MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: February 3, 2008

« January 27, 2008 - February 2, 2008 | Main | February 10, 2008 - February 16, 2008 »

February 9, 2008

It's Not Over: Is Huckabee the Story?

All the networks have let their A-teams go home for the night (bye, Wolf!), but I'm still here. Why? Because it's not clear what Huckabee will accomplish tonight. He's already won Kansas, he's leading in Louisiana by 2 percent with 93 percent of the state reporting, and he's trailing in Washington by 2 percent with 78 percent of the state reporting.

He could come away with one win or three wins. Either way, we've got a real situation on our hands. It looks like most of the voters who voted for Romney are joining the Huckabee folks; Huckabee isn't the true conservative that many Republicans are seeking, but apparently he's conservative enough to serve as the alternative to moderate/maverick John McCain. Looks like a major case of buyer's remorse in the first primaries since John McCain was crowned the presumptive nominee.

If this continues on Tuesday, when Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. vote, it will be a wholesale repudiation of the Republican leaders who are slowly and begrudgingly coming to back John McCain.

So who's backing Huckabee? According to CNN's exit polls out of Louisiana, Huckabee found his most support among regular church-goers, evangelicals, economically minded voters (particularly those who feel the economy is performing poorly), young Republicans, and true hard-core conservatives. Is that a coalition that can come through for Huckabee in the next round? We only have to wait three days to find out.

But more importantly, will it matter? Probably not. According to CNN's calculations, Huckabee can win every single state left on the Republican primary calendar by a 50-40 margin and John McCain will still win the delegate contest. (CNN assumes Ron Paul takes 10 percent, but Washington proves he may do better than that.) This is a lost cause for Huckabee. Will he realize that and let the Republican Party coalesce around McCain? Or will he ride this thing out (he looks like he's having fun, after all) so Republicans have a contest instead of a coronation? And could this have happened if Romney was still in the race splitting the conservative vote with Huckabee?

There are open questions in a Republican race that seemed, just a few days ago, to be all answers.

It's All Over: Obama Takes the Sweep

The networks have called Louisiana for Obama. He's won all three states tonight, as expected: Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington. Time to make this a real Saturday night, folks. Prost!

Update: Whoops, I lied. I'm still digging around. Check out the turnout comparisons for the Democrats and the Republicans. With 59 percent of the vote returned in both races, 175,000 votes are in for the Democrats and just 74,000 are in for the Republicans. Yee-haw.

Exit Polls From Louisiana

Unlike Nebraska and Washington, Louisiana has some exit polls. Here's what they say on the Democratic side:

Women were a huge percentage of the vote today — 57 percent. Yet, women went for Obama, 54 percent to 45 percent. Obama won every age group except the over-60s, and he did so by very substantial margins.

Folks who make less than $50,000/year went for Obama 54-44. Folks who make more than $50,000/year went for Obama 55-44. There is a saying I've heard that suggests Clinton has "50-50 voters": if you are over 50 years old or you make less than $50,000/year, you'll vote for Clinton. In Louisiana, at least, that's half wrong.

White voters (50 percent of the electorate) went for Clinton 69 percent to 28 percent. Black voters (44 percent of the electorate) went for Obama 86 percent to 14 percent. That's a pretty stark racial divide. Funny enough, though, 77 percent of voters said that race was "not important" when they decide whom to vote for.

Almost half of voters say the economy is the most important issue. Roughly 30 percent said Iraq, and just over 20 percent said health care. These numbers are not matched on the Republican side. There, 33 percent said they prioritize the economy, 21 percent said illegal immigration, 21 percent said terrorism, and 20 percent said Iraq. That would imply that national security issues top the economy as the most important issue. Defying conventional wisdom, however, terrorism voters went for Huckabee while Iraq voters went for McCain. Maybe some folks think a President Huckabee could convince God to stop terrorist missiles in mid air.

Speaking of the Republicans, there's a divide in their party, too. Evangelical voters in Louisiana (56 percent of the electorate tonight) went 58-28 for Huckabee. Non-evangelical voters (44 percent of the electorate) were exactly the opposite, 58-28 for McCain. Oh, and here's another clear dividing line: moderates and folks calling themselves "somewhat conservative" went for McCain. Folks calling themselves "very conservative" went for Huckabee. This McCain fellow has got some work ahead of him.

Obama Wins Nebraska, Washington

According to CNN, Obama has Nebraska. With 73 percent of the vote reported, Obama has 69 percent and Hillary Clinton has 31 percent. I'll look for some exit polls.

Also, with 57 percent of the vote reported in Washington state, Obama is ahead 2-to-1: 67 percent to 32 percent. Again, I'll try and hunt down some more info.

Both these outcomes were expected. Keep in mind, however, that this does not mean huge delegate wins for Obama, due to the Democratic Party's rules of delegate apportionment.

Andrew Romano makes a good point over at Newsweek:

I'm curious to see how this will play in the press. So far, neither the New York Times nor CNN have prominent headlines on their website. There's a weird rule in the media that if the outcome of a contest is only important if it's surprising. So it'll be hard for Obama to emerge with any real momentum.

He's totally correct. If Obama is expected to win, and then takes almost 70 percent of the vote, everyone kind of shrugs and says, "Thought so." But 70 percent isn't anything to sneeze at.

Update: Okay, for reasons I can't understand, there appear to be no exit polls in Washington. Or Nebraska.

Who Are the Expected Winners Tonight?

Let me devote one paragraph to the Republicans right here at the beginning, and then I'll likely ignore them for most of the night.

Mike Huckabee won Kansas by a three-to-one margin earlier today, a sign that in deeply conservative parts of the country (particularly those parts with lots of evangelicals) Republicans are not completely on board with McCain. He's got some work to do in winning these people over. That said, his delegate lead is so massive that it would take a miracle for Huckabee to win. Huckabee, knowing this, told the Conservative Political Action Conference today, "I didn't major in math. I majored in miracles, and I still believe in them." Maybe he thinks conservatives will coalesce around him as the alternative to McCain, but I doubt it. He is a social conservative, but isn't really an economic conservative. And he has no foreign policy credentials.

Okay. Republican results will come in for the caucus in Washington and the election in Louisiana. But unless something spectacular happens, I'm going to spend most of this lonely Saturday night blogging about the Dems.

So who has the advantage in the Democratic primaries today?

First off, what's the playing field for the Dems? There's a caucus in Nebraska, a caucus in Washington, and an election in Louisiana.

Let's start with Louisiana. Half of the Democratic electorate is expected to be black, meaning that the demographics will mirror South Carolina and other Southern states that Obama has won. There has been no polling, but Obama has spent a lot of time in the state and has said all the right things about hurricane recovery, which, according to local reports, is the only issue in the Bayou State. Obama has also outspent Clinton in advertising there. Expect Obama to win handily.

Next, Nebraska. It's a caucus state, which have gone almost universally for Obama in this primary season (presumably because (1) Obama's supporters are more committed, (2) Obama organizes better than Clinton, and (3) there's no Bradley Effect at work). Obama has also won almost all of the Mountain/Prairie primaries — he took 74% in neighboring Kansas on Super Tuesday, for example. Obama also has endorsements from the state's two biggest Dems, Senator Ben Nelson and Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey. Again, expect an Obama victory.

Washington is another caucus state. It is the bluest state of the day, meaning more core Democrats for Hillary Clinton, but it also the only open primary on the slate, meaning independents can vote for Obama. There's only been one poll in the state according to pollster.com, and it shows a double digit lead for Barack Obama. (By the way, early turnout reports say it's going to be huge huge huge.)

So a sweep is possible for Obama. The Obama campaign's internal delegate memo that was accidentally released to the press recently shows that Obama's people expect to win all of the states today, and the Clinton campaign shot an email to reporters downplaying expectations. We'll keep you posted.

Hey, There Are Primaries This Weekend!

Thought you were going to get some time off after Super Tuesday? Think again! Tonight Louisiana heads to the polls and Nebraska and Washington head to caucuses. Tomorrow, Maine tries its hand at some caucusing as well. Political experts are expecting a sweep for Obama tonight (the Obama camp is really bad at managing expectations) and a toss up tomorrow. For more info, see this TPM post. I'll have coverage of the election results tonight.

You can find the schedule of the Democratic primaries here, by the way.

GOP: McCain is Chilling, But We'll Vote For Him

Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran (R) speaking about John McCain on January 27:

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran said about McCain by phone. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran (R) endorsing John McCain on February 8:

"I am supporting John McCain for the Republican nomination for president," Cochran, R-Miss., said in a statement released Thursday.

Mad props to Steve Benen, for catching this and other examples of GOP bandwagoning. We'll see if McCain can win over these folks.

February 8, 2008

What a Super Week!

Can you recall a more super set of seven days? Sunday gave us the Super Bowl, which lived up to its name for pretty much everyone in the world outside of New England. I mean, everyone loves an underdog, and how great was it that the biggest news of the day wasn't Tom Petty?

And arguably more super than the Super Bowl—a game which is manufactured expressly for entertainment—came just two days later, thanks to boring-old politics! There were no Victoria's Secret ads to lure people to the polls, no Doritos, no promises of perfection.

And yet they came. In droves. Droves so multitudinous that some places clean ran out of ballots. And what drew them? Good old-fashioned Patriotism. The real kind.

Super Tuesday was super, no matter who your candidate. Because, what makes something super isn't always fantastic, but it is signficant. Merriam-Webster says super's gotta be:

of high grade or quality, used as a generalized term of approval,
very large or powerful, or
exhibiting the characteristics of its type to an extreme or excessive degree

You could call the primary season at least two of those things most times. (And the Super Bowl with all of its trimmings certainly fit the bill on all three counts.) Sure, there's the excess—when Clinton has to loan herself $5 million to keep up we have to start asking questions about scale—and primaries in 24 states signifies size and power, but the day was pretty great, too.

It was super, quality-wise, because of its popularity. True, we live in an era of rock-bottom expectations when it comes to politics, but still, we should be excited that politics is reaching such a fever pitch in heretofore quiet places. John Legend is not only a spokesman for Lexus, he (along with a cast of other pop culture stars) is singing about Barack Obama! And Clinton and McCain (and I guess Huckabee still) should take heart: If young people are voting there's still time to reach them before March Madness.

And then super reared its head again today. The news is abuzz with the significance of superdelegates. Which essentially means delegates with superpowers. Really, they get to vote however they please on convention day, how else could you describe it?

Okay, so no action on the superheroes front this week. But Obama's been labeled as one before, so that's gotta count for something.

Super, coming soon to a William Safire column near you.

Super Tuesday Video: David Corn

David Corn gave San Francisco a special treat on Wednesday with his thoughts on the Democrats' less than decisive Super Tuesday results. Highlights include his music vs. math metaphor, a return to the campaign style of the 70's and the inevitable fatigue that'll likely meet the citizens of Pennsylvania.

Luckily we got the whole show on video:

Waterboarding: Not So Illegal After All?

Yesterday I wrote about the minor firestorm that reignited over waterboarding in recent days, thanks to CIA director Michael Hayden's Tuesday testimony that his agency waterboarded three al Qaeda members in 2002 and 2003. The White House authorized that particular disclosure; I wonder if they authorized this? Speaking to the House Intelligence Committee yesterday, Hayden said the people who performed the torture were not necessarily trained CIA operatives, but instead unspecified outside contractors:

REP. SCHAKOWSKY (D-IL): Are contractors involved in CIA detention interrogation programs?

GEN. HAYDEN: Absolutely.

REP. SCHAKOWSKY: Were contractors involved in the waterboarding of al Qaeda detainees?

GEN. HAYDEN: I'm not sure of the specifics. I'll give you a tentative answer: I believe so.

This new wrinkle might explain the apparent confusion among the relevant government agencies over whether or not waterboarding is legal. (By today's tally, White House says yes, Hayden says no, and Mukasey remains noncommittal.) After all, what's illegal for the government isn't necessarily illegal for contractors. We already contract out a good deal of the war, so why not add torture to the mix and save ourselves the legal headache? Maybe this was what White House spokesman Tony Fratto meant when he said that we might still use waterboarding "under certain circumstances." Then again, maybe it's simply anybody's guess.

—Casey Miner

Why a Superdelegate Pledge May Not Be So Super

Let me humbly suggest that Nick's pledge idea has a flaw. Sure, you can try to compel Democratic superdelegates to vote for whichever candidate arrives at the convention with the most delegates. But few will sign such a pledge, whether or not the Obama and Clinton campaign ask them to do so. Why give up a privilege? Especially when--here's the real issue--outside events might change the landscape.

The last big-state primary (Pennsylvania) occurs on April 22 and the primaries altogether end on June 3. What if in between those dates and the Democratic convention, which opens on August 25, something happens? Maybe Barack Obama is in the lead, and a news report discloses he once sold dope to lobbyists for a health insurance industry. Maybe Hillary Clinton is ahead, and it turns out she did hide legal records during the Whitewater investigation and plotted with her husband to kill their political enemies. In such instances, superdelegates might want to mount a course correction.

Admittedly, these are extreme examples. But there could be other less extreme circumstances in which it would make sense for the superdelegates to reconsider the popular will. As I noted, my hunch is that superdelegates will not willy-nilly vote to hand the nomination to the second-place finisher just out of personal preference. They will be under much scrutiny. And blowing up the party to save a nominee will not be undertaken lightly.

Still, there are other shenanigans that might transpire. Suppose a majority of superdelegates fancy Clinton but she narrowly trails Obama in non-superdelegates. Her supers could join with her regular delegates to vote to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida, which as of now are not to be counted because each of these two states held its primary early and violated Democratic Party rules. Because Clinton ended up winning those two non-sanctioned primaries, she would pick up a net gain of delegates from these states. Now imagine if that margin is enough to put her ahead of Obama.

More creative minds can cook up other possibilities. But just as we shouldn't ask politicians to pledge never to raise taxes--what if there's a war? (oh, nevermind)--perhaps it's not wise to remove with no exception the discretion of the superdelegates. There's an old adage: be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Though in this case, I believe there's little chance the superdelegates will be willing to give up their super power.

Time for A Superdelegate Pledge

As David notes here, the Washington Post's Paul Kane did the math and figured out that it will be basically impossible for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to win enough pledged delegates to take the nomination outright. This is a big problem for the Democrats. Thankfully for them, I have a solution (after the jump).

First, some background: Pledged delegates are assigned to each candidate based on their performance in primaries in caucuses and are obliged to vote for the candidate that "owns" them. Superdelegates get their votes because they are Democratic party honchos or elected officials, and can vote for whomever they so choose. (You can learn even more from my colleague Jonathan Stein's excellent delegate primer).

As David correctly notes in his post, either Clinton or Obama will finish with a majority of non-super-delegates. But if enough superdelegates vote for the second-place finisher, it could vault him or her into the lead (and the nomination), and the nominee will have essentially been chosen against "the will of the majority (however slight it might be) of Democratic voters."

Such a result would almost certainly be a disaster for the Democrats. It would embitter the losing candidates' supporters, make the winner seem weak, make the party appear divided and undemocratic, and open the nominee to GOP attacks that he or she "wasn't even picked by the majority of his or her party." It would seriously endanger the Democrats' chances in November.

Thankfully for the Democrats, I (Update: And, apparently, David Sirota) have a solution. Starting tomorrow, both campaigns and the national party should call for all superdelegates to sign a pledge that they will support the candidate who receives the most non-super delegates. Even if only one of the campaigns endorses the pledge, it will be very hard for the other campaign to argue against it without looking conniving and undemocratic. Once the campaigns are on board, it will be very hard for the national party to disagree or the superdelegates to avoid signing the pledge. The pressure to sign would be extraordinary. Such a pledge will ensure that the campaigns spend the rest of the primary season battling for the votes of ordinary people, not struggling for the backing of party honchos. It will ensure that the eventual nominee represents the preference of the majority of the party. And it will be better for voters, better for party unity, and better for the Democrats' chances in November. There: problem solved.

Is it Time To Worry about Superdelegates in the Clinton-Obama Contest?

Omigod! Here come the superdelegates! The Washington Post's Paul Kane has done the math and reached the conclusion that the Democratic presidential race will be decided by superdelegates--those 800 or so party officials and officeholders who are automatically awarded delegate status and who can vote any which way they please at the convention. Kane explains:

There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination.

To date, about 52 percent of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process -- with Clinton and Obama roughly splitting them at 832 and 821 delegates a piece, according to the AP.

That means there are now only about 1,600 delegates left up for grabs in the remaining states and territories voting.

So, do the math. If they both have 820 plus pledged delegates so far, they'll need to win roughly 1,200 -- 75 percent -- of the remaining 1,600 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting.

In other words: Ain't gonna happen...And then the super delegates decide this thing.

Does this mean the contest will be settled in some smoke-free backroom by machine hacks who don't give a fig about the Democratic vox populi?

Not necessarily. Kane's arithmetic is spot-on. But with superdelegates comprising about 20 percent of the entire voting bloc, they essentially have to play a part in any close race. The question is how will they break. At the end of the primary season, one candidate will have more non-superdelegates than the other. If that contender also ends up with a majority of superdelegates, all will be well. The people's choice wins. It won't matter that he or she needed superdelegates to reach the magic number.

But if the second-place finisher picks up enough of a majority of the superdelegates to leap over the leader, then there will be quite a fuss. In that case, non-elected delegates will be deciding the race against the will of the majority (however slight it might be) of Democratic voters.

At this stage, there's no telling what all those superdelegates will do. Fewer than half have committed--and, as of a few days ago, the campaigns were saying that Clinton had about a 70-delegate edge among this band. But these superdelegates can change their minds up until the vote is called at the convention. As for the non-declared SDs, will they want to see the party elite anoint the second-place candidate and create a massive firestorm that will divide the party? And remember the Democratic establishment is not the same thing as the Clinton establishment. Not all of these influential Democrats are Clintonites. Not all believe that Clinton would be the best candidate for the party in November. She has the lead in superdelegates at the moment, but Obama can be competitive in this contest.

So place a hold on conspiracy theorizing or super-delegate hysteria for the time being. After all the primary votes are counted, the spotlight will shine brightly on these people. If they want to pull a backroom stunt, they will have to do so in public view.

February 7, 2008

Romney Out; What Will Huckabee Do?

Mitt Romney has quit the race. It seems that his money was no good here.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference, Romney announced he was suspending his campaign. In a fiery speech, he took shots at France, Harvard, and liberal judges. Citing pornography and "government welfare," he thundered that the "threat to our culture" comes "from within." Hailing family values and decrying gay marriage, this past supporter of abortion rights and gay rights positioned himself as one of the GOP's leading culture warriors. He called for tax cuts, deregulation, and tort reform. He denounced Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's positions on Iraq as a "surrender to terror." And he called for beefing up the U.S. military to deal with "radical jihad" and the China challenge. In other words, he reminded the cheering crowd of conservative die-hards at CPAC that he's a full-throttle conservative on all fronts: culture, economics, and national security. He's now 60 years old. In four years, he will be seven years younger than John McCain is today. And remember this: Ronald Reagan failed to win the GOP nomination in 1976 before he nabbed it in 1980. And there's this: if John McCain does manage to win in November, could he run for a second term, given his age?

Romney's message to the conservatives today was this: I'm your Reagan. He and they may just have to wait a few more years before those pesky Republican primary voters get it.

One key question now is, what will Mike Huckabee do? Recently, he's become the anti-Romney spoiler--sweeping up non-McCain voters and preventing Romney from becoming a competitive alternative to McCain. It seemed that Huckabee and McCain had an implicit--if not explicit--nonaggression pact, and this has even fueled talk of a Mack-Huck ticket. So with no need any longer for him to block Romney to help McCain, what's Huckabee's role in the race? With his get-Romney mission accomplished, will he withdraw and wait for his reward?

CIA Director Says We Waterboarded Only Three People—Then Based One-Fourth of Our Intelligence on What They Said

The Senate Intelligence Committee picked a hell of a day to hold a hearing on national security. With every news source in the country vying for the most up-to-date primary information and the chattering classes glued to the exit polls, nobody really noticed when CIA director Michael Hayden admitted to Congress on Tuesday that the U.S. has, in fact, waterboarded three terrorism suspects: 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and al Qaeda leaders Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The waterboarding took place from late 2001 through early 2003, he said, and has since stopped.

Hayden's testimony confirmed what we already knew, though his statement marked the first time that a senior intelligence official has publicly acknowledged using the technique. And he didn't just acknowledge it; he quantified its importance. According to Hayden, the confessions of two of the suspects—Mohammed and Zubaydah—made up a full one-fourth of our human intelligence on Al Qaeda for the next five years.

I'm skeptical that this was really a full disclosure—it seems unbelievable that the CIA would base such a high proportion of its intelligence on only two interrogations. Though it's possible that the results of those interrogations sent the CIA in useful directions, the sheer speed with which the terrain shifts would seem to suggest a need to cultivate sources whose information is more current. Hayden himself emphasized during the hearing that since the detainees were waterboarded, "realities have changed."

Senate Democrats have now demanded that the Justice Department launch a criminal investigation into the CIA's use of torture, which would come on the heels of CIA and Congressional investigations that are already underway. Illinois Senator Dick Durbin even wrote a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey threatening to block his nominee for a deputy if the AG does not give some specific answers, and fast. (Thus far he has declined to answer any of Senator Durbin's written inquiries.) And the plot continues to thicken: yesterday Bush spokesman Tony Fratto told reporters that the White House had reviewed and authorized Hayden's testimony before he gave it, and this morning Mukasey told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department "cannot possibly" investigate, prompting Senators Patrick Leahy and Sheldon Whitehouse to send him yet another letter.

In some ways, though, the political wrangling obscures the bigger picture here: that our strategies for fighting terrorism, in addition to being morally questionable, do not seem to keep pace with the problem. The proliferation of terrorist spinoff cells should show us that capturing one or two leaders of a network does not mean the rest will topple like dominoes. If we want to live up to our supposed commitment to fight terrorism, we're going to have to do better than this.

—Casey Miner

Does War Make Iraqi Teens More Self Confident?

iraq%20teens%20150.jpg Iraqi teens have relatively high levels of self esteem, according to a University of Cincinnati study. Not only that, but "the higher the perceived threat of the war, the higher the teens reported their self-esteem."

The researchers say that though this finding may seem counterintuitive, it supports their theory that during a war, individuals' sense of self is tied to their sense of national identity:

“In the presence of conflict-related trauma one generally observes lower levels of psychological well-being (e.g., PTSD, grief reactions), and sometimes lower self-esteem,” write the authors. “Our results, however, are consistent with a body of theory and research that predicts self-esteem striving and higher self-esteem among the individuals who face indirect threats to central components of their social identities (rather than directly facing traumatic war-related events). In other words, in a situation where we observe a broad social context involving the presence of foreign forces ( a clear violation of Muslim principles) combined with general violence throughout Baghdad and Iraq, we also observe a heightened sense of self, at least to the extent that one’s self is tied to one’s nation.”

Now I haven't delved into the particulars of the study, but a few things jumped out at me as I glanced over the details. First off, it's worth noting that there was a pretty big gender gap—70 percent of the teens surveyed were male. The findings weren't broken down by gender, but it'd be interesting to see whether boys and girls had roughly the same self-esteem levels. Another thing to keep in mind: All the teens in the survey were in Baghdad. Would the results have been different, say, in Tikrit? Finally: The teens were surveyed in 2004, when things looked pretty different in Baghdad. How did teenagers' lives—and self image—change as the situation in Iraq became more and more chaotic?

McCain vs. the Right: Give Peace No Chance

Yesterday, John McCain asked his foes on the right to "just calm down a little." He was talking about Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and other conservative big-mouths who in recent days have pumped up the volume of their anti-McCain crusade. Just the day before, James Dobson, a leading social conservative who heads Focus on the Family, declared, "I am convinced Senator McCain is not a conservative, and in fact has gone out of is way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are." (Last year, Dobson also accused Fred Thompson of not being a real Christian.)

As the Republican Establishment swings behind McCain--each day his campaign sends out several emails noting this or that endorsement from a GOP figure--the conservative ideologues are holding firm. This is setting up a dramatic split between the GOP elite and the conservative movement's leading influentials. The ideologues hate McCain for several reasons. He has pushed bipartisan, Democratic-backed legislation on campaign finance reform, global warming, and, worse, immigration reform. He never got on his knees before the conservatives--particularly the religious right. In 2000, he blasted Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson for exerting too much influence over his party. And--egads!--he has been a favorite of Washington journalists, that band of well-known, America-hating liberals. The fact that McCain has been a prominent champion of the Iraq war--the number one issue for most of his detractors--means nothing to these ingrates.

Today, McCain is appearing at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, a gathering of hundreds, if not thousands, of rightwing activists. Imagine John Kerry speaking to a convention of Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth. (My colleague Jonathan Stein will have a report on McCain's appearance later.) But if McCain believes he can make nice with the rightwing talkers, he's kidding himself. This group--especially Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter--have no incentive to be pragmatic. They each earn much money by being provocative. Their first loyalty is to their audience, which expects hard-edged ideological warfare from them. They go soft--or reasonable--and they risk their reputations.

It's possible McCain could engage in an act of self-flagellation so extreme, his right-wing critics could claim victory and boast that he kissed their rings. But in the absence of such a move, they will keep pounding him. It makes good TV and radio. So if the Democrats are stuck with a months-long battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the GOP could have on its hand a never-ending cat-fight between its nominees and the spiritual leaders of the conservative movement. As of now, the conflict between Obama and Clinton has not gone so far that it cannot be resolved when that race is done. The McCain wars on the right could continue right up to Election Day.

February 6, 2008

Washington Encounters: Perils of ... the Elevator

It had been a long day, by the time I slipped out towards the end of a two hour late afternoon event on (what else?) Iran held at the Hudson Institute in downtown Washington's K-Street corridor, down the street from the White House. After nabbing a bottle of water for the road, I pressed the down elevator button in the foyer between the two Hudson Institute sixth floor offices, and then waited, and waited, and waited for one of the five elevators to arrive. Minutes went by. At some point, another guy came out of the Iran conference, to wait for the elevator down.

"Interesting event," I offered.

"We had a good Iran event at Middle East Institute last week," he replied.

"It was great. Lots of people from the region," I responded.

And we continued to wait for the elevator in the foyer.

Just then, a slender, wizened, besuited type carrying a brief case, came into the foyer to wait for the elevator with us. And I double-taked. It was none other than I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to vice president Cheney, the subject of the big trial you might have heard about, and for my purposes, a major player in the life of someone whose memoir afterword I wrote.

Naturally, I asked Libby, now a fellow at Hudson, and looking a lot thinner than at the trial last year, about what was up with the elevators.

At that very moment, the light on the downward arrow for the elevators went from "lit" to dark.

"It's like lighting a cigarette," Libby said, as the doors of one of the elevators opened, and we all got on.

I stared at the brown pointed pumps of one of the women already on the elevator.

"So you guys are having [State Department Iraq coordinator David] Satterfield tomorrow?" I asked the guy from Middle East Institute. Libby tilted his chin in our direction.

The MEI guy shrugged. He was new and didn't know about it.

The elevators opened to the lobby, and Libby politely waited for the rest of us get out first, and then spill outside into the darkness of the street. There, just a couple blocks from his old office in the White House, but a world away from the prison sentence he was spared, Libby headed to get his car retrieved from underground parking.

How Clinton Won California

The big surprise is not that Clinton won among women (59 percent to 34 percent) and Latinos (2 to 1). Those votes more or less met expectations. What few people had anticipated was the massive turnout among Latinos, who comprised 29 percent of the California Democratic electorate yesterday--nearly double what pollsters predicted.

As Simon Rosenberg and Peter Leyden pointed out in their recent Mother Jones feature, Latino voters embody one of two major demographic waves that will change the nation's politics. That they turned out in such huge numbers to support Clinton might indicate they actually really like her, as opposed only to preferring her over an African American or recognizing her name. Or maybe Latinos were politicized even more than anyone had thought by the immigration debate.

Obama has been riding the second major demographic trend--the rise of the Millennial Generation, or Gen Y, a huge, liberal-leaning echo-boom. Nationally, he captures a larger overall chunk of this vote. But last night in California, age was trumped by race. White voters under 30 broke for Obama 2 to 1 but Hispanic voters under 30 broke for Clinton by an even larger margin. And each group voted in equal numbers. Needless to say, if that trend persists across the West and in places like Texas, Obama is in trouble.

Obama's challenge is embodied by people like Eric Hernandez, who I profiled last week and hung out with again last night. Hernandez is 18-years old, Latino, and a hard-working Obama partisan. On Saturday he spent the day block-walking with a group of 15 young people in the large Hispanic neighborhoods of Northern California's Santa Clara County. But only about half of those volunteers spoke Spanish. That kind of outreach in a county of 500,000 Latinos is a drop in the bucket. Santa Clara ultimately went for Clinton 55/40. In the coming races Obama will need need to enlist many more Spanish-speaking volunteers if he still expects the grassroots to animate his campaign.

Maybe a Drawn-Out Dem Race is a Good Thing

I've been saying for quite some time that the long, drawn-out race that the Democratic candidates apparently have in front of them is bad for their long-term prospects: McCain will have all the time he needs to unify the Republicans, raise money, hone his message, and rest up, all while the Democrats are bashing each other over the head.

But Brad Plumer at TNR has the opposite take:

...the absence of a clear Democratic opponent would make it much harder for McCain to start attacking (back in 2004, the GOP was able to coalesce around the Kerry flip-flopping meme early on, which gave it time to sink in). Meanwhile, it seems that as long as the Democratic nomination is up in the air, dissatisfied conservatives are more likely to spend time airing their grievances with McCain than training their fire on his opponent.

Clinton and Obama would also have time to sharpen their message on the economy, in a debate waged largely on their terms—McCain's ability to change the subject here would be minimal.

Yes and no. Those dissatisfied conservatives who hate McCain will probably stop jabbing him every chance they get once it's clear that there are no other alternatives. And at that point the Republicans will probably just start attacking both Obama and Clinton. In fact, they'll probably attack strategically, trying to bolster the candidate they think would make the weaker nominee. We'll have weeks, perhaps months, of media/blogosphere guesswork about the ulterior motives of Karl Rove's latest op-ed.

But Brad's right that as Clinton and Obama debate one another, their messages seem to be getting out and excitement seems to be growing. Democrats across the country are stoked that they have two legit candidates to choose from; keeping that enthusiasm alive for a while longer so that the folks in Louisiana, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Ohio can experience it isn't a bad thing.

Vote Totals vs. Recent Polling: Who Exceeded Expectations on Feb 5?

In an effort to see which Democratic candidate exceeded expectations on Super Tuesday, I grabbed the most recent polling numbers from pollster.com and actual vote totals from the New York Times. The result is this chart, which shows that the percentage of the vote that Obama actually received exceeded the percentage of the vote polling said he would receive in every state except Illinois (where expectations for BHO were in the stratosphere). In some instances, Obama shattered expectations: he did 11.8 percent better that polling suggested in Alabama, 8.5 percent better in Connecticut, 15 percent better in Georgia, and 12 percent better in Oklahoma.

But Clinton did better as well, which means that some portion of both candidates' gains can be attributed to voters who told pollsters there were undecided but chose a candidate on election day. Clinton picked up slightly fewer of these voters, and in three states, underperformed by a moderate amount.

On average, Obama beat the polls by 6.5 percent and Clinton beat them by 2.4 percent. States that had insufficient polling were not included on this chart. Those states include one that went for Clinton (Arkansas), four that went for Obama (Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, and Kansas), and one that is still undecided (New Mexico).

CPAC's Coulterkampf

When it was revealed last week that Ann Coulter had not been invited to speak at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, it seemed, at first glance, like a principled move, a decisive refutation of the nasty, degrading speech that is Coulter's trademark. At CPAC 2007 Coulter famously used the word "faggot" in reference to John Edwards.

But at least one of the 6,000 conservatives expected to attend the D. C. conference isn't buying it. "It's all a fraud," the conservative activist and longtime Coulter critic Daniel Borchers told me yesterday. "I think the entire thing shows a lack of character and integrity within the leadership of CPAC." Borchers, who founded the Christian conservative newsletter BrotherWatch, is angry not only that Coulter will be attending CPAC this year, but also that, despite no official invitation from CPAC organizers, she will be delivering a speech during the conference—and that speech will be given in the same hotel ballroom as several CPAC events and is being put on by five organizations who are also cosponsors of CPAC.

In other words, Ann Coulter is speaking at CPAC this year.

Her speech, which is being sponsored by, among others, Young America's Foundation and the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, is scheduled for 4:00 p.m. this Friday; later that evening, Coulter will attend a reception and host a book signing, both of which appear on the conference agenda.

"Within CPAC itself and within the American Conservative Union, which has the final say about everything at CPAC, there's a split between those who favor her and those who oppose her," says Borchers, who has been following this story for months. "What they have done in essence is to organize every other event at CPAC around her event."

So is CPAC trying to have it both ways? No, said ACU president David Keene in a phone interview Tuesday. He also refuted Borcher's claim that CPAC organized around Coulter's speech. Keene said individual groups like Young America's Foundation could rent rooms and invite whomever they like to speak during CPAC.

And why didn't the conference offer Coulter an official speaking invitation, as in past years? "We just decided that, given the agenda and all that we had going on this year, there was not a reason to invite her." Asked if the decision was related to the uproar Coulter's remarks caused last year, Keene demurred. "The cosponsoring groups decided she was not high on their list," Keene said. "She wasn’t suggested this year. That doesn’t mean she won't be invited again next year."

That is, if they still want her.

This post has been updated to reflect a change in the time of Coulter’s speech.

—Justin Elliott

Democrats Set Turnout Records in Multiple States

Impressive voter turnout numbers that will hopefully translate in general election enthusiasm:

STATE: MISSOURI
PREVIOUS RECORD: 528,000
VOTES SO FAR: 778,000 (98% reporting)
% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +47%

STATE: ILLINOIS
PREVIOUS RECORD: 1,504,000
VOTES SO FAR: 1,809,000 (91% reporting)
% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +20%

STATE: NEW YORK
PREVIOUS RECORD: 1,575,000
VOTES SO FAR: 1,744,000 (99% reporting)
% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +11%

STATE: NEW JERSEY
PREVIOUS RECORD: 654,000
VOTES SO FAR: 1,104,000 (99% reporting)
% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +69%

STATE: MASSACHUSETTS
PREVIOUS RECORD: 793,000
VOTES SO FAR: 1,170,000 (98% reporting)
% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +48%

STATE: ARIZONA
PREVIOUS RECORD: 239,000
VOTES SO FAR: 314,000 (67% reporting)
% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +31%

Ted Stevens Takes Aim At Exxon

Alaska Senator Ted Stevens is a busy guy, what with the FBI raiding his house and all. But recently he took time out of his regular pork-barrel business to return to the practice of law. Stevens is a Harvard Law school grad, and was a practicing lawyer before he was elected to Congress in 1964. He recently dusted off his law books and wrote an amicus brief on behalf of Alaska fisherpeople who sued Exxon after a drunk sea captain crashed its oil tanker, the Valdez, into Prince William Sound in 1989, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil into the delicate ecosystem.

An Alaska jury hit Exxon with a $5 billion verdict in 1994, but Exxon hasn’t paid a dime of it. Instead, it has appealed the case for so long that 8,000 of the original class members in the lawsuit have since died without seeing the case resolved, according to the Anchorage Daily News.In the latest installment of the long-running litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in October to hear the case.

Sen. Stevens has written an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, drawing on his vast knowledge of maritime law that includes a law review article he wrote back in 1950, which is cited in the brief, according to the Wall Street Journal. Stevens told the Journal that he didn’t think the justices would actually look up his article, but that he wanted to establish that he had some expertise in the area. “I don’t imagine the justices look at these amicus briefs that much,” he said.

February 5, 2008

After the Non-Defeats of Super Tuesday, A Long Slog for the Democrats

CHICAGO, IL — By the time that Super Tuesday finally arrived, the mystery was long gone. The day that had loomed for so long had lost its melodramatic make-or-break status for the Democrats. Hours before the vote-counting began, the top strategists for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were pitching the same line: the results would not be decisive and whoever ended up the winner would walk away with merely a small edge in delegates. And as the vote tallies started to come in, both campaigns declared non-defeat. That is, they each claimed to have done well. "Encouraging results," Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist said. "We're having a very strong night," said David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager. Both were right.

The two campaigns had plenty of data to spin as the results materialized. Clinton triumphed in California (by an overwhelming margin), Massachusetts (where a big turnout in women negated that Kennedy magic), Arizona, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Arkansas. Obama won in Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Delaware, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, Idaho, and Missouri. Last-minute deciders, Penn said, went for Clinton. "Momentum is turning," he insisted. Plouffe noted that Obama was competitive in regions across the nation, that he won the caucus states (showing the campaign's organizational talent), and that he captured states that did not permit independents to vote (Delaware and Connecticut). Clinton was the Queen of California. Obama was the Master of Missouri.

But all that really mattered was the final delegate count (which was not easy to calculate in the hours after the polls shut down but was likely to be close)--and the fact that neither candidate was knocked out of the race. Despite the wipeout in California, Obama's senior aides appeared pleased, as they spoke with reporters at his election night celebration in Chicago. Pre-election polls had shown him trailing in most Super Tuesday states, and their goal had been to survive the day. They did. "The nominating battle will continue well past today's voting," Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, told reporters. Only weeks ago, Clinton strategists were hoping this mega-primary day would end the race in their favor. Now they were talking about the coming slog, as if it had always been inevitable.

Super Tuesday did not live up to its do-or-die reputation because the Democratic field had been downsized to two strong contenders who push rather different memes. Clinton presents herself as the tried-and-tested hard-worker who can get stuff done. Obama offers himself as a transformative figure who can--due to his power to inspire--bring about change. It's math versus music. And after seven years of George W. Bush--during which the music was awful and the math was bad--Democrats crave both proven competence and uplifting inspiration. For many voters, it's a tough either/or. Super Tuesday demonstrated there is no consensus position within the party among its voters.

On election night, the candidates highlighted the contrast. Clinton delivered a speech, much like her standard stump fare, that was chockfull of policy wonkery. Obama went full throttle on the passion and inspiration. "Our time has come, our movement is real," he declared. He noted that he--and his movement--could attract independents and Republicans far more so than Clinton and bring change to Washington. "We are the ones we have been waiting for," he proclaimed. "We are the change that we seek." (That was a new line.)

So the head/heart, prose/poetry--choose your own metaphor--conflict will continue. The rules that govern the Democratic nomination process make it difficult for the party to sort this out, for they benefit a strong second-place finisher. Delegates are awarded proportionally. Consequently, if there is a close two-person race in a state, the loser can pocket almost as many delegates as the victor. It's not easy for a candidate to open up a significant lead in a competitive campaign. (See here for a fuller explanation.)

Now that Super Tuesday has ended with a whimper, no bang, the Democratic contest will turn into an even longer ordeal. The rest of the primary calendar is spread out over the next four months. There are key dates and key states ahead: Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia on February 12; Ohio and Texas on March 4; Pennsylvania on April 22. But the race will have a much more traditional pace, with candidates spending days, if not weeks, courting the voters of delegate-rich states. There is a six-week break between the Mississippi primary on March 11 and the Keystone State contest.

The conventional take is that this schedule is advantageous for Obama. He remains less known than Clinton. He needs time to connect with voters. The more he campaigns in a state, the better he usually does. "We've always benefited when voters have focused on the decision," Plouffe said. And, Plouffe maintained, Clinton "has ceiling