Posts

Now! All New!! One Third the Campaigners

The McCain campaign, noting that by adding a celebrity to their ticket they can actually fill rallies, has announced McCain and Palin will continue to campaign together after she returns from trying to cover up her dirt in Alaska.

The McCain campaign is "very seriously considering" having McCain and Palin campaign together more often than not in the next two months, a senior campaign aide said, adding it could be the most a presidential and vice presidential candidate campaign in tandem in recent history.

The aide said the two have developed a strong chemistry together and will likely utilize it through joint rallies. He likened it to the chemistry Bill Clinton and Al Gore had in 1992, suggesting it was instinctive.

"Sometimes these vice presidential selections, the pairings, work in a magical way," the aide told reporters on the Palin campaign plane, on condition of anonymity.

Though, really, it’s not so much "chemistry" or "magic." It’s necessity. You can’t promise concert-goers Carrie Underwood and then deliver Lawrence Welk–which is what the McCain campaign will be doing until they get their hot celebrity back on the trail. 

In fact, McCain couldn’t even get through his first campaign rally after Palin left, though that appears to have been Democrats capitalizing on really bad advance work from the McCain team.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain cut short his first public appearance without running-mate Sarah Palin after chanting supporters of Democratic rival Barack Obama interrupted his speech.

After lunching with a roundtable of women at Philadelphia’s Down Home Diner, McCain shook hands with supporters and strode up to a podium to deliver a statement. But as he spoke, chants of "Obama, Obama, Obama" filled the room.

Reporters craned forward trying to hear the Arizona senator. Unfortunately for McCain — and possibly overlooked by aides who planned the event — a section of the diner opened up to a market where a crowd had gathered behind a cordon.

A large contingent of Obama supporters showed up, mixed with some who had bumper stickers reading "Democrats for McCain".

[snip]

His words were barely audible. [my emphasis]

Frankly, this state of affairs has a lot of risk for McCain. He is already depending on her to bring out the crowds–which suggests a real dependency which kind of weakens the whole war hero image.

But I’m most interested in what McCain’s reliance on Palin will do for his ability to campaign. Read more

Wolfson Van Winkle

I’m grateful for this Howard Wolfson column–for his willingness to wax poetic about the guy who beat his candidate.

For me, the presidential campaign began in a crowded Iowa hall, where I saw a man my age lift up a daughter around my daughter’s age and tell her that one day she could be president. Last week things came nearly full circle, when I saw another man my age lift up another child and say the very same thing.

But I find his description of the Hillary bubble even more evocative.

For many of us who were part of the Clinton campaign, Sen. Barack Obama’s appeal was something we understood only in the abstract — data in polls, faces at a televised rally.

Most of us never heard him speak in person. At work 14 hours a day in the war room, we focused on his perceived faults and deficiencies. Our time was spent sharpening and advancing arguments. Skepticism was critical to our efforts. Insulated from Obamamania, I met few Obama supporters and distanced myself from the ones I knew. I lived this way for 18 months.

From the outside, our loss may have seemed inevitable for months, but inside the campaign we simply kept going.

[snip] 

Once we ran out of states and the campaign ended, we were like Rip Van Winkle. We awoke to a world transformed by political currents we had stood against. There was the neighbor in an Obama T-shirt getting the morning paper. Every parked car on the street bore an Obama bumper sticker. Had they been there along, or did they pop up overnight?

I’m not surprised by Wolfson’s description of the impenetrability of the bubble–it was always clear he wasn’t aware of his surroundings. But I am curious why their oppo guys–the young kids wandering around after Obama with a camera–could never communicate this message to the campaign. I am curious why Wolfson distanced himself from his friends who supported the Obama campaign. Wolfson was studiously polite when Richardson endorsed Obama–couldn’t Wolfson have used that as an opportunity to understand this excitement? I know it’s important to assess a campaign from hard data–but does that excuse ignoring the qualitative impressions as well (though, arguably, Obama didn’t get the qualitative appeal of Hillary to working class voters until just recently).

Mostly, though, Wolfson could be speaking for the McCain campaign, which seems to be in a similar bubble. Read more

Wow

Wow.

What a wonderful experience, from start to finish. For about 2 hours, I hung out on the floor with some other DFH blogger types (though they have all gotten hired by the DNC, so I was the slob in the crowd, not wearing a suit). I took about 8 videos like this one, just watching all the people go crazy waving their American flags and dancing to music or hooting at a great line from a speech.

It was a revival meeting, but rather than religion, it was a revival of American democracy. People of every color and age were exalting in democracy.

And, yeah, when Pat Buchanan calls a Democrat’s speech the best convention speech ever, you know Obama hit all the right notes.

But for me, it was the crowd that was most exciting. To see tens of thousands of people just dancing with joy in response to great speech after great speech–even the great speeches of the regular folks–that was worth the trip to Denver.

I Don’t Think “Accountability” Means What Obama Thinks It Does

Obama’s statement on FISA:

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn’t have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush’s abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration’s program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That’s why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I’ve said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I’m persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe — particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I’ve chosen to support the current compromise. Read more

I Don’t Think “FISA” and “Expire” Mean What Obama Thinks They Do

There’s a really disturbing line in this article on backlash against Obama for his FISA stance (say "hi" to Jane, Glenn, and Markos as you read).

Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer who advises the Obama campaign, said Tuesday in an interview that Mr. Obama had decided to support the compromise FISA legislation only after concluding it was the best deal possible.

“This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip,” Mr. Craig said. “Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire.” [my emphasis]

Either Greg Craig is not the guy the Obama campaign should have discussing–much less advising him on–these issues, or Craig is simply repeating Obama’s profoundly erroneous logic.

But in either case, FISA is not expiring anytime soon. Last I checked, FISA’s been on the books for 30 years, and I have every expectation it will remain on the books for the next 30 years, regardless of how Obama votes on July 8.

Either Craig or Obama is making the common–but ignorant–mistake of conflating the Protect America Act with FISA. The former does expire in early August. The latter does not.

I might be accused of pedantry by maintaining this distinction. But its useful to maintain the distinction because it focuses on the differences between FISA and PAA. FISA provides a way for the government to wiretap individuals legally, while providing real protections for American citizens. Whereas PAA provides the government the ability to get basket warrants based on the say so of the Attorney General, dramatically eroding the protections for American citizens.

When someone erroneously claims that FISA is going to expire shortly, it’s a good bet that that person is thinking about retaining the basket warrant provisions of the PAA and not–as the spin suggests–simply "modernizing" FISA so the government can wiretap foreigners via telecom circuits in the United States. 

It’d be useful if someone asked the Obama campaign which of these authorities Obama is really intent on maintaining.  

Obama Replied

To my letter to him. He told me to fuck off.

Statement of Senator Barack Obama on FISA Compromise

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act.

Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. Read more

A Letter to the Next President of the United States

Senator Obama:

In his recent opinion on the Boumediene case, conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy reminded the Executive and Legislative branches that we cannot suspend the Constitution in times of crisis.

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law.

He went on to remind "the political branches" that the Article III Courts must not be turned into a mere rubber stamp for the Executive Branch–particularly when, as with habeas corpus, those Courts review laws designed to serve as a check on the Executive Branch.

For the writ of habeas corpus, or its substitute, to function as an effective and proper remedy in this context, the court that conducts the habeas proceeding must have the means to correct errors that occurred during the CSRT proceedings. This includes some authority to assess the sufficiency of the Government’s evidence against the detainee. It also must have the authority to admit and consider relevant exculpatory evidence that was not introduced during the earlier proceeding.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found aspects of the Military Commissions Act unconstitutional because it tried to limit the review of Article III Courts to mere review of whether the Administration had complied with its own procedures, and not a real review of the legality of the detention of men at Gitmo.

The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction not to inquire into the legality of the detention generally but only to assess whether the CSRT complied with the “standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense” and whether those standards and procedures are lawful.

Yet this is precisely the kind of procedural review that the current FISA bill envisions. Read more

Obama in Flint, MI

Update: Here’s the remarks live-blogged below as prepared for delivery. 

Hello everyone. I’m blogging from Flint, MI, where Obama will hold a town hall starting at 12EST. The town hall will be a big unity event–with some of our Congressional delegation (I’ve seen Dingell’s folks) and Governor Granholm joining Obama to unify the Democratic Party. This follows our State Central Committee meeting–which was held Saturday–at which the same message of unity was emphasized. Blue America-endorsed candidate Mark Schauer closed the meeting on Saturday with one such message of unity.

"We’ve got the best workers in the world right here in Michigan, but we need a president who will fight for fair trade polices and solve the health care crisis to make sure they can compete on a level playing field," said Schauer. "With Michigan Democrats working together this year, we can elect a president who will bring about the change our country needs and fix what’s broken in Washington. And next January, I’ll be the first Congressman in line to help hand him the toolbox."

As I understand it, the balance of our delegation was chosen on Saturday, based on the allocation that came out of the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting on May 31. I’ve been told that Obama will announce (I believe he’s making that announcement to the big state press as we speak) that he will seat the full MI delegation in Denver, with full-strength vote.

I’ll update as fun things happen.

11:43 The crowds’ in their seats and are beginning to do the wave. The national media is showing up–one reason they’ve made this the Unity event in MI, rather than Obama’s big rally at Joe Louis "Home of the Stanley Cup Champions" Arena tonight is so it’ll get in today’s media cycle.

Oh, and for those worried, Kwame will not be attending any of the events today, so Detroit’s Boy Mayor will not be rubbing any of his bad karma off on our Presidential candidate.

granholm-et-all.JPG

Photo thanks to Todd Heywood of the Michigan Messenger, which is also liveblogging the event. Check out MM for pictures of the wingnuts protesting outside.

12:06 As I said, many of MI’s Democratic dignitaries are here: this picture shows Representative Dale Kildee, Governor Granholm, Senator Carl Levin, and Lieutenant Governor John Cherry is hiding next to Levin. I know Chairman and Mrs. Dingell are also here somewhere. I understand Levin will introduce Obama.

12:12 Carl Levin on stage now. Introduces Dale Kildee, John Dingell, Read more

It’s Not about the DNC–It’s about the GOP

You’ve heard, by now, that Obama just threw the lobbyists out of the, er, fundraising pool.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and the Obama for America Campaign today announced that the DNC will no longer accept Washington lobbyist donations, making the same commitment as Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

As Phoenix Woman pointed out to me via email, that’s no big deal for the DNC. The big lobbyist money comes in through the DCCC and DSCC, which is one of the reasons those organizations are kicking their Republican counterparts’ behinds, whereas the DNC fundraising lags the RNC.

Which is the whole point, isn’t it?

McCain, you’ll remember, can’t match Obama’s personal fund-raising ability. Rather, he’s already sucking at the GOP teat.

Mr. McCain is likely to depend upon the party, which finished April with an impressive $40 million in the bank and has significantly higher contribution limits, to an unprecedented degree to power his campaign, Republican officials said.

[snip]

Mr. McCain, who abandoned public financing in the primary but has indicated he would employ it in the general election, is aggressively building a joint fund-raising operation with the Republican National Committee and state party committees in four battleground states. These committees can raise money far in excess of the $2,300 limit imposed on individuals giving to Mr. McCain’s presidential campaign. Donors can write a single check of almost $70,000 to the committees that is divvied up to various entities.

But whole bunch of that money comes from lobbyists. To be fair, McCain’s already pretty happy to take money for lobbyists (he’s getting everything else for them). But if Obama can taint the GOP money that will be funding McCain’s campaign, it’s going to strike another blow at the McMaverick.

Goldwater and Kennedy, or Lincoln and Douglas?

You’ve probably heard that McCain’s campaign challenged Obama to do a series of town hall debates starting next week. It’s an interesting idea, down to McCain’s suggestion they fly together to the first one (but I gotta warn McCain–I don’t think Michelle will let Obama fly on the SugarMomma Express, not even if McCain proposes it in the interest of civility).

What’s more interesting to me is the imagery both campaigns are appealing to with their competing proposals. McCain pitched the town halls as a repeat of town halls that Goldwater and Kennedy planned to do–no doubt appealing to Obama’s self-conscious appropriation of the Kennedy legacy, not to mention McCain’s fanciful notion that he inherited the Goldwater legacy, and not just his seat.

In 1963, Senator Barry Goldwater and President John F. Kennedy agreed to make presidential campaign history by flying together from town to town and debating each other face-to-face on the same stage. In Goldwater’s words, those debates "would have done the country a lot of good." Unfortunately, with President Kennedy’s untimely death, Americans lost the rare opportunity of witnessing candidates for the highest office in the land discuss civilly and extensively the great issues at stake in the election. What a welcome change it would be were presidential candidates in our time to treat each other and the people they seek to lead with respect and courtesy as they discussed the great issues of the day, without the empty sound bites and media-filtered exchanges that dominate our elections. It is in the spirit of President Kennedy’s and Senator Goldwater’s agreement, in the spirit of the politics of change, and to do our country good, that I invite you to join me in participating in town hall meetings across the country to discuss the most important issues facing Americans. I also suggest we fly together to the first town hall meeting as a symbolically important act embracing the politics of civility.

(Incidentally, no one, thus far, has created a media firestorm suggesting that McCain has wished ill on Obama by referring to JFK’s assassination.)

McCain’s pitch for a town hall format, of course, is an attempt to get Obama on his–McCain’s–preferred turf. Small venues, pollsters pick the audience, unscripted exchanges. It’s an attempt to avoid the disaster of the green ghoul speech from last night.

Read more