Six States For Civil Rights

This hit a snag a couple weeks back, but New Hampshire passed the bill extending marriage equality to same-sex couples, and the Governor will sign it. Good news.

Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire all have marriage equality now. Rhode Island could round out the entire New England region if they step up.

Another step forward would be the Uniting American Families Act introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy.

Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is moving forward with a bill that would allow American citizens and legal immigrants to seek legal residency in the United States for their same-sex partners, just as spouses now petition for foreign-born husbands and wives. Reintroduced this past February, the act is entitled the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA, H.R. 1024, S. 424). While the UAFA has been introduced in four successive Congressional sessions, the bill has languished. Still during last session the bill had 199 sponsors in the House and 19 in the Senate.

Discriminatory immigration laws against same-sex couples should not stand.

...sadly, homophobes in Congress and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops are trying to get this language taken out of a broader immigration bill.

New Hampshire Makes It Six

John Lynch's statement on the gay marriage bill in New Hampshire merely asks for some fundie cover, and considering that similar language was used in other states that passed marriage equality, I think nobody will find it objectionable. We're going to see gay marriage legal in every state in New England except Rhode Island.

The speed with which a lot of this has happened is pretty striking. Eventually, once every state finally allows marriage equality, people will look to this time as when the floodgates burst open.

New Hampshire Governor FAIL

It's curious that Barack Obama thinks the best man for the position of Commerce Secretary is the guy who voted to abolish the department in the mid-1990s, but I actually pretty much agree with Judd Gregg on that point, so maybe he'll make my favorite Commerce Secretary ever! He's being announced in a few minutes.

As for his replacement, it looks like it'll be Republican Bonnie Newman, Gregg's former chief of staff.

Newman served as assistant secretary of Commerce for economic development in the Reagan administration. She was in charge of administrative operations for the George H.W. Bush White House.

She was chief of staff to Gregg when he was a congressman in the 1980s, and she was one of the first Republicans to publicly endorse Lynch in his 2004 challenge of then-Republican Governor Craig Benson, and co-chaired Republicans for Lynch.

This is just a bad idea on all levels, if you ask me. I don't see why anyone would think that Gregg's chief of staff would vote any differently than Gregg on any substantive issue, no matter who she endorsed in a Governor's race. This is all the more reason why there ought to be special elections for Senators, by the way.

So the only positive I can see from this deal for Democrats is that Gregg won't run for re-election, and Newman probably won't either, making it an open seat. But if you think that's a victory, then you haven't been paying attention to the fate of Northeastern Republican incumbents over the last two campaign cycles. Gregg was DOA anyway. And in exchange, you have a hardcore conservative, Bush's debate prep coach in 2004, running a major federal agency.

Tell me why I'm supposed to be excited?

...It's possible that as a condition for joining the cabinet, Gregg will support the stimulus package. There doesn't seem like any other reason for this. If that's true, it's very short-term and possibly a sign that the bill is in real trouble.

...Russ Feingold:

"But the apparent behind-the-scenes deal-making that went on to determine who will fill Senator Gregg's vacancy is alarmingly undemocratic. Once again, Americans will be represented in the Senate for nearly two years by someone they had no hand in electing. As the number of Senators appointed to their seats continues to rise, it's increasingly clear that we need to fix this constitutional anachronism. It is time to pass a constitutional amendment to end appointments by governors and the political gamesmanship they encourage."

Absolutely. This is patronage at its worst.

Backroom Deal

Several Republicans on the Sunday shows made it clear that Judd Gregg would not leave the Senate for the Department of Commerce unless he was replaced by a Republican. Here's a representative sample:

No change in the Senate's balance of power if New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg leaves to become commerce secretary.

That's the word from the Senate's top Republican, Mitch McConnell. He says Gregg has assured fellow GOP senators of that.

McConnell says Gregg has promised he would be replaced by someone who would affiliate with other Republicans in the Senate.

This could just be bluster. In fact, Ben Smith reports that the White House is trying to get a guarantee from New Hampshire Governor John Lynch that he'll appoint a Democrat. Gregg is in no position to guarantee anything, as it's entirely Lynch's call. Another reason why we should have special elections so that the people decide and not one Governor. It may change the calculus for these appointments, but as they may not be made in the interest of getting the best person for the job ANYWAY, I don't think that's a major loss.

Miss Laura, a New Hampshire native, has more at Daily Kos, and she thinks that Lynch is far more likely to pick a Republican, perhaps one of the co-chairs of "Republicans for Lynch." There's a possibility in that case that the pick is slightly more moderate than Gregg and unlikely to run in 2010, but I don't know if that is enough to recommend Gregg for the job.

What Am I Missing?

I fully understand hiring Sen. Judd Gregg to be Barack Obama's Commerce Secretary in the context of getting a 60th Democratic Senator. While 60 isn't a magic threshold (especially when you have people like Ben Nelson in the caucus willing to capitulate), another Democratic vote on many issues is both vital and also symbolically demoralizing to conservatives.

In the context of New Hampshire Governor John Lynch picking a Republican to succeed Gregg, the hiring makes no sense whatsoever.

The White House hopes to make the announcement for Commerce Secretary next Monday or Tuesday, with the precise date depending upon F.B.I background checks. Administration officials said that Mr. Gregg is one of the candidates for the post, but not the only person being considered. (New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew his name from consideration for the post early this month because of an investigation into contracts in his state.)

One of several unresolved questions surrounding this story: Would New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, consider replacing Mr. Gregg in the Senate with a Republican? That is the question being asked among Republicans in New Hampshire.

Political Wire has more on this, including a potential successor, former Republican Gov. Walter Peterson, who "was chair of the 'Republicans for Lynch' committee, would vote with Democrats as much as Maine's Senators do, and most likely wouldn't run in 2010."

OK, but... we can beat Judd Gregg in two years. And the fact that he's considering the Commerce Secretary position signals that he's on his way out of the Senate and may not even run in 2010. Getting a Republican who votes slightly more in the Democratic direction than Gregg for two years is something, I guess, but that won't supersede Gregg wreaking havoc at Commerce, to the extent that he can. Gregg is economically very conservative, he was a strong Bush ally throughout his two terms and he would bring nothing but bad ideas to Commerce. There's an open question of what he could actually do there, but you have to look at this as a trade-off. In exchange for the 60th Democrat, good trade. In exchange for another Republican, no matter how "good" the Republican, bad trade.

BTW, If Russ Feingold's Constitutional amendment were in place and this would go to a special election, I would say good trade, because Republicans are poison in New England.

I Knew My Keystone State Wouldn't Let Me Down

Pennsylvania called for Obama. New Hampshire too.

The whole Pennsylvania surge was based on a fantasy. There wasn't any way to really make it happen. Philly was always going to come out in huge numbers and Obama had solidified the rest of the state and lowered his deficits.

Looking extremely bleak for John McCain right now.

...the total as it stands is 103 for Obama to 34 for McCain.

Obama: ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, NJ, MD, DE, IL, DC
McCain: SC, KY, TN, OK

What Actual Election Fraud Looks Like

In 2002, Republican operatives in New Hampshire jammed the phone lines of the state Democratic Party on Election Day while they were attempting to organize get-out-the-vote efforts. This impacted thousands of volunteers and party operatives who were trying to ensure their voters turned out to elect Jeanne Shaheen over Sen. John Sununu. Sununu ended up winning by a few percentage points*, close to the margin expected from a successful ground game. Allen Raymond, one of the architects of the scheme, went to jail for it and wrote a tell-all book called How To Rig An Election. Raymond acknowledged that there were dozens of phone calls between his team and Ken Mehlman in the White House leading up to Election Day. And today, James Tobin, another operative, was indicted for lying to the FBI about the operation.

That would fall under the category of ACTUAL election fraud. It was targeted at a specific race, and it sought to impact thousands of potential voters at once by disabling Democratic GOTV efforts in a form of voter suppression. Contrast this with registering one voter named "Mickey Mouse" at a time, telling election officials about it, and then hoping it slips past them and that someone in a mouse suit shows up to the ballot box on Election Day.

But when looking at news reporting about these kinds of incidents, the very real election fraud isn't mentioned, and examples of the system working, where election monitors catch bad registrations ahead of time and nobody fraudulent actually votes, becomes the scandal of the century. It's enough to make you wonder if some outside force is driving the discussion other than the very independent media.

I eagerly anticipate the first mention of Tobin's indictment on cable news.

Meanwhile, let me outsource the rest of this post to Josh Marshall, who has a sense of history that's more than two days old.

It's time again to remember the backstory of the US Attorney Firing scandal. The firings were one thing. But the story behind the firings, what led to them, is key to understanding the current 'vote fraud' scam being played by the Republicans and the media outlets that are going along with the scam.

Remember, the US Attorneys in question were all either Republicans or Republican-leaning independents. In every case, they were appointed by George W. Bush. In most of the cases their firing was tied to 'vote fraud' claims stemming from the 2004 election.

The pattern was very consistent. During the final weeks of the 2004 campaign Republican partisans started pressing claims of widespread voter fraud. In many, though not all cases, the examples they pointed to were not even allegations of voter fraud, but allegations of voter registration fraud: examples of people being registered more than once, non-existent people being registered, etc.

The Republicans making these claims argued that these problems with registration cards were opening the coming election up to widespread vote fraud. Logically, this makes no sense. And, more importantly, all evidence shows this has never happened, certainly not in any widespread sense. Every person who claims otherwise is either ignorant or speaking in bad faith.

Nonetheless, CNN and other national news outlets and especially local media outlets, either out of ignorance or bad faith, ran hard with these stories -- just as CNN is doing now [...]

That's the real story of the US Attorney firing scandal. And what we're seeing today is textbook -- exactly the same as what we saw in 2004 and 2006. It's a scam. And the very recent history should be enough for news networks like CNN and others not to let themselves become complicit in this disgrace.

Digby has some similar thoughts today. You ought to remember them when you hear useful idiots like Sarah Palin talking about "unconscionable voter fraud."

* - Avenging this stolen election with a Shaheen victory in the rematch this year is just one of the things we can do on November 4.

Richardson Out

So now we're down to three (five with Kucinich and Gravel, if you want to be charitable). This "Iowa and New Hampshire didn't matter meme" is simply wrong. It mattered plenty. In these states where retail politics is supposed to be important, where you can't buy the race, they winnowed the field down to the two candidates who raised $100 million dollars. And I would argue that it was because there was this February 5th backstop that demanded a quick start. If raising money is a key factor in picking a candidate then so be it. But let's be honest about it.

Don't be fooled into thinking this primary system is somehow fixed.

On a side note, I met Bill Richardson out in San Diego at the state convention. Nice enough guy, couldn't stand his domestic agenda, particularly the insidious "I'm a pro-growth Democrat" theme.

The Alphabetical-Order Theory Of Politics

This is kind of appalling and it's hard to argue with it:

Our analysis of all recent primaries in New Hampshire showed that there was always a big primacy effect  big-name, big-vote-getting candidates got 3 percent or more votes more when listed first on the ballot than when listed last.

Until this year, New Hampshire rotated candidate name order from precinct to precinct, which allowed us to do that analysis.

This year, the secretary of state changed the procedure so the names were alphabetical starting with a randomly selected letter, in all precincts.

The randomly selected letter this year was Z.

As a result, Joe Biden was first on every ballot, Hillary Clinton was near the top of the list (and the first serious contender listed) and Barack Obama was close to last of the 21 candidates listed.

Thus, I'll bet that Clinton got at least 3 percent more votes than Obama simply because she was listed close to the top.

At some point you just have to give up, and say that if people are that conditioned to pick the choice that appears at the top of the ballot, they get the democracy they deserve. But this speaks to the larger point of our broken elections, with its frozen servers, paper jams, hackable machines, and little in the way of backups or verifiable recount-ready systems. We need to radically rethink how we organize our elections.

One by one, states are renouncing the use of touch-screen voting machines. California and Florida decided to get rid of their electronic voting machines last spring, and last month, Colorado decertified about half of its touch-screen devices. Also last month, Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio secretary of state, released a report in the wake of the Cuyahoga crashes arguing that touch-screens “may jeopardize the integrity of the voting process.” She was so worried she is now forcing Cuyahoga to scrap its touch-screen machines and go back to paper-based voting — before the Ohio primary, scheduled for March 4. Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat of Florida, and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, have even sponsored a bill that would ban the use of touch-screen machines across the country by 2012.

It’s difficult to say how often votes have genuinely gone astray. Michael Shamos, a computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon University who has examined voting-machine systems for more than 25 years, estimates that about 10 percent of the touch-screen machines “fail” in each election. “In general, those failures result in the loss of zero or one vote,” he told me. “But they’re very disturbing to the public.”

This is a long and extremely stomach-turning article, which suggests that there is a tenuous nature to this democracy that we must consider. Mail it to all of your friends.

The Day After

This post about the polls by Matt Yglesias is pretty important. The pollsters actually got everything right beforehand except for Clinton's margin. They nailed Obama and Edwards' final number. And the exit polling was within the margin of error. So the pollsters didn't have that bad a night. They neglected to factor in this kind of turnout, and they didn't disclose how many undecideds waited until the last day to choose.

I've heard about the Bradley effect, with voters telling pollsters they'd vote for a black man in public but not doing so in the privacy of the voting booth, and I've heard about the misogyny effect in Iowa, where the men tell their wives who to stand with. (By the way, caucuses are a horrible way to choose a President. Just horrible.) Now that THAT'S out of everyone's system...

The truth is that we have a tie. It was a tie from the standpoint of delegates in New Hampshire. And contrary to popular belief, Iowa and New Hampshire DID have an impact. They winnowed the field down to two, which is what the media (successfully) attempted to do for the better part of a year. I'm in California and I'm supposed to be all thrilled that I "have my say," and yet both candidates I donated money to this year are not going to be viable by the time I vote. Why should I be happy about that? The primary system is still broken beyond repair, and I fear that now, people will somehow think it's humming along fine because of the unpredictability of the early races.

Obama secured the Culinary Workers union and the SEIU in Nevada, which is noteworthy. He has not had the kind of IE union support that Hillary has with AFSCME and the like. Remember, AFSCME dropped that mailer claiming Obama wouldn't keep abortion legal (the ugliest, most under-the-radar thing that happened in New Hampshire). So we go on to Nevada, a state where 1% turnout has been the norm for their caucuses. It will be much bigger on the Dem side this year, with so much at stake. But don't expect me to talk a lot about momentum anymore. This is clearly a tie, and one candidate's team will have to work harder than the other to win. In the end that's probably a good thing. And I hope against hope that issues will for once matter.

As for the Republican field, this is the line of the day:

4a) For the 15th consecutive month, it's impossible for any of the GOP candidates to win this nomination. I just hope this keeps up for 8 more months.

The Why Game

People are looking for answers as to why the pollsters got it all wrong. Look, there are a lot of possible indicators here. Hillary dropped a mailer essentially saying that Obama wasn't reliable on keeping abortion legal the weekend before the primary (a largely evidence-free charge), which could explain the women's vote. There's the lingering Bradley effect. There's the fact that Hillary had Michael Whouley doing his field (he's the guy who pulled John Kerry out of the fire in Iowa). It could simply be that we're pretty much tied, and Obama represents a state from the Midwest and Clinton represents one from the Northeast. But it's undeniable that what was happening to Clinton, from all the media and not just Tweety-bird, was pretty reprehensible, and to the extent that they were upbraided tonight, that they were stopped in their tracks from writing epitaphs prematurely, I'm happy. Here's Tom Brokaw:

BROKAW: You know what I think we’re going to have to do?

MATTHEWS: Yes sir?

BROKAW: Wait for the voters to make their judgment.

MATTHEWS: Well what do we do then in the days before the ballot? We must stay home, I guess.

BROKAW: No, no we don’t stay home. There are reasons to analyze what they’re saying. We know from how the people voted today, what moved them to vote. You can take a look at that. There are a lot of issues that have not been fully explored during all this.

But we don’t have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed. And trying to stampede in effect the process.

Look, I’m not just picking on us, it’s part of the culture in which we live these days. I think that the people out there are going to begin to make judgments about us if we don’t begin to temper that temptation to constantly try to get ahead of what the voters are deciding, in many cases, as we learned in New Hampshire when they went into the polling booth today or in the last three days. They were making decisions very late.

The voters may well have said "Shut the hell up and stop stampeding this process." Having campaign-hardened, sometimes-beaten, victorious candidates is a good thing. John Kerry had the crown put on his head and it turned out he had a glass jaw. I hope that Iowa and New Hampshire now cancel each other out, and that we move into the other states tuning out the superficialities and focused on the actual issues that ought to matter.

A boy can dream, no?

UPDATE: Just to shake it up, I also mostly endorse the sentiments of my pal thereisnospoon. I still find John Edwards the man I'd most like to see in the White House, and I still think that Clinton is the least acceptable nominee remaining, for reasons I'll get into tomorrow. But OK, now we get to see who can get down into the dirt, inspire, do the hard work, and win.

New Hampshirin'

So far, Clinton is keeping it close in early returns. If it's 3-5 points, I think it's a wash and everybody's still in this race. Larger than that and the Clinton campaign has a tough task.

Numbers here.

... Fun stuff from the Concord Monitor:

Someone named Albert Howard is crushing Alan Keyes, 50-8.
Joe Biden, who dropped out, has more votes than Mike Gravel.
Even with 10% voting, a lot more Democrats in the vote count than Republicans.

UPDATE: Hilarious.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well you say the word moderate with a rather unpleasant look on your face. What is a moderate in the Republican Party as you describe that term?

TOM DELAY: Well that’s a person who likes to think a lot.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: [Laughter] Is that bad news in your party? Too much thought?

Thinking is hazardous to a Republican's health.

Too close to call on the Democratic side, according to the exit polls. Expect massive spinning. NBC just called it for McCain on the Republican side. This is actually good news for John McCain.

...let me be contrarian and say that this is good news for Mike Huckabee. Romney is fatally wounded (sorry, Tagg!) and the road to the nomination still goes through South Carolina, where Huckabee is 20 points up and didn't hurt himself tonight. Plus Huckabee is leading in Florida and Giuliani is back in fourth (and anyway, Giuliani's done; he actually competed in New Hampshire and got crushed). I still think Huckabee's the money bet.

Clinton still in front on the Dem side.

UPDATE II: Clinton up by 3,357 votes with 26% of the vote in. The exit polls are apparently within 1 or 2 points. This is going to be a nailbiter. And considering these last couple days of just rampant media sexism, good for her. We may well have an actual primary race after all, and I would be thrilled with that. I've been bashing this "California matters" thing for very specific reasons. I would very much LIKE for California to matter, as much as I'd like every state to matter. Let's have all of America weigh in on who gets to become our next President.

UPDATE III: Hillary's lead is holding with 1/3 of the vote in. McCain comes out to the strains of Rocky and says "we sure showed 'em what a comeback looks like." Make me barf. Good luck in a closed Republican primary, John.

UPDATE IV: The NBC crew is audibly laughing at McCain's speech. It really was quite horrible.

Meanwhile, Obama is within 2,300 votes of Clinton with about 40% or so returns in.

UPDATE V: Matthews just said we should "let go" of McCain's mistake to read a prepared speech. Screw him. Really, was he cutting a lot of slack to Howard Dean in Iowa in 2004? But they actually are all over McCain, just completely ripping him over the low-energy, rote speech. Perhaps it was past his bedtime?

This Democratic race is very, very interesting. New Hampshire is really confounding the pollsters. They're grabbing at something, that the "tears" speech helped her. Well, then that would be tremendous news, because it would be a pushback on the media's horrific treatment of her. If the media can't break a candidate, that's a good thing for democracy.

UPDATE VI: Just read on Open Left that Michael Whouley was working on Hillary's campaign in New Hampshire. I always thought he was an Iowa guy, but that puts this in a new perspective. Whouley worked wonders for John Kerry in Iowa back in 2004, against all expectations.

Edwards is kind of done now, mainly because this is hardening into a two-person race. And to the extent that you believe the "tears incident helped her" narrative, he definitely helped push that a lot with his insensitive remarks, not to mention lashing out at her at the debate. I hate to say it, but he might want to consider dropping out.

UPDATE VII: 57% of the voters were women, and Hillary won women by 13 points according to exit polls. Also, the Obama campaign is claiming that more independents went to McCain than they expected, and they say it's due to tracking polls showing Barack well in the lead (so people switched over). I don't totally buy that, but it could have moved enough votes.

UPDATE VIII: Dartmouth College is still out. Clinton supporters are "guardedly optimistic" but looking at that. They're up 4,000 votes right now with 60% in. Clinton is going to be able to declare victory here. Whether Obama will or not remains to be seen.

UPDATE IX: I fucking love Rachel Maddow. She just relayed to Chris Matthews' face that many in the blogosphere (she cited Talking Points Memo specifically) are blaming HIM and his misogyny as the reason undecideds broke late for Clinton. Matthews laughed it off, but there was some real bitterness there.

This is glorious. If the media can understand that their catty, elitist, high school Heathers-like mentality will ultimately backfire, maybe they'll shut their mouths for a second and rethink their job description.

UPDATE X: Listening to John Edwards' speech. He ain't dropping out, not by a longshot. The speech is pretty darn similar to his in Iowa. But in this one he keeps harping on "the 99% who have not been heard in this democracy."

UPDATE XI: NBC just called it for Clinton.

A loss for sexism. A win for those who can't stand Chris Matthews and the media.

Now let's get back to fucking policy.

UPDATE XII: Put those speeches from Clinton and Obama up against McCain's. I think the winner is the Democratic Party. How about we throw out the results from Iowa and New Hampshire and just wipe the slate clean? This is good for America for nobody to be crowned early, for no rubber stamp. I have to admit I was sucked into the power of momentum. It didn't hold. Let's fight on from here, and let's pay attention to what matters.

Exit Polling

There's been some early exit poll numbers floating about. Aside from the turnout and the high numbers of independents voting in both parties, the key number for me is this:

FEELINGS ABOUT PRESIDENT BUSH: Democratic primary voters felt a lot more negative about Bush than Republican voters felt positive:

-- Fully two-thirds of Democratic primary voters said they feel angry about the Bush administration and nearly all the rest said they were dissatisfied, but not angry.

-- Among Republican primary voters, fewer than one in 10 were enthusiastic and four in 10 were satisfied but not enthusiastic. About a third were dissatisfied and two in 10 GOP primary voters were angry about the Bush administration.

People can't stand this President. George McGovern was right.

The Clinton Double-Edged Sword

You know, I'm glad Hillary Clinton is going on the offensive and taking a look at Barack Obama's somewhat outsized claims.

Clinton then led the crowd through a series of chants about what is “not change.” When you support legislation that bans lawmakers from accepting meals from lobbyists when they are sitting down, but permits meals when they are standing up, Clinton said, “That’s not change.” When you say you’re against oil companies and then you vote for Dick Cheney’s energy bill….that’s not change.”

Because now it's fair game to look at Hillary's claims of "creating change for 35 years" and all of the great things that happened in her husband's presidency (like losing the House and Senate, ushering in Republican government, the Telecommunications Act, NAFTA, don't ask don't tell...), voting for the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman, sponsoring bullshit bills on violent video games and flag burning, etc.

You know, candidates stretch the truth, and they put their positions in the best light. Hillary's leaving a LOT out of her critique of Obama, and I'm probably leaving a lot out of my critique of Hillary. But let's gets the facts of the public record out in the open. When you do, I think you'll find that all three leading candidates have records that are at times moderate and at times liberal. What's more interesting to me is where you go from here, and how you lead. Hillary can call Obama all talk and no action; it's a critique we've been making on the blogs for a couple years. But then she has to defend those parts of her own record that she hasn't shown much of an interest in lately.

Hillary's supporters are nervous as hell and they should be. Every argument they make has the potential to rebound back on them. Meanwhile Obama reaches voters that were previously not reachable, through building a new coalition.

Obamamania!

It's pretty clear that Barack Obama is going to smash the field in New Hampshire. He's up as much as 10 points in most respected polls. And Hillary's campaign is right to be nervous. They're in a very tough spot. Their campaign is reduced to having union buster Mark Penn spinning polls and lying to reporters. I agree with Kevin Drum that the way we select a President in this day and age is totally out of whack; momentum is way too important, early-state victories take complete precedence over everything else, the media actively tries to choose candidates. But it's what we have right now.

I'd be all the way down to have this be the last time we do this Iowa-New Hampshire-30 states voting in a month thing. But realistically, that's not going to happen until 2016 if a Democrat takes the White House. There isn't likely to be a contested primary on the Democratic side, and reform has only ever come from the Democrats.

I mentioned earlier that the Republican candidates where having problems figuring out a line of attack against Obama. Not so for the wingnut class, who's settled on the spectre of black people rioting if Obama loses. Now that's taking fearmongering in a whole new direction.

UPDATE: Because I'm in some kind of blog-fight with others over the relevance of California in this debate, here's some background. Let me add that I don't like the system as it is. I'd love to end it as soon as humanly possible. What I objected to was this idea that by moving up to February 5, California somehow fixed the system. They very clearly made it worse. And I objected that somehow the candidates would suddenly talk about "California issues." Let me ask this: the EPA's denial of a waiver for California to regulate greenhouse gas emissions was a major issue in the past few weeks. Has Barack Obama mentioned it? Take a look. Has Hillary Clinton? Uh-uh. John Edwards? he at least submitted testimony in favor of the waiver back in June, but lately? No.

At least Edwards has Nataline Sarkysian's family out on the campaign trail, but not in California, in New Hampshire.

I'm making a very narrow argument. If you want to blow up the system, blow it up. Don't graft on this half-measure, lie to the electorate and say everything's fixed, and perpetuate a broken system. It's really a very simple theory.

Debate Impressions

I did manage to watch both debates yesterday, and I think the contrast between the two parties couldn't be sharper. The Republicans had a nasty, mean, grumpy old man debate highlighted by John McCain's sniping and Fred Thompson occasionally weighing in from his rocking chair with a snide remark, not that he had a plan of his own. In a way Thompson is the quintessential conservative in this race; only caring about what we can't do, completely unconcerned about governance, just interested in showing his dominance by insulting his opponents. If he wasn't in a coma for six months I would say he epitomized the conservative id and would sail to victory. But Mitt Romney's got a better chance even though he was smacked around to an almost pity-inducing degree last night. And the Huckabump is going to be sufficient for him to claim that he defied expectations with a strong third-place finish. I still think he's the nominee, no matter how much the media wanks for St. McCain. Also, I forgot every word 9iu11iani said.

By contrast the Democrats had a pretty sober, substantive debate, outside of one defining moment when John Edwards tried to stick the knife in Hillary Clinton by parrying a Clinton attack with "any time the agents of change speak out, this is what the status quo does." That really pissed Clinton off, though she improved throughout the debate. I thought her faulting Edwards for not getting the patient's bill of rights through Tom DeLay's House when he worked his ass off to pass it in the Senate was a really weak return, however. Obama stayed relatively above the fray. Richardson was kind of just there.

But there were two defining moments. One was in the Democratic debate, when Charlie Gibson proved the cluelessness of the Beltway media with what is going on in the rest of the country.

Summary: During the ABC News-Facebook debate, moderator Charlie Gibson suggested that the Democratic presidential candidates' proposals to roll back or let some of President Bush's tax cuts expire would affect middle-class families, adding, "If you take a family of two professors here at St. Anselm, they're going to be in the $200,000 category that you're talking about lifting the taxes on." According to the U.S. Census, however, the median income for a U.S. household is $48,451, and the mean household income is $65,527; and only 3.4 percent of U.S. households have an income of $200,000 or more.

It was worse than that. The crowd openly laughed at Gibson for the stupidity of suggesting that two professors at St. Anselm make that kind of money (more like $75,000). And the larger point was that, because everybody in Gibson's world is rich, he naturally believes that the rest of the country is the same way.

The other key moment was when the Republicans were asked how they would contrast themselves with Barack Obama. They didn't find it very possible. It was easy for them to characterize Hillary as some sort of demon. But with Obama, Romney praised him, McCain praised him, Huckabee praised him and compared the two's success in Iowa, and Ron Paul praised him and compared the two's success with young voters. When McCain tried to draw contrast on experience, Romney stopped him and said "that's what Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Hillary Clinton said in Iowa, and they all got smoked." When the Republicans can't figure out a line of attack, you know they're worried. They'll fall back on the same liberal boogeyman stuff, but clearly Obama and his movement represent a real problem for Republicans.

That's all I got...

How Low Can You Go

I think Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani have the same printer.



I must say that I'm feeling much better about a potential Obama candidacy now that he's being attacked from the right from within his own party. Hillary, on the other hand, is playing the fear card. She's using Bush tactics because her strategists feel that it's the only way to stop the runaway train. As Matt Stoller notes, there are any number of attacks opponents could use to critique Obama's own tactics in this race, and none of them would include the words "he's too liberal." And the only possible reason you would make that argument is to say "he's not electable," which is blown out of the water by all the new people he brought into the process in Iowa.

Meanwhile, the AFSCME board excoriated their chief Gerald McEntee for producing such a mailer (it was under AFSCME cover).

The Dwindling Options For Obama's Challengers

Hillary Clinton actually gave a pretty nice speech at the NH Democratic Party "100 Club" Dinner. She emphasized some issues you don't much hear about on the campaign trail, like mental health care and the moral imperative of the United States helping deal with the severe Iraqi refugee crisis. But Barack Obama blew her off the stage, to the extent that she almost shouldn't put herself in that position to suffer from the comparison. Obama is simply in his element in the speechifying format; Clinton is not. That doesn't mean one is a better candidate than the other, though oratory is a key element of being President, especially after 8 years of "Is our children learning." But when you have these duelling speeches you're clearly playing on Obama's turf.

Another thing she shouldn't be doing is trying to create a boogeyman out of Obama's "progressive" record. This is pretty much the only thing holding the entire blogosphere back from running into Obama's waiting arms, and these kind of potshots from a right-wing perspective are infuriating because it brings down the party and makes the liberal viewpoint look like a bad thing.

Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination.

(Edwards is no saint on this either, by calling Obama a sellout to corporate America, which I think is a bit strong.)

The problems for Clinton and Edwards are manifest. There's only five days between Iowa and New Hampshire, not enough time to stop Obama's momentum without a major gaffe. And Obama isn't likely to provide that (though watch Clinton and Edwards go after him hard in tomorrow night's debate).

And on the Republican side, it's even worse. There's a caucus tomorrow in Wyoming. Not that the media has noticed; why would they take heed of a small state that's mostly white and in the middle of nowhere? That would be nutty!

I keep hearing not to count out Hillary Clinton, but with the inevitability balloon punctured, and with really only two business days until primary day, I don't see her finding a way to win.

UPDATE: Just a little more about Obama's speech. He does have this way of making you feel listened to. He directly addressed concerns of naîvete, concerns that hope may equal blind optimism, et cetera:

"I know how hard it will be to get the insurance companies and drug companies pushed back so we can actually deliver universal health care. I know climate change and educational reform don't lend themselves to easy change. I know because I've fought these battles out on the streets. I know because I've seen good legislation fail, because those with good intentions didn't have the powerful sway or the political will to overcome the obstacles. I know how hard this is going to be."

He then goes on to say that every gain we've had was the result of a few people's commitment to change, and that if you know who you're fighting for, you can talk to the other side and get them on board. Which is true, but not really an answer in the face of expected Republican intransigence (which of course is a problem for any Democratic President). Still, you do feel that the concern is at least taken into account, that there is a plan to deal with it.

Out Come The Knives

I just don't think going relentlessly negative is going to work against a movement candidate. Hillary Clinton has every right to draw contrast, but calling herself "the most innocent" as if Obama and Edwards have something to hide is silly. The only notable part of her speech last night was when she congratulated the party on bringing so many people in to the caucuses. Now she's trying to slash and burn that with a fairly cynical politics.

Politicians do this because negative campaigning works, normally. But against someone who has built a grassroots coalition, I'm not so sure. Especially when it's into the headwinds of momentum. Barring a major meltdown at tomorrow's debate, I think Obama will catch up and take New Hampshire. Chris Bowers, offering an alternative viewpoint, thinks there's less momentum to be had.

My Favorite Pre-Election Poll

Nobody likes this absurd way we choose the leader of the free world.

According to a new AP/Yahoo survey, just over half of all American voters believe New Hampshire and Iowa "have an extraordinary amount of influence" over who wins the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations.

"Fewer than one in five voters said they favor the current system that allows Iowa and New Hampshire to hold the first contests, while nearly 80 percent would rather see other states get their chance at the front of the line."

Of course, some of this is "because MY state should have a say" nonsense. But the sentiment is right. This has to be the end of the line for Iowa and New Hampshire. I mean it just has to be. They can yell and scream all they want.