The UNITE HERE leadership got what they deserved -- a big fat donut.

If they had endorsed John Edwards, Edwards would have had a shot in this state, proving the union's relevancy.

Instead, they endorsed the Glibertarian Candidate, and failed to deliver. Only 2 of 9 caucus sites on the Strip went for the Culinary Candidate.

Effectively, they made themselves irrelevant because they endorsed a neoliberal glibertarian. I'm glad. When will progressives learn? Stick together!

H/T to Salo for this turn of phrase: Obama, Glibertarian.

It dawned on me today while driving to have lunch with a friend in town to visit her boyfriend that Obama is a libertarian. A Democratic libertarian, but a libertarian nonetheless.

I mentioned it to some folks at DailyKos, and they responded with these awesome links.

This article makes the case for Obama, arguing that his economic guru, Austan Goolsbee, offers a policy formulation that is orthogonal to the liberal conservative axis. Make sure to read the comments on this one. Massive hilarity.

A screed or two from eriposte. Yes.

Finally, the orthogonalution article linked to an NYT piece penned last March by Goolsbee.

I read it. More massive hilarity ensued.

And this study shows that measured this way, the mortgage market has become more perfect, not more irresponsible. People tend to make good decisions about their own economic prospects. As Professor Rosen said in an interview, “Our findings suggest that people make sensible housing decisions in that the size of house they buy today relates to their future income, not just their current income and that the innovations in mortgages over 30 years gave many people the opportunity to own a home that they would not have otherwise had, just because they didn’t have enough assets in the bank at the moment they needed the house.”

I have to be diplomatic here, because I think that Goolsbee is a good friend of a good friend of mine.

So here's what I'll say. I'm not an economist. I know nothing about economics. Still, I would have laughed my ass off had I read that article in March.

Even as dumb as I am, it was clear the shitpile was bound to implode. In 2000, our residential debt was about half our GDP. By 2006, the number had risen to 83%.

That's a recipe for shitty things, and we haven't seen the half of them yet.

I'm only 34. I wish people my age (or a few years older as in Goolsbee's and Obama's cases) would stop trying to reinvent the fucking wheel.

Update: In this article George Will heeps some lovin' onto Austan Goolsbee.

Obama supporter: We won the caucus even though Hillary won a majority of delegates!

Their argument: when the dust settles, because of a few quirks in caucus procedures which cause rural areas to be overrepresented, Obama will win 13 delegates and Hillary just 12 even though more caucusgoers supporter Hillary.

I've got no way to evaluate the veracity of this claim, however the state party chairwoman did say this:

“I don’t know why they’re saying that,” said Jill Derby, president of the Nevada State Democratic Party, referring to the Obama campaign. “We don’t select our national delegates the way they’re saying. We won’t select national delegates for a few more months.”

This all does sound like the kind of thing James Baker would have said on George W. Bush's behalf in Florida, circa 2000.

Funny stuff, coming from a campaign that claims to pride itself on one person, one vote.

Update: Other Obama supporters are going Dennis Kucinich (of the NH recount) on us. I saw nothing untoward; indeed in my precinct, Hillary lost a delegate to us so that we could be viable.

Update 2: Obama's campaign manager is joining in on the asshattery.

Any doubts I had about whether or not Edwards' candidacy hurts Hillary more than Obama were erased today at my precinct caucus.

As you know, Edwards lost handily statewide, mostly because of the 15% viability threshold.

In my precinct we had 83 caucusers and 5 delegates.

We started out 42 for Hillary, 29 for Obama, 9 for Edwards, 3 undecided.

I gave a short one minute speech asking for supporters to make us viable -- we needed 4.

We ended up getting 6 additional supporters -- 3 from Hillary, and the 3 from undecided.

If it weren't for those Hillary supporters, we wouldn't have hit the 15 that we needed -- we would have been stuck at 12.

Since most of us would have either supported Hillary or (in my case) remained uncommitted, Hillary would have ended up with 3 delegates and Obama 2.

Instead, we got 1, Hillary got 2 and Obama got 2.

So Hillary supporters -- in my precinct -- gave up a 3:2 victory in order to help John Edwards remain viable.

For that, I owe them -- and all Hillary supporters -- my thanks. Unlike the Obama supporters, they stayed after the caucus voting ended to take care of the nitty gritty party details. They care about the party. All the Obama supporters just left.

I won't forget.

Barack Obama should have repudiated the divisive attack ad suggesting that Hillary Clinton is anti-Hispanic.

One month ago he attacked Edwards for receiving support from a positive ad. He said that he walked the walk.

Obama missed his chance. He's nothing more than a typical politician. A good one, but a typical one.

After winning in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton proudly proclaimed that she had rediscovered her voice. There was actually some meat to her statement; unlike in Iowa, in New Hampshire, Hillary took questions and answered them. During the debate, she wasn't afraid of showing a measured, appropriate dose of anger when challenged.

After New Hampshire, for a few days at least, everything seemed to be going in her direction. The only problem she faced was blowback from the drip-drip-drip pattern of racially tinged statements made by her and her campaign, most notably her dismissive view of MLK.

The real problem for Hillary came in Charleston on Sunday when she appeared with Bob Johnson, and he directly raised the race issue, taking a swipe at Obama's teenage years in the process. Things turned south for her after that moment, and badly.

I don't think the problem was anything in particular that Bob Johnson said, however.

I think it was that Hillary Clinton seemed to think the only way she could reach out to black voters was by having a black man speak on her behalf. It didn't help things that she picked a surrogate who was singularly unfit for the task.

Instead of choosing Bob Johnson to speak for her, she could have addressed the controversy on her own, confronting the suspicions about her campaign in her own voice.

This whole episode should put to rest the offensive notion that there are "gatekeepers" to the black vote, and that white politicians can do or say whatever they want as long as they appear with a prominent black person from time to time.

There's no doubt that Hillary Clinton would have been better off speaking from her own mouth -- white though she may be -- instead of relying on a surrogate merely for the color of his skin.

But she didn't, and now the question for her campaign is whether she will be able to regain her voice yet another time.

From Hillary Clinton's web site:

Eleven Salmon Press Weekly Newspapers Endorse Hillary Clinton for President

She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.

Now her research team is splitting hairs, arguing with the choice of the word "favorite" which they included in their own press release.

In an effort to divert attention from Senator Obama’s comments about President Reagan and his assertion that the GOP has been the "party of ideas," the Obama campaign circulated an item this evening from the Salmon Press in New Hampshire that asserts that Senator Clinton listed the former President as one of her favorite presidents. In fact, Senator Clinton only complimented President Reagan’s communications skills – an attribute of his that has been widely praised by Americans of all ideological stripes – and did not list him as one of her favorite presidents. She also noted that she respected George H.W. Bush.

David Cutler, the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers, released the following statement:

"The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?

She listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn’t say anything close to that."

This does not excluse Barack Obama in the slightest, but it does serve as a reminder that John Edwards is the single best choice as the Democratic nominee in 2008.

(Earlier, I posted a version including video clips from Iowa. This version focuses on just the ad.)

In the final debate of the 1980 presidential election, Jimmy Carter addressed the need for national health insurance, taking Ronald Reagan to task for opposing universal coverage.

Reagan dismissed Carter's criticism with one the most memorable lines in presidential campaign history: "There you go again," he said.

Twelve years later, in 1992, Bill Clinton became the Democratic nominee for president. He delivered a stirring acceptance speech, ending with a reference to his birthplace, Hope, Arkansas.

"I end tonight where it all began for me," he said.

"I still believe in place called Hope."

His speech was followed by a rousing celebration, the mood captured by the signature anthem of his campaign, Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)".

Over the next few months, Clinton campaigned on a simple message, developed by James Carville. George Stephanopoulos called it a haiku, and it stayed on the campaign's white board, pictured above, for the duration of the contest.

Change versus more of the same

It's the economy, stupid

Don't forget health care

In the final staff meeting of the campaign, a wide-eyed Stephanopoulos, brimming with confidence that Clinton was would win the election, told the assembled staffers that because of their work, more people would have better health care for less money. They had brought change to America.

Despite Stephanopoulos's optimism and good intentions, things didn't work out as he -- and we -- had planned and hoped.

In 1992, 15.0% of the population had no health coverage. Today, 15.8% are without care.

In 1992, we spent 13.8% of our GDP on health care. Today, we spend 16.0%.

It wasn't supposed to happen that way. But it did.

We were supposed to get universal health care. But we didn't.

Why not?

Did Bill Clinton fail to inspire us?

Did he not offer us hope?

Was it because the American public did not want universal health care?

If Hillary Clinton had televised the task force meetings on C-SPAN, would Congress have enacted her proposal?

Was Bill Clinton too divisive?

Was it because powerful, entrenched interests stopped us?

What does that mean for today?

What are the biggest challenges we face now?

Is it a lack of inspiration?

Is it that we've lost all hope?

Is the problem with the American people, or is it with the structure of our political system?

What do we need to do to overcome those obstacles?

These are the questions to ask yourself.

Barack Obama is directly encouraging Republicans to cross party lines and vote for him in the Democratic caucus here in Nevada on Saturday.

It's a not-so-transparent ploy to attract anti-Hillary Republicans who have no intention of voting Democratic in the general election.

In his ad, Obama touts the Las Vegas Review-Journal, a right-wing newspaper which endorsed Obama and compared Hillary Clinton to a "horror movie" rerun, invoking the specter of Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones.

Apparently, Obama wants to keep his pitch to Republicans under the radar because his television ads make no reference to the Review-Journal.

In the endorsement, the newspaper's editorial board harshly criticized Obama's rivals:

Suffice it to say there are dozens of issues that Americans happily dismissed as "water under the bridge" as the Clinton era came to a close, but which would quickly ensnare Sen. Clinton and her party in a presidential race that would soon look like a struggle to escape the La Brea tar pits.

For starters, imagine Sen. Clinton and "co-president" Bill Clinton invited onto a "This is Your Life" talk show where they're joined by Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky.

And that's before we even get around to a HillaryCare plan that could have sent you to jail for offering to pay your doctor in cash to "get to the head of the line."

Meanwhile, John Edwards' anti-capitalist populism is not in this country's long-term best interests.

The irony is that the Review-Journal wasn't too kind to Obama, either:

Is Barack Obama, then, the ideal Democratic candidate for president? Hardly. His policy recommendations -- when he can be convinced to get any more specific than "I represent change" -- are the opposite of "change." They're old-line, welfare-state solutions that haven't spent enough time in the microwave to appear even superficially appetizing.

Obama keeps on telling us that he's the only Democrat who knows how to appeal to Republicans.

No thanks. Not this way.

I won't be caucusing for Hillary Clinton on Saturday (I support John Edwards), but I don't want Hillary-hating Republicans selecting our party's nominee.

Republicans have driven our party's agenda for far too long.

No more. This must stop.

The ad speaks for itself. I can't believe Obama would associate himself with something like this.

Hat tips: Ben Smith and Taylor Marsh.

Washington Post:

Labor Group to Air Radio Ads for Obama in Nevada

By Matthew Mosk
While labor unions have played a heavy role supporting Hillary Clinton and John Edwards during the early state contests this month, Barack Obama has largely had to fend for himself.

No longer. The group UNITE HERE, which represents 440,000 textile and hotel and restaurant workers, gave Obama his first national labor endorsement last week. And this morning, the group filed reports with the Federal Election Commission that disclosed it was producing more than $34,000 in radio ads to air in Nevada in advance of the caucus there.

Remember when Obama said outside groups were evil?

Good for him for taking the money now, but what a fucking hypocrite!

Funny, edgy new site out from the Edwards campaign about the abysmal job done by the media in covering John Edwards.

The best part? This video:

According to Barack Obama, Republicans have been "the party of ideas" over the last ten to fifteen years because they were "challenging conventional wisdom." He made the claim during the same interview in which he called Ronald Reagan's presidency transformative.

Obama conceded that at present, the Republicans are no longer the party of ideas.

JedReport was unable to reach Newt Gingrich, the chief intellectual of the Republican Party for comment. JedReport was able to confirm that Albert Gore, has had an idea or two over the last fifteen years, however.

During the interview, Obama also expressed pride in having changed the political dialog of America, and cited Mitt Romney as his prime example.

He was talking about the very same Mitt Romney who has spent more money on attack ads than all the other presidential candidates combined. Just over two weeks ago, CNN reported:

Two negative ads recently launched by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has spent more on advertising than any other candidate, either misrepresent his rival's records or include distortions, according to a CNN analysis of the commercials. (emphasis added)

This is the man who Barack Obama proudly cites as evidence he has brought about a shift in political paradigms?

Here's what Obama said:

One of the things I’m very proud of about this campaign is that I think we’ve already changed the political dialogue...when Mitt Romney starts talking like me...you have somebody like Huckabee who is doing very well basically taking a similar tone...I think we are shifting the political paradigm here.

Here's video of Obama's claim:

Confused? So am I. I honestly have no idea what in the hell Obama is talking about.

It’s either another one of Obama's completely meaningless bloviations or a political analysis conducted on a geometric plane I've never heard of before (perhaps for those times when triangulation just won't do).

Mind you, I'm not saying that Obama didn't put on a fine display of triangulation in the video. In addition to his comments about Republicans being the party of ideas, he said this about earmarks:

We are not blameless. In fairness, the Democrats have reduced the earmarks process..but there is no doubt that it’s still the predominant way in which infrastructure and projects get determined in Washington, and that’s part of the reason why I worked on a bipartisan basis with a Republican, Tom Coburn...we’ve set up what we call Google for Government.

On whether he considers himself a fiscal conservative:

You know, I do, although I think the Republicans would scoff at that. ... We can’t waste money, I don’t care whether it’s wasting it in the Pentagon or we’re wasting it on social programs that have outlived their usefulness.

On partisan gridlock:

The general attitude of whoever’s the minority party is we’re just going to block things from happening. The majority party is typically pushing a highly ideological agenda. Now, I confess, I’m a Democrat, so I don’t think it’s completely even...but we’re not blameless in this.

On his bipartisan appeal:

In 2006...I was the most requested surrogate to come in and campaign for people in districts that were swing districts, Republican districts where they wouldn’t have any other Democrat.

Here's video:

In the interests of fairness to the Senator, I've managed to unearth video of him effusively singing Kennedy's praises (sic) after his commentary on Ronald Reagan.

My finder's reward for that video is the right to highlight these two quotes one more time:

The country was ready for it...with all the excesses of the 60s and 70s, and government had grown and grown.

He [Reagan] tapped into what people were already feeling which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

Video of Obama on Reagan, including the "lost" JFK tapes:

Okay, I admit it. Ronald Reagan’s presidency was transformational. And Obama did mention JFK.

Score two for the Gipper.

But let's turn back to the issue at hand: Obama's narrative about Ronald Reagan's presidency.

The narrative stars a government grown out of control, and a populace eager to emerge from two decades of social unrest. Against that backdrop, Reagan rose to victory by uniting the country behind his optimism and delivering transformative change.

Bleh. What planet does Obama live on?

His narrative completely excludes stagflation, high gas prices, and the hostage crisis in Iran. Think they might have been factors in the 1980 election?

He also fails to reconcile the fact that Reagan won just 50.7% of the vote in 1980 (his landslide was in 1984) with his theory that there was a unified national mood.

He also fails to explain why, if the nation was so unified, 1980 saw one of the strongest third-party campaigns in 20th century American history.

Moreover, Obama ignores the racism that was fundamental to Ronald Reagan's campaign. Recall that Reagan began his campaign with a call for state's rights in Philadelphia, MS.

One of the reasons that Reagan won is that he was so good on television.

He utterly devastated Carter in the last debate.

Here are his two most famous moments. First, when Reagan said "there you go again" in response to Jimmy Carter's call for a national health care system. Second, when Reagan asked the ultimate "me" question: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

Finally, Obama's narrative leaves out the fact that fear of the USSR dominated the 1980s. Watch this ad from Reagan’s 1984 campaign:

Put aside the issues of whether or not Obama’s words were praise of Ronald Reagan, or whether Reagan’s presidency was transformational.

That’s not the important issue: the important issue is that Barack Obama has a deeply flawed view of history. He's entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.

In the same interview, Obama proffered a second peculiar narrative, this one about the 1960s and 1970s, casting their legacy of cultural division as one of the biggest obstacles we face in getting things done in Washington, DC.

I know -- it doesn't make any sense to me either.

In the Senator's words:

People feel like we're bogged down in the same arguments we have been having and they’re not useful.

I didn’t come of age in the battles of the 60s...so I think I talk differently about issues and I think I talk differently about values, and that’s why I think we’ve been resonating.

Even when you discuss war, the frame of reference is all Vietnam. That’s not my frame of reference, my frame of reference is what works.

Even when I opposed the war in Iraq, my first line was I don’t oppose all wars – specifically to make clear that this is not just a anti-military seventies love-in kind of approach.

Anti-military seventies love-in kind of approach? Sounds cool to me.

Although we remember Ronald Reagan as the Great Communicator, the political backdrop of the 1980s was fear of the USSR and nuclear annihilation. Here is one of Ronald Reagan's most famous political advertisements:

That just isn't the politics of hope. Not even close. It's the politics of fear.

Even on domestic politics, Reagan's policies were reactionary. Here he is at a debate in 1980, challenging President Carter's proposal for national health insurance.

In the same clip, Reagan poses the rhetorical question he made famous:

"Are YOU better off today than YOU were four years ago?"

That's the politics of me, not the politics of we.

Obama also clearly forgot about this shitty moment in presidential campaign history:

Full video of Obama at RGJ

Klein thought Edwards seemed "unusually subdued" in last night's debate.

He's probably unware that Edwards was -- to put it bluntly -- muzzled by General Electric's television company. While Obama spoke for 34 minutes, and Hillary for 27, Edwards spoke for just under 22. Edwards was asked 19 questions, compared to 28 for Obama and 23 for Hillary.

Media bias is powerful stuff. Even the good guys get snookered.

Clinton post-debate spinner is a top Washington, DC lobbyist.

Six degrees of Burson-Marsteller

Remember those sovereign wealth funds that Hillary talked about cracking down on last night?

Yes, the firm of which her Mark Penn is worldwide CEO represents the Abu Dhabi fund that bought a 5% stake in CitiGroup this fall.

(via JedReport)

During Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton renewed her call for "aggressive" measures to reign in sovereign wealth funds, the investment funds owned by oil-producing states like the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. She said she was "very concerned" about the multi-trillion dollar funds which are now buying substantial shares of American enterprises such as Citigroup and Merill Lynch.

Clinton, who first raised this issue six weeks ago, said the funds "need to be more transparent," adding "we need to have a lot more control over what they do and how they do it."

Despite Clinton's tough talk about transparency, she failed to disclose that her chief campaign strategist has close business connections with sovereign wealth funds owned by Abu Dhabi and Dubai, two small -- but oil-rich -- emirates located on the Persian Gulf coast.

The Clinton strategist, Mark Penn, is worldwide CEO of Burson-Marsteller, one of the most powerful lobbying and public relations firms in the world.

Burson-Marsteller represents sovereign wealth funds in at least two emirates

Last August, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund, hired Burson-Marsteller to represent its global interests.

Three months later the fund invested $7.5 billion in Citigroup, giving it a 4.9% stake in Citigroup and making it the firm's largest shareholder.

Before Abu Dhabi's investment, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal was Citigroup's largest shareholder, a title he will likely reclaim after Tuesday's announcement that he will expand his 4.4% stake in the company.

In addition to the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Burson-Marsteller also represents at least two other Dubai-based sovereign wealth funds. In late 2006, Penn's firm formed an exclusive partnership with JiWin Public Relations, a Dubai-based public relations firm representing more than twenty firms, including several sovereign wealth funds owned by the government of Dubai.

According to the partnership agreement, "JiWin will work with Burson-Marsteller clients across the United Arab Emirates, Gulf Cooperation Council States (GCC) and the Levant."

In return, "Burson-Marsteller will support JiWin clients as they seek to expand to global markets."

At the time, Penn welcomed the deal enthusiastically. "We are excited about our new partnership with JiWin and welcome them into our global network," he said. "The UAE, GCC and the Levant all hold compelling prospects for our business and our clients and we look forward to further expanding our broad range of public relations services into this region."

In Dubai, Burson-Marsteller and JiWin now share office space. Their clients include Dubai Group and Dubai International Capital, which owns 3% stakes in both Airbus and Sony, among other companies. After completing the acquisition of a British company with U.S. factories, Dubai International Capital announced plans to open an office in the United States.

Sovereign wealth funds are a $1.6 trillion component of a "petrodollar investment cache" that has reached $4 trillion globally, fueled by skyrocketing oil prices and expected to continue growing rapidly. From 2002-2006, oil producing states from the Persian Gulf invested $300 billion in the United States, according to published reports. The pace of investment is accelerating. In Las Vegas, for example, Dubai World recently aquired half of MGM Grand's CityCenter project.

Penn: Working for Hillary "good for business"

In addition to his work as head of a lobbying and polling firm, Penn has been a senior political adviser to both Bill and Hillary Clinton since the mid-1990s. He was the chief strategist for Hillary Clinton's senate campaigns in 2000 and 2006 and is currently the chief strategist of her presidential campaign.

According to Bloomberg, last year Penn discussed "Workin With Hillary" with his colleagues.

"I have found the mixing of corporate and political work to be stimulating, enormously helpful in attracting talent, and helpful in cross-pollinating new ideas and skills," he said.

"I have found it good for business."

Video from the debate

Clinton's comments came in response to a question from NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams. During her answer, Clinton made no mention of Penn's ties to the Dubai-based sovereign wealth fund despite her demand for transparency.

(Update 2:54am: This is a complete update of the original story, with additional details and information.)

Al From's worst nightmare is John Edwards in the White House.

It's already bad enough that Edwards is driving much of the policy debate, pushing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama towards a more progressive agenda.

But if Edwards were to win the Democratic nomination and ride his populist message to the presidency, his campaign would betray the false premise of From's Democratic Leadership Council: that only centrist, pro-business Democrats can win.

In late November, From made his case against John Edwards and populism:

The Clinton-New Democrat formula is the only formula with a track record of winning both the nomination and the general election. The track record in recent elections shows that the populist formula doesn't really deliver the very voters it's aimed at - white male, working-class voters - probably because they are the most skeptical of government delivering on its promises. ... The Edwards campaign is this year's attempt to restore the populist constituency in the Democratic Party. Certainly, his rhetoric is a test of the populist message.

Key voters in recent elections have been moderates, independents, and middle-income families. We lost them in 2004, won them in 2006. And, it's not clear that the populist message wins them over.

The implication of From's argument is logical fallacy. President Clinton won as a New Democrat, but that does not mean his formula is the only one than can win. Moreover, From's characterization of populism as a strategy to win white male, working class voters is a strawman. Populism, especially Edwards' brand, offers a coherent message about corporate greed and excess. It is designed to win a majority of the electorate -- an accomplishment President Clinton cannot claim.

From's assertion about Kerry losing moderates and independents is of questionable relevance. It also isn't reality-based. His claim about middle-income families is murkier; it depends whether you define middle-income relative to Americans in general, or relative to American voters in particular.

None of this is meant to malign President Clinton's political skills. He won two three-way contests, both by healthy margins, and nearly claimed a majority in 1996.

Clinton's victories did not remake the electoral universe for Democrats, however. They certainly didn't prove anything about the prospects for populism in 2008. Indeed, in 1992, Ross Perot won 19% of the vote as a third-party candidate with a populist message. We will never know if Clinton could have won over enough Perotistas with a different message to win a majority of the vote.

We do know that if Clinton had been able to win a majority, he would have been in a better position to govern.

Whatever the case, it's clear that Clinton's campaign wasn't a reaction against populism. Despite their liberal histories, the Democrats who lost before him didn't have populist platforms. Mondale ran on balancing the budget. Dukakis ran on competence over ideology. They were both demolished.

Indeed, in 2000, Gore offered a partisan version of populism and not only beat George W. Bush in the popular vote, but also won a higher percentage of the voting age population than did Clinton in either 1992 or 1996.

Unfortunately, in retrospect, members of the United States Supreme Court circa 2000 don't appear to have been populists.

Gore was of course pilloried by his former friends in the DLC for his winning strategy, chief among them Hillary Clinton's guru, Mark Penn.

Mr. Penn branded Mr. Gore's campaign one of "lost opportunity," saying Mr. Gore reverted to an old-style populism that alienated independent suburban white men. He did well among upper-income women, Mr. Penn said, largely because he supported abortion rights. But, he said, Mr. Gore "abandoned the fight for smaller government," losing "new economy" men who favored "smaller government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility."

I'd like to remind Mark Penn: Gore won.

Were it not for SCOTUS, we would not be discussing this topic today.

There's no question any Democratic nominee must have a coherent message. Edwards brand of populism offers just that, and in 2008 it seems to be the right one.

Based on all public polls since July 1 featuring all three candidates tested against the same Republicans, John Edwards is clearly the most electable Democrat.

Even against the Republican's best candidate, Edwards leads the Democratic field.

Something wonderful is happening in 2008: our party's most progressive candidate is also the most electable.

If he wins the nomination, he'll win the presidency.

A John Edwards victory in November would literally destroy the entire rationale for the Democratic Leadership Council's existence.

This fact is clearly not lost on Al From, who capped off his argument with a scathingly negative personal attack:

Edwards personal actions - the $400 haircuts, the big house, and running a campaign much different than four years ago - also undercut his populist message

Call it the JedReport Rule: the first person to seriously bring up John Edwards' haircut or his residence automatically loses the debate.

Game over.

Just a few days ago, From continued his campaign against John Edwards.

D.L.C. Leaders Cut Edwards Out

By Ariel Alexovich

As would be expected, the two gentlemen from the Democratic Leadership Council on a conference call today told reporters they’re very confident in their party’s chances of reclaiming the White House, they’re happy that substantive issues are being discussed…

And then Al From, the D.L.C. founder, said he was “very happy about the two candidates” Americans are considering.

Only two candidates?

...

But what about John Edwards? He beat Mrs. Clinton in Iowa, as one reporter pointed out, but Mr. From still doesn’t think Mr. Edwards is viable.

From went on to misrepresent Edwards and launch another personal attack: he trotted out the notion that Edwards is a pessimist, not an optimist.

Edwards may be pessimistic that Bushonomics and crony capitalism will lead us to a better place, but don't most Americans agree with him?

It's obvious that Edwards is fundamentally optimistic that America can build a better future for itself.

Call it the second JedReport Rule: anyone who claims John Edwards is an enternal pessimist is full of crap.

Recently, I've documented how the corporate media is excluding John Edwards from its campaign coverage.

Part of the blame for this goes to corporate Democrats like Al From and Mark Penn have waged a war all year against John Edwards, pushing negative personal attacks and openly writing off Edwards' viability.

Al From can survive a loss by Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. He'll thrive if they win. But he will be utterly devastated if John Edwards wins.

And that's one more good reason to fight for John Edwards.

Please don't forget to donate another $10 to John Edwards and don't forget to help make history on January 18th.

Before William "iQ" Saletan became the world's dumbest man, he was already pretty fucking stupid. Said he in 2002:

Gore is wrong. His angry populism helped cost him the 2000 election. He doesn't understand this because he can't see the differences between Clinton's populism and his own. He's still arguing about it because he thinks fighting is noble. And he's doing it in such a pious way, quoting himself and selectively quoting others, because, as the 2000 presidential debates demonstrated, his driving imperative is to prove that he's right and his opponents are wrong. Any one of these flaws would be sufficient to justify denying him the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. Take your pick.

So funny, dude. So funny. I can see exploring the question: "Why didn't Al Gore win by a large enough margin to overcome SCOTUS and voter disenfranchisement?" But starting with the premise that he outright lost is hilarious.

Arguing that the reason he lost the contest because of his desire to "prove that he's right and his opponents are wrong" will keep me laughing the rest of the evening.

Meet Bob Johnson. He's the billionaire founder of BET. Bob is good friends with George W. Bush. Like Bush, Bob wants to eliminate the estate tax, which he says is racist. Bob also wants to eliminate Social Security. He says that's racist too. Now Bob is friends with Hillary Clinton, and he's attacking Barack Obama. Bob says Obama is insulting black people. Get real.

The thing you have to remember is how Bob made his money: by putting misogynistic videos on TV. Why is Hillary Clinton sitting with this man? Is this what she means when she says she found her voice?

p.s.: I came up with this response on my own, but not surprisingly it nearly mirrors the approach suggested by dnA at Too Sense. That's reassuring because I think dnA is one of the best -- and most original -- bloggers out there.

It's good hearing stuff like this, and even some in the media are paying attention.

Also, a new Nevada poll came out showing Edwards has dramatically narrowed the gap. Obama has 32, Hillary 30, and Edwards 27.

The Times is out with another primary survey, showing Edwards in third and Hillary in first, with Obama right between them, sixteen points ahead of Edwards and fifteen points behind Hillary.

One interesting thing in the survey was that while 24% of whites were supporting Obama, 34% of blacks were supporting Hillary Clinton.

The Times also once again demonstrated the media's bias against John Edwards. They mentioned him just one time in the article (to say he was a distant third), and even though the headline said Democrats focused on electability, they didn't bother to point out that every objective measure shows that John Edwards is the most electable Democrat.

I'm watching NBC News from tonight, and they are doing a piece about brewing conflict between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on race issues. (Actually, it would be more accurate to say the conflict that Hillary Clinton is attempting to brew.)

Anyway, last week she made some unfortunate comments in which she seemed to suggest that while MLK was inspiring, LBJ was the real hero of the civil rights movement.

So the NBC reporter says that her comment "unleashed a flood of angry responses."

Guess who he cuts to?

John Edwards.

What did John Edwards have to say about it? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Edwards said that Hillary Clinton was living in a fairy tale if she thought she could bring change to Washington, a reference to a comment made by Bill Clinton about Barack Obama's positions on Iraq. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton have all said that comment had nothing to do with race.

Of course, the only time NBC ever reports on John Edwards it's to make him look "angry." Moreover, all to often it's "factually challenged."

Ridiculous.

Here's video:

One of the biggest myths spread by the corporate media and corporate Democrats about the 2008 election is that John Edwards' populist platform makes him the least electable Democrat. They claim that Edwards' rhetoric is a fiery, divisive brand of class warfare, and that Americans want a uniter like Barack Obama, or an experienced insider like Hillary Clinton -- not an "angry" outsider who will fight against the system.

This myth couldn't be more false. The reality is that John Edwards has a positive, progressive agenda. He wants to unify the country around rolling back three decades of unbridled corporate greed and excess. As a result, John Edwards is actually the most electable Democrat, despite what the corporate media wants us and our neighbors to believe.

Take John McCain, the most likely -- and the toughest -- Republican nominee. Polls consistently show that John Edwards does better than either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton against John McCain.

Since July 1, 2007, there have been ten public polls testing Edwards and McCain in a general election match-up. Edwards wins 7 of these, losing once and tying twice. His average margin of victory is 5.5 points.

No Democrat does better.

In those same polls, Barack Obama wins 6, tying and losing twice with an average margin of 2.5 points.

Hillary Clinton wins 5, losing four times and tying once. Her average margin is 0.2 points.

Edwards does best despite having been through the Republican attack machine not just in 2004, but also in 1998 when he defeated an incumbent Republican U.S. Senator in North Carolina.

Let me repeat that.

John Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican U.S. Senator in a red state.

Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has ever faced a tough Republican opponent. Ever.

Each of the potential Democratic nominees is favored to win this fall, but none are more likely than John Edwards. Moreover, because John Edwards starts out with the biggest lead, with him as our nominee, we would be able to focus more of our energy on winning congressional races than would the Republicans.

A bigger Democratic majority in Congress means we can get more done in 2009 and 2010. It matters.

Still, electability shouldn't be the most important factor in selecting a nominee. Many Democrats disagree. According to a recent Gallup survey, 45% of Democrats say it is more important to have a nominee who can beat the Republican candidate in November than to have a nominee who agrees with them on most issues.

Yet most Democrats think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are more electable than John Edwards.

As I've shown, this just isn't true.

Why have they reached this judgment? I think the most basic answer is fear: we have been trained to believe that only moderates can win. We have been taught that politicians who take left-of-center positions do so at their own electoral risk.

Moreover, the corporate media has engaged in a relentless pattern of marginalizing John Edwards from their coverage of the 2008 election. When they have covered Edwards, much of the coverage has been negative, particularly in the second half of the year as criticisms of his progressive campaign have intensified.

Now the corporate media's exclusion of Edwards is reaching a crescendo. As jamess diaried, CNN has stopped including John Edwards in its general election polls. In CNN's most recent poll that actually included Edwards, Edwards beat McCain by by eight points. In that same poll, McCain beat Clinton by two points, and tied Obama.

Fox News has never once -- not once, not a single time -- done a general election poll featuring John Edwards, despite doing several with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

By now it should be obvious to you that the corporate media doesn't want you or your neighbor to vote for John Edwards.

Are you going to follow their instructions?

For once, the most progressive Democrat still in the race is also the most electable.

How could we pass up this opportunity to challenge the system?