Progress Illinois

The Tribune's John Kass rips to the heart of what's so disgusting about the Republican embrace of Hillary Clinton and her "disavowed" supporters:

But this week's Republican appeal to resentful Clinton voters through the symbolism and language that liberal Democrats have used for decades suggests some confusion in the GOP. If the Republicans truly love Hillary, why not put her on the ticket with McCain?

Kass came to the conclusion while talking with McCain operative Carly Fiorina in Denver, who denounced the Democrats for purportedly abandoning it's vision of women's equality during the primary:

"I think a meritocracy demands that you treat everyone with respect and you value their contributions, and you give them every opportunity to make the maximum contribution. That's what a meritocracy is," Fiorina told me. "And Hillary Clinton was not respected to the extent she had earned. And her contributions, according to many of her supporters, have not been honored. John McCain has long honored and respected Hillary Clinton."

Where was that respect in November, Sen. McCain, when you chuckled and chortled after a town hall attendee asked "How do we beat the bitch?" And where was your respect for women when you skipped the vote on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would have made it easier for women and other workers to pursue pay discrimination claims?

McCain's posturing on women's rights is nothing more than dirty politics. Kudos to Kass for pointing out the obvious.

Despite evidence suggesting no major fissure exists, the media is doing its best to keep the conflict between ardent supporters of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the news. Today in The Hill, for example, Bob Cusack reports on disenchanted Democrats who are planning rallies at the Democratic convention in Denver in support of the New York Senator. Yesterday, Daily Herald opinion page editor David Beery jumped into the fray as well:

Eighteen million strong, Hillary Clinton backers have a choice to make as the Democratic convention nears in late August.

Switch allegiance to Barack Obama -- as some have and more undoubtedly will -- and leave Denver as a unified party. Or, keep flirting with the idea of turning their support to the relative moderate on the other side of the ballot: Republican John McCain.

McCain a "relative moderate"? As compared to whom? George Bush, whose polices he has parroted for years? The Christian right, who McCain has bent over backwards to attract? Or maybe Barack Obama, whose stances on the war, health care, and the environment are supported by most Americans?

The PUMA phenomenon is heightened by Berry's characterization of McCain, which reinforces the idea that the Arizona Republican represents a sensible alternative for moderate voters -- even though he's drifted well to the right of the American mainstream on crucial issues facing the country. Whether it's the war, taxes, or his pitiful record on abortion rights (he has voted with the anti-abortion camp in 125 of 130 relevant votes), McCain is no "moderate." Indeed, VoteView ranked him as the eight most conservative member of the 110th Congress.

Still don't believe us? McCain himself acknowledges his conservative bondafides. During a February 7 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, McCain said he is "proud to be a conservative" and that his "record in public office taken as a whole is the record of a mainstream conservative."

A report today from the South Bend Tribune:

They were, once upon a time, opposing regiments of the same army.

The Sen. Hillary Clinton campaign and the Sen. Barack Obama campaign: two groups of local volunteers fervently working for their respective Democrat, each trying to get a little more support than the other team.

On Thursday night, party officials brought the two sides together for pizza and chatter in hopes, pundits would say, of unifying the party perhaps divided by a contentious primary campaign.

In hopes? Where has the media been, South Bend resident Vera Peele said. "I was unified from the beginning," she said. "I'm a Democrat."

There are some who were quoted in reports immediately after Clinton stopped campaigning as saying if they couldn't vote for Clinton they just wouldn't vote for president.

Chalk that up to emotion in the heat of the moment, said Bev Shelton of South Bend, who supported Clinton during the primary. "Sometimes you're like a volcano, and it erupts," she said.

But now it's about getting a Democrat elected to the White House, Shelton said, wearing a button that says "Do not vote Republican."

Don't assume people who were angry after Clinton's exit from the campaign will remain that way, said Pat McQuade, also a Clinton supporter in the primary campaign.

"We are more than one emotion," she said. "Sometimes people are pigeonholed into one specific response. Loss is grief."

But people get over it, she said. They move on.

(H/T Blue Indiana)

As the summer election season hits its stride, we're seeing more and more evidence that Barack Obama is benefiting from the cross-country battle he waged with Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary. Yesterday, National Journal's Carrie Dann reported on how the drawn-out contest helped Democrats cement their presence in important battleground states:

A glance at the primary calendar offers a list of red to purple states where Obama and Clinton stumped feverishly after McCain accepted the party mantle against the backdrop of the White House lawn on March 5. Democrats battled in Indiana, North Carolina and Montana -- all states touted by the Obama campaign as potential electoral pickups -- as well as in Oregon and Pennsylvania, Democratic-leaning states where McCain hopes to gain ground. [...]

[T]he difference in simple ground covered in the five contested states that held post-March 4th primaries is striking. In the Tar Heel State, for example, Obama held a total of 14 events over nine campaign days. McCain has spent only three days there, one in a private meeting with evangelical iconBilly Graham and his son. In Indiana, Obama made 26 appearances over 20 days, to McCain's two. McCain trails Obama by more than five campaign stops in Montana, 10 in Oregon and 25 in Pennsylvania.

All told, in those five states, Obama has campaigned for a total of 54 days to McCain's 13, giving Obama a net lead of 41 campaign days. That lead has grown, not shrunk, since Obama clinched the nomination and began campaigning in nontraditional regions as part of his campaign's avowed 50-state strategy.

Continue reading »

Will Hillary Clinton supporters ditch the Democratic Party in order to back GOP candidate John McCain this November? It's a theory repeatedly posited by the media since the New York senator suspended her campaign, but one that should be quickly put to rest.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released last week found that women favored Obama over McCain, 52-33 percent. The survey also reported that voters who cast ballots for Clinton in the Democratic primaries preferred Obama over McCain, 61-19 percent. The Los Angeles Times has more:

Now that the Democratic marathon is over, Clinton supporters like [North Carolina voter Marilyn] Authenreith are siding heavily with Obama over McCain, polls show. And Obama has taken a wide lead among female voters, belying months of political chatter and polls of primary voters suggesting that disappointment over Clinton's defeat might block the Illinois senator from enjoying his party's historic edge among women. [...]

"There are women still struggling with a real sense of grief that Hillary is not the nominee," said Maren Hesla, who runs campaign programs for EMILY's List, a group that promotes female candidates who support abortion rights. But that sense "will grow smaller with every day that passes from the nomination battles."

As Frank Rich pointed out in his astute New York Times column Sunday, those leads are substantial. John Kerry won women by only three points, Al Gore by 11. And it's increasingly clear that the narrative of defecting women was itself a product of a sexist media landscape.

Continue reading »

Dick Morris isn't a doctor. He just plays one on morning talk radio.

A former Clinton operative, Morris broke ties with the president in 1996 and went on to make a career of bashing the Clintons as a conservative pundit. Earlier today on WIND's John & Cisco In The Morning, he stopped by to spread the love. Near the end of the interview, the issue of Bill Clinton's campaign behavior came up and Morris made some irresponsible claims that shouldn't go unchallenged.

Citing the former president's recent colorful criticism of Vanity Fair reporter Todd Purdum, co-host "Big John" Howell asked Morris whether Clinton was starting to "go around the bend." Morris responded by suggesting that Clinton's behavior may be the result of brain damage incurred during his quadruple bypass surgery in 2004. Specifically, he remarked that doctors "always say you come out of that [operation] with less IQ than you went into it."

Take a listen:

Internal mp3

Presumably Morris is picking up on Purdum's recent profile of Clinton in which Dr. Thomas Traill of John's Hopkins University is quoted saying that patients' moods can be altered by open heart surgery. (He compared it to postpartum depression.) But it's quite a far leap from Traill's comments about depression to Morris' completely unfounded suggestion of possible brain damage.

If you want a more nuanced, convincing, and even poignant analysis of Clinton's sometimes emotional outbursts on the campaign trail, check out this recent post by Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall. In a nutshell, Marshall paints Clinton as a once agile campaign operator who is way behind the times and unable to adapt to new media technology and our rapid-response political culture. It's a much better starting place to understanding the former president than Dick Morris' snake-tongued insinuations.

Continue reading »

On Saturday morning, Hillary Clinton bowed out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination and threw her support to Barack Obama. She talked about Obama's “strength and determination” and his “grace and grit." She also urged her supporters to “work as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me.” It was a truly classy speech, which you can watch below:

Obama responded with the following statement:

Obviously, I am thrilled and honored to have Senator Clinton's support. But more than that, I honor her today for the valiant and historic campaign she has run. She shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere, who now know that there are no limits to their dreams. And she inspired millions with her strength, courage and unyielding commitment to the cause of working Americans. Our party and our country are stronger because of the work she has done throughout her life, and I'm a better candidate for having had the privilege of competing with her in this campaign. No one knows better than Senator Clinton how desperately America and the American people need change, and I know she will continue to be in the forefront of that battle this fall and for years to come.

The Obama folks have set up a page where supporters can thank Clinton "for her hard work and for supporting this campaign."

Also, be sure to read this piece from Clinton supporter Elizabeth Birch:

It will take some days, not hours. But recognizing the loss of one dream held by so many of Clinton's supporters, Obama supporters can help welcome them to the other equally important goal: electing the first African American President. Senator Obama knows that allowing some room to heal following this acutely emotional contest does not diminish his candidacy, it strengthens it. [...]

But we can be counted on to celebrate the other dream. Barack Obama will be tested in ways he never imagined, and we will have his back. We are just catching our breath.

While Hillary Clinton's Iraq vote opened the door for a candidate who solidly opposed the war, it would be silly to ignore the value of the Obama campaign's comprehensive field work and ground strategy, which focused much of its organizing energy in small caucus states. Tom Schaller highlights this piece by Justin Sizemore which nicely synthesizes the strategy and details why it was so effective:

Caucuses let candidates achieve more bang for their organizing buck, and the Obama campaign would demonstrate that mobilizing a few thousand people in a caucus state can have as much impact as getting several hundred thousand voters to the polls in a primary state. Obama's young, affluent supporters and dedicated activist base gave him an inherent advantage in caucuses. But his overwhelming landslides in those contests were not inevitable: the Illinois senator invested considerable resources to build sophisticated grassroots mobilization efforts in states Hillary Clinton ignored.

Continue reading »

Now that Barack Obama has "officially" secured the Democratic presidential nomination, numerous media outlets are taking their turns asking the obvious question: How did Hillary Clinton -- once seen as the inevitable nominee -- lose her party's primary?

In a front page think piece today, The Wall Street Journal asserts "the mistakes boil down to mismanagement, message, mobilization failures and the marital factor." The Financial Times simplifies it even further, placing the blame almost entirely on her husband. The Washington Post focuses on Obama's "insurgent strategy" that ceded some important battlegrounds while blitzing states where "Democratic candidates rarely ventured." All solid analyses of a complex campaign that lasted 18 months and hinged on countless decisions, strategies, and votes.

But how can you diagnose Clinton's downfall without mentioning her vote on the war? As Atrios writes in his characteristically succinct style, "No Iraq, no way to challenge Clinton." And it's frustrating to see so little discussion of this factor in the post-mortems. The Journal mentions the vote only in the context of motivating anti-war Iowans to turn out in the crucial contest while the other two pieces make literally no mention of the war at all.

Simply put, Clinton made her critical error in 2002. Five years later, with the country mired in this immoral and disastrous war, Democrats were ready to turn the page.

Add another voice to the chorus calling for Hillary Clinton to concede defeat in the Democratic presidential primary. Today, the Chicago Sun-Times editorial board expressed many of the standard arguments for why Clinton should pack it in. On top of observing that it's close to impossible for Hillary to win numerically, and that any last-ditch effort to do so (presumably involving Florida and Michigan) would effectively tear the Democratic Party apart, the Sun-Times also argues that she should drop out for the good of the nation as a whole:

Do it for a nation that is ready for, and has everything to gain from, a vigorous general election campaign, one that pits the Democratic and Republican nominees long enough to really show us who -- Obama or Sen. John McCain -- would be the better president. [...]

A good long contest, as we did learn from this endless primary, can be highly revealing. But every extra day Clinton stays in the race is one less day voters can weigh the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the two men vying for president.