May 7-8, 2008
May 07 01:30 Democrats on Energy: Grab Your Wallets May 07 02:37 AP's Bias Showing May 07 14:38 Blogger Conference Call Highlights May 08 03:12 Don't Send a Messiah to do a Man's Job May 08 03:48 The Blur Makes History May 08 11:25 Michelle Obama Earns Sourpuss of the Campaign Award May 08 19:02 Hillary Isn't Going Quietly (And She Shouldn't)
Democrats on Energy: Grab Your Wallets
Ever since Democrats took control of Congreses, energy prices have spiked. I'm not implying that they're the sole reason for the spike but I can make a pretty strong argument that they haven't helped solve the problem, either. I'll let David Anderson make that case by simply quoting from this article . Here's the premise for his argument:
"The price keeps changing but not the reasons for the rally," said Adam Sieminski, Deutsche Bank's chief energy economist, in Washington. "Until the fundamental supply and demand levers start to shift and the psychology changes we will continue to see new records."We aren't doing anything to increase production. In fact, Democrats are saying no to increasing production. Their entire 'energy plan' is to increase CAFE standards (conservation) and develop alternative energies. That won't cut it. Limiting our options is the energy equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Let's be clear about this. I don't have a problem with conservation measures and I don't have a problem creating alternative energies. What I have a problem with is sticking with an either/or plan that doesn't change the supply/demand ratio. I've always been a proponent of an 'all of the above' approach. We must build more refineries. We must drill in ANWR and off the Gulf Coast off the California coast. We must make greater utilization of clean coal and nuclear technologies. We must stop planning on grain-based ethanol as an alternative energy because it's disrupting world food supplies, which, in turn, is driving up food prices.
The Democrats' so-called energy bill does nothing on any of those fronts. It doesn't increase refinery capacity. It doesn't incent investors to build nuclear or clean coal power plants.
Simply put, we need to grow our way out of this situation. We can't dig ourselves out of this situation just with conservation.
Posted Wednesday, May 7, 2008 1:30 AM
No comments.
AP's Bias Showing
Tuesday afternoon, John McCain took Barack Obama to task on the subject of judges. Libby Quaid's AP article showed how biased they are. Here's where her bias really showed:
McCain, the eventual GOP nominee, promised to appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, saying they would interpret the law strictly to curb the scope of their rulings. While McCain didn't mention abortion, the far right understands that such nominees would be likely to limit or perhaps overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.It's interesting that Ms. Quaid immediately assumed that conservatives, aka "the far right", only want strict constructionist justices like Alito and Roberts so we can finally get rid of Roe v. Wade. I'd love hearing Ms. Quaid explain why someone with a pro choice record like Rudy Giuliani wants strict constructionist judges, too.
McCain's speech certainly gained him support amongst social conservatives, especially considering how he tied into Obama:
"Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done," McCain said. "But...he went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee."This is smart politics for Sen. McCain because he's higlighting the fact that Sen. Obama has talked the talk but that he hasn't walked the walk of being a postpartisan.
Obama's response won't win him many votes with independants:
In response, Obama's campaign said McCain would pick judges who would threaten abortion rights as well as McCain's own campaign finance reform bill.Obama's spokesman sounds like every other liberal. Sen. Obama isn't a new of Democrat. He's just another liberal who thinks that judges should be the second legislative branch, specializing in social policy. Here's another glimpse into Ms. Quaid's extreme bias:
"What's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said.
The Arizona senator said his role models interpret the law strictly, paying attention to what lawmakers intended, as opposed to "activist" judges who, by striking down statutes or court decisions, make laws rather than interpret them. "Activist" is a term conservatives use pejoratively to criticize liberal justices.What's galling is that liberals like Ms. Quaid make apparent is their utter lack of respect for the Constitution. The principles outlined in the Constitution are the greatest set of governing principles ever written. That's of little consequence to extremists like Ms. Quaid. Here's how Ms. Quaid attempts to spin Kelo v. New London:
In the private property case McCain mentioned, the Supreme Court chose to defer to local officials rather than impose their own will from afar. Justice John Paul Stevens, in his majority opinion, wrote of the court's "long-standing policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field."That isn't what the liberals on the court did. What they did was rewrite settled law. They chose to expand a state's or a city's powers well beyond the Founding Fathers' intent. They essentially said that property rights don't exist anymore.
In a post-Kelo world, all that's required is for a developer to tell a unit of government that they have plans for a new development that'll bring in lots of new tax revenue to that government's coffers. That's hardly what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
I recall seeing a segment on Hannity and Colmes right after the Kelo ruling in which a developer bought land in northern California and was going to develop it. The city used Kelo to take the property away from that developer. The city then sold it to another developer. I don't think it's coincidence that that developer was one of the mayor's cronies.
All things considered, I'd bet that more people prefer strict constructionist judges than activist justices. That's because they'd rather have legislators legislating instead of having unaccountable justices writing laws.
Let's hope that Sen. McCain keeps pushing this issue. It's one of the best arguments for electing John McCain.
As for the AP, they're making themselves irrelevant because their bias is an affront to thoughtful people.
Posted Wednesday, May 7, 2008 2:43 AM
Comment 1 by Phidippides at 07-May-08 09:48 PM
Looks like Libby Quaid was the same reporter who brought us that "McCain temper" piece a few months back. We may be able to observe a pattern here...
As for "activist judges", I'm not sure there's a clear understanding of what this means on either side of the aisle. Any judge who interprets the law and gives a ruling is "making" law in one sense or another; that's why we call it "case law". What these "activist judges" do is appeal to sources they ought not appeal to in deciding a case. Examples of these sources might be polls, the number of states that have adopted X way of doing something, laws of other nations, etc. In effect they reduce the law to a kind popularity contest or means by which the personal values of the judge become the rule for millions of American citizens.
Blogger Conference Call Highlights
Last night, I joined several of my MOB friends for a blogger conference call with Norm Coleman. Norm was on his A game last night. Sen. Coleman started the call with a brief monologue about Al Franken's tax troubles. Sen. Coleman said that it wasn't that Franken owed lots of money in taxes--he doesn't--it's that it showed that he isn't willing to take responsibility when something goes wrong. I agree.
Franken has offered a litany of 'the dog ate my homework' type of excuses since Michael exposed him. Sen. Coleman said that Minnesotans have a simple view on this issue: If you owe taxes, you pay them and you don't make excuses.
Sen. Coleman also spoke briefly about a deal signed by outgoing Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Bush . If President Bush signs it and sends it to Congress, it will go into effect 90 days after Congress receives it unless Congress votes it down. Sen. Coleman is opposing the deal. He said that we need to go back to the Russians and demand that they cease helping the Iranians get a nuclear capability before going forward with this deal.
Frankly, that's another example of why Sen. Coleman is superior to Franken. Could you picture Al Franken figuring this out, much less opposing the deal? I can't. I also can't picture Franken working across the aisle, which is what Sen. Coleman is doing. In fact, Sen. Coleman's teamed with Evan Bayh, one of the few Democrats that takes national security seriously.
One thing that appealed to last night's bloggers was Sen. Coleman saying that he really appreciated the opportunity to talk with bloggers because they give him an opportunity to talk about issues on an in-depth level, something he says doesn't happen with the MSM. One of the things Sen. Coleman spoke in-depth about last night was energy policy, specifically ethanol and clean coal technology.
Sen. Coleman said that we need to move away from grain-based ethanol and start emphasizing cellulosic ethanol production. Sen. Coleman says that it's important to start building nuclear power plants, to develop fuels based on clean coal technology and to drill off our coasts.
Finally, Sen. Coleman is working diligently on the mortgage crisis. He's opposed to Sen. Durbin's "cramdown" approach. Instead, he favors making available fixed rate mortgage money, which the homeowner would have to repay. It would just eliminate the exhorbitant payments they're currently getting buried by.
He isn't in favor of bailing out speculators who simply got stuck while trying to make money on the housing market. I agree with that. People that make commitments while trying to make money know that there's risks involved. If they get hung out to dry, that's part of the inherent risk involved in speculating.
All in all, it was an informative, impressive conversation on some important issues. I'll just speak for myself in saying that I look forward to these conversations because Sen. Coleman is an impressive legislator. We're fortunate to have him representing us.
Posted Wednesday, May 7, 2008 4:11 PM
Comment 1 by TwoPuttTommy at 08-May-08 12:20 PM
"Sen. Coleman said that it wasn't that Franken owed lots of money in taxes; he doesn't; it's that it showed that he isn't willing to take responsibility when something goes wrong. I agree."
So, how do you feel about Ron Carey's blame everyone but himself for the MN GOP's financial paperwork problems?
Or, are you going to tell me "That's different."
Somehow, I don't think "That's different" is going to play in greater Minnesota...
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 08-May-08 01:36 PM
I haven't looked into the story yet so I can't say anything specific. (I prefer dealing with verifiable facts.)
If mistakes were made at RPM headquarters, then I'd expect Mr. Carey to take full responsibility for the mistakes.
You're right that "That's different" won't cut it as an explanation, whether it's outstate Minnesota or the Metro.
Comment 3 by TwoPuttTommy at 09-May-08 09:27 AM
Gary, check with Joe Repya about Ron's "acceptance of responsibility".....
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 09-May-08 09:46 AM
I'll do my own research, thank you. I hope that you see I don't play favorites when corruption is allegedly involved.
Comment 5 by Eva Young at 10-May-08 06:01 PM
Gary, Lady Logician - a Republican Activist isn't happy about this issue. It's certainly a legitimate question to ask Norm whether he believes the same about the State Party putting 401K withholding into the 401K accounts of their employees, rather than using that money as temporary slush fund. That was what the memo of Dwight Toskinen, a former long term RPM employee, discussed.
When the Strib initially published an article about the state party finances close to the party chair election, Carey's reaction was "liberal media". That is an ad hominem attack rather than addressing the legitimate questions by the Strib.
From the Lady Logician:
http://www.ladieslogic.com/2008/05/glass-houses.html
Many party activists, myself included, have had problems with Chairman Carey, especially when it comes to things like party messege and credibility in the face of leadership "issues". Some expressed their frustrations in public forums, I did not. Oh I voiced my concerns. When he was running for re-election last June, Chairman Carey called me and when we finished over an hour later I had gotten the last of my concerns out. I know that I was not the only one to voice concerns to the Chairman....concerns that he said he would address and for the large part has not.
Now I fully comprehend that Chairman Carey is not running for Senate and AL Franken is, however the average voter is not going to make that distinction. The average voter is going to see these stories and they are going to say that the MNGOP is just as guilty as Franken...thus negating any messege inroads we activists might have made!
The ball is in Carey's court. If he were smart, he would release the audit PUBLICALLY and immediately and he would drop the tax issue and move on to talking about why voters need to vote for Norm Coleman (as opposed to against Al Franken). Senator Coleman has a record that Republicans can be proud of...a record that has frustrated Conservatives for sure, but for the large part has been a good representation of ALL MINNESOTANS. Rather than leaving that important story just to bloggers (like Gary Gross and myself) he needs to be talking about that and leaving the attack pieces to the blogosphere - where it can be done without damaging the candidate or the party. Right now, Chairman Carey, your actions are damaging the entire Republican ticket! For the Senator's sake, until you get the MNGOP's house in order, please stop trying to help us.
Don't Send a Messiah to do a Man's Job
People have been talking about Sen. Obama's wrapping up the Democratic nomination all day. That's fair enough. That's news. With his virtual clinching of the nomination, talk about his ties to Jeremiah Wright have temporarily subsided. The good news for Republicans is that Sen. Obama hasn't left us with a shortage of things to ridicule him about. Let's consider what he said in his victory speech Tuesday night:
The other side can label and name-call all they want, but I trust the American people to recognize that it is not surrender to end the war in Iraq so that we can rebuild our military and go after Al Qaida's leaders.What on God's green earth is Sen. Obama yapping about? When did Truman and FDR meet with Hitler or Tojo? I've heard about revisionist history before but this is ridiculous.
I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.
Only a blithering idiot would try justifying meeting with Ahmedinejad by saying that FDR met with that era's equivalent of Ahmedinejad. Someone that's either that intellectually dishonest or that intellectually vacant isn't qualified to be the leader of the free world.
I'd further say that anyone who thinks that reneging on our commitments to our Iraqi allies is smart policy, especially after they've met 12 of the 18 benchmarks, isn't qualified to be the next commander-in-chief. In fact, I'd say he sounds like the next Jimmy Carter. Thanks to recorded history, we can state with total confidence that Carter's administration was a disaster on foreign policy.
Frankly, I hope that John McCain picks fights with Sen. Obama on foreign policy. It's the onl area where the starkest contrast exists. If I was John McCain's advisor, I'd tell him to draw comparisons between Sen. Obama's policy of talking with Ahmedinejad and Carter's calling Ayatollah Khomeini a fellow man of faith . I'd point out that Obama's policy of talking to genocidal monsters like Ahmedinejad is proof of Obama's pacifism. I'd further point out that Obama's pacifism is just as dangerous now as Jimmy Carter's pacifism was dangerous in 1979-80.
I'd also tell McCain to pound the issue of judicial nominations, especially after Obama's statement yesterday :
In response, Obama's campaign said McCain would pick judges who would threaten abortion rights as well as McCain's own campaign finance reform bill.Someone should tell Vietor's boss that appellate court judges are supposed to rule on the constitutionality of cases, not act as an unaccountable superlegislature. If a group of people need protecting, then it's Congress' job to craft legislation that protects people.
"What's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said.
Finally, I'd make sure that people knew how radical Barack Obama's views are. I'd start by asking him if appellate court judges have a greater responsibility to the Constitution than to any person. I'd ask if our commander-in-chief had a greater responsibility to keeping America safe or in making America popular in the eyes of the world.
The truth is that Barack Obama isn't qualified to be president. His foreign policy is dangerous, which we can't afford in these troubled times.
Posted Thursday, May 8, 2008 3:13 AM
Comment 1 by skep41 at 08-May-08 09:14 AM
Yes,FDR talked to our enemies. He sent a ludicrous letter to Hitler asking him to guarantee the neutrality of a list of small nations which Hitler read to a wildly laughing Reichstag. In the days preceding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor he refused to put our military on alert and sent a pleading telegram to Hirohito requesting talks. His most famous moment of comity was Yalta, where, advised by Stalinist agent Alger Hiss, he gave Stalin a completely free hand to subjugate Eastern Europe. Talking with your enemies sure is great!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 08-May-08 11:10 AM
Sending a letter isn't the same as meeting face-to-face with Hitler.
Obama said that he'd meet face-to-face with Ahmadinejad, this century's Hitler.
The Blur Makes History
Watching last night's Twins game was as fun as fun gets for a Twins fan. Livan Hernandez pitched a masterful complete game. To say that he wasn't the best player on the field, though, is understatement.
If someone wanted to nominate Nick Punto, who set a personal best with a 5 RBI night, as the best player last night, most nights they'd have a strong argument.
Not last night.
Carlos Gomez, affectionately nicknamed Go-Go by his teammates, simply took the game over, starting with his opening at-bat. That's because young Mr. Gomez became the first Twins hitter to hit for the cycle since Kirby Puckett turned the trick on August 1, 1986.
Critics will say that he's erratic, which I agree with...for now. He led off the game with a homerun on Mark Buehrle's third pitch. Gomez didn't break out a homerun trot reminiscent of Justin Morneau or Michael Cuddyer. His trip around the bases was more of a blur than anything.
The blur was back in his third at-bat, a line drive triple into the right certfield gap. That was followed by a double which White Sox centerfielder Nick Swisher misplayed, allowing Gomez to get to third standing up. Gomez's miraculous night at the park was capped off when he pounded one into the dirt. Sox reliever Ehren Wassermann got a glove on it but couldn't field it cleanly. Shortstop Alexei Ramirez barehanded the ball and threw to first just missing getting the out at first.
Wednesday night should get Twins' opponents worried because Gomez is still learning the game. He's still raw. He'll have a number of ups and downs this season. When he gets everything figured out, though, he'll be a dominant offensive force. He has more range than Torii Hunter ever had. Gomez's arm isn't as accurate as Torii's but it's a mistake to think you're gonna run on him.
One other think about that game in 1986: Bert Blyleven struck out 15 Athletics that night, including his 3,000th career strikeout. He also pitched a complete game. The next morning, Kirby stole the headlines.
Let's just say that Livan Hernandez can relate to Bert after last night. That's what happens when a charismatic centerfielder takes a game over.
Posted Thursday, May 8, 2008 4:12 AM
Comment 1 by romer at 08-May-08 04:40 AM
I was at that game on Aug 1, 1986. I remember the rookie Conseco doing some comic relief after being amazed at Blyleven's curves. I was in the box seats and was watching the best curveballs in the history of baseball. Puckett was the leadoff batter.
Michelle Obama Earns Sourpuss of the Campaign Award
Byron York attended a get-out-the-vote rally in Charlotte, NC the night before the North Carolina primary. After reading the article , it's understatement to say that Michelle Obama doesn't share her husband's sunny disposition.
First, she complained at great length that her husband had been treated unfairly in the Democratic presidential race. Every time he made a move forward, she said, "they", she never spelled out exactly who "they" were, moved the goalposts a bit farther away from him.Michelle Obama's complaining doesn't disqualify Sen. Obama from being the 44th president. His pacifistic world view alone disqualifies him on that front. Nonetheless, Michelle Obama's whining doesn't fit with the hope part of Sen. Obama's hope and change theme. If she continues with this, she'll also draw attention to herself and away from the campaign.
First, "they" said he couldn't raise the money necessary to run a big-league campaign.
But "once he proved that he could raise the money, then all of a sudden money didn't matter," Mrs. Obama told the crowd. "Everybody said, 'Well, money isn't important.'"
Then "they" said the test for Obama would be whether he could build a political organization. But "once it was built, they said it's not an organization, the stakes changed again."
Next, "they" said Obama had to win Iowa. But "once he won Iowa, then all of a sudden Iowa was no longer important."
"They" had moved the bar again. This time, Obama had to win a primary state.
"Then we rolled into South Carolina," Mrs. Obama said. "Then you know what they said? They said South Carolina didn't count, because Barack was supposed to win."
Then came Super Tuesday, and after that Obama's stretch of victories in a series of primary and caucus states.
Still, Mrs. Obama complained, "they" tried to undermine her husband every step of the way.
When Michelle Obama speaks out, she'll give the media justification for running something on her anti-American perspective. Here's a re-inforcement of Michelle Obama's whininess:
She's irritated at those people who have suggested that she and Sen. Obama are elitists. And she appears to be still outraged, at this late date, by the fact that she had to take out loans to attend Princeton and Harvard Law School. It took her years to pay them back, something she has kvetched about in numerous public appearances.Give that lady a bigger megaphone.
Imagine that! First she had to borrow money to go to some of the world's most selective and expensive schools, schools whose graduates usually do pretty well in the world, and then they made her pay it back.
Posted Thursday, May 8, 2008 11:27 AM
No comments.
Hillary Isn't Going Quietly (And She Shouldn't)
During last night's Special Report roundtable discussion, Mara Liasson opined that there were several different ways for Hillary to continue in the race. She said that the worst path forward was for Hillary to continue complaining about Obama's ineptness. Based on this USA Today article and this Huffington Post interview of Ed Koch , it's safe to say that Hillary isn't going quietly into that good night. Here's a telling portion of the USA Today article:
Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters, including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.Here's what Ed Koch said:
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." "There's a pattern emerging here," she said.
Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions.
Koch's argued that Obama showed a complete lack of conviction and leadership in handling the controversy surrounding his former pastor. The theme is a constant feature in the former mayor's syndicated columns, several of which have directly questioned the credibility of Obama's attempts to distance himself from Reverend Jeremiah Wright.Mayor Koch isn't the first person to question Sen. Obama's unwillingness to deal forcefully with the Wright fiasco. Had this happened to Hillary, Wright would've been chucked under the bus hours after the story first surfaced.
"I am shocked, without knowing the reason that it is happening, that none of the allegations with the respect of Wright, his former pastor, have had any impact on his polling," said Koch. "I'm absolutely surprised because I think that all the things that Wright says, and nobody believes that Obama supports those statements, but he didn't have the courage to stand up and object for twenty years. If you are running for president, you can't be like some other poor guy in the pews who is afraid to stand up or even say something privately to the minister. You're the guy who wants to lead the country and you have to have courage to stand up and lead your own pastor. He did not exhibit that. But the fact that the Democratic constituency doesn't seem to care is a shock to me, but I'm certain that the overall constituency voting in November will care and that it will make the difference in the adverse way to his candidacy."
That's a major reason why blue collar workers aren't becoming Obama supporters. They want someone that'll promptly do the right thing.
These questions aren't going away antime soon for Obama. He can point to his winning working class voters in the early states all he wants. Sen. Obama can't credibly deny the fact that his SF fundraising comments changed everything with blue collar workers.
Those aren't the only difficulties Sen. Obama will face this election. I pointed out here that Obama's similarities with Jimmy Carter's foreign policies won't help him in the general election. It isn't difficult to picture Hillary blasting Iran to smithereens. It's easy picturing John McCain not taking Iran's crap. It isn't difficult picturing Barack Obama taking Iran's crap.
Obama's message on the economic front is muddled at best, too. People remember Sen. Obama's disastrous Philadelphia debate performance wehere he couldn't give charlie Gibson a coherent answer on the capital gains tax. The Agenda Media has talked fairly frequently about McCain's lack of economic expertise but I haven't seen much in terms of their coverage of Sen. Obama's lack of economic expertise. That got covered the day after the debate but that was the extent of the coverage.
The bottom line in this is that reconciliation doesn't appear to be a priority with Clinton supporters right now. Based on their language, I don't think it'll be a priority anytime soon, either. I don't think it should be, either, because I think Hillary is the tougher candidate for Sen. McCain to beat.
This expresses perfectly the state of the general election:
Saying he would support Clinton and "hope she ultimately prevails," Koch wasn't worried that Democratic infighting could hurt the party's chances in the fall. It was Obama's candidacy, he repeated, that would be the death knell.I don't believe that 20+ percent of Hillary's supporters will vote for Sen. McCain. He'd be happy if 10 percent of Hillary's supporters vote that way. That said, Sen. OBama's indecision and inexperience might be the only justification independents need to vote for John McCain."I believe that when the voting is over that the vast majority, not all, on both sides, will vote for the [Democratic] candidate," said Koch. "But that applies only to the Democrats who have been participating. I believe that the vast majority of voters will look at all of these allegations, which nobody disputes, as related to Wright and his comments, and that they will have an enormous impact on the vote and on those Independents and others who will make a decision in the general election. I just think he is a loser because of that."
Here's Bill Burton's spin on the blue collar vote:
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that in Indiana, Obama split working-class voters with Clinton and won a higher percentage of white voters than in Ohio in March. He said Obama will be the strongest nominee because he appeals "to Americans from every background and all walks of life. These statements from Sen. Clinton are not true and frankly disappointing."Frankly, that's some of the shoddiest spin I've ever heard. You'd expect the working class vote in Indiana to be tight because the race was tight. That doesn't mean, though, that Sen. Obama will appeal to blue collar workers in Ohio, Michigan, Missouri and Pennsylvania. He lost those voters by wide margins in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
I suspect that Obama's strategists are worried about that gap. I suspect that this is exactly the opposite of what Sen. Obama had hoped would happen after his lopsided win in North Carolina. I suspect that, at minimum, he'd hoped that Hillary would run a halfhearted campaign based more on reconciliation than on putting up a fight. That tells me that the divisions within the Democratic Party are substantial and likely long-lasting.
If those divisions persist, then Obama's candidacy faces an uphill fight. A month before the 2000 election, Al Gore still hadn't solidified his base. The only thing that gained him an advantage in the popular vote was the Friday night release of GWB's DUI arrest. If that hadn't come out, the election wouldn't have been nearly as close. Anytime you're still struggling to get your base on the same page, you don't have time to play on your opponent's side of the fifty yard line.
Candidates that aren't playing on the other guy's side of the fifty don't win very often.
Posted Thursday, May 8, 2008 7:04 PM
No comments.
