Archives for May 2008

Oy…

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton quickly apologized Friday after citing the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason to remain in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination despite increasingly long odds.

“I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever,” the former first lady said.

The episode occurred as Clinton campaigned in advance of the June 3 South Dakota primary.

Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race

Yes, it was offensive, and yes, it was an awfully dumb thing to say. And while yes, she was quick to apologize, yes, she should have worded her apology more directly.

But honestly… it’s true. Who doesn’t fear for Obama’s safety above that of the typical candidate, and why wouldn’t that thought enter into Clinton’s calculation? I’ve always assumed that one of her reasons for sticking with this so doggedly—however small—is the desire to lay undisputed claim to the nomination should anything, scandalous or tragic, happen to Obama.

You don’t come out and say it—that was a fuck up—but you can’t blame her for thinking it.

The Washington Post’s top political handicapper Chris Cillizza has updated his list of House seats likely to change party hands in November, and look what makes the top twenty:

19. WA-08 (GOP-held): Rep. Dave Reichert (R) is a very strong candidate but the demographics of this Seattle-area district are trending in the wrong direction for the incumbent. Democrat Darcy Burner came within 7,000 votes of beating Reichert in 2006 and is back for a rematch. Reichert could do everything right in the next five months and still lose. (Previous ranking: N/A)

Keep in mind that 13 of the races ahead of WA-08 are for open seats, and that Cillizza ranks Reichert as the second most likely Republican incumbent to lose his seat. And this analysis coming from a guy who thinks Reichert a “very strong candidate.” (Perhaps Cillizza was just referring to Reichert’s biceps?)

Once again, same city, same day, two newspapers, two headlines.

From the Seattle Times: “Housing prices slide in this state, 42 others.”

And from the Seattle P-I: “Area home prices up 2.8% from year ago.”

My suggestion… if you’re looking to buy a house, read the Times. If you’re looking to sell a house, read the P-I.

From the Seattle Times: “Wenatchee cyclist could get shot at Tour de France.”

My advice to 23-year-old Wenatchee cyclist Tyler Farrar is, if you could get shot at the Tour… for God’s sake don’t go! It’s just a bike race, and you’re too young to die!

UPDATE:
The Times has updated the headline in their online edition to read: “Wenatchee cyclist has shot at riding in Tour de France.”

Another victory for bloggers everywhere.

The TNT’s Niki Sullivan is fast becoming my favorite newspaper blogger. After being refused entry into a Christian Businessmen’s Connection (CBMC) event featuring Dino Rossi (obviously, one of the businesses they haven’t connected with yet is PR), Sullivan follows up by reporting that the gathering most likely violated the law, putting the organization’s tax-exempt status at risk.

The problem: CMBC is a 501(c)3 nonprofit. And, as far as the Internal Revenue Service is concerned, Rossi could have talked exclusively about his shoe size and the event still would have run afoul of the law.

That tidbit in itself is worth the read, but I just love how Sullivan writes up her exchange with CBMC organizer Dwight Mason:

“I feel like it’s a private party. Our purpose was not fundraising, I can say that,” he said.

I asked if fundraising occurred.

“There was no plea for funds. No funds were solicited.”

I told him I had heard otherwise.

“You know, if there were envelopes there, they weren’t anything that I had anything to do with. When you have a political campaign, I’m sure there’s going to be some envelopes around somewhere.”

Understandable. But whether there was fundraising is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

“To me this sounds to me like a reporter who has an agenda.”

Correct. My agenda includes something about holding people in power accountable.

Now that’s blogging. You go girl.

Gen. Wesley Clark is going to one lucky Congressional district to do a community service project and we get to decide where to send him.  So go to Democrats Works today and vote for Darcy in WA-08.

It’s quick, it’s easy, and it’s free, so there’s no excuse not to show your support.

Um… no.

Some Republican insiders believe Congressman Dave Reichert is in trouble, not because his opponent Darcy Burner, is anything great, but because the Democratic tide could be so high it sweeps out moderates in swing districts. And the 8th District is ready to swing.

God forbid she give any credit to Darcy Burner—one of the smartest, hardest working candidates I have ever met—for coming from nowhere to put herself in a position to win.  And I suppose it never occurred to Balter to put part of the blame for Dave Reichert’s vulnerability on Reichert’s own “undistinguished” performance in Congress?

No, now that they see the handwriting on the wall, and suspect that Darcy might actually win come November, the Times editorialists just cover their eyes, ears and asses by blaming Reichert’s woes on tides, swings and Obamania.

Shorter Balter:  stupid voters.

Concerned that I didn’t give the buttoned-up Christian business man’s group that hosted Dino Rossi in Tacoma today a fair shake after they denied the News-Tribune’s Niki Sullivan access to a Rossi appearance and thus the ability to do part of her job, I decided to check out their national website. Nothing too unusual. Biblical inerrancy combined with a multi-level marketing approach to religion, plus plans to proselytize the known universe (or at least the top 100 cities in the country, anyhow.)

You know, the usual type of far right Republican-Christian symbiosis they’ve perfected. But nothing political going on, no-sireee. They’re charging $210 per table to meet the GOP candidate for governor just because he’s a swell guy.

But I can see now I was being unfair. Their slogan is “A movement of men,” and I think these screen shots pretty much show just how unfair I was being.

Not that there’s anything wrong with being well-dressed.

Did Kentucky just seal the nomination for Obama? Then who should he pick as a running mate? What does Sen. Ed Murray (D-43 LD) really think about Rossi’s transportation plan fantasy? Is American democracy being poisoned by right-wing hate rhetoric? What’s the matter with the DNC’s 50-state Blogger Corps Program? Goldy and friends frolic in these questions and more, and then conclude with a sober discussion of Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Goldy was joined by a star-studded cast of political pundits: Washington state Senator Ed Murray, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, DailyKos uber-blogger mcjoan, author of Outright Barbarous: How the Violent Language of the Right Poisons American Democracy, anthropologist, and blogger Jeffrey Feldman, Firedoglake front page editor Dave Neiwert, and EFFin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard.

The show is 56:14, and is available here as an MP3.

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_may_20_2008.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

Oregon Democrats were incredibly fortunate to have two strong, progressive Senate candidates in Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick. In the end Merkley won the primary by a slim 45% to 42% margin, but managed to win a plurality of votes in all but three counties. Congratulations Jeff.

Novick ran an impressive underdog campaign, producing some of the best political ads I’ve seen in quite some time, so he deserves congratulations too for being himself and making it so close. But in the end suburban and rural Democrats felt more comfortable with Merkley’s more traditional style. From a strategic perspective I think there were good arguments as to why either might have been a better matchup against incumbent Sen. Gordon Smith, but that’s all moot now. The job from here on out is to convince Oregon voters that Merkley will do a better job representing their interests than Smith.

On a personal note, this was a difficult primary for me, and I’m glad to see it over. I had the opportunity to meet with both candidates and genuinely liked them both. But I also had close blogger friends passionately on either side of this race, and at times felt like a child caught in the midst of a nasty divorce. My hope is that in focusing on November, we can come together as one big happy family again… without a custody agreement or court oversight.

Did sexist press coverage sink Hillary Clinton?  I’ll be a guest on KUOW’s The Conservation this afternoon, sometime during the 1PM hour, to discuss this and possibly other issues.

I was talking to a real journalist last night, and not surprisingly the subject of the Burner-Reichert race came up. Also not surprisingly, the journalist raised the question of whether Darcy Burner had done enough over the past two years to address concerns about her perceived lack of relevant experience.

This isn’t the first time I’ve heard a member of the local media raise this question, and it immediately got my hackles up. Campaigns tend to focus on the job performance of the incumbent, not the challenger, and with good reason: to criticize the challenger for lacking the relevant experience of the incumbent would be an automatic argument for incumbency.

To wage a successful campaign a challenger must typically do two things: A) raise substantial doubts about the job performance and/or character of the incumbent; and B) present themselves as an acceptable alternative who voters might reasonably give a chance in the job. And generally, in that order.

But that’s not how this race has been covered thus far. The media narrative, that Burner must somehow match Dave Reichert’s legislative experience to qualify for the job, is a narrative that comes straight from the Reichert campaign, and one that she cannot possibly win, as it can be argued that nothing prepares one for Congress like on the job experience. It is a narrative that runs counter to the intent of the founders, who envisioned a citizen legislature, and counter to the mood of a public grown weary (and wary) of professional politicians. It is a narrative that defaults to the incumbent.

But elected office has never been a prerequisite for holding elected office; it was never an issue during Mike McGavick’s run for the US Senate, and it hasn’t seemed to hamper Gov. Schwarzenegger in California. Indeed, representing one’s fellow citizens in Congress is supposed to be an act of public service, not a reward for it.

If I sound a bit defensive it is because I am, for Darcy Burner is clearly being held to an unfair standard. Capitol Hill is filled with Representatives and Senators who never held lower office before first being elected (or appointed) to Congress. Ironically, the best example I can think of to support the notion that legislators should work their way to the top before acceding to Congress is Reichert himself, who had zero legislative experience before winning his current office, and whose track record there shows it.

The primary question before voters is not what Burner has managed to accomplish since losing her race in 2006, but what Reichert has managed to accomplish since winning. Which brings us to the video clip at the top of this post, in which Rep. Jay Inslee cites Burner’s Responsible Plan while debating Iraq War funding on the floor of House.

Inslee describes Burner as a “citizen,” and that’s all she is, and yet through sheer grit and determination she has managed to influence the public debate on Iraq, while Reichert, with all the powers of office at his disposal, has done nothing but parrot the platitudes of the Bush administration. Where is Reichert’s plan? Where is his leadership on this issue or other pressing issues? What has he done during his four years in office other than issue an endless stream of press releases and glossy franked mail pieces?

When critics ask what Burner has done these past two years to prepare herself for office, voters should ask what Reichert has done these past two years with it? And local journalists, however well meaning, should start asking the same question.