Politics from The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com

Year of the Independent Voter

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Sat, 17 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

When Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) all but wrapped up the Democratic nomination last week, the focus of both his and Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential campaigns shifted to general election strategies. Unsurprisingly, both are targeting independent voters, which these candidates appealed to this primary season -- McCain, with his almost trademarked maverick persona, and Obama, with his post-partisan message of unity and hope.

Independent voters could be pivotal in November. While membership in traditional parties has weakened in recent decades, independent voters increased -- the number of people registering as "unaffiliated" or "other" since 1987 jumped from 16 percent to 24 percent. For example, in Florida, an important battleground state, the number of "other" voters has more than quadrupled, surpassing 20 percent of the electorate. In another key state, California, since 1988 the percentage of voters "declin[ing] to state" a party preference rose nearly 8 percentage points -- to almost 18 percent.

The looming battle between McCain and Obama for independent voters is evident in polling. On Wednesday, Gallup released a poll that showed McCain and Obama share nearly equal support among independents -- 44 percent for Obama and 42 percent for McCain. So this election would ultimately be about who attracts the most independent voters.

Polling also reveals that McCain and Obama both satisfy what independents are looking for in a candidate - personal values, military judgment, willingness to work with the opposing party and managerial competence. So while the national environment may favor Democrats, this suggests that McCain still has a fighting chance to win over these important voters.

"The vital political center is back this year after it was on sabbatical in 2004,” said John Zogby, the eponymous pollster. "The middle, mostly represented by independents, is up for grabs. And it will be the swing vote in the election."

But while the "middle" is likely to be contested, independent voters are often improperly defined. A closer look at this group reveals it is not nearly as monolithic as usually portrayed. Blocks of independent voters vary across the country and, demographically, the differences can be substantial. For example, independent voters in Colorado, often new to the state, are largely young and well-educated. They have different values than independents in, say, Pennsylvania, who are likely to be older, less educated and more rooted in their community. Consequently, independents in certain areas will be more receptive to Obama's change message while those in other regions will be more likely to support McCain's established maverick image -- a result that could split the independent vote in November.

In addition, the influence of independent voters can be minimal. Experts say independent voters are often the least politically active and, consequently, tend not to vote. Most of the uninformed independent voters tend not to make a rational, personal decision on which candidate to vote for, but are instead swept up into national trends. A growing yet still small class of informed independent voters, it appears, behaves the same way.

One problem that often arises in discussing independents is how large a percentage they are of the electorate. The American National Election Studies (ANES), a group that surveys voters across the country every election year, measures voter partisanship by asking if voters to rank their partisanship on a seven-point scale from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. On this scale, 26 percent said they were "moderates" in 2004, a four point jump from 2002.

But this doesn't accurately identify independent voters, said Candice Nelson, a political scientist at American University and co-author of "The Myth of the Independent Voter." Two questions must be used to determined partisanship, Nelson said. First, respondents should be asked if they consider themselves a Democrat, Republican or independent. Nelson has found that roughly 30 percent will say they are independents. But then a second question asks if the respondent considers him or herself an independent, does he or she lean toward one party. This greatly reduces the number of independents, for Nelson has found that "leaners toward a political party act in practice just like party members."

True or "hard" independents typically make up just 10 percent of the electorate, according to ANES. They tend to be the "least interested in politics," Nelson said, "and the least likely to vote."

"If you are not quite sure what should be done or where you belong," said Morris Fiorina, the Stanford political scientist and author of "Culture War: The Myth of a Polarized America," "you are going to be attracted to a candidate that gives off that same sort of impression rather than someone who speaks like he knows everything."

These voters tend to be less educated, Nelson pointed out, which is the best predictor of whether someone will vote. "It's going to be hard," she said, "for both McCain and Obama to motivate this group" to turn out at the polls.

Other experts doubt the significance of the independent vote. Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, estimates that 15 percent of the electorate are "hard" independents this year. He says the group is made up of both the least interested voters and the most informed voters, who tend to vote based on specific issues. Either way, these voters tend to be more influenced by the national environment than individual candidates.

"Both types, assuming they vote, are pushed by the currents disproportionately into one party’s camp each year," Sabato said. In 2002 and 2004, Sabato said, the GOP benefited because the national electorate was still receptive to President George W. Bush and his war on terror. In 2006, Democrats carried this group when Bush's approval rating plummeted and disapproval of the war in Iraq skyrocketed. Those same issues, plus the slowdown in the economy, Sabato said, will likely push independent voters to the Democrats again this year.

Of those independents resistant to national trends, certain criteria of what they are looking for have emerged, said Zogby. In poll after poll, independents want a candidate that, in ranked order, is a competent manager, can work with both parties, can command the military and has strong personal values. Obama, Zogby said, has convinced these voters that he can work with Republicans, that he has strong personal values and, at least on the war in Iraq, has sound military judgment. McCain's story as a prisoner of war in Vietnam is cited to prove he has a strong personal values and understands the military. His maverick brand also resonates as bipartisan. Both candidates, Zogby said, will fight to prove they are competent managers.

This also suggests that even in a political environment where Democratic voter turnout is soaring and the GOP is losing congressional seats in districts it has held for years, if McCain can prove he is a competent manager, he could win over independents crucial in a close election.

Appealing to this group isn't as simple as it seems, though. These independent voters, and their values, vary across the country, said William Frey, a political demographer at the Brookings Institute. The difference is often age, rootedness in community and economic situation, Frey said.

Swing states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Michigan have older populations that have lived in their communities all their lives. These states' populations are in decline, and their metropolitan centers are shrinking. Independents in this region have been hit hardest by the current economic downturn, but they hunker down and rely on their communities to persevere instead of seeking radical change.

These independents are often regarded as Reagan Democrats, voters that left the Democratic Party for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and have yet to return. Pennsylvania in particular, Frey said, has a large percentage of "more traditional Reagan Democrats that have stuck their ground." Unsurprisingly, these independents are more likely to support McCain because of his age and military service and are skeptical of Obama's message of change.

Conversely, states where the population has grown rapidly in recent years, swing states like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, have a growing economy. These states also have a growing base of independents. These are "younger people, people on the move who relocate to these states because they have aspirations for their own future and for the communities they are moving to," Frey said, "They are less tied down to old ways of thinking then people who have stayed where they are for years." These voters are open to change he explained. "In these states," Frey said, "Obama may be more appealing because he is fresh and has new ideas."

Independent voters, Nelson explained, are more complex than often portrayed. "The key is how independents are defined," she said, "it is not a monolithic group - some lean to one party and others lean to the other. They are really different groups. If you look at pure independents over the years, they tend to vote for the candidate that wins."

"But when it's a close election," Nelson added, "they tend to split."

Press Beats Farm Bill to a Pulp

Mike Lillis — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:32:45 GMT

Even as congressional lawmakers from both parties are patting themselves on the back for their fine work pushing through a $300 billion farm bill this week, the nation's editorials pages had a different story to tell:

From The Washington Post (5-16):

The farm bill is the epitome of old-style Washington politics. A small number of farm-state senators from both parties demanded its most wasteful provisions, such as guaranteed payments to big cotton and rice growers and "disaster relief" for farmers in arid areas. These members of the less-representative body leveraged their right to filibuster into billions of dollars for people who are better off than the average taxpayer. The bill includes only the most tepid reforms, which, though trumpeted by the bill's advocates, deny benefits to only a tiny handful of farms.

The New York Times (5-16):

The bill is an inglorious piece of work tailored to the needs of big agriculture and championed by not only the usual bipartisan farm state legislators but also the Democratic leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Every five years we get a new farm bill, and each time we are reminded that even reformers like Ms. Pelosi cannot resist the blandishments and power of the farmers.

The Los Angeles Times (5-15):

[A] historic opportunity to end this country's most wasteful and economically ruinous corporate welfare system has been lost.

The Christian Science Monitor (5-14):

Congress plans to renew the US agriculture law this week with no apologies for that fact that most of the subsidies will go to the wealthiest 10 percent of recipients and that a majority of this largess will enrich commercial farmers with an average income of $200,000.

[snip]

What makes this payoff to corporate farmers so indigestible this time around is that it comes when food producers are making record profits from high global prices and subsidies for grain- and sugar-based ethanol. Since the last renewal of the farm law in 2002, farmer income and crop prices have more than doubled.

The Rocky Mountain News (5-16):

Today, roughly 1 percent of Americans live on farms, when nearly a third did a century ago - and net cash income is expected to set a record this year of $96.6 billion. It's indefensible to expect every American to subsidize the few who are doing fine.

Too bad for the sugar industry they don't run their own paper.

Obama Defends Foreign Policy, Attacks Bush, McCain

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:12:47 GMT

Yesterday Bush played the Nazi card, insinuating before the Israeli Parliament that Obama would negotiate with terrorist groups. Furor ensued.

Today Obama struck back.

"After almost eight years, I did not think I could be surprised by anything George Bush says, but I was wrong," Obama, avec flag pin, said.
"The president did something that presidents don't do..that is launch a political attack targeted toward the domestic audience...in front of a foreign delegation."

Obama also went on offense, attacking Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for their foreign policy positions, which he called one and the same. "I want to be perfectly clear," he said, "if George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate I am happy to have any time, any place. And it is a debate that I will win."

Obama called his approach to foreign policy "tough diplomacy" and also said he never claimed he would negotiate with terrorist groups like Hamas.

A couple thoughts on this entire exchange: First, it is interesting how forcefully Bush, with his sub-30 point approval rating, can influence the presidential race. And there is no question he knew what he was doing. Second, the Obama camp clearly views the perception of Obama being weak in his support of Israel as a soft-spot. Consequently, Obama has been on a all out media tour to promote his support of Israel. (Obama has recently given interviews on Israel to the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, The New Republic's Martin Peretz, and the New York Times' David Brooks.)

Third, that being said, Bush's remarks may actually be a gift for Obama since they shift the campaign narrative from his big loss in West Virginia and have unified the party behind him (even Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) criticized Bush), as MSNBC's First Read noted.

Fourth, even so, does Obama want his campaign to be defined by his position on Israel? Bush certainly framed the campaign debate yesterday, it will be interesting to see how long this dialogue plays out.

The Party Leader

Holly Yeager — Thu, 15 May 2008 19:36:26 GMT

Something strange is happening to Barack Obama.

The first-term Illinois senator -- who built his presidential campaign around the promise of a new kind of politics and launched a movement that drew in young voters, independents and Republicans -- is taking control of the Democratic Party.

The shift from insurgency to establishment is only natural, as Obama tightens his grip on the Democratic nomination. But, given his post-partisan pedigree, it poses many challenges.

Obama will be forced to reckon with the party’s old guard -– fund-raisers, elected officials and organizers, including many who rallied around Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and, before that, her husband. He must also adjust his 21st-century coalition to the notion that he has become the standard-bearer for an institution sometimes too wedded to tradition. At the same time, he will face an array of liberal bloggers and activists who have grown comfortable in their criticism of the existing Democratic leadership and are still unsure of Obama’s commitment to their progressive agenda. Oh, and then there are the Republicans.

Unless Clinton ekes out an upset win -- an outcome that seems even less likely following John Edwards’ endorsement Wednesday of Obama and the string of other support that has followed – Obama’s crowning moment will come in late August at the party’s convention in Denver.

"Obama will be controlling the Democratic convention," said Simon Rosenberg, a veteran of Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign who is president of NDN, a progressive think tank, "and the entire convention will be about nominating him and his ascension to the top of the party.”

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, will be there, too, with a prominent role. So will Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader. But even now, while these officials hold important jobs within the party, Obama is already consolidating his power -- and early strains are evident.

“We’re now going to see Sen. Obama’s insurgent campaign melding and becoming the party establishment,” Rosenberg said. “There is going to be a new Democratic Party. There is going to be an upheaval and a new order is going to emerge.”

Matt Stoller, a liberal blogger and activist, this month tallied the Obama campaign’s accomplishments in everything from voter registration and fund-raising to grass-roots organizing and use of the Internet to spread his message. Along the way, he said, “Obama has created a number of significant infrastructure pieces through his campaign, displacing traditional groups the way he promised he would by signaling the end of the old politics of division and partisanship.”

Obama’s campaign has also taken steps to discourage wealthy contributors from funding the independent groups that many expected to play a large role in the election. As The Politico’s Ben Smith reported Tuesday, Penny Pritzker, Obama's national finance chair, told his supporters not to send checks to groups like Progressive Media USA, run by David Brock, the conservative-turned-liberal journalist, and Fund for America, led by John Podesta, Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff. (That may explain Brock's apparent decision to fold the project.)

Donors and Democratic activists have been quietly debating Obama's motives: Is he simply interested in keeping his Democratic efforts within his campaign, which is so well funded he doesn't need outside help? Or is he, as some believe, cutting off funds to groups whose leaders -- Brock and Podesta -- some Obama aides view as too tightly linked to Clinton?

In either case, Pritzker's words are the latest in Obama's remarkably swift and complete consolidation of Democratic Party power. It's an unprecedented seizure of control that has built him, over the course of a year, the most powerful field organization and the largest financial network in American politics, leaving many existing structures -- traditional party organizations in many states, the Clintons' long-nurtured national network -- in the dust.

While Stoller sits far from that kind of traditional organization, his view is very much the same. “You know all that old-style Washington politics preventing real change? As hard as it might be to handle, in a lot of ways he means that those of us who believe in partisan hard edged combat are part of an outmoded system.”

The unsettling of those seasoned political hands may help Obama convince the many new and young voters who rallied to his cause that he is serious about change. But as they see him in new roles, negotiating with old critics and taking charge of old institutions, their support will also be tested.

Robert Eisinger, chairman of the political science department at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, said he has seen remarkable numbers of young people registering to vote for the first time as Oregon’s May 20 primary approaches. Obama drew them into the process, Eisinger said, and, “Now, he is their horse.”

As he settles in to his role as party leader, Eisinger expects Obama to reach out to groups he hasn’t dealt with before, including Democratic-leaning think tanks and interest groups. “A President Obama – and even a President McCain – knows that nothing is going to get done in the House and Senate without cultivating good ties with all wings of your own party and significant wings of the opposition party,” Eisinger said, adding that while President George W. Bush said as a candidate that he understood that principle, he hasn’t acted on it.

Eisinger said there is no guarantee the new voters that Obama has attracted will remain lifelong Democrats. “There was no shortage of Hubert Humphrey Democrats who voted for Ronald Reagan,” he said. “I don think that is something that Sen. Obama, or a future President Obama, has to worry about, if 25 years from now some of those citizens who were behind him become alienated.”

In the short-term, Eisinger doesn’t expect Obama’s supporters – both the newly engaged activists and the more passive voters – to be shaken as their candidate takes up his role as the top Democrat. “If you’re a party volunteer and you’re completely enthused about your ticket, you don’t care,” he said, while the less engaged aren’t likely to notice much of what goes on at the Democratic convention and other big party moments.

But others are less certain of the relationship that will develop between Obama and the diverse coalition that helped catapult him to this position.

Micah Sifry, a campaign finance reform activist and co-founder of Personal Democracy Forum, wrote last week, “Will the Obama movement be a real movement that pushes its leader to keep his promises? Or will it be more of a personalized movement of followers attracted to a charismatic star? Will the network talk laterally and organize pressure upward? We don't know the full answer yet.”

Even as he cements his grip on the party apparatus and mines untapped -- indeed, unimagined -- sources of money, few expect Obama to become the kind of old-time party boss with the power to, say, make a phone call and get a determined, but doomed, candidate to withdraw from a hotly contested party primary. It’s the result of the changing nature of politics, the power of the Internet and the push for transparency.

“The party bosses are gone,” said Eisinger. “It’s not that the leaders don’t exist. But rather, the political culture that allows a party elder to tap a senior senator on the shoulder and say, ‘It’s time to bow out,’ is gone.”

But Obama will still be plenty powerful. As Stoller cautioned, “it's time to think through the consequences of a party where there is a new chief with massive amounts of power….He has control of the party apparatus, the grass-roots, the money and the messaging environment. He is also, and this is fundamental, someone that millions of people believe in as a moral force. When you disagree with Obama, you are saying to these people, 'Your favorite band sucks.'”

Waxman and Berman Back Obama

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:18:44 GMT

Two prominent House Democrats announced their support of Obama today: foreign affairs committee chair Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and oversight committee chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). Waxman stressed Obama's "experience, judgment, integrity and toughness" in his statement, while Berman said Obama has "laid out a foreign policy vision driven by principle and conviction." Here is Waxman's release.

I was just going through the list of unpledged superdelegates, picking out which are the big names left. Besides the obvious choices (Pelosi, Carter, Gore), Waxman and Berman were near the top of the list. I'm expecting Obama to continue rolling out supers, but saving a few for after Kentucky next week, where Clinton will likely win big again.

That Was Then

Jefferson Morley — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:00:00 GMT

After John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama, our colleague Douglas Burns at Iowa Independent reminded us Edwards was singing a different tune last summer when he said there were some places in the country where Obama would not be able to campaign.

McCain Sets Timeline for Iraq Withdrawal

Holly Yeager — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:48:34 GMT

John McCain is in the magical mystical state of Ohio today, and he's looking ahead to what he plans on accomplishing in his first term in the White House.

Interestingly, despite his consistent refusal in the past to set a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, he is telling his swing-state audience something a little different.

From The Washington Post's preview:

Sen. John McCain will pledge today that most American troops will return home from Iraq by 2013 if he is elected president, a position that closely resembles the promises made by both of his potential Democratic rivals.

For more on the future according to McCain, check out this ad, also out Thursday. Spoiler alert: there's a kid with a camel -- and a mushroom cloud.

How Low Can They Go?

Holly Yeager — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:02:19 GMT

Republicans are still grappling with their loss in that special election in Mississippi, and what it portends for November.

But a report in The Politico sheds some light on just how bad things look for some House Republicans:

Many House GOP operatives are privately predicting that the party could easily lose up to 20 seats this fall.

Combined with the 30 seats that the GOP lost in 2006, that would leave the party facing a 70-vote deficit against Democrats in the House — a state of powerlessness reminiscent of Republicans’ long wilderness years in the 1960s and ’70s.

Maybe that's why they came up with a catchy new slogan, "The Change You Deserve."

Wait, haven't we heard that before?

January Is a Blur

Laura McGann — Wed, 14 May 2008 22:23:41 GMT

Holly just asked me what'll happen if Edwards indeed endorses Obama tonight: will Obama get Edwards' delegates? I pointed out that she answered that question back in January in this post, when Edwards bowed out.

I think this marks a turning point in the Democratic race. It's gone on too long when you've needed to link to a delegate distribution explainer twice. Whew.

Edwards to Endorse Obama

Holly Yeager — Wed, 14 May 2008 21:46:28 GMT

There's a sudden buzz that John Edwards will endorse Barack Obama at a Wednesday evening rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

It's nice timing for Obama -- a day after Hillary Clinton trounced him in West Virginia. And the setting is good, too, as Obama tries to shore up support in a swing state loaded with the kind of Reagan Democrats who really might pay attention to what Edwards has to say. It's also an early delivery from Obama on his campaign's promise to work hard in Michigan, even as the state's Democratic party tries to sort out how to handle its disputed delegates.

It's nice timing for Edwards, too. His name was on the ballot in West Virginia, and he got 7 percent of the vote -- a good moment to weigh in on the Obama/Clinton battle.

One thing that isn't clear: will it help speed Hillary Clinton's departure from the race?

Obama Live

Jefferson Morley — Wed, 14 May 2008 21:26:03 GMT

Our colleagues from Michigan Messenger are live blogging Barack Obama's appearance this evening at Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids, a Republican stronghold in western Michigan. A crowd of 12,000 plus is expected. Join them here.

Pro-Choice Rift

Holly Yeager — Wed, 14 May 2008 20:35:58 GMT

NARAL Pro-Choice America -- with more than 1 million members across the country -- surprised a lot of people Wednesday with its endorsement of Barack Obama.

Nancy Keenan, president of the group, said pro-choice voters were lucky to have two strong pro-choice candidates and the AP reported that NARAL's political committee board was about evenly split between Obama and Hillary Clinton -- but ultimately backed Obama unanimously.

According to the AP, NARAL officials said:

...the board decided to back Obama over Clinton because he is overwhelmingly favored to win the nomination and to heal what the organization viewed as a growing rift between black voters and white female activists that the protracted Clinton-Obama contest may have caused

That may be true, but it seems to have opened a rift in the pro-choice community.

Ellen Malcolm, president of Emily's List, which has backed Clinton in a big way, just fired back with this statement:

I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton - who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade - to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.

Life as a Campaign

Anne Taylor Fleming — Wed, 14 May 2008 19:52:13 GMT

She can’t seem to stop.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is still making the grueling campaign rounds in hopes of what? Some miracle, some last-ditch suicidal revelation or gaffe from the other side? Is she, in fact, even thinking anymore? Or is she just going on trussed-up rote—hair coiffed, colorful jackets and smile in place—the daily ritual of running so deep in now it has become addictive, impossible to stop.

Of course this is what the Clintons do—both of them. They run for public office. They lose and win and run again. They push and charm with a dual sense of commitment and entitlement that is awe-inspiring. She was radiant in her West Virginia victory speech on Tuesday, as she has been these past few weeks, making her last-ditch case at various diners and day-care centers. She seems to be almost singing, under her breath, a verse of “This Nearly Was Mine”—the show-stopping second act song from “South Pacific,” currently in a stunning revival at Lincoln Center in New York.

See: sentiment’s fine. Corny is fine. This nearly was mine. Should have been, could have been. Could still be. Her chorus, her familial claque, Bill and Chelsea, are everywhere, too. Clearly the family that campaigns together stays together.

That’s the thing: what now? Clearly this campaign has been a bonding time for the Clintons. For years, the couple seemed almost to be living apart—she doing her Senate thing; he moving around the world doing good works and burnishing his post-presidential legacy. But former President Bill Clinton has clearly been on board for his wife’s run. He has been her most avid champion—if sometimes a bit intemperate, even angry, in making the case. He wants this for Hillary, no doubt about it. He has been everywhere, in hamlets and towns, exhorting what is sometimes just a small crowd to support his wife. It’s as if they were back in the beginning somehow, running hard in the rural byways and small towns of Arkansas, as if he—and she—had not already occupied the White House, together, for eight years. This nearly was hers.

A smart woman friend of mine said of Hillary Clinton that she has been badly served by the men around her in this campaign. She was referring to Mark Penn and the other guys at the top of her organization— these guys missed the national zeitgeist change early enough, the Obama threat and the need to shake down every vote, prevail at every caucus, no matter how small. But she also meant Bill, making the case of his wife with such fervency he has turned off some voters—not to mention many pundits.

But the truth is without him, who knows? Hillary Clinton is a creature of this marriage to her bones. She was — and is — a strong-minded, gifted woman who would no doubt have found a way to have a meaningful life. But with her marriage to Bill Clinton, she moved into a different realm — as did he. They became more together than either of them might have been apart—and they both knew that right from the get-go.

I knew them then. I saw them as they embarked on their marriage and their journey to the top. They needed each other; they wanted each other. They wanted the pair they became. If she was, ultimately, the forgiving mother figure to his Peck’s bad boy, he was also the champion of her gifts, giving her a platform on which to hone and display them. It is an astonishing story—what they have achieved, what the marriage has survived.

It is way too simple to describe it as an arrangement, simple and simple-minded. Every long marriage has secret places, wounds, things forgiven — little things, big things. The Clintons have just lived a lot of theirs in public. Even so, we don’t know really know what goes on between them. Not really; not any of us.

Soon, it seems inevitable, they will leave the main stage—providing Hillary Clinton does not get the vice presidential nod from Sen. Barack Obama, which is something people are certainly talking about now. And if Obama, now the likely Democratic nominee, doesn’t prevail against Sen. John McCain, one can also imagine Hillary Clinton gearing up for the next time around. But current odds are that we will have a momentary Clinton respite —and that will be restful.

They are old-school—too messy, too hot for the new, cooler, post-modern world, Obama’s world. Even McCain, with his quiet voice if sometimes raspy temperament, seems cool by comparison to the Clintons right now. They are sixtysomething — hard to imagine because, like so many of our baby boom generation, they have seemed preternaturally energetic and driven.

No question, it will be restful, too, not to have that endless internecine generational warfare played out over and over: the liberal, dope-smoking, anti-war 60’s kids vs. the Bible-clutching, Clinton-hating reactionaries; all that talk about values and abortion and prayers in the schools. Funnily enough, the Clintons have always been kind of square in a way. They seem to have long prided themselves on being pragmatic and centrist, eyes always on the prize, hardly the hard-core caricatured liberals the right would have them. She is clearly running, as her husband did, from the center—the big lesson he taught the Democrats back when.

So we stick with her one last round, watching her barrel ahead, a hard glint of hope and determination in her eyes. It is sometimes like watching a first-rate athlete trying to play hard-ball against a deft opponent with a more graceful swing, a lighter touch.

Some are grumpy about her endurance, seeing her as a spoiler for her party. But others are inclined to let her have this non-victory lap, let her suit up one more time and make the rounds singing that plaintive refrain: "This nearly was mine."

It will be over soon enough. You can sense a bit of nostalgia already for the end of the spectator sport known as Clinton-watching. There has been nothing like it, like them. Not even close.

Anne Taylor Fleming is a novelist, commentator and essayist for "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." She is the author of a memoir, "Motherhood Deferred: A Woman's Journey."

Straight Talk on Environment: Buy This T-Shirt

Suemedha Sood — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:52:33 GMT

To promote Sen. McCain's new plan on climate change, the senator's campaign has launched a line of eco-friendly merchandise to be sold in its official store. The green items include t-shirts, polo shirts and baby clothes made from biodegradable fabric; organic cotton hats; mugs and notebooks made from recycled materials; and organic shopping bags. Here's the eco-friendly section of the campaign's store.

All that merch is meant to send a message that McCain has been trying to get across since he started campaigning: that he's the greenest candidate. The response he's been getting from environmentalists is still pretty mixed, though.

This week, McCain unveiled his plan to take on climate change in a speech at Portland, Oregon's Vestas Wind Technology wind energy facility. Cap-and-trade is at the heart of what his campaign calls a "market-based system to curb greenhouse gas emissions, mobilize innovative technologies and strengthen the economy."

For the cap part, McCain said that by 2012, he wants to reduce emissions to 2005 levels. By 2020, he wants a return to 1990 levels. And by 2050, he wants to reduce emissions by 60 percent below what levels were in 1990. His proposal is more modest than what Sens. Clinton and Obama have proposed. Both Democratic candidates support an 80 percent drop below 1990 levels by 2050. This is closer to what the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calls for.

For the trade part, he supports a "new market" that rewards clean energy efforts and innovations. "And the highest rewards will go to those who make the smartest, safest, most responsible choices," he said.

McCain also said he supports government subsidies for nuclear energy, an idea that doesn't thrill some environmental groups like the Sierra Club.

Other environmentalists are practically jumping for joy that a Republican candidate is taking on their cause. "We are entering the post-Bush era of climate politics," said Jeremy Symons, director of the National Wildlife Federation's climate-change campaign. "There aren't a lot of shut doors here," Symons said about McCain's speech. "This is a very compelling statement about why we need to act urgently, and that is good news for everyone that we have candidates from both parties that are going to be making that case."

Dubious Distinction

Holly Yeager — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:19:13 GMT

Chuck Todd and the political unit at MSNBC watched her West Virginia speech like we did -- and came up with a dubious distinction for Hillary Clinton.

Whatever the motivation, Clinton is guaranteed to be the strongest loser since Reagan '76 or Hart '84, and both of those losers ended up future front-runners for future races.

What's second prize?

A Fitting Sacrifice

Mike Lillis — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:29:11 GMT

Since launching the invasion of Iraq five years ago, President George W. Bush has taken heat for placing an enormous bulk of the sacrifice on members of the U.S. armed forces, even as he's asked the rest of the country to shoulder virtually none of the burden. It seems those critics spoke too soon. In an interview with The Politico yesterday, Bush revealed that he gave up golfing in 2003 “in solidarity” with the military families whose sons and daughters were dying overseas.

From this morning’s Washington Post:

    “I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf," Bush said in a White House interview with the Politico. "I feel I owe it to the families to be as -- to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

    Bush said he decided to stop playing golf on Aug. 19, 2003, when a truck bomb in Baghdad killed U.N. special representative Sergio Vieira de Mello and more than a dozen others.

    He said he received word of the attack while playing golf during a stay at the family ranch near Crawford, Tex. Press reports at the time indicate he took the call from Condoleezza Rice then his national security adviser.

    "They pulled me off the golf course, and I said it's just not worth it anymore to do," Bush said in yesterday's interview.

“It,” in this case, means golf, of course. Not the war. This was not, after all, an epiphany.

Click Here to Help

Holly Yeager — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:01:10 GMT

By my clock, Hillary Clinton was two minutes into her victory speech Tuesday night in Charleston, W.Va., when she started asking for money.

"Tonight I need your help to continue this journey," Clinton said, pointing the way, once again to HillaryClinton.com.

The money issue looms large, and may be as big a factor as any other in determining just how long Clinton stays in the fight. It's sure to come up Wednesday afternoon during a long meeting Clinton is holding in her Georgetown home with top supporters and donors.

The campaign is some $20 million in debt. There is a staff payroll to meet, vendors to pay, and, don't forget the $11m Clinton has loaned herself. Under a little-noticed provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, candidates who drop out of the race aren't allowed to raise money to pay back personal loans after their party's convention takes place. That's a pretty tight deadline.

Until the Last Dog Dies

Holly Yeager — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:07:51 GMT

Hillary Clinton's supporters know their history.

Back in 1992, when Bill Clinton was a struggling presidential candidate facing questions about Gennifer Flowers, he promised a New Hampshire crowd that he would stick with them "until the last dog dies." The speech was a turning point: Bill Clinton placed second in New Hampshire, was dubbed the "Comeback Kid," and rode that wave all the way to the White House.

On Tuesday night, as Hillary Clinton celebrated her victory in West Virginia's Democratic primary, a fan with a prime spot in the middle of the crowd held a big sign overhead that read, "until the last dog dies."

But if she was hoping for the same kind of turning point, the early signs aren't good.

Barack Obama's campaign was up early on Wednesday morning, announcing more superdelegate support: Christine Schon Marques, chair of Democrats Abroad (who actually only counts as half a superdelegate), and Indiana Rep. Pete Visclosky.

Republicans Say Ouch in Mississippi

Holly Yeager — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:37:17 GMT

Republicans were already gloomy about the scenario facing their House candidates in the fall. But things got worse on Tuesday, when Democrat Travis Childers won a special election in a deep, dark red congressional district in Mississippi.

The district went for President Bush in 2004 by a whopping 62-37 margin, and, as Terence Samuel wrote in The American Prospect, it is "exactly the kind of district that Democrats are routinely forced to write off because it is so difficult to overcome the culturally tainted associations that come with being a Democrat."

The election was one of the contests I pointed to a couple of weeks ago, where Republicans ran ads that tied local Democratic candidates to Barack Obama, whom they painted as liberal and elitist. But the 8-point victory that Childers scored on Tuesday -- and a similar Democratic win in another special election in Louisiana earlier in May -- bodes ill for that strategy.

As Eric Kleefeld noted on TPM's Election Central, the news was so grim that Tom Cole, chairman of the NRCC, didn't even try to spin it. "We are disappointed in tonight's election results. Though the NRCC, RNC and Mississippi Republicans made a major effort to retain this seat, we came up short," he said.

Cole acknowledged that voters are "pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general." His plan? "Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for. This is something we can do in cooperation with our Presidential nominee, but time is short."

Fury Over Obama's Atlantic Interview Continues

Jeremy P. Jacobs — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:00:00 GMT

The clamor surrounding Obama's interview with Jeffrey Goldberg continues. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), took the "constant sore" remarks and ran with it late yesterday, issuing this statement, per ABC news.

'Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a ‘constant sore’ as Barack Obama claims,' Boehner said. 'Obama’s latest remark, and his commitment to ‘opening a dialogue’ with sponsors of terrorism, echoes past statements by Jimmy Carter who once called Israel an ‘apartheid state.’'

As ABC points out, this doesn't quite mesh with the interview since Obama directly dismisses Carter's "apartheid" statement.

Boehner's remarks angered Golberg, who this morning responded on his blog blasting the minority leader. Golberg says that Boehner must have simply not read the entire interview, since "Obama expressed - in twelve different ways - his support for Israel to me." He adds these choice words:

Boehner's statement [is] mendacious, duplicitous, gross, and comically refutable. So Mr. Boehner, do the right thing, and correct the record. I'll be happy to post the correction right here.

Strong words, to be sure. Don't count on Boehner responding to this, but it will be interesting to see how this continues to play out. Stay tuned.