Wednesday’s Mini-Report

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* The aftermath in China continues to unfold: “Rescuers arrived for the first time in the epicenter of China’s massive earthquake, scouring flattened mountain villages for thousands of victims and distributing air-dropped supplies to survivors. The death toll of nearly 15,000 appeared likely to soar far higher. Leveled hospitals forced doctors and nurses to treat survivors in the street. Helicopters dropped food and medicine to isolated towns. Mourners burned money before rows of bodies, believing their lost relatives could use it in the afterlife.”

* Conditions in Burma may yet get worse: “Another powerful storm headed toward Myanmar’s cyclone-devastated delta, where so little aid has been delivered that the United Nations warned on Wednesday of a “second wave of deaths” among an estimated 2 million survivors. The area was pulverized by Cyclone Nargis on May 3, with the Red Cross estimating on Wednesday the toll will be between 68,833 and 127,990.”

* Bloodshed near Baghdad: “Iraqi police say a suicide bomber killed 22 people and wounded at least 35 at the funeral of a Sunni school principal west of Baghdad. The bomber blew himself up in a funeral tent in the village of Abu Minasir. The funeral was for a grammar school principal who was shot and killed Tuesday.”

* Senate Republicans pulled a foolish stunt on the floor today to undercut the bipartisan GI Bill expansion, and give McCain’s watered-down version a better chance.

* Fortunately, the stunt failed, and McCain’s bill won’t be added to an unrelated bill giving public safety workers the right to unionize. (Yes, the GOP was playing stupid games with veterans’ benefits and first responders.)

* Karl Rove asked House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers if he can answer questions via mail. Today, Conyers responded: “No.”

* Unbelievable: “The U.S. government has injected hundreds of foreigners it has deported with dangerous psychotropic drugs against their will to keep them sedated during the trip back to their home country, according to medical records, internal documents and interviews with people who have been drugged. The government’s forced use of antipsychotic drugs, in people who have no history of mental illness, includes dozens of cases in which the “pre-flight cocktail,” as a document calls it, had such a potent effect that federal guards needed a wheelchair to move the slumped deportee onto an airplane.”
Read more

45 comments

It’s not a superdelegate, but it’s quite an important get for the Obama campaign.

Democrat Barack Obama has won the endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice America. The leading abortion rights advocacy organization has supported rival Hillary Rodham Clinton throughout her political career.

The organization was set to announce the endorsement of its political action committee Wednesday.

NARAL president Nancy Keenan said in a statement: “Today, we are proud to put our organization’s grassroots and political support behind the pro-choice candidate whom we believe will secure the Democratic nomination and advance to the general election. That candidate is Senator Obama.”

Officials said NARAL’s political committee board was about evenly divided among Clinton and Obama supporters and that the decision to endorse was hard fought. Ultimately, the board voted unanimously Friday to support the Illinois senator.

As Ben Smith put it, “That’s a big deal, a sign of the party coalescing around its nominee.”

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, did an item for the Huffington Post explaining why the group threw its support to Obama and why it’s doing so now. (Long story short: Obama has a terrific record on NARAL’s issues, and the group believes that “Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee.”)

But might there be another major endorsement tonight?
Read more

41 comments

Last week, the campaign to connect Iran to violence in Iraq ran into a few snags. In the wake of recent fighting between Iraqi and U.S. security forces and Shiite militiamen, we found an enormous list of uncovered weapons and munitions — none of which came from Iran. U.S. officials announced a press conference to show Iranian-supplied explosives used in Karbala, and then cancelled the event when they realized none of the weapons came from Iran.

But don’t tell Joe Lieberman that. He doesn’t want to hear it.

On Monday, Pat Buchanan asked Lieberman whether he believed “the United States should conduct air strikes on the Iranian Quds force in Iran if they do not stop” interfering in Iraq. Lieberman replied that he “hoped” the U.S. would not have to strike at “the people who are responsible for killing Americans,” but said that the Iranians should “have in mind that it’s a distinct possibility.”

OK, that was relatively tempered rhetoric, at least by Lieberman’s standards. He’s accusing Iranians of acts of war, but he wasn’t actively talking about U.S. military strikes.

That is, until this morning.

On right-winger Bill Bennett’s radio show this morning, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) expressed his openness to bombing Iran, saying that there is “an appeal to it.” Discussing the West Virginia primary results, Bennett praised what he claimed was Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) transformation into his “style” of politician, which he said is someone who “throws down a shot of liquor and bombs Iran.”

Lieberman whole-heartedly endorsed the “appeal” of the hawkish caricature Bennett had created.

We’re going to take away this guy’s committee chairmanship soon, right?
Read more

16 comments

Bush sat down with reporter Mike Allen yesterday for a Politico/Yahoo interview, billed as the first for a president talking to an online audience. Probably the biggest news in the discussion was Bush’s bizarre comment about giving up golf during the war “to be in solidarity” with grieving families.

I neglected, however, to read the entire transcript of the interview, and notice that the questions were kind of bizarre, too.

Dan Froomkin asked, “Has there ever been a more moronic interview of a president of the United States than the one conducted yesterday by Mike Allen?” After seeing that, I couldn’t imagine what would draw such a sharp rebuke. Allen, after all, was a White House correspondent for the Washington Post and Time magazine, so he presumably knows how to conduct an interview with the president that isn’t “moronic.”

So, I read the transcript. Froomkin has a point. The first seven questions — seven — were about Jenna Bush’s wedding.

OK, I thought, Allen is just lulling the president into a false sense of security. Let him get comfortable talking about his daughter’s wedding, and then put him on the hot seat.

Or not. Froomkin pulled together this non-wedding-related list of Allen’s questions:

“Mr. President, I know you’re going to hate this, but I’m hoping that we may twist your arm and talk about baseball for just a moment. (Laughter.) Mr. President, you’re a Major League Baseball team owner again. Everyone is a free agent. You have a Yankees-like wallet. Who is your first position player? Who’s your pitcher?”

“Now, Mr. President, you and the First Lady appeared on American Idol’s charity show, ‘Idol Gives Back.’ And I wonder who do you think is going to win? Syesha, David Cook, or David Archuleta?”

“All right. Mr. President, who does the better impression, Will Ferrell of you, or Dana Carvey of your father?”

“And speaking of impressions, our friend, Robert Draper, author of ‘Dead Certain,’ said you do a great impression of Dr. Evil from ‘Austin Powers’.”

Allen also asked Bush, “Do you feel that you were misled on Iraq?” That’s not bad at all — except it was a question that came from a Politico reader.
Read more

21 comments

We talked yesterday about a survey The Hill conducted among all 97 senators who aren’t currently running for president. A few expressed interest, though the most enthusiastic responses came from those who aren’t likely to be considered. Delaware’s Tom Carper said, “I’ve been kidding people for years: The hours are better, the wages are just as good — whoever heard of a vice president getting shot at? — and it’s a great opportunity to travel…. Anybody here would [accept a VP offer], if they’re going to be honest.”

Speaking of honesty, TPM posted an item noting the responses from some of the Republican caucus’ septuagenarians: “Don’t you find it odd that three Republican Senators (Thad Cochran, 70; Pete Domenici, 76; Chuck Grassley, 74) all noted that they were too old to be Vice President. Kind of odd given the circumstances of the current Republican nominee…”

Good point. Here are the specific responses:

* Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) — “When I was much younger I would have probably said, ‘Sure, I’ll be glad to accept it,’ but I’m 70 years [old] and they need a younger person for the job. I would probably tell them, ‘Look for somebody else.’ ”

* Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) — “No. I’m too old.”

* Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) — “I’m too old to be vice president. But I am young enough to be reelected to the Senate.”

Given that John McCain will be 72 this year, and is already running to be the oldest person ever elected president, his colleagues’ comments probably aren’t entirely welcome at McCain HQ. After all, if someone in his 70s is too old to be vice president, what does it say about the candidate in his 70s running to be president?
Read more

27 comments

A few weeks ago, before the North Carolina primary, Jonathan Martin noted the counties in Appalachia that had voted in the Democratic primaries, and Hillary Clinton’s unusually strong performance in these counties as compared to Barack Obama. Since then, we’ve seen additional evidence that this is a specific region that has overwhelmingly preferred Clinton to Obama.

By now, most have probably seen the chart DHinMI posted, showing each of the counties nationwide in which Clinton has won 65% or more of the vote. Putting aside Michigan, where Obama wasn’t even on the ballot, it’s hard not to notice that Appalachia and Clinton’s strongest counties seem to overlap very closely.

Now, it’s possible there’s something unique about Hillary Clinton that has driven lower-income, working-class (no college) whites in this specific region to her campaign in droves, but it seems more likely that there’s something unique about Barack Obama that has done the opposite. In this case, it’s the color of his skin.

I started to explain over the weekend that the distinction is more than just about race, income, rural areas, and education, but rather, is about the Appalachian region in specific. There are other areas in the country that are just as white, just as educated, just as rural, and nearly as poor, but did not give Clinton 40-point margins, suggesting regional attitudes are driving the results.

Indeed, the more Appalachian, the more obvious the trend. Parts of Ohio and Pennsylvania are Appalachian, and those are the parts where Obama struggled most. West Virginia is all Appalachian, and that’s where Obama lost by 41 points.

As Josh Marshall explained, “Obama’s problem isn’t with white working class voters or rural voters. It’s Appalachia. That explains why Obama had a difficult time in Ohio and Pennsylvania and why he’s getting crushed in West Virginia and Kentucky. If it were just a matter of rural voters or the white working class, the pattern would show up in other regions. But by and large it does not.”
Read more

62 comments

House Republicans meet every Wednesday morning to talk about strategy and direction, and most of the time, the meetings seem to improve GOP morale. Two weeks ago, Roll Call noted that Minority Leader John Boehner received a standing ovation when he explained to the caucus that they had nothing to worry about.

At a minimum, he said at the time, Republicans know precisely how to keep open “red” districts in GOP hands — nationalize the races, tie the Dems to Obama and Pelosi. Winning over “blue” districts is trickier, the Republican leadership said, but holding onto existing seats isn’t nearly as difficult.

Now that Boehner’s strategy has failed three times in three months in three reliably-Republican districts, Republican leaders aren’t getting standing ovations anymore.

House Republican leaders on Wednesday tried to quell internal dissent following the party’s third special election loss this year in a race in Mississippi yesterday.

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole of Oklahoma accepted blame for the loss during a closed-door meeting with his GOP colleagues, according to members in attendance, but neither he nor Republican Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio announced any major changes atop the leadership tree or at the campaign committee.

“It was a very somber meeting,” said one lawmaker leaving the meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Former NRCC Chairman Tom Davis, the Virginia Republican who is retiring this year, seems to have largely given up on his party’s chances. “This is the floor,” Davis said, stopping his foot on the concrete. “We’re underneath it.”

There have been rumors that Davis might replace Cole soon. Cole told reporters, “Nobody’s talking to me about anything like that yet, but I said ‘yet.”’

Cole’s not the only one looking shaky. Even Boehner’s future is looking less than secure.
Read more

18 comments

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* If this morning is any indication, the results from the West Virginia primary have not slowed down Obama’s momentum with superdelegates. Three more announced their support for the Illinois senator this morning: Rep. Pete Visclosky of Indiana, College Democrats of America Vice President Awais Khaleel, and Democrats Abroad Chairperson Christine Schon Marques. (This is actually a net of +2.5, not +3, because Democrats Abroad superdelegates are considered as half-delegates by the DNC.)

* College Democrats of America President Lauren Wolfe also endorsed Obama this morning, and would be a superdelegate from Michigan, pending resolution of the state’s delegate controversy.

* In the latest Quinnipiac poll, both Dems lead John McCain in general-election match-ups: Obama is up by seven (47% to 40%), while Clinton is up by five (46% to 41%).

* More importantly, Greg Sargent found a key tidbit in the Quinnipiac poll: among working-class white voters, McCain is leading Obama by seven (46% to 39%), and also leading Clinton by seven (48% to 41%). These results, Greg noted, “seem difficult to square with her basic argument.”

* Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) is the latest high-profile Clinton backer to urge Obama to pick Clinton as his running mate.

* Even now, Clinton is trying to shore up her support: “Hillary’s holding a meeting at her Washington D.C. home tonight for 30 or 40 top fundraisers, a Clinton backer says. And she’ll be hosting a group of superdelegates who support her at the Clintons’ home in Chappaqua, NY Saturday, two sources said. ‘All of this is about reassuring her supporters,’ said a person who plans to attend one of the meetings.”
Read more

45 comments

The president has made all kinds of head-shaking comments over the years, but I’m really not sure what to make of this.

For the first time, Bush revealed a personal way in which he has tried to acknowledge the sacrifice of soldiers and their families.

“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization’s high commissioner for human rights.

“I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man’s life,” he said. “I was playing golf — I think I was in central Texas — and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, ‘It’s just not worth it anymore to do.’”

So, let me get this straight. Five months after the invasion of Iraq, when Sergio Vieira de Mello was killed, the president decided to give up golf in order “to be in solidarity” with families who’ve lost loved ones. In effect, Bush is telling grieving loved ones, “I feel your pain; I’m not on the course.”

I should note, of course, that I think I understand what Bush is trying to say, and his point is not without merit. I suspect a parent of a fallen soldier might resent it if he or she sees the Commander in Chief having fun on the back nine while American servicemen and women are sacrificing on the battlefield. It might very well, as Bush put it, “send the wrong signal.”

That said, I think there are two main problems with the president’s sense of sacrifice.
Read more

38 comments

The presidential primary in West Virginia was certainly a high-profile contest, but the eyes of the political world were largely focused further south, where a special election in Mississippi was poised to tell us a whole lot about the Republicans’ congressional strategy for 2008.

A few months ago, GOP congressional leaders came up with a sure-fire strategy for success. The Republican brand had fallen apart, but the party assumed it could persevere, especially in “red” districts, by nationalizing House races, calling Democratic candidates liberals, and connecting them to Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. What could possibly go wrong?

Republicans gave this a shot in March, in Illinois’ 14th. The GOP felt good about its chances — the district had been represented by former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R), Bush won the district twice by double digits, and Republicans have held the seat for decades. But when voters headed to the polls, a Democrat won by six points.

They tried again in April, in Louisiana’s 6th. Once again, the GOP went into the race optimistic — Bush won the seat by 19 points in ‘04, and Republicans have dominated the district for decades. This time, the Democrat won by three points.

Republicans were committed to doing whatever it took to prevent their strategy from failing three times in three months. So, when it came time for yesterday’s special election in Mississippi’s 1st, a very Republican district, the GOP pulled out all the stops to hold onto it — pumping money into the race, sending Dick Cheney down to campaign, running a bunch of ads featuring Jeremiah Wright, and using robo-calls from McCain, Bush, and the First Lady.

The Democrat won by eight points.

Democrats scored a remarkable upset victory on Tuesday in a special Congressional election in this conservative Southern district, sending a clear signal of national problems ahead for Republicans in the fall.

The Democrat, Travis Childers, a local courthouse official, pulled together a coalition of blacks, who turned out heavily, and old-line “yellow dog” Democrats, to beat his Republican opponent, Greg Davis, the mayor of Southaven, a Memphis suburb. With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, the vote was 54 percent for Mr. Childers to 46 percent for Mr. Davis.

The seat had been in Republican hands since 1995, and the district, largely rural and stretching across the northern top of Mississippi, had been considered one of the safest in the country for President Bush’s party, as he won here with 62 percent of the vote in 2004.

Given the results, it seems as if congressional Republicans are … what’s the word I’m looking for … screwed.
Read more

54 comments

Following up on the last item, by any realistic measure, Hillary Clinton’s landslide victory in West Virginia, while impressive, has not changed any of the metrics of the Democratic race. Barack Obama currently leads in pledged delegates, superdelegates, popular votes, states won, fundraising, and poll numbers. Clinton won big in a state where she was expected to win big, but when it comes to the enormous deficit she’s facing, last night’s gains barely dented Obama’s lead.

Given this, there’s been considerable talk over the last week about how Clinton might best position herself for the inevitable. How graceful will the exit be? How can she best help the party prepare for the general election? Can she end her campaign in such a way as to improve her stature and gain clout for the future?

Last night, it seemed as if Hillary Clinton wasn’t considering any of those questions.

Hoping to build up excitement about her victory speech in West Virginia, campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe told MSNBC last night that we would hear “one of the greatest speeches … ever given.”

Campaign hyperbole notwithstanding, Clinton’s pitch in Charleston suggested she’s going to do everything possible to drag this process out as long as she can.

She started with a fundraising pitch…

“Now, tonight, tonight, I need your help to continue this journey. We are in the homestretch. There are only three weeks left in the final contests. And your support can make the difference between winning and losing. So I hope you’ll go to HillaryClinton.com and support our campaign.”

…and then moved the goalposts…

“[T]his race isn’t over yet. Neither of us has the total delegates it takes to win. And both Senator Obama and I believe that the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated. I believe we should honor the votes cast by 2.3 million people in those states and seat all of their delegates. Under the rules of our party, when you include all 50 states, the number of delegates needed to win is 2,209, and neither of us has reached that threshold yet.”

…and then went after Obama on electability.

“I deeply admire Senator Obama, but I believe our case — a case West Virginia has helped to make — our case is stronger. Together, we have won millions and millions of votes. By the time tonight is over, probably 17 million, close to it.”

These are not the words of a candidate looking for a soft landing.
Read more

51 comments

Bill Clinton, campaigning in West Virginia last week, argued that Mountain State voters could “make the earth move” and fundamentally change the nature of the Democratic presidential race if they supported his wife with 80% support and a turnout of 600,000 voters. Needless to say, yesterday’s results were impressive for the Clinton campaign, but not that impressive.

As expected, Clinton cruised to an easy 42-point victory in West Virginia, winning 67% to 25% for Barack Obama. Turnout was relatively strong, at a quarter of a million voters. Clinton’s showing was the second best of the entire campaign — she won 70% of the vote in Arkansas on Super Tuesday — but fell short of some of the record-setting performances of this year’s process (Obama won 74% or better in Alaska, D.C., Hawaii, Idaho, and Kansas).

Also as expected, racial considerations played a very significant role.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton won a lopsided victory on Tuesday over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia primary, where racial considerations emerged as an unusually salient factor. Mrs. Clinton drew strong support from white, working-class voters, who have spurned Mr. Obama in recent contests.

The number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes. More than 8 in 10 who said it factored in their votes backed Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls.

How serious were identity-politics considerations? John Edwards — who dropped out of the race in January — got 7% of the vote. That’s quite a few West Virginians who seemed to be saying, “We don’t like the black guy or the woman from New York.”

So, what happens now? Not a whole lot.
Read more

44 comments