|
|
Next month, more than 50,000 politicos, protesters, journalists and security types will invade downtown Denver for the Democratic National Convention.
Good news for local businesses. Bad news for the city’s large homeless population, which has long claimed the Mile High City's downtown as its turf.
So while the delegates are reveling and the protesters are rabble-rousing, what will the nearly 4,000 homeless be doing?
Well, according to the Rocky Mountain News, some will be kicking back in a local movie theater to take in the latest Hollywood blockbuster.
Others will be strolling around the Denver Zoo or the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. And others will be playing bingo.
All the events will be free to them, funded by Denver Road Home, a branch of the mayor’s office dedicated to ending homelessness in the city. The organization got the money for the convention events from the United Way.
So is this a Democratic Party ploy to sanitize the streets during the quadrennial political pep rally and nomination of....
Read more How Denver will hide its homeless during the Democratic convention »
The mystery has been cleared up about what else Jesse Jackson said last week when he made his crude remarks about Barack Obama.
The previously unreported comment, disclosed Wednesday morning by the TVNewser blog, was:
“Barack ... he’s talking down to black people ... telling [black people] how to behave.” Only Jackson used the plural form of the “n-word,” not “black people,” in the second part of his comment.
Initially, the firestorm was over comments Jackson made to a guest before a July 6 interview on "Fox & Friends."
The civil rights leader whispered that Obama was "talking down to black people" and that Jackson wanted to "cut his nuts off."
The comments went unnoticed in the control room, Fox News said. But, as reported by The Times’ Matea Gold in a story published Friday, an employee working the overnight shift transcribed the tape, and the remarks that first caused the stir were reported several days later on Fox’s "The O’Reilly Factor." Then, as The Ticket reported, there was a controversy over exactly what Jackson said he wanted to do.
At the time, host Bill O’Reilly told viewers the network had decided to air only portions of what Jackson had said, adding there was "more damaging" material, too. That gave rise to rumors that Jackson had used the “n word” –- and aimed it directly at Obama.
In a Wednesday afternoon interview with fellow Fox host Shepard Smith, O’Reilly said he had withheld the “n-word” remark because, “I’m not in the business of creating some kind of controversy that’s not relevant to the general subject -- one civil rights leader disparaging another over policy.”
But why did O’Reilly mention in the first place that he had “more damaging” material?
In a one-sentence statement offered as a reply, O’Reilly said Wednesday: “We tell the audience the full breadth of everything we report on.” There was no elaboration on why the “full breadth” didn’t include the actual comment.
As for how the “n-word” comment eventually got out, O’Reilly told Smith that “some weasel leaked it to the Internet.”
-- Stuart Silverstien
An interesting and surprising little thing happened Sunday while Barack Obama was speaking (in English) to the National Council of La Raza in San Diego.
It was, according to The Times' Louise Roug, a fairly standard Obama stump speech before the crowd of more than 2,000 members in the Convention Center, where the Republican Party nominated Sen. Bob Dole 12 years ago.
Obama said the gorgeous weather reminded him of his native Hawaii. He criticized the current stand on immigration reform of his Republican opponent, John McCain, who gets his chance to address the group Monday morning when he will stress his economic growth proposals, especially for small businesses, and criticize Obama's plans to raise taxes.
The crowd was very respectful of the Democratic nominee-to-be, who easily leads among Latinos, according to polls. And Obama also talked about giving tax credits to small businesses that provide health insurance for employees.
It was then that the crowd erupted in enthusiastic applause and warm cheers. But not over Obama's policy proposal.
What ignited that outburst was the mere mention by Obama of the name Hillary Clinton, his vanquished party opponent.
She wasn't there, of course. But in absentia the Democratic Party's loser got a noticeably warmer response than the winner, perhaps a reflection of that lingering party unity thing that was taken care of up in Unity.
Or maybe they were just being spontaneously friendly.
-- Andrew Malcolm
Photo credit: Jae C. Hong / Associated Press
Peering into its secret crystal blog ball, The Ticket confidently predicts that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will criticize the Bush administration Sunday during his appearance on "This Week With George Stephanopolous."
He'll probably say something like: "This administration did not believe in global warming. They just didn't believe in it or they didn't believe that they should do anything about it, since China is no t doing anything about it and since India is not willing to do the same thing, so why should we do the same thing?"
"We don't wait for other countries to do the same thing," Schwarzenegger is almost certain to add. "That's what makes America No. 1."
No doubt George will ask Arnold's reaction to the recent decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to sit back on new moves against global warming before the end of Bush's presidency.
"Well, to be honest with you," the California governor is likely to respond, "if they would have done something this year, I would have thought it was bogus anyway. Because you don't change global warming and you don't really have an effect by doing something six months before you leave office."
See the extra value you get by reading The Ticket?
Actually, ABC released excerpts of the interview, which was taped Friday morning, no doubt because the governor didn't want to get up early Sunday.
And now you don't have to either.
-- Andrew Malcolm
This is Part II in a continuing series of conversations between The Ticket and people involved in many aspects of modern American presidential politics, exploring the inner workings of this complex business.
This is the second item of two in a conversation with Ralph Reed, a Republican politica l strategist who's been involved in seven presidential campaigns, including as senior advisor to both campaigns of George W. Bush. He has not endorsed or donated to any presidential campaign yet, but is on the host committee for an August John McCain event in Atlanta.
Reed was the first executive director 15 years ago of the Christian Coalition and currently runs Century Strategies, an Atlanta public relations firm that advises major corporations.
He's also the author of a new book, a novel titled "Dark Horse," published by Simon & Schuster.
Part I of The Ticket's chat with Reed, which focused on the Republican side of the 2008 presidential race and the genesis of "Dark Horse," is available by clicking here.
In this item, Reed examines the Democratic side of the presidential race, the strengths and vulnerabilities of Barack Obama, and what kind of vice presidential running mate he needs to choose, and reveals a little bit more about his new political thriller.
TOTT: Many polls seem to indicate this is a strong Democratic year.
What's your overview of the presidential race at this point?
The country wants to elect a Democrat as president. But it's not clear
that it wants to elect Barack Obama.
The most recent Rasmussen survey shows the party breakdown if the election were held today as 41% Democrat, 31% Republican and 27% independent or unaffiliated. Obama has the wind at his back.
But McCain's reputation as a maverick and his unique ...
Read more Ticket Chat II: Ralph Reed, GOP strategist and author on the '08 race »
That Barack Obama jog toward the political center now that he's won the Democratic nomination appears to have turned into a full-fledged dash today. And there's a lot of folks on the left side of his party that are unhappy.
But, to be Chicago kind of candid, whatcha gonna do about it?
Today, the freshman senator from Illinois voted in favor of the FISA bill that provides retroactive legal protection to cooperating telecom companies that helped the feds eavesdrop on overseas calls. Up until a few weeks ago -- let's see, that would be shortly after the last primaries settled the Democratic nomination and terminated what's-her-name's once frontrunning campaign -- Obama adamantly opposed the bill. "Unequivocally" was the word his people used.
"Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said last fall. In December, as ABC's Jake Tapper notes, Obama's office said: “Sen. Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Sen. Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill."
In February, Obama voted for an amendment to carve the retroactive immunity out of the measure. And he said: "I am proud to stand with Sen. Dodd, Sen. Feingold and a grass-roots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people."
Let's see, those statements were all made during that endless Democratic primary season.
After June 4, Obama said: "It is a close call for me, but I think the current legislation with exclusivity provision that says that a president -- whether George Bush, myself or John McCain -- can’t make up rationales for getting around FISA court, can’t suggest that somehow that there is some law that stands above the laws passed by Congress in engaging in warrantless wiretaps."
Never mind that it's confusing. It's supposed to be. Yes, he's usually a real good talker. But he wanted to avoid providing a clear-cut quote for future use against himself. Bottom line, today Obama voted for the measure he has so long opposed. So he was against the bill before he was for the bill.
And guess what? His primary primary opponent, Hillary Clinton from the Empire State, the one who got ditched by much of the Democratic left in favor of this new guy from Illinois who had no visible warts, she voted against the bill. Talk about retroactive regret by some.
"It's ironic so far, I suppose," one commentor wrote on OpenLeft today, "that Clinton is of late a more reliable ally than Obama." Over at Wake up America they provided a detailed accounting of the excoriating of Obama by alleged supporters on the candidate's own website.
With his vote unnecessary for victory, Sen. McCain spent the day in Ohio, of all places, which just happens to be the state that Republicans do not win the White House without. If you get our drift.
-- Andrew Malcolm
Part of every presidential campaign is the post-primary shuffle. That's when the Republican nominee tries to show centrist voters that he isn't really as conservative as he made himself out to be to win his party's base, and the presumptive Democratic nominee similarly tries to pull him self in from the left.
The Swamp notes this morning that the perception among some progressives that Barack Obama is leaving the left for the center has given rise to an unusual way of tethering the candidate to their issues. They're putting their money on the table, hoping to raise $1 million in an "escrow" fund that Obama can't tap until he displays "progressive leadership" on issues.
The issue that sparked the mini-revolt was Obama's support for giving wiretapping immunity to the phone companies under the recent FISA vote, something he had earlier said he would oppose. In a memo to fellow progressives, Bob Fertik, president of Democrats.com, said he still backs Obama but thinks the candidate could use a little wake-up call from the folks who played a significant role in securing him the nomination. We're asking you to put some of the money you plan to give Obama "in escrow" until he demonstrates progressive leadership on the issues we care about, like warrantless wiretapping.
We are absolutely not trying to hurt Obama -- we'll give him our money at some point. We're just asking for a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T like Aretha Franklin sang about.
We can get Obama's respect because needs our money -- he turned down $85 million in taxpayer dollars because he believes small donors like us will contribute $300 million. And now is the best time to use our modest leverage, before the campaign goes all-out after the convention.
-- Scott Martelle
Photo: Francine Orr /Los Angeles Times
Well, we'll admit it, we're suckers for polls, and a recent one that our cousins at The Swamp tipped us to is interesting -- showing that Barack Obama is tapping a potentially rich vein in trying to tie John McCain to George Bush.
The Gallup/USA Today poll found that 68% of voters said they were concerned when asked whether they thought McCain would pursue "policies that are too similar to what G eorge W. Bush has pursued." Of those polled, 49% said they were "very concerned."
As the poll analysis points out: "It is clearly a delicate balancing act for McCain, as Bush remains relatively popular with the Republican base. While only 28% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing as president, a majority of Republicans (60%) still do. Bush's approval rating among current McCain supporters is slightly lower, at 55%."
Dive deeper into the poll and something else interesting emerges -- people aren't all that keen on change, either. Some 49% said they were concerned when asked whether "Obama would go too far in changing the policies that George W. Bush pursued." Of those polled, 30% said they were "very concerned."
So the advantage for the moment goes to change -- in moderation. Which might help explain Obama's embrace Tuesday of the concept behind the Bush administration's faith-based initiative program.
-- Scott Martelle
Further evidence that the economy is taking a severe beating: Starbucks is closing 600 outlets and could cut 12,000 jobs as customer visits have declined. True addicts see Starbucks coffee as their lifeblood but for most people it's a luxury, and with the economy moribund and a gallon of gas costing more than a la tte, people are deciding it's a luxury they can do without.
Now we're sure there will be snarky comments posted here about Barack Obama supporters going into withdrawals, shaking behind the wheel of their Volvos. But 12,000 cut jobs is a big hit, and judging by the staffs you see at the stores, it will put a lot of college kids, or young adults in that general age group, out of work. Add them to the already unemployed construction workers, auto workers -- just fill in the blank ________.
Yes, the Iraq war is a crucial issue for the nation, and the world. But poll after poll shows that at least for now, four months away from election day, it's the economy that has people's attention. And news like this will keep it alive until the picture improves.
The question for Obama and John McCain is who can forge the better -- or at least more convincing -- policy proposals.
-- Scott Martelle
Our colleague Noam Levey has a story today weighing John McCain's voting history and public stances on a wide range of energy issues. It's a mixed bag, Levey reports: "At times he has backed measures to ease restrictions on oil drilling off the coast and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Other times he has voted to keep them.
"He has championed standards to require that automakers make vehicles more fuel-efficient, yet opposed standards to require that utilities use less fossil fuel by generating more power from renewable sources, such as wind and solar.
"McCain has rejected federal tax breaks for renewable energy producers, but backs billions of dollars in subsidies for the nuclear industry.
"He has criticized corn-based ethanol for doing 'nothing to increase our energy independence.' Yet while campaigning in 2006 in the Midwest corn belt, McCain called ethanol a 'vital, vital alternative energy source.'
"Senior McCain policy advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin said McCain's positions reflected a pragmatic approach to governing. 'Sen. McCain is interested in getting results,' he said."
Beyond the policy confusion this can engender (and we'll leave that for others to dissect), it points up the inherent problem any legislator faces in running for president: The longer the service, the bigger the pool for opposition researchers to swim in.
So in an odd bit of political irony, here Barack Obama's relative lack of legislative experience could be an advantage -- fewer votes, fewer points of exposure.
-- Scott Martelle
Yeah, OK, so we're a little late. Hey, there's 40-some blogs around this website now and it's hard to keep up with everything fun to read.
Over in The Guide at Soundboard, the music blog, Ann Powers writes about the BET Awards, which she approached crazily thinking it was an awards ceremony.
How ridiculous was that?
According to Ann, the ceremony -- and even much of the clothing -- turned the evening into pretty much a pep rally for Barack Obama, the Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee. Another stunner!
-- Andrew Malcolm
A campaign spokesman for Sen. Barack Obama today told a reporter that ex-President Bill Clinton would play a "big role" in the upcoming general election campaign.
This could be the usual unity hoo-haa leading up to Friday's joint Obama-Hillary Clinton appearance in, of all places, Unity, N.H. This, after their joint appearance in Washington on Thursday before many of her top fundraisers.
Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki did not reveal to Bloomberg reporter Kristin Jensen how the campaign might use the former president.
"A unified Democratic Party is going to be a powerful force for change this year, and we're confident President Clinton will play a big role in that," Psaki said.
Not that there would be any political conniving among fellow Democrats because the Republicans are so collectively evil and any personal party ambitions must take second place to that or be seen to anyway.
But can you imagine all the conceivable subversive subplots inherent in the husband of the defeated Democratic candidate campaigning for the man who beat her? And if Obama just happens to lose, the door to 2012 is wide open for, oh, look, the Clinton wife again.
Of course, both Clintons want to appear to work hard for ...
Read more Oh, boy! Obama camp announces 'big role' for Bill Clinton in fall »
As the first African American to secure a major-party presidential nomination, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama has understandably been the subject of much analysis across the country that focuses on race.
But overlooked is another potential political first: Americans have never sent a Chicagoan to the White House.
And one intriguing question posed by the freshman Illino is senator's candidacy is whether they are ready now.
For all his talk elsewhere about change and his national image as a fervent reformer, Obama on the contrary remains fundamentally a product of a Chicago and Illinois political culture renowned for corruption and filled with curious characters who range from felonious to just outrageous.
Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, Obama's political mentor in the state capital of Springfield, is about as old-school as they come. Just last month, the Chicago Democrat publicly ridiculed an attempt to block another pay raise for state legislators by sarcastically declaring: "I've got to get me some food stamps."
Obama's stable of political friends is broadly populated with others like Jones and the recently convicted Tony Rezko. Revealingly, whenever the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has dabbled in Windy City and Cook County politics in recent years, he has frequently failed to come down on the side of political progressives and reformers.
This little-known side of Obama's political life may well surprise many across the country who see in the well-spoken candidate an entirely different person. Bob Secter and John McCormick have the full story at the Swamp.
--Andrew Malcolm
Photo credit: Associated Press
Religion has been no small issue in the 2007-08 presidential campaigns and that's unlikely to change in the dwindling months remaining until the Nov. 4 decision day.
Many Americans have strong religious beliefs, according to a new study. But the majority remains open to interpretations of the teachings of their faith and believes in more than one way to salvation, according to the new research from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
Seventy percent of people surveyed with a religious affiliation reported that many religions can lead to eternal life.
Researchers examined Americans' religious beliefs and political attitudes in the second part of a huge study on major religions in the United States.
"The fact that most Americans are not exclusive or dogmatic about their religion is a fascinating finding," said Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum.
"Most people will be surprised that a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including a majority of evangelical Protestants, say that there isn't just one way to salvation or to interpret the teachings of their own faith."
The study also found that politics and religion is intertwined, with Mormons among the most politically conservative and Jews, Buddhists and Hindus among the most liberal.
Katie Fretland has a full version of this study over at the Swamp.
-- Andrew Malcolm
We're in the thick of a pretty intense presidential campaign, but that doesn't mean all the scores from the 2004 election have been settled.
Veterans who served with John Kerry during the Vietnam  War released a letter and documents this week that they hope will put the lie to claims that Kerry's Navy service was anything less than exemplary.
The missive was delivered Thursday to Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, who said in November that he would pay $1 million to anyone who could disprove even a single claim made against Kerry by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."
That group launched a series of television ads against the Massachusetts senator and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee that undercut a crucial piece of his biography -- that he was a courageous war hero. Many Democrats felt the accusations helped kill Kerry's chances of defeating President Bush, so much so that they created a new verb form for unfair political attacks -- "Swift boating."
In their letter to Pickens, 10 of Kerry's comrades in arms said they were providing conclusive proof that the opposition group "lied about our skipper's and our service in Vietnam and in so doing, damaged our reputations and attacked the quality of our service to country."
The 15-page letter and 42 pages of Navy reports and other documentation focus principally on a 1969 engagement in which three boats under Kerry's supervision counterattacked after an ambush on a tributary of the Bay Hap River.
Kerry won a Silver Star for his actions, but critics contended he had exaggerated the incident and his own heroism. In this week's response, Kerry's crew offers details, after-action reports and the medal citation to prove that Kerry led with valor.
One of the most telling rebuttals to the anti-Kerry camp came from Bill Rood, who commanded one of the other swift boats that day. Rood, who went on ...
Read more John Kerry's Swift Boat pals to T. Boone: Cough up $1 million »
This is just funny. And apparently a lot of other people think so -- more than 2 million views since it was posted June 10 on YouTube.
-- Scott Martelle
Soon after Hillary Clinton's announcement on Saturday that she was suspending her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, there were concerns that many women who formed her base -- you know, those "18 million cracks" in the glass ceiling -- might not go along with her endorsement of Barack Obama.
Those fears were assuaged a bit on Wednesday, as two of Clinton's staunchest supporters -- the head of EMILY's List, Ellen Malcolm, and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida -- participated in a conference call organized by the Center for American Progress.
EMILY's List describes itself as "the nation's largest political network and financial resource" for "electing pro-choice Democratic women to federal, state and local office" and was officially neutral in the primary and caucus contests. [Correction update: In fact, early in the campaign the group endorsed Clinton. Also, the co-sponsor was the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the advocacy arm of the Center for American Progress. Our apologies.]
About a month ago, Malcolm -- who personally backed Clinton -- issued a harsh statement.....
Read more Women's groups unite to support Barack Obama, not John McCain »
On this, the first anniversary of our Top of the Ticket blog, we are reminded of the mercurial, unpredictable nature of U.S. politics -- part of what makes what we do so fascinating.
Our goal -- one of us on the East Coast and the other on the far more important or at least less humid West Coast -- was to write about Campaign '08 virtually around the clock.
Our second-ever posting, 12 months ago today, previewed an upcoming L.A. Times/Bloomberg Poll; later in the day, we detailed the results of the nationwide survey. The findings were in line with other polls of the time.
In the Republican presidential race, which then seemed the most likely to last deep into the primary season, Rudy Giuliani was perched in first place. His lead wasn't overwhelming, but it was strong enough that he appeared certain to remain a major contender.
His liberal record on social issues loomed as an obvious liability within his party, but his tough-on-terrorism message was attracting substantial support from moderates and GOP-leaning independents.
His major headache among rivals last June was an as-yet-undeclared candidate who was riding a wave as the great conservative hope -- Fred Thompson. He ran a strong second in the poll.
Lagging far behind were John McCain and Mitt Romney, each barely with double-digit support. In our preview posting, we were especially scornful of McCain, noting sarcastically (and foolishly, as it turned out) that in the poll, he found himself "in heated competition with the 'Don't Know' category."
Meriting no mention from us was Mike Huckabee, one of several back-of-the-pack candidates barely earning any support across the country.
The Democratic race, at that point, seemed so much more cut-and-dried.
Hillary Clinton was the clear front-runner; Barack Obama was just as clearly ...
Read more Top of the Ticket, the start of Year Two »
Having Hillary Clinton get behind his presidential candidacy may have been the easy part for Barack Obama, as he now moves to both buttress his campaign's brainpower and unite the notoriously fractious Democratic Party.
The two tasks aren't necessarily complementary, as Obama discovered Tuesday when labor leaders and others expressed surprise and chagrin over his choice of Jason Furman as his chief economic advisor.
For the presumptive presidential nominee, Furman's selection is part of a process of tapping into heavyweights who weren't part of his initial band of loyalists but whose talents he can now call upon. Furman, 37, served a similar advisory role for the party's 2004 White House nominee, Sen. John Kerry, and has worked closely in recent years with Robert Rubin, the guiding force behind President Bill Clinton's economic agenda.
There's the rub, for the union officials and some liberal activists.
As The Times' Tom Hamburger reports, criticism of Furman includes the charge that, as a promoter of the benefits of economic globization, he overlooks the trend's negative effects.
Marco Trbovich, a top aide to the head of the Steelworkers Union, told Hamburger: "We are very much taken aback that Furman has been put at the head of this team. ... He is a very bright fellow but he is an unalloyed cheerleader for the trade policies that have been very destructive to manufacturing jobs in this country."
That's not exactly ...
Read more A new Barack Obama aide draws fire from labor, liberals »
This is a kind of political non-endorsement. And we're publishing it for all four of our readers in Oklahoma. Or maybe there's more. It's hard to tell some days.
Rep. Dan Boren is a Democrat (yes, there are a few in that state). In fact, he's the lone and loneliest Democrat in the state's congressional delegation. He represents a heavily rural district in eastern Oklahoma. So today the Democratic House member announced that  he will not be endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president.
He did say he would vote for Obama at the Democratic National Convention and he would vote for him on Nov. 4. But he's not publicly for him by endorsing him, you understand. How's that for splitting political hairs for the sake of your own third term?
Boren is one of those questionable Oklahomans who actually went to Texas for his college education (Texas Christian), but he did salvage his reputation by returning to his father's university for his MBA. Boren's grandfather, Lyle, represented southeastern Oklahoma in the House for 10 years back in the FDR era.
Calling himself a centrist and Obama "the most liberal senator," Dan Boren told the Associated Press today he's bound to represent the wishes of his district's voters, who went 2-to-1 for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the state's February primary. He said that while Obama claimed to work in a bipartisan fashion, he doesn't really.
Rep. Boren's father, David, is the former Oklahoma governor, senator and presently president of the University of Oklahoma, who has endorsed Obama. Which one do you think will get asked to those White House dinners?
For some late-breaking political news shockers, click on the Read more line below.
--Andrew Malcolm
Photo credit: Office of U.S. Rep. Dan Boren
Read more Okla. Rep. is for Barack Obama, just not the way you'd expect »
The Washington Times on Sunday teased a recent interview some of its staff had with Tom DeLay with a short story reporting that the conservative firebrand is having no success persuading his wife to back presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
Christine DeLay, the once all-powerful House majority leader from Texas told the newspaper, is planning to vote for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr.
Today, the Times gets to the guts of DeLay's comments: His dire view of what looms for the GOP, at least in the near term.
The core problem, in DeLay's view, is that in the age of the Internet, Democrats have adapted more adroitly than Republicans to tapping into the power of independent groups who share their philosophy but don't want to be part of a traditional party structure (think MoveOn.org).
"People out there that are making decisions are not focusing, in my opinion, on what it's going to take to rebuild the conservative movement and rebuild the Republican Party. They're living with 10-, 15-year-old technology. They still believe if you raise enough money, go on television enough, you're going to win. Those days are over," DeLay says in the story (which can be read in full here.)
-- Don Frederick
For the first time since he was elected to the Senate 24 years ago, John Kerry, who voted for the use of military force in Iraq before he opposed the conflict, will face a primary challenger for his Massachusetts seat.
Attorney and former Gloucester City Councilman Ed O'Reilly, a onetime commercial lobsterman, won 22.5% of the delega tes Saturday at the Democratic state convention in Lowell, Mass., to secure a place on the state primary ballot in September.
O'Reilly has been endorsed by Progressive Democrats of America, the antiwar group that helped activist Donna Edwards unseat eight-term incumbent Democratic Rep. Albert R. Wynn in Maryland earlier this year.
Just four years ago Kerry was the losing Democratic nominee for president. He won the state party's endorsement today by capturing a majority of the convention delegates. He's expected to turn back the challenge.
"I'm here with humility to ask for your support," Kerry said.. "We have literally so much unfinished business ... My friends, I have more energy, I feel more focused, I'm more ready for the fight than ever before."
The last serious challenge Kerry faced for the Senate seat was in 1996, when he beat Republican Massachusetts Gov. William Weld in what was seen as a contest between potential presidential contenders. He's not faced a Democratic challenger since winning a three-way primary in 1984 to succeed Sen. Paul Tsongas.
The winner of the Sept. 16 primary will face Republican candidate Jeff Beatty in the general election. Matthew Hay Brown has the full story here.
--Andrew Malcolm
Photo Credit: AP
Hillary Clinton's campaign just sent this e-mail to supporters, spinning off the results from the Puerto Rico primary. It is missing the sense of urgency that such e-mails had after earlier primary wins -- and losses -- in which the campaign used the fresh results to spur on supporters. "Another big win! Today in Puerto Rico, the voters spoke with a powerful voice to say that this race is not over yet. And thanks to your support, we're celebrating another great victory.
"When all the votes in Puerto Rico are counted, our popular vote lead will be even bigger. More than 17 million people have cast their ballots for our campaign, more votes than any candidate has received in the history of the Democratic Party. Now there can be no doubt: The people have spoken and you have chosen your candidate. We are winning the popular vote.
"Every time the pundits count us out -- every time they declare the race over -- you, the voters, send a clear message that you have another idea. And you and I just keep winning races together.
"Now there are just two contests left, the final primaries in South Dakota and Montana. I know I can rely on your support for these last two races, just as I have throughout the campaign.
"Thank you so much for everything."
Then it was hand-signed "Hillary" over "Hillary Rodham Clinton," with a button to click for contributions. Click past the jump to see the letter she sent out after winning Kentucky.
-- Scott Martelle
Read more Hillary Clinton counting votes, looking forward »
As if the dispute over whether to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations isn't enough, the Democratic National Committee is facing a mini-uprising in the blogger world over which local blogs will be seated with state delegations at the Democratic National Convention in August.
The DNC, perhaps recognizing how many activists get their political fixes from blogs, decided to grant a seat to (usually) a single blog with each state's delegation in Denver. This is in addition to the large-scale blog sites (think Huffington and Kos) that will get media credentials to cover the event. And some of the state-level blog sites are fairly large, such as Calitics, which gets a seat.
But some bloggers left off the list are smelling bias, or at the least a failure of inclusion. And maybe exclusion based on how far left the bloggers lean. And there's the occasional accusation of favoritism.
One big happy family, those Democrats.
-- Scott Martelle
Election Day is still more than five months away, and Barack Obama has yet to obtain the "presumptive nominee" tag in the Democratic presidential race. But if the verbal brickbats John McCain hurled at him today are any indication, a prospective general election matchup between the two will bear little resemblance to the reasoned, civil campaign both have said they will strive for.
 It's been fairly obvious for some time that McCain not only has less respect for Obama than Hillary Clinton, but that it's easier for the senator from Illinois to get his goat. McCain's reaction today to a barb Obama directed at him removed all doubts on those fronts.
Obama, taking to the Senate floor in the morning before returning to the campaign trail later in the afternoon, personalized an impending vote on a veterans benefits bill by noting McCain was against it. After making a nod -- as he almost always does when mentioning him -- to McCain's military record, Obama said, "I can't understand why he would line up behind" President Bush in opposing the measure.
A release from McCain, who was campaigning in California, followed quickly, notable for the unconcealed contempt expressed toward Obama.
It begins with a bold-faced quote from McCain: "Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election."
So much for the Senate's tradition of collegiality.
Then, in the longer statement that follows, McCain has this to say about his potential White House rival: "And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did."
In the past...
Read more Barack Obama gets under John McCain's skin »
Amid minor movement today among Democratic superdelegates -- so far, Barack Obama has picked up 2 1/2 votes [UPDATE: make that 3 1/2] and Hillary Clinton, one -- Obama scored a coup with an endorsement from the nation's foremost abortion rights advocacy group.
In a news release, the political action committee for NARAL Pro-Choice America had kind words for Clinton but annoounded its backing for Obama, citing its reading of the status of the Democratic presidential race.
"Today, we are proud to put our organization's grass-roots and political support behind the pro-choice candidate whom we believe will secure the Democratic nomination and advance to the general election," NARAL's president said in the release. "That candidate is Sen. Obama.
Read more Barack Obama wins the nod from NARAL »
Will Barack Obama's presidential candidacy serve his state and city by finally drawing national attention to the sleazy and corrupt politics of Illinois and Chicago?
It is all about context. The presumptive Democratic presidential candidate's politics were born in Chicago. Yet he is present ed to the nation as not truly being of this place, as if he floats just above the political corruption here, uninfected, untouched by the stain of it or by any sin of commission or omission. It is all so very mystical.
Perhaps viewing Obama as a Chicago political creature would conflict with the established national media narrative of Obama as a reformer. Actually, there's no "perhaps" about it.
"I think I have done a good job in rising politically in this environment without being entangled in some of the traditional problems of Chicago politics," Obama told reporters and editors at a Chicago Tribune editorial board meeting several weeks ago.
Yes, an excellent job. Except for his dalliance with his indicted real estate fairy, Tony Rezko, a relationship Obama considers a mistake, the senator has not played the fly to Mayor Richard Daley's spider. Almost, but not quite.
"I know there are those like John Kass who would like me to decry Chicago politics more frequently, and I'll leave that to his editorial commentary," Obama said.
Not the politics, just the corruption, I said then, wishing....
Read more Column: Obama's mystical (national media) disconnect from sleazy Chicago politics »
With the Democratic primary struggle between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton possibly prolonged by Republicans crossing over to perversely support the New Yorker, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has unfurled a figurative "Mission Accomplished" banner on his radio program.
And although the bombastic broadcaster has absolutely no control over any of it, he has also officially urged two seemingly contradictory things: that Clinton should continue her now nearly hopeless struggle to win the Democratic presidential nomination -- "You've come too far to quit now; don't listen to the voices of surrender" -- and urged Democrats to nominate Obama, the freshman senator from Illinois.
"I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees," Limbaugh said. "“He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote. But Democrats do not win with that.”
That's the showbiz point of Limbaugh's initially silly but then seriously serious Operation Chaos, not to pick any particular Democratic candidate but to help them both bloody each other to irreparably hurt the liberal cause for the fall campaign.
Limbaugh says he came upon the disruptive idea when it ...
Read more Rush Limbaugh proclaims 'Mission Accomplished' in Operation Chaos vs. Obama, Clinton »
In an obvious attempt to be ignored for a while, Tom Hanks with no fanfare, news release or hoopla, late tonight put up a video on his MySpace page endorsing Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for president.
Had it come on, say, a Monday morning, the endorsement by the popular and widely-respected Hanks would have caused seismic shifts on those rock shelves that underlie Hollywood and promise to slide the place into the ocean someday.
Thanks to The Times' dauntless Tina Daunt, The Ticket, however, is right on top of this major international political story. "BEWARE," says the headline on Hanks' video, "Celebrity Endorsement."
"I'm Tom Hanks," Tom Hanks says directly into the camera in what looks like someone's den, "And I want Barack Obama to be the next president of our country. As an official celebrity, I know my endorsement has just made your mind up for you."
He continues in a straightfaced, tongue-in-cheek manner to seriously endorse the freshman senator. Hanks acknowledges all the candidates -- and some of their relatives, associates and supporters -- have made gaffes in recent weeks.
But he says he reads history sometimes and cites the groundbreaking peaceful turnover of power in 1797 from George Washington to John Adams as a major turning point in history. And says the same sort of corner can be turned by the election of the country's first African American president, a member of a race once officially considered only three-fifths of a person here.
He especially praises Obama's character and vision, integrity and ability to unify the country. Hanks' endorsement is a breath of good news for Obama after a few difficult weeks involving the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who Obama says is wrong.
It'll be something positive for Tim Russert to ask Obama about on "Meet the Press" Sunday morning, but Hanks' approval may not carry much weight with the working class Democratic voters where the senator's support has not been strong.
Things have been relatively quiet on the Hollywood endorsement scene of late, since it's a given that most prominent celebrities there will be endorsing Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Just kidding. McCain's got Sylvester Stallone and that's it.
Hillary Clinton lined up Jack Nicholson too. And Obama has also been endorsed by Jane Fonda but that hasn't shown up on many billboards yet.
"I'm Tom Hanks," the actor/director/producer says at the end of his video, "I wrote and approved this message, and I am now going to turn off the camera." He gets up, walks around out of sight and the camera goes off.
-- Andrew Malcolm
Photo: Courtesy of Tom Hanks
LAFAYETTE, Ind. -- Ever since her campaign in Ohio in early March, Hillary Clinton decided to adopt the "tough" approach. Regardless of what polls showed to be a growing negative attitude toward her, she still won in Ohio and Texas.
Six weeks later in Pennsylvania, her chief backer in the state, Gov. Ed Rendell, hijacked the "Rocky" theme song and attached it to the Clinton campaign. She won again.
Now, in Indiana, the "tough" theme is continuing, though a local labor leader gave a unique description for the New York senator that is not likely to show up again on the campaign trail.
At a union-hall event in Portage, Paul Gibson, the president of the United Steelworkers Local 6787, was selected to introduce Clinton. Gibson tried to tidy up his remarks for a mixed audience the best he could. Clinton, he said, is the kind of leader with the "testicular fortitude" to make hard decisions.
"I do think I have fortitude," Clinton said to laughter and applause. "Women can have it, as well as men."
-- Rick Pearson
Rick Pearson writes for the Swamp of the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau.
In a rather decisive 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court today approved an Indiana law requiring voter identification at the polls, which is likely to prompt other states to adopt similar measures against voter fraud.
Democrats, lead by -- who else? -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, immediately denounced the ruling as placing a "roadblock to democracy" by requiring all voters to produce some form of official state identification before being allowed to vote.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Indiana's own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago mayor — though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud — demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."
Thus, he wrote, the state has a legitimate interest "in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process."
The Court dismissed Democratic arguments that because the law had been supported by Republican state legislators and opposed by Democrats that it should be invalidated.
It also rejected the Democratic argument that the law places....
Read more GOP, Dems split over Supreme Court OK of Indiana voter ID law. More to come? »
We thought at first there was a very interesting opinion piece elsewhere on this website today by Susan Jacoby, the author of "The Age of American Unreason."
The headline -- "Talking to ourselves" -- was intriguing because that's what bloggers do in the darkened early hours of the day as this is written. It's hard for political bloggers to get in a word edgewise during daylight because of all the posters leaving comments -- more than 31,000 here in recent times -- about politics and some other things.
Of course, as recent days have shown, virtually all Ticket commentors love The Ticket writers, think they're well-meaning, from legitimate families, hardworking humans whose perspectives they value and probably even treasure.
And even if on the odd occasion a reader arrives at The Ticket with his/her own personal perspective because of some stupid education or bizarre outside influence, after reading a few Ticket items virtually everyone leaves agreeing with almost every word published here. You can see that uniform unanimity reflected in recent comments.
So we were struck by the first 44 words of Jacoby's treatise:
"As dumbness has been defined downward in American public life during the last two decades, one of the most important and frequently overlooked culprits is the public's increasing reluctance to give a fair hearing -- or any hearing at all -- to opposing points of view."
Her article is only two paragraphs long, albeit probably the two longest paragraphs in the history of LATimes.com. (UPDATE: Because of the vast power and influence of The Ticket, as soon as this was posted, our efficient web colleagues fixed that typographical problem and ruined the joke.)
But in those 50,000 or whatever words she says a whole bunch of what initially seemed like good stuff.
She argues basically that as the sources of information and methods of distributing it have expanded exponentially in recent years -- cable channels, websites, blogs and the rechargeable gizmos to receive them -- Americans, ironically, have closed themselves off more from info diversity. Avoided places and people that disagree with them. And gravitated almost exclusively to information sources that agree with them.
She calls it a "militant parochialism."
That's total rubbish! Couldn't disagree more. She probably lives in her car. So we stopped reading that stupid article. Came back home here where we agree with virtually everything we write.
--Andrew Malcolm
Apparently Hillary Clinton hasn't always been enamored with the rambunctious nature of the historic fight for the Democratic presidential nomination. Speaking to financial backers after Super Tuesday, she blamed the party's activists and MoveOn.org for her early primary and caucus defeats, according to an item over at The Huffington Post.
"MoveOn.org endorsed [Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," the item quotes Clinton as saying (there's audio on the site).
Her campaign, she continues, had been less successful in caucuses because those gatherings bring out "the activist base of the Democratic Party... [T]hey are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."
Eli Pariser, MoveOn's executive director, defended the base: "Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator [John] McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."
So much for party unity in the dash for the White House.
It was exactly ago a week ago ...
Read more Hillary Clinton dissed party activists and MoveOn.org »
| |
