No time for blogging today - I'm packing for a week of skiing in Big Sky, Montana - so for today these odds and ends will have to do.
+ Looks like Obama is finally going to demand that Clinton define precisely what she considers "foreign policy experience" from her time as First Lady. Good.
+ As he does so, I hope he also asks her why she has decided to campaign on behalf of John McCain. She said the other day she was open to the idea of a VP slot, and although we all assumed she meant with Obama, judging from the way she is talking today, I think she may have actually meant McCain:
"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.
"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.
More on Hagee for those who need some background:
+ It looks like Pelosi has decided to show some public leadership. Huffington Post:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the most prominent Catholic serving in the U.S. government, called on Sen. John McCain to reject the endorsement of Texas televangelist John Hagee, who has labeled the Catholic church "the great whore," a "false cult system," and linked it to Hitler's Nazi movement.
"That behavior is outside the circle of civilized debate in our democracy," Pelosi said during a Thursday conference call. "I certainly think John McCain should reject his endorsement and I'm sure it won't be long before he does."
Every single member of the Dems congressional leadership should be hitting on this every single day. McCain has accepted the support of a man who thinks the Catholic church is a "false cult system." Given the way Catholics have attached themselves to the REpublican Party for the past 30 years, this should be a very, very big deal. But unless the Dems force it into the news, the national media looks likely to completely ignore this.
+ Obama raised $55 million in February, with $45 million of the total online, and $28 million of it was from contributions of less than $25. And in case you are wondering, his total was $20 million more than Clinton raised last month.
+ The Clintons still refuse to release their tax returns, saying that they will only do so after Tax Day. That would make sense if all we were talking about was this year's returns, but of course that's not the issue. Despite the fact that Clinton made financial disclosure a central part of her 2000 Senate campaign, since then she hasn't released a thing. Given some of the dodgy sources from which her husband has taken money, and given the fact that she loaned her campaign $5 million, and given that Obama has already released all of his records, she needs to be pushed hard to release before Pennsylvania. There really is no excuse.
+ And speaking of no excuse, when asked about Obama's call for her to release her tax returns, Clinton's spokesperson responded by comparing Obama to Ken Starr, the man who led the Whitewater/Lewinsky witchhunt. Apparently there is nothing they won't say or do to get elected.
+ Michigan looks set to order a do-over on its primaries. Except this time, its going to be firehouse caucuses! Good news for Obama, I'd say.
Florida, however, looks to be digging in its heels and demanding that the delegates from their first rule-breaking primary be seated. Mark Schmitt has some interesting thoughts on that over at Tapped. No excerpts - go read in full.
+ Another Ambinder update on delegates, another important reminder: don't forget the UAD's.
+ SUSA has a new 50-state state-of-the-race poll out today. plenty of data to dig thru, but here are the top-line findings: Both Obama and Clinton beat McCain, but they do it in very different ways. These are, I think, the key stats:
In all, Obama outperforms Clinton in 33 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Clinton outperforms Obama in 15 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Check out some of these Mountain West state differences:
Colorado: C -6, O +9 Idaho: C -36, O -13 Montana: C -20, O -8 Nevada: C -8, O +5 New Mexico: C even, O +7 North Dakota: C -19, O +4 South Dakota: C -12, O -4 Utah: C -38, O -11 Wyoming: C -33, O -19
Remember, this isn't just about the top of the ticket. If you care about getting progressive legislation through Congress next year, these are the stats you shoul dbe thinking about. Obama will be an enormous help down ballot in states where Dems usually have a hard time competing. Hillary may think a candidate's performance in the "red states" doesn't matter, but that's only true if she is only thinking about herself. Think about the party, and its clear that a candidate's performance in all 50 states is a very, very big deal. Obama outperforms Clinton in 33 of 50 states, often by huge margins.
Shorter version: Obama could win North Dakota. North Dakota.
+ And last but not least.... the economic storm is coming. Forget the umbrellas and trenchcoats, because we may need to call out the Coast Guard on this one. No, really.... be afraid. This is very, very not good.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
