2009 in review

It's the end of an action-packed and somewhat tumultuous first year of a young and vigorous new president who promised change, as well as a legislative body swollen by Democratic majorities. Already there are some "year in review" articles worth checking out, Time's Mark Halperin has a great review of Obama's 2009 here in which he explores 5 things the administration is doing well and 5 things they're not. Also Marc Ambinder has a 2009 mea culpa that is also worth the read.

For the administration I would say that 2009 definitely turned out to be tougher than they thought it would be when they took office in January. Although they had to know it was going to be harder getting absolutely everything they wanted, especially to match Obama's lofty rhetoric; I don't think anyone could've predicted how quickly Washington descended back into partisan trench warfare after the inauguration. Quite surprising was how swiftly (or deftly) the shrunken GOP minority fell in line behind their leadership as a party of near unanimous opposition to the new administration. I think the one big mistake Obama made was to grant so many strategic deferments to congress and allowing his unpopular party allies in congress to do all of the heavy lifting on his ambitious legislative agenda, although it might assuage congressional ego's, it may have also been the move that started his downward approval decline this year. Voters don't like watching the ugly congressional law creating process, and allowing such a huge (and nearly year long) public arena for health care reform, and little action on people's main concern: the economy, could cause Obama to take a year or more to return to healthier polling numbers (if at all.)

2009 saw congress at the least capable of still doing it's job, but people like watching their elected officials cooperate and they got none of that this year. Republicans showed political smarts by threatening a fillibuster and forcing Democrats to get 60 votes on every single issue, causing their demoestic agenda to be delayed at every turn and short circuiting the already glacial pace of work in the Senate. House Republicans followed suit and forced tough, party line votes, and set up numerous moderate Democrats for hard re-election fights and in many cases made them choose between their party leadership and their constituents, a spot no Freshman or Sophomore lawmaker ever wants to be.

Republicans were declared dead in December and January of '08 and '09, but the rise of the "tea party" movement and the larger megaphone given to conservative TV hosts such as Glenn Beck breathed new life into their party's base, however, the defining fight of 2010 for Republicans is going to be how easily they can reconcile their moderate and conservative wings and brand a cohesive message that resonates with the country. Especially since the Republican party as a whole is still generally very unpopular.

The Democrats, after the ecstacy they experienced at the beginning of the year, fell fast to Earth amidst party infighting, finger pointing, and nervous bedwetting that is stereotypical for their party and unsavory to voters who trusted them to save the economy and restore prosperity. At this point, they can only pray that their legislative gambles all pay off, their dynamic new president recovers from a bruising year, and the economy shows some sort of dramatic improvement, or they're going to be the ones doing the obstruction to a new majority in 2011.

Senate Passes Health Care Bill 60-39, Merry Christmas Eve!

After weeks of intense debates and a number of moments that looked like the whole thing might unravel, the senate passed their version of the health care bill this morning in a 60-39 vote strictly along party lines. The next step in passing health care reform legislation will be to combine the senate bill with the more liberal house bill, and then have another vote on the combined bill in both the house and senate.

So health care reform is still not a done deal. Liberals and conservatives will continue to fight over issues like the public option, abortion funding, and the cost of reform. Winning the votes of conservative democrats will still be key to passing the final bill, which means President Obama and the rest of the democratic party will still be hamstrung by the ideals of politicians like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.

But passing health care bills in both the house and senate is a historic event, and it could be that the democratic party as a whole will realize when it comes down to the final vote that it's more important to pass any health care reform bill rather than a "perfect" health care reform bill.

Democrats losing support on health care reform

David Axelrod went on the defense this morning on behalf of the White House as calls from the left have sprung up in the last 2 days to kill the senate health care bill. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean has emerged as the health care reform bill’s latest foe in the days since Joe Lieberman announced that he would not vote for a bill that included a public option or provisions for the expansion of Medicare.

With both the left and the right now rallying to end the health care reform effort, the clock is ticking as congress attempts to get something passed before Christmas. If the Senate does not succeed, congress may not have a second chance at this issue as public support for health care reform continues to plummet.

It's Joe's world, we all just live in it

At the beginning of the congressional session earlier this year, when Barack Obama was president-elect and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was staring at an impressive 59 votes in his caucus, he was just shy of that magical 60 he would only get when Sen. Arlen Specter switched parties three months later.

Reid and the President-elect knew it was going to be a rough legislative year, Obama was packing his White House with plenty of capitol hill veterans who knew exactly what kind of congressional muscle it was going to take to tackle their ambitious four-fold agenda of health care, regulatory reform, cap-and-trade, and education, he knew his mostly progressive ambitions would neccessitate lock-step party unity and he knew he would have to scramble for every vote. Just one little thing had to be settled, the same thing that seems as if it still needs to be settled: Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman, a Moderate Independent who had caucused with the Democrats (and gave them their one vote majority in the 110th congress,) had campaigned vigorously for the Republican candidate in the 2008 election and had time and time again heaped scorn on his colleagues and their party's standard bearer. When the dust had settled after Novemeber and anti-Republican sentiment amidst the global financial crises had handed the Democrats huge congressional majorities and the White House, one would assume that with 58 solid votes in the caucus they could afford to cast away Lieberman away and strip him of his coveted chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Instead, Obama, in the very brief era of good feelings that followed his election and inauguration decided to let bygones be bygones and let Lieberman keep his chairmanship and his senior status amongst the newly enlarged Democratic caucus. Besides, lots of things are said in the heated politcal drama of Presidential elections, let's not be too hasty. Plus, why be satisfied with 58 votes, when you can have 59 and a grateful committee chair who you would now think would feel as if he owes you one.

Well today, as you can see in a story in today's New York Times Joe Lieberman is at it again, almost single handedly derailing weeks of compromise, concessions, deals and negotiations on President Obama's signature domestic issue: health care. Enraging his Democratic colleagues who are now scrambling to find a compromise to the compromise and ensure that this far down the road and so close to the finish line, the entire thing doesn't just fall apart. Lieberman showed that he relishes this new found power and that he is truly loving every minute of it. He is happiest when he is at the political apex, and though Democrats are white hot with anger at him, he knows they still need him, and is ready and willing to play that game.

It's also dangerous ground to tread for Mr. Lieberman, voters in his state overwhelmingly support health care reform, a public option, and medicare expansion. The latter two were gutted out of the bill at his bidding, and he seems ready to ask for even more as the negotiations continue to get into the 11th hour.

President Obama will play the role of the closer today, he summoned the whole Democratic caucus to the White House today for a rare all-hands-on deck meeting on his territory, trying his best to manage a compromise that can get the 60 votes neccessary to pass, most likely asking his more progressive party members to swallow hard and remember how historic it would be for the even-the-much-more-moderate bill to finally become law. Will Joe get everything that he wants? Probably. Will The President pull him aside and give him a private audience to strike a deal? I wouldn't bet on that one, Lieberman will be lucky if some lowly staff member doesn't try and trip him on the way out.

Obama still losing out on the economy

In spite of Obama's recent jobs summit and news that the worst of the recession is over, the public continues to show dissatisfaction with Obama's efforts to improve the economy. With his approval ratings now at all time low, a conversation is brewing within the Democratic Party over whether to spend money on job creation or wait to pay down the deficit. According to an article in the NYTimes today, it seems for now Democrats are planning to talk up deficit reduction in 2010 but will hold off on any serious action until after midterm elections.

Even today, the president's chief economic advisor Larry Summers announced that he is predicting that the U.S. will see job growth by this spring. While Summers' outlook on the economy seems upbeat, a fantastic op-ed by Paul Krugman attempts to outline how many jobs must actually be created to get the economy back to where it was. Krugman, who is decidedly less optimistic than Summers, predicts another 5+ years of slow recovery.

Also, the slowdown in progress on the healthcare bill that was supposed to be complete by Christmas but now may be finalized closer to Valentine's Day has given the media an opportunity to look back at the effectiveness of Obama's stimulus package. Matt Taibbi wrote a particularly scathing feature article for Rolling Stone in which he accuses Obama of more or less being in bed with Wall Street. A video narrated by Taibbi summarizing the article can also be found here.

Democrats' gain momentum with Finance Comittee vote, what now?

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus may as well have won the lottery yesterday when his committee voted 14-9 to pass their version of a health care bill that has taken center stage of what has been an agonizing months long debate.

His bill does everything that President Obama outlined in his address to congress last month: it expands coverage, lowers costs, comes in under $900 Billion, reduces the deficit over 10 years, and even has a small amount of bipartisan cred with moderate Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine giving it her aye vote. Still, as Winston Churchill once said: "This isn't the end, nor is it the beginning of the end, rather this is the end of the beginning."

Senate Democrats are far from united, and Snowe's lone Republican vote can't be taken for granted, (she said herself "my vote today may not be my vote tomorrow.") With such a widely diverse caucus, finding a final bill that pleases everyone seems to be a nearly impossible task with both liberal and moderate Democrats both saying they're unsatisfied with what may be the final result. This will be the true test of Obama's legislative leadership, and also of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's ability to do the real backroom dealmaking that delivers votes.

Liberal Senator Jay Rokefeller of West Virginia, a member of the finance committee, who has made clear his die-hard support for a governemnt sponsored public option that was absent in negotiations, had his own Snowe-esque statement regarding the bill: “...Let me be crystal clear – this yes vote is not an endorsement of this bill as it stands today. My vote is a pledge to continue on the Senate Floor and in Conference the fight for policies that work and represent the real needs of West Virginia families.”

And Joe Liberman, the moderate Independent who's chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee was saved by President Obama early this year from vengeful Democrats angry at his campaigning for John McCain, poked more holes in Reid's plans to get an all-hands-on-deck 60 vote majority with statements this morning on a radio show where he said he didn't support the bill the way it is now and that he was afraid that "the Bacus bill was going to raise health insurance prices for most of the people in the country."

Democratic leaders must now channel their inner LBJ and do whatever it takes to get votes and play virtual whack-a-mole with dissenting members who think they can have more leverage in the debate by holding out their vote and keeping their cards close to their chest. In the House, which has been quiet on health care in the face of the senate vote is trying to corral their own much more liberal caucus, while at the same time not endangering their more moderate members whos seats are already being salivated over by Republicans. A not-as-dead-as-you-thought party anxious to take advantage of the souring public mood and the lack of results of many of the Democrats' initiatives on the economy. They are hoping that the House bill tacks to the left so that they can pound those vulnerable Democrats for being out of touch with their constituents, and in the permanent Washington campaign, every vote is an advertisement or a fundraising tool for the other side.

If Americans are already tired of the health care debate after more than 5 months of congressional sausage making, then they're in for a rude awakening, because this thing hasn't even gotten off the ground yet.

President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Committee announced today that they were awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama, only 9 months into his term. While the award was given in honor of Obama's efforts to bring people together from around the world in the past year, Obama has been facing substantial criticism in the U.S. in the past several weeks for failing to accomplish any of the major points he laid out in his ambitious agenda.

While the W.H. claims that they had no idea that Obama had even been nominated, Obama will have to balance looking grateful for the prize even in the face of the many Americans complaining that he doesn't deserve it. Just this week Obama was criticized on the right for being a narcissist and too much of an international celebrity, and the Peace Prize is likely to serve as more kindling for that fire.

What about Afghanistan?

As the dust has begun to settle on President Obama's new administration, nothing stands to tarnish his long term legacy or unravel his presidency more than the war in Afghanistan.

Numerous stories have been coming out talking about how, even though he dispatched 20,000 additional troops in March of this year and has pledged an unyiedling commitment of resources, the conflict is going badly as a tough and resilient foe is regrouping and emboldening their attacks; and the infrastructure of the country is failing. Obama also faces more problems as the results of the Afghan election continue to be disputed and reports of rampant government corruption hamper US efforts to try and duplicate the sort of democracy building that made their efforts in Iraq more successful. In a word, the situation is grim.

The top general in Afghanistan has made no secret about his desire for even more troops, but the administration has slowed down its decision making on the war to re-think a new strategy, holding high level meetings to discuss options. Extreme caution has been shown by the white house in releasing details on what the president's thoughts are, much to the chagrin of hawkish conservatives, who are anxious for Obama to keep his earlier promises of fully supporting and financing whatever is needed to win in Afghanistan and are howling that he isn't simply following the advice of his generals. He is also facing pressure from liberals on the left to wrap up the war and a growing skepticism from an American public that is weary of war and recession and longs for peace and prosperity.

Now that health care reform has new momentum in congress and it's passage seems more imminent now that it has come down to the grinding legislative process that needs less public help from his office, the president can now focus more time on the war. The decisions that he makes are likely to have lasting effects on his presidency and for his party, much in the same way that the war in Iraq had devastating consequences for former President Bush and the Republicans after 2006, but of course they know this and will continue to deliberate until their absolutely certain they have the right approach.

Most likely Obama will try and take a middle of the road approach and apply his signature pragmatism, but whatever he does, Americans have to see that he is leading, making tough decisions and isn't going to be too deferential to the progressives in his party especially since his only allies may be some of the same Republicans that have tripped up his domestic agenda at almost every opportunity. The White House may have to swallow the bitter pill and shore up as much GOP support as possible, but they'll also have to be cautious not to put itself in the middle of a partisan showdown in congress with the white house in the middle and infighting amongst their own party, esecially as next years congressional midterms loom and the rest of Obama's ambitious domestic agenda remains unmoved.

Obama's Health Care Speech

President Obama delivered his health care speech to a joint session of congress just a few hours ago. Obama was clear about the objectives he wanted to achieve through health care reform (more stability for those who have health care, an insurance option for people who don't, and a mandate to require individuals to carry health insurance), he took time to dispell myths about health care reform (death panels, health coverage for illegal aliens, and ending Medicare), and to discuss how the plan would be paid for. He even threw a bone to republicans by saying he supports tort reform, shortly before delivering a stern warning that anyone pushing the idea that health care reform would be called out publicly by the White House.

At the end, Obama got all Obama with his speech and went for rhetorical flourish by going into Ted Kennedy's last days and calling on Americans to come together and solve big challenges today as they have in past. And in what might be one of his best sound bites ever, Obama reminded those in Congress that "we did not come here to fear the future, we came here to shape it."

We'll see whether the speech creates any kind of change in the tone of the health care debate, personally I thought Obama brought the goods tonight.

Remembering Sen. Edward Kennedy

Coverage of Mr. Kennedy's death, at the age off 77 at around 1AM Eastern in his Massachusetts home, will likely be ongoing over the next few days as journalists and colleagues celebrate and mourn his life and death.

The New York times has the lede: "Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA, a son of of one of the most storied families in American politics, a man who knew triumph and tragedy in near-equal measure and who will be remembered as one of the most effective lawmakers in the history of the Senate, died late Tuesday night, he was 77. . ."

Other stories are here from TIME, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, and also a Statement from the Kennedy family.

In the early moments of his career he was at worst a joke to his critics, who contend that he was elected solely based on his last name, and the negativity surrounding his career culminated in the tragic Chappaquiddick incident in 1969 and the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. His face became synonomis with rampant liberalism and his image was used in hundreds of political attack ads. He carried on after that though and proved all of his critics wrong by becoming a champion not only of many Democratic causes, but arguably one of the greatest bipartisan dealmakers in the history of the Senate. Kennedy carried a hard-fought reputation as someone who could work side by side with the most dedicated liberals as well as the staunchest of conservatives. He had many, many friends on both sides of the aisle in the Senate, and although he called health care "the cause of [his] life," his own voice will not only be sorely missed in that debate (as much as it already has), but also in the many, many debates that will arise in the future.

DOJ to investigate possible CIA abuse, Obama mostly mum

Upon leaving for a vacation to Martha's Vineyard, President Obama left the decision to investigate alleged abuse by the CIA in hands of attorney general Eric Holder. Although the W.H. quickly reminded the press earlier today that Obama said several weeks ago that he wished to keep the past in the past on this issue, his directive to Holder contained no opinion.

Considering that Obama is currently facing criticism for his hands-off approach to both the energy bill and healthcare reform legislation, it seems that the president is showing an unwillingness to spend his political capital on the most controversial of issues. Obama's current behavior also harkens back to criticism he faced on the campaign for voting "present" a number of times while serving as a state senator in Illinois.

While progress on the health care bill remains on hiatus until congress returns from their summer recess, a DOJ probe into CIA activities that could potentially lead to the prosecution of both CIA agents and contractors is sure to cause a stir. The question remains as to whether Obama is hurting himself by not taking a stronger stand on controversial issues.

Democrats struggle to regain control of health care debate, clarify message

Today might as well be Black Friday for the Democratic Party, it is arguably having it's roughest time since it regained control of congress in 2006, and the White House in 2008, and less than 3 years since the former and less than one year since the latter, the prospects for uniting around a potent legislative agenda are slim.

You can scan the headlines for any number of articles and the result is going to seem clear: The Zeitgeist has turned against the ruling party in Washington and something needs to be done fast if they want to turn the ship around.

A lot can be explained in a great Politico article published last night. Unlike their predecessors in their first term, the Obama White House has not been able to seal the deal on it's trademark domestic legislation. The message has been muddled, the momentum has been lost, and the circular firing squads in Democratic circles have already begun. The civil war breaking out between the liberal and moderate wing of the Democratic Party doesn't seem to be abating soon, and even though polling numbers for the Republican Party are even lower in the basement, there are signs that their numbers among independents and crucial swing voters are starting to grow.

The President plans a much needed vacation next week and meets with his woulda-been Secretary of Health And Human Services, a leading expert on health care reform and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Obama's question to him might just be: "So what do I do now?"

Public Option May Get Dropped From Healthcare Reform Plan

After weeks of a high tension health care debate, it looks like President Obama has begun to downplay one of the most contentious aspects of his health care reform plan - the public insurance option. Earlier this week Obama referred to the public option as a "sliver" of the overall health care plan during a Colorado town hall, which caused a number of angry liberal talking heads to quickly fire back with a reminder that the public option was the centerpiece of Obama's health care reform plan during the campaign. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius then followed up on the president's comment by saying today that the public option was not essential to health care reform.

With the White House now pushing buzz phrases like "choice and competition," it looks like they are reaching out to more moderate members of congress to finally get some form of health care reform passed. I suspect that liberals will be quick on the president's heels, proclaiming that health care without a public option, health care reform won't do enough to make the kind of difference the president promised.

Obama as a one-termer?

Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) told a town-hall meeting in his district that President Obama had said to him in a private meeting that he would make sure health reform passes, even if it costs him a second term.

Boswell had been hosting a relatively civil town hall meeting, but many of his constituents were arguing against the proposed bills in congress and he had to remind the citizens that there wasn't yet a bill to support, just committee drafts, and that he believes health care reform needs to happen. Although he did reiterate that he may end up voting against the bill saying it's "very possible" that the end bill may be something that he can't vote for.

Boswell is a member of the more conservative Democratic "blue-dog" caucus that became a household name before the August reccess for their demands in the House Energy and Commerce committee to bring down the total pricetag and ensure more effective cost controls. He said that the comments from The President came in a meeting with other members of the blue-dog caucus at The White House, and he spoke about the president's comment in a brief Q&A with reporters after the event:

"The president (said), 'I'm not going to kick the can down the road.' And he said that and I said, 'Well, that's something I'm kind of used to from southern Iowa, you know. I know about kicking the can down the road.' And he said, 'No, if it makes me a one-term president, I'm going to, we're going to take it on because the country is in need of us taking this on.' I respected that very much."

Other Presidents such as Bill Clinton have come back from rocky and contentious first years to have very successful administrations, but with Health Care Reform becoming less and less popular with the public and Cap and Trade legislation stalling in the Senate, the President will need sweeping support on other domestic intiatives, or a dramatic improvement in the economy, to help his re-election chances.

On the other hand, despite most pundits' thoughts on the contrary I think the 2012 election is going to be a lot more about what's happening in 2012 then what happened in 2009.

Senior citizens nervous about health care reform

An article published today by Politico, shows that Democrats pushing health care legislation have run into a stumbling block amongst older voters, who as recent polling shows are the group that is most skeptical on reform.

Much of the early health care reform arguments have been focused on lowering costs for middle class Americans who currently have health care through their job, and covering the nearly 50 million Americans who are uninsured. Many seniors feel that their medicare benefits may be threatened and grow nervous when they hear phrases like ". . .cutting $300 Billion from Medicare." This raises warning bells for the Democratic leadership, and especially for the White House, because if they can't get seniors on board, then their efforts to pass sweeping health care legislation, much like President Bush's failed efforts to reform social security in 2005, may be for naught.

One reason seniors are, albeit belatedly, being given so much attention is because of how high their voting rolls are, and could pose yet another problem to Democrats hoping to maintain their congressional majorities in next years midterm elections. Also, the majority of the shouting and chaos going on at many of the contentious town halls across America are coming from frustrated and angry older Americans that are upset that they've contributed to medicare for their entire working lives and that the benefits they believe they've earned may now be threatened, despite continuous urging from both Democratic congressional leadership and the white house that current reform efforts would not limit their range of care and that the proposed "cuts" to Medicare come from eliminating wasteful programs and curbing administration costs.

Senior citizens are going to be the linchpin to whether the message war on health care is effective for either side. So far, labor groups and progressive leaders have pushed a simple "reform medicare now so it's not insolvent later" message that could be powerful if it sticks, but I think first they have to explain what they really mean by "reform," in terms that put older voters at ease, only then will this contentious issue be laid to rest.

Obama's N.H. Town Hall on Health Care

Earlier this morning Obama fielded questions on health care reform in front of an audience of about 1800 people at a high school in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. It was his first town hall meeting on the subject since June, and unlike last time, the audience today was not handpicked by the White House. In spite of the stories of town hall meetings erupting into angry screaming matches (like the one Arlen Spector was faced with in Pennsylvania only hours before the N.H. meeting got underway), the president ended up with a relatively civil audience.

At times Obama sounded exasperated, and took several time outs to chastise the cable news media for further sensationalizing the health care reform debate. He also painstakingly reiterated over and over again that he would not indulge the rumors about the healthcare plan, he was here to only talk about the facts.

As the health care debate continues to heat up, it will be interesting to see in the coming days whether Obama's town hall effort to get the word out makes any sort of impact on a national level.

What would you do if you were The President?

Via Mark Halperin

In each pair, pick A or B:

A. Get more hands-on with Congress now on what you want in a health care bill.
B. Let Congress continue to work its will and wait to step in.

A. Put the fate of your presidency in the hands of Nancy Pelosi.
B. Put the fate of your presidency in the hands of Max Baucus.

A. Focus like a laser beam on health care and the economy.
B. Focus like a laser beam on health care.

A. Stop being on TV so much.
B. Be on TV more.

A. Let the Democratic National Committee and outside liberal groups your White House basically controls wield the same brass knuckles as your opponents.
B. Uphold higher standards than your opponents, even if it means short-term political cost.

A. Govern to achieve your goals, with a que sera sera attitude about re-election.
B. Keep your eye always on 2012.

A. Go with the team you have.
B. Bring in someone new.

Latest unemployment numbers give Democrats and Republicans a boost

Today's report from the labor department that unempoloyment dipped 1/10th of a percent for the month of July, from 9.5 to 9.4 percent is good news for a beleagured White House, but also provides more fodder for their Republican opponents that the stimulus is not working fast enough. White House officials have been bracing for the report all week, which some economists predicted could bring the unemployment rate above the dreaded 10% mark, not seen since the recession of the early 80's. Today's numbers give them somewhat a reprieve from months of bad news on job numbers, despite a $787 Billion stimulus package that was passed in February.

Both Democrats and Republicans are claiming victory, with Democrats saying that the first unemployment drop in 15 months shows that their policies are slowly working, a small -- if not desperately needed victory -- they can use during the August recess as opponents to Democratic policies turn up the heat in their rhetoric. Republicans, in a statement from RNC chair Michael Steele are saying: "While President Obama was taking a victory lap to celebrate the economy's performance, more Americans lost their jobs and the budget deficit soared to a record $1.3 trillion in July. In the month of July alone 247,000 Americans lost their jobs, which means more than 2.8 million Americans have lost their jobs since the president took office. The president said his stimulus bill would keep unemployment from rising higher than 8 percent. It hasn't."

Steele's statement echoes what Republicans have said more and more boldly over the past few months as Obama's poll numbers on his handling of the economy have slowly gone down.

What the Sotomayor confirmation means

In a 68-31 vote, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who had arguably one of the most boring confirmation processes ever, was confirmed by the Senate in a mostly party line vote last night.

When David Souter announced he was retiring in June, and President Obama subsequently announced his intention to put Sotomayor to the bench, partisan lines already began to form and it seemed it would be a sizzling summer affair; promising that conservative and liberal groups would converge head-on in a red vs. blue idealogical smackfest. There were a couple of hiccups along the way, especialy with Ms. Sotomayor's famous "wise latina" quote, but the monotony and boredom of the subsequent hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee were mostly a dissappointment to anyone hoping for serious red meat policy fights.

A lot of this had to do with Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee, hoping to keep their party further out of the doghouse with hispanics and minority groups, they kept it a largely civil debate trying to show Sotomayor more as a liberal "activist" judge, than an affirmative action appointment. 9 Republicans in total voted for her confirmation, a smaller number, than say Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer; who were Bill Clinton's appointments to the court and enjoyed wide bipartisan support. Four of the Republican votes; Kit Bond (MO), George Voinovich (OH), Mel Martinez (FL) (who also announced this morning he would be resigning his Senate seat), and Judd Gregg (NH), will not be seeking re-election in 2010.

Although there was quiet pressure on the GOP not to vote against the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, there was arguably more pressure on the right from both grassroots conservative groups and the National Rifle Association; who said a vote for Sotomayor would count against them in their coveted NRA legislative ratings. Many Republicans and conservative Democrats tout these ratings to protect their right flank from future election opponents, as well as to tap into the NRA's large donor base. Democrats will surely try and use the vote to drive a further wedge between the GOP and minority groups. However, Republican cooperation on comprehensive immigration reform could blunt that argument, especially if that legislation passes this either this year or early next year.

Previewing the August recess

With members of the House fleeing the capitol today for five weeks to defend their votes (or lack thereof,) there will finally be a vote in the House Energy and Commerce committee today on it's version of the Health Care Reform Bill. Recently, Democratic Chairman Henry Waxman has come under fire from both sides of his party for giving too much to the other side. Most likely the bill will retain the public option sought by liberals, but federal subsidies for poorer families and costs for small businesses will be contained at the behest of the conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, who've suddenly become a household name throughout the health care discussion.

The Senate, however, will not reccess until next Friday, allowing them to complete the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The Senate Finance Committee (the only committee in congress that has sought a bipartisan health care compromise between Republicans and Democrats), chaired by Chairman Max Baucus reported today that they won't be able to complete their version of the health care bill before next Friday's recess with ranking Republican member Chuck Grassley saying: "We're not committed to a deadline, we're committed to getting the job done."

Why Democrats should be happy during the reccess: A report by the Commerce Department that the GDP, which has been spiraling out of control for over a year, shrank by only 1% this quarter, with economic analysts predicting that next quarter should show modest gains. The economy is hanging around the neck of the Democratic Party, and any sliver of good news helps them as a whole. Also, the liberal grassroots will be pumping millions of dollars in ads next month to prop up their candidates and protect them from harsh attack ads from the Republican Party. The health care industry, which for now is on the side of reform, will also help by running it's own ads pressing for action. Action is on the side of Democrats, inaction is on the side of Republicans. President Obama will also have the media pretty much all to himself and can use the next five weeks to continue to carefully explain his health care proposals, as well as burnish whatever other goodwill he has up his sleeve to raise his approval ratings. Also, look for feel good stories about the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor, who's "no" votes from Republicans will be demonized by the White House and Majority Leadership in congress.

Why Republicans should be happy during the reccess: Despite months of pressing congress and pitching the American people, President Obama's health care deadline was not met and it has barely passed out of committee (one committee in the Senate, as explained above, still pending.) Obama has also muddled the health care message, with more and more polls showing that Americans are less supportive of the President's plan. Obama also is showing the first signs of mere mortality, his approval rate, now at around 54%, is his lowest since the election, and the White House message machine continues to be thrown off guard by cops and professors and beer summits. The stimulus, also continues to be sluggish at getting directly into the economy, and although unemployment has receded for the moment from it's rapid climb, many economists aren't attributing that to the $787 Billion Dollar Recovery Act that was touted as Obama's first major legislative accomplishment. Also, since the Democratic leadership won't have George W. Bush to kick around anymore, Republicans can slowly begin to climb out from under that shadow and go on the offensive probably for the first time since 2004, with conservative interest groups energized by the Supreme Court confirmation hearings and the failing health care debate, The GOP leadership will be able to raise record money hauls and run a lot of ads in swing districts being defended by already nervous Democrats.

I Love Auto-Tune The News..

Health care debate drags on, weekly news cycle goes haywire..

The congressional debate over health care has continued to drag on without any major breakthroughs this week. The lack of narrative on this story has left the door wide open for the media to speculate on the birthers movement, Joe Biden's comments on the state of Russia, Obama's comments on the Henry Louis Gates incident, Sarah Palin's resignation, and the Sonia Sotomayor hearings. It's nearing the end of the week and so far none of these story lines have stuck.

Late today, just as Henry Waxman thought he had made a deal with the outspoken Blue Dog Democrats, progressives in the House came out against the deal claiming that conservatives had highjacked the health care bill.

We'll have to see how this development plays out in the news tomorrow and possibly into next week.

Health Care bill unlikely to be passed by summer recess

Even after the White House's head first dive into the health care debate last week and The President using every media outlet he can to try and capture more urgency and attention to his plans; congress, facing a mess of infighting, scapegoating, and obstruction, continues to put the brakes on meeting any sort of deadline on passing Health Care reform.

Sen. Dick Durbin, the no. 2 man in the Senate, and one of Obama's staunchest allies bluntly stated that a full vote "won't be possible" by the August recess, which begins in just a couple of weeks. Durbin denied that the momentum on the bill was stalling, but also acknowledged that it's going to be a much slower process then even Majority Leader Harry Reid had wanted.

The Senate Finance Committee is not expected to finish the final markup of its healthcare bill until next week, at which point it would have to be reconciled with the version passed last week by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. All of these factors, plus the continuing floor debate over the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, will take up precious time over the next couple of weeks.

In the House, despite Speaker Nancy Pelosi hinting yesterday that they may not all adjourn for the summer recess, obstacles lie there as well, with conservative Democrats uneasy about the surtax on the rich being considered in their version that was just passed through committee.

Health care not passing by summer could be a blessing for Obama, or a curse. He could maximize this time and gain a a full court advantage, dominating the media coverage and making his own direct pitch to the American people while congress is away, as well as turning the focus to other elements of his domestic agenda. However, if the public begins to lose interest, dismal economic news dominates, or the media continues to hammer away at him for not meeting his own deadlines, the debate on health care could die and Obama, like so many of his predecessors, would have to give up and live to fight another day.

Obama's Presidential News Conference on Healthcare

Obama held a news conference today to set the record straight on his increasingly unpopular attempt at reforming the American healthcare system. The big network channels were reluctant to run the live conference because it interfered with regular programming. Overall, Obama kept his cool and was able to put across the reasoning behind his healthcare plan in the same plain, clear language that appealed to voters during his campaign. He expressed an attitude of flexibility in terms of meeting the August deadline and he promised that unless you're an American making at least a million dollars a year, your taxes won't be raised to cover healthcare reform. Obama also pushed to heavily attack the notion that he was out to pass another expensive (and ineffective) government program and again wasted no time in pointing the finger back at the Bush administration when it came to questions related to the federal deficit.

Obama was able to bullshit his way through a question asking about why he healthcare reform discussions weren't being shown on C-SPAN but he took the time to thoughtfully answer a question regarding race relations surrounding the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr.

Obama's fork in the road and the crisis of Democratic leadership

The conventional wisdom over the summer, as the trench warfare over health care continues, is not only that Obama's once-bulletproof poll numbers may be slipping, (his personal numbers continue to far outperform the numbers for his policies) but that going into next year he may have to fight off a word gaining significant momentum within his opposition: failure.

The last two Democratic administrations that preceded him (which have spanned only 12 of the past 40 years,) were voted in more in regards to their timing or persona than any actual message. All three were relatively young (under 55), were seen as Washington "outsiders," and were voted in only after two or three terms of Republican leadership gave the country a feeling of anti-incumbency and a willingness to go left. All three had strong congressional majorities and a clear, sweeping and ambitious agenda to set things right in Washington.

Obama's most immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton, served two terms -- and although his administration was marked by years of partisan warfare and scandal, his presidency as a whole was viewed as successful and he had high approval ratings after leaving office. However, the Democratic President before that, Jimmy Carter, served only one term, and although his post-presidency has somewhat vindicated his reputation, most of Carter's presidency is viewed as a failure by the mainstream, and the Republican Party used "Jimmy Carter and the days of malaise" to win lots of victories in the 80's and 90's.

So it's clear that Obama, now fighting for his life on almost all fronts of his domestic agenda, has come to a fork in the path of his own administration. He can either go the way of Plains, Georgia or the way of Hope, Arkansas. Going the way of Plains means that the economy will not stop it's downward tumble, unemployment will stay stubbornly high, and congress will continue to stonewall the President, or if his numbers get worse, outright reject any of his plans altogether. Going the way of Hope, however, means that Obama will stubbornly hold his own, the economy will recover, perhaps even prosper, he'll get his legislation approved, his numbers will stay high and he may even be viewed as successful.

If Obama does overcome the mounting obstacles before him, then this will just be seen as a bad summer slump in the midst of a great administration. However, if he never recovers, then history will look back and see this week as the high water mark, when we knew that it was all downhill from here.

Currently the Republicans, although deep in the basement of minority status, are enjoying the advantages that come with being oppositional to a controversial agenda. Their smaller numbers allow them to stay on-message and united, they don't have to have any alternative ideas, and can begin their slow walk back to power through simple attrition. The Democratic leadership, on the other hand, is facing the crisis that comes with a swollen majority, their caucus is diverse (maybe too diverse for consensus) and each wing of the party claims to represent it's "core ideas." The leadership is unable to stifle dissent as it's members refuse to be a rubber stamp to a new presidential agenda that could leave them all unelectable in the years to come if that same agenda is roundly rejected by the public.

Progress made on Health Care legislation

As the legislative session comes closer and closer to taking it's annual summer recess next month, the White House finally has begun to take larger steps in forging the health care debate as well as more forcefully challenge its critics.

Yesterday the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee -- chaired by the ailing Ted Kennedy (with Christopher Dodd pinch-hitting) approved it's version of the Health Care Bill in a strictly partisan vote of 13 to 10, with all Democrats on the panel voting for and all Republicans voting against. The "deal breaker," as Republicans called it, was the provision in the bill to create a government run health insurance option for those currently without insurance. Democrats assured that this measure guaranteed wider coverage for Americans while Republicans argued that the costs would be unpredictable, care would be rationed, and quality would be low.

The House also has moved forward with various versions of it's own legislation, in particular, a new bill approved by the Ways And Means committee will cover the costs of new government investments in health care by creating a new surtax on wealthy Americans that was met with general outrage by Republicans who say raising taxes on small businesses would cripple an already struggling economy, and that wealthy Americans should not be "punished" to foot the bill of enormous federal spending increases.

Still, the White House, eager to show progress on it's signature legislation, gave wide praise to the movement made in both houses and Obama said he was "eager" to see the legislation pass the full congress by the end of the summer legislating session. An ability to not get it passed before then would lead to diminished momentum and political realities that would make the chances of it ever passing much less. Obama would then have to admit the same defeat that so many of his forbears have in the past, from Truman to Clinton, and health care in the country would say in the same shape that it has and may forever will be.

Where's the beef, Obama??

With recent reports suggesting that America may be without a health care bill or an energy bill this summer, it will be interesting to see how much time President Obama has until the public's good will towards him starts to wear out. Since taking office almost 7 months ago, Obama has yet to make progress on many of his campaign platforms, from health care to energy, gay rights, pulling out of the war in Iraq, and closing Guantanamo Bay, I think Americans may be tapping their toes a little louder waiting for that change they can believe in to come through. At the same time, doubts are continuing to arise over the stimulus plan which may need to be supplemented by a second stimulus, and the unemployment rate continues to rise.

The president's leadership style so far has been to set the agenda and then allow congress to duke out the details, but ultimately if nothing gets accomplished it will be on Obama's head. So in the coming weeks, will Obama publicly press on congress to get healthcare and energy? What will happen if he doesn't? Will he change the subject? Get angry? Turn the page? Point the finger? He hasn't got a lot of time left before the summer recess, it will be interesting to see whether he changes his strategy.

Americans begin to sour on stimulus

It's no secret that recently, with unemployment numbers out of control and the economy continuing to sag, the American public has begun to grow more and more skeptical about the effectiveness of the $787 Billion economic stimulus program that was approved by congress and The President in February.

When the bill was passed it was lauded as ambitious, historical and bold, but was also derided as weak and wasteful and received only 3 total Republican votes in both the House and the Senate. The landmark stimulus was the President's first legislative victory and set a pattern for how the Obama administration deals with congress (most specifially Republicans in congress.) Originally, in the days after the inauguration, Obama made frequent trips to the hill and 'bipartisanship' was all the rage. The President said he had hoped for "80 votes" in the Senate and that the first item on his sweeping domestic agenda would receive broad support from both parties, as they put their idealogical differences aside to deliver a historical bill that would give the economy the shot in the arm it needed. Instead, concessions were made on both sides, negotiations fell apart, old rivalries and differences flared and Republicans revolted against the bill, rejecting it nearly unanimously.

As reported yesterday in The New York Times, criticism for the recovery plan has deepened and Republicans are anxious to see their nearly wholehearted rejection of the stimulus bear political fruit. There have even been calls amongst some economists and some Democrats for a second stimulus, an idea that may seem good, but would be a dead issue politically, both for The White House and for congress as Obama would have to admit his first stimulus wasn't good enough and congress would have to admit they don't have the votes for another bill. Larry Summers, White House economic advisor, echoing administration talking points, has urged patience, saying that money has to be doled out carefully and that there will be a ramp up of spending towards the end of this calendar year that will help unemployment numbers stabilize.

Obama has repeatedly preached continuing patience since he took office, but either because of exhaustion on the part of the American people in watching their lives get worse and worse or also because pointed Republican attacks are becoming more and more successful, there has been a slow trend downward for his national numbers, especially amongst Independents, who's support will be vital in the continuing debate on Health Care and Energy, as well as immigration and National Security, all issues that could make or break a President during normal times, much less a time of crisis.

Sarah Palin resigns

Yesterday afternoon Sarah Palin announced that she is resigning from her position as the governor of Alaska at the end of this month. Her announcement was a shock to many, even those closest to the governor. Although Palin claimed that her reason for leaving was because she was a lame duck, others speculate that the governor was worn down by the numerous ethics investigations that had been launched against her since her run for the vice-presidency in 2008. Still others see Palin's decision to step down as a bold move to prepare for a presidential run in 2012.

More info to come..

What the energy bill passed by the House means for Congressional Democrats

The historic and controversial clean energy and global warming bill that very narrowly passed the House Friday afternoon is fraught with political perils and may have lasting effects for Democrats. Left-leaning environmental groups are saying the bill isn't strong enough, and Republicans, (who knew the political weight that was just dropped by Democrats and began cheering when the final vote was tallied) have been saying it will force many companies in an already struggling economy to lay off more workers and will force average Americans to pay more for electricity and heating oil.

The Fourth of July reccess, which also kicked off this weekend will see mounting political fronts flare up as Democrats from industrial swing districts will be forced to defend their votes to angry constituents worried about their jobs or the cost of energy while Republicans, who have yet to offer their own energy bill alternative, finally see an issue they can replay over and over again before the '10 midterms. The GOP also are hoping for a repeat of 1994, when after two years into his first term, Bill Clinton lost a huge number of congressional seats in a Republican takeover that succeeded on many of the same political arguments they're making now. For the record, Clinton had even more Democrats in the House of Representatives then Obama has now.

Most Democrats hailed Friday's vote as historic and groundbreaking, and the legislation is being lauded by more moderate conservation groups and proponents of alternative energy, who already received a boost of funding with the Federal Stimulus that was passed in February. Already though, analysts are saying that oil, petroleum, and coal companies, who have spent millions of dollars on ads and lobbying congress to try and blunt some of the effects of the bill say that their companies will have to spend billions more to become compliant on the new legislation and will be forced to pass those costs on to the consumer or lay off workers to avoid going under.

Doubts remain how the bill will do when the Senate takes it up in the fall, but right now it appears that many Democrats are out on a limb politically, and unless any of the new legislation starts showing glimmers of hope for an economy ravaged by wall street excess and mounting job losses, the Republicans, much to their delight, will have their '94 sequel.

Obama extends an olive branch to gay rights activists

Since Obama's election, one bloc of democratic supporters in particular have felt that he has given them cold shoulder. Gay groups have mounted increasing public pressure as Obama has yet to make good on his campaign promises to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Ace (DOMA). But just last week, Obama expanded some benefits to gay federal employees and this week he has invited gay rights advocates to the White House for a celebration next Monday commemorating the 40th anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall Rebellion, a demonstration that spurred the modern gay rights movement.

Obama seems to be sending a message to the gay rights community that their complaints over his inaction are not going unheard. I do wonder though what their reaction will be to this party invitation. I imagine that the impending references to "let them eat cake" are imminent.

New poll shows maority support public health care option

As health care continues to dominate the legislative session on the hill, a fascinating poll released by CBS and the New York Times shows almost overwhelming support for the most controversial issues surrounding the health care debate: a government-run health insurance option to compete with private companies.

By almost 2 - 1, the American public wants the government to step in, and as many as 57% of those surveyed said they would even pay higher taxes to fund it. This curious statistic hasn't stopped a major opposition campaign by health providers and Republicans to keep any public option out of congressional proposals.

Of the 3 bills currently being debated in congress right now and making their way through committee, two of them have the so called "public option." The House bill released on Friday, which received wide support from the White House, contains it. The bill currently being debated in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, chaired by Ted Kennedy, but with his no. 2 Chris Dodd pinch hitting, also contains it. However, the bill making its way through the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Max Baucus, contains more compromises with Republicans and Conservative Democrats and doesn't contain it. Marrying the two bills in the Senate is crucial, and although the two chairmen have said that combining their two bills into a single vehicle will be seamless, it's becoming more apparent as time goes on that these two Senate committess are working on separate and conflicting tracks.

A further headache that all 3 bills are running into is how it's all going to be paid for. The public supports government-run care, but is also wary of growing budget deficits, and no plan pushed by either the white house or congress has a comprehensive revenue plan in place to fund what continues to be an astronomical figure that continues to climb as more and more work is done and more details are brought to light.

Backlash Against Obamacare

Obama's healthcare agenda hit some snags this week as moderate democrats in congress continue to express concerns over the cost of the program, and discrepancies were discovered by the Congressional Budget Office over the number of Americans who would actually end up getting insurance coverage under Obama's plan. And to further fan the flames, business groups who had also seemed open to healthcare reform initially are now openly criticizing the plan. To make matters worse, or at least more interesting, Forbes Magazine ran an article today quoting Obama's own former doctor expressing concern over his healthcare plan.

Despite all the fighting going on in Washington right now, House Democrats managed to unveil their healthcare plan this afternoon. As reaction to the plan rolls in, I would expect that the argument over healthcare reform is only beginning to heat up.

House passes war funding bill

It took almost all of the full political might of the White House, the Speaker, and the House Majority Leader to get it through, but the roughly $106 Billion appropriations bill that continues funding for the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan narrowly passed the house after being rejected outright last onth.

In a surprising turn of events, and also one that shows the difference of the political climate in Washington, was that it was the Republicans and liberal Democrats who voted together almost unanimously to reject the bill. The Republicans were voting against a $5 Billion supplement included in the bill that injects credit for impoverished nations into the International Monetary Fund. Although there were still 30 Democratic defections, it was down from 51 last month when the bill failed to pass, mostly because a provision was left out this time that easily passed the Senate, one that doesn't allow photographs of abused detainees to be released to the public; a contentious issue in the more left-leaning house.

In years past, bills like this were often the bane of Democrats, as Republicans would slip controversial projects into these bills at the behest of the White House and dare Democrats to vote against them, knowing they would be politically tarred for voting "against the troops." Five Years ago George Bush slammed his presidential opponent John Kerry for casting a no vote on a war supplemental, and although Kerry had been a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, Bush's accusations of Kerry being a hollow liberal with no love for his fellow soldiers all but sealed his doom.

More than any other vote that has hit the floor of this congress, this war bill proves that economic issues and populist sentiment over government spending and bailouts trumps the once dominant themes of homeland security and funding for American soldiers, something unthinkable even two years ago. Republicans, in a radical, albeit politically sensible shift, are banking that the backlash over the $5 Billion IMF funding will create a wedge for them in the 2010 midterm elections next year and are also hoping that no voter would actually think rank and file Republicans are weak on defense.

One thing the Democrats have up their sleeves in this bill, however, that may come back to haunt the GOP, is the Swine Flu vaccine funding that was also included in the bill to be used for next years flu season, which shows that a "no" vote on a war bill still carries political consequences, no matter what party is in charge of congress.

Obama on healthcare

President Obama delivered a major speech today to the American Medical Association (AMA)in which he deplored the current state of America's healthcare system and made a pitch for his healthcare reform plan.

While congress has been working on their version of the plan in recent weeks, Obama repeated many of the reform issues that were on his wish list during the campaign: a push for computerized healthcare records, a focus on health outcomes rather than government imbursements for individual medical procedures, a push for more emphasis on preventative medicine, a mandate to do away with insurance companies discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, and a federal plan that would help cover the nations uninsured or anyone who wants to switch healthcare plans. And unlike Obama's campaign platform, he mentioned providing waivers on health insurance for extremely poor people and some small business.

One issue that Obama went the distance to stress was that the government health insurance option was NOT a move toward an eventual single-payer healthcare system. He emphasized this point in his speech about six times and went as far as to call anyone who made this claim a liar.

Obama has a lot riding on his shoulders with healthcare reform. As he mentioned in his speech, efforts to re-make America's healthcare system have always failed in the past. As criticism over Obama's massive public spending initiatives have mounted in the last few weeks, he has the enormous take of not only reforming the healthcare system, but he also has to prove to the public that this investment is worth the money during these harsh economic times.

Fallout from the Iranian Presidential elections

Although the American television media was largely silent over the weekend, there has been a strong international reaction, as well as in the print media which were running non-stop stories this weekend about the unrest in Iran following the election.

One thing that may have been swallowed up by the elections' massive coverage was that the new/former Prime Minister of Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu, himself gave a foreign policy address yesterday aimed at Palestinians and is in many ways a rebuttal to the Cairo speech that Obama delivered a couple weeks ago. In the speech he called Iran the "greatest threat" in the middle east, but made no mention of the continuing violence there, or whether he sided with the opposition party in Iran, lead by former Prime Minister Hossein Nouravi.

Initial American response has been cautious, with the State Department and the White House offering only measured condemnation of the elections, with Vice President Biden saying on Meet the Press yesterday there were an awful lot of "questions" about how the election was won and said there was some "real doubt."

Republicans are going to pressure Obama to engage Iran more harshly now, pointing to dubious election results as a reason that they cannot be trusted and maybe seeing this, especially if the violence and unrest continues, as a possible embarrassment to the Iranian government that should be exploited.

Obama definitely has an opening now, but may be limited by his own pledges of persuing diplomacy, from making any forceful statements of condemnation or trying to fuel the fire of the opposition in hopes of destabilizing a hostile government.

Macker gets crushed in VA Governor's primary

Those who are familiar with the Democratic Presidential Primary campaign of 2008 (which wrapped up one year ago this week with Hillary Clinton's concession speech) will remember one of the most odd personalities of now Secretary Clinton's old campaign team was former DNC chairman and Clinton family friend Terry Mcauliffe. He was the one in the Hawaiian shirts on CNN talking about his "optimism" for Clinton's campaign when it was way past it's last throes, and frequently introduced her as "the next President of the United States," even after it was clear she could no longer win the delegates neccesary to carry the nomination at the party's convention in Denver.

Last year Mcauliffe announced that he would run for governor of Virginia, despite that besides being chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2001-2005 and a national co-chair for Hillary Clinton's failed presidential run, he hadn't had any other political experience-- a fact that the other candidates in the race, Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran, -- would capitalize on.

State Senator Creigh Deeds ended up winning the primary handily by almost 2-1, taking over 50% of the vote in the 3 way race (less than 5% of the states eligible voters turned out for the election). McAuliffe had been the early favorite, with most of the states party establishment behind him, as well as having raised the most money. Deeds saw a late surge in his numbers, however, with both a Washington Post endorsement, and a slew of ads against McAuliffe that tarred him as an out of touch carpetbagger who had not paid his dues and would be unelectable against the Republican opponent, State Attorney General Bob McDonnell.

Deeds and McDonnell have squared off before, actually, in a race for state Attorney General 4 years ago that saw Deeds lose by only 323 votes. Deeds is a moderate rural Democrat (he has a donkey named Harry S Truman), and his pro-gun, pro-business stances may make it harder for Republicans to tar him as out of step with Virginia's generally more conservative voters. Especially since the state GOP had expected to run against McAuliffe

The Virginia governor's race will be heavily scrutinized this year, a red-turning-purplish state, it has sent two Democrats to the US Senate in as many years and has also elected two Democratic governors in their last cycles, as well as supporting President Obama in the 2008 election. Both parties will see it as a bellweather as to what their chances may be in the 2010 midterm elections and whether there will be a strong backlash against the Obama Administrations new spending policies and domestic agenda.

Economy criticism creeping up on Obama?

The Obama administration is facing some criticism lately over the number of jobs the Labor and Treasury Departments claim to have created or saved by way of the federal stimulus plan. The Labor Department is trying to account for a job creation ripple effect that boils down to the idea that one new job created can also create or save several other jobs... but in an only semi-measurable way.

In the WSJ article cited above, the author calls out the media in particular for not scrutinizing these claims further. While Obama's administration certainly isn't the first to trot out the fuzzy math in a tough situation, it does seem like the press is accepting these statistics without a lot of questions. However, if Obama's public approval rating on his handling of the economy continues to decline I would expect to see more news coverage criticizing these job statistics.

In a similar vein of criticism, the GOP seems to be formulating a strategy to leverage the national deficit against Obama and democrats during the 2010 and 2012 elections. In an article today published in Politico, some GOP leaders are pointing to the idea that the deficit could be Obama's achilles heel. If the stimulus package fails to deliver, they might have a pretty clear line of attack here.

Health Care debate rages on

Democrats have been dreaming of universal health care since Truman, and they're now entering a critical phase of what is largely believed to be a one-shot opportunity to make it happen.
Unfortunately for Democrats, their chief champion of reform, as well as universal coverage, Ted Kennedy, has yet to reach full strength and is still absent from key Washington debates. Also, Robert Byrd, the aging senior senator from West Virginia, is also incapacitated with a staph infection. Then there's also of course, the Minnesota recount court trial going on right now, which is keeping Al Franken off the floor. 57 may seem like a pretty robust number for a Senate majority, but with a public health care option being seriously discussed, Republicans (who are not really at the table for this discussion anyway) are fleeing en masse and the shaky relationship that has been built with private health care companies recently is in jeopardy of falling apart.
President Obama sent a letter to key Democratic senators outlining exactly what he wanted without boxing them or himself in. He reiterated his goals not to have this issue slow-walked in the Senate, let it be known that the public option is on the table, and that there has to be a way to pay for this without deepening the deficit.
Obama and top Democrats have said that "the stars are aligned" to get health care reform passed this year, and are doing anything within their power not to fall into the same pitfalls that derailed Bill Clinton's attempts at health care reform in 1993. Including letting loose a legislative army from the White House and making sure that the popular new president is out and visible, taking the lead, so that Republicans can't hang the health care albatross -- should it fail -- around the necks of rank and file dems in the House and Senate next year when the midterm elections come.

Obama's Middle East Tour

President Obama began his 5 day tour of the Middle East today. Right now the president is in Saudi Arabia and tomorrow he is set to give a major speech from Cairo, Egypt to address the Muslim World. The tour is intended as a way for Obama to push for progress on the longstanding Arab-Israeli conflict and also as an opportunity for the president to try to repair the United States' image in the Middle East.

Although the president has barely arrived in Saudi Arabia, the op-ed mill has been abuzz with what Obama should say and do (including these 7 opinions published today in the NYTimes). Also just in time for Obama's steps off the plane, a new audio message attributed to Osama bin Laden was broadcast on Al-Jazeera. The message focused mainly on Obama's increased effort to go after the Taliban forces in Pakistan, but also criticized the president for following in the footsteps of George Bush and increasing international animosity towards muslims.

In the wake of a new president and what many people across the globe perceive as a new era in american politics, I wonder how bin Laden's view of Obama will be perceived? George Bush was notoriously unpopular throughout the world, which was a boon to terrorist recruiters like the Taliban, but will bin Laden's criticism of Obama just come across as terribly off-base?

GM Bankruptcy fallout

The fallout from the announced bankruptcy of GM and a plan by the federal government to take up to a 60% ownership stake, as well as funnel as much as 50 billion additional dollars into the struggling automaker has received very dismal reviews from an American Public tired of government intervention. However, just like the wall street and bank bailouts, as well as the original auto company infusions last year, the newest act has been defended by the administration as neccessary to stave off a complete breakdown in the American economy.
In addition to the thousands of jobs at General Motors itself there are also many other tens of thousands of jobs all over the country that depend on the faltering auto giant such as suppliers, vendors, and dealers who are mercilessly tied to whatever decisions are made in regards to the company.
David Brooks, a long skeptic of government intervention in the private sector, and who has written extensively on the subject of Detroit's money woes, penned a scathing op-ed in today's New York times that wacks the company from the top down. Most of the points made show a company that has an embedded and doomed corporate culture blind to ever changing consumer demands and a fraternal pecking order that squelches quality talent. He also criticizes the politically powerful UAW, the bloated workers union that now also owns a stake in the company and who's past and present practices are not representative of the fundamental change needed to get the company back on it's feet.
One point that's also been brought up in opposition is that it may be difficult for the company to succeed if it is serving two masters. One being it's new majority shareholder, the US government, which has just laid down new tough rules on emissions, rules that could hamstring the company as it struggles to rebrand itself. The other being the market itself, which needs to be convinced their cars are of better quality than the smaller, more affordable Japanese and German cars that have dominated the market over the past few years, all at the same time meeting the environmental standards of it's new boss.
The GM issue could also become political poison for Democrats as Republicans will be poised next year to point to the GM example as just more and more out of control spending that yields no new jobs, lethargic economic growth, and more and more debt for future generations to pay for.
Other comparisons have also been made to GM as a model of where the US itself may be heading. As more and more debt piles on, and more and more companies are labeled as "too big to fail," where will the US government itself go when the burden of propping up these companies becomes too much?

Democrats vs. Identity politics

Historically, Democrats have condemned Republicans for using wedge issues like gun control, abortion, and gay marriage to try and rig elections in their favor, but Republicans have their own issue in which to cry 'no fair:' Identity Politics.
During the '60's and '70's, many liberal groups pandered to minority organizations, hoping to empower them to articulate their oppression in terms of their own experience -- a definition of identity politics -- and form a more cohesive bloc against the largely white male majority that forms the more conservative Republican Party. However, after the 'affirmative action' arguments of the 80's and 90's burned out a lot of the political capital to be gained from implementing identity politics, the GOP has oftentimes succesfully pigeonholed Democrats as promoting policies that focus more on group marginalization, and less on full integration and acceptance.
President Obama largely won the 2008 election by carefully rejecting many aspects of identity politics and by doing so was able to garner a diverse coalition that helped give him the majority of the votes and the election.
Lately, however, Republicans are accusing him of not quite practicing what he has preached by nominating Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
Some are saying that he has used her for nomination for shear political purposes, naming a Hispanic judge to the highest court in the land to shore up his own Hispanic Base (which gave him 67% of their vote), and basically dare conservatives to take the bait and attack Sotomayor more as a Latina woman, and less as a qualified or not qualified judge.
In part, the white house pushing Sotomayor's personal narrative as a poor-minority-from-the-projects-that-pulled-herself-up-by-her-own-bootstraps story has semi perpetuated this, and more and more people are becoming drawn to her biography more than they are her judicial achievements.
The only downside for Democrats to Sotomayor's nomination (who remains popular with a majority of Americans despite the revelation of inflammatory remarks she made in 2001,) has been that identity politics has once again forced Democrats to tread lightly, lest they fall into the same arguments over minority entitlement that have plagued them since the civil rights movements of the 60's. Despite the historic nomination, also, overplaying their hand could be used by Republicans to show that Democrats are once again pandering for votes from minority communities, instead of focusing on real issues and policy arguments.
Obama has promised that immigration reform is also on the table for this year, and how both sides deal with the Sotomayor nomination, will sadly draw the lines for how that debate proceeds.

Bush defends interrogation policies

While giving a speech yesterday to the Economic Club of Southwest Michigan, former President Bush defended his decision to allow harsh interrogations of suspected terror suspects after the 9/11 attacks.
In his wide ranging remarks, which included a Q&A session, the statement most likely to pop out is: “I made a decision within the law to get information so I can say, I’ve done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people. I can tell you, the information gained saved lives.”
Although these remarks are along the same lines as statements that his former Vice President, Dick Cheney, has made in recent weeks -- including a televised rebuttal last week to President Obama's own National Security speech -- Bush refused to criticize the current administration saying he had his opinions but “there are plenty of people who will wade in, trust me, [I've seen it] first hand.”
Although last week's national security debate -- with all it's tough talk on prisoner transfers, the gray area's forming around the torture discussion, and whether or not the country is safe under the new administration -- have largely moved to the background in the face of a looming Supreme Court confirmation. One thing is for sure: the debate may be tabled for now, but it is not over.
More speculation will arise, especially in the wake of the current tensions in North Korea, when President Bush's memoirs are published and more data becomes available, and whether the current administrations policies fail or succeed.

The Quote That Won't Go Away

One day after President Obama announced Sonia Sotomayor as his pick for the Supreme Court, critics have latched on to one particular quote from a speech she gave in 2002:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

This single sentence has prompted accusations that Sotomayor is a racist and a bigot, and has surely opened the door for a nationwide discussion on identity politics.

As I chowed through my regular news diet today, I've seen this quote cited in every single article I've read about Sotomayor. Since her confirmation won't happen until August, I think the fury over this quote should die down eventually, but at some point Sotomayor is going to have to explain what she meant when she said this. However, even when she does finally get the chance to elaborate on her statement, I don't think she will be able mollify the "imagine if this was a white man making these statements" crowd.

Sotomayor ruled against Abortion groups

So says CBN

The big questions now are: will groups like NARAL and NOW push the issue and possibly derail a liberal appointment from the left? Will this muzzle some Conservative groups and deny them some red-meat arguments? Will it even be an issue as the white house presses for quick confirmation?

Anyway, read the link, it's a fascinating analysis from the mainstream religious right and will definitely be brought up by Democrats during her hearings.

White House couldn't have asked for better timing

The announcement today of Sonia Sotomayor for Associate Justice of The Supreme Court could, in reality, have not come at a better time for the Obama administration.
After North Korea received international criticism for it's nuclear detonation and subsequent missile test this weekend it looked like the news cycle was going to be consumed with questions on Obama's National Security cred as well as ample 'what-if' scenarios.
Instead news agencies are pumping their juices at maximum to get the latest details, tidbits and reactions from both sides of the aisle in an attempt to try and frame how the confirmation debate is going to play out for the public and on the Senate floor.
the White House also gets a bit of a bonus in the fact that congress is currently not in session and many of the key conservative reactions have come from right-leaning interest groups and think tanks instead of from an organized press conference on the steps of the capitol. For now though it appears that the Sotomayor dog has yet to bark, at least amongst the highest echelons of Republican politics. Many GOP Senators and Representatives are tentatively carrying out a "wait and see" approach, not wanting to seem overtly hostile to the nation's first hispanic nominee, but at the same time not seeming to want to abandon their base, which is ready to draw the knives and prepare for a drawn out idealogical battle.
Another interesting story that seems to have been buried today is that Obama, who will be heading out to Europe to commemorate World War 2 anniversaries and give a major speech in Cairo, Egypt will also be visiting Saudi Arabia. A move the White House has successfully downplayed due to the flap over Obama allegedly 'bowing' to it's leader King Abdullah during their last meeting.

Obama nominates Sotomayor

President Obama announced Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his pick for Supreme Court justice to replace retiring Justice David Souter. If confirmed, Sotomayor will be the first hispanic supreme court justice and the third woman to serve on the bench. At this time the GOP is not anticipating to attempt a filibuster Sotomayor's confirmation because they don't have enough votes to push it through and the conservative/liberal balance of the court will remain unchanged. GOP Chair Michael Steele issued a statement today saying that the GOP intended to keep an open mind until her career as a judge has been further vetted, and for now the conservative reaction to Sotomayor's nomination has been mostly just lukewarm.

Over the next few weeks as the public gets to know more about Sotomayor, I think we should expect to see some public criticism surrounding controversial statements she made with regard to how her ethnicity and gender influence her point of view as a judge. However, I don't think anyone is expecting her confirmation to go haywire like Harriet Meyers' did a few years ago.

Democrats concede on Gunatanamo, stand behnd Pelosi

Senate Democrats delivered a setback to the White House on Guantanamo Bay, which has been a signature issue for the administration, and was one of Obama's first achievements after taking office. After dems received harsh criticism for the past 3 months by Republicans who claim that once the detention facility is closed, hundreds of dangerous terrorists will be released into every American's backyard.
Yesterday the Senate Appropriations Committee, as well as senior Senate leadership, voted to strip some $80 million in funding for the closing of the controversial detention from a $93 Billion war supplemental that glided through both houses.
Congerssional Democrats defended themselves by saying that the President left them no choice, by closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility without specifying a plan as to where these detainees would go, he left them vulnerable on National Security, and passing the funding would've dropped a golden egg in the lap of Republicans, desperate to find additional issues to cling too for the 2010 midterm elections next year.
Also, despite mounting pressure from the right on Nancy Pelosi to come clean from her giant mismanagement of statements on the CIA over the past couple of weeks, her top allies in her own caucus, as well as other powerful allies in the White House have not backed down from their support.
Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner has used the flap to his own advantage and continues to beat the drum on a daily basis, calling on Pelosi to "put up or shut up" on the controversial statements she made. Shoring up support amongst his own members as well as trying to kneecap the powerful speaker when she is at her most vulnerable.

Obama Toughens Up Regulations on Fuel Efficiency

Today President Obama announced new nationwide rules for auto emissions and fuel-efficiency standards. These rules fall in line with California's long-disputed attempt to toughen auto standards on a statewide level. The new rules will take effect in 2012 and will require cars and light truck fleets to be 40 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016.

While it was no surprise that environmentalist groups welcomed the change, the US auto industry is finally embracing the California-style standards for the first time since the state introduced the plan in 2002. With GM and Chrysler on their knees right now, they aren't in much of a position to pick a fight with the federal government. And since US car companies are getting out-sold by foreign competitors, the new standards might be the swift kick they need to change to manufacturing the smaller, more efficient cars that consumers have turned to in recent years.

Obama reaches out to moderate Republicans

A smart story in Politico shows that Obama has been quitely working on a small scale to try and woo moderate GOP house members to his side on health care reform. His efforts to reach out to Republicans in the past have largely failed on almost every major initiative where it was tried, so instead of large public displays of interest in bipartisanship with the President visiting the capitol, that are then seen as wholesale failures when Republican votes are scarce. Obama has tacked a new course: find a few moderate voices within the Republican party that may be open to your point of view and invite them over to the White House to try and frame a debate they can contribute too.
Although the administration admits getting any Republican support for his health care reform plan is going to be a stretch, especially when the GOP rank and file face daunting political pressures as further conservative factions within the party threaten to make looming primary fights inevitable. Contributing even slightly to the grand health care debate could serve to simply pad the resume for any house member, Republican or Democrat, that wants to give it's respective district some substance.
The Administration also made news this weekend when it brought another moderate Republican into it's tent and made Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Ambassador to China, a clever and calculated move that left tongues wagging in the Washington punditocracy and created endless speculation about Huntsman's own possible presidential ambitions in '12 or '16.
Although I am of the opinion that no candidate who accepted such a generous political appointment in the opposition parties administration, would be able to survive a crowded primary of his own party. Especially as he tried to denounce the policies of the administration he served in to please "the base" voters that generally turn up in primary elections. (It would be like John Kerry or Hillary Clinton accepting the same position in the Bush administration and then running a campaign based solely on opposition to that same administration's policies)
Whether it is intentional or not, Obama continues to create the illusion of a "collapse" at the Republican center, overseeing what appears to be the growing of his own party at the sake of absorbing the moderate wing of his opposition, a win-win scenario that burnishes his own bipartisan credentials, while at the same time sending the GOP more into "the wilderness," causing them to rely on more and more conservative voices that are out of step with the American mainstream.

Obama at Notre Dame

The president gave the commencement address at Notre Dame earlier this afternoon after weeks of controversy and protest from pro-life groups. In classic Obama fashion, he didn't shy away from the opportunity to address the controversy head on, and called for people on both sides of the aisle to come together on solutions they can agree on, such as finding ways to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, supporting parents interested in adoption and social programs that help mothers in need support their children. Obama also called for impassioned people on both side of the aisle to address each other using "fair-minded" language.

Admirers of President Obama's campaign speeches may have found a little more hope and a little more lofty language in Obama's commencement speech today and also at the address he gave at Arizona State University last week. After 100 plus days of straight talk from the president, I think many people were touched by the inspiring message he gave to this year's college grads.

Wall to wall Pelosi

The embattled House Speaker has clogged up the news again for the third straight day this week as allegations continue to mount that she was either mislead or mislead herself over the issue of CIA intelligence briefings on Enhanced Interogation Techniques in 2002.
Whether she's telling the truth or not, it has given Republicans an opening to try and get their voice out to the American public that Democrats are back to their usual hypocritical, "soft on terror" ways, and that, coupled with the recent "outrage" over the Guantanomo Bay Detention Camp closing, they may finally have the chance to tout their favorite talking points about national security.
Pelosi was given a little bit of breathing room yesterday when a story broke that former Senator Bob Graham also claims to have been mislead by the CIA as well, claiming the briefings that they referenced, never even took place.
Regardless of what the final outcome may be, Pelosi has definitely raised the stakes on the torture debate, firing up a liberal base that still wants to prosecute top Bush-era officials, and reawakening a conservative base that wants to preserve the Bush legacy and remains convinced that his methods made America safe.
She's received only lukewarm defense from her fellow Democrats, who really want the issue to go away so they can focus on their more popular domestic legislative agenda, and already are facing a steep hill to climb.

Dick Cheney goes public

After 8 years of being known for his extreme secrecy, former vice president Dick Cheney has been making the rounds in the media over the past few weeks criticizing President Obama, defending the War On Terror, calling Colon Powell a traitor, and getting in a public snit with the CIA for not de-classifying records he intends to use for his upcoming memoir.

While I don't think anyone is surprised by the antagonistic and sometimes controversial tone of Dick Cheney's attacks, I think there are people on both sides of the aisle scratching their heads over why he's decided to make himself so public. On Sunday's Face the Nation, Cheney himself mentioned that he felt compelled to speak out on behalf of the GOP because of a perceived void in leadership. But even if there is an apparent lack of leadership, is Cheney really doing the GOP any favors by dragging his mug out on the Sunday news shows?

The White House and the democratic party couldn't be more happy to link the GOP back to the Bush White House, as Robert Gibbs did in response to Cheney's comments this morning. The GOP knows that Cheney is one of the most negatively viewed heavyweights in the party, definitely not someone they want the public to continue associating as a face of the GOP, I wonder how long GOP leaders will allow Cheney to continue to be so outspoken.