Friday
At the Times Caucus blog, Kit Seelye, has a tic toc of Friday for the Clinton campaign, as it unfolded, or perhaps imploded, from the perspective of the traveling press.
--Josh Marshall
Watching Ohio and PA
I'm intrigued by the series of veep selection polls SurveyUSA released last week, putting Obama up against McCain with different vice presidential possibilities in a few key states. As noted previously, I'm skeptical about the significance of the veep matchings because I think much of the variance is simply a matter of name recognition. But each poll also has a straight head-to-head match without other names attached.
In Ohio, SUSA has Obama beating McCain by 9 points.
In Pennsylvania, SUSA has Obama beating McCain by 8 points.
In New Mexico, SUSA has Obama tied with McCain.
In Virginia, SUSA has Obama beating McCain by 7 points.
Ohio and Pennsylvania are at the center of arguments that Obama runs weak with non-college educated and rural whites in Appalachia and surrounding regions. I'm cautiously optimistic that Obama can win both, especially Pennsylvania. But is he really that far ahead? Other recent polls of Ohio have shown it consistently within the margin of error but with McCain slightly ahead. Pennsylvania meanwhile has been trending in the direction of an 8 point. And the most recent poll, by Quinnipiac, has Obama up by 6.
Each of these results are consistent with the trend from other polls. But they're definitely on the high end of Obama's leads. SUSA has had a pretty respectable record this year. So I'll be curious to see if leads of that size firm up. If McCain lost Ohio and Pennsylvania, he'd be toast.
Late Update: TPM Reader DE follows up ...
My uneducated opinion is that we're now seeing a "post-primary" Obama bounce. I expected it to be between 10-15 points, and that looks about right. Some Clinton supporters, who'd previously picked McCain over Obama in these polls, are now switching over to Obama.I think the gap tightens over the summer until the media really does some vetting of McCain. They've started, but it's only in first gear so far. Whereas with Obama, they've already run the Indie 500........
The first point especially is a shrewd one. Remember that both Obama and Clinton were at least even with McCain even as substantial numbers of each Democrats' supporters were saying they wouldn't vote for the other Dem if he or she were nominee. How much headway Obama makes with these hardcore Hillary supporters remains an open questions. But certainly some of that animus from the heat of the primaries will dissipate. So in addition to the bounce any nominee gets after the securing the nomination, I think we will see that both Democrats' numbers were artificially depressed vis a vis McCain as long as the nomination battle continued.
--Josh Marshall
Bill
If you're wondering what that boomlet about 'formal veep' talks between Clinton and Obama was all about, I direct you to this snippet from a piece in tonight's Post ...
A report in Time magazine said that former president Bill Clinton is driving the effort to secure a slot for his wife on the ticket, and Clinton campaign aides said it would not be the first time that he has ventured out on his own.
--Josh Marshall
New Newsweek Poll
Latest from Newsweek.
Clinton (48%) vs. McCain (44%)
Obama (46%) vs. McCain (46%)
Newsweek's article, linked above, breaks down the numbers to look at the role race is playing in the contest.
--Josh Marshall
The Video
Everybody's talking about Hillary's RFK remark. So without getting into what it means, since we're getting inundated by all sorts of interpretations, we wanted to share the actual video with you, to draw your own conclusions ...
Late Update: Here is Sen. Clinton's statement clarifying her earlier remarks a few hours later ...
--Josh Marshall
The Long View
If you haven't already had read it, let me recommend George Packer's piece in The New Yorker on the "fall" of conservatism. He weaves together a thousand threads of the story in a way any magazine writer knows is terribly difficult to pull off. For the article Packer had a long conversation with Pat Buchanan, who, for the younger folks among our readers, isn't just a vinegary TV right-winger with a punchy turn of phrase. Buchanan is a very important figure in the last half century of American history -- for the forces of darkness perhaps, but important no less for that.
Buchanan gave Packer a copy of a confidential memo he wrote for Richard Nixon in 1971. ("A little raw for today," he warns Packer.) The memo is about what Buchanan and his Nixon aide colleague Kevin Phillips called "positive polarization," ways to divide the country for political advantage. Some of you will remember the key line that Buchanan ends on because it's quoted in Jonathan Schell's magnificent 1976 book, Time of Illusion. The aim, wrote Buchanan, was to "cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half."
Those of us who look at politics from moment to moment tend to look at gaffes, campaign strategies, the foibles of this or that politician. But it's always important to step back from the particulars to see the broad sweep of political and social change. It's almost always dominated by long term trends -- demographic, ideological, economic. But particular events can pivot history off in dramatic new directions.
Back in the early part of this decade two friends of mine, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira wrote The Emerging Democratic Majority. It's a very good book -- and not just in the sense of the happy prediction. Unluckily, though, for the authors it came out just a few months before the Democrats' big thumping in the 2002 midterm elections. And because of that, the book, after a lot of initial fanfare, got sort of pushed to the back of the collective shelf.
But I'm starting to wonder whether we might not see the first decade of this century similarly to the way we now look back on the 1970s. Packer's piece is a loosely structured review of Rick Perlstein's new book Nixonland. (I just dipped into it for the first time a few nights ago and it was like eating some incredibly rich food. I can't wait to get back to it.) Nixon's resurgence began in those mid-sixties rumblings which we can now see from the perspective of history were the onset of the era of conservative ascendence that we've been living in now for the last four decades. But it wasn't an unbroken trajectory. The Democrats had a huge year in the post-Watergate 1974 mid-term elections, with a big class of new self-consciously reformist House Dems. Then Jimmy Carter was elected president in 1976.
In retrospect this was only a Watergate-induced hiccup, an Indian Summer of mid-century liberalism and Democratic ascendency, in a decades long trend toward conservative dominance. And I'm beginning to wonder whether we might eventually see the 2002 and 2004 elections in a similar light.
I say this for a couple reasons, and hopefully not just out of wishful thinking. Clearly much of the Republican party's current state of disrepair is due to the disastrous record of George W. Bush. But all of it? There's a great deal of continuity between the demographic and regional voting trends we see today and those Judis and Teixeira noted through the 90s and the first years of this decade. 9/11 juiced President Bush's standing and massively reinforced the advantages Republicans have historically had on national security issues -- at least over the last forty years. And the Bush White House pressed that advantage mightily. But hidden underneath was the same ideological and electoral decay. Perhaps we will see the Republican party in this period as akin to the doped up athlete whose drugs enable him to achieve amazing feats in the short-run but also lead him to gravely exacerbate existing injuries because they inure him to the pain.
--Josh Marshall
About Those "Formal Talks"
CNN seems to be walking back its report about those "formal talks" between the Obama and Clinton campaigns, supposedly involving her withdrawing and him naming her as VP. Formal talks have devolved to "Clinton insiders and close friends are actively floating three scenarios which they believe will influence whether or how the two teams merge."
Here's how CNN describes it now:
Several close friends and supporters of Hillary Clinton tell CNN they are pushing for a "graceful exit strategy" that would allow the Clinton and Obama camps to come together, and for the New York senator to save face should she fail to become the nominee. The discussions are not taking place between the campaigns, but rather among informal campaign advisers on both sides who are trying to actively influence and shape the debate as the competition nears a close June 3.
Meanwhile, Hillary claims it was the Obama camp that planted the CNN story; and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a prominent Hillary supporter, is pushing Obama-Hillary as "the strongest ticket" (assuming Obama gets the nomination, of course).
--David Kurtz
SurveyUSA Ohio
SurveyUSA has another vice presidential choice run-down, this time of Ohio. The baseline number -- McCain vs. Obama without any veep name attached -- has Obama up by nine points. Obama 48%, McCain 39%.
--Josh Marshall
100% False
Rarely do the two chief campaign flacks, Howard Wolfson and Bill Burton, agree. But they both tell TPM Election Central that CNN's report this morning that there are formal talks between the Clinton and Obama campaigns over her dropping out of the race and getting the VP nod are "100% false."
Now that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't some sort of back-channel communications going on. I'd be surprised if there weren't. These people aren't strangers to each other. They've all been involved together in Democratic politics for a long time. They talk. But as I said before, I'm skeptical that these discussion amount to anything approaching "formal talks."
At the same time, I don't doubt that CNN had what it considered to be well-placed Clinton sources feeding them these various scenarios for how the VP selection will play out and what her role might be. As I said before, it's noteworthy in itself that some elements of Clinton's supporters are making these kinds of noises.
In fact, Hillary's top fundraiser, Hassan Nemazee, in an interview with TPM Election Central today, may have gone as far anyone in the Clinton camp thus far in essentially demanding she get the vice presidential nomination -- or else:
"[T]here's a risk that if she isn't invited on the ticket, Hillary's political and financial supporters may not feel compelled to be as integrated and involved in the Obama campaign in order to provide the maximum support that he'll need to prevail in November."
If she does get out of the race before the convention -- which I think is still the most plausible scenario -- it will be only after extensive negotiations over all manner of issues, political as well as personal. Today's rumblings may just be the start to those negotiations. And as any good negotiator knows, your opening position better be as favorable to you as possible and then some.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
How the Bush Administration ignored the plain meaning of "exclusive" to launch its warrantless wiretapping program.
--David Kurtz
Formal Talks?
CNN is reporting this morning that the Obama and Clinton campaigns are in formal talks about ending her quest for the Democratic nomination and possibly giving her the VP slot.
These apparent talks are described by CNN as being in a ``very preliminary'' stage and as "difficult."
It's really unclear what this means or what's really going on here. CNN doesn't have anyone on the record. Just anonymous sourcing. We'll have video of their report up shortly.
On first blush I'm skeptical that there really are "formal talks" in the usual sense of that phrase. The report appears to lean heavily on sourcing from within the Clinton camp, which is notable. The significance here may not be that there are formal talks underway or that the vice presidency is under discussion. The real significance may be that this is the opening salvo from the Clinton camp ahead of the negotiations that would likely accompany her withdrawal from the race.
Like everyone else, we're trying to track this down now. But this may be the beginning of the beginning of the end.
Late Update: Here's the video:
--David Kurtz
We're Hiring: News Editor
TPM Media is announcing a job opening for a news editor working in our New York City office. The news editor has primary responsibility for running and updating the news section on the front page of Talking Points Memo (TPM), working closely with the site's managing editor. Key responsibilities include staying on top of breaking news, finding current news items, working with our reporters to find which TPM stories to feature, writing headlines and story descriptions, as well as selecting news photos and video to complement our front page news coverage. Applicants must be inveterate news and politics junkies and be able to work in a fast paced news environment every day. Their job is to make sure our front page is always on top of everything and putting everything in front of our readers' eyes from a witty, TPM perspective.
If you're interested please send a resume, two clips and a letter describing your interest and qualifications for the job to talk (at) talkingpointsmemo.com with the subject line "TPM News Editor Job".
This is a full-time position, with health care. Salary is negotiable.
--Josh Marshall
Will He Make It Three?
It's like McCain's Thursday Night Preacher Massacre.
Fresh off the defenestration of Rev. Hagee, now he's dumping Rev. Parsley, the right-wing preacher-power-broker of Ohio, who says -- inter alia -- that America was founded to destroy Islam.
--Josh Marshall
Raining, Pouring ...
Republicans were hoping Rep. Vito Fossella would retire from his Staten Island House seat (which he now has). And the hope was that Daniel Donovan, the Staten Island DA, would run for the seat. The consensus seemed to be that Donovan was a solid candidate for the district. But now Donovan has decided to take a pass.
This is a good example of the compounding effects of a bad political season. This is a Republican district, though not by a big margin. In another year, presumably, Donovan would have gone for it. But it's not that great a prize since the House Republicans seem destined to remain in the minority for some time. For that and other reasons, it's not an easy environment to raise money in. And given how bad a year it looks to be for Republicans in general, there's a good chance that Donovan could lose.
So Republicans have a tough environment to operate in. And they strike out when trying to recruit a good candidate to overcome that bad environment because the bad environment makes the good candidate not think it's worth the risk.
--Josh Marshall
Reject and Denounce!
As you can see, Sen. McCain has now definitively "rejected" John Hagee's endorsement. Yesterday's story about Hagee's suggesting that God used Hitler to facilitate the departure of the Jews (sort of a gentle word) from Europe, broken by Huffpo, was I guess the final straw. (A few weeks ago McCain said that trying to get Hagee's endorsement was "probably" a mistake but that he was "glad to have" it anyway.) But since we've been on this story from the git-go I wanted to review the history on this one to take stock of the whole story.
I don't doubt for a moment that the McCain camp didn't know about this Hitler quote. But if you know Hagee's history, it's hardly surprising. And Hagee's statements about Catholics, his claim that God destroyed New Orleans because of an over-the-top gay pride parade, and his claim that God was using Muslim terrorists to create a "bloodbath" in America because of US support for a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine were right out there in the public domain. And certainly McCain's camp did know about them.
The March 5th episode of TPMtv had a run-down of each of these statements from Hagee and McCain's statements embracing Hagee ...
Given that McCain has now clearly rejected Hagee's endorsement, perhaps it's time that he, a la Obama, give a speech on the topic of Republican presidential candidates pandering to lunatic fringe right-wing preachers at election time. It could start a whole national conversation.
Late Update: Dan Gilgoff at BeliefNet says the Hagee debacle is another example that McCain is a novice on cultivating evangelicals.
--Josh Marshall
Au Contraire
A semi-contrary view from one of our shrewdest readers ...
You argue that "the evidence is simply overwhelming that Sen. Clinton didn't think [that Florida and Michigan were] a problem at all." That's one way to read the factual record.But I'd suggest that there are compelling reasons to reach the opposite conclusion. After the 2000 election, she called for the abolition of the electoral college. "I believe strongly," she said, "that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people." She argued then that "the total votes cast for a person running for president in our country should
determine the outcome." Sound familiar?Of course, as you point out, that's not what she or her supporters were arguing when the convoluted rules of the nominating system seemed likely to deliver her the nomination. And that, I think, is where she lost her bearings. She and her aides decided not to rock the boat. Instead of using their clout to fix the problems with the system, thereby alienating voters in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, she and her surrogates mouthed the same platitudes we hear every four years about the unique role played by
early states and the lovable quirks of the caucuses. But when the rules she had always disliked started to work against her, she lashed out with righteous indignation.I think Hillary is genuinely convinced that this election has been a travesty. That elections ought to be about who wins the most votes, full stop. Never mind the innumerable problems with applying that argument to the contests this cycle; it's what she believes. And it's of a piece with a set of grievances that she and her surrogates have voiced: that the media has treated her too harshly, that her candidacy has been hobbled by sexism, and that her opponent has enjoyed unfair advantages. Each of these complaints
springs from a common premise - Hillary could not have lost a fair fight for the nomination. And working from that premise, she sees herself not only as a victim, but also as a champion of those who, like her, have been wronged by the system. This really has become a moral crusade for her, and that's impelling her forward long after she's lost any realistic chance of winning.Perhaps she can be persuaded to back away from the edge. But now that the dictates of her conscience and of political expedience have at last converged, Hillary is finally giving voice to the grievances that she's long held back. As she's done so, she's tapped into a deep and powerful strain of resentment and - dare I say it - bitterness in the electorate. It's not easy to put that genie back in the bottle, and it's not at all clear to me that she wants to.
--Josh Marshall
Finally
The House Judiciary Committee subpoenas Karl Rove to testify about the U.S. Attorneys purge, among other mucky things.
Late Update: The committee is especially interested in Rove's involvement in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. In conjunction with issuing the subpoena to Rove, the committee released a letter from the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility confirming that it has launched an investigation of "allegations of selective prosecution relating to the prosecutions of Don Siegelman, Georgia Thompson, and Oliver Diaz and Paul Minor."
--David Kurtz
Oxygen
TPM Reader JP shares his take ...
Perhaps my analysis is off, but isn't the new Clinton campaign focus on the FL and MI delegates really about maintaining public attention (i.e., preserving oxygen). With Obama wrapping up the majority of available pledged delegates, the remaining primaries just aren't that interesting from a media perspective and are likely to generate little coverage, especially with likely focus on issues such as Obama's strategy for winning the election, VP selection, and the Denver convention. The outcomes of the remaining primaries can't change the game (take the nomination away) UNLESS coupled with a decision to seat the FL and MI delegates. Lack of media attention won't help the debt situation and won't persuade super-delegates to change their votes. Hence, going "toxic" may be the only viable path if the choice is to stay in.
--Josh Marshall
Swing State
SurveyUSA has released another one of their statewide vice presidential match-up polls. This time of Virginia. In the straight match-up, Obama vs. McCain with no veep names, Obama leads by 7 points.
--Josh Marshall
No Taint
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson was just asked in a conference call whether Obama's nomination would be "counterfeit" if Michigan and Florida's delegations are not seated in the way the Clinton campaign is insisting on. Greg Sargent has the run-down of Wolfson's response here.
--Josh Marshall
Our Old Friend
As Greg Sargent reports at TPM Election Central, Tim Griffin is the RNC's new hire as the opposition researcher on Barack Obama.
Griffin has a colorful past as the RNC's director of opposition research in 2004. Here's some video of Griffin in the RNC war room on the night of one of the Bush-Kerry debates. Griffin's memorable line that night was that his crew of oppo researchers created the ammunition for the Bush campaign to fire. "We make the bullets," Griffin is overheard saying.
But Griffin didn't achieve notoriety until his role in the U.S. attorney purge scandal was revealed. After leaving the RNC, Griffin went to work in the White House as an aide to Karl Rove. With help from Rove and White House Counsel Harriet Miers, the then-34-year-old Griffin was installed as the U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas in December 2006.
A total of nine U.S. attorneys were ousted to make room for naked partisans like Griffin or to remove prosecutors considered too independent by the Republican political operatives in the White House and DOJ. As the extent of the purge became known and it became clear that unqualified Griffin would never be confirmed on a permanent basis by the Senate, he withdrew is nomination. Last June, he tearily declared that public service was "not worth it," sometimes crying as he said he had no plan to return to politics.
What a difference a year makes.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: The "Nuclear" Option
May 31st, 2008: the survivors will call it Judgment Day, the day that Hillary Clinton tries to push the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee to achieve the full seating of Florida and Michigan's disputed delegates and perhaps wrest the nomination away from Barack Obama. But wait... can this really happen? We take a look at the actual situation behind the hype in today's episode of TPMtv ...
High-res version at Veracifier.com.
--Ben Craw
Today's Must Read
Pro-torture figures in the Administration steamrolled anyone who raised objections.
--David Kurtz
Toxic
For the last week it's seemed that Sens. Clinton and Obama were adhering to their tacit truce, continuing the primary campaign but avoiding the harsh exchanges that make later party unity a dimmer and dimmer prospect. Clinton particularly had deescalated her rhetoric. Then we have a speech like Sen. Clinton's yesterday in Florida in which she compared the controversy over seating the Florida and Michigan delegates to the Florida recount debacle and many of the great voting and civil rights battles of the 20th century. She is of course also claiming that whatever the delegate count, she leads in the popular vote and that that is what really counts. Never mind of course that even if you count Michigan and Florida she's still not ahead in the popular vote without resorting to tendentious methods of counting.
I've always assumed, as I think most people have, that once the nomination is settled the Florida and Michigan delegates will be seated. And I can see if Sen. Clinton wants to embrace this issue to claim a moral victory even while coming short of her goal of the nomination. As things currently stand, seating them would still leave Sen. Clinton behind in delegates.
But Sen. Clinton is doing much more than this. She is embarking on a gambit that is uncertain in its result and simply breathtaking in its cynicism.
I know many TPM Readers believe there is a deep moral and political issue at stake in the need to seat these delegations. I don't see it the same way. But I'm not here to say they're wrong and I'm right. It's a subjective question and I respect that many people think this. What I'm quite confident about is that Sen. Clinton and her top advisors don't see it that way.
Why do I think that? For a number of reasons. One of her most senior advisors, Harold Ickes, was on the DNC committee that voted to sanction Florida and Michigan by not including their delegates. Her campaign completely signed off on sanctions after that. And Clinton was actually quoted saying the Michigan contest didn't count. Michigan and Florida were sanctioned because they ignored the rules the DNC had set down for running this year's nomination process.
The evidence is simply overwhelming that Sen. Clinton didn't think this was a problem at all -- until it became a vehicle to provide a rationale for her continued campaign.
Now, that's politics. One day you're on one side of an issue, the next you're on the other, all depending on the tactical necessities of the moment. But that's not what Clinton is doing. She's elevating it to a level of principle -- first principles -- on par with the great voting rights struggles of history. There's no longer any question that she's going to win the nomination. The whole point of the popular vote gambit was to make an argument to super-delegates. And that's fine since that's what super-delegates are there for -- to make the decision by whatever measure they choose. But they've made their decision. The super delegates are breaking overwhelmingly for Obama. They simply don't buy the arguments she's making.
As Greg Sargent makes clear here. There are very good reasons to think Sen. Clinton won't take this to the convention, even as today she suggested she might. But that's sort of beside the point.
What she's doing is not securing her the nomination. Rather, she's gunning up a lot of her supporters to believe that the nomination was stolen from her -- a belief many won't soon abandon. And that on the basis of rationales and arguments there's every reason to think she doesn't even believe in.
Late Update: In this post I originally said that Sen. Clinton had "numerous" quotes saying the disputed primaries wouldn't count. On closer inspection, the only quote from her directly seems to be the one about Michigan not counting.
--Josh Marshall
The Real Story
From the JTA ...
The diminishing fortunes of the Bush administration and the resurgent fortunes of Hezbollah may be behind the surprising announcement that Syria and Israel are renewing peace talks.The announcements Wednesday by the two countries, which said Israel and Syria would launch talks in Ankara under Turkish auspices, came despite longstanding U.S. opposition to talks with Syria.
The news garnered only tepid endorsement from the Bush administration.
"We were not surprised by it, and we do not object to it," said Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman. "We hope that this is a forum to address various concerns we all have with Syria -- Syria's support of terrorism, repression of its own people."
With Bush nearing the end of his term in office, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert might have felt emboldened to shuck off Bush's longstanding resistance to outreach toward Syria, analysts said.
"This demonstrates that what has kept things back is the United States," said Steve Spiegel, a professor of political science at UCLA and a scholar at the Israel Policy Forum. Bush's "leverage is not as great -- Bush has seven-and-a-half months left."
--Josh Marshall
Irrelevant Personal Trivia Watch
I see that Linda Douglass has signed on with the Obama campaign. So I thought I'd share this little snippet of personal trivia about the morning I met Linda way back 31 years ago.
This was in June 1977, when I was a mere stripling. Early one morning I was lying in my bed, floating between sleep and consciousness, when out of the corner of my eye, through the window to my left, I heard the roar and, in a flash, saw a twin engine plane careen across my view and explode in a massive ball of flames into the anonymous drywall and stucco two story apartment building immediately next to mine.
I shot up and in a moment saw this surreal image of two half naked people getting out of bed in what a moment ago had been their apartment surrounded by smoke and flame, clearly too much in shock to realize that dressing was not a high priority. The whole thing was maybe 15 feet in front of me. Before I could take stock of any of this my mother ran into the room to see if I'd been blown up too. And in a moment we were running. Mainly just out of the house and away from the fire. And then somehow instantly we were out on the sidewalk where all sorts of mayhem was breaking loose and soon there were fire trucks and a man running out of the building on fire.
This was the real thing, a terrible tragedy for the people immediately involved. Five people died in the plane. Four were injured on the ground. It even made the national news as one of those one day -- it happens to other people -- stories on the nightly news. Here's a reference to it I found on the web -- Walter Cronkite's short news segment. And Linda Douglass who was a local TV reporter there to cover it for which local affiliate I can't remember. She interviewed my dad.
--Josh Marshall
Trying to End the Losing Streak
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) tightens the reins on the we-can't-even-win-red-districts NRCC.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: Lanny's Induction Ceremony
After much soul-searching and thought, in today's episode of TPMtv, Lanny Davis agrees to be inducted into the Fox News Liberal Media Bias Cult ...
High-res version at Veracifier.com.
--Josh Marshall
Bleeding
Hillary has $6.7 million in cash on hand for use in the primary -- but she's more than $19 million in debt ($8 million if you subtract out her personal loans to the campaign).
--David Kurtz
All Chamberlains Now
Israel announces new appeasement talks with Syria.
On a more serious note, there's this passage in the McClatchy article ...
"I think it's the biggest game in the region," said Paul Salem, director of the Beirut-based Middle East Center of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace....
Salem, who recently spent time in Damascus talking to negotiators involved in the talks, said there is a growing unease among some Syrian leaders about the influence of Iran in the Middle East.
"Peace between Syria and Israel would cause a serious rupture in the Syrian-Iranian relationship as it would represent a fundamental parting of the ways," said Salem. "And it would also cut off Iranian influence into Lebanon and Palestine."
Reaching a peace deal with Israel that led to a return of the Golan Heights could also give Syrian President Bashar Assad a critical success to rebuild his power and influence in the region.
"He needs the Golan as a cornerstone of a new beginning," said Salem, who was in Ankara on a fact-finding mission.
--Josh Marshall
Jo-Ann Mort has an idea for Hillary's next act: follow in Ted Kennedy's footsteps and become labor's lion in the Senate.
--David Kurtz
Zogby
Zogby's latest numbers: Obama 47%, McCain 37%, Nader 4%, Barr 3%.
Without Barr and Nader it's Obama 48%, McCain 40%.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
The Justice Department inspector general's report is less important for what it says about the FBI's role in detainee interrogations than it is for the system of torture it catalogs.
--David Kurtz
About Those White Voters
Obama beat Hillary in Oregon among working class white voters, according to the post-vote surveys there. Obviously he didn't do so well among those voters in Kentucky. More support for defining Obama's struggles with working class whites as an Appalachia problem?
--David Kurtz
Off Message
Hillary adviser Sidney Blumenthal says the public doesn't see John McCain as a continuation of President Bush.
--David Kurtz
Nets Call Oregon for Obama
MSNBC calls it for Obama.
But Fox and CNN say still too close to call.
Late Update: Both CNN and Fox are suggesting that Obama leads in Oregon, but are not yet prepared to call it.
Later Update: Fox calls it for Obama. CNN, too.
--David Kurtz
$22 Mill
A number of readers have written in to ask whether Hillary Clinton's $22 million raised in April includes her own loan to her campaign of $6.4 million. Greg Sargent asked Howard Wolfson. And the answer was, no. It doesn't include that money.
--Josh Marshall
Should He Have Gone?
There's been a lot of pundit chatter tonight to the effect that Obama should not have passed on campaigning in Kentucky over the last few days despite the fact that he seemed set to lose by a massive margin. (Why make an effort if it's not going to pan out? Why screw with the low expectations?)
I think they're right. To weirdly paraphrase Ronald Reagan's line from 1980, I think someone running for president needs to go to everyone and say, in so many words, you may not be for me, but I'm for you.
At the same time, there's simply no getting around the role of race in the Kentucky and, for that matter, the West Virginia results. From the exit poll numbers tonight, "Was Race of the Candidate Important to You?" 21% said Yes and 81% of those voted for Hillary Clinton.
Given how the levels of under-reporting are that go into a question like that, I don't think you easily get around that number.
Still, he should have gone.
--Josh Marshall
Teddy
Sen. Clinton is on stage now in Kentucky making some very nice, moving comments about Sen. Kennedy. I must say the news about Sen. Kennedy today really hit me like a sock in the gut. People get terrible diagnoses every day. In a sense, we all will at some point -- it's just a question of whether it will come slowly enough to get that grim heads up. I lost both my parents very suddenly. So I'm not new to the subject. But this really caught me off-guard. And gets to me at some deep level. I don't know if other people's experience is the same.
Late Update: TPM Reader LS sent in this video. It's entirely unexceptional in a sense. Something I've seen a million times, just with different details, a different amendment or law. In this case, it's Ted Kennedy from a year and a half ago on the floor of the senate, on the minimum wage. Somehow it's fitting ...
--Josh Marshall
Terry's New Goalposts
If I'm not mistaken Terrry McAuliffe just announced two new goalposts.
1. Hillary has gotten more votes and delegates since March 4th.
2. Hillary has gotten more votes in a nomination race than anyone in history. "Hillary Clinton has now received more votes than any candidate ever running for president in a primary."
As I said in this morning's episode of the TPMtv, I think that over the last week there've been tentative but hopeful signs of a deescalation of tensions between the two campaigns. But some of this stuff is just ridiculous. Point one sounds like it's probably true. What relevance it has I have no idea. Point two though is really the kicker. Even if you change the rules and fully seat Michaigan and Florida and count them for the popular vote totals and don't count any portion of the Michigan "uncommitted" (which were understood a the to be for Obama) vote for Obama, Hillary is still behind in the popular vote total. The only way she moves ahead in popular vote is if you do all that and don't count four of the caucus states.
Some stuff is just too ridiculous to let pass. You just have to assume this is just Terry's nonsense.
Let's go to the video ...
--Josh Marshall
HRC Wins Kentucky
Nets call it as soon as polls close. Exit polls suggest a 2-to-1 margin for Clinton.
--David Kurtz
What To Expect
Kentucky straddles two time zones. Polls close in eastern Kentucky at 6 ET and in western Kentucky at 7 ET. Results should start trickling in after 6, but the nets won't call the contest until all the polls have closed at 7. Given Hillary's enormous leads in polls and Obama's virtual concession, it would be a surprise if this race wasn't called at 7 sharp.
--David Kurtz
Losing the Pundit Center
Joe Klein gets a hanging John McCain right over the plate and knocks him out of the park. At least a standup double.
--Josh Marshall
Nutcracker
SurveyUSA is doing a series of McCain vs. Obama head to head match-up polls in different states testing an almost mystifying number of vice presidential possibilities for each nominee. Their poll of Pennsylvania is out today. And the snapshot is that John Edwards -- someone who I don't think many have considered as a Veep possibility this year -- is, from this poll at least, Obama's strongest pick.
The real headline though is the baseline number: McCain vs. Obama without veep nominees attached. On that SurveyUSA has Obama beating McCain 48% to 40%. And this, remember, was the nut Obama wasn't supposed to be able to crack.
You can see the range of possibilities here, which go from a very narrow McCain lead to an Obama landslide.
To be clear, I do not expect Obama to win Pennsylvania in a landslide. I think it will be very tight. But this is a potent corrective to the idea that Obama can't win the state.
Late Update: TPM Reader SS makes the point -- and one I agree with -- that we shouldn't read too much into the numbers for these different veep possibilities because a number of them have almost zero name recognition. I would guess that very few people around the country have any idea who Pawlenty or Sebelius even are. So, not that they mean nothing. But I'd see those as very mutable. What is striking is that even plugging in a lot of names that a lot of people have never even heard of, the terrain seems to tilt heavily in Obama's direction.
Later Update: A good point from TPM Reader DR ...
I think the thing that jumps out at me about that chart is the way Obama's choice seems pivotal, while McCain seems static with a veep choice that will have little impact on his standing. If you look at it, Pawlenty, Romney, Lieberman, and Huckabee all make appearances up and down the chart (all with varying degrees of name recognition), meaning they could be viewed as good, bad, or, more likely, insignificant to his standing. On the other hand, when you look at Obama, Edwards is clearly the best choice for him (high name recognition), while Rendell is a clear second (home state), and Hagel and Sebelius have poorer showings (low recognition). It is of course true that Sebelius isn't really a worse choice than Edwards, people will get to know her if she's chosen. But the point of greater importance I see is that, veep choice aside, McCain already trails Obama, but when you factor in the veep choice Obama has a chance to make serious gains while McCain seems like he'll be stuck at the same barely competitive spot no matter who he chooses.
--Josh Marshall
Kennedy
As you can see, the AP is reporting that Sen. Ted Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor. That was the cause of the unexplained seizure at the end of last week. There's no point playing amateur doctor. But I think we're all taught to understand a cancerous brain tumor as a very grave diagnosis. I hope that's not the case. We wish him and his family the very best.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Kentucky/Oregon Preview
Join us tonight starting at 6 PM for results from Kentucky and later the Oregon primaries. And for an overview of what to expect and whether the Clinton-Obama quasi-truce will hold up, see today's Kentucky/Oregon roundup episode of TPMtv ...
High-res version at Veracifier.com.
--Josh Marshall
Par-TAY
One of the more diverting aspects of the 2008 campaign is watching how the GOP wedge issue playbook descends toward self-parody as its effectiveness diminishes.
Here's the ad running from Missouri Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) against challenger and former Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes (D-MO) and her ad responding.
And Barnes' response ...
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
EPA Administrator Stephen "Stonewall" Johnson testifies on the Hill today, but not before Rep. Henry Waxman launched a broadside at him, alleging the White House persuaded Johnson to change his mind and overrule staff in refusing a waiver for California to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.
--David Kurtz
With Friends Like These ...
In case you missed it, I want to commend to your attention Jeffrey Goldberg's article in the Sunday Times: "Israel's 'American Problem". The premise will be a familiar one to anyone who's thought seriously and sanely about Israel's future and America's relationship with Israel. The breadth of acceptable opinion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is vastly greater in Israel than it is in the United States. Indeed, as Goldberg suggests, if Prime Minister Olmert and Defense Minister Barak were running for president in the US, they might not be deemed sufficiently pro-Israel to be acceptable in the American mainstream.
Here's one memorable passage in which Goldberg quotes Joshua Katzen of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which one might fairly describe as a think tank which advocates on behalf extremist American Jews, a good number of whom found their way into the Bush administration (here's a good article on the group by Jason Vest who's reported on them extensively).
From Goldberg's article ...
One leader, Joshua Katzen, of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, told me, "I think that Israelis don't have the big view of global jihad that American Jews do, because Israelis are caught up in their daily emergencies." When I asked him how his Israeli friends responded to this, he answered: "They say, 'When your son has to fight, you can have an opinion.' But I tell them that it is precisely because your son has to fight that you have a harder time seeing the larger picture."
I won't take the time to recapitulate the whole article. But you should read it because it covers a basic reality -- by conflating being pro-Israel with supporting the continued colonization of the West Bank, many of Israel's 'friends' in the US are placing Israel in great danger and doing no favor to the United States either.
--Josh Marshall
Black Ops
We should find out tomorrow more about how exactly the FBI was involved in detainee interrogations, when Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine releases his long-awaited (and delayed) report. The AP has a preview.
--David Kurtz
Squeaky Wheel
Hillary flack Howard Wolfson gets his correction from the New York Times.
--David Kurtz
TPMCafe Book Club: Eric Alterman
Eric Alterman argues for the big bad "L" word in this week's Book Club, which features his newest: Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America.
Liberalism is back in all but the name, he argues. So what's wrong with the name?
Helping him to sort that out all week will be Joan McCarter of DailyKos, Digby of Hullabaloo, Brink Lindsey of the CATO Institute, and Ed Kilgore of The Democratic Strategist.
--David Kurtz
Taxonomies
TPM Reader RCB mulls John McCain's threat classification schema ...
Seems like a "threat" in this sense is really a function of two variables: the potency of the enemy *and* the ability to defend against that enemy's arsenal. (Potency - Defense = Threat.)In that context, Obama is partially right. The Soviets had the ability to rain down warheads upon us and destroy multiple cities. However, we could counter with M.A.D., and at least we knew where the Soviet leader lived, so in the end, the potential danger was huge but the threat in terms of daily risk was significantly lower.
Meanwhile, from McCain's point of view, Iran is part of a larger, amorphous network of Dangerous Brown People Who Want Us Dead. And many key aspects of our defense against that (non-proliferation, capturing Bin Laden, avoiding Iraq-style quagmire, etc.) are sorely lacking. So in this sense, McCain may truly believe that Iran is part of a more serious day-to-day threat.
Of course, that reality would be due in large part to profound failures in policy and judgment that McCain has endorsed for a few years, but I guess he's hoping he can gloss over that with the tough talk. The Iranians and the Soviets could only wish(ed) they could use any weapon as effectively as the GOP has used fear over the past six years.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Appeaser Teaser: Gen. Election Preview
The general election matchup between John McCain and Barack Obama received a symbolic champagne bottle smash against the hull last week when President Bush implicitly attacked Barack Obama's foreign policy as appeasement during a speech in Jerusalem. Obama fired back, McCain jumped in, and the ship was off and sailing ...
High-res version at Veracifier.com.
--Ben Craw