Troubling Information

Kevin Drum on what John McCain is doing to American politics:

John McCain has obviously decided that he can't win a straight-up fight, so he's decided instead to wage a battle of character assassination, relentless lies, and culture war armageddon. So what happens on November 5th?

If McCain wins, he'll face a Democratic congress that's beyond furious. Losing is one thing, but after eight years of George Bush and Karl Rove, losing a vicious campaign like this one will cause Dems to go berserk. They won't even return McCain's phone calls, let alone work with him on legislation. It'll be four years of all-out war.

And what if Obama wins? The last time a Democrat won after a resurgence of the culture war right, we got eight years of madness, climaxing in an impeachment spectacle unlike anything we'd seen in a century. If it happens again, with the lunatic brigade newly empowered and shrieking for blood, Obama will be another Clinton and we'll be in for another eight years of near psychotic dementia.

Am I exaggerating? Sure. Am I exaggerating a lot? I don't think so. McCain, in his overwhelming desire for office, is unloosing forces that are likely to make the country only barely governable no matter who wins. This would be very bad juju at any time, but George Bush has so seriously weakened the country over the course of his administration that we don't have a lot of room for error left if we want to avoid losing the war on terror for good and turning America into a banana republic while we're at it. We need to start turning the ship around now.

McCain doesn't seem to care much about this anymore, but the rest of us ought to. Unfortunately, no one asked us. I'm afraid we have some rocky times ahead.

Amigos de Obama

Cumbia de Obama

Eric Lichtblau in The New York Times:

After more than a year of heated political wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory Tuesday by voting to broaden the government’s spy powers after giving legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program.

The Senate rejected a series of amendments that would have restricted the government’s surveillance powers and eliminated immunity for the phone carriers, and it voted in convincing fashion — 69 to 29 — to end debate and bring the issue to a final vote. That vote on the overall bill was an almost identical 68 to 29.

The House has already rejected the idea of immunity for the phone companies, and Democratic leaders reacted angrily to the Senate vote. But Congressional officials said it appeared that the House would ultimately be forced to accept some sort of legal protection for the phone carriers in negotiations between the two chambers this week.

Democrat Max Baucus (Montana)

Democrat Evan Bayh (Indiana)

Democrat Tom Carper (Delaware)

Democrat Bob Casey (Pennsylvania)

Democrat Kent Conrad (North Dakota)

Democrat Dianne Feinstein (California)

Democrat Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)

Democrat Tim Johnson (South Dakota)

Democrat Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)

Democrat Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)

Democrat Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas)

Democrat Claire McCaskill (Missouri)

Democrat Barbara Mikulski (Maryland)

Democrat Ben Nelson (Nebraska)

Democrat Bill Nelson (Florida)

Democrat Mark Pryor (Arkansas)

Democrat Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia)

Democrat Ken Salazar (Colorado)

Democrat Jim Webb (Virginia)

Paul Kiel at TPMMuckraker:

Let there be no doubt: a majority of senators, and a large number of Democrats, think the telecoms should not suffer the hazard of accountability for cooperating with the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) took to the floor last night to give a speech asking, "This is our defining question, the question that confronts every generation: The rule of law, or the rule of men?" The resounding answer: the rule of men.

The Senate voted on the Dodd/Feingold amendment, which would have stripped retroactive immunity from the surveillance bill just now. The final tally was 31-67; crossing over to vote nay were Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Evan Bayh (D-IA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). Update: Here's the official tally.

Presidential candidates Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) were present for the vote – voting nay and yea, respectively.

Democrat Evan Bayh (Indiana)

Democrat Tom Carper (Delaware)

Democrat Kent Conrad (North Dakota)

Democrat Dianne Feinstein (California)

Democrat Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)

Democrat Tim Johnson (South Dakota)

Democrat Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)

Democrat Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)

Democrat Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas)

Democrat Claire McCaskill (Missouri)

Democrat Barbara Mikulski (Maryland)

Democrat Ben Nelson (Nebraska)

Democrat Bill Nelson (Florida)

Democrat Mark Pryor (Arkansas)

Democrat Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia)

Democrat Ken Salazar (Colorado)

Democrat Debbie Stabenow (Michigan)

Democrat Jim Webb (Virginia)

Digby:

Now I realize that there are no delegates being awarded and maybe there won't be at the convention either. There are people talking about holding a new caucus later in the process so they do a mulligan in the state. And I also know that many people think Clinton is running some sort of scam and that she'll unfairly try to seat her delegates and that it's inappropriate for her to have a rally in Florida to celebrate "winning" etc, etc. Fine. That's all party politics and it's not what I'm talking about. It will be worked out one way or the other.

My point is that actual human beings voted today. If it is inappropriate for Clinton to declare victory it's also damned inappropriate for every gasbag on television to say that all these votes are completely meaningless. They may not add to the delegate count, but they were cast in good faith by American citizens and they should be treated with respect by these jackasses.

I have no idea how it would have come out with a full presidential campaign in the state -- probably differently in a dozen different ways -- but that doesn't mean the media are allowed to act as if the people's vote isn't worth taking seriously, even as they explain why there are no delegates being awarded.

I understand why the Obama campaign is saying that it was only Clinton's name recognition that propelled her higher vote tally. They may certainly be right about that. This is politics and it's fair for them to make that charge. But the Florida Democratic party actually worked to get their people out to the polls even if there wasn't a presidential campaign down there and they deserve at least a little bit of credit for getting so many people out under those circumstances. It's not the news media's job to make a judgment about whether they were right to do so. I have been voting for presidential primary candidates for decades where there was no primary campaign run in my state and while my vote may not have been decisive, I don't recall the news media derisively characterizing the primary voters of California as being dupes and fools for bothering to cast a vote in a state that wasn't being contested.

The contempt these elites hold for the people of this country is unparalleled. They are smirking and laughing and practically rolling their eyes, even as they report that more than a million Florida citizens cast their votes today.

Michael Tomasky at The Guardian, 1/27/2008:

They're not an official category of voters whose tally is measured in exit polls, like whites or blacks, women or men, old or young. And since they're not an official category, we may never really have the evidence.

But I have a feeling I know which group really handed Hillary Clinton - or maybe they were thinking even more of that other Clinton - her decisive loss to Barack Obama in South Carolina on Saturday night. Call them "high-information Democrats."

These are the people who follow all the ins and outs of the contest. They read The New York Times. They watch cable television, probably Keith Olbermann first and foremost. They read blogs. They know every twist and turn, every thrust and parry. And yes, they exist even in South Carolina.

As I said, they are not a measured category. But Obama was ahead by eight to 15 percentage points in most public opinion polls up to Friday. He won by more than that, 28 percentage points. Who accounted for this disparity? We'll need to see raw turnout numbers by region to have a better idea - according to one network exit poll Obama won a majority of college-educated voters, both white and black. I suspect that it's a plausible conclusion that high-information voters swung in Obama's direction in the contest's closing days and hours.

If I'm right, those voters were pretty clearly saying that they didn't like the kind of campaign the Clintons were running against a fellow Democrat. It's a rebuke for both Clintons that will force them to rethink their scorched-earth strategy toward Obama and that presents them with a conundrum.

The following major points, however, merit close observations with the ongoing US primaries:

First, Democrat candidates have imbued voters with an outburst of enthusiasm and interests, On the one hand, Americans hope that the Democratic Party will assume office to reform politics and re-orientate the direction, as they have become despaired with reality in the U.S. and aspire to make changes. On the other hand, one of the Democrat forerunners is a woman and the other a black man, and whoever gets elected will make the American history. Mrs. Clinton's race has greatly interested American women in politics, and the smart, handsome black Obama has filled Afro-Americans and young people with great enthusiasm.

The second point is a rivalry between the "reform" card and the "experience" card. Due to people's discontent with reality in Washington D.C., Obama first of all raised the "reform" card and attracted lots of students, youths and kids. Hillary hosted her "experience" card at first, and later shifted her card to the one of "reform" plus with "experienced preparations"so as to pluck up her initiative as her original card inclines to be linked to present reality in the U.S. by her opponents.

Third, Republican candidates vie with each other for unfolding their "security" card. They have reached consensus to beef up the U.S.' military might while vying with one another to release their tougher foreign policies. As the U.S. is currently faced with security challenges, they opt to pass themselves off as reliable guarantors of U.S. security once they get elected.

Fourth, Republican candidates meanwhile raise "anti-immigration" card. All Republican candidates, with the exception for John McCain, have advocated for expelling 12 million illegal immigrants from the U.S. Meanwhile, John McCain holds that they should also be "given a way out" and because of his once-declined supporting rate, he later had to emphasize on reinforcing border management and law enforcement. It is precisely owing to this cause that more minority races voters have turned to support Democrat candidates.

The fifth point represents a "religion" card. Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor, has striven to quell persistent concern about his Mormon religion. If elected, he pledged to voters, he will only serve public interest instead of working for any religious sect. And former Arkansas governor Mike Huchabee, an ordained Baptist minister, however, appeal to evangelical voters, or social conservatives. So far, he has picked up a key endorsement from a group of African American church leaders. But he gets reproached for collecting votes in the name of religion, and much remains to see what role his religion is to further play in his race for presidency.

Finally, the newest point has something to do with an "economy card". At start, Democrats unfolded the card of troop pullout from Iraq. But when it was reported that situation there had turned to the better recently, the value of this card has lowered. Meanwhile, faced with daily growing worries for the possible economic recession, candidates of both Parties vie with each other to hoist the "economy" card. General speaking, Democrats candidates are in favor of increasing government expenses and subsidizing the impoverished people, whereas Republican contenders opt to cut tax rate or offer tax refunds.

Looking ahead, South Carolina, the first state with a major black electorate, is due to hold the Democrats' next contest on January 26. Polls so far predict that Barack Obama will readily win with a margin of five to six percent over Hillary Clinton, as the black communities there makes up somewhat half the voters, and so the contest is all the more worth seeing and observing. Likewise, Republican hopefuls are looking forward to primaries on Super Tuesday on February 5 to sort out their frontrunners, and so much remains to be seen on that day.

"Over the last week I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice," Clinton (N.Y.) said at her victory rally, embracing a newly emotional campaign style that appeared to fuel her turnaround here. "Let's give America the kind of comeback New Hampshire has just given me."

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), who had anticipated a second consecutive win after his Iowa caucus triumph last Thursday, conceded shortly before 11 p.m. "We always knew our climb would be steep," he told supporters, a day after he had confidently told backers that he was "riding a wave" to a win here. Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) placed a distant third, followed by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.