Mark Penn's Triangulated "Resignation"

Mark Penn, caught-out selling his knowledge and access to both sides of the free trade war, has resigned from the Clinton campaign. Or has he? He's dropped one title ("Chief Strategist"), but apparently he personally and one of his firms stay on the payroll and will continue to advise the campaign. Here's the official announcement from Maggie Williams, Clinton's campaign manager.

"After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as Chief Strategist of the Clinton Campaign; Mark, and Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc. will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign."

Two questions: What were the unmentioned "events of the last few days," that led Mark Penn to ask to to give up his role? Is he gone or not? [Update: The answer is "not gone." Penn participated in this morning's conference call.]

• Monday, Penn (wearing his hat as CEO of lobbying and PR giant Burson-Marsteller) met with officials from Colombia to advise them on strategies for getting Congressional approval of the Colombian Free Trade agreement. (Sen. Clinton has been wooing labor with her vigorous opposition to free trade—and has specifically denounced Colombia for anti-union violence.
  
• Thursday, the press and blogosphere started playing back an unfairly edited Clinton remark from early March regarding leaks that an Obama staffer had back-channel conversations with Canada. The snipped version: "“Just ask yourself [what you would do] if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments," What Clinton actually said: "Just ask yourself, if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments basically saying 'ignore what I’m saying because its only political rhetoric,' I think it raises serious questions.” Well, close enough for politics.
  
• Friday, Penn apologized for the meeting: "“The meeting was an error in judgment that will not be repeated and I am sorry for it. The senator’s well-known opposition to this trade deal is clear and was not discussed.”
• Saturday, Colombia, taking umbrage a the apoloty fired Burson-Marsteller: "The Colombian government considers this a lack of respect to Colombians, and finds this response unacceptable.” (The $300,000 contract had been in place for more than a year, and as Joe Trippi noted, the only question is why hasn't this been an issue earlier?)
  

But there's one other event that surely preceded Mark Penn's asking to step down: A confrontation with Bill and/or Hillary. According to Ann Kornblut and Dan Balz this much has been leaked: "Clinton and her husband, Bill Clinton, were furious with Penn for going to the meeting, campaign officials said." Delicious details, surely to follow.

Steeped in triangulation (the art of finding middle-muddles between two controversial positions), Penn and the Clinton campaign offer us a non-resignation resignation. What exactly happened here? By giving up one title, but retaining a lucrative contract Mark Penn finds himself unable or unwilling to ask the Clash's musical question: "Should I Stay or Should I Go"

Mickeleh's Take: Given the long string of self-wounding strategic blunders that the Clinton campaign has made, and given the ludicrous and transparent goal-post moving spin that Penn has concocted almost daily in his press calls, it's amazing that he's held the Clinton's trust until "the events of the last few days." More amazing that he may still have it.

(Tags: Clinton, Hillary, Hillary Clinton, Mark Penn, Mark J Penn, Lobbyist, Burson-Marsteller, campaign)

Prime Time for Hillary

Sen. Hillary Clinton has just released a second 3:00 AM TV spot. This one is aimed at Sen. John McCain, and focuses on the economy.

"It's 3 am, and your children are safe and asleep.
But there's a phone ringing in the White House and this time the crisis is economic."

Despite the absurdity of anyone making a 3:00 AM phone call on the mortgage crisis, Clinton's team are determined to brand her as President 3:00 AM." Maybe she should change her slogan to "ready on night one."

When did keeping vampire hours become part of the presidency? Makes you wonder what she plans to do with her days. Maybe she'll give Bill the day shift and keep the graveyard shift to herself.

Mickeleh's Take: The Democratic National Convention should offer Hillary Clinton a 3:00 AM speaking slot. In her world, that's prime time.

(Tags: 3:00 AM, Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Campaign)

Did Hillary Just Offer Her Pledged Delegates for Poaching?

Sen. Hillary Clinton has floated a new possible path to victory: she reminds Obama's "pledged" delegates that they're free to switch sides (Newsweek, Daily News). Does she really want to open that door? What's sauce for the gander's delegates is sauce for the goose's.

Mickeleh's Take: I keep encountering folks who are turned off by Clinton's scorched-earth tactics. Among the supers, more folks have switched away from Clinton than to her. What if the same trend takes hold among the pledged delegates?

The Line Obama Needs to Fix In His Speech.

One of the biggest, surefire, applause lines in Sen. Barack Obama's standard stump speech is this one:

"Here is the good news-the name George W. Bush will not be on the ballot. [CHEERS, APPLAUSE] And my cousin Dick Cheney won’t be on the ballot. [LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE] Well, everyone’s got a black sheep in the family.”"

It's an easy warm up joke. But why just let it lie there? Isn't this a ripe opening for Obama to remind us that, while George Bush won't be on the ballot, his war will be; his confusion about who's the real enemy will be; his economic program will be.

People think highly of John McCain. The press loves him. But he's running for the third term of George W. Bush. The Democrats need to work harder—at all levels—to tie McCain to the failed Bush presidency.

Mickeleh's Take: The best way for Obama to take on Sen. Clinton is to show us how effective he will be in taking on John McCain.

Obama on Race: Breadth, Depth, and Respect

A funny thing happened on my way to blog about Obama's speech on race. I saw the Reuters headline: Obama denounces preacher; says can't disown him. Not inaccurate, but is that really the headline?

True, Obama talked at length about his relationship with Rev. Wright and distanced himself from his former pastor's remarks without denouncing the man. But isn't that what we all expected? Couldn't that headline might have been written last night?

Here's the real headline. Obama talks honestly about race in America (video). He put the whole festering, difficult tangle of issues on the table for open discussion without pandering or patronizing. It's never happened in any presidential campaign I can remember.

What astonished and heartened me about the speech was its breadth, depth, and respect.

Breadth, in that it encompassed the full sweep of race relations in this country from slavery, through constitutional compromise, segregation, and hopeful future.

Depth, in that it embraced our shared and separate experiences from both black and white perspectives—acknowledging resentments and suspicions on both sides—all channeled through the lens of Obama's multi-ethnic heritage.

Respect, in that the tone, structure, language, and argument of the speech appealed to our heads as well as our hearts, adult-to-adult.

Oliver Willis wrote this after the speech:

"One of my personal maxims has been that politicians will disappoint you... With Senator Obama, for the first time in my life, I have watched a political leader who I don’t worry if he’ll be up to the task."

Mickeleh's Take: If I may borrow from Rep. Ferraro, we're very lucky he is who he is.

What the Media Never Bothered to Answer About Rev. Wright

No question that Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made outrageous remarks in his sermons. The clips that have been most played on YouTube and TV are harsh, inflamatory, and disturbing. There's no easy way to spin, "God Damn America." Obama did what he needed to do, in written and video communications he distanced himself and denounced the statements. (see below for excerpts and clips).

How is it that this story—based solely on excerpts from old, long-available videos of sermons—was covered breathlessly as breaking news? It was covered with the urgency of of a crane falling and demolishing a New York building or an investment bank suddenly sucked into a sinkhole of bad credit, or the revelation that a righteous governor went to high-priced whores.

We got a lot of "what?" But very little "Why?" and not a bit of "Why now?" Does anyone know the flashpoint of the Rev. Wright firestorm? Anyone tracking that down?

Missing from the coverage was any sense of the context of the Rev. Dr. Wright's remarks. Here are some of the things what I wish the press would have told me.

1. Who is Rev. Wright (other than Obama's former pastor)? What's his bio?
2. What has he accomplished in his community? With his congregation?
3. What, taken as a whole, is his message to his congregation? to the African American community? to the Christian Church, to America?
4. What do his colleagues think of him?
5. What do members of his congregation think of him? What do they think his message is? Why are they drawn to him?
   
6. What is the background of Rev. Wright's black liberation theology?
7. What were the sermons with the nasty bits actually about? What was their message? What did they ask of the congregation?
   

Instead, the standard media play was: Here are some awful things that Obama's minister preached; will it sink his campaign or will it just get people to stop talking about Geraldine Ferraro?

The best main stream attempt to answer any of this came this morning in The Wall Street Journal in an article by Suzanne Satalin and Douglas Belkin. They quote Melissa Harris-Lacewell, associate professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University

"America is our country and we love her, yet she has done such awful things. We have to have a place where we say…'This is not okay. I'm still hurt about this.' "

The best perspective piece I've seen on Rev. Wright is not in the traditional media, but in this blog post by Kim Pearson on BlogHer.

Mickeleh's Take: If you want to take an even longer view: Rev. Jeremiah Wright's namesake, the prophet Jeremiah delivered even harsher messages against Israel and Jerusalem than anything Rev. Wright has said about the United States. In a ministry spanning the last days of the Kingdom of Judeah through the destruction of the Temple of Solomon, Original Jeremiah was even charged with treason, and indicted on a capital offense for his troubles. He railed against prophets who say all is well, all is well, when it's not well at all. (You probably know the more famous translation, "They cry 'peace, peace,' when there is no peace." Or the more recent version, "'The surge is working, the surge is working,' when the surge is not working.")

PostScript: Obama's statements.

"I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

—Huffington Post

He also sat for a friendly interiew with Keith Olbermann (MSNBC), and a prosecutorial one with Major Garrett (Fox News) and then addressed the issue again at a rally in Plainfield Indiana.

(Tags:Barack Obama, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's_Pastor, Media, Liberation Theology)

Ferraro's Game: Segment and Conquer

Former Congressional Rep. Geraldine Ferraro is playing a nasty, cynical game. It's a game I know well because I play it professionally. She's not a racist. She's a marketer.

Ferraro is just working the old dodge of market segmentation and positioning. And the Clinton campaign is eagerly playing along.

Ferraro's original claim (in the Daily Breeze) that "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position" frames the competitive product as a candidate for blacks and elitist, latte-swilling liberals. What's that leave for her own product (Clinton)? The much larger segments combined from white working-class and rural voters and women.

She's not a racist, but she's dog whistling to them along with whites who resent black progress and to feminists who think that the woman candidate deserves to go first while the African American candidate waits his turn.

Will Bunch calls it "Hillary's 'Archie Bunker' Strategy," and he reminds us that Ferraro was Archie's congresswoman.

Adam Hanft exposes the preposterousness of taking Ferraro's claims at face value by asking us to imagine the impact of a white candidate who had the education, skills, perspective, and vision of Obama.

But Ferraro herself exposes her own cynicism (or idiocy) in the defense she made on ABC yesterday morning.

"I was celebrating the fact that the black community in this country came out with a pride in a historic candidacy, and has shown itself at the polls. You'd think he'd say, 'Yeah thank you for doing that.'"

Right. That's just what you'd think. Obama, whose signature is broad appeal to black and white, old and young, gay and straight, Democrat and Republican is about to thank you for defining him as the niche candidate for the black community.

It's a shameful game. And more shameful is the record of the Clinton campaign moving slowly and gingerly to ever-so-slightly distance itself from it. But the Clinton campaign has no shame.

Even the master shamer of cable TV, Keith Olbermann won't move the Clintonistas. But he has moved me, and I'm hopeful he will move you. His rant is up all over the Web in the left blogosphere. But just in case you've somehow missed it, here it is again.



Mickeleh's Take: Segmentation and positioning are powerful tools in politics as well as marketing. The Clinton campaign has chosen the route of Segment and Conquer.

Obama Netted +13 Delegates Last Week

Kos has revised his delegate math since I posted earlier. Turns out his California total rose (after certification), and it turns out there were even more superdelegates declaring for Obama. So the net gain for Obama is thirteen delegates on the week.

Clinton Obama Takedown Comes in Three Sizes

The Clinton camp continues to trash Obama's ability to serve as commander in chief. As of this morning we have the Poppa Bear, Mama Bear, and Baby Bear versions:

Baby Bear was Gov. Ed Rendell, yesterday on Meet the Press said Obama is qualified, but Clinton more so: 

I think he's qualified. I don't think he's as good a potential commander in chief right now as Hillary Clinton is. But I certainly think he's qualified. And I will work my heart out for him if he's our nominee,

Mama Bear was Sen. Clinton Herself, leaving out a direct pronouncement on Obama's qualifications:

I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,”

Today, Papa Bear, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said no. And then preposterously added that he could get better by Denver (to qualify as Clinton's running mate).

We do not believe that Senator Obama has passed the commander-in-chief test. But there is a long way between now and Denver."

Mickeleh's Take: Wolfson is spinning so hard, he's in danger of disintegrating. Obama is not qualified if you're voting in a primary. But by Denver, if you're voting for Veep, maybe he will be. I wonder if Governor Rendell got a reprimand for speaking honorably.

Obama's Top Five Wins Last Week

No question that Hillary has had a good run these past two weeks. She snapped her 11-state losing streak with wins in Ohio and Rhode Island, and the perception of a win in Texas. Her "kitchen sink" strategy planted doubts about Obama's fitness as commander-in-chief and his forthrightness. She successfully worked the refs (with an assist from SNL). She won the spin cycle when two of Obama's key advisors (Goosling and Power) were caught talking trash. She managed her public personas, tamping down the over-the-top "shame on you," scold and "the sky will open" sarcasm.

Conventional wisdom says all this has rattled the Obama campaign and thrown it off stride. I hope not. Because he's had a terrific week and Clinton has given him ammunition to come out of this stronger than ever.

1. IL-14. Former Republican House speaker Denny Hastert's house seat went Democratic (53-47) in a race where Obama endorsed victorious Bill Foster and John McCain endorsed the loser. This district hasn't voted Democratic since the 70's. Obama's camp should flog this win heavily. Obama has coattails. Superdelegates notice those things. Here's Obama's TV Spot. (By the way... Foster himself counts as one more superdelegate for Obama.) Extra bonus: Foster opposes retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

2. Wyoming. It's not just that Obama won, but his win gave the Clintons one more chance to repeat their disrespectful spin that some states just don't count. (I live in Washington, and I'm tired of hearing from Clinton camp that we don't matter.) And more important, it gives the Obama camp an opportunity to remind superdelegates in a majority of states that Clinton dismisses them as unimportant.

3. McCain. Hillary Clinton actually rated the Republican standard bearer as more qualified than Obama (while out of the other side of her mouth she touted Obama as a potential "dream-ticket" running mate). What a golden opportunity to tie Clinton to McCain/Bush. Clinton needs to be held to account and penalized for creating sound bites and video clips for the Republicans.

4. Delegates. Kos did the delegate math for the week. In all the primaries and caucuses (OH, RI, VT, TX, WY), Hillary nets a gain of four. Obama picked up a total of four supers (including Foster). But, according to Kos, it doesn't end in a tie, as there's an "unpledged" delegate in Wyoming who will be selected by the elected delegates. Since Obama has a majority of Wyoming's elected delegates, he's going to get that one too. So Obama's net for the week is plus one.

5. Focus. The downside spin is that Obama is rattled and thrown off stride. Here's the upside. Last week was a wake-up call. Obama's got the more disciplined campaign engine (Goosling and Power notwithstanding); he's got the cleaner, larger donor base; he's got a huge dollar advantage; he's all got charisma. But, it seems, he's been coasting in a bit of a complacency bubble which just popped.

Mickeleh's Take: This is going to be a fine, fun week for Obama fans.

(Tags: campaign, Obama, Barack Obama, Hillary, Hillary Clinton, delegates, superdelegates)

Do Florida and Michigan Supers Fall to Clinton by Default?

The DNC, the states, and the campaigns continue to wrestle with the issue of the disqualified delegates from Florida and Michigan. Chuck Todd (NBC) points out that the two states have 53 superdelegates between them who will owe a big debt to Sen. Clinton if her efforts to get them seated pay off.

Mickeleh's Take: The Clintons launched their campaign with a YouTube video that cast them as the Sopranos. I'll bet they know a thing or two about collecting debts.

Obama's Gloves

Eriposte in The Left Coaster compiles a long list of negative attacks from the Obama campaign against Clinton.

He says it's a "fairy tale" that Obama has run a purely positive campaign.

Mickeleh's Take: Obama fans: is this good news or bad? Pundits keep saying Obama needs to take the gloves off. What if they've been off and nobody noticed?

Nader in; Takes "Oldest" spot from McCain

Ralph Nader, 73, whose spoiler role in the 2000 election enabled the Bush victory, is running again. So, now, John McCain, 71, isn't the oldest candidate in the race.

Mickeleh's Take: Nader, who saw no practical difference between Bush and Gore is unsafe at any age.

(Tags:Ralph Nader, Nader, Campaign)

Who Won Last Night's Debate? Here's a Clue.

Note: McCain-Obama First Debate Who Won?

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had strong debate showings last night. Many folks are calling it a draw today. And in the sense that the debate probably changed no votes, it was a draw. Which, of course, means that Clinton lost.

Mickeleh's Take: There were two memorable moments last night and Clinton owned both: When she dissed Obama with a cheap joke, she was boo'd. And when she praised him at the end and promised unity no matter who got the nomination, she got a standing ovation.

I think that says it all.

(Tags:Hillary Clinton, Hillary, Clinton, Barack Obama, Barack, Obama, Debate, Democratic Party, Campaign)

Viva Obama

Mickeleh's Take: Yum.

Jokes You Can Xerox

That plagiarism thing came up again. Obama said Deval Patrick is one of his national co-chairs, and gave him the line. Clinton said, Obama should use his own words. Otherwise it isn't "Change you can believe in. It's Change you can Xerox."

So where did Hillary get that line? Anybody out there think she wrote that joke? Anybody?

Obama and Hillary on Edwards: Both gracious, one masterful.

With John Edwards dropping out of the race for the Democratic nomination for president, the two remaining candidates are both reaching out to Edwards supporters on their websites. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lead with gracious nods to John and Elizabeth and to the issues and causes that they championed in the campaign.

As an Edwards supporter, I appreciate both statements. But it is Barack's statement that gets my vote. Here's why:

Hillary' statement is in her prosaic voice:

John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it - by standing with the people who are too often left behind and nearly always left out of our national debate.

John ran with compassion and conviction and lifted this campaign with his deep concern for the daily lives of the American people. That is what this election is about - it's about our people. And John is one of the greatest champions the American people could ask for.

I wish John and Elizabeth all the best. They have my great personal respect and gratitude. And I know they will continue to fight passionately for the country and the people they love so deeply.

—Hillary Clinton

It praises John, identifies with his issues, and wishes John and Elizabeth well. By the numbers.

Now read Barack's statement. It is a much more savvy embrace of the tonality and history of the Edwards campaign.

John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn’t popular to do or covered in the news. At a time when our politics is too focused on who’s up and who’s down, he made a nation focus again on who matters – the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington. John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this – that two Americas can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose. So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America.

—Barack Obama

In the opening sentence Obama acknowledges that the media largely kept John in shadow and silence. He chides the media for horserace coverage rather than issues and causes. He personalizes abstract issues with examples in the way that Edwards did in his stump speeches. He then uses his own campaign lexicon of "believe" and "change" to embrace the Edwards quest. And he closes by embracing Edwards key phrases "cause of my life," and "one America."

Graphically, Obama's site has absorbed Elizabeth and John into its own design language, while Clinton has posted a news photo.

The Hillary statement feels obligatory. The Barack statement feels like John's voice is still heard.

Mickeleh's Take: Regardless of whether John Edwards chooses to endorse either of the remaining candidates, Obama has already endorsed Edwards issues and embraced his supporters.

(Tags:Edwards, John_Edwards, Barack, Obama, Barack Obama, Hillary, Hillary Clinto, HRC, Campaign, Democratic, Primary)

Ann Coulter, Christian Revisionist

Isn't it off message for Coulter to talk about "perfecting" the Jews? I thought the object of the game was to "save" us.

She called Christianity the FedEx version of Judaism. As in, "There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold And she's buying the FedEx to heaven."

Mickeleh's Take: In Coulter's view of her religion, she gets to think of herself as being perfect, without actually having to be decent.

(Tags:Ann Coulter, Coulter, Jews)

Money Talks

Tristero at Hullabaloo explains how it works.

President Bush or President Betray Us?

The freedom to dissent got a double-barreled blast yesterday—from the President and the Senate. (Yes, the same Senate that earlier failed to restore the right to Habeas Corpus.) Both condemned the "General Betray Us?" ad that MoveOn.org placed in the New York Times last week.

Are we now supposed to hold our General in the same reverence that the Muslims hold their Prophet?

Isn't General Petraeus is fighting for our liberty to make cheap puns on his name? Or don't we have that freedom anymore?

Bush, on the other hand, is fighting to equate dissent with treason, subvert our Constitutional liberties, and gather dictatorial powers to the Presidency.

Yesterday he came up to (maybe over) the line of warning the Democrats not to irritate the military. He does this while cherishing the privilege of his political allies to smear honorable opponents with lies and innuendo. He said, "I felt like the ad was an attack, not only on Gen. Petraeus, but on the US military." (Hats off to Prof. Lakoff who presciently declared yesterday "Metonymy Day.")

I'm embarrassed and infuriated that twenty-two Democrats made it possible for the Dornyn amendment to pass. (SEE BELOW for the names.) Thought experiment: how many Republicans would join with Democrats in condemning the Swift-boating of Kerry, the smears of Max Cleland and John Murtha?

Turning an ad (whether you liked it or not—and I didn't like much, BTW) into a issue worthy of Presidential threats and Senatorial condemnation is not simply an attempt to distract from weightier matters (cholera breaks out in Iraq; Blackwater security guards ordered to leave by Iraqi government, etc.). It's an attempt to chill dissent. (Please see the excellent post on Kos by hbjackson.)

To guard against having all of our liberties frog-boiled away by slow increments, I'm reviving and adapting the old Homeland Security alerts to track attacks against our freedoms. I'm raising the threat level to Orange.

I'm also signing up and sending MoveOn.org some money to continue their fight. Please do likewise. Liberty: use it or lose it.

Mickeleh's Take: Bush claimed, after 9-11, "they hate us for our freedoms." Maybe he thinks that suppressing our freedoms will make them hate us less.

Here are the Democrats who voted to condemn the ad: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Cardin (MD), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Conrad (ND), Dorgan (ND), Feinstein (CA), Johnson (SD), Klobuchar (MN), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Leahy (VT), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Mikulski (MD), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Salazar (CO), Tester (MT), Webb (VA)

Three Democrats avoided the issue: presidential candidates Biden (DL) and Obama (IL), and my own Iraq-tightrope-walking, needle-threading Sen. Cantwell (WA).


(Tags:MoveOn, Petraeus, MoveOn.org, Betray Us, Dissent, Libery, Senate, Bush, Iraq)

Five Questions Following Senate's Failure to Restore Habeas Corpus

1. Why is the headline: "Senate Rejects Habeas Legislation" and not "Republican Minority Blocks Vote on Habeas Legislation"?
2. Why does Majority Leader Reed accept cloture votes and move on rather than forcing Republicans (plus Joe Lieberman) to go to the diapers and actually filibuster?
3. Why don't Democratic Party leaders (including the presidential candidates who have the media spotlight) make Republican obstructionism the issue—leaving Republicans a clear field to make "Democrat" ineffectiveness their issue.
   
4. If we support the Democratic campaigns to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, will we actually see progressive legislation?
5. Is the Ralph Nader claim that there's no significant difference between the parties starting to look any better to you?

Mickeleh's Take: Congressional approval polls are even lower than Presidential approval polls. Bonus question: How politically risky would it be for the Democratic leaders to more assertive?

Edwards Fundraising: Smart, Postitive, Uplifting

In a word, here's how politicians raise money: fear.

The typical fundraiser is an appeal for money to keep the boogeyman du jour at bay. You've seen 'em: If so-and-so wins the world will end and you'll lose your immortal soul and your Google stock.

Can we stand four more years of the Bush war? Can we stand to have Hillary in the White House? Can we stand by while gays destroy the sanctity of marriage? While abortionists murder the unborn? While the Republicans shred the Constitution? While Al Qaeda plots to murder us in our beds? While Republican senators and airport policemen spend all afternoon hogging the toilet stalls, preventing decent travelers from finding a place to poop? etc.

John Edwards decided to go a different way. Contribute to his campaign and you'll be entered into a drawing to go to New Orleans with him to work with him "alongside families who are rebuilding their homes and their lives."

Mickeleh's Take: A politician ppealing to goodness, generosity, and our better natures? Hmmm. Isn't this newsworthy in the traditional "man-bites-dog" sense? Which means it will go unnoticed in a media world where the top stories are a girls doing an awkward dance in her undies and a football player turned murderer makes a grab for sports memorabilia.

Here's my suggestion, John. You want coverage? While you're in New Orleans, get your hair cut in a local barber shop. And throw the guy a $400 tip.

Francine's Take on Alive Day Memories

Francine Hardaway has written a deeply moving reflection on watching the HBO documentary Alive Day Memories, in which James Gandolfini interviews troopers who had been seriously wounded, physically and emotionally in Iraq. She notes

The war goes into its fifth year. Bush goes on doing whatever he wants. Congress goes on doing nothing. And I wonder how the voters feel about staying in Iraq forever.

While I was reading it, iTunes randomly selected The Band's "Tears of Rage" as the soundtrack.

Mickeleh's Take: This quick note is no substitute for reading Francine's blog. And reading her blog is no substitute for watching Alive Day Memories. And watching Alive Day Memories is no substitute for ... what? What are we doing to stop this?

"Return on Success"? Nah, Impeach on Failure

Whatever happened to the fearsome Republican phrasemaking A-team? You know, the folks who brought us "the death tax," "clear skies initiative," "defense of marriage." Have they all left the building? Is there nobody left who can do better than "Return on Success"?

The phrase can't help but stir echoes of "Return on Investment." We have made an investment of 3776 dead (3637 since "Mission Accomplished"), 27,848 wounded, (at least 500 with amputations), and a cost surging well past $400 billion. The Bush proposed investment will see us to at least another thousand U.S. dead and a cost mounting toward a trillion dollars. (And that investment, of course, doesn't see us to the end. It leaves us with more troops in Iraq than we had before the surge began.)

What is our return? Well, we got Saddam and Bush got to prance around and parade his package in a flight suit. And I think some Iraqi schools got painted. And there's a market somewhere that U.S. politicians can visit if they are sufficiently well guarded.

Any other returns on our investment? Iraqi deaths number, by the most conservative estimates, about 70,000. By more likely estimates, they are multiple hundred thousands—and a story by Tina Susman in this morning's L.A. Times says the Iraqi toll may pass one million. Dead.

The U.N estimates more than 4 million Iraqis have been forced from their homes, some 2 million are now living in other (mostly Arab) countries. We've fueled worldwide recruiting for al-Qaeda.

And the other day, our poster-boy for "success" in Anbar province, Sheikh Sattar Abu Reesh was blown up near his heavily guarded compound.

Krugman, this morning, notes that Bush political crony and member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Ray Hunt has gone and cut a side deal with the Kurds in Iraq for oil. Talk about insider trading—here's a guy in a position to know and he's betting on the failure of Bush's proclaimed policy of seeking a united Iraq. Over the line, Smokey puts in more plainly: "Bush's pals begin the looting of Iraq."

That's just a partial accounting of our return on investment.

But "return on success" is not a bad choice simply for its echo of "return on investment." It's downright monstrous in its own right. It seems to place the burden of coming home squarely on the shoulders of the soldiers and marines in Iraq. Get the job done and you can come home.

As if the job is theirs to do. As if they had the power to deliver success.

Everyone (but Bush and Cheney) agrees that there is no military solution to Iraq. The only way out is diplomatic and political. But there, we got nothin'.

So, Bush is holding our military force hostage pending a "success" that they cannot influence, a success that he has so far refused to pursue with any vigor, commitment, or competence.

Mickeleh's Take: When Bush lists all the awful things that might happen if we pull out, he comes up with a list that's very close to the things that have happened since we invaded. How about replacing "Return on Success" with "Impeach on Failure"?

Caustic Column by Kitman on Couric

Marvin Kitman spews a little well-deserved sarcasm in his take on New York mag's cover story on Katie Couric.

Michael Moore Does Surgery on Wolf Blitzer With No Anesthetic

Here's a bit of joy. Crooks and Liars has video of Michael Moore on the Wolf Blitzer show on CNN. Moore detours the interview away from Wolf's agenda to demand an apology from Blitzer (as well as CNN and the rest of the MSM) for neglecting their job in the run-up to the Iraq war. He reminds Blitzer that Fahrenheit 911 was right and CNN's coverage of the run-up to the war was wrong. He points out that CNN's hostility to Sicko might be motivated by the large infusion of advertising they carry from big pharma.

Moore also has the video on his own site along with a refutation of the Sicko slams that intro'd the interview.

Mickeleh's Take: Nice to know that someone other than Cheney can reduce Wolf Blitzer to a stunned, sputtering blintz. Wouldn't the world get better faster if more guests would follow Moore's lead? Why do guests blandly accept the premises of the interviewer?

(Tags: Sicko, Michael Moore, CNN, Wolf Blitzer, Healthcare, News)

Isikoff Quotes White House Aid: Bush Pardoned Libby to Avoid "Fracture" with Cheney

Michael Isikoff has some insder reporting on how Bush came to commute Libby's sentence. No surprises, but some good detail. The money quote of the report is attributed to one of two unnamed White House "advisers," "I'm not sure Bush had a choice. If he didn't act, it would have caused a fracture with the vice president."

Naturally, Isikoff has to balance the article by throwing up Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich as an equivalent. Howie Kurtz on TV ended his segment on this topic with "enough hypocrisy on both sides."

It's time for the press to cease and desist from using false balance to distort what's happening. Bush clearly used the power of a commutation to stop an investigation into what special prosecutor Fitzgerald J Fitzgerald identified as a "cloud over the Vice President." There is no equivalent to that in Clinton's actions. As Fitzgerald said last February, "We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud's there because the defendant obstructed justice. That cloud is something you just can't pretend isn't there."

During the investigation, Libby was told not to discuss the case with anybody. He almost complied. Who did he discuss it with? Says Fitzgerald: "the only person [Libby] told is the vice president. Think about that." (source: Truthout.)

Mickeleh's Take: The fix is still in. The big lie is still the order of the day. And too much of the media still plays along. Mr. Isikoff, what's the compulsion to stuff every report with "on the other hand..."? Keep the other hand in your pocket. It will improve your objectivity.

And yes. Clinton did some terrible things. So did Bush 41. (He pardoned the Iran-Contragate crew.). If you have to find historical balance, how come you only talk about Clinton? The Bush example is a much closer parallel.

(Tags: Cheney, Libby, Commute, Bush, News, Politics)

Thom Hartmann: An Even Better Rant

A common thread in the rants I linked to below is the common sense view that George W. Bush kept Scooter out of jail to keep him silent and protect the White House.

Thom Hartmann presents a chronology that points within a week or so the moment that the fix went in—the moment when Scooter's defense team suddenly decided to mount no defense—not to call Libby, not to call Cheney, not to do anything but smile and wait it out.

Hartmann begins with the objection raised by George Mason at the time the constitution was written:

The President of the United States has the unrestrained Power of granting Pardons for Treason; which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the Crime, & thereby prevent a Discovery of his own Guilt. –

and makes a very strong case that what Mason feared is exactly what transpired.

Mickeleh's Take: The framers did not leave us without remedy. As James Madison responded to Mason's objection:

[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...

It's up to Congress to act. It's up to us to keep the pressure on Congress.

For your Weekend Reading: 10 Best Rants About Bush-Cheney-Scooter

That dead soul who slinks into a room to the strains of "Hail to the Chief"... that smirk on a stick who tells audiences he's happy to take an incomplete on how history will judge his administration... that self-styled commander guy and decider who, in reality, is content to merely be puppeteered by his vice president... that guy who in refering to himself simply as "43," reminds us continually of his I.Q... has this week provoked new outrage, scorn, and deeply earned contempt for handing a stay-out-of-jail card that George W. Bush handed to his and Cheney's shared operative, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr as well as carefully reasoned and researched explanations of how far Bush has strayed from the guidelines of his own Justice Department.

Here (with a nod to the friends who have emailed me pointers) are ten of the best responses. Actually, it goes to eleven (and beyond).

Mark Morford (S.F. Gate)

...But really, you do have to laugh at the vicious antics this administration, and perhaps Dick Cheney in particular, that most nefarious molester of U.S. law and ignorer of all political integrity and deeply homophobic father of a creepily lesbian daughter and overall gruntingly guff sneerer at all moral principle, masterful mocker of everything you somehow still manage to think, even in your most despondent and ethically disillusioned state, that American politics is somehow supposed to be about....

Juan Cole (Informed Comment)

...Basically, in Bushworld, high government officials are above the law, including all international law and most domestic...

Hunter (Daily Kos)

...With each passing day, Bush becomes a little less presidential, and a little more like Al Capone with an Air Force.

Editorial (NYT)

...Mr. Bush’s assertion that he respected the verdict but considered the sentence excessive only underscored the way this president is tough on crime when it’s committed by common folk. As governor of Texas, he was infamous for joking about the impending execution of Karla Faye Tucker, a killer who became a born-again Christian on death row. As president, he has repeatedly put himself and those on his team, especially Mr. Cheney, above the law.... Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.

Edward Lazarus (FindLaw)

As a procedural matter, the President chose to bypass long-established Department of Justice guidelines for exercising his pardon and commutation power.

These guidelines recommend and anticipate that the Administration will consult with the lead prosecutor on the case, and even with the sentencing judge... that commutations ordinarily should not be given until the individual under consideration has served some period of time in jail, and has either exhausted or given up his or her appeals...

TPM Reader AR (Talking Points Memo)

It seems pretty clear to me that Bush would not be taking nearly as much heat if he'd waited for Libby to do some time in prison. So why the hurry? Was the hurry because Bush wanted to take no chance that Libby would start talking?...

Amy Butler (Senior Pastor, Calvary Baptist Church, Washington, D.C.)

Dear Mr. Bush... Maybe you feel you’re protected enough to behave in whatever manner you want, to leave democracy and the American people in the dust while you keep your friends happy, but I want you to know I’m tired of it all. For the first time in my adult life I am genuinely alarmed about the kind of country I will be handing off to my kids....

Andrew Sullivan (The Atlantic)

... The number of people George W. Bush sent to their deaths without a second's thought is higher than any living governor in the United States. And yet it took a perjury conviction of a white, wealthy, connected apparatchik to awaken the president's sensitivity to injustice...

(For the record, the number Bush sent to their deaths is 152, including 2 women. In the case of one of those women, Karla Faye Tucker, Bush ignored pleas for mercy from the Pope, Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberts. Sullivan cites a devastating 2003 article from by Alan Berlow from The Atlantic, "The Texas Clemency Memos." Read it and weep.)

Editorial (The Montgomery Advertiser)

Don Siegelman must be wondering right about now about the wisdom of being a lifelong Democrat, not a Republican.

The former governor, who last week pleaded with a federal judge that he deserved probation and not prison time, instead was whisked off in shackles immediately after his sentencing to start serving a seven-year sentence, despite the fact that his appeals in the case were still pending...

Dan Froomkin (washingtonpost.com)

... Was there a quid pro quo at work? Was Libby being repaid for falling on his sword and protecting his bosses from further scrutiny? Alternately, was he being repaid for his defense team's abrupt decision in mid-trial not to drag Cheney into court, where he would have faced cross-examination by Fitzgerald?...

(Froomkin cites A Judiciary Committee report prepared after Watergate: which summarizes the framers' intent regarding Impeachment. George Mason, anticipated circumstances much like our own in which a president might use the pardon power to shield actions that he himself initiated, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded, "[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him...")

Keith Olbermann, Special Comment (MSNBC)

[AGAINST FOOTAGE OF BUSH AT GROUND ZERO] ...We enveloped our President in 2001. And those who did not believe he should have been elected—indeed those who did not believe he had been elected—willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers....

(See it on YouTube.)

[late breaking: Thom Hartmann's even better rant]


Bonus section: The Washington Post Series on Cheney by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker:

Part 1: “A Different Understanding with the President”
Part 2: “Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power”
Part 3: “A Strong Push from Backstage”
Part 4: “Leaving No Tracks”

Sidney Blumenthal (Salon)

Mickeleh's Take: The White House is counting on our national ADHD to ensure that we quickly move on to some other shiny thing and lose sight of our outrage. We're not moving on until Bush and Cheney move on. I wonder if moveon.org should consider a name change.

(Tags:Scooter, Scooter Libby, Commute, politics, justice, injustice, Bush, Cheney)

Can You Spare $61 To Help Undo What Bush Has Done?

George W. Bush turns 61 tomorrow. To exploit the occasion, Laura Bush's name has been appended to a GOP fundraising letter inviting folks to give a present that all Republicans can share: a donation to the party.

Alan Bisbort has a better way to celebrate: Donate $61 to someone or some group to help repair even a bit of the damage caused by the Bush administration.

Consider, for example, sending $61 to a friend who needs help with the bills after her recent illness and lack of insurance has wiped out her life's savings (I've got a couple candidates, if you're stumped for anyone who qualifies). Or consider sending $61 to any prisoner jailed for political reasons. (My personal pick is Jeff Luers; for more information, visit http://www.freefreenow.org). Or just send the $61 to the usual suspects who are out there on the front lines, trying to redress global crises and political repression: Greenpeace (www.greenpeace.org), Earth First! (www.earthfirst.org), Wild Aid (www.wildaid.org), Population Connection (www.populationconnection.org), Amnesty International (www.amnesty.org), and Doctors Without Borders (www.doctorswithoutborders.org).

The point is to send the $61 anywhere that offers hope, compassion, healing. That means, literally, anywhere but the GOP!

Bisbort urges that you accompany your gift with a note explaining its significance.

Mickeleh's Take: It's a great idea. Where will you donate your $61?

Surprise: Bush Can Use Language With Great Precision

A running bit on Letterman called "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches," follows the classic comedy three-step of set-up, set-up, punchline.

1. Set-up: FDR, delivering his best remembered line: "The only thing we have to fear is... fear itself"
2. Set-up: JFK, delivering his best remembered line: "Ahsk not what youah country can do faw you. Ahsk what you can do faw yoah country"
3. Punchline: GWB, fumfering and stammering, eyes darting, shoulders hunched

It's a sure-fire laugh. But it's Bush and team that get the last laugh. When the chips are down, Bush says neither more nor less than he means.

When Plame's name was first leaked, Bush said: "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.'' After a jury said Libby violated the law, Bush took very good care of him. (With an implication of even better care to come.)

When Gonzales play-acted advanced Alzheimer's in front of the U.S. Senate, Bush said Gonzales "answered every answer he could possibly answer, honestly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do his job.” Translation: Gonzales answered only the questions that could be answered without implicating Rove, Cheney, or me. His ability to stonewall increased my confidence that he could do his job, which is to shield the rest of us." He went on to say, "Some senators didn’t like his explanation, but he answered as honestly as he could."

Mickeleh's Take: If a prisoner is stabbed in a fight, and he tells the authorities that he must have slipped and fallen on the shiv, he gains status in the yard for having "held his mud." Libby and Gonzales both held their mud. They'll be taken care of.

(Tags:Bush, Libby, Commute, Gonzales)

When in the Course of Human Events...

On this fourth of July, please take a step to help put an end to the injustice of King George. I'm so appalled at the distance between the ideals under which this country was founded and the conduct of its current administration. Kohut says that in the Pew surveys, the single word that respondents use to describe Bush is "incompetent."

But incompetence is the least of it. IMHO, incompetence is a smokescreen for a very effective dismantling of the rule of law in this country.

In commuting Libby's sentence, Bush reaffirms that he believes that the Cheney-Bush administration is above the law.

In commuting Libby's sentence, Bush reveals that his insistence on on strict, mandatory sentencing guidelines does not apply to him or his cronies.

In commuting Libby's sentence, Bush tramples on the myth of fair, impartial justice.

In commuting Libby's sentence, Bush endorses obstruction of justice as a legitimate tool of statecraft to be applied when convenient.

Clemency has no part in Bush's calculation. He's simply reinforcing the stonewall that has protected Cheney, Rove, and ultimately himself.

Commuting Libby's sentence isn't about loyalty to Libby any more than endorsing Gonzales is about loyalty to Gonzales. In both cases, Bush is working to keep up the firewall that keeps real justice at bay.

Congress can leap that firewall with subpoenas backed by the force of impeachment. Will the Senate convict? unlikely. But the impeachment and investigation can move forwared and uncover the truth.

Please take an action to resist. Call the White House. Call your congressional reps. Sign this moveon.org petition to subpoena Cheney and, if he resists, impeach him:

"Congress must force Vice President Cheney to respond to its subpoenas. If he continues to obstruct justice and disregard the rule of law, Congress has no choice but to begin impeachment proceedings against him."

http://pol.moveon.org/subpoena/

Mickeleh's take: ... it becomes necessary.

(Tags:Bush, Cheney, Scooter, Libby, Commute, Commutation, moveon.org, petition, impeach, subpeona)

All of MSNBC is off my DVR for two months

Yesterday Hardball books Coulter. (see my post yesterday). That earns me a one-month respite from the newscaster known to the blogosphere as Tweety.

Today, the entire network turns into all-Coulter, all-the-time as everyone needs to follow up on the Elizabeth Edwards phone call to Ann. That earns me a two-month respite from all MSNBC programming.

And, of course, the manufactured event takes the lead position on their website.

So, no links for them.

Mickeleh's Take: If Olbermann does something wonderful, I'm sure I'll read about it somewhere.

Hardball is off My DVR for a Month

Chris Matthews has booked Ann Coulter for his show today. Whenever that happens, I drop him from my DVR lineup for a month.

Mickeleh's Take: Hey, Chris, don't you know that Cable news builds its ratings on missing blond women?

Iraq Prognosis: Juan Cole Posts a Vet's List

The Commander Guy and his cheering section regularly regale us with the terrible consequences of leaving Iraq. By contrast, they expect positive outcomes if we stay. Considering the intentions and resources of the factions now in play, it might be prudent to remember what Rummy told us back in the days of looting accomplished: "Stuff happens."

Juan Cole posted a grim list of stuff that may well happen in the coming months provided to him by someone identified only as "a canny vet."

Mickeleh's Take: Read the list. Judge for yourself whether these outcomes seem more or less likely than those predicted by the Bushies

Jon Stewart & McCain; Stewart's Best Republican Interview Ever

Time was that I cringed whenever Jon Stewart booked a right-winger for an interview. To his credit, Jon works hard to keep his interviews civil and congenial. In the past, however, that meant throwing too many polite, soft pitches and letting the right-winger control the segment.

That was then. This is now. Stewart has a found a voice that remains civil and congenial, but now adds tough and challenging. He follows up. He follows through. He doesn't take crap, pap, or talking points. And he does it all with humor. It's masterful.

As for McCain, like Uncle Junior on the latest episode of the Sopranos, the Senator managed to come out of his recent fog and lethargy to show us flashes of the sharp and feisty ad libber he used to be. He still can't get anything past Stewart.

Watch this through to the end. It has a wow finish.



Mickelehs' Take: The good news is that both men were at the top of their games. The better news is that Stewart still decked the old man. Civilly and Congenially.

(Tags: John McCain, John Stewart, McCain, Daily Show, Campaign, Iraq, War, Iraq War, Politics)

Did Bush Okay Firing Iglesias? (Albuquerque Journal)

In October, the Justice Department had a list of U.S. Attorneys to fire. David Iglesias was not on the list. The November 15th version of that list included Iglesias. How'd that happen?

Josh Marshall points to a Mike Gallagher article in this morning's Albuquerque Journal that indicates Bush personally okayed the firing of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. Iglesias, you remember, was the one who testified about the phone call he had from Sen. Pete Domenici asking whether he'd be filing an indictment of New Mexico's Democratic Attorney General before the election:

“I gave an answer to the effect of I didn't think so.

“He said, ‘I’m very sorry to hear that,’ and the line went dead, the telephone line went dead. I thought to myself, did he just hang up on me?

“He didn't call back; I didn't call back. I had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that something bad had happened, and within six weeks I got a call from Mike Battle saying that it was time for me to move on.”

What does Gallagher add to the story? Two phone calls: Domenici called Rove after the election and asked him to take the firing request directly to Bush. Subsequently, Bush and Domenici had a direct conversation on the subject.

Mickeleh's Take: How does Gallagher know this? Looks like someone in the senator's office is talking. "The Journal confirmed the sequence of events through a variety of sources familiar with the firing of Iglesias, including sources close to Domenici. The senator's office declined comment." I wonder if this will come up during Tuesday's Gonazles testimony.

(Tags: Bush, Rove, Gonzalez, Domenici, Attorneys, Iglesias)

Should Dems Boycott Fox News?

Twice now, the Democrats have managed to avoid airing their presidential nominating debates on Fox "News", on the grounds that Fox is little more than a propaganda arm of the Republican right disguised as a news network.

The discussion now, raised by John Aravosis after Obama sat for an Fox "News" interview, is whether prominent Democrats should escalate to giving Fox a total and global cold shoulder. No interviews, no nothin.

Mickeleh's Take: Isn't this the Bush position with regard to talking to Syria? Hmmm

(Tags: Fox, Fox News, Democrats, Politics, Bias)

Why the Pelosi Trip is Getting So Much Negative Press

Devilstower on Kos finds the positive in all of the negative coverage that MSM is lavishing on Pelosi's visit to Syria. (Spoiler: it's a sign that the old applause lines aren't working anymore.)

Mickeleh's Take: Boy are they not working. How not working are they? Bush doing a medley of his greatest hits in front of the usual military audience got nothin' but crickets. Not one interruption for applause.

Q1 Fundraising: Hillary Loses Her Strongest Asset

With the reporting of Q1 fundraising in the race for the presidential nomination, Sen. Hilary Clinton lost her strongest asset: the aura of inevitability. Clinton's campaign has been running on two levels. Up top is a long list of positions, policies, events, experience, networks (hers and his), and, of course, her gender. Beneath it all was one simple, intimidating message: Hilary is unstoppable, so you're better off betting with her than against her. It's that subtextual message that's helped drive her numbers--both polling and fund-raising. She was IBM of the 60's--risky to bet agains

Obama brought excitement, charisma, youth but eventually, he'd be steamrollered by the inevitable Clinton momentum.

That story ended at the midnight boundary between March 31st and April 1st when Q1 fundraising came to an end.

Clinton's campaign announced a very impressive number: $26 million. Far more than anyone had ever raised this early in any presidential campaign.

This morning Obama's campaign announced numbers that trashed Clinton's. As a total, he announced $25 million, which on the face of it is close enough to derail the Clinton engine of inevitability. But behind those numbers, he trounced Clinton. Her money came from 50,000 donors. His money came from 100,000. Oops.

But wait, there's more: Clinton hasn't announced how much of the $26 million is earmarked for the primary, vs the general election, but it's likely that she called on her biggest donors to give to both campaigns so as to front-load her totals and underscore the "can't lose" message. Obama has $23.5 million for the primary, which observers suspect is far more than Clinton.

But wait there's more: If Clinton's donors have maxed out their legal contributions ($2300 for the primary and another $2300 for the general), she won't be able to call on them for Q2. Obama has lots of headroom among his current donor pool and growing momentum to pull in new donors -- including, some of Clinton's, who might be thinking about hedging their bets.

The Phil de Vellis video mashup of Hillary and 1984 was not only resonant, but prophetic. Clinton is still a formidable competitor in this race with a strong network, but she's no longer the inevitable winner. That changes the narrative profoundly.

Mickeleh's Take: Now playing at my inner cineplex: Dialog from Lawrence of Arabia.

LAWRENCE:
Nothing is written.

(Tags: Campaign, Hillary, Clinton, Obama, Q1, Democrats)

It's the Broadcasters Who Bought and Paid for That "Independent" Study Opposing XM-Sirius Merger

The headlines all talk about an independent analysis by the respected and influential Carmel Group making a strong case against the proposed merger of XM and Sirius. It's the body copy that tells you who commissioned and paid for this "independent" study: the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters)--you know, terrestrial radio.

I wonder what that contract looked like? What did the folks from the NAB ask for? "Hey, Carmel Group, could you figure out if this merger is a good idea or not? Let us know either way." Hmmm. You don't suppose there was any wink-wink, nudge-nudge about what that report was supposed to "discover," do you?

Mickeleh's Take: I'm not talking about whether the merger is a good or bad idea--or neutral. I'm questioning the coverage. Shouldn't the headlines say "NAB's Case Against Satellite Butressed By A Commissioned Study?" Should the lede be "The National Association of Broadcasters paid the Carmel Group to..." Oh, wait. That's the press, I'm talking about. AKA, the steno pool.

More on Techmeme

(Tags: Satellite Radio, XM, Sirius, NAB, National Association of Broadcasters)

Dave Winer: The 10-year Anniversary That Almost Wasn't

Oops. This post was meant for my other blog, Mickeleh's Take.

Last year, April Fool's day fell on March 13. On that day, Dave Winer posted on why he would stop blogging. Thank goodness he thought better of that and Scripting News persists. Yesterday, it passed its tenth anniversary. Mazel Tov.

Mickeleh's Take: Dave earned my eternal gratitude for writing Think Tank and More. He could have stopped there. But he didn't and he still hasn't. Consider that for most of his career he's worked as an individual or as leader of very small companies, yet he has done more to shape what I and many others do on the net on a daily basis than most of the giants. Thank you for being a hero not only to me, but to scads of my other heroes. Keep the fires lit. And keep holding everyone's feet to them.

(Tags: Winer, Dave Winer, scripting.com, Scripting News, Anniversary, Blogging)

Our Side Gets Great Words Too: "Bridge to Nowhere"

The right does not have a monopoly on powerful phrase-making. Bill Adair in the St. Petersburg Times tells the story behind three little words that helped the Dems retake congress, "Bridge to Nowhere." Thank you to Keith Ashdown of CREW who coined the phrase. Got any more where that came from?

Mickeleh's Take: George Lakoff, Jeffrey Feldman, and Geoffrey Nunberg, your lessons are sinking in.

John McCain's Having a Very Bad, Bad Year

McCain Caught Napping at State of the Union

We knew it was over for McCain on the night of the State of the Union. The camera cut away to this shot of him nodding off. But he chose to play out the charade of his quest for the presidency with one fiasco after another. He flubbed his Meet the Press shot and his Letterman shot and and and.

The latest McCain fiasco came when he set about to prove his assertion last week that--thanks to the Bush-McCain winning strategies--there are now neighborhoods in Baghdad where it's safe to stroll. And so he flew over to stroll, safely (accompanied by 100 U.S. soldiers on the ground with five helicopters overhead and wearing a bullet-proof vest over his shirt. Think Progress has the video.

More reality (from Newsweek): "Agence France Presse on Sunday quoted an Iraqi official who reported a 15 percent increase in violence across Iraq in March. According to their tally, 2,078 civilians, cops and soldiers were killed last month, 272 more fatalities than in February." Juan Cole has more of the grim details and a well-grounded assessment of McCain's descent from straight shooter to "playing illusionist with the lives of our troops."

Mickeleh's Take: John, rent Requiem for a Heavyweight.

What Elizabeth Edwards Said

I didn't watch Sixty Minutes last night. I'd like to say there was some principle to that. (Someone told me she wasn't watching because she can't stand Katie Couric. Not that it would have mattered to CBS; my friend is in the wrong demo. But my reason was that I was having too much fun with my Apple TV. There I've said it.)

But here's what Elizabeth Edwards said:

"You know, you really have two choices here. I mean, either you push forward with the things that you were doing yesterday or you start dying. That seems to be your only two choices. If I had given up everything that my life was about – first of all, I'd let cancer win before it needed to. You know, maybe eventually it will win. But I'd let it win before I needed to.

And I'd just basically start dying. I don't want to do that. I want to live. And I want to do the work that I want next year to look like last year and... and the year after that and the year after that. And the only way to do that is to say I'm going to keep on with my life."

Mickeleh's Take: I'm sorry for the circumstance that compels Elizabeth Edwards to draw so soon on her enormous courage, strength, and wisdom. But it's a comfort to know that she has all three in such abundance. I've heard commentators throw the phrase "teaching moment" a lot since we learned of the return of her cancer. The phrase sounds awfully glib and pre-packaged. But Elizabeth Edwards taught me something in those remarks. I hope I can remember them in case of emergency.

By the way, for a perspective on Katie Couric from someone who did watch, see Taylor Marsh at HuffPo.

(Tag: Elizabeth Edwards)

Attorneygate: A Slo-mo Saturday Night Massacre

When the Attorneygate story first broke, it looked to me like a slow-mo replay of a key event in the downfall of Richard Nixon, the "Saturday Night Massacre" as skewered by Herblock's cartoon with a one-word caption: "Mugging." (The cufflinks bear the initials, R.N.)

With Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox closing in, Nixon issued a simple order to his attorney general: fire Cox.

The A.G., Elliot Richardson, refused and resigned. Richardson's deputy, William Ruckelshaus did likewise.

At that point, the Solicitor General became acting Attorney General. And he carried out the order.

Who was that guy? Robert Bork, whose name became a verb when his nomination to the Supreme Court (by Reagan in 1987) was successfully challenged by the Senate.

See also: Oliver Willis: Somewhere, Richard Nixon is Thanking Bush for Making Him Look Good.

Times Scoop: White House vs Gonzales. It's starting

The Bush gang is not the the prime demographic for riding the bus. But they're starting to learn the routes. "Thrown under the bus" is fast becoming the operant phrase of the great unraveling. On Monday, the embattled A.G. (same initials for office and office-holder) tossed his own flunky, D. Kyle Sampson, under the bus for failing to make a clean getaway after replacing eight U.S. prosecutors with Rovian flunkies. "Mistakes were made here" said the A.G. without specifiying what and by whom.

According to Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Jeff Stolberg in the NY Times, some unnamed Republican insider confided, "“I really think there’s a serious estrangement between the White House and Alberto now."

From the White House perspective, there's no mistake in the firings.

• Perfectly OK to fire Carol C. Lam who successfully prosecuted Randy Cunningham and was, surely on the trail of even more Republican malfeasance.
• Perfectly OK to can Bud Cummings to make room for the Rove protege who managed the nomination of John Roberts for Chief Justice.
• Perfectly OK to can David Iglesias who resisted pressure from Sen. Pete Domenici to embarrass the Democrats before the election.
• Perfectly OK to can John McKay who wouldn't bow to pressure from a Republican operative to challenge the squeaker election of Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire with allegations of voter fraud. None of those were mistakes.

So what were the mistakes? Getting caught at it. As conveyed to the Times' reporters by another unnamed Republican: “I think Rove and Bolten believe there is the potential for erosion of the president’s credibility on this issue.”

Mickeleh's Take: What Credibility?

More on memeorandum.com

(Tags: politics, prosecutors, Bush, Rove, Gonzales, Attorney General)

Administration Warns Scientists on Mentioning Polar Bears

For a giant carnivore, polar bears are awfully cute—cute enough to help sell Coke as a secular second banana to Santa. They're also cute enough to provide one of the most heartbreaking icons of the devastation of global warming—swimming to exhaustion and death as the distances between safe, solid patches of arctic ice continue to grow.

The plight of the exhausted polar bear swimming to death packs an emotional wallop that, weirdly, hits folks harder than the disruptions to the economic and cultural life of humans, or the starving of reindeer. There's a thesis in there -- or a fine column by a writer with more time and talent than I can bring to the issue.

Oh yes, and the plight of the polar bear is also the subject of a suit by environmental groups seeking to have it listed as an endangered species.

So, naturally, the Bush administration is finally doing something about global warming: The Fish and Wildlife Service is telling scientists not to mention the polar bears. According to Andrew C. Revkin in NYT, if the polar bears are officially listed as endangered it might force action on restricting greenhouse gases.

Americablog has the memo.

“Please be advised that all foreign travel requests (SF 1175 requests) and any future travel requests involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice and/or polar bears will also require a memorandum from the regional director to the director indicating who’ll be the official spokesman on the trip and the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears.”

More on memeorandum.com

Mickeleh's Take: It serves those ungodly polar bears right for letting Coke recruit them into the secular war on Christmas.

(Tags: climate change, polar bears, propaganda, War on Christmas)

NYT: McCain, Giuliani, Romney condemn Coulter's Remarks

Adam Nagourney reports that three of the Republican candidates for the presidential nomination have put some distance between themselves and the remarks made by Coulter at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

The Edwards campaign is asking supporters to sending him "Coulter Cash." Their goal: raising $100,000.

McCain (through a spokesperson): "... wildly inappropriate..."
Giuiliani: "... "completely inappropriate... "
Romney (through a spokesperson): "... an offensive remark..."

Even more encouraging, many conservative voices at redstate.com are chiming in to condemn the remarks. Most of them are pragmatic condemnations ("this isn't helping the cause") rather than moral outrage. But it's a start.

Mickeleh's Take: Coulter has been skating on thin ice for years. It's time she fell through.

Coulter Pulls Yucks from CPAC by Calling Edwards a "http://www2.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifFaggot"

It's called finding the level of the room. A weak comic working bluer and bluer until finally the laughs start coming. Ann Coulter found the level of the Conservative Political Action Conference with this line:

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”

Before Coulter took the podium Mitt Romney, whose strongest qualification is a square chin that makes Chris Matthews weak in the knees, said this:

“I am happy to hear that after you hear from me, you will hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yeah!”

Video of both is up on Think Progress.

That Coulter makes a living from unholy hate speech, is an overplayed dog-bites-man bit of non news. What's essential to take from this event is that she makes said living from a depraved audience that applauds, approves, and draws energy from her antics.

Mickeleh's Take: That Coulter would extend her string of hate-speech for laughs is to be expected. That the conservative base eats it up is to be remembered. That Romney is pandering to this crowd is to no avail. That C-SPAN broadcast this and that Memeorandumis abuzz with it is to flip on the kitchen lights see see the cockroach infestation in our home.

Dick Cheney Brings Us "An Inadvertent Truth"

Here in the last throes of the Cheney vice presidency we're getting some unexpected treats:

First, a game of good-cop-bad-cop where Cheney plays good cop and casts the Democrats as bad cop. Yes, the Democrats, relentlessly ridiculed as softies by Cheney, Rove, and the Wurlitzer, are now cast as the tough cops.

"Cheney's message to military ruler Pervez Musharraf: Bush and I may still love you guys, but those uptight Democrats in Congress are going to kick your ass unless you get serious about stopping Al Qaeda."

Second, an official White House news release in which an unnamed "senior administration official" pierces his own veil of secrecy by speaking in the first person:

"I've seen some press reporting says, 'Cheney went in to beat up on them, threaten them.' That's not the way I work."

And now, a new wrinkle on justifying the war in Iraq. A defense of the war crowned with a nugget of actual, if inadvertent, truth. Tim Grieve plucked this gem out of Cheney's address to CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee):

"In these circumstances, it's worth reminding ourselves that, like it or not, the enemy we face in the war on terror has made Iraq the primary front in that war. To use a popular phrase, this is an 'inconvenient truth.'"

Droll as ever, that Cheney. Cheney new line is a twist on an old favorite: We're fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in Afghanistan. But the inadvertant truth of Cheney's remark is this: The enemy of our success in the war on terror is an ideologically blinded administration that has poured resources into making Iraq a distracting front in that war, while allowing the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regroup, train, and prepare their surge in Afghanistan.

Before the towers fell, Bush was handed the famed daily brief, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." He ignored it. Fast forward to now: I wonder what bin Laden is determined to do these days. According Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA bin Laden unit (1993-1996), "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US with Nuclear Weapon." Alternet has video of Schuer's interview with Keith Olbermann.

Mickeleh's Take: The direct cost of the Iraq war in lives, dollars, and honor is enormous. The opportunity cost may be even higher.