Let's just get rid of the elephant in the room. When conservative bloggers like S.E. Cupp put out drivel about how Hillary Clinton would be a breath of fresh, moderate air they're billowing some fetid air of their own. I keep seeing the Hillary balloon floating out there above all the noise from teabaggers and stupid Congressmen, and wonder what they're smoking. Then I realize they're really hoping Democrats are smoking something.

With the Republican party in complete disarray thanks in large part to teabaggers, the Koch family, and a leadership vacuum, they're trying to peel off support and votes for Democrats wherever they can. So they look at the differences between factions in our big tent, and the one they see with the biggest opportunity for division is Hillary Clinton. It's far from coincidental to read this from the conservative Ms. Cupp, then:

But for my friends - three thirtysomething left-of-center moderates who voted for Obama in 2008 - only one name would make them consider pulling the lever for someone else: Hillary Clinton.

It's a ridiculous prospect. Clinton has insisted she will not run again. She's been a loyal soldier for Obama, and challenging an incumbent doesn't usually work out too well for the challenger.

Still, the unlikely prospect of a Clinton-Obama faceoff got me thinking. Maybe she could run. And more to the point, maybe she should run.

The rest of her nonsense relates to how she never thought Obama could be worse than Hillary Clinton, but of course, he is, at least in her somewhat jaded eyes. She's not stupid. She knows there's still leftover resentment from the 2008 primaries on both sides, and the best way to keep it simmering is to write blather like this.

Desperate times for conservatives, no matter what your teevee machine tells you. They know they've got deep problems within their own party, so there's nothing like a little smoke to hide it while dropping bombs into the opposition. This, like other efforts, won't work either.

Republican Mark Kirk is vying for Barack Obama's Illinois Senate seat. But he's got a little bit of an honesty problem. So far, he's been caught out lying about his teaching career, his military career, his sexuality and that's just the beginning.

Mike Lux looks at Kirk's chances:

In my view, the race for Obama's old Senate seat is the most important race in the country for progressives. Kirk has been proven to be a serial liar about his biography, and a staunch supporter of the big banks and corporate America, but with his moderate social issue views, if he becomes an incumbent he will be tough to beat in the future even in a Democratic state like Illinois.

Alexi Giannoulias, on the other hand, is a crusading reformer who has staked his campaign on taking on big money and big business, and has pledged to form a Senate progressive caucus if he wins the race. He has lost a lot of money by turning down corporate lobbyist contributions, though, and Kirk has a $3 million edge, and the Chamber of Commerce is running attacks ads for him. Every dollar we can swing toward Alexi in this race right now is critical. The symbolism of winning this race and the stakes for the future only adds to its importance.

Those deep pockets of the Chamber of Commerce can easily erase the memory of Kirknocchio's honesty problem in the minds of the less engaged voter. And that's a dangerous thing. I admire Giannoulias' stance refusing corporate lobbyist money, but that puts the burden on us to support this progressive candidate.

DOWNLOADS: (867)

PLAYS: (2940)

Embed

The conventional wisdom is that whichever party is in power during a down economy will suffer great losses come election time. Certainly, we can look at the '94 and '06 elections as verification of that rule.

But I would argue that we're not in an era of politics as usual. For all the rhetoric the corporate media pushes about anti-incumbent sentiment, special elections between 2008 and now have not borne out those theories. And as former DNC head Howard Dean points out, when the alternative is the insubstantive platform of the Republican Party, it's hard to justify electing them over the Democratic Party, no matter how ineffectual we find them.

I think this is the time to put that stuff behind us. We've got to win this election. And we're going to have -- after the election is over, we'll go back to having our policy fights, but this is about winning. You cannot get anything done unless you have a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House.

And the Republicans have proved it. They are the party of no. They haven't had a single constructive -- name one -- anybody who's watching this show, name one single constructive political initiative that the Republicans have put forward.

And when, finally, somebody did put forward one, Paul Ryan, he was lionized for three days and then abandoned by the Republicans because he wanted to privatize Social Security and Medicare. Name one thing that you could hope for from the Republicans if they should win this. That is not a winning strategy.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (929)

PLAYS: (2162)

Embed

Ah...the mark of Emanuel strikes again.

Rahm Emanuel, as the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, famously decided that the best way for the DCCC to claim big wins in the 2006 was to focus his efforts on select safe seats and back candidates that would be easily persuadable to Emanuel in office. He flatly rejected Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy. As a result, the Democratic Party did pick up 30 seats in the House in the 2006 election, but lost some really great progressive candidates like Darcy Burner, because they refused to give them any investment. Who knows how many more they might have picked up (and how much further left of the DLC/Blue Dogs Emanuel backed) if they had went with Dean's strategy. Certainly, Axelrod and Plouffe went more with Dean than Emanuel in their presidential campaign strategy.

Unfortunately, it looks like DCCC head Chris Van Hollen and DNC chair Tim Kaine are listening more to Emanuel in this year's mid-term elections. Justin Coussoule, who is enjoying the full endorsement of Blue America, openly tells Chris Jansing that he has received no support whatsoever from the DNC or DCCC.

That's why your support of our Blue America campaign is so critical. The stupid Democratic Party just doesn't get it. Howie Klein has done an amazing job of vetting these fantastic PROGRESSIVE candidates and that's exactly the kind of people we need to see elected, not the malleable DLC types.

Please help Justin Coussoule as much as you can. We hope to put up even more ads in the 8th district as we near Election Day.

As if Rand Paul's flippant "No one will miss a hill or two" comment wasn't egregious enough, his latest PR effort on behalf of the coal industry is even worse. In an interview with Details magazine, he makes some of the dumbest and most offensive statements I've heard yet about mountaintop removal.

See, here's what Rand Paul thinks. Seriously.

Continue reading »

Republican Florida State Senator Mike Weinstein wanted to reach out to the youth vote. So what's a middle-aged politico to do? He enlisted his son, who writes educational songs for children professionally, to write, produce and star in a musical campaign ad that looks like it could have played on MTV, circa-1983, between Wham's "Wake Me Up Before You Go Go" and the Fresh Prince's "Parents Just Don't Understand". Weinstein wanted to ensure a positive, uplifting message:

"My goal was to try to come up with a campaign ad that wasn't attacking anyone or being negative. I find that to be so distasteful," Weinstein, a Republican who represents Jacksonville, told Hotsheet. "I wanted to come up with something that could show you could get a little bit of buzz over a commercial without it being negative."[..]

The music video has been viewed more than 10,000 times on YouTube so far, and the song is available for download on Weinstein's website. It's also catching fire on political blogs.

Of course, it may be easier to run a positive campaign in a district that heavily supports your party -- and in a race with no opponents.

Weinstein explained that all four of his potential challengers have dropped out of the running, leaving him unopposed for a second term.

"For one reason or another -- maybe this song, I don't know -- all four of them bailed," he said.

Stay classy, Jane:

Colorado Senate hopeful Jane Norton (R) has given her campaign website a facelift. And as part of that facelift she's hitting Barack Obama for...not going to war against Islam.

The site.. features a still frame from a new ad, attacking Obama and Washington liberals for abandoning the War on Terrorism.

The ad includes a May 26, 2010 Reuters headline saying "Obama doctrine to make clear no war on Islam."

This is supposed to be a bad thing.

As ColoradoPols put it, it's utterly tasteless:

We got to thinking about it, and it occurred to us that a "war on Islam" would actually be a very bad thing. Somewhere between leading off with that particular headline and the violent interruption of Norton's "never forget" boilerplate by the screeching of jet engines, we begin to realize that a terribly low road has been taken here.

Gee, ya think?

After taking Dick Armey's bunker advice and scrubbing all tea party positions from her website and hiding from the media, both national and local, Angle took a tentative step back out in front of the media. And once again, Angle proved she's just not ready for prime time, insulting a local reporter and running away from answering any questions on her own repeated use of the term "Second Amendment remedies". Think Progress:

8 News NOW reporter Nathan Baca tried to get Angle to explain what she means when she says on her website that Social Security should be “transitioned out.” Angle accused him of believing “the Harry Reid lie,” but eventually admitted that she meant she wants private accounts, which she called “personalized Social Security accounts”:

“Why do you want to eliminate (Social Security) for younger folks, because your plan calls for transitioning out,” Baca asked.

“You believe the Harry Reid lie,” Angle replied.

When asked to define “transitioning out”, Angle said, “Transition into a personalized account… personalized Social Security accounts that they can’t raid.”

The stock market, Baca countered, almost crashed in 2008, meaning millions of seniors would have had their savings accounts wiped out.

Angle replied, “Now, you’re putting words into my mouth from Harry Reid. I want you to be very clear on this. I’m here to save Social Security… Harry Reid is here to bankrupt Social Security.”

Baca eventually followed her as she exited the event, attempting to get her to explain what she meant by “Second Amendment remedies” rising from voter anger at Congress. Angle refused to comment and her spokesperson eventually blocked Baca from asking any more questions, calling him “‘an idiot’ and another term that can’t be repeated” in the process.

This is a credible candidate? I don't think so, and neither does The Hill:

The bottom line: she can make this race about Reid, but not before she explains who she is and where she came from. If those questions remain unanswered, reporters will continue to focus on her colorful history. And she'll continue to look defensive and ill prepared on television.

Speaking of looking defensive, Matt Yglesias caught this lovely little tidbit that is yet another bit of nuttiness Angle will have a difficult time neutralizing with the public:
Angle: It’s Not Scientology, It’s “Natural Homeopathic Medicine” Developed By L Ron Hubbard
Oh boy...this is gonna be a fun election cycle.

During the primaries, Meg Whitman did her damndest to paint her Republican rival as a secret liberal. She spent 71 million of her own personal dollars, cozied up to Mitt Romney and former CA Gov. Pete Wilson, all in the effort to assure California voters that it was she, the person who couldn't even bother to vote for 28 years, who was the only true hard line conservative running for the governorship of California. All of her ads promised a zero amnesty/closed border response to immigration.

Well, that was then, this is now.

Meg Whitman, pivoting away from a primary that drove her much father to the right than she would have liked, will remind Hispanic Californians that she opposed Arizona's controversial immigration law in an ad slated to run on the Spanish-language broadcast of today's Mexico-France World Cup game.

"She respects our community," says the ad's narrator, according to a Spanish text provided to La Opinion's Pilar Marrero. "She's the Republican who opposed the Arizona law and opposed Proposition 187," say the ad, referring to the 1994 initiative -- later ruled unconstitutional -- to bar illegal immigrants from receiving public health care and education.

The ad marks a dramatic tack a way from a primary in which Whitman was at times visibly uncomfortable with her campaign's hard line, denying at one point -- mistakenly -- that her campaign was airing ads with images of a border fence.

Whitman is trying to undo damage done to the Republican Party among Hispanics that began in earnest with the fierce opposition to a broad immigration overhaul -- and the naturalization of many illegal immigrants -- that began in the middle of the last decade.

I guess after being a Republican for 45 years before switching parties to stay in office, old habits are hard to break.

As I noted in my story today, Sen. Arlen Specter opened and closed his remarks at the Allegheny County Democratic Committee's Jefferson-Jackson dinner last night by thanking them for their support.

Only he referred to them as Allegheny County Republicans.

You gotta know the Allegheny County Democratic Committee just loves being called Republicans. Nor should you be surprised that the Sestak campaign couldn't wait to get that audio out to the public.