Kevin Sullivan

Young Hillary

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Pretty funny stuff (and hey, it’s the dude from Sliders!):

I Huff and I Post

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

The lovely people at The Huffington Post have allowed me to contribute a post to their site.  Here’s a snip:

This narrative — or rather, exploitation — of American security dominates foreign policy discourse to this day. As a result, we get this week’s kerfuffle over the imminent (or not so imminent) threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Referring to Iran’s capabilities as “tiny,” Senator Barack Obama shook the proverbial beehive that passes as foreign policy dialogue in this country today. As a result, we get rather puerile debates over the size of Iran’s economy, or whether or not they’ve acted in a fashion similar to that of the Soviets or the Nazis. Not only does this litmus blur the legitimately horrible actions of these aforementioned regimes, but it makes dealing with lesser threats far more difficult.

The reality is that Iran has been contributing to regional instability in the Middle East for over 25 years. Attempted coups, assassination plots and terrorist finance are just the tip of an unstable iceberg that is revolutionary Iran. The Islamic republic founded by Ayatollah Khomeini extended what likely would’ve been a two year border incursion with Iraq into a nearly decade’s long war of attrition against what he viewed to be the Arab apostates in the region. The plan, from the Supreme Leader’s perspective, wasn’t merely to repel the Iraqis, but to also march on Lebanon and Jerusalem “through” Iraq (also known as “Operation Ramadan”). The girth of the regime’s economy has never prevented it from exporting their revolution all over the Middle East, nor has it given solace to our allies having to deal with Iran’s surrogates on the frontlines.

Wow

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

 Photo courtesy of The Caucus

Obama Made the Pie Higher

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

I’m not certain, were I Hillary Clinton, what I would do at this point.  I’m not hung up on the personal loan to her campaign, because she still has debts that will need to be paid regardless.  It’s difficult to figure out the rationale for her campaign from this point forward.  Todd Beeton sees the opportunity for some kind of “unity tour,” but that strikes me as a concessionary plan.  More like a farewell tour than a unity bid.

This race has been spliced a million times over by now, so I won’t add too much to the pile.  I think the big winner here is the emerging Democratic coalition.  The media harped on all of the identity politics surrounding Barack Obama’s candidacy, paying less attention to the shifting party coalitions that were in conflict during these primary contests.  Clinton’s post-Super Tuesday rationale became a retro act of sorts.  Her bid represented the last gasp of the “New Deal Coalition,” which had become synonymous with the Democratic Party itself (causing much consternation for my friend Dheeraj).  Obama has ostensibly reorganized the coalition, uniting black voters, young voters and college-educated whites behind his message.  It’s not clear yet if Clinton’s support base will return home to the party, but I think it’s safe to say that the Democrats need these new voters pulled in by Obama’s candidacy.   

In short, Barack Obama has made the pie higher. 

UPDATE: Just in case there’s any confusion, the title is a Bush joke. 

More at memeorandum      

Knock on Wood

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Is it over?

The Clintosphere Jumps the Shark

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

I have to agree with Kyle on this one (although I’m feeling like BooMan as of late).  Perhaps Jeralyn Merritt could explain how losing your job is not a weight on one’s pride.

Has the woman ever lost a job?             

More Important than Wright

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

It’s time to start a tally. 

The Jordan Rules

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

They seem to apply to Barack Obama. 

Excelsior!

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Steven Stark on the need for a new Draft Gore movement:

Therefore, if the Democrats want to have their best chance to win an election in November that six months ago it looked like they couldn’t lose, they may have only one option at this point: they can turn to Al Gore.

In truth, Gore would be a stronger candidate in November than the two front-runners. He knows what it’s like to run in a tough presidential campaign, which, as we’re finding out with Obama, is a huge advantage. He is, after all, a Nobel Prize winner; he has the advantage of now running from outside Washington even though he’s as experienced as John McCain; and he might be able to pick off a Southern state or two. He’s already won once – with an asterisk. And he could put the electoral focus back on the economy and the Republican record of the past eight years – which it will rarely be as long as Clinton or Obama is the nominee.

Sure, Gore’s entry would obviously not be greeted with waves of enthusiasm by Obama supporters. Still, he is quite popular with one of the Illinois senator’s principal constituencies: the young.

Let me just say, if Al Gore had run in earnest six months ago, I’d be among his supporters today.  Stark goes on to explain some possible scenarios for this plan to work, but they all involve undercutting the democratic Democratic process that has gone down to this point.  Yes, Gore the man has a broad appeal that cuts into both Clinton and Obama.  However, by stepping in now as a party apparatchik, he risks alienating all of those respective supporters; much in the way the Liberal champion Hubert Humphrey did in 1968.  You can’t be the candidate of the Left, the young and the new, and be the institutional choice.  Just ask Senators Clinton and Obama.

Spin the Ballot

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Victor Davis Hanson shares with us his “oh boy, I can’t wait to run against the black man” hubris wisdom:

The Democrats are tottering at the edge of the abyss. They are about to nominate someone who cannot win, despite vastly out-spending his opponent, any of the key large states — CA, NJ, NY, OH, PENN, TX, etc. — that will determine the fall election. And yet not to nominate him will cause the sort of implosion they saw in 1968 or the sort of mess we saw in November 2000.

Hillary won’t quit, since she knows that Obama, when pressure mounts, is starting to show a weird sort of petulance, and drops the “new politics” for snideness. And at any given second, a Rev. Wright outburst, an Ayers reappearance, another Michelle ‘never been proud’ moment, or another condescending Obamism can cause him to nose dive and become even more snappy.

I find this McGovern meme kind of interesting, and it’s certainly going to be exploited by the Clinton campaign in the days and weeks to come.  I’m amazed, however, by the way a little spin can turn a progressive gain in Pennsylvania into a gluttonous and doomed spending spree (do we all remember when Republicans were rationalizing Romney’s Spend-to-Fail ratio, because he needed to top McCain’s strong brand, his name ID, his grassroots operation, etc.?).  The overall gap that Obama closed in the last couple of months there is rather remarkable, and although there are no moral victories in delegate counting, you could make the case for a more prolonged and consistent Obama trend in the polls.  The assumption made by Hanson (and the one undoubtedly required for Hillary to stay in this thing) is that these voters would simply never support Obama in the required numbers, which is just silly.  Many of these voters are dyed-in-the-wool types, and would no doubt come home to the Democratic Party if Obama can secure the nomination (the opposite is not the case with Obama’s supporters and Hillary).

However, my snark aside, I think Hanson’s latter point holds some validity.  Obama’s message has been saturated to the point of parody.  There are only so many times people can hear “hope” and “change,” and he’s obviously suffering from being the front runner.  But once again, we can flip this around.  Clinton’s support may be a backlash vote, an inherently conservative reaction to what has been portrayed in the media as an Obama juggernaut (this is why I laugh when the Clintonistas talk about Obama’s relationship with the media; there’s such a thing as killing someone with kindness).  Many of these primary states have been ignored in previous election cycles, so you might have a kind of New Hampshire-Iowa dynamic here.  One state picks the ideological hotshot, whereas the other hits the brakes with their ballots. 

So the question then becomes, will the coalition hold for Obama?  Can he take the nomination with his base of upper-class whites, college kids and independents, and then pull the hard hats back into the fold for the general?

I say yes and yes.

More at memeorandum