Kevin Sullivan

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      

Kids Are Different Today

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Marc Ambinder explains the coming Democratic generation:

Consider: Voters under 30 in the Midwest are twice as likely to call themselves Democrats as they are to identify as Republicans. 63% of women under age 30 identify as Democrats versus just 28% who call themselves Republicans. Democrats even have the affiliation of a majority of young men. A potential objection: that old canard, that young people are liberal and become more conservative? The historical data doesn’t support it. When Bill Clinton was elected, a plurality of people under 30 identified themselves as Republicans. Same thing when Ronald Reagan was elected. Politically, today’s cohort of 18-to-29 year olds came of age during the Bush presidency. It has turned them into Democrats.

So, is a conservative just a liberal who hasn’t been mugged yet by President Bush?

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.

Amusing

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

I always find it amusing when Matt Stoller takes it upon himself to talk about true Liberalism, or Progressivism, or whatever the heck anti-democratic activist hacks such as him go by these days. 

In his latest installment, Matt blah blah blahs all over the pages of FireDogLake about some book Eric Alterman wrote.  I like Alterman–he strikes me as a pretty reasonable guy, and his comic strips make me laugh.  Matt Stoller tends to make me laugh as well, but for entirely different reasons.  Take this doozy for example:

Now, I have fought with traditional top-down liberals a lot. And I believe in fighting and argument, and I don’t always think the liberal groups deal in good faith. But it rubbed me the wrong way that an argument for a strong independent movement, once that operates to influence both parties, is considered a mark of ideological purity. The right-wing has been successful by taking over the Republican Party, but also by influencing the Democratic Party through politicians like Joe Lieberman and through funding networks like the DLC and the Koch brothers. They own the GOP, and about a fifth to a third of the Democratic Party depending on the issue. I don’t see how that can be considered anything but an independent and strong conservative movement, and while I don’t agree with their value system, I don’t understand why we shouldn’t recognize this as a remarkable organizing success and something to replicate.

So if conservatives own the GOP, and if they own a healthy chunk of the Democratic Party, why hasn’t the welfare state been dismantled?  Why is the size of government only growing?  Why did George W. Bush–with a Republican Congress, and apparently at least 1/5 of the Democratic Party in his pocket–fail to pass social security murder reform through the Hill?  I’m sure Stoller would equate war and tax breaks with conservatism, but that would be stupid.  So yeah, he probably does believe that.  The problem with that theory is that Liberals started a whole bunch of wars throughout the 20th Century, and even cut taxes.  Democrats have wavered on matters of trade since the party’s inception.  The problem is that Stoller confuses genuine Liberalism for all the stuff Matt Stoller thinks is right.  Thus, conservatism is basically the stuff he doesn’t think to be right.

Throw in the usual references to Joe Lieberman, get a DLC mention in there, and something about the ”right-wing noise machine,” and you have the usual inanity that is Matt Stoller.  I won’t go any further, but feel free to catch up on my previous love letters to Matt.          

Nancy’s Subtle Dig

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

From Ben Smith:

Nancy Pelosi tells Boston TV that a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket is “impossible.”

“I think that the Clinton administration (sic) has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better Commander in Chief than Obama. I think that either way is impossible,” she said.

Pelosi–the consummate politician–hasn’t officially endorsed either of the Democratic nominees, although her right-hand-man, Rep. George Miller, did.  Miller’s endorsement of Obama was widely believed to be the closest we’ll get to a Pelosi nod, considering her speakership role and seniority within the Democratic Party.  This quote today seems like another subtle–albeit pointed–jab at Hillary.  With all of this talk about VP’s and “dream tickets,” shouldn’t Clinton answer to her past complaints about Obama’s credentials?  Since she and McCain, unlike Obama, have both passed the presidential “threshold,” wouldn’t McCain make more sense for her ticket?

If the answer is ”no,” well doesn’t that call her judgment into question?  Why would she settle for an unqualified running mate?  Would all of her cabinet positions be filled so haphazardly?    

UPDATE: TPM has the video.   

The Conditional Approach

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Michael O’Hanlon (cue the clamor) has an admittedly repetitive column today in USA Today.  While the “middle way” stuff on Iraq has already been covered ad nauseam, I think there’s an interesting little nugget buried in the bottom half of his piece:

Yet myriad problems still exist. For example, the de-Baathification law, if badly implemented, could do more harm than good by purging Sunnis from the very security forces that we have worked so hard to include them within. And even the landmark provincial powers act has since been vetoed by Iraq’s presidency council, leaving it in limbo. 

As such, Iraqi leaders need to feel pressure to deliver. That is where a more conditional Democratic approach comes in. The United States stays only if Iraqis accelerate their own political efforts at reconciliation. This is admittedly a complex matter to evaluate accurately, but that is OK — Iraqis will get the message even if it is somewhat inexact and imprecise.

Democrats in Congress — including the two seeking the presidency and the leadership on Capitol Hill — should work for success in Iraq while reminding Iraqis that absent continued progress, the U.S. commitment could end, and soon. It is a message consistent with Democrats’ past views on the conflict, yet cognizant of the considerable gains there in the past year.

I have issues with this somewhat ambiguous role for the Democrats.  What would qualify as getting “the message” if you’re the Iraqis?  Would political reconciliation with the Sunni minority suffice, or would there be other benchmarks imposed?  How is this kind of stipulated occupation not colonialism?

Of course we want to keep up diplomatic pressure on the Iraqi government, but we mustn’t stick our noses in to the point that it jeopardizes what is already a sensitive political institution there.  This is why some “loyal” middle way on Iraq makes very little sense to me.  We stay or we go.  We guarantee security or we don’t.  We shouldn’t be in the business of governing the nation of Iraq, lest we seek to exploit a sensitive democracy.  This current crop of Iraqi officials is finite, and we must take this into consideration while applying “pressure.”  The amount of political influence we exert in this region has a direct impact on the way elections turn out there.  It would be wise to remain diligent and distant on such matters.  

The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Depressing.

Time to throw the bum out, if reports prove true. 
 

UPDATE: Apparently, Client #9 likes the rough stuff. 

UPDATE II: Pull out your tin foil hats. 

Party of Victims

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

From Pam Spaulding:

Recently I’ve had conversations with people online and offline about troubling encounters with Clinton supporters harboring increasingly pathological-level opposition to an Obama nomination. This in a year where we have two candidates who would be infinitely better stewards of this country than the current White House occupant or John McCain.

I hear stuff all the time — the “it’s time for a woman” mantra, to “it’s time for a black man” to “she deserves it first” to the “we need change, not a Clinton third term” frustrations, but there are people out there so invested in their candidate that they plan to reject the other if that person is nominated.

Not stay home, mind you, but actually vote for McCain. (Just an aside — I’ve personally not yet encountered any Obama supporters who wouldn’t vote for Clinton in the end, though surely they are out there, as you will read below. My guess is that they would sit out the election rather than vote for McCain.)

We’re not talking Log Cabin Republicans who agree with McCain’s overall political tilt, but people who have no ideological reason to vote for a GOP candidate.

I can personally attest to this.  With all of the talk about Obama’s cult-like following, I find that his detractors (be them Clintonites or not) are far more outraged and obsessed with all of this than I am.  I would vote for Hillary Clinton, because policy disagreements have never been a massive hangup for me.  I disagree with all three on a variety of issues, but for me, the Democrats are in the right most of the time.  It’s that simple.  They’re both Liberals, and the differences between them are few.

So it goes when nominating a candidate, but the Clinton supporters need to calm down.  I’m sure there are a lot of Obama supporters who would stay home or vote in protest, but many of these people are first time voters and independents.  If they stay home, then at worst, turnout is perhaps on par with 2004.  Clinton’s support–as her campaign is quick to remind us–comes from the core of the party.  Hardhats and women.  If these people stay home or go with McCain, that will represent a genuine fissure in the Democratic base.

I don’t believe this will happen.  Although I’ve heard similar sob stories from my pro-Hillary friends and acquaintances, I think Democrats will be Democrats when it matters.  But if they don’t turnout, I think the primary culprit has to be Hillary herself.  By falsely arguing that she is yet another woman getting “pushed aside,” she has imparted her message of victimhood upon all of her supporters.  We must accept, at face value, the idea that she is more experienced.  We must accept, at face value, that she possesses better judgement (like voting for the Iraq War and stuff).  If we do this, well it becomes clear then that something is against her.  It must be Tim Russert, or MSNBC, or perhaps the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

No matter the year or the circumstance, there’s always something trying to hold back Hillary Clinton and all of her good ideas.  It couldn’t possibly be Obama’s superior campaign.  It couldn’t possibly be Obama’s superior message.  And this is tough for her, you know, because she just doesn’t want to see us “fall backwards.”  John McCain would be a step backwards.  So would Barack Obama.  So would, apparently, anyone not named Hillary Clinton.

There’s a fine line between confidence and arrogance.  I believe Clinton has stepped well beyond that line, and her supporters are catching the bug.

Here’s Johnny?

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

A question for all 2 1/2 of my commentators and my PoliGazette colleagues.  Well, two. 

Where is John Edwards?  Couldn’t he ostensibly end this thing right now?

Dance of the Delegates

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Looks like they’re all on the table:

“Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot,” a recent DNC memo states. “A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required.”

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told me Monday he assumes the Obama campaign is going after delegates pledged to Clinton, though a senior Obama aide told me he knew of no such strategy.

But one neutral Democratic operative said to me: “If you are Hillary Clinton, you know you can’t get the nomination just with superdelegates without splitting the party. You have to go after the pledged delegates.”

Winning with superdelegates is potentially party-splitting because it could mean throwing out the choice of the elected delegates and substituting the choice of 795 party big shots.

I honestly see nothing wrong with this.  The party has rules.  This is how it goes, and if Obama’s smart, his campaign will have a contingency plan.  look, the party needs to pick a nominee.  There’s a process to this, and it would be arrogant of the Obama campaign to ask Senator Clinton to simply step aside for anything less than the needed plurality.  This thing is built to go to the bitter end if necessary.  Most of us don’t want to see this happen, especially if we’re invested in a Democratic win in November.  It muddies the idealistic tone of the contest, especially if the nomination comes down to a NYSE-style rabble on the convention floor. 

But it just might, and Democratic voters may need to make peace with this prospect.  As for the super delegates, Jay Cost has a thoughtful piece today on their utility.  I think there’s one way to nip this issue in the proverbial bud–both campaigns could pledge to back away from the super delegates.  Back away, stop lobbying them, and agree to let them go where they please.  For Obama, this means calling off Tom Daschle, Janet Napolitano and John Kerry.  Clinton would need to put the leash on Ickes.  Agree to let them go as they will, and allow the process to work.  The impression I get from the Obama campaign is that they only see scandal if Clinton were to win with a “super” edge.  Would there be such outrage if Obama were to get the nomination that way?

I somehow doubt it.