Hoping Kerry Gets SoS

Everything's rumors at this point, but it doesn't look like the Obama team is thrilled about making Kerry Secretary of State. I think he'd excel at the position - and it would be a great exclamation point to his career. Plus, while I also think Senator Clinton would be a very admirable Secretary, I'm sort of hoping she'll take more of a leadership role in the Senate. Needless to say, I'm not confident of Reid's ability to lead the Senate. (Some good news on that front here.)

Ask Ryan Anything: Back by Popular Demand

(Bumped... people kept asking for Ask Ryan Anything... so they best be asking questions in the comments!)

A whole assortment of people have asked me in comments over the past few months "where's Ask Ryan Anything?" It's been gone for nearly a year - and people still remember it. So, have at it!

The rules: you can ask me anything in the comments and I'll give an answer. It can be related to politics, or not. Anything's fair game, though if it's incredibly snarky, my answer may be in kind.

Here's a little comment to kick this all off: All I can say about Obama is "I told you so." Hillary may not have been a great President, but she would have been a decent one. At the very least, she probably wouldn't have pissed on the constitution and denounced Wes Clark for doing a wonderfully fantastic deed in our efforts to crush McCain. Obama's actions in it all? Talk about grasping the jaws of defeat from victory. Also, he's now officially a wimp.

Supremely Disappointed in Obama

I'll tell you, I was starting to get excited about Obama, but I can't state how much of a disappointment this is for a stalwart Democrat.

Asked specifically why he's supporting the current FISA bill when he'd promised months ago to support a filibuster of an earlier version of the bill, Obama suggested flat out that "national security" overrides the question of telecom immunity.

First of all, we've managed to pass FISA extensions for years now: it's not as if there's a choice between national security and the constitution. That's a Republican fallacy that, sadly, Obama seems all too happy to promote. Second of all, it can't be described how weak this is on Obama's part: it's something we may have expected out of a Democrat in 2002, not today.

There's an opportunity here to further brand the RNC as the party of fear mongering and political manipulation, which is all true, if Obama is willing to take it. All we need is a minimum of patience and some political courage to turn this into a conversation of "do you support the Constitution or not?" Apparently, Obama's too afraid of being called a Muslim, or something.

For the naysayers: anyone who says "AT&T deserves immunity, because the national government demanded it," is either a hack or an ignoramus (no offense to the latter). In no way whatsoever did the Federal Government vote to sanction our intelligence community to wiretap US phones without going through FISA and getting a warrant. The Bush administration is not the federal government; it's just one branch. As such, it had no authority to demand telecoms bypass FISA whatsoever.

All of these Telecoms have lawyers enough to populate entire communities, they knew Bush had no such authority, so that argument just doesn't fly. Point in case: not all of the Telecoms did Bush's bidding, some refused and demanded the BushCo. compel them, which the White House could never do... because it wouldn't be constitutional. No, there were other reasons why most of the Telecoms went along with it - a hint: it rhymes with squid bro fo.

The "Government" didn't force the telecoms to do anything; certain agencies, under the auspices of Dick and Bush, asked for that information, maybe even bullied for it, but nothing changes the fact that ultimately the Telecoms chose to give up the goods (your 4th amendment rights). None of them kicked and screamed and took the Government to court to protect you, their paying customers, from being spied on by the Government. Swallow that while considering the thousands a year we all pay these companies - the very same companies that are now asking for immunity, for protection against us.

No, these Telecoms deserve whatever punishments eventually come their way, criminal or otherwise, if we can somehow prevent them from cashing in early on some of those quid pro quos - in the form of the ultimate get-out-of-jail free card. With millions of people in this country's prison system, we're going to decide that the white collar executives at AT&T, who have teams of lawyers and never suffer from wont of anything, are the ones who deserve retroactive immunity? With all the lawyers they had on staff to give them sage legal advice, these are the people who deserve to be free from 'frivolous lawsuits?'

Does Senator Obama and Speaker Pelosi even know what accountability means? This is perhaps the biggest scandal in the history of modern America and not only are the Democrats content to do nothing about it, they're making sure they'll never have to do anything about it ever. With immunity, what's there to be done? Ask telecoms politely not to do it again? How will we ever know the full extent of what went on if Verizon gets to Pass Go & Collect $200? On FISA alone, I'll refuse to send Obama a dime or volunteer a single minute, unless he changes course pronto.

The good news: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid came around on the issue, as well as Senator Chuck Schumer from NY. If Senator Clinton follows suit, as she often does, who knows? At least, for true blue Democrats who bought into the mantra of "change," Hillary would have the last laugh if she could help lead the filibuster. Unless, of course, Obama quickly grows a conscience realizes the Constitution trumps political ambitions any day of the week, especially when, in the long run, being courageous on FISA very likely will be to our advantage - as the party that fixes things.

Change, change, change, change, change

Yes, I get it, we need change. But change doesn't mean completely forsaking what's worked in the past. This absurd notion that taking Hillary on would forsake Obama's message of change is ridiculous. The change that we need is change back to competent government, where we try to improve the lives of everyday Americans and run a society in ways that make sense.

Would I like change above and beyond the Clinton years - pushing rights and being a bolder party? Sure, that's a fantastic idea - just where is it going to come from? On the issues that matter - such as civil rights and universal health care - Obama's just not promising or promoting it. He's using nice, broad strokes - and letting voters see what they want in the picture. We may as well be looking at clouds instead of policy; the less clear Obama's change seems, the better for his campaign.

Where's the real change? Where's the boundaries Obama's really pushing? It's smoke and mirrors. It's rhetoric. He's got this blog's vote and support, but we're fresh out of Kool-Aid. It's times like this where I half think David Axelrod must get a real good kick out of himself.

Hillary/Obama Stand Off

It's pretty clear, to me, that tonight's Hillary speech was all about Hillary wanting to be VP and Obama saying "no." Why he's saying no, I don't get, because she's clearly as strong a candidate out there as any (and, according to MSNBC's count, really is leading in the popular vote as of earlier in the evening). Instead of increasing his likelihood of winning, he's doing everything in his power to keep this bitter to the end. A bitter end.

For months, the smart thing to do was to unite the ticket. This is absurd. I have no horses in this race; at this point, I can't stand any of them. I wish we could have a whole primary do-over, complete with new candidates, because these ones suck. They can't even be the 'bigger person' and unite the fracking ticket. Talk about a pair of egotistical, stubborn clowns. Thank goodness it's McSame we're running against - that guy can't talk his way out of a paper bag - otherwise, I'd be worried right now.

Keep the Gas Tax, Bolster the Dollar

Senator Clinton isn't alone in thinking a gas-tax holiday is a good idea, but that doesn't actually make it one. Unfortunately, there's a very simple reason that explains most of why gas is going up - and it isn't even the war in Iraq (though, it's not helping). The largest factor in gas going up isn't even price gouging, or anything that oil companies are doing (though, again, they aren't helping).

The problem is this administration's contempt for the US dollar, which has fallen so drastically that of course it's going to be reflected in oil prices. The bottom line is that, if people want affordable gas under current circumstances, they need to elect more Democrats to push back on this President's disastrous policies that have quickly killed the dollar in Washington D.C. We need more Democrats in Congress, more in the Senate and especially a Democratic President to boot. That's the only way to reverse the Republican agenda and set this country back on the right course, which Democratic Presidents have a pretty darn good track record of doing.

It hurts, Mama, It Hurts...

Please, just make it stop!

I kind of feel a little bit like when my ear drum ruptured and there was blood pouring out...

Hillary, Barack; Barack, Hillary?

I'm beginning to feel the party will be best served by keeping these two mammoth political figures together to defeat McCain. Let the primary season finish itself out to decide who's at the top, but then unite the party by keeping the two tickets together. It's a way out of the difficult convention, without tearing the party apart, and it's a way to universal ballot success across the country.

This primary battle is certainly unique in the lives of most Americans and it represents two steam-rolling forces that will go on to not only defeat McCain, but also propel our US House and Senate to victories across the nation. Former Speaker of the House Hastert's seat swinging to a Democrat, in large part because of Obama's efforts there, truly speaks to the potential of our top two candidates sweeping across the nation, going where each of them is popular, so we can truly collect a mandate capable of granting universal health care, an end to the Iraq war and addressing dozens of our other chief concerns. Coattails are powerful weapons, especially when local campaigns are actively working to turn out both the local and presidential vote in districts that are competitive. This primary season has seen record turnout in many places across the country; we must harness this political force to benefit all of the races, and the best way of doing that is to unite the ticket at the convention.

Clinton, Obama on Lawrence King's Death

I have to say that few things have really pulled at me like Lawrence King's death. It seems like every time I think society's making great progress and is nearly ready to fully accept glbt people, some innocent kid or teen gets murdered for being gay. King should be a rallying cry for the country to pass the Matthew Shepard law, but the Republicans seem content to let more Lawrence Kings pass on. In any event, I'm glad the Obama and Clinton campaigns have finally weighed in, both calling for federal hate crime bills that extend to all glbt people.

Clinton sums it up:

We must finally enact a federal hate crimes law to ensure that gay, lesbian and transgender Americans are protected against violent, bias-motivated crimes. We must send a unified message that hate-based crime will not be tolerated.

Kos, Olbermann, Blogs, MSM... One-Sided Hypocrisy

On the one hand, Kos is willing to wag his fingers at the Clinton campaign for making notice that red states vote red: it's insulting to the voters, he says. Well, maybe it is, even if it's a case of 'the truth hurts.' On the other hand, Kos gives a tip of his cap to laying the ultimate insult to Michigan and Florida voters: stripping them of their votes. Apparently, part of the 50 State Strategy Kos is trying to defend here says that two of our biggest, most important states shouldn't even be able to have a say in the election. What a great strategy! And, let's get real, it's not as if the voters of either of those states had a choice in the fact that their primaries were moved up. So, if it's a big deal that Hillary's peeps think that red state voters aren't quite as important as the voters in states that will actually vote for a Democrat, why isn't Kos and the like demanding Michigan and Florida voters get their say? Talk about hypocrisy.

Then there's the case of Keith Olberman, who I normally love. However, whenever it comes to Hillary Clinton, he's downright foaming at the mouth - despite the fact that, if anything, she's to the left of Barack on the most important domestic policy issues: health care and even energy. The rest of the media follows suit: every little Clinton blip is analyzed for how they're a bunch of awful human beings and don't deserve to be in office. Yet, they ignore the fact that Obama's camp has been equally brutal. Then, when Obama gets caught with his hand in the speech-writers' cookie jar, seemingly the entire MSM rushes to his defense. Can I just say that if I did what Obama did on a college paper, I most definitely would have been given a zero, likely with a very scary meeting scheduled with the dean. But, then again, I don't cheat.

The media coverage of this race has been god-awful and entirely one sided. It's sickening to see the blogosphere join the MSM in these ranks - clearly, some of these blogs are quickly joining the establishment that they so often love to rail against. I hate to throw this out there, but part of me really wonders if the situation would be different if Hillary weren't one of those crazy people who just so happen to lack an extra appendage between their legs. In any event, it would be nice if the blogosphere could get away from the very horse-race type issues that we get so pissed off about when the media covers them. This race ought to be about the issues, instead it's about trivial matters wherever we go for campaign news. Ugh.

Hillary: Fighting With Fire

Now, here's an attack with merit. Of course, kudos for David (and tblade) catching this before the Hillary campaign did. And let's also not forget that plagiarism is a serious issue, one that's cost other candidates the campaign in elections past. People go to speeches expecting them to be original to that candidate, even if they're playing off of common ideas. Just because Obama shares Patrick's chief political message guy, that doesn't give Obama carte blanche to steal whatever catch phrases and speeches he wants from Patrick's campaign (and to do poor versions of them, to boot). If he wants to borrow ideas and phrases, that's great - and he should - but he needs to at least preface it with, "as my good friend, the Governor of Massachusetts, likes to say..."

Obama's Really Pissing Me Off

This kind of nonsense is just that, nonsense. While I don't like the DLC attitude, Bill Clinton did not singularly cause Democrats to lose seats - but he did help balance the budget and preside over a country where nearly every group of people were doing better than they had before. The funny thing is Barack's bipartisan nonsense is almost exactly like the DLC rhetoric that actually did hurt this country, except Barack's brining it to a whole new level. Barack's message and rhetoric doesn't sound like someone who's proud to be a Democrat at all - and this kind of mailing is right in line with that meme.

All in All, a Good Night for Hillary

I'm happy with it. She increased her lead in delegates, has won all of the most important states so far (California, New York and Florida - all by huge margins), and of course she won the best state in the country, Massachusetts. With other wins all over the map and delegate lead, she still has the advantage and momentum in this race.

This contest probably wouldn't be nearly as close right now if the Democratic Party actually valued the votes of Democratic Party Voters - and didn't throw a hissy fit at the Super Delegates who decided amongst themselves to break party rules. If the party did as it should - punishing the Supers instead of the regular voters, who had no control over when primaries would be held, this race may very well be over by now.

Anti-Hillary Over Iraq?

One of the arguments I've been hearing for Obama is that, even if he's playing dirty politics and engaging in right wing talking points, Hillary was for Iraq. Obviously that means she doesn't deserve our support. Don't get me wrong, Hillary made a lousy vote and it doesn't reflect well on her for not apologizing for it, but this argument just doesn't make sense. If Obama truly was anti-war, and I don't really give a damn about some speech he made before he ever had to deal with the pressures of being a US Senator who wanted to run for President, he should have actually been a strong, anti-war Senator. Where was this leadership from Senator Obama in the US Senate? If Obama came out strong against Iraq during his tiny tenure in the US Senate, he certainly did it very tentatively. And he certainly didn't come out strong when it mattered - funding the war. His war funding record is almost identical to Hillary's. Am I really supposed to believe that, had he been in the Senate before the war started, he would have been an anti-war champion? I don't think so.

So, in light of that, all I have to do is look at where he stands on progressive issues, as well as standing up to K Street and the Republican hacks who've been ruining our country for the past few decades. It doesn't look good. If it's not propping up right wing talking points, like how Social Security is in dire straights and needs to be fixed now, it's pushing liquid coal - which would be a disaster to our environment. If it's not praising Reagan as the right man for the right time, it's propping up anti-gay preachers in his campaign. He's sending calculated, mixed signals to the public that isn't of the sort a strong progressive would support. Hell, he's managed to get me - someone who never would have voted for a person like Hillary in a millions years - ready to vote for her in a mere 4 days. It took a lot for Obama to accomplish that, but he's worked hard to get me to dislike his candidacy.

Now That John's Out

I don't feel there's a voice for people like me - people who think corporate influence is too great and that people who work hard every day ought to be justly rewarded, regardless of whether they're a janitor or a CEO.

Obama's message is downright repulsive, in my view, because the US is never going to be hippy-dippy, let's-sing-kumbayah Purple America. The Republican Leadership just doesn't work like that. They'll obstruct, block and play to the greater devils of people's nature as they climb back to a majority status sooner or later, as they paint the Democrats as do nothing Democrats - even if it won't be true. The window to create important change through a super majority is almost always small, and only comes from the type of bold leadership that rejects the fundamental notions of our opponents. Someone who stumps on how we need to reform social security now isn't the kind of person who'll do anything to create an actual, long-lasting progressive movement.

I went from not being excited about any of the candidates a few months ago, to being heart broken John Edwards isn't at least carrying on his message through Super Tsunami Tuesday. Can I actually, in good conscience, vote for Hillary? I don't think so... and there's less than a week to decide. Ryan's not a happy camper.

Ted's Obama Speech

I have to say I was excited to see the decency and respect that ABC News with Charles Gibson gave on Kennedy's speech and endorsement for Obama. If anyone didn't catch it, it's worth watching. I guess I'm so used to seeing the media dis Kennedy on a regular basis, that I was mildly surprised they gave him the respect and honor he deserves as perhaps this party's true Elder Spokesman - and a guy who's truly fought for the middle and working class all his life. The speech itself was rousing and grand, just as any Kennedy speech is prone to be, showing once again that Teddy is as good a speaker as any politician out there.

It's only too bad the media wasn't paying as much attention to Kennedy's criticism of the Iraq invasion before it happened as they did Obama's endorsement, because maybe it would have helped rally the nation to oppose the war before a single life was lost. Unfortunately, that's all bloody water under the bridge.

I'm still not going to vote for Obama for reasons I've made quite clear on this blog, but I hope the Senator is at least competitive in this state. He's been endorsed by the Big 3 - Senators Kerry, Kennedy and the Governor - and I respect all of them. I'd hate to see the projected Hillary landslide in the Bay State that most polls are suggesting, but unfortunately that's probably going to be what happens. Still, though, that shouldn't reflect poorly on any of the Big 3 at all - only the media still pretends that endorsements sway voters.

Scary Polling Data

There was some real scary polling data on MSNBC's Countdown last night. Keith Olbermann talked about a poll MSNBC commissioned, featuring the two top democrats versus McCain. Nationally, Obama vs. McCain was a 42-42 tie, while Hillary actually lost to McCain by about 2% (I think it was 44-46). As mentioned Wednesday, the two don't even fair well against McCain in Massachusetts! Hillary, in the Bay State SUSA poll, beat McCain by about 4% - Obama actually lost to McCain by a whopping 5% (a 9% swing in this state, compared to Hillary's number).

Now, polls are only a snapshot in time and there'd be plenty of moons for the two to shore up the Commonwealth, but if either candidate actually had to defend a state like Massachusetts from a Republican, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the country.

In fact, there's only two reasonable deductions to make from the MSNBC poll: we all need to hope John Edwards can actually make a race of this, as he's the only one who consistently defeats McCain in national polls. Secondly, let's all pray the Christian Right does the stupid right thing and helps the Grand Old Party nominate Willabee (either Willard or Huckabee, better yet - a ticket!). It'll be the Republican version of nominating McGovern - and they're actually stupid enough to be doing their best to make it happen (Romney's starting to take the lead in Florida). Otherwise, the prospects of McCain versus either Hillary or Obama is an utter nightmare few should dare to dream.

Eek!

This doesn't bode well for Obama: in Massachusetts, Barack Obama would lose to John McCain. MASSACHUSETTS! As I've said over at BMG a few times, and perhaps here, Clinton outperforms Obama among Democrats, while Obama has relied on Independents to overcome the fact that he loses the Democratic vote to his rivals. Clearly, I'm not alone in thinking Obama isn't exactly a proud Democrat - he turns off a lot of voters, even more so than Hillary.

In what shouldn't exactly be the shocker of shockers, given the previous two sentences, Barack Obama doesn't fare well against John McCain, who also appeals to Independents. In the poll, Hillary beat McCain by a 4% margin. Obama would lose by 5% - that's a 9% swing, folks. Glaringly missing in the survey is the fact that John Edwards isn't included. However, in matchups from other surveys, John Edwards consistently performs best among Democrats versus John McCain.

For years on this blog, I've been telling people to not vote based on their gut feelings of who they think is most electable. Barack Obama may appeal toward broader coalitions in Democratic Primaries, but those people clearly don't necessarily follow him over to the general election. They also don't vote as much. We can't take chances in '08, so people ought to be very careful about voting for Obama. He's not the best candidate out there by any measure.

Hat tip to Susan at Below Boston, who's the best Mass Blogger on the POTUS scene.

Update: Here's one of the reasons why I say Susan's election coverage has been the best. Read her comment on that blog, too.

Keller Cackles Antagonistic Sympathies

Anyone else a little suspicious when Jon Keller tries to give Democrats good advice? Ah, that concern trolling, it's one of Rightwingtopia's favorite hobbies. Apparently, Obama's New Hampshire loss wasn't his worst day, it was the day when John Kerry officially endorsed him. Anything you say, Jon.

This reminds me of a favorite movie scene: When the Wicked Witch of the West exploded onto the scene in Munckinland, Glinda told her, "you have no power here, be gone." If only Wicked Witches would listen to such sage advice.

My God Was That a Fun Night

Here's why NH tonight was great: no matter who's nominated in the Democratic Party, they're going to have to go through a much longer vetting process. My heart's in Edwards's camp, but I can't deny being a little excited seeing Obama go down. I'll tell you, even though I disagree with Democratic Party members very frequently, I'm a loyalist at heart: a movement needs a party and the Democratic one is the only one we've got. That's why I have such a hard time stomaching Obama's message. Sure, Deval Patrick spoke about reaching across partisan lines when he was getting elected, but it was never as important to his stump as it has been for Obama - and all Patrick's 'reaching across' to other interests, so far, have been exactly the sort of interests that really make me sick to my stomach.

So, here we are. Hillary won New Hampshire, pulling off what's probably one of the biggest political upsets I've ever seen. Now, we're heading for a long and drawn out primary season, just like the Republicans. It's a good day for Democracy.