure from mounting pro-labor sentiment sweeping America in the 1930s. In fact, FDR's presidency represented the beginning of labor's peak in America; in 1945 they represented over 1 in 3 American workers. These outside movements have traditionally built the political clout necessary to move administrations. That's what we need to build in preparation for an Obama presidency.

The role of the progressive movement as we move from an outsider group in a minority party to a strong presence in a ruling party is going to make for lots of wrenching changes. Preserving our credibility, building an independent power base, and positioning ourselves to define Obama as a progressive and hold him accountable to that definition are going to be key parts of those changes. If we get it right, we'll have real power to sway Obama's policy positions. If we don't, we'll find our cries falling on deaf ears.

But this is just one man's view of things to come. What do you think? How can the progressive movement best position itself to hold maximum power over an Obama administration?

J Ro's opinions are his own, and do not represent those of any other individual or organization.

Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 elections, progressive movement (all tags)

What I wouldn't give to be in the audience for this.

GOP strategist Karl Rove and former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards will debate the issues of the presidential campaign Sept. 26 as part of the university's Distinguished Speakers Series, The Buffalo News has learned.

As surrogates for the parties' standard bearers, the two also could square off more than once at other locations around the nation.

"We're working on something like that for our Distinguished Speakers Series," said Bill Regan, UB's director of special events. "We're not really sure of the format yet. But we do think they are scheduled to do it at least once together before they come to UB."

One piece of advice for Edwards: watch your debates with Cheney from 2004...and do the opposite. I hope we see fierce trial lawyer guy come out against Rove rather than tactful polite but tough guy from the presidential debates last year. This is not the time to be respectful, this is the time to take Rove out.

No pressure though.

I agree with Nate at FiveThirtyEight that the fact that Edwards would agree to what looks to be a series of appearances at all that close to the election is pretty much a sign that we're not going to be seeing an Edwards as Veep redux.

Committing to a series of high-profile and sure to be much-discussed debates with Karl Rove is a great way to stay important in the Democratic Party; it's also a telegraphed sign that Edwards knows the answer to whether he'll be the pick.

Tags: john edwards, karl rove, debates (all tags)

Enjoy.

• Sarah Lane: We Need to Fight for Those Who Fight for Us.


• Zeitz for Congress addresses another kind of independence in NJ-04: Declaring Energy Independence Day.


• Project Vote asks Who Gets to Vote? State's Struggle to Register Veterans, Felons and Minorities.


• I Can Think of 62,000 Reasons Why John Stossel is Wrong! (johnny venom)


• Pentagon Inspects KBR, but Don't Hold Your Breath says ItsNeverOver.


• Mark Lotwis reflects on The Civil Rights Act - 44 Years Later.


• Court Upholds LAPD's Policy of Not Asking Immigration Status. (The Opportunity Agenda)


• Bobswern has the rundown in 2008's Grand Masters of GOP Dirty Tricks.


• Bored now exposes The Republican in the Donkey Suit.


• DLCC: Allow Us to Reintroduce Ourselves.


• Making America great with KCRW's Left Right and Center July 4th edition.


• A little enlightenment from RDemocrat in Americans for Ryan: Independence from Exxon Eddie!

Tags: Diary Rescue, Open Thread (all tags)

How's your fourth going? Consider this an open thread...

Update [2008-7-4 19:1:7 by Josh Orton]: As you bbq and watch fireworks with friends and family, be sure to keep the radar up for the latest zombie lie - that Obama changed his Iraq position. He didn't. Josh Marshall walks through the lost distinction between strategy and tactics in more detail over at TPM. But here's the short version: Obama's strategy is to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home, but he'll listen to commanders' advice about how. That's it. McCain's campaign has been (successfully) pitching reporters on the idea that Obama's strategy on Iraq has somehow shifted fundamentally.

It hasn't. Obama wants to end the war; McCain has no plan to.

Rinse, repeat.

Tags: 4th of july, open thread (all tags)

Yesterday The AP confirmed the news that DemConWatch had first reported: that Barack Obama might give his acceptance speech at Denver's Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium, which is where the Denver Broncos play, rather than the Pepsi Center, the site of the convention itself. The reason: the Pepsi Center holds 21,000 people, Invesco Field holds 76,000 plus. The move would actually not be unprecedented. As The Denver Post reminds us, JFK did the very same thing:

In 1960, the Democratic National Convention was held at the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena. But nominee John F. Kennedy delivered his acceptance speech next door at the Memorial Coliseum.

Today DemConWatch blog is reporting that it's looking like a done deal.

From Denver's 9 News:

NBC officials involved with convention coverage preparations tell 9NEWS that all indications are that the event will be held at Invesco. Those officials stressed that the move was not official until the DNC makes its final decision which is not expected until at least Monday.

This would be a great move. In 2004 I had a media credential to the convention but we were shut out of The Fleet Center for the final night because of the sheer numbers of people who showed up. Not only would everyone with a credential be able to actually see Barack accept the nomination, but thousands of supporters could share the historic event as well.

[editor's note, by Todd Beeton]Slightly edited to give credit to DemConWatch, which was on this story first and should be stop number one for all things convention-related.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, barack obama, democratic convention (all tags)

Yesterday The AP reported that Barack Obama is considering giving his acceptance speech at Denver's Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium, which is where the Denver Broncos play, rather than the Pepsi Center, the site of the convention itself. The reason: the Pepsi Center holds 21,000 people, Invesco Field holds 76,000 plus. The move would actually not be unprecedented. As The Denver Post reminds us, JFK did the very same thing:

In 1960, the Democratic National Convention was held at the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena. But nominee John F. Kennedy delivered his acceptance speech next door at the Memorial Coliseum.

Today DemConWatch blog is reporting that it's looking like a done deal.

From Denver's 9 News:

NBC officials involved with convention coverage preparations tell 9NEWS that all indications are that the event will be held at Invesco. Those officials stressed that the move was not official until the DNC makes its final decision which is not expected until at least Monday.

This would be a great move. In 2004 I had a media credential to the convention but we were shut out of The Fleet Center for the final night because of the sheer numbers of people who showed up. Not only would everyone with a credential be able to actually see Barack accept the nomination, but thousands of supporters could share the historic event as well.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, barack obama, democratic convention (all tags)

I just drove a couple hours West from NYC. In Pennsylvania somewhere. Not really sure where, though.

Where are you going for the holiday?

Tags: open thread (all tags)

Earlier, devil posted the open letter to Senator Obama from the Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right group on my.barackobama.com, which, with over 16,000 members, is now the largest group on the site.

Senator Obama has now responded via Joe Rospar's blog:

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer.  Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country's destiny.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok.  But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.

To the campaign's credit, they also have three members of their policy staff hanging out in the comments of the post including Danielle Gray, Deputy National Policy Director, Denis McDonough, Senior Foreign Policy Advisor, and Ben Rhodes, Foreign Policy Advisor and Senior Speechwriter.

Tags: barack obama, fisa (all tags)

In 1996 when campaigning for the US Senate, Susan Collins pledged that if she were elected, she'd only serve two terms. Up until now, there was only audio of Collins making that promise. But now video has emerged and it doesn't get any more unambiguous than this:

"I have pledged that if I am elected I will only serve two terms regardless of whether a term limits constitutional amendment passes or not."

Pesky YouTube (h/t Turn Maine Blue):

In 2002, during her Senate re-election campaign, Collins reaffirmed her pledge as you can see here in this letter to a constituent.

"I intend to serve only two terms as I indicated in the Sanfgord forum 6 years ago."

Yet here she is in 2008 running for a third term, having blatantly broken her promise to Maine voters. Turns out that whole term limits thing...just a "frenzy".

On October 12, 2006 Collins stated that she was breaking her pledge and would seek another six year term in the Senate. Collins justified her new position stating that her viewpoint on seniority has changed, "At the time, I thought that 12 years, that two terms, would be enough. This was at the height of what I would call the frenzy over term limits."

Susan Collins saying one thing and doing another is nothing new, of course. In fact, it's the central premise of her entire post-Bush tenure in the senate. She claims to be moderate yet over and over she's proven to be nothing more than a Bush rubber stamp, whether it be her approval of George Bush's anti-choice judges or her refusal to increase veterans' healthcare benefits in favor of preserving tax cuts for the rich. As Collins Watch makes clear, Maine does have a Republican Senator with a real claim to a moderate, independent label, but Susan Collins ain't it:

--Only one of Maine's senators has opposed setting an Iraq withdrawal timeline.

--Only one Maine senator supported President Bush's irresponsible 2003 tax cut package for the rich.

--Only one Maine senator voted for the habeas-shredding Military Commissions Act of 2006 and then against reinstating habeas corpus in a later bill.

[...]

Just how has Senator Collins pulled the wool over the eyes of Maine voters? The DSCC counts the ways:

Luckily for Maine, Rep. Tom Allen is running to replace Susan Collins and end her string of broken promises.

Tags: me-sen, susan collins, term limits, tom allen (all tags)

From the diaries, jerome

As I mentioned in my previous post, the “Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right” group is rapidly growing. An open letter was sent to senator Obama's office this morning and they are preparing a response to this.
(We continue to hear that they're working on a statement, but it's getting late, so we decided to take the initiative to make sure we have something out before the weekend.

Please repost widely! - promoted by JonPincus)

            sent by Mike Stark to Senator Obama's office and his campaign at roughly 11:45 a.m. EDT today.  also posted on the Get FISA right wiki and elsewhere)

Here is the full text

Dear Senator Obama,

On October 24, 2007, your campaign spokesman said, “To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

On June 20, 2008 you said, of retroactive immunity, “I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.”

As the largest grass-roots group on your campaign website, my.BarackObama.com, and in the spirit of your open/responsive government campaign pledges, we wish to share our ideas for how we may work together to further the goal of eliminating retroactive immunity from the FISA legislation scheduled for debate in the Senate next week. Although this is only one of the problems we see with legislation allows the government to wiretap the communications of its citizenry without a warrant, it’s the area we think we can help you the most.

First, Senator Obama, we ask that you make the same tools that we used to call undecided voters in Iowa and New Hampshire available for us to call our fellow citizens in West Virginia, Nebraska, Delaware, Florida and other states that have Senators committed to voting against the amendment that would strip telecom immunity. You have the tools and we have the people power. Together, we are confident we can bring Change; we can make the government listen to the people instead of the telecom lobbyists.

Second, Senator Obama, we ask that you attend the Senate debate and schedule floor time to speak about the violence done to the rule of law when Congress retroactively immunizes the illegal conduct of a special interest. We know you understand that justice should not be sold to the highest special interest bidder; we also know that you can persuade other Senators that are not so clear on the issue. Of course, if you do this, our committed members will surely capture the video of your inspiring oratory, load it to YouTube and spread your words to our friends and family far and wide. We trust in your ability to bring a new way of doing business to Washington and look forward to helping you make that Change a reality.

Senator Obama, the my.BarackObama.com caption reads, “I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington... I’m asking you to believe in yours.” We’re ready to put these words into practice.

Thank you.

The 15,000+ (and rapidly growing) members

Please join the group “Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right” to show your support for the effort against FISA.

Tags: FISA, getFISAright, Obama, politics (all tags)

I can't help but follow the news out of Malaysia, having just gotten back from a trip there last month. Here's how Simon Tisdall describes it in today's Guardian: An accelerating national drama involving leading government figures, conspiracy claims, personal smears, sodomy allegations and a grizzly murder appears to be driving Malaysia inexorably towards its biggest political upheaval since independence in 1957.The latest scandal is all about the sodomy charges against the opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, but there are all sorts of wrinkles, both historical and new, in the situation.

It's a bit different than arguing about whether Obama is moving to the 'center' or not...

I don't know what to make of the accusations against Anwar, as its a repeat of earlier thrown-out charges. Turmoil in Malaysia is about right, in that it throws it back upon the judicial system, and the expected reforms that have been happening, for as to how its sorted out.

Update [2008-7-3 13:48:24 by Jerome Armstrong]: Via his blog, Anil Netto, has a background/big picture article, Brinksmanship in polarized Malaysia, in the Asia Times: Where is all this leading to? Taking a step back and looking at the larger picture, I believe this high-stakes “tennis match” (lob and counter-lob) symbolises the battle between the new political order and the old, the tsunami vs the hegemony. I don’t think it is a healthy development though, for politics to be so personalised. The tsunami movement for reforms and change is too broad-based to be focused on individuals at the apex slugging it out for their political survival - but there you go.

Tags: Malaysia (all tags)

It may seem far-fetched now, but a few years ago so did Schweitzer and Tester. Rassmussen (July 1, 500 LV, MoE +/-4.6%):

Barack Obama is leading John McCain by five percentage points in Montana. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state shows Obama attracting 48% of the vote while McCain earns 43%.
...
Against McCain, Obama leads among voters under 50, including a twenty-seven point lead among voters under 30. McCain leads among those over 50. Obama is supported by 89% of Montana Democrats while McCain gets the vote from 85% of Republicans.

The poll also found:

Fifty percent (50%) of Montana voters say it's more important to get the troops home from Iraq than it is to win the War. Forty-four percent (44%) hold the opposite view and say victory is more important.

It's a really terrible question, but revealing at the same time. The phrase "win the war" is basically spin, since it's clear that there is no military victory possible in Iraq. So even when flowery propaganda is used as the alternative to bringing troops home, it still loses.

Imagine if the question was phrased more accurately, like "get the troops home from Iraq" versus "stay forever until John McCain finds a pony."

Update [2008-7-3 11:26:39 by Jonathan Singer]: Just to follow up, Matthew Yglesias is 100 percent correct on what these numbers mean:

What's interesting to contemplate here is the role of effort. Democratic Senate candidates in Montana campaign in Montana. Democratic gubernatorial candidates in Montana campaign in Montana. I don't believe that Democratic presidential candidates typically do campaign in Montana. But Barack Obama has been putting some resources into the state. And there's long been a real question in my mind as to how much of the gap at the presidential level can be made up merely by showing up. Now that said there's a good reason Democrats don't normally campaign in Montana, which is that in addition to having a conservative track record it has very few electoral votes so it's hard to imagine it being the pivotal state.

This is important for a couple reasons. For one, just showing up will move numbers. This forces the Republicans to play defense where they don't want to (and in fact haven't for years). But beyond that, running up the popular vote -- even in states that you don't necessarily win -- is important on a policymaking level. As Yglesias points out, if Obama can win the presidency while keeping Montana close, he will have a much stronger case to call on the support of Max Baucus and Jon Tester, the state's two Democratic Senators; if he wins while losing Montana by 20 points (which is about where John Kerry performed in the state) he has significantly less leverage over the two. The same can be said all around the country. Anyway, interesting numbers to mull...

Tags: Barack Obama, Election 08 (all tags)

cross-posted at Bleeding Heartland

If you're not going out of town for the holiday weekend, I highly recommend that you march or ride with fellow Democrats in your local Independence Day parade.

These events are fantastic outreach opportunities for campaigns and a great way for you to meet like-minded neighbors.

It's not too late to volunteer. Just contact your county Democratic Party, or the campaign of a local candidate, or the Obama campaign office if there is one in your city. Ask where and when you should show up if you want to help out during the July 4 parades. (Keep in mind that some communities have parades on the evening of July 3.)

Here are a few more tips to help you enjoy the parade.

1. If you carry a sign, keep the message positive.

When you call to volunteer for the parade, ask if they will have a flag or a candidate's sign for you to carry.

If they ask you to bring your own sign, or you prefer to make your own sign, I encourage you to say something positive, either about a specific candidate or about your own values.

I've gotten lots of smiles and thumbs-up in the past with a hand-made sign that quotes the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths
to be self-evident,
that all men*
are created equal...

*and women!

2. If you wear a political t-shirt, keep the message positive.

I often wear a plain red or white shirt on July 4, but if you wear a t-shirt with a message, I'd make it a positive one about a candidate you like or Democrats generally.

Even people who agree with you are probably not going to want to see Bush Lied People Died or Don't blame me--I voted for Edwards during a holiday parade.

3. Don't take the bait if you get heckled by Republicans.

In my experience, few Republicans will bother you, but some jerk might try to get a rise out of you by mocking your candidate, or by saying, "I voted for Bush."

I wouldn't bother telling them your opinion of Republicans, or asking why able-bodied people like themselves aren't serving their country in Iraq.

Instead, model good behavior for the children who will be watching the parade.

You could ignore the hecklers, but I usually smile and say something friendly like, "My dad was a Republican" or "It's a free country" or "Happy Fourth of July!"

4. Protect yourself from the sun.

Parade routes can be two to four miles long, and you may be out in the sun for many hours, including the time you wait around for the parade to get started. If it's a sunny day, wear sunglasses or a hat to shade your eyes.

Bring some water so you don't get dehydrated.

Don't forget sunscreen, including on the back of your legs, neck and shoulders. But be aware that many sunscreens are ineffective, and some contain harmful chemicals. It's worth checking the Environmental Working Group's cosmetic safety database so you can select a good sunscreen.

5. If your local parade is in the evening, protect yourself from mosquitoes.

But I suggest using a repellent without DEET.

6. Wear comfortable shoes if you will be walking.

I can't emphasize this enough.

7. If you are unable to walk, make sure there will be room for you to ride.

You don't need to walk to volunteer on July 4. You can hold signs, wave or throw candy to children while riding in the truck or car your local Democrats are using. Just let the organizers know ahead of time that you'd like to ride in a vehicle during the parade.

Please share your Independence Day tips in the comments.

A poll on July 4 parades is after the jump.

Tags: July 4, volunteering, parades, activism, Democratic Party (all tags)

There are a lot of reasons to believe that former Democratic Congressman Jim Slattery has a real opportunity to make this year's Kansas Senate race a competitive one, aiming to become the first Democrat to win a Senate election in the state since 1932. Now you can add another.

Slattery holds about $600,000 in his campaign treasury, while Roberts is sitting on $3.1 million despite outlays for 17 days of ads.

The latest financial balance sheets reflect Roberts' ability to raise $850,000 in the second quarter of this year, which is significantly more than Slattery's estimate of $500,000.

The $500,000 raised during the second quarter (with a little help from the Road to 60 page) comes on top of the $288,000 Slattery raised during the first 12 days of his campaign in late March.

Most of the reports on these numbers make it seem that they constitute bad news for Slattery and good news for the incumbent Pat Roberts. Indeed, Roberts now sits on more than six times more money in the bank than Slattery. However, Kansas is not an expensive state to campaign in, and even a couple million dollars -- which Slattery should be able to bring in (note that this was only his first full fundraising quarter) -- can saturate the entire state in television ads for the better part of a month. And the latest nonpartisan polling on the race, courtesy of Rasmussen Reports, puts Roberts up by just a single-digit margin -- and under 50 percent to boot -- with the distance between the two candidates shrinking rather than growing.

This isn't going to be the Democrats first or second or even fifth pick-up in the Senate this cycle (if we have one or two or five pick-ups). But it is one of the races that could be key to hitting the magical 60 mark in the Senate. And given the numbers on the race, as well as the general demographics in the state, it's looking like there really is an shot at things coming together for Slattery to become the first Democratic Senator from Kansas in 70 years.

Tags: KS-Sen, Kansas, Senate 2008, Road to 60 (all tags)

Last month I ruminated on the likelihood that Mel Martinez, Florida's unpopular freshman Republican Senator, would get a mighty challenge next cycle from the Democrats. Judging by the early numbers on his reelection hopes released by Public Policy Polling (.pdf), Martinez indeed does not look strong.

PPP also took a look ahead to the 2010 Senate election and found that Mel Martinez is quite vulnerable.  His approval rating is only 23%, with 43% of the state's voters disapproving of his performance.

In a possible contest against the state's Chief Financial Office, Alex Sink, Martinez trails 37-31.  Against Congressman Robert Wexler, it would be a 33-33 draw.

These numbers definitely underscore a point I made a few weeks back: "Martinez is weak and can be defeated in 2010."

Tags: Senate 2010, FL-Sen, Florida (all tags)

Have at it...

Update [2008-7-3 0:46:43 by Todd Beeton]:Heh.

Tags: open thread (all tags)

As I've written before, John McCain has this amusing little habit of denying his own words. It's as if he's not aware that we have these devices nowadays that record sound and images and still other devices that replay them. Whether it be his "100 years in Iraq" comment or his "it's not too important when the troops come home" line, when called on it, he simply chooses to pretend he never said anything of the kind, crying "Out of context!" like a child trying to avoid punishment for something everyone knows he did.

McCain's latest "I didn't say what I said" moment -- this one on the subject of his self-professed lack of economic expertise -- came this morning on Good Morning America:

"Good Morning America's" Robin Roberts...asked McCain why he went abroad when the No. 1 issue for voters was the U.S. economy.

"You have admitted that you're not exactly an expert when it comes to the economy," Roberts began.

"I have not. I have not. I actually have not," McCain interrupted. "I said that I am stronger on national security issues because of all the time I spent in the military. Very strong on the economy. I understand it. I have a lot more experience than my opponent."

In response, The DNC has released this excellent compilation video of all the times McCain has let us know just how NOT an expert on the economy he is.

Man this guy's pathetic.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, john mccain, economy (all tags)

As I've written before, John McCain has this amusing little habit of denying his own words. It's as if he's not aware that we have these devices nowadays that record sound and images and still other devices that replay them. Whether it be his "100 years in Iraq" comment or his "it's not too important when the troops come home" line, when called on it, he simply chooses to pretend he never said anything of the kind, crying "Out of context!" like a child trying to avoid punishment for something everyone knows he did.

McCain's latest "I didn't say what I said" moment -- this one on the subject of his self-professed lack of economic expertise -- came this morning on Good Morning America:

"Good Morning America's" Robin Roberts...asked McCain why he went abroad when the No. 1 issue for voters was the U.S. economy.

"You have admitted that you're not exactly an expert when it comes to the economy," Roberts began.

"I have not. I have not. I actually have not," McCain interrupted. "I said that I am stronger on national security issues because of all the time I spent in the military. Very strong on the economy. I understand it. I have a lot more experience than my opponent."

In response, The DNC has released this excellent compilation video of all the times McCain has let us know just how NOT an expert on the economy he is.

Man this guy's pathetic.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, john mccain, economy (all tags)

Unbelievable. Yesterday on Hardball, Andrea Mitchell led with an oh so provocative tease: "Does Obama have an Iraq problem?" Now, in fairness, the question she posed was based on a piece in The New Yorker by George Packer entitled "Obama's Iraq Problem" which opens with the following paragraph:

In February, 2007, when Barack Obama declared that he was running for President, violence in Iraq had reached apocalyptic levels, and he based his candidacy, in part, on a bold promise to begin a rapid withdrawal of American forces upon taking office. At the time, this pledge represented conventional thinking among Democrats and was guaranteed to play well with primary voters. But in the year and a half since then two improbable, though not unforeseeable, events have occurred: Obama has won the Democratic nomination, and Iraq, despite myriad crises, has begun to stabilize. With the general election four months away, Obama's rhetoric on the topic now seems outdated and out of touch, and the nominee-apparent may have a political problem concerning the very issue that did so much to bring him this far.

Who's the outdated and out of touch one, Mr. Packer? The truth is what Rasmussen has found over and over again, that Americans are rejecting McCain's frame of the war and embracing Obama's, in red states and blue states alike.

The question Rasmussen asks: "When it comes to the situation in Iraq, which is the more important goal for the next president to accomplish during his first term...winning the war or getting the troops home?" As you can see, the only place "Winning the war" wins the argument or is even close is in the reddest of red states or McCain's home state.

StateDate"Winning the war""Getting the troops home" Connecticut6/303361 Massachusetts6/302464 Alabama6/265044 Georgia6/264549 Arizona6/254746 Kentucky6/254350 Texas6/254448 Tennessee6/244448 Mississippi6/244650 California6/233264 Colorado6/174053 Alaska6/164646 Arkansas6/123952 Virginia6/124153 Kansas6/114646 Minnesota6/113557 Iowa6/103950 Michigan6/93556 Missouri6/33856

So while Iraq may have dropped down the lists of voters' most pressing issues, judging by these results, if it were to rise again in people's minds, it may actually benefit Obama. But even if we accepted the CW that McCain benefits when the war is the top issue, Chris Cilizza breaks down the extent to which politically Obama so does not have an Iraq problem.

From yesterday's Hardball:

"This is essentially a win win for Obama. If the war continues to look like it is not moving toward a resolution, if things remain unsettled there, Obama can say "look, we need to move out, John McCain wants it to be more of the same. If it gets better, if violence continues to drop, if it looks like stability has arrived, then the war moves off the radar as an issue and Obama still wins."

This video does a good job of taking down Mitchell's and Packer's premise as well:

Tags: 2008 presidential election, barack obama, john mccain, iraq (all tags)