Hey y'all, greetings from the mountainous western region of North Carolina, the "Old North State"!
I'm on the ground in Asheville, NC today. My old roommate is getting married tomorrow, and I figured it might be worthwhile to fly down a day early and spend some time at the local Obama office. This is a hilly and very lovely part of the country, at the peak of its fall foliage. Perhaps not as brilliant of foliage as New England at its peak in a brilliant year, but in some years some years the humidity or the occasional Nor'easter reduces New England's leaf peeping index, and I think Carolina wins this year.
But I digress.
I called the Asheville office after booking my flight, and they told me to show up anytime so I did. The office was buzzing all day, with dozens of phonebankers, several canvassers (not trick-or-treating!) a couple kids and a little dog. They put me to work right away calling Obama supporters to check if they had already voted; early voting in North Carolina runs though 5 PM Nov 1. (Saturday). Almost all of the contacts were super friendly (of course, being both North Carolinians and pro-Obama) and it was a lot of fun. Some had already signed up to volunteer so we were just checking they knew about their neighborhood field office so they didn't all pile into downtown Asheville at the same time, and several hadn't volunteered but were interested in getting started. I get the sense that this is a huge GOTV operation here. The only thing that went wrong was an Epson printer that started malfunctioning when a new ink cartridge was installed. I tried to download the drivers and get it to work, but alas could not.(Epson sucks!)
And now, I present for your enjoyment, a homage in the style of 538's Sean Quinn's On the Road, which is itself an homage to Kerouac's On the Road. Here is joesaho on the Road in North Carolina:
Sean has been to battlegrounds all across the country from the Southwest to Pennsylvania, and has come to one sweeping conclusion: McCain's GOTV is nonexistent compared to Obama's. From my small sample of one Obama office, I can say the enthusiasm and activity level is as high as expected here.
As far as other happenings in NC, sitting Senator Elizabeth (Liddy) Dole is down a few points in the polls to Senate challenger Kay Hagan. Dole used to be in charge of the NRSC and was viewed as doing a pretty pathetic job, at least until her successor threw a hissy fit about the problems Republicans have been having in their ranks. Now sinking in the polls, Dole has gone on the attack by accusing Hagan of being a godless heathen. This is a patently dishonest attack, possibly the worst of the 2008 cycle. The response, from as far away as Kansas City, has been pointed. Campbell Brown took Dole to task as well:
"The information in this ad is so ridiculously misleading, and yet Senator Dole is standing by it and continuing to raise questions about Hagan's so-called godlessness on the campaign trail," Brown said. "Is this really what it has come down to? We are fighting two wars, our economy is a disaster, and Senator Dole's message to voters is to falsely accuse her opponent of not believing in God?"
Later, addressing all politicians who are using such distortions in a desperate effort to "save your jobs," Brown pleaded: "Just say no to your own craven ambition. Just cut it out. Reclaim your dignity! And with only a few days to go, please please just tell us what you think you can do to get this country back on track."
And on the state level, I just saw a hilarious, if nonpartisan, TV ad (watching MSNBC in the hotel) for agriculture commissioner. I don't remember the guy's name but his tagline was "Where would we be without agriculture? Naked and hungry - not a pretty sight!" And the Buncombe county Democrats had a neat ad where all the county-level candidates are shown individually, walking with a very purposeful gait. At the end of the ad, they all meet up and shake hands. When I see it I hear the music to A-Team in my head for some reason...
The Washington Monthly Saturday reports that Joe Lieberman is starting to try to rewrite history as he begins to backtrack on his criticism of his party's nominee, Barack Obama. Steve Benen in his Political Animal column says:
LIEBERMAN HASN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO HIMSELF.... Joe Lieberman adopted the role of Republican attack dog early on, but as the election draws near, he's hoping the political world has a very short memory.
Lieberman, a self-proclaimed "independent Democrat" who was chosen by McCain to make the case against Obama at the Republican National Convention in early September, said his comments have been within bounds.
"When I go out, I say, 'I have a lot of respect for Sen. Obama. He's bright. He's eloquent.'"
My hunch is, Lieberman sees the direction of the political winds, and hopes to convince Democrats that while he's been a McCain sycophant, he's always been "respectful" towards Obama.
Lieberman, in other words, has to hope Democrats haven't been paying any attention at all. The party is supposed to forget, for example, when Lieberman argued that Obama doesn't put "country first."
And the time Lieberman said it was a "good question" to ask whether Obama is a "Marxist."
And the time Lieberman ironically accused the Obama campaign of "sleazy tactics."
And the time Lieberman, at the Republican National Convention, falsely accused Obama of trying to undermine the troops
"Respectful"? Nice try, Joe.
The article is here. The comments alone are worth the visit!
UPDATE ctblogger: Last night, Keith Olbermann calls out Lieberman for his new fond "respect" for Obama.
It seems that way back in 1980, Ronald Reagan laid out the crucial questions of this year's presidential race and in the end, he appears to have endorsed Barack Obama for president:
Exactly two weeks before Election Day, the New Haven Obama-DeLauro campaign office will be receiving some very special guests - Senator Chris Dodd, State Senator Joe Crisco, and Democratic State Chair Nancy DiNardo.
3:00pm
900 Chapel Street
Go and ask a question, volunteer, or just lend your support!
I missed most of the Himes-Shays debate apart from a few minutes here and there (I had the radio on in the car while driving between errands) but caught a funny exchange at the end with Shays's campaign director Michael Sohn.
Sohn's take was that Himes only had "generic ideas and cookie cutter comments", as if acknowledging the economic dire straits facing Connecticut voters is somehow "cookie cutter". And yet when asked to highlight Shays's performance, Sohn gave...
...a cookie cutter response about experience, bipartisanship (awesome) and understanding the "realities" of how Congress works.
It strikes me as more than a bit odd that the last Republican Congressman in New England (he made a joke about being an "endangered species") who makes no effort to conceal his desire to hitch his wagon to Barack Obama in what is unequivocally viewed as a change election, would make a point to remind voters that Congress is an unresponsive, unproductive institution. If anything, Obama voters who really do believe in change will come to the conclusion that changing the Presidency is not likely to be enough. We've heard the "experience to get things done" argument before, and the bipartisanship argument before, in Lieberman's 2006 campaign. I don't think it's gonna work for Shays this time around, no matter how tightly he pretends to cling to Obama.
In 2004, I traveled to Pennsylvania and New Hampshire to volunteer on the ground for John Kerry. I picked those states because they were perceived as swing states and they were within a few hours driving distance from Connecticut. Kerry won both of those states, which is gratifying, but obviously Ohio is where the election was decided. I wish I went to Ohio.
In retrospect, my trips to New Hampshire were not a productive use of my time. Whether Kerry won or lost New Hampshire and since Florida was really out of reach, winning Ohio was the whole ballgame.
The contest of Obama vs. McCain has redrawn the map this year. States not in play in 2000 and 2004 are very close this year. When deciding whether and where to volunteer out of state, it is important to consider the Electoral College scenarios.
On the 45th Anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, an African-American will accept the Democratic Party's nomination for President of the United States.
1963:
"We have come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. ... Now is the time to make real the promises of Democracy." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
2008: An American Prayer: "This is the time, so finish what you've started."
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro is guest blogging from the Democratic Convention for My Left Nutmeg (as well as CT Local Politics). Please make sure to express your gratitude on Congresswoman DeLauro taking time to share her experiences from the convention with the MLN community --ctblogger
I want to thank you for letting me share my Democratic Convention experience with you and appreciate all of your feedback and comments.
Everywhere I turn at this convention continues to reinforce how Barack Obama and Joe Biden have the leadership to bring the change this country needs.
I just spoke with reporters about the wage gap between men and women. I was sitting at this table with Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan , and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and Lily Ledbetter - a woman you are all likely familiar with as the face and voice of pay discrimination. As she sat with us, she reminds us of why we fight so hard for equal pay and why this election matters. But as you would expect, with a topic of women and the economy, we veered into a broad range of topics....the state children's health insurance program, social security, reproductive health, and taxes.
As you would expect, on each of these issues, John McCain would continue the failed policies of the Bush Administration. He is so out of touch with middle class Americans. Even in the face of Lily Ledbetter, McCain continues to say he doesn't believe in the wage gap. But what do we expect from a man who cannot keep track of how many houses he owns.
Quite contrary to Barack Obama. When I was fighting to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, Barack was right there - applauding the bill's passage in the U.S. House of Representatives with me. It really is not that surprising - just look at the inspiration Barrack Obama has in his daughters and his wife, Michelle, (who was phenomenal at the Convention last night).
In this weekend's Sunday Times Magazine, David Leonhardt will present an interesting and insightful analysis of Barack Obama's economic ideology. Many people may not agree with all the ideas in his plan, but I think it is clear that Obama has put forth a serious plan to move this country forward and he has put a great deal of thought into this highly complex issue. This is in stark contrast to John McCain who doesn't appear to see any problems with the disastrous economic stewardship of the current administration - his plan mainly consists of more Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
The challenge for Obama will be to package his ideas in a way that will appeal to an electorate that doesn't really understand economic issues and that in the past has been taken in by the GOP's simplistic solutions to complex issues.
A few highlights:
The International Monetary Fund has described the [US economic] situation as "the largest financial shock since the Great Depression." ... The fact that the economy grows - that it produces more goods and services one year than it did in the previous one - no longer ensures that most families will benefit from its growth. ... Most families are still making less, after accounting for inflation, than they were in 2000.
John McCain's economic vision, as he has laid it out during the campaign, amounts to a slightly altered version of Republican orthodoxy, with tax cuts at the core. Obama, on the other hand, has more-detailed proposals but a less obvious ideology.
"My [Obama's] core economic theory is pragmatism," he said, "figuring out what works."
Obama's agenda starts not with raising taxes to reduce the deficit, as Clinton's ended up doing, but with changing the tax code so that families making more than $250,000 a year pay more taxes and nearly everyone else pays less. That would begin to address inequality. Then there would be [Robert] Reich-like investments in alternative energy, physical infrastructure and such, meant both to create middle-class jobs and to address long-term problems like global warming.
Compared with many other Democrats, Obama simply is more comfortable with the apparent successes of laissez-faire economics. ... So his policies often involve setting up a government program to address a market failure but then trying to harness the power of the market within that program. This, at times, makes him look like a conservative Democrat.
"The market is the best mechanism ever invented for efficiently allocating resources to maximize production," Obama told me. "And I also think that there is a connection between the freedom of the marketplace and freedom more generally." But, he continued, "there are certain things the market doesn't automatically do." In other words, free-market policy isn't likely to dominate his agenda; his project would be fixing the market.
The Tax Policy Center, a research group run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, has done the most detailed analysis of the Obama and McCain tax plans, and it has published a series of fascinating tables. For the bottom 80 percent of the population - those households making $118,000 or less - McCain's various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obama's proposals would bring $900 a year in savings. So for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign.
The second criticism is that Obama's tax increases [on the wealthy] would send an already-weak economy into a tailspin. The problem with this argument is that it's been made before, fairly recently, and it proved to be spectacularly wrong. When Bill Clinton raised taxes on upper-income families in 1993, his supply-side critics insisted that he would ruin the economy. As we now know, Clinton presided over the longest economic expansion on record, the fastest income growth most workers had experienced in a generation and the disappearance of the federal-budget deficit.
For all his skills as a storyteller and a speaker, he has not settled on a compelling message about how to put the economy on the right path.
If you don't want to wait for Sunday's Times, the full article can be previewed here:
I've heard about the Hillary supporters who are pro-choice but just can't bring themselves to vote for Obama. As a matter of fact I met one this morning. She had a Ned Lamont sticker on her bumper. Tessa yelled to her, "Hey, Lamonst-er" as the woman walked into the drugstore. She turned and said, "Yea, Ned Lamont". Then Tessa said, "Do you want an Obama bumper sticker"? The woman hesitated. I've seen that hesitation before. I knew immediately she was a Hillary supporter, but was angry at Obama.
>Our friends at JStreet have commissioned a poll of Jewish voters to examine their outlook on US foreign policy and the election. It won't come as a surprise to progressives, but the findings (MS Word) completely overturn the beltway conventional wisdom that Jewish voters support only neocon policies and therefore vigorously back the Bush/McCain approach to the Middle East and oppose Obama:
Instead of holding the hawkish, hard-line positions often expressed by many established Jewish organizations and leaders, American Jews actually overwhelmingly support assertive peace efforts and an active U.S. role in helping Israelis and Arabs to resolve their conflict."American elected officials and politicians have for years fundamentally misread the American Jewish community," said Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street's executive director.
"Not only in setting American policy but in charting their political approach to the Jewish community, America's political leaders need to look beyond the loudest voices from the community to the opinions actually held by the broad majority of American Jews. Understanding this dynamic could help shift not only American policy, but dramatically affect the chances for peace and security for Israel and the Middle East."
Among the polls key findings:
• Middle East Peace Is a Core Interest for the U.S. and for Israel: By a 55 to 30 percent margin, Jews believe Middle East peace is a core American interest. When asked whether military superiority alone or a peace agreement with a strong military would provide better security for Israel, Jews favor a peace agreement by a 50 to 34 margin.
• George Bush Not "Best Friend Israel Ever Had": Sixty-one percent of Jews believe that Israel is less secure as a result of President Bush compared to 25 percent who believe Israel is more secure as a result of his presidency.
...
• Pastor Hagee and Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Viewed Very Unfavorably: Pastor Hagee is fairly well-known among Jews (65 percent name identification) and quite disliked (7 percent favorable and 57 percent unfavorable).
• Jews are very wary of military action against Iran. When presented with several statements about the Middle East by a Congressional candidate, respondents were most supportive of someone who says talking with Iran is not appeasement and America should pursue direct diplomacy. Statements invoking military action against Iran test poorly throughout the survey. For example, only 26 percent of respondents were much more likely (and 48 percent total more likely) to support a Congressional candidate arguing that America should support Israel if it preemptively strikes Iran.
• 2008 Election: Jews are more supportive of Barack Obama over John McCain (62 to 32 percent) and the Democrats over the Republicans in Congressional races (69 to 27 percent).
At about the 1:40 mark of this video, Barack Obama explains how real change happens, speaking from experience as a community organizer and a legislator. It underlines the importance of getting involved -- and the fact that this year's elections are OURs to win or lose.
It's yet another speech that the traditional media seems determined to keep off the airwaves -- so I put it here.
For some reason, C-Span seems to be ignoring many of the Presidential candidates' policy speeches, leaving folks to learn about them through the filter of our corporate media. During the primary, it seemed that the C-Span show "Road to the White House" aired far more frequently.
The cynic in me assumes C-Span's cable company board of directors are doing this because they know that the more people see and hear Obama, the more they tend to like him, and that the opposite holds true for McCain. And more importantly, hearing Obama's speeches unfiltered makes it harder for the media to spin them however they want. Whether that's their intention or not, it's still always better to hear the candidate in his or her own words.
So, here's a simple, straightforward speech by Obama on economic security. Nothing spectacular, just a the outline of a plan to help the middle class.
Now that Joe Lieberman has emerged as John McCain's lead attack dog against Barack Obama -- even going so far as to suggest that Obama's judgment could pose a danger to our safety -- there's some very interesting behind-the-scenes back-story to the Lieberman-Obama relationship that you should know about.
Specifically, a top official on Joe Lieberman's 2006 Senate reelection campaign tells me that Lieberman's staff practically begged Barack Obama to come in and endorse him at a critical moment -- requests that Obama agreed to, helping Lieberman minimize the damage from challenger Ned Lamont's recent entry into the contest.
"We needed him to strongly validate us as a candidate that liberal Democrats should not desert," the official tells me. "We went to the Obama operation with a very urgent plea for him to come out for us."
It's well known that Obama's 2006 endorsement was important. But it's not widely understood just how urgently the Lieberman people begged for Obama's help at a critical moment in Lieberman's career -- and in that light, just how much of a back-stabbing Lieberman's attacks on Obama now represent.
In response to the Lieberman camp's pleas for help, Obama subsequently endorsed him at a dinner of Connecticut Democrats later that month.
"It was a favor as huge as we could have gotten -- it was like a drowning man getting thrown a life preserver," the Lieberman official continued. "Just when Ned was trying to establish himself as a credible alternative on the war, Barack Obama came in and said, `Hey, I disagree with him on the war, but you should send him back to the Senate.'"
With friends like this, who needs enemies. It cannot be said enough - Lieberman cares for nothing but himself and his TV camera time.
Yes, it's true - my first Obama post! This is an EXCELLENT video that gets me very excited. It's time for us ALL to start working together for a President Obama.
Inquiring minds want to know if there is anything at all that Joe Lieberman could say about the Democratic presidential nominee that would get Harry Reid to tap the Connecticut Senator on the shoulder and say, "Psst -- hey bud, you enjoy your senior committee slots at my pleasure, so watch it."
"I've had conversations with Lieberman at some length. I'm not going to discuss the conversations here. But I think the discussions he had with Obama yesterday and the discussions he had with me yesterday were fruitful. We'll let the future decide what it's going to be, but I'm not about to threaten anybody."
But Reid also pointed out the Senate math that creates the odd dynamic where one of the Democratic caucus's participants is planning on speaking at the Republican convention.
"Without Lieberman's vote, the budget would not have passed," Reid said. "Without Lieberman the budget would not have been written. So I think everybody should understand that Joe Lieberman has made a decision on issues relating to the war. And he's decided to back John McCain. But Joe Lieberman is an important vote for this caucus."
BS, Harry Reid! Get rid of him now as he is no longer useful to us for anything.
"Fruitful," huh? Anyone who thinks Reid will put any kind of pressure on Lieberman behind the scenes is just kidding himself. It isn't going to happen, and Lieberman will continue to attack Obama -- and soon enough will start portraying him as too weak to defend the country -- secure in the knowledge that the only thing that will happen to him is that he'll get more press attention for it.
And that is the only thing that Lieberman is looking for is Press Attention. It always has been and always will be - about Joe.
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro is guest blogging from the Democratic Convention for My Left Nutmeg (as well as 
MLN is powered by