This is off-topic from down-ballot races, but I felt compelled to post; the Democratic presidential primary debate in Philadelphia was an embarrassment. Not to our party, mind you, nor to either of our candidates. Rather, it was an embarrassment for the media, and for the entire profession of journalism. The economy is tanking. The war in Iraq continues on as an endless, unmitigated disaster. Next to no one can afford health care. Yet, what questions did these oh-so-esteemed debate moderators throw at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? Questions fed to them by the likes of Sean Hannity about Obama's acquaintanceship with a former 60's radical, who is neither a campaign advisor nor a close friend of the senator's. Questions about whether Clinton believes Obama can win. Questions about Obama's reluctance to wear a flag pin. A flag pin?!?!?!?! The Bush administration has our country on the ropes and all these media bobbleheads can talk about is a flag pin!?!?!?!? It's no wonder winning is such an uphill battle for our party; with such idiocy so rampant, I'm amazed that even half the country votes our way!
All the more reason for us to press onward and win these down-ballot seats, where the media spotlight doesn't linger long enough to turn the proceedings into a complete circus. Progressivism truly has to start from the ground up; in this info-tainment age, it's the only chance we've got!
It's been a very busy week for the campaign with many highlights:
Monday March 24: I attended the Voices of Central PA dinner in State College. It was a very nice event and I got the chance to speak with the truly progressive minded people who support Voices. The questions were tough but fair and I really enjoyed the Indian food on the buffet at the India Pavilion restaurant where the event was held. The food was a little on the spicy side but was very good.
Tuesday March 25: I spent the late afternoon and evening getting signs out to people. You always get the chance to speak with your supporters while delivering signs and the feedback was good. I did get home in time to catch American Idol with Kelly and Amanda. Not as important as the Obama / Clinton race but Kelly, Amanda and I seem to be pulling for David Cook and Brooke White.
The spat between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama shows no sign of ending anytime soon. McCain is going to win this election, likely by 6-10%. Obama is damaged goods and Hillary's negative are simply too high. I believe voters are in the process of rejecting both candidates.
And I don't think there's a realistic way of getting through McCain's huge teflon coating and getting swing voters to doudt his :maverick" image.
So how does this impact the Congressional elections? Right now, not yet. But it's important that this long battle between Obama and Clinton could weaken the Democratic brand. And I actually think Barack Obama would more of a drag on downballot races than Clinton would be.
I know that's contrary to the CW, but I just don't think Hillary Clinton is as radioactive to other Democrats.
So the leaders of the DSCC and DCCC have to make a decision. How and when to separate from the presidential race? And waht about the 527s who are about to pour millions in to a likely hopeless presidential election? Will they save enough for House and Senate races?
Disclaimer: I am not a Clinton supporter. This diary is not in support of Hillary Clinton, nor in opposition to Hillary Clinton. In my mind, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards all have a pretty good shot at being president. The reason I am writing about Hillary's cabinet is that she has more well-established connections than the other two, which makes it easier to speculate who might be in her cabinet.
Who do you think will be in Hillary's cabinet? My guesses below the fold.
I am proud to report that the Texas Democratic Party's ePrimary Poll has been a huge success. Because of your help spreading the word to our fellow Democrats, in just five short days, over 7,200 Texas Democrats have cast their vote for President!
That's over five times the number of Texas Republicans who cast their vote in last weekend's exclusive Straw Poll. And we're not done yet! With one more day left to vote, all Texas Democrats still have a chance to make their voices heard in the next presidential election.
The enormous participation in the TDP ePrimary Poll is evidence of a Democratic Party on the rise in the Lone Star State. While Texas Republicans had only third-string candidates and embarrassingly low turnout at their VIP-only Straw Poll last weekend, Democrats from every corner of the state are energized by our Party's strong field of presidential candidates and showing their excitement for 2008 in the ePrimary Poll.
Democrats believe our state and nation are better served when more people participate, and the ePrimary Poll is a way for all Texas Democrats to get involved in the primary process and weigh in as our Party selects a presidential nominee. Tell the country which Democrats you want to see take over the White House!
If you haven't voted in the ePrimary Poll, there's still time. Texas Democrats have until TOMORROW at 11:59pm to cast their vote for any one of our Democratic presidential candidates.
During the Texas Democratic Party's recent Town Hall Tour, I traveled nearly 10,000 miles and visited with thousands of Democrats. And I am proud to report that Texas Democrats are unified, energized and eager to win in 2008!
Like most Americans, Democrats from Texarkana to El Paso are tired of George Bush's failure and ready for a change in the White House. That's why I am very pleased to announce that the Texas Democratic Party is holding our first-ever ePrimary Poll, a weeklong online event that will give Texas Democrats a chance to support their favorite candidate for President.
Starting today, Democrats across the Lone Star State have the opportunity to cast their vote for any of our outstanding presidential candidates at the TDP website. After Republican leaders weakened the influence of Texas voters by failing to move up our state's primary election, the TDP is doing everything we can to ensure Texas Democrats have a say in determining the next president of the United States. Now is the time to make your voice heard!
Once, many of the issues we talk about on this blog were discussed mostly among Rust Belt labor unions or in street demonstrations. But tough questions are increasingly being asked in a variety of places, from the ivory tower to the campaign stump... and in both instances, the focus is on a change in the rules of globalization, rather than perpetuating the stale debate about whether "yes" or whether "no" on globalization. Witness Harvard's Dani Rodrik's new paper, articulating what he says is now the "new orthodoxy" on trade:
We can talk of a new conventional wisdom that has begun to emerge within multilateral institutions and among Northern academics. This new orthodoxy emphasizes that reaping the benefits of trade and financial globalization requires better domestic institutions, essentially improved safety nets in rich countries and improved governance in the poor countries.
Rodrik goes on to push this new orthodoxy further, articulating what he calls his "policy space" approach, allowing countries to negotiate around opting-in and opting-out more easily of international rules and schemes as their development and domestic needs merit. Citing the controversy around NAFTA's investor-state mechanism and the WTO's challenge of Europe's precautionary approach in consumer affairs, Rodrik poses the following challenge to the orthodoxy:
Globalization is a hot button issue in the advanced countries not just because it hits some people in their pocket book; it is controversial because it raises difficult questions about whether its outcomes are "right" or "fair." That is why addressing the globalization backlash purely through compensation and income transfers is likely to fall short. Globalization also needs new rules that are more consistent with prevailing conceptions of procedural fairness.
And this focus on a change of rules hit the political arena today, with a major policy speech by former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.). See here. Among the important points, that thus far are only being articulated by Edwards among the top candidates:
* For years now, Washington has been passing trade deal after trade deal that works great for multinational corporations, but not for working Americans. For example, NAFTA and the WTO provide unique rights for foreign companies whose profits are allegedly hurt by environmental and health regulations. These foreign companies have used them to demand compensation for laws against toxins, mad cow disease, and gambling - they have even sued the Canadian postal service for being a monopoly. Domestic companies would get laughed out of court if they tried this, but foreign investors can assert these special rights in secretive panels that operate outside our system of laws.
*The trade policies of President Bush have devastated towns and communities all across America. But let's be clear about something - this isn't just his doing. For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA, promising that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities. Instead, too many of these agreements have cost us jobs and devastated many of our towns.
*NAFTA was written by insiders in all three countries, and it served their interests - not the interests of regular workers. It included unprecedented rights for corporate investors, but no labor or environmental protections in its core text. And over the past 15 years, we have seen growing income inequality in the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
*Today, our trade agreements are negotiated behind closed doors. The multinationals get their say, but when one goes to Congress it gets an up or down vote - no amendments are allowed. No wonder that corporations get unique protections, while workers don't benefit. That's wrong.
So, our movement has made real progress when things like Chapter 11, Fast Track and the precautionary principle are even being discussed by politicians and academics in the context of trade policy debates. And hopefully Edwards' raising of these issues will put pressure on the other candidates to follow suit. In the meantime, you can help turn the nice words into action by clicking here.
I know we often make fun of lawyers in this country ("What do you call a smiling, sober, courteous person at a bar association convention? The caterer."). On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for the value of training in law for political leadership. The Clintons (Bill, Yale; Hillary, Yale), Barack Obama (Harvard), John Edwards (UNC), and Harry Reid (George Washington U.) all have law degrees.
Then we have our Republican mis-leadership. There's George Bush with an Master's in Business Administration. That's the same degree that Duke Cunningham and Jeff Skilling have. There's Rep. Shelley Moore Capito with a Master's in Career Counseling. That's the same degree as... well, actually, no one comes to mind. Bush and Capito share a mis-understanding of the law, too. Whereas Bush missed the week in high school civics class about constitutional checks and balances, after six years in Congress Rep. Capito still hasn't figured out the basic mechanics of when a law is needed.
Our tracking signals indicate that Dole rarely travels to North Carolina, whereas Miller seems to be in perpetual campaign motion there. And Republicans like Dole are out of favor for sticking so close to President Bush, are they not? We thus conclude that Miller would beat Dole like a tympanic skin-a drum, I believe you call it.
Ok, now that I have your attention, to the poll. This poll (link at bottom) consisted of 800 likely voters pulled from the voter rolls.
First, lets hit on the big and simple numbers.
Bush's approval in North Carolina is 37%, with 59% Disapproval.
This number has been fairly consistent for a while. If anything this number is worse than it has been in the past.
