The Democrats Must Pass The Bailout Plan, On Their Own If Necessary

John McCain has said before that he'd rather win a war than a Presidential election. And he's all but said that Barack Obama is willing to lose a war if it means being elected President. With House Republicans and Senator McCain killing any hope of saving this nation's economy from almost certain catastrophe (and after reading and listening to some of the smartest minds in the world discuss what might happen if this deal doesn't get done, catastrophe is no overstatement), the Democrats must save this country's financial system. There are enough votes in the Senate to pass a bailout plan. There are enough votes in the House to pass a bailout plan. And the President is prepared to sign a bailout plan. The only thing standing in the way other than John McCain? Politics.

See, Democrats want to pass the bailout and save the country's financial system from ruin. But, the plan, no thanks to an unpopular President with next to no credibility and no ability to convince the American people of anything, has been completely botched in its presentation to the American people. Is it bailing out Wall Street? Absolutely. But, that doesn't mean the plan is helping out risky executives while leaving American taxpayers out in the cold. It's bailing out Wall Street to get credit moving again and to get banks lending again and to stop businesses from failing, banks from closing, and people in their homes. And it's not "spending" $700 billion. It's investing it, in assets which should eventually turn a profit for the country. Is it a risk? Yes. But, unless we enter a second Great Depression, we won't lose everything. But the American people don't understand that, and they either don't understand the bailout or viscerally oppose it, in large part because they don't understand the consequences of not supporting it.

So why won't the Democrats pass the bailout and save the world? Because they are afraid it won't work. And because the plan has been so mis-sold, and is so unpopular, the Democrats are afraid to go it alone. Well, sometimes, you have to lose an election to win a war. Sometimes you have to make a decision you know is right even if it's unpopular.

Screw the House Republicans. They were never on board to begin with and they likely never were going to be. And don't you dare let John McCain, in a disgustingly partisan press release blame Senator Obama for the breakdown in negotiations. Had John McCain not shown up in Washington, this deal may have been done by now. Instead, it's a boondoggle threatening the world economy. Because John McCain wanted to look "Presidential" because his campaign was failing. Yeah, he really puts "Country First."

Pass the plan tomorrow without the House Republicans. Save the country worry about the politics later. If the Democrats have the votes, and they are afraid to exercise them because the Republicans won't give them cover, then everyone involved deserves blame. Saving our economy should come first, even if that means going it alone.

Protecting Palin Too Much Plus: Palin's Jews for Jesus Problem

...If you even dare ask about Governor Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience (or lackthereof) the question is so out-of-bounds, so sexist (even when it comes from a woman, Campbell Brown) that John McCain was so offended that he jilted Larry King of all people, canceling a scheduled interview on Larry King Live after Campbell Brown dared ask the question. Give me a break. A few months after Sarah Palin called Hillary Clinton a "whiner" because her campaign was complaining about sexism (saying such comments did women a disservice), the McCain-Palin campaign has decided that any criticism of Palin, no matter how substantive, is sexism.

The fact that she was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it? Can't bring that up, that's sexism. The fact that her town of 6,500 people received almost $30 million in earmarks? Can't go there. How about her abuse of power in firing a public safety commissioner after he refused to fire her brother in law? Or her and her husband's support of the Alaska Independence Party, which wants a vote on succeeding from the Union and whose founder has damned America and said he would refuse to be buried in the US flag? Or, today's news that Palin's church, while Palin was present, allowed an anti-Jewish group to preach. In August, while Palin was in the pews, Palin's pastor turned over the pulpit to the founder of "Jews for Jesus" which aims to covert those of the Jewish faith, and who said, in front of Palin, that terror attacks on Israel were God's wrath against uncoverted Jews. I can't make this up.

An illustration of that gap came just two weeks ago, when Palin’s church, the Wasilla Bible Church, gave its pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the founder of Jews for Jesus.

Palin’s pastor, Larry Kroon, introduced Brickner on Aug. 17, according to a transcript of the sermon on the church’s website.

“He’s a leader of Jews for Jesus, a ministry that is out on the leading edge in a pressing, demanding area of witnessing and evangelism,” Kroon said.

[ . . . . ] Brickner also described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity.

Why do I think that Sean Hannity, who spent months railing against Barack Obama (even demanding that he resign from the Senate) because of his association with Jerimiah Wright, won't be talking about how Palin should have walked out of her church, and how Palin should have stood up to her pastor. And worse than Obama, she was there that day in August when the Jews for Jesus founder spoke about how those who are Jewish have a "difficult time understanding the reality" that they need to convert to Christianity.

But, I'm sure bringing this up just makes me sexist. Just one question then before I go. Does questioning Barack Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright or his lack of experience make Republicans racist?

McCain Not Playing Politics With Gustav? Yeah, Not So Much

John McCain has gotten a lot of credit in recent days, and deservedly so, for choosing to curtail part of the Republican National Convention in deference to the people of New Orleans the related areas who at this time are being hammered by the remnants of Hurricane Gustav. Good for McCain. He absolutely deserves credit for that. While it's also the right thing to do politically (attacking Obama and celebrating while a hurricane is punishing part of America doesn't work) McCain is paying a price for this decision, as his party will not get the chance to get their message out on an equal basis like the Democrats did last week.

But, let's not kid ourselves, the McCain campaign absolutely is playing politics with the hurricane. And in many ways, what they accomplished today, and the news they buried today, by making it public on the same day all the newspapers, cable news networks, and evening newscasts are focused on the hurricane, was worth so much more than anything they could have gained from tonight's scheduled convention speeches from the vastly unpopular Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.

What news did the McCain campaign release today that each could have been big stories, and could have been very damaging to the campaign? Three dings to the Vice President nobody (including, apparently, the McCain campaign) knows anything about. First was word that Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. And, I agree with what Barack Obama said earlier today that families should be off-limit in Presidential campaigns. The story here isn't that Palin's daughter is pregnant, that's a private family matter. It's how McCain could trust somebody with the future of the country that he knows so little about, and that he's still learning about.

One thing perhaps he didn't know, which was also very quietly released today, was news that Palin's husband was arrested for DUI in 1986. Now does a candidate's husband's mistake as a 22-year-old disqualify that candidate from seeking higher office? Of course not. But there's no coincidence the news was released today when it would get absolutely zero attention because of the hurricane.

And then there was the late breaking news that Palin has hired a private attorney for herself and her staff related to allegations she fired an Alaska Public Safety Comissioner who refused to fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law. As Dan Abrams said on MSNBC this afternoon, it makes a lot of sense that Palin would hire a lawyer (especially since her deposition is likely to be taken in the next few weeks) and there's nothing inherently suspicious about doing so (in fact, it's the right and smart thing to do). But, again, politically, it won't look good. And there's no question the release of the news late this afternoon was done purposefully as to be buried by the hurricane coverage.

Was the McCain campaign smart to release these news items today? Absolutely. No question. But let's not pretend that the timing was simply coincidental or that the McCain campaign wasn't trying to take advantage of the news dead zone the hurricane provided them to release these stories.

Lessons From President Bartlet: The Only Four Words That Matter About The Choice of Vice President

As I was watching Barack Obama's equally awe-inspiring and uplifting acceptance speech Thursday night, a particular line jumped out at me. It's not that John McCain doesn't care, Obama argued, it's that John McCain doesn't get it. I turned to my buddy Dave with whom I was watching the speech, and I said, he just turned into Andrew Shepherd. Shepherd, of course, was Aaron Sorkin's President in The American President, played perfectly by Michael Douglas. After enduring a movie-full of negative character attacks by his Republican opponent, in the climax of the movie, Shepherd, after trying to take the high road the entire film lashes out in the press briefing room, with an awe-inspiring and uplifting response to the attacks. One of the key lines?

I've known Bob Rumson for years. And I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy yelling into the rain is because he simply didn't get it. Well I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is he can't sell it.

And I laughed afterwards when both Brian Williams and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC noted the very same point about Sorkin's words. Well, there are more lessons to be learned from Aaron Sorkin, this time about John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his Vice President.

During the third season of The West Wing, as Martin Sheen's President Josiah a Bartlet was preparing to run for a second term, the question came up about whether he should replace his Vice President on the ticket. Texas, the state the Vice President carried in the election for Bartlet four years ago was no longer in play, and the two never got along and often clashed. So the whole episode, Bartlet's west wing team held closed door meetings, debating whom could replace the Vice President. But, at the end of the episode, President Bartlet put a stop the speculation and reaffirmed his commitment to his Vice President. Why? Because when it comes to selecting a Vice President, only four words really matter.

And what are those four words?

LEO: I think that issue is probably worth further discussion but we're done talking about the ticket. The President's made it very clear that he wants the Vice President to remain the Vice President and he wrote down his one and only reason.

[He pulls out the paper and hands it to Josh.]

JOSH: "Because I could die." Well, of course he's right, sir.

Because I Could Die. That's why you pick a Vice President, who while he or she may sure up your weaknesses, or help you electorally, at the end of the day, is somebody you are supremely confident could lead the country, and in many ways the world. It's a lesson Barack Obama took to heart. He could have chosen Virginia Governor Tim Kaine as his running mate. The two are very close personally, Obama trusts Kaine (in some ways perhaps more than the man he selected, Joe Biden), he may have helped Obama carry Virginia, and he re-enforced Obama's message of change. But, Kaine had serious questions about his experience (he's only been Governor of Virginia for one term and had little-to-no foreign policy experience) so Obama went in a different direction, and his choice of Biden (no offense to Kaine) was in the better interest of the country. John McCain didn't heed that lesson, and chose a Vice President who in no way would be qualified or ready to be President tomorrow.

Governor Palin may have a lot of positive attributes but she John McCain failed President Bartlet's and Aaron Sorkin's only test for the selection of the Vice President. "Because I Could Die." It's four words John McCain should have thought about before he named a Vice President he met just one time, and spoke with about the Vice Presidency, on the phone, just once. It's about putting the country first, instead of one's political or personal ambitions. And it's another example of why John McCain's judgment and temperament are not suited for the Oval Office.

Country First? Not With McCain'sVP Choice

There's a lot to like about John McCain's Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin. She has challenged her own party on ethics and other issues. She's smart and tough, and getting new blood in Washington is never a bad thing. But, that means she'd make a good Senator. Vice President? At 44, having been Governor of one of the smallest states in the Union (population wise) for less than two years, and having been mayor of a town of just 6,500 people before that, and with no interest in foreign policy (she's been quoted as saying she doesn't know anything about the conditions in Iraq related to our exiting the country) she is nowhere near "ready to lead" (to steal a McCain phrase).

Yet John McCain has put her one heartbeat away from the Presidency. This is despite meeting her just one time, just six months ago (!) and having talked with her about the Vice Presidency exactly one (!) time (on the phone no less). Apparently it's harder to get hired at a fast food restaurant than it is to be named the second most powerful person in the world in John McCain's administration. And while that's not completely fair (I'm sure there was a thorough vetting process which took place) it's not completely unfair either. In many ways, this bothers me more than anything else about the Palin pick, even her inexperience.

The selection of Vice President is often seen as a political gambit, but in many ways, it has to be about putting "County First" to use John McCain's own campaign slogan. Because the Vice President is one heartbeat away from running the free world, ensuring that the Vice President, more than anything else, is qualified to be President, has to be the first quality satisfied. Should something happen to the President, the country has to know that the Vice President is capable of taking over immediately. And how can John McCain know that Sarah Palin is ready? How do you not meet and interview the person, in-person? How do you only speak to the person ONE time about the job? How can you be sure that Sarah Palin is best for the country having hardly spoken to her. If John McCain allows his staff to make this decision for him (and if they didn't, they certainly must have played an extraordinary large role given the lack of personal contact between McCain and Palin) what other critical decisions will McCain similarly have little input on as President? He didn't just pick somebody the country doesn't know very well. He picked someone whom he doesn't know very well. How could he? He's met or spoken to her just twice in his entire life.

As Paul Begala put it so well yesterday night on Larry King, would you entrust your children, if something happened to you, to somebody who you met one time at a luncheon and with whom you've spoken with one time, on the phone, about raising your kids? That would sound absurd. Yet John McCain has entrusted the future of over 300 million Americans (and in many ways, the future of the world) to Sarah Palin, despite not knowing her at all. She may turn out to be a tremendous Vice President, but how can John McCain know that for sure? How can he gamble with the country's future like this?

This shows me a real lack of consideration on John McCain's part which really concerns me about how he'll make decisions if he becomes President. His lack of personal engagement is remarkable in a decision this important.

And what about Palin's stances on the issues? We already know, based on her past statements, that she knows very little about foreign policy. She's fiercely pro-life (going so far as to say she wouldn't allow abortions even in cases of rape and incest), is a life long member of the NRA, and has talked favorably about requiring schools to teach creationism in public schools. And she has a very thin (and questionable) record on Israel. Both her and her husband were fundraisers for Pat Buchanan when he ran for President (he proudly admitted that on MSNBC tonight, giving Palin a stronger Buchanan connection than Politco's Ben Smith earlier believed) and while I enjoy watching Buchanan on MSNBC and think he's very knowledgeable about political issues, he has never been a strong (or any kind) of real friend of Israel. I can't imagine that's going to play well in the very swing state of Florida, where Obama has shown surprising strength.

John McCain needed to follow his own slogan and put "County First" with his Vice Presidential pick. It's what Barack Obama did. There is no question that should something happen where Barack cannot continue as President, Joe Biden is ready and qualified to be President. John McCain, on the other hand, selected a woman with an extraordinarily thin resume whom he hardly knows. And this is after spending months convincing America that Barack Obama is not ready to lead. With the way he made his choice (even more than the choice itself), John McCain certainly did not put his "Country First."

Barack Obama's Secret Weapon: Tom Ridge?

I was thinking today, could Barack Obama's secret weapon against John McCain be none other than former Pennsylvania Governor and first Homeland Security Secretary, Republican Tom Ridge? May not be as crazy as it first sounds. Here's why.

As Marc Ambinder brilliantly points out today over at the Atlantic, John Mccain is running into a real problem with his choices for Vice President. A week ago, Mitt Romney was the odds on favorite, and I was a firm believer that even if McCain didn't like or trust Romney, he still had to pick him politically. Romney, because of his Michigan connections, would give McCain a coin-flip (or better) chance to win here (and Barack Obama, barring a very strange election, cannot win without Michigan) and Romney also could put both Colorado and Nevada, two traditionally Republican states Obama is showing real strength in, out of reach by maximizing Mormon turnout. But, Romney's chances took a real hit when McCain made his housing gaffe last week. After being painted as out-of-touch with middle-class Americans, can McCain really put Mitt Romney, worth north of $250 million, on the ticket without playing right into Obama's hands? And not only that, look at the ads McCain has run since Joe Biden was named as Vice President. Ads of Biden and Clinton bashing Obama. Mitt Romney said much worse things about John McCain during the Republican primary. And even worse, McCain said horrible things about Romney. Imagine those ads. And McCain opened the door by running his anti-Obama ads starring Joe Biden.

And as Ambinder notes, even the other supposed finalist, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, doesn't look that attractive anymore now that Biden is Obama's VP. Pawlenty, aside from being as inexperienced (if not more so) than Obama, would be eaten alive by Biden in the Vice Presidential debate (just as John Edwards was by Dick Cheney in 2004). And how can McCain continue to attack Obama for not being ready to lead, and then pick Pawlenty as his second in command?

So how does Tom Ridge play into all of this? In his heart of hearts, McCain would almost certainly choose Ridge as his VP. The two are very close, Ridge has both executive experience (Homeland Security Secretary and as Governor of Pennsylvania) and knows Washington well enough to help get things done on the Hill. Plus, electorally, he puts Pennsylvania very much in play, and if McCain wins Pennsylvania, just as does if he wins Michigan, he makes the electoral math very very difficult for Obama. The problem with Ridge? Just one. He's pro-choice. And the so-called "Maverick" of politics has given in to the right-wing of his party and has eliminated Ridge from consideration.

As soon as McCain names his VP, especially if it's Romney, Obama needs to come out with a Tom Ridge ad, very much in the same vein as McCain's ad today about Hillary Clinton and the Vice Presidency. The ad needs to tout Ridge's credentials, his closeness to McCain, and then ask "So why is he not on the ticket? Because he's pro-choice and John McCain gave into the right wing of his party and chose ____ instead. Some Maverick." Or something like that. Maybe "Is he looking out for your values or theirs" while flashing pictures of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

The ad would accomplish multiple goals. First, it would remind women, especially those Hillary supporters, that McCain is staunchly pro-life. Because of his "moderate" imagine, many women wrongly believe McCain is pro-choice, and because of that, they find him easier to support, especially given their feelings about the Hillary Clinton-Obama primary. This would show them how pro-life he really is. Secondly, it would show that McCain is giving in to the far right, and doing so against his own better judgment, and in many ways, against what's best for the country. And it would instantly create credibility questions about McCain's decision making process.

Would it last long in this era of a 24-hour news cycle? Maybe. But it would make a powerful point, and maybe help change the public's perception of John McCain.

McCain Campaign: Great Idea, Horrible Execution on Hillary Clinton Ad

As I was watching MSNBC's coverage of the Barack Obama-Joe Biden unveiling yesterday (after I got home from the Lions 26-6 victory over Cleveland, thank God for DVRs) I got to thinking. While the McCain campaign's original ad in response to Obama picking Biden was utterly predictable (a clip of Biden attacking Obama at a debate for being inexperienced followed by Biden praising McCain) I thought that if the McCain campaign was really smart, they'd run an ad praising Hillary Clinton, and try to draw a wedge with Hillary voters and get them riled up that she wasn't on the ticket. After all, in the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, the reason why Obama is only up on McCain by an insignificant margin is because of the significant number of Hillary voters either supporting McCain or refusing to support Obama. These are liberal-learning voters, mostly Democrats, but they are angry with Obama for winning the nomination and they are currently preventing him from stretching his lead over McCain. And had a Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee won the Republican nomination, they almost certainly wouldn't have supported those candidates, McCain, because of his "maverick" reputation, and the mistaken belief by many that he's a moderate (when he's not), is a palatable choice. Especially when compared with Obama.

So what has the McCain campaign done? Put together a Hillary Clinton ad, questioning Obama for not putting her on the ticket. The problem? The ad makes no sense when viewed next to their first ad about Biden. Take a look at both ads:

So let me get this straight. Barack Obama picked a running mate (Joe Biden) who at a debate said he wasn't ready to lead, but he refused to pick another (Hillary Clinton) because she dared question his policies? Am I missing something here? If Barack Obama eschewed Hillary because she didn't agree with him on every issue, then why pick Biden, who, as McCain's first ad is all about, questioned Obama's ability to lead the country? Doesn't Obama picking Biden show that he's willing, if not eager, to select a VP who isn't a sycophant?

The message of these two ads completely conflict with one another. They are utterly inconsistent, and when viewed together, they make no logical sense. It's almost as if whomever created the Hillary ad never saw the Biden ad. Plus, there were a lot more harsh comments by Hillary they could have used (Shame on you Barack Obama!; When you were representing your slum landlord contributor Rezko; John McCain has a lifetime of experience and Barack Obama has a speech he gave in 2002) which would fit much more neatly into the "not ready to lead" meme the McCain campaign has been pushing and would have fit with the theme of the Biden ad. Throw in a line about "18 million voters and she wasn't even on his short list?" and a McCain clip praising Hillary and there's a very effective 30-second spot which should really get the Clintonite blood boiling.

Instead, we get this ad, which while a good idea in theory, does not fit with McCain's broader message, and is contrary to his earlier attack ad on Biden. Good idea McCain campaign, just horrendous execution.

Why I Like Joe Biden

Barack Obama finally selected his Vice President, text messaging his supporters around 3 AM yesterday announcing that Senator Joe Biden was his choice for Vice President (I, however, have yet to get that text message, though I did get an e-mail from Obama around 4:50 a.m. announcing the pick). As I wrote earlier, Biden was my pick for VP. He has an extremely compelling personal story (he was elected to the United States Senate at age 29, then months later he lost his wife and infant daughter to a horrific car accident, was sworn into the Senate from his sons hospital beds as they recovered from their injuries sustained in the same accident; he ran for the Presidency in 1988 and then almost died of a brain aneurysm;, and he continues, to this day, to ride Amtrak back and forth from Delaware to Washington each day, eschewing living in D.C.), he has an encyclopedic knowledge of foreign policy and will undoubtedly help Obama govern effectively, and he's fiercely independent and won't be afraid to question and challenge Obama when they disagree.

Going into the primaries, I wasn't sold on Biden. But after watching him campaign, and especially his performances in the debates, I changed my tune very quickly. From the Democratic CNN YouTube debate on July 24, 2007 (wow, this election has been going on for a long time, and July was almost eight months into it to boot):

As for who else really impressed me, Joe Biden continues to show that he may be the smartest candidate of the bunch. A bit angry at times, but while everyone else talks about getting out of Iraq, Biden sounds like he actually knows how to get out of Iraq. On foreign policy, there is nobody better right now than Biden, and he sounds intelligent on the domestic issues too. He has no chance to be President, but should a Democrat win in 2008, I couldn't think of a better candidate for Secretary of State.

I had much the same opinion in September after an MSNBC debate:

Edwards, as well as Joe Biden, had good nights. I like Biden more and more every time I see him. Sure, he's not going to win, but he's the only one, especially when compared to Clinton, to actually answer questions, and he's incredibly knowledgeable when it comes to Iraq and foreign policy. Would he make a good President? I don't know. But he needs a prominent role in our government.

And then there was the December 2007 debate:

And one last debate thought, Joe Biden, again, a great performance. More than anyone else, including Obama, Biden has impressed me in these debates. So much so that I'm going to write his name in and vote for him in the Michigan primary. It doesn't mean much since the Democrats have all taken their names off the ballot here in accordance with the wishes of the DNC (except for Hillary of course) so our primary is pretty meaningless, but Biden deserves it. He doesn't want to be VP, and probably wouldn't be a good electoral choice, but I'd make him Secretary of State or Defense or anything he wanted if I were the next President.

So, while I was pushing Biden for Secretary of State, Vice President works too. I think he was the best choice, and he's the right choice. And he's going to be a fiery advocate and campaigner for Obama. I can't wait to see the team in action.

McCain Camp Misses Big Opportunity

I don't know if the McCain Campaign failed to finish their negative Tony Rezko ad in time for the nightly newscasts to air it tonight, or if the networks, without knowledge or confidence the ad will ever air (McCain in the past this election cycle has created strong attack ads but not actually paid to air them, with the aim of having the networks air the ad for free on news and opinion broadcasts, which they have been more than happy to do) but the ad did not air on either NBC Nightly News or ABC's World News Tonight. Instead, the pieces the networks ran focused on Obama's attacks, and his tying McCain's statement that he doesn't know how many houses he knows to how out of touch McCain is with problems in the economy.

The Rezko ad is a brutal hatchet job on Obama. While Obama's negative ad today at least is tangentially related to policy (asking how McCain can understand or fix the economy if he doesn't know it's broken) McCain's ad is completely unrelated to policy. It's a total negative character attack, essentially saying "Obama is a crook who associates with other crooks. He does them political favors and he swindles real estate on the side." Of course, Rezko is not one of Obama's biggest fundraisers by any calculation (and he never donated a dime to Obama's Presidential campaign, and all of the funds Rezko raised or had any connection have long been donated to charity by Obama) and Obama was never the subject of any suspicion of wrong-doing related to Rezko. But, that's surely not the picture painted by McCain's ad.

I'll be honest, nothing surprises me in politics, but I really thought McCain was more honorable than the campaign he's running. The advantage to having McCain as the Republican nominee, and Obama as the Democratic nominee, was supposed to be a civil campaign. Instead, McCain has run almost entirely negative ads, mostly involving Obama's character (not his policies) and he has repeatedly questioned Obama's patriotism (including saying that Obama would choose to lose a war if it meant he was elected President). Obama, in recent days, has gone more on the attack, but always couched in policy distinctions, not personal ones. John McCain has chosen not to follow that path. And it's working, because the polls have tightened, and McCain seems to have the wind at his back. But, something tells me, McCain would not have accepted this kind of campaign when he ran in 2000. But if you want to win badly enough, and you are willing to do whatever your advisers tell you to do, then this is the kind of campaign you get. One indistinguishable from the campaign George W. Bush ran against McCain in 2000.

The Veepstakes

As we get to crunch time in the so-called Veepstakes (with Drudge via the New York Times reporting Barack Obama could announce his choice as early as Wednesday morning) it appears that the names for Obama are narrowed to the three which have been at the top of the list for months now: Senators Joe Biden and Evan Bayh and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine.

And, maybe coincidentally, and maybe purposefully, each represents a different kind of Vice President and the reasons for selecting each are very different. Biden doesn't help Obama with any particular state on the electoral map (maybe he solidifies Pennsylvania, but I don't think that states in much jeopardy anyway) but he provides Obama with the veteran, foreign-policy expert many believe he needs, he's highly respected and has a national profile, and he "checks a lot of boxes" as Chuck Todd would say. Bayh seems to be an electoral choice. Indiana, a perpetually red state, is turning blue, in large part because of the economic woes, and in part because Obama's familiarity in neighboring Illinois. Bayh on the ticket could tip the state to Obama. And Bayh's very public support of Hillary Clinton doesn't hurt either as Obama tries, still, to soothe things over with Clinton supporters. And there's Tim Kaine. While Governor of Virginia, Obama will likely win or lose the state whether or not Kaine's on the ticket. So why Kaine? Obama and Kaine are close personally, so they will work well together, and Obama trusts Kaine, which is crucial with a VP pick. And Kaine is not part of the Washington establishment, like Biden (and to a lesser extent) Bayh, so he doubles down on the "change" message.

I think Bayh comes in third place here. He's perpetually on the short list for VP but never picked, and despite the desire to put Indiana in the Democratic column, I just don't think Obama's going to go with him. Which means it comes down to Bayh and Biden.

First, who I think Obama will select: Tim Kaine. While many in the national media have consistently said that Obama needs a foreign-policy guy as his VP (hence the talk of Biden, Wes Clark, and Sam Nunn), Obama has never signaled he was thinking that way. In fact, all of his public comments have been just the opposite. While some have called him cocky, and that may be a bridge too far, there is no doubt Obama is supremely confident in his foreign policy judgment. And with very good reason, as his prescient objections to the Iraq War prove. It doesn't seem like Obama believes that foreign policy is a real weakness which mandates the VP nail down that policy area. And Obama certainly seems like the kind of person that would value the personal relationship with his VP and the ability to trust that VP above all else. And there's no question Obama and Kaine are close, and both are simpatico when it comes to fundimentally changing how business is done in Washington.

The problem? Kaine's almost more inexperienced than Obama (he's been Governor for less than a full term), has zero national profile (and thus wouldn't help the ticket gain any steam or erase any doubts voters may have about Obama, and in fact, may enlarge the doubts people have), and he seems like a third choice from his state alone. With word leaking out last week (courtesy of Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic) that the Obama campaign was pressuring former Virginia Governor Mark Warner to submit his name to be vetted for VP (he declined to concentrate on his blowout of a US Senate Race and was subsequently named Keynote Speaker at the Democratic Convention next week) and with Senator Jim Webb, a perfect VP choice, also declining, Kaine's selection could (and maybe should) be seen as Obama settling. And one should never settle on the VP choice. And most importantly, should something happen to Obama, can you really imagine a President Kaine? Just think about that question for a minute.

Now, my choice would be Joe Biden. I was thoroughly impressed with Biden in the Democratic primaries. So much so that because the Michigan primary meant nothing, I planned on voting for Biden before I learned doing so would make my vote invalid. Nobody running for President (and perhaps nobody else, although, I reserve judgment out of respect for the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Carl Levin) had a better understanding, knowledge, and ability to articulate a vision of the quagmire in Iraq and other foreign policy happenings than Biden. And while John McCain likes to tout his "Straight Talk Express" there is no doubt that Joe Biden will always tell you what he's thinking, and what he's honestly thinking, and to prove it, he's gotten himself into some trouble speaking his mind. He gives Obama the experience and gravitas Obama may lack, he'd be a huge asset to the country as Vice President. And he's instantly believable and credible as President. And , back to those "boxes" again. He's Catholic. He's blue collar. He's popular with the kinds of voters Obama may have a hard time attracting. And while Obama may be confident in his own foreign policy judgments (again, with good reasons), voters still aren't. Voters need to be convinced. Joe Biden will do that. People will feel much better about Obama as President with the knowledge he has somebody as his VP to support him. Maybe people shouldn't think like that, but they do, and Biden would instantly strengthen the ticket in ways Tim Kaine and Evan Bayh would not.

I hope I'm wrong, and I hope Biden is the pick. We should know by the end of the week. But, while Obama's heart may be leaning towards Kaine, he should make this choice with his head, and he should choose the Senator from Delaware.

McAuliffe on Today: No Convention Fight

Very interesting morning already. While yesterday the Clinton campaign seemed ready to fight on, even if Barack Obama claimed victory tonight, the chairman of the Hillary Clinton campaign, Terry McAuliffe, on the Today Show this morning, was striking a much different, and much more conciliatory tone.

He said that Hillary Clinton would likely not be going to the convention to fight over "four" delegates, and talked much more about coming together then continuing the fight, and he even acknowledged that if Obama reached the "magic" number (though he did not say what he considered that number to be) that Hillary would declare him the nominee and drop out of the race.

We may get an ending to this campaign which unifies the party after all.

All You Need To Know About The Clinton and Obama Campaigns

Some fascinating and really revealing information from NBC's great Chuck Todd. Chuck reports that Barack Obama actually HAD the votes to split the Michigan delegation 50-50 and completely throw out the primary results from Michigan's unsanctioned and flawed primary. His supporters, though, refused to take that hard of a line, even though he would have WON because they wanted a greater consensus in the interest of party unity, thus, the 69-59 split. Instead of compromising, like Obama did, and accepting the will of the Michigan Democratic Party, and instead of bringing the party together, the Clinton campaign called the move a "hijacking" and is now threatening to drag the campaign through August, which would mean no endorsement of Obama by Clinton, no bringing of the party together, and no chance to win in the fall, all over a net of four delegates. It could have been much worse for the Clinton campaign had the Obama supporters not been magnanimous and went even further than they needed to in order to bring the party together.

And Hillary Clinton somehow thinks that after costing the Democrats the election in 2008, the party is going to come back on their hands and knees to her in 2012? She's not just ending any chance Barack Obama has of becoming President, she's ending her own political future. How she doesn't see that is amazing to me.

The Obama campaign compromised even after they won. And the Clinton campaign refused to budge even an inch, even after Obama won, and then extended a further olive branch to the Clintons. It's unbelievable, and it's not good for the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton MUST End Her Supporters Before it is Too Late

The Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee gave the states of Michigan and Florida what they wanted. But the Hillary Clinton campaign has taken a hard line over the allocation of FOUR Michigan delegates. They wanted the Michigan delegation apportioned 73-55, a net gain of 9 after the delegates were halved. The end result was 69-59, a net gain of five for Clinton. So Harold Ickes is going to destroy any chance of Democratic unity, any chance of a Democrat winning in the fall, by fighting to the convention over FOUR DELEGATES which will make no difference on the overall vote totals.

And to use the word "hijack" after what happened on September 11 is no less offensive than had he used the word "lynched" or any similar variation. He continually talked about the election being "hijacked" because Senator Clinton lost four delegates. Senator Clinton, as senator from New York, should know almost better than anybody what the word "hijack" means in 2008 and the images the word "hijack" brings up.

The Michigan and Florida delegates are seated. The state parties are happy. The party, though, is not unified, and we saw a clear example of that today. Not just Harold Ickes offensive language, but also the protesters outside. In the interest of party unity, the Obama campaign specifically told their supporters not to protest. We got no similar class or interest in party above candidate from Senator Clinton. Her supporters almost singlehandedly derailed the vote with their protests, and it shows how divided the Democrats are. If we do not come together as a party, the chance of winning in the fall falls almost to zero.

Hillary Clinton is the only person right now who can unite the party. She will not be the nominee for President from the Democratic Party. That is very clear after today. What's left, is for her to do what's in the best interest of the party, and convince her supporters to rally behind Barack Obama. Today, though, despite Obama working towards a compromise, her campaign has been unwilling to do the same, and with their offensive and dangerous rhetoric, they are so close to ensuring this party will never unify. Hillary Clinton must come out tonight and endorse these comprised measures which were approved by the Rules and Bylaws Committee. She must be the bigger person and put party above her own self interest. And if she doesn't, then we all know where she stands, and that she values her own interests above that of the Democratic Party. And if that's where we end up, that is a very sad result for the Clintons, for Democratic Party, and for the country.

Watching this Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting...

Two things become obvious:

1) Senator Carl Levin does not like the state of New Hampshire holding their primary first every year.

2) The best thing I think Barack Obama could do right now, is if David Bonior came out and said "We accept the Michigan proposal to split the delegates 69/59 which also acknowledges that the popular vote in that state was flawed." This accomplishes two goals. First, with Clinton taking such a hard line (Zero delegates for Obama from Michigan, no accounting for those who didn't vote, had write-in votes, and voted for Republicans because their candidates were not on the ballot) it makes Obama look very conciliatory, like a leader, and like someone who is willing to compromise, not fight. Two, it doesn't hurt Obama at all (10 delegates, in the grand scheme of thing, is meaningless) and it makes sure Clinton can't use Michigan's totals in her popular vote argument. Obama can come out and say "We were with both Florida and Michigan, endorsed their proposals, and the Clinton campaign refused to budge even an inch."

I don't think that's what they'll do. Plans are for Bonior to argue for a 50/50 split of the delegates, which I understand, because the primary did not reflect the will of the voters, but I think the Obama campaign misses an opportunity to paint Clinton into a real corner, with no real damage to the campaign, if they do not endorse the Michigan proposal.

3) Another thing. Harold Ickes argues against the reliability of exit polls. Yet, Hillary Clinton, in her OWN words, says her electability argument is that she appeals, and Barack Obama does not, to working class WHITE voters. And how does she know this? EXIT POLLS. The contradictory nature of the Clinton argument is mind-boggoling sometimes.

4) Another another. Great retort by Senator Levin to Ickes when he said it would never be a fair reflection to seat delegates from a flawed primary. Amen.

What Hillary Clinton Wants From The Rules and Bylaws Committee: Chaos

Tomorrow morning, the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet, and will hear arguments about what to do with the rogue, unsanctioned, and illegitimate primaries of Michigan and Florida. And it has become clear that the Clinton campaign wants one thing and one thing only from the meeting: Chaos. What is equally as clear that they do not want: Any sort of resolution or compromise.

While Barack Obama's campaign has continually tried to reach a compromise with the Clinton campaign over the seating of the delegates from Michigan and Florida, at a net loss of delegates to his campaign. He would agree to seating the Florida delegation in full, and in accordance with the January primary results (even though he did not campaign in the state and undoubtedly would have faired better than he did had he been able to campaign there) so long as each delegate gets only half a vote. This would punish Florida for moving up their primary (and potentially prevent other states from doing the same in the future) and would make the delegate split closer to how it may have turned out had a real campaign taken place. In Michigan, Obama's willing to take a loss in delegates too.

But, Clinton is taking the hardest of hard lines. According to her campaign, Obama should get zero delegates from Michigan, not even those who had voted for "uncommitted." This a a ludicrous position, and shows the Clinton campaign is unwilling to make any compromise at all. It shows they don't want a solution, they want an excuse to carry on the campaign through the Democratic convention in late August.

And so they can claim a popular vote win? It's crazy anyway (how many people didn't vote in Michigan because the primary was outlawed? Hundreds of thousands, and I'm one of them. And to not give Obama any of the uncommitted vote in a popular vote tally and then claim to be the popular vote leader is intellectually dishonest). And what does a popular vote win get Hillary Clinton? The nomination? No. But it gives her a hook to have her supporters not support Obama in the fall, which opens up 2012 for another Hillary Clinton run for the White House. It's why the Clinton campaign is organizing a protest tomorrow, while the Obama campaign has urged their supporters to not follow suit, in the interest of party unity. One campaign is interested in bringing the party together. The other wants to continue fighting and continue to charge up their supporters against the other candidate. And Hillary Clinton wonders why people want her to end her campaign.

Hopefully, this won't matter. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will, in all likelihood, recommend that Michigan and Florida be seated tomorrow, but with some punishment. It will be seen as a compromise which favors the Clinton campaign. When she turns it down as "unreasonable" she'll look, well, unreasonable. And if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who continue to say they want to end this race after the final primary on June 3rd, have any power, they'll get enough Super Delegates to put Obama over the top, no matter Clinton's protests.

It would be nice to see a compromise tomorrow, but with the Clinton campaign digging its heels in, even though Clinton may gain as many as 20 net delegates, this fight will continue on, to the detriment of Barack Obama's chances this fall, and to the detriment of the Democratic Party Hillary Clinton claims to represent.

My Problem With Hillary Clinton's Explanation About Her RFK Assassination Comments: She's Lying

By now, most have probably heard about Hillary Clinton's offensive comments earlier today referencing Robert Kennedy's assassination while trying to defend why she has not dropped out of the race for the Democratic nomination. Now, I don't think she meant to say "I'm staying in because Barack Obama may get killed" and I do think she really meant that "Look, primary campaigns have gone on until June before" but the comment was incredibly ill-advised. There are plenty of other primary fights she could have referenced, and talking the way she did about the assassination of one of our country's great leaders, even if not ill-willed, was still offensive. But what was even more offensive was her defense of the comments.

The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.

The problem? She's lying. Again. She didn't make the Bobby Kennedy reference because Ted Kennedy was on her mind. How do I know this? Because she's made the assassination comparison before, multiple times, before Ted Kennedy took ill. This is a theme with Hillary Clinton, a repeated one, and not an analogy which happened to be in her head because of Ted Kennedy's illness.

In fact, to use Ted Kennedy's illness as political cover for her remarks is even more offensive than the remarks themselves. As I said, I really believe that her original comments today were inarticulately delivered, and it is a fact that political nomination fights have gone late into the summer before (most times, though, to the detriment of the party fighting, but that's another argument). But her excuse of "Oh, the Kennedy's were on my mind" that wasn't a slip of the tongue or a off-the-cuff remark. It was a prepared justification for her original comments, and it was specifically chosen to give her a justifiable excuse for her comments. And had she not made the comments before, maybe she could get the benefit of the doubt, but knowing that she hasn't, the excuse is worse than the original comments.

Barack Obama Brings Out Over 75,000 People in Oregon

In some ways, there is a real risk in overstating the "Barack Obama mania" that has spread throughout the United States during the fight for the Democratic nomination. While many members of "Obama-Nation" have instantly taken to the Senator and his message, Obama is still unknown to much of the country. He has, after all, only been on the national stage for less than four years, making his debut at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. And as the results from West Virginia showed, where he doesn't spend a lot of time introducing himself to voters, they still are very unfamiliar with him, and aren't willing to take a leap of faith based on the rave reviews the rest of the country has given Obama. And while it might seem contradictory that some can both believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim (at least 10% of the country according to recent polling) and at the same time think that he shares the views of radical former Pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, many voters do not see the inconsistency (one, , Ben Smith at Politico first noticed).

Then there are days like today, when Barack Obama brings out over 75,000 people in Oregon. No, I didn't add a zero accidentally, he really did have, at least, seventy-five thousand people attend a speech in Oregon. That's beyond incredible for a person who nobody knew outside of Chicago just four years ago, and who hasn't even officially won his party's nomination for the Presidency yet, much less been sworn in and taken over the Oval Office.

The reason why Obama is so exciting as a candidate, and why he can win where other Democrats couldn't, is because he expands the electoral map by creating so much excitement that 75,000 people take their Sunday to come see him speak. As Obama has constantly said, getting elected means nothing if you don't have a mandate to get things done. In order to solve the problems we fight about year after year, you need more than to win an election, you need to build a broad coalition of citizens who will demand nothing less than universal health care, an end to the war in Iraq, and energy policy which saves the planet and ends our dependence on foreign oil, and saves Social Security for my generation (and more importantly my kids and grandkids generation).

Early in the campaign, when Obama was trying to build up his name recognition in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Dakota, he drew tens of thousands of people to rallies. But that was because Oprah Winfrey was introducing him. Just five months later, though, whether its in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia or in Portland, Oregon, Obama is drawing 75,000 people to hear him speak. It's a level of political engagement and interest we have not seen in perhaps a generation. And it's one that should excite all Americans, because even if you don't agree with what Obama stands for, there's no doubt, anything or anybody who engages the citizenry to care about, and participate in the political process, now that's something, or in this case, somebody with a special gift.

The Real Political Victor Tonight: Travis Childers

Yes, Hillary Clinton won a blowout victory in West Virginia tonight Yawn. Next week, in Oregon, Barack Obama will wrap up a majority of pledged delegates, and having recently taken the lead in Super Delegates, the race is in all but name, over. While Hillary will now try to get Michigan and Florida seated (despite herself saying in October that Michigan was "not going to count for anything") and while Hillary Clinton now saying that one needs 2209 delegates to win (despite herself saying the number was 2,025, the delegates without Florida and Michigan, as recently as last month) Michigan and Florida will not be seated fully, that we know for a fact. Even if they were, she'd still be down almost 100 total delegates (assuming, of course, the "uncommitted" delegates are apportioned to Obama) so then the popular vote matters. Except, if Florida and Michigan are seated at half-strength, delegate wise, how can Hillary claim a full popular vote from those states, especially when she gives Obama zero votes from Michigan because he wasn't on the ballot? So, rant over, it's over, and in early June, Hillary needs to bow out gracefully, and allow the Democrats to rally around our nominee.

The real winner tonight though, was not Hillary Clinton, but the Democratic Party and Travis Childers. Who is Travis Childers you ask? He's the newest member of Congress, the third Democrat to be elected in a Special Election this year, and the third in an overwhelmingly Republican district in an overwhelmingly Republican state, Mississippi. President Bush won Childers' district with over 60% of the vote, the seat was in Republican hands since 1994, and the Republicans did everything they could to hold on to that seat, a seat they had no business losing. They had Dick Cheney come out to the District, they spent millions of dollars, and they ran television advertisements tying Childers to Barack Obama and Rev. Wright. And yet, they still lost. If the Republicans cannot win in the First Congressional District of Mississippi, where on earth can Republicans win this fall? They can't win their own seats, much less swing districts, or poaching Democratic seats. MSNBC described the win as seismic, and the fact that Barack Obama was not a drag on Childers in the reddest of red-state America shows what a force he will be on the top of the Democratic ticket. And it shows how strong a position the Democrats will be in this fall, assuming of course, Hillary Clinton doesn't sink the party by fighting all the way to the convention in Denver.

Are The Democrats Asking The Wrong Question?

The more I think about the current campaign between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the more I become convinced that Democrats may be asking the wrong question when it comes to weighing which candidate is more electable in the fall.

The main storyline, despite Obama's large delegate and popular vote lead, is can he win blue collar white males? Will white women vote for John McCain or not vote if Hillary is denied the nomination? These are the questions everybody has been looking at. And with the exit polling from the various states, especially in the South, showing Obama having a very hard time with these voters, it's a legitmate quesiton.

But, at what point does the question change to, if Hillary Clinton somehow gets the nomination, can she win the votes of African Americans? While white males almost always vote for the Republicans in the Presidential election anyway (so how useful it is a measure in the primary is dubious at best) Democrats absolutely cannot win without a large turnout from African Americans, who vote some 90% (or higher) for Democratic presidential candidates. And while there is a lot of hand wringing about how Obama can't seem to break 40% with white voters, what about the fact that Barack Obama continues to pound Hillary Clinton among black voters with some 90% of the vote? Early exits tonight in Pennsylvania show that Obama is winning 92% of the black vote.

And it's too easy to say "well, he's black, of course he's going to get 90% of the black vote." After all, Obama started behind, some 20-points among black voters at the start of the campaign. He worked hard for their votes (as he has for all votes) and the Clintons did themselves no favors with their numerous racially-tinted statements.

And so the question needs to be asked, will these voters come back to Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee? Especially when taking the nomination away from Obama will be so controversial. And if the answer is no, then the Democrats are doomed if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

It's Official: Democratic Campaign Now Bad For The Party

Despite worries from Democratic operatives and predictions from the media that the long Democratic campaign was going to tear the party apart, I never really bought into that completely. John McCain has been unable to get any real media coverage while the Democrats fight it out, and by spending millions of dollars in Pennsylvania and other states, the Democrats have really been putting a down payment down on the general election. They've gotten people excited in states which they would have never even visited had the primary campaign ended months ago, and because Clinton and Obama are such different candidates, it would force McCain to run a vastly different campaign against the eventual Democratic nominee, both message wise and geographically. Against Clinton, he runs as the Maverick/change candidate focusing on picking off previous Democratic strongholds like Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Oregon, while fighting strong Hillary charges in Ohio and Florida; Against Obama he's the experienced steady hand trying to hold on to Republican strongholds like Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, and Iowa but with little fear of losing Florida, and a better chance to hold on to Ohio. So, keeping McCain off-balance, without knowing which persona to create, and which states to focus on, is not all bad.

Those were my thoughts. Until today. Part of the reason I didn't have a problem with the Democratic race continuing was because the tone, for the most part, was very civil between the candidates. Yes, there have been sharp differences between the candidates, and the daily campaign conference calls and press releases and memos have been sometimes scalding, on television, and in public, the candidates have not gone for the kill. Negative advertising, aside from some Clinton advertisements in Wisconsin accusing Obama of ducking debates, have almost entirely been focused on issues, and aside from some personal attacks in one debate (You were on Wal-Mart's Board! You represented a slumlord in Chicago!) the campaign has been mostly substantive. And especially compared to past contests, which have gotten extremly personal (like George W. Bush's despicable campaign against John McCain to win the Republican South Carolina Primary in 2000 or how the Republicans, to defeat Senator Max Cleeland in Georgia, called the Vietnam veteran and triple amputee as a result un-American) this has been very tame in comparison.

But now, as we head into the home stretch in Pennsylvania, negative ads are flying from both campaigns. Hillary Clinton may have started it (a 527 group supporting Clinton re-opened the health care debate and her own campaign released an ad attacking Obama for an ad in which he said he didn't take money from oil companies or lobbyists) but in being forced to respond, Obama's ads not only attack Clinton for going negative, but attack Clinton for taking money from lobbyists and for forcing people to buy health care even if they can't afford. it. This Hillary Clinton ad, in response to Obama's response to another extraordinarily negative ad, may be the most brutal and hard-hitting of the campaign.

Obama, no doubt, will respond with an ad of his own, like this spot:

This is not good for the Democratic Party. Voters are not going to respond well to these attack ads, and are going to be turned off from both Clinton and Obama. If this campaign has taught us anything, it's that when Clinton attacks, she may hurt Obama, but she hurts herself even more. And she's already fighting off polls which show as many as 60% of voters believe she is not trustworthy. That's an incredible negative. And Obama abandons the premise of his campaign every time he responds to a Clinton attack ad with one of his own.

So what can Obama do? He can't stay silent, and let Clinton's ads dominate the storyline and be the only thing voters see. For one, negative ads, for whatever reason, have a history of being successful. And for another, he has to show Super Delegates and voters that he will respond to these kinds of attacks coming from Republicans, and that he won't be swift-boated. So, I like running ads comparing Clinton to the "old politics" and saying that her negative attacks are desperate and show that she doesn't understand that her ads are exactly what voters want a change from. But, then going further, and attacking Clinton for taking lobbyist money, or forcing people to buy health care, while they may be legitimate points, drags Obama into a fight which even if he wins, will damage him.

That's why this campaign has officially reached its tipping point. The onslaught of negativity today, and negative ads which Pennsylvanians will see for the next 72-hours until the election concludes Sunday night, will harm both Senators Clinton and Obama. And for the Democrats, in a state they must hold on to in the fall campaign, this isn't good for either of them.

And if this is what the campaign will look like until the end of the primary season in early June, John McCain may as well start writing his inaugural address today.