The Bill Complication?

Much buzz this weekend about this story in the Los Angeles Times:

Barack Obama told a potential donor to his campaign that Hillary Rodham Clinton is on his list of possible vice presidential running mates, but that her husband's status as a former president makes matters "complicated."

Jill Iscol, a faithful Democratic donor who was an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, said Obama reached out to her because he heard she was unhappy about the way the New York senator had been treated by the Democratic Party and the media.

Iscol turned their phone conversation Thursday to the vice presidency -- something the Obama campaign has refused to discuss publicly. She said she told him that Clinton would be his best running mate.

Obama replied that she is on his list, Iscol recounted, and that it would be a mistake not to have her on such a list. But he also explained that he was thinking through a potential "complication" -- Bill Clinton.

Obama made clear on the call that Bill was not a disqualifying factor, just something to grapple with. Indeed, Iscol hung up the phone believing that Hillary might well be chosen as his running mate.

Barack is right...it would be a mistake not to have her on his short list, because I'm sure he knows full well that an Obama-Clinton ticket would be unstoppable. She also has the added benefit of being the most qualified for the job. Something does seem to be brewing on the running mate front, with Obama's surprise visit to the office of one of his Veep vetters and the Obama/Clinton/Caroline Kennedy flight to New York both happening last Wednesday. I guess we will all know soon enough.

But is Bill really a complication? If indeed Hillary becomes Vice President, it seems logical that Bill would have no official role in the government. And besides, he seems pretty happy working with his foundation anyway. Honestly, if Obama is confident enough in his ability to lead the nation, it shouldn't be a complication at all.

On the campaign trail, it may be a different story. Bill's troubles this year have been well-documented. Sometimes he brought it on himself, and other times it was overblown by the press, but when he stuck to the campaign script, he was a crucial component in Hillary's victories.

Hillary may not have won Texas without Bill's tireless trek across the rural areas of the state. On election eve, he made eight stops in one day. He didn't grab any national headlines doing it, but I can tell you firsthand that no one captivates and convinces on the stump like Bill Clinton. The Clinton domination of rural areas since March 4th was no accident. This was Bill's territory and the strategy worked like a charm.

So why not bring him back? To the great many people suffering though the Bush years while remembering the prosperity of the eight years previous, Bill Clinton is not the problem but one of the solutions. Even with a drop in his approval rating recently, he's still far more popular than George W Bush.

Obama would do well to have him by his side and at his service...pundits be damned.

McCain thinks Social Security is an absolute disgrace?

Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed.

He just described how Social Security is supposed to work.

Two possibilities: Either he has no idea what he's talking about, or he wants to dismantle the New Deal. I'm guessing its the former. But either way, that's just a stunning statement.

The Gray Lady Takes Aim at Obama

Well, it took long enough, but even the New York Times editorial board, author of such recent classics as the Hillary-bashing "The Low Road to Victory", has come around to an undeniable conclusion: Obama has been disappointing lately. It was published on July 4th, so some people might have missed "New and Not Improved":

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he's on a high-roller hunt.

But this seems to be the least of their worries. Like many of us, a bigger concern is his stance (or lack of one) when it comes to FISA:

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush's unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.

In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. "We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend," he declared.

Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates "vigorous oversight" and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.

If there's one thing that is obvious in 2008, it's that our country is ready for a unapologetic Democrat. Not a triangulating politician, not Republican-lite, not a moderate step up from Bush...a Democrat. It is on that front that Obama is failing, and it spells trouble if not corrected. We have to assume that the Republican base will rally around McCain no matter what by the time Rush and the Fox News crew have done their dirty work, so risking an unmotivated progressive base is a big mistake. Yet that is exactly what the past couple of weeks have wrought at this point in the game.

It continues:

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush's policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

You get the picture. But here's the kicker:

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama's shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

Welcome, Times editorial board, to the reality that, to many of us, has been obvious for quite a while. Barack Obama is a talented Democratic politician, but he sure ain't the transcendent progressive idealist that was described in Axelrod's brochure. Maybe the fog of hope simply obscured the clear warning signs, but even if this is understandable for some of his newly-disillusioned grassroots supporters, its not a good enough excuse for the press not doing their job when it mattered. Whatever the case, the free ride from certain influential members of the mainstream media may be coming to a close.

And somewhere, Hillary is laughing.

Obama Needs Clinton, Part II

The primary season ended a month ago when Hillary Clinton delivered an incredibly powerful concession speech. Since then, she has largely been out of sight until recently, giving Barack Obama the spotlight in the race against John McCain. By far the most high-profile appearance she made recently was alongside the presumptive nominee in Unity, NH, once again strongly backing Obama in further efforts to unify the party.

And yet, according to a new CNN poll, it seems they still have some work to do. In fact, the situation seems to be worse than it was a month ago.

One week after Sen. Hillary Clinton made a public show of unity with Sen. Barack Obama, a new survey suggests supporters of the New York senator are increasingly less likely to follow her lead. A growing number of Clinton supporters polled say they may stay home in November instead of casting their ballot for Obama, an indication the party has yet to coalesce around the Illinois senator four weeks after the most prolonged and at times divisive primary race in modern American history came to a close.

A growing number. What's going on here?

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey completed in early June before the New York senator ended her White House bid, 60 percent of Clinton backers polled said they planned on voting for Obama. In the latest poll, that number has dropped to 54 percent. In early June, 22 percent of Clinton supporters polled said they would not vote at all if Obama were the party's nominee, now close to a third say they will stay home.

A month ago, Obama led Clinton as the choice among Democrats by 59-35. Now that number stands at 54-43. Buyer's remorse seems to be kicking in, and why shouldn't it? In the past two weeks, Obama has aided the capitulation on FISA, supported the expansion of Bush's controversial faith-based initiatives, and once again left the door open on staying in Iraq longer than his plan would allow. That his month-long face off with McCain has basically been a series of schoolyard taunts and countertaunts hasn't been inspiring either.

So in the face of this, and her appearance in Unity a week ago, these numbers do make some sense. Simply put, a growing number of Democrats want their Hillary back. Of course, barring a monumental scandal, the superdelegates will stick with Obama. But there are a lot of people...a lot...who would love to see an Obama-Clinton ticket. In fact, the one political question I get the most is: "Any word on Hillary in the VP slot?".

The Hillary factor is actually visually illustrated in this tracking poll graphic from Gallup. The two biggest bumps that Obama received in the last month? Around the time of Hillary's endorsement on June 7th and the joint appearance in Unity last week:



At this point, with respect and preference for Clinton growing, any choice Obama makes besides her could actually be risky and produce a backlash. I'm willing to guess that his campaign's own internal polling shows a blowout in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan with her on the ticket. If so, such a thing may just be the factor and make all punditry arguments against it practically moot.

A completely unified and energized Democratic base, bringing along with it a big chunk of independents (who also voted for Clinton in large numbers), would ensure a landslide victory by two historic candidates and change the direction of our country in a huge way. Obama has already stated plainly that America needs the Clintons. But what Obama needs is 270 electoral votes, something he would reach with near-certainty with Hillary beside him on the ballot. Nothing else will matter if he falls just short of that magic number.

Another Reason to Celebrate

How I love The Onion.

We have many reasons to celebrate this weekend, and one of them is that this is the final July 4th with George W Bush in charge of our beloved country. Now that's change we can all believe in.

Obama Needs Clinton

...and this graphic illustrates why.

Despite winning the nomination in a year when any Democrat should win the general election in a cakewalk, despite Clinton's impassioned endorsement of his candidacy on June 7th, and despite the fawning media coverage that continues unabated...according to Gallup, it's been a dead heat this week. We just shouldn't be seeing a graph like this. Not this year.

Granted, the polls are all over the place, and it's hard to know exactly where things stand. If I had to guess, I'd say Obama has about a five-point lead. That's all well and good, but Kerry's lead after wrapping up his nomination didn't last once the Republican attack machine was through with him, and assuming the same thing won't happen this time would be a terrible mistake.

I know there are a lot of doubters out there, but if the object is winning, I have to think Obama has to seriously consider adding Clinton to the ticket. Obama will get plenty of independents no matter what, but having a completely unified and enthusiastic Democratic base is even more important. Plus, having the Clintons dispatched across Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan for months would likely shore up those states and ensure an electoral landslide. And then there's Arkansas.

After the event yesterday, I know I'm not alone in my thinking that Obama/Clinton would be a no-brainer. If they could work it out and make history together...well, that would be something. And it might just be a necessity.

Unity: Not Just a Town in New Hampshire

It's the story of the week. If you haven't watched it, here's your chance.

In her speech, Hillary's commitment to the country she loves was obvious. It was the reason she was on that stage and the reason she has held nothing back in endorsing her former opponent. She knows full well what's at stake, and the continued havoc that would occur if another Republican managed to find his way into the Oval Office. It's not about her, its about the cause.

I was struck by Obama's facial expressions and body language while he was watching her speak. It sure looked to me like he was humbled and moved that such an incredible candidate was backing him so completely after a rough, prolonged primary battle and narrow defeat. His admiration and respect for her was obvious in his speech as well. At one point, inspired by an enthusiastic Hillary supporter in the crowd, he went off-script to say simply that "she rocks".

Indeed she does.



My favorite part of the event, which summed things up as perfectly as you could want: Spontaneous chants of "Obama! Obama! Obama!" during her speech, followed immediately by spontaneous chants of "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!" by the same crowd. And there was Barack sitting behind her, gesturing with an imaginary "Hillary" sign...joining right in.

Beautiful.

Texas Politics In Action

This is an official campaign video for Senator John Cornyn, who's up for reelection this year.

Serious.

Clearly, this is hilarious stuff and perhaps will live in infamy ("six mo"?!), but as a lifelong Texan I can't say it's too surprising. Running as a cowboy is the fallback position for any politician with a lightweight or unpopular record. How do you think our current president defeated Ann Richards in 1994?

The good news is that Cornyn's approval ratings have generally been in the gutter for a while now, and his opponent, state representative Rick Noriega, is within low single-digits of defeating him. Rick's a great Democratic candidate and I'm very excited about his prospects. Check out this section of his bio page...I have a feeling that once Rick gets a proper introduction, Texans will be able to tell the poseur from the real thing:

Rick felt compelled to answer the call and serve in the U.S. Army in the wake of the 1979 Iran hostage crisis. He was a commander of the 143rd Infantry Detachment (Long-Range Surveillance), an aide to Brigadier General David Heuer, and aide-de-camp to General Samuel Turk, Adjutant General of the Texas Army National Guard.

But Rick's service in the Army did not end there. He became a Lieutenant Colonel in the Texas Army National Guard, and served as deputy garrison commander of the KMTC training facility in Kabul, Afghanistan after 9/11. Rick was deployed for 14 months and spent a year in Afghanistan until August 2005, and he was also the Laredo Border Sector Commander in Operation Jump Start during the summer of 2006.

I can see the ads now. It also doesn't hurt that he's been a popular and effective legislator from the Houston area for many years.

Getting rid of "Big Bad John" would be great not just for Texas, but for the other 49 states as well. The guy has been a consistently nasty Bush crony from the beginning. Stop by Rick Noriega's website if you'd like to help make Cornyn's defeat a reality.

The Reason I'm Here

I remember very well where I was on election night in November 1992. I was over at my dad's place, and it was just the two of us. Before long, the call was made that Bill Clinton would be our next president, and after it sunk in for a moment, Jim looked over and said "We won, son." The way he said it, I could tell he had been waiting a long time...12 years to be exact...for this moment.

Why was it just the two of us? You see, pretty much my entire family, and many of my friends, were die-hard Republicans and my enthusiasm for Clinton did not go over well at all. I'll never forget the distrustful glares I got across the dinner table at some family reunions. It was hard being a teenage Democrat in Abilene Texas, and the 1992 election was only the beginning of the struggle.

My refuge from all this was my dad, who was a lifelong yellow dog Democrat. At an early age, his grandfather told him that the party was "good for the workin' man" and that's all it took. Let me put it this way: He talked more positively about the Carter presidency than anyone I've ever known! We had so many great talks on politics and he was always level-headed and no nonsense.

Also, he was a huge fan of Hillary Clinton. I do not remember a single time when he did not speak very highly of her. Whenever one of his friends or coworkers would put her down (and this was the 1990s, so it was a national pastime), he'd always be the first to speak up in her defense. Also, I remember being on the phone with him on election day in 2000 when the New York Senate race was called, so I got to tell him that she won. I could tell he was totally thrilled. So obviously, the recent historic primary has made me think of dad quite a bit. Whenever Hillary won a contest, or did extremely well during a debate, my usual first thought was to give dad a call. But as much as I wanted to, I couldn't.

One week ago today was the one-year anniversary of dad's passing, and last Friday would have been his 77th birthday. His energy was boundless, even into his 70s, so we had always expected him to live well into his 90s. His family history would have suggested that as well. But the speed with which Parkinson's Disease took hold of him shocked us all. Even today, at a lunch in his honor, my brothers and I still couldn't believe how quickly it happened. It is a truly terrible disease.

There was, of course, so much more to him than politics. He loved to fish (as you can see in the picture), was an avid golfer, and was always interested and supportive of his three sons in whatever we did. But his impact on me politically was huge. Specifically, I'm so grateful that there was at least one person in my life who really got why I was a Democrat and understood why it was so important to me. Believe me...in the middle of Texas during the Clinton years, such support was essential.

So, for all these reasons and more...today I have three words in honor of dad: Happy Father's Day.

Hillary, Our Hillary

Once again, I was reminded yesterday why I've worked harder by far for Hillary Clinton than for any other campaign ever: She's the candidate of a lifetime. That more delegates were awarded to her opponent this year is beside the point. She's the best we've got, period. It was truly an incredible speech, and I've never been more proud of her and what she has accomplished.

I am dealing with the current reality the best way I know how...with reflection, anger, pride, rest, funny movies and whatever else that helps. But I would encourage my fellow Hillary supporters not to fall into the trap of hatred and spite, no matter what wrongs may have been committed. For if such feelings lead you to enthusiastically and continuously agree with the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, and Ann Coulters of this world...then it is time for serious reevaluation. If they say some things that appeal to us, it's because they want the Republicans to win by bringing enough votes over to their side.

It's all about their own backward-looking agenda. Never, ever forget that.

That said, even though I completely respect and understand Hillary's words about party unity, at this time I have no candidate to support between Barack Obama and John McCain. McCain can be almost completely ruled out because he is, after all is said and done, a Republican backed by the odious RNC...while I am, after all is said and done, a lifelong progressive. I cannot, however, rule out supporting Obama at some point in the future. But if I do cross that bridge, it will only be because he has earned my vote, not simply because he has a "D" next to his name. Whatever decision I make, it will not be taken lightly, for I know that the future of my country is at stake.

There is one way that I would support the Democratic candidate in a heartbeat, though: If it meant that Vice President Dick Cheney would be tossed out and replaced with Vice President Hillary Clinton. Just ponder the profound good that would come from that. Then ponder who would be an absolute lock for 2016. I know many disagree, but I, for one, sincerely hope that both candidates work out their differences and find a way to make this happen. Our country, and our party, deserve nothing less. After the speech yesterday, I think Barack should be begging to have her there beside him on that ticket. And what better way to prove that he is Mr. Unity, wiping away the divisions of the past, than for this to be his first major decision as the nominee?

I will say unequivocally that I will not support the DNC for the indefinite future. The sins committed by the organization have been too great, and too damaging. However, there are many wonderful progressive candidates across the country that I will enthusiastically support on an individual basis, such as Al Franken in Minnesota and Rick Noriega in my home state of Texas. (I think we can all agree that Congress will be a much better place without Norm Coleman and John Cornyn around, right?)

As for Hillary, I know she'll be fine. I know a forced smile when I see it, and I didn't see one yesterday. There is no doubt in my mind that she will be an incredible force for good for the rest of her life, in whatever position she holds. Anyone who thinks she'll fade away into the background is simply dreaming. And no matter what her role will be in the coming months, I will be right there supporting her every step of the way.

I also believe that the day will come when we can all call her Madame President. But until that day arrives, she'll continue to be the one I've been waiting for.

Taylor Marsh

In case you haven't noticed, this blog has taken a back seat to my work on TaylorMarsh.com recently. It's a great opportunity that I've been thrilled about, and it's quite promising. However, I do still check in here every day and post when I can, and am interested in expanding the site in the months to come. In fact, I've always wanted to add more people as writers since I started it back in January. So if you know of any good progressive writers who would like to contribute to my blog...hey, send them my way!

"Maya"

Of all the ads I've seen this season, this may be my favorite. This is the kind of ad that wins elections, if you ask me.

Ready On Day One (For Waffles)

Rate, comment and add as a favorite to get the word out on this one!

In case you missed it...

Hillary won.

The One I've Been Waiting For

Originally posted on TaylorMarsh.com on April 20.

I'm sure most of us remember the line from Barack Obama's speech on Super Tuesday: "We are the ones we’ve been waiting for." Hey, I'll give him credit. Its a nice, if somewhat recycled, sentiment. And I remember it causing an outbreak of thrills shooting up legs among the boys at MSNBC that night. But lets remember: Obama was the only person running for president in the crowd that night, and he wanted his audience to help get him there. So a more accurate statement would have been: "I am the one you've been waiting for."

That's how I heard it, anyway, and I couldn't help but disagree.

This may be hard to believe, but we are just a few days away from the one-year anniversary of the first Democratic debate of this contest. I remember that night well. I was excited about Hillary and Barack's historic candidacies, but was open to everyone on that stage. Yes, I would have even considered supporting yet another gray-haired white guy if he managed to blow away everyone else that night. But that didn't happen. In fact, it was the lady who ran away with the show. A more innocent time, wasn't it?



I don't need to list every reason why Hillary is the best choice. I and many others have covered these reasons already, and to go over each one would result in a ridiculously long diary. Nor do I need to cover the struggles and major accomplishments that have shaped her life and prepared her for this task. You probably know these things too. The reason why I'm here, and the reason I choose to keep giving a damn about this grueling election, can be condensed into two points.

The first reason is based on an indisputable truth: These changes we all seek can only be attained if the Republican loses in November.

I've written before about my belief that Obama won't be able to beat McCain. Many have talked about the controversies that could very likely torpedo Obama's chances in a general election. But it turns out that we already have some poll numbers to back that up.

According to electoral-vote.com, if the election were held today between Clinton and McCain or Obama and McCain, this is what we would see:

Clinton 289
McCain 239
Result: President Hillary Clinton

Obama 260
McCain 254
Result: Inconclusive, and rather troubling.

It's hard to see how a Democrat can win without Florida and/or Michigan. And yet, the Obama campaign has been tempting this fate very strongly with efforts to discount their voices in choosing the nominee. It's no surprise that McCain is clearly beating Obama in Florida while Hillary is doing just fine. Hillary is fighting to make sure all the votes are counted. Obama is doing the opposite as part of a strategy to win the nomination. This is an opening for McCain that must not be ignored. Ohio, Missouri and even Massachusetts aren't looking so great for Obama either.

The second reason is the most important. Put simply, she gets it.

Who could forget the ridiculous breaking reports of Hillary getting emotional on the day before the New Hampshire primary? Silly season in full force, no doubt. But while the media focused on her non-existent "tears", they seemed to gloss over what was actually important about that moment. I was at work when I saw that clip, and I have to confess that sitting there at my desk, in plain view of my coworkers, my eyes watered a bit too. Not because of her emotion, but because of the words that brought forth the emotion:

"I just don't want to see us fall backwards... I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it."

I think this clip is worth seeing again as we approach the crucial Pennsylvania primary. It's a good reminder of what this is all about.

I don't need a poll-tested speech written by a professional and delivered with perfect oratorical pitch to know which candidate will end the nightmare of the Bush-Cheney era and bring our country back from the brink. This told me all I needed to know.



She gets it.

So...who have I been waiting eight long years for? I'll tell you.

A fighter. A survivor. A champion. A winner.

I've been waiting for Hillary.