The overreach in bailout greed is taking its first victim.  This is the way it is supposed to work.  You don't start talking about knocking off these sell-outs nine months before the primary election, you start talking about it NOW.

Say something bad about the NRA if you are Republican, see how long it takes for an exploratory committee to be announced to bounce you out of Washington.  The Right knows how to do it.  When their reps take a position considered a betrayal of the base, they don't wring their hands and expect further betrayals.  They act.

Hey, we're learning.

Will Dodd rise to the challenge?  Don't get me wrong.  I lived in Connecticut when Dodd was first elected, and we were all excited at this young new reform politician.  We were called "The Dodd Squad." 

But there comes a time when they have obviously simply lost their way, good men and women as they might be.  No one, and I mean no one, is giving my children's inheritance to a bunch of billionaires.

Chris Dodd is getting a rude lesson in the wrath of the people.  At 33 points, his lowest number yet, it's Houston, we've got a problem.

This economic crisis will not get better.  It will get worse.  And that's what Chris has got to worry about.

Dodd to face Democratic primary challenger

Hartford Courant columnist Kevin Rennie, one of Sen. Chris Dodd's leading critics in the Connecticut press, has the scoop on the first primary challenger to the embattled senator:

   Greenwich, Connecticut Democrat Roger Pearson told me he has formed a committee to explore a run for his party's 2010 nomination. The former First Selectman of the Republican bastion says that like many others he "is very disaffected" with Dodd, who has "really disappointed a lot of people...I don't believe in career politics or career politicians," taking swipe at five term incumbent Dodd, who has fallen 16 points behind Republican former congressman Rob Simmons, according to a Quinnipiac Poll released yesterday.
"

MyDD guy Matt Stoller mulled primary challenges to senators last October:

I'm going to assume that the Senate, as the most conservative institution on our Federal level, will be a major breeze to the right in terms of health care, trade agreements, civil liberties, economic justice, etc.  Let's then examine the playing field for 2010; the environment for 2010 is unpredictable and probably chaotic, with a sharp recession on its way and a credit crisis here now.

I'm particularly interested in possible primaries to the Democrats, the party that the lobbyists are going to fete repeatedly and intensely in 2009 and 2010, much to our chagrin.  I'm sure there will be retirements, but here's the list of Democrats up for reelection:

Bayh, Evan - (D - IN)
Boxer, Barbara- (D - CA)
Dodd, Christopher J.- (D - CT)
Dorgan, Byron L.- (D - ND)
Feingold, Russell D.- (D - WI)
Inouye, Daniel K.- (D - HI)
Leahy, Patrick J.- (D - VT)
Lincoln, Blanche L.- (D - AR)
Mikulski, Barbara A.- (D - MD)
Murray, Patty- (D - WA)
Reid, Harry- (D - NV)
Salazar, Ken- (D - CO)
Schumer, Charles E.- (D - NY)

The economic crisis is likely to soften up incumbents as only an economic crisis can, as Americans previously fat and happy keep raiding food pantries and losing homes.  This is the cold water which jars habitual voting patterns.  Anger and political involvement increase when a threshold of greed is crossed, beyond what is normal and expected of our ruling classes.  Americans are waking up in disbelief, staring at empty nest eggs.  And it didn't just happen.  Somebody did it to them.  And those guys who are getting bailed out, their idea of pain is having to buy a smaller offshore villa.

For Dodd's part in last year's Bank of America-Countrywide bailout, the L.A. Times blog says "Bank of America's political action committee (PAC) has donated $20,000 to Dodd since he became chairman of the banking panel 17 months ago. From January 2007 to March 2008, Bank of America employees have donated at least $50,400 to Dodd's campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."

When it sinks in that a mere $114 million in campaign contributions and lobbying money bought $300 billion in TARP funds for banks who made bad bets, American Idol will no longer keep the rabble diverted, especially if they have to shut off the cable to buy food. That's a whopping 260,000 PERCENT return on investment.  Ka-ching! is heard across the DC cocktail circuit while you are worried sick.  The top one-percenters in income who by themselves get 1/3 of the pie are going bargain hunting in the stock market, picking up the stocks in your IRA mutual fund that you had to cash in at fire sale prices to pay your rent, and they are buying them with the bailouts you are paying for.  Sucks, doesn't it?

Even Trump admits he has lost plenty of net worth, but The Donald says times are good:

"We're going up.  We're buying things we couldn't have dreamed of buying two years ago. And we have a lot of cash."

The way the pie is now divided and how it got there is neatly summarized in these two charts, from the Too Much Newsletter on Excess and Inequality:

Ronald Reagan was only the first act in the action which continued under Clinton and the Bushes until the grand finale - now -  when they steal the last of your childrens' inheritance and disappear to places like Monaco and off-shore havens like "The Colony." Too Much reported just last September:

several top Wall Streeters purchased villas in The Colony, a new Caribbean luxury project touted as Jamaica's "most expensive gated oceanfront development on record." The villas run up to $7 million each and carry a $72,000 annual fee that gives owners 60 days of butler, chef, and maid service.

When you own a third of the whole American pie, that kind of money is no problem.

The money sure isn't going to the schmucks getting laid off at these institutions.  It sure isn't going toward a 2-year voucher for any worker training you choose, help with your mortgage, and jobs programs.  That's because you aren't the one who gave $114 million in campaign money to fewer than 100 men and women, especially those sitting on banking and finance committees and sub-committees.  

Primary challenges to the grey eminences like Dodd are hard to come by in ordinary times, but these are anything but ordinary times.  Now, who's next?

There's more...

On Sunday, perhaps the only Progressive Democratic economist that's actually gotten all of this economic nightmare correct (for years, not weeks or months), former Clinton administration economist and NYU Stern School of Business Professor Nouriel Roubini, came out and called this version of the bailout what it is: "...a disgrace and a rip-off..."

Read about Roubini's comments, right here.

Roubini continues his comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree (see my comments right here: "Bailout myths: what we all need to know"), in his paper, today:  "The US and global financial crisis is becoming much more severe in spite of the Treasury rescue plan. The risk of a total systemic meltdown is now as high as ever."

There's more...

Matt Stoller's just posted a fascinating and colorful piece on DKos about the high stakes game of chicken currently playing out in Congress with regard to the Administration's ("President Paulson's") proposed Wall Street bailout bill.

You can link to it right here "An Anonymous Angry Member on the Bailout":

Here's a blurb from an email to Stoller as far as how one "anonymous" member of Congress sees it:

Paulsen and congressional Republicans, or the few that will actually vote for this (most will be unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their policies), have said that there can't be any "add ons," or addition provisions. Fuck that. I don't really want to trigger a world wide depression (that's not hyperbole, that's a distinct possibility), but I'm not voting for a blank check for $700 billion for those mother fuckers.

There's more...

Last night on MSNBC Rachel Maddow made an interesting observation: every time Hillary Clinton wins a primary, the narrative in the media becomes about counting down to the next "make or break" contest as though a loss for her would in fact end the campaign. Clinton keeps winning "when she needs to", of course, so the theory hasn't really been tested but Maddow I think quite rightly called this phenomenon the primary election equivalent of the Friedman unit. "2 more weeks...6 more weeks...2 more weeks." Adam Nagourney in today's NYTimes is a perfect example:

Even with her comfortable victory on Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton still faces significant, though certainly not insurmountable, hurdles to securing the nomination, and it remains possible that her candidacy could come to an end in as little as two weeks, when Indiana and North Carolina vote.

Maddow's point, of course, is that this is a ridiculous assertion and the media needs to stop falling for it; no matter what happens on May 6th, this. primary. will. continue. Hillary Clinton signaled as much with the timing of a couple upcoming fundraisers. From Ben Smith:

My colleague Ken Vogel notes that Clinton has planned two fundraisers -- one with Hillary, Chelsea, and Dorothy; one with the Arkansas delegation -- for the day after Indiana and North Carolina.

Another media narrative that gets propagated every time Clinton wins another primary is how bad the continued race is for the Democratic Party. Again, Nagourney, whose article, I should point out, is linked on the frontpage of Huffington Post with the alarmist headline: "And The Winner Is: John McCain," provides a case study:

For better or worse -- and many Democrats fear it is for worse -- the race goes on.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defeated Senator Barack Obama in Pennsylvania on Tuesday by enough of a margin to continue a battle that Democrats increasingly believe is undermining their effort to unify the party and prepare for the general election against Senator John McCain.

I must give credit though, MSNBC's post-primary coverage today has given much air time to the opposing view. The heads of both the North Carolina and Indiana Democratic Parties were interviewed separately but essentially said the same thing: the energy and the boosts in registration and operations on the ground that the extended primary is affording their states will be good for the Democrat in November. And I just caught Matt Stoller on MSNBC as well, essentially re-iterating the spirit of his "Democrats Are Going To Be Fine" post from last night:

ANCHOR: Do you think Pennsylvania even matters?

STOLLER: Yeah, we have a huge registration advantage in Pennsylvania, activists are excited, voters voted, it was really good for Democrats. Democracy is a good thing. Now I think both candidates, Obama and Clinton, are leading McCain in Pennsylvania, so it's good.

What Matt is referring to here is this morning's Rasmussen Reports story "While Campaigning for Primary, both Democrats Gain Ground on McCain":

While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to compete against each other in Pennsylvania's Presidential Primary, both Democrats have opened a lead over John McCain in the Keystone State.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Pennsylvania finds Obama leading McCain 47% to 39% and Clinton with a 47% to 38% advantage. That's a significant change from a month ago when McCain was essentially even with both Democrats.

It's no accident that the talking heads who've been most ardently pushing the "Democrats in disarray" narrative have been rightwing pundits who have an interest in projecting their opposing party as weak. It would be nice if such a pillar of the liberal blogosphere as HuffPo didn't join the fun.

Update [2008-4-23 14:12:15 by Todd Beeton]:Along these same lines, Bill Daley, Obama's National Co-Chair, made a good point a few minutes ago on MSNBC:

But this is a tough process and as Senator Obama has said he's introducing himself, he is still new to the American people and so in a strange way this process may be very good for him in that he is able to go to parts of this country and make the case as a new fresh face on the American scene that he can make a difference.

There's more...

Hats off to the Obama team for a very strong win in South Carolina.  I credit their win to a strong GOTV effort and organization, especially of the African American community.  In the run-up to the primary I missed the stories hinting at the strength of that machine.  The first hint of that came from Jim Clyburn here.  I'm not saying the Congressman overtly told people to support Obama.  But in retrospect it seems that the Obama team must have benefitted from Clyburn's efforts whatever his intent was.  And Matt Stoller has a great follow-up description of that organizational strength that goes a long way toward explaining how Obama blew away the competition by outhustling them.

There's more...