This blog used to be great, but it's no longer a daily visit for me like it was long ago. There is still good front-page content here, so I stop by and check it out. It's otherwise just an amusement to see the Obama bashing go off the deep end. It's just like visiting the Hillary sycophant blogs in 2008 post-primary.
On the substantive issue in this discussion, Obama's popularity within the Democratic Party has been steady for his entire Presidency. There's been erosion with independents and Republicans (that is, those GOPers who early on claimed to have approved of Obama's job performance), and that's been the entire decline. The sniping from the left comes from the same tiny fraction of people who snipe at Democrats all the time, for whom no one and no legislation and no policy is ever good enough, and the politics of the possible are wholly rejected.
The notion of a primary challenge is delusional fantasy. Obama will run for reelection unchallenged within the Democratic Party and win in the ballpark of 90% of Democrats in November 2012, same as last time. Afghanistan is not going to change that.
...TPM actually quotes current law and has a committee staffer explain the matter. It's well-reported. They're a liberal outfit and a web-only publication, it's not like they have incentive to defend a bill that would shut down their business!
It's not hard for me to think that the CNET reporter was writing about something he knew nothing about. This is obscure stuff.
TPM is a reported blog, not reactionary (in the literal sense, not the political sense) in their postings. So I trust them more than Crooks & Liars, too, and the CNN video report doesn't contradict anything TPM reported.
Regina Thomas ran last time and got crushed in the primary, she was mere token opposition with nothing more than Some Dude(tte) status.
And there's no sign that there's any groundswell of support for her this time beyond some county party chairs mad at Barrow.
The fact that the health care bill PASSED and Barrow is in a tough purple district in a bad year for our party is enough to justify giving him a pass.
And further, after Bill Halter's epic flameout, I'd say whatever grassroots energy there is, from the netroots and elsewhere, is better geared toward supporting Democrats against Republicans.
Let's please not let infighting on the left hand Congress to the Republicans. The last time we let this happen, people voting for Nader allowed Dubya to become President, and the country was setback a generation because of it.
And I wasn't alone, a LOT of us at Swing State Project overreacted.
Now, I've become sanguine and believe this isn't going to matter to all that many voters by this fall. I think it's a short-term hit that he'll bounce back from. The key is there must not be more revelations of lying about stuff. If it's just his military record, and it stops there, then he's OK. The truth is the NYT is under great legitimate fire for sloppy journalism on this, failing to reveal that Blumenthal's characterization of his military record is mixed, being truthful more often than not. And the same story's "swim team" hit was dead wrong, as Blumenthal it turns out WAS on the Harvard swim team, and there's no evidence Blumenthal himself ever claimed to have been the team captain.
That the polling still shows up on top, even in Rasmussen, makes me feel pretty good.
And McMahon as the GOP nominee is a great gift. CT Rethugs are very stupid. Their choice of nominee leaves me convinced Blumenthal ultimately will win in a walk.
Regarding HI-01, it's really the D.C. party establishment versus the Hawaii party establishment, NOT the establishment versus "the people." Hanabusa is clearly down against Case in the 3-way among actual voters, so the D.C. establishment has a better sense of where "the people" are. I'm no fan of Case, but I'm a fan of a Democrat winning over a Republican every time, and we're in trouble there on that effort. I don't blame the Hawaii Democratic establishment, either, because Case for his part has gone out of his way to make enemies with nothing to show for it. It's just a bad situation all the way around.
And regarding AR-Sen, Halter is clearly losing, he's not made up any ground at all over the last month. I think Lincoln will win and might even avoid a runoff. Halter is not going to be the nominee.
If Brunner had real appeal, she would have run a better campaign. This meme from Brunner supporters that she was "cut off from funding" is horseshit. No one controls campaign funding, it's completely dispersed, indeed the most dispersed it's ever been. Candidates lacking establishment support routinely raise lots and lots of money, much more than her.
National Democrats got behind Fisher only after it became clear Brunner was an incompetent candidate. And they were right to do so.
And the polling did NOT show Brunner doing ANY better than Fisher against Portman. Indeed, they polled virtually the same most of the way, and at the end Fisher was slightly outperforming Brunner in November trial heats. Pollster.com shows Fisher up 1.7 points on Portman, and Brunner up only 0.4 points, in the final trial heat regression.
It might very well be that the Queen goes first to Brown at least as a formality, but it might be only a formality. Clegg says point blank that the Tories deserve first crack at forming a government, and Brown says he'll "respect" that.
I imagine what happens is that Clegg and Cameron cut a deal behind closed doors, and then they go through the formality of the Queen going to Brown, getting a "no," then going to Cameron and being told "yes I have a coalition set." It's probably a formality in the same way as our Electoral College meeting and voting in a President is a formality.
There are lots of casual activists and political junkies who don't step outside their echo chamber, but I expect more from someone who works professionally in politics as I believe you do.
As jsfox very poignantly explained, the President is the head of the ENTIRE Democratic party, not one or more selected corners of it. And that carries the responsibility of supporting incumbent elected Democrats for reelection.
I'm not "apologizing" for Obama, on the contrary he's completely responsible for his actions, and his action in this instance is the CORRECT one. The alternative was to refuse to help, the easily predictable result of which would be to destroy his influence within the Senate Democratic caucus, and hell maybe even with the House Democratic caucus.
I'm sorry you can't step outside the echo chamber.
Lincoln voted for health care. She voted for the stimulus. She hasn't opposed Obama on anything when her vote was needed. She voted no on reconciliation when her vote was NOT needed, and there's no indication Obama or Senate leadership were bothered by it.
And you know, even regarding Lieberman, I was bothered by his being welcomed back as a prodigal son, but in hindsight it WAS the SMART thing to do, and what I and you and lot of other liberals wanted was WRONG. Lieberman voted for health care when we HAD to have his vote (yeah he helped kill the public option and expanded Medicare and whatnot, but don't be fooled, he was provided cover for other conservaDems who wanted those things killed), Iraq is long since dead as an issue in American politics, and what irritation Lieberman still causes is on the margins where he can do no real damage. I still want him defeated in 2012, and he almost certainly will be (finally!) by a Democrat. But governing is about getting things done, getting things done is about legislating, and legislation is about counting and herding votes, and you do whatever it takes to get the votes you need. The alternative is to "take a stand" and LOSE BIG. And voters will punish that, not reward it.
What's funny about this is that I actually am rooting for Halter because he has a slightly (but only slightly) better chance in November than Lincoln.
But Obama MUST support Lincoln, Specter, Bennet, and other incumbent Democrats because that's what an incumbent President is expected to do, OR ELSE IT TEARS THE PARTY APART.
Can you imagine the field day the media would have if there were any hint of less than full-throated Obama support for an incumbent Democrat? And it would make all incumbent Democratic Senators bitter and angry, since they'd fret they'd be NEXT to be left-hanging.
The only exception is where you have a clearly corrupt incumbent who is thrown under the bus by the party as a whole.
But for Obama NOT to go to the mat for Lincoln after she voted for his agenda (stimulus, health care, now financial regulation) would be viewed, correctly, as a betrayal.
There's a lot of exaggeration on the left about how "bad" Lincoln is, but frankly she's been there as the 60th vote every time she's been needed, and quite often when she's not. A lot of the hostility toward her comes from swallowing whole a few talking points designed to single her out.
It's Arkansas. It's a conservative state. This isn't anything like Lieberman, who is to the right of what any U.S. Senator from Connecticut ever has to be. Lincoln is as liberal as a federal official from Arkansas can be.
Djou will NOT win in November no matter what happens later this month.
Hawaii is too strongly Democratic for Djou to win a 2-way, and even this special election proves the point, with the two Democrats combined easily topping 60%, and Djou almost certainly on track to finish under 40.
Hawaii also is coming off a 2-term Republican Governor with the Democrats favored to take that office this November, and needless to say Obama's job approval is sky high here.
Djou will lose big in November no matter what the outcome of the special.