Elvis: "I am sick of Karl Rove's bullshit."

Huffington Post, "Remnick On Clinton On Everything, Picked Up By Nothing":

What do you get when you send esteemed and erudite New Yorker editor David Remnick around the world with the wildly popular former president of the United States, Bill Clinton, to talk about his life, work, legacy, and not-at-all-controversial-or-in-the-news-lately wife Hillary ? Quite a lot, actually: A massive 23-page story (with photos, poems and cartoons, but still) with anecdotes, frank exchanges, keen insights and some really, really good soundbytes. What you don't get is a link: The piece is not available online. Which means that what you also don't get is any online presence. At all.

Which for a piece like this is saying something. Before I list a few of the gems you'll find if you, too, invest the thirteen hours needed to read it all, I will note one quote from Clinton: "I am sick of Karl Rove's bullshit." Incredibly, one week after publication, a search for "I am sick of Karl Rove's bullshit" on Google will yield one hit: A link to ABC's "The Note" that actually takes you to the wrong link and requires a search through the archives and then moving forward a few pages before a measly excerpt may be had. What does this tell us? It tells us that the New Yorker PR department needs to send their press releasesout more widely online (and make it available the next week somewhere other than Google cache), and that the New Yorker can't rely on Remnick's cachet, Clinton's galvanizing popularity and the tantalizing possibility of Republican trashtalk to bring a 23-page article to life in the blogosphere without a little help.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of nuggets from the piece; those looking for a precis can find one of sorts in the New Yorker PR dept's aforementioned 1,066-word account, as well as a New Yorker Q&A with Remnick here.

Clinton on Rove: "I am sick of Karl Rove's bullshit."

Clinton on the Kerry campaign: "Like a deer caught in the headlights."

Clinton on watching the World Cup Final in Berlin: "I'm totally psyched for this."

Clinton on the vote to go into Iraq: "I'm sick and tired of being told that if you voted for authorization you voted for the war. It was a mistake, and I would have made it, too....The administration did not shoot straight on the nuclear issue or on Saddam's supposed ties to Al Qaeda prior to 9/11."

Chelsea on her father's handling of the AIDS crisis after writing a thesis on the subject at Oxford: "I gave you a grade," she told her father. "What did I get?" Clinton asked. "C-plus." Her rationale: "You didn't do nearly enough. But you did more than anyone else in the world."

Clinton on dying: "I've reached an age now where it doesn't matter whatever happens to me...I just don't want anyone to die before their time anymore."

Hillary on that weird NYT story about their marriage: "I'm endlessly fascinated by people's fascination with us, but that's not something I'm going to spend much time on."

Bill on that weird NYT story about their marriage: "I think it got pretty well the response that it deserved."

Apparently, Hillary Clinton loves giraffes; accordingly, her husband bought her a giant wooden one which Remnick estimated was "seven, eight feet tall." (The NYT is no doubt working out the symbolism.)

Clinton on WaPo's Susan Schmidt: "A Xerox machine for Ken Starr."

Clinton on his inaction in Rwanda, which he said was the worst foreign-policy mistake of his administration: "We never even had a staff meeting on it." (Note: Clinton said that was "why I went there and apologized in '98"; he said the Rwandans said he was the only one who had apologized.)

Remnick on Clinton's relationship with Ron Burkle: Apparently, Clinton flies on his plane.

Remnick on Ron Burkle's alleged penchant for models and youthful plane guests: Er, nothing, actually. Hey, 23 pages doesn't give you much space.

Clinton on puncutality, as expressed in being 15 minutes late to meet with Nelson Mandela, per Remnick: "Astonishingly, he will make anyone wait for him, even a global patriarch who is presumably his moral hero."

Clinton on the Bush administration: "It just makes me mad...I just wish I were there trying to articulate an alternative vision."

On the fact that he is not: "You have to bloom where you're planted."

"Critics of War Spare Senator in Close Race"

NY Times:

Even as Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington has faced frequent criticism for having voted for the war in Iraq, her re-election campaign appears to be benefiting from a cold dose of pragmatism among many of her fellow Democrats.

After looking east to Connecticut, where another supporter of the war, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, lost the Democratic primary last month, many Democrats here say attacking Ms. Cantwell in Tuesday’s primary seems flat-out foolish because it could benefit the well-financed Republican challenger in November.
(snip)
After all, unlike in Connecticut, the question here is not whether another Democrat will unseat Ms. Cantwell. Instead, the wild card is whether antiwar opponents will peel away enough support to leave her vulnerable to the Republican opponent, Mike McGavick, a former insurance executive who recently put $2 million of his own money into his campaign.

With a practical eye on that very different political reality, Ms. Cantwell and many of her antiwar critics have moved closer to each other, and the senator’s lead over Mr. McGavick has increased to double digits in some polls.
(snip)
Ms. Cantwell, who was first elected in 2000 by just 2,229 votes, has strong union support and has won praise from environmentalists for helping to fight oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

With Washington’s history of close elections, both national parties consider the race critical and plan to spend time and money here this fall.
(snip)
“ ‘Do you really want a Republican representing Washington?’ That’s the question she’s asking,” said Chad Lupkes, a Washington coordinator for Democracy for America.
(snip)
In July, Ms. Cantwell hired two of her potential Democratic primary challengers, both critics of the war, to work on her campaign. The move drew charges from both sides that she was paying off opponents; one of those hired, Mark Wilson, is paid $8,000 a month. The other person hired was Dal LaMagna.

Mr. Wilson, now a Cantwell campaign outreach director, did not respond to a request for an interview. Mr. Lupkes said Mr. Wilson was far from a sellout. He said it had been “critical” for Mr. Wilson to join the Cantwell campaign.

“The progressives really want to learn how the system works,” Mr. Lupkes said. “You’ve got a bunch of people who say that the war is their top, only issue. Those people are fools. They’re going to vote for Aaron Dixon. Maybe 5 percent of the vote goes for him?”

Thanks to Mr. Goldstein, for passing this along.

"Do You Mind if I Beat You to Death?"

Booman Tribune:

Habibullah, was captured in November 2002. He was locked in an isolation cell with his hands shackled to the wire ceiling over his head. The report describes how he was literally kicked to death over several days.
The guards found him "uncooperative", and he was given multiple "peroneal strikes" - a disabling blow to the leg just above the knee. "That was kind of like an accepted thing; you could knee somebody in the leg," former Sgt Thomas Curtis told investigators.

A lawyer for one of the guards who kneed Habibullah in this fashion told US investigators: "My client was acting consistently with the standard operating procedure that was in place at the Bagram facility."

When Habibullah started coughing up phlegm and complaining of chest pains, the guards laughed at him. Eventually his dead body was found hanging from the handcuffs that still chained him to the ceiling. A post-mortem examination found that he was probably killed by a blood clot, caused by the leg injuries, which travelled to his heart and blocked the blood supply to his lungs.

Dilawar, a taxi driver, was detained in December 2002 as he drove past a US base that had earlier come under rocket attack. Passengers he had picked up were carrying suspicious items.

Spc Corey Jones, an interrogator, told investigators that Dilawar spat in his face. He responded with a couple of knee strikes.

"He screamed out, 'Allah! Allah! Allah!' and my first reaction was that he was crying out to his God," Spc Jones said. "Everybody heard him cry out and thought it was funny." The report says it became a running joke and prison guards kicked Dilawar just to hear him scream "Allah". "It went on over a 24-hour period, and I would think that it was over 100 strikes," he said.

During an interrogation, the severely injured Dilawar begged a translator to get him a doctor. The translator says he told the interrogators, but one replied: "He's OK. He's just trying to get out of his restraints."

An autopsy found that Dilawar died of heart failure caused by "blunt force injuries to the lower extremities". The coroner, Lieutenant-Colonel Elizabeth Rouse, told a pre-trial hearing that his legs "had basically been pulpified ... I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus."

"Joe Fuiten's robo call for conservative judges"

David Postman has the goods that fueled the fire that Goldy and Joel Connelly fanned last night on "The David Goldstein Show" on 'Newsradio 710-KIRO.'

Dr. Dean, We Have a Problem (UPDATED)

Update [2006-9-19 0:12:15 by howieinseattle]: Fortune's Washington bureau chief writes about "Rahm Emanuel, Pitbull politician"and tells us how he is working hard to beat the Rethugs at their own game. "Democrats' Spending Gives Edge to GOP" in the LA Times covers some of the same territory but gives credit to Howard Dean for delivering "more resources toward building the party at the state level than any other DNC chairman." Meanwhile, Al Gore calls

for the "elimination of all payroll taxes -- including those for social security and unemployment compensation -- and the replacement of that revenue in the form of pollution taxes, principally on CO2."

But Gore said it's up to the American people to demand action.

"When the politicians are paralyzed in the face of a great threat," he explained, "our nation needs a popular movement, a rallying cry, a standard, a mandate that is broadly supported on a bipartisan basis." The former Presidential candidate plans to spend the next year campaigning for the cause.

As David Sirota reminds us, some House Democrats are "bragging about how they are shaking down Big Money interests for cash." And while I agree with Matt Stoller that "it's time the blogosphere begin to focus on organizing problems instead of just our obsession with message," too many people still see no difference in the two political parties when it comes to the corrupting influence of Big Money.

Stoller is also upset about a certain House Democrat in the leadership who is "pandering to Wall Street."

"Internet transforming campaign process"

The Record (Stockton, CA):

Cable advertising is just the most visible aspect of a deeper tactic: micro-targeting. This is where a campaign dissects an electorate based on personal preferences that have little to do with politics.

A campaign could look at who reads certain magazines, or who holds certain licenses, or who buys certain products and then send specific literature to them. Many companies will sell subscription lists to campaigns - this is why a decline-to-state voter who takes Field & Stream might get a "Sportsmen for Schwarzenegger" flier in the mail.

Princeton Prof Hacks Diebold on FOX News (Video)

Here.

"Senate race has national echoes"

Neil Modie:

Tran has worked for other Democratic candidates in the past and said she will vote -- but not actively campaign -- for Cantwell if the senator wins Tuesday.

Tran is the most vocal antiwar Democrat left in the primary since Cantwell put her harshest critic and primary opponent, Mark Wilson, on her campaign staff for $8,000 a month in July.

"Hong Tran and Mark Wilson successfully raised the question of the war within the party," state Democratic Chairman Dwight Pelz said. "But Democrats are solidly united behind Cantwell."

Assuming she wins Tuesday, Cantwell will face two other antiwar opponents in November, Bruce Guthrie, a libertarian, and Aaron Dixon, a Green Party candidate, along with McGavick and an independent, Robin Adair. In a close Cantwell-McGavick race, Guthrie and Dixon could peel crucial votes from the senator.

Elvis Schmoozes the Blogosphere Elite

Guardian UK:

Bill Clinton supports an army of bloggers growing in strength and confidence---
When historians come to write the definitive account of the rise of the liberal blog in the US, it is quite possible they will identify a small meeting in Harlem this week as a tipping point. The gathering looked unremarkable enough, a group of about 20 men and women sitting round a boardroom table, but it represented something highly significant.

The people assembled were the elite, if that's not a contradiction in terms, of the Democrat-leaning blogosphere. And the man at the centre was Bill Clinton.

Over a two-hour lunch of southern chicken, sweet potato fries, cornbread and cherry cake ("our plates were clean at the end", noted the blogger from Talkleft), the conversation ranged widely across Iraq, healthcare, energy and tax. But it kept coming back to a central theme: the growing strength and confidence of the liberal blogs.

Clinton told the group that over the past two years he had become an avid reader, and that he now included blog posts in his daily news cuttings service. For the bloggers, toiling away in their front rooms, it was heady stuff. "Here I was with a group of my friends and colleagues, meeting with one of our nation's presidents because our small, do-it-yourself political operation had drawn his attention," writes Chris Bowers on the MyDD blog. "I mean, this is largely work I have completed from the bedroom of my apartment in West Philly."

Coming of age

To be bathed in the famously energising glow of the former president's attention is an unfamiliar sensation. Ever since blogs took off in America three or four years ago, the running has been made by writers and editors from the right such as Andrew Sullivan, Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds, the law professor behind InstaPundit. Liberal sites were confined to the role of second cousins.

So the Clinton meeting was a much-needed pat on the back. Bill Scher, who edits the Liberal Oasis blog, thinks they are now emerging as real forces. "Right-wing blogs have been very good and very fast at putting out misinformation. What we are now learning to do is to be better than that - to put out good information faster than they do and accurately so that it cannot be rebutted."

Scher's book, Wait! Don't move to Canada, is published next week. It records how liberal blogs first came to public attention when they raised substantial amounts of money for the 2004 primary campaign of the anti-Iraq war Democrat, Howard Dean.

Now they have moved a step beyond that. "We are no longer dismissed as just ATMs for the Democrats - now people have to listen to what we say."

ABC television had to listen to what the liberal blogs had to say this week. It came a cropper over a two-part docu-drama about the lead-up to September 11, The Path to 9/11, which portrayed the counter-terrorism efforts of the Clinton administration in a poor light.

One blog, Think Progress, exposed inaccuracies in the show, or "crockudrama" as left bloggers dubbed it. The site's editor, Judd Legum, became aware of the contents of the drama when rightwing bloggers and the radio host Rush Limbaugh began talking about it. "They had evidently been passed copies of the movie and that alerted us to it."

Legum started investigating the drama about 10 days before it was scheduled for broadcast, identifying the most egregious mistakes and researching and compiling rebuttals. He enlisted the help of the site's army of bloggers and within days he had ignited a firestorm that enveloped ABC and brought Clinton and several of his former aides into the furore. "You could watch it build exponentially," Legum told the Guardian. " First we had seven mentions on cable TV, then 40, then 300, then 400. It just took off."

In the end, ABC was forced to re-edit several of the disputed scenes. It removed passages suggesting Clinton had been distracted from the emerging threat of al-Qaida by his obsession with Monica Lewinsky; it reined in a critical depiction of Clinton's former secretary of state Madeleine Albright; and it cut out a shot of Sandy Berger, the former national security adviser, slamming down the phone on a CIA operative who was pleading to be allowed to attack Osama Bin Laden.

So has the leftwing blog finally come of age?

Peter Daou thinks this week's events suggest that it is moving in the right direction. "The Clinton meeting and the Path to 9/11 both put down a marker."

Daou advised John Kerry during his 2004 presidential bid on how to reach out to bloggers. He has recently taken up a similar role for Hillary Clinton, acting as a go-between in her campaign to be re-elected to the Senate in November. "There have been tensions and growing pains, and at times a lot of elbowing and jockeying for position," he said. "But we are on the way to building a new centre of power politics in America."

Liberal blogs

Think Progress

With a staff of just five, Think Progress punches well above its weight, as was seen by the impact it had on the ABC docudrama, The Path to 9/11. It is connected to the Washington- based liberal thinktank, the Centre of American Progress, whose director is the former chief of staff under Bill Clinton. It has about 100,000 visitors a day, and its focus is on monitoring rightwing blogs and the mainstream media. It calls itself a movement of "guerrilla fact checkers".

thinkprogress.org

Daily Kos

Founded in 2002 by Markos Moulitsas Zúniga and run by him from Berkeley, California. The site now attracts 20 million unique visits a month. The blog is named after the nickname Moulitsas acquired when he was in the army (it rhymes with "dose").

dailykos.com

Feministing

The site by and for young feminists. The executive editor is Jessica Valenti, a 27-year-old feminist writer from New York. Its mission statement says that: "Young women are rarely given the opportunity to speak on their own behalf on issues that affect their lives and futures. Feministing provides a platform for us to comment, analyse and influence."

Feministing.com

Liberal Oasis

The blog, edited by Bill Scher, publishes original commentary every morning from Monday to Friday. It carries the motto: "Where the Left is right and the Right is wrong."

Liberaloasis.com

Firedoglake

Founded by Jane Hamsher, who produced the Oliver Stone film, Natural Born Killers. Its blogger, Christy Hardin Smith, who was present at the Clinton lunch, writes on the site that there is a need for "better messaging and coordination/ cooperation with blogs and the Democratic leadership, who seem to constantly be trying to work at cross-purposes with all of us."

Firedoglake.com

America blog

Focuses on US politics, particularly the Bush Administration, the radical right, and gay civil rights. Why turn to it? Because, it says, "at some point you tire of the lies". It is run by John Aravosis, a Washington-based writer and political consultant.

Americablog.com

Photographic evidence here.

Turdblossom Roundup

mcjoan on Kos: "Rove Brings Hate Speech Tour out West." This post is leading in the comments contest on their front page.

Darryl: "Maria Cantwell on the Rove Visit." Maria's posse raised more than $31K for Darcy in four hours.

David Postman: "A tale of two Texans," with video of "a prominent lefty populist Texan's take on the big time Lone Star conservative" from Lynn Allen. In an earlier post, Lynn recounts how Hightower ran into the "Bush/Rove Meatgrinder" during a political campaign.

Seattle Times: "Rove hits the Eastside for some fundraising " reveals that Kemper Freeman also hosted a pre-reception gathering in his Bellevue offices on the top floor of Bellevue Square.

"Know Thy Voter"

Hotline:

A sophisticated and previously unrevealed experiment by Democratic interest groups could provide Democratic candidates in as many as nine states with an unanticipated edge in the November elections.

If the state modeling projects work, America Votes hopes to set up a similar effort in every battleground state in 2008.

America Votes, a roundtable of the nation's top liberal membership groups, is coordinating a multimillion-dollar program to boost Democratic turnout using the same voter modeling method mastered by Republicans in 2004.

"The goal here is to once again bring 'field' into the column of the progressive community," said Jano Cabrera, a senior adviser to the project.

EMILY's List, which raises money to help elect Democratic women, is in the catbird seat for two states: Michigan and Minnesota, both of which feature competitive gubernatorial and senate races. Other members of America Votes plan to employ the project in Ohio, Colorado, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. And so-called "robust" voter lists will also be provided to program members in Arizona, New Hampshire and New Mexico.

Catalist, a private information firm founded by veteran Democratic strategist Harold Ickes, is providing the raw data. The firm has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to add demographic and commercial data to entries for each voter, often purchasing the information from information vendors.

In Michigan, EMILY's List asked Garin Hart Yang, a Democratic polling firm, to survey more than 12,000 Michigan voters with an in-depth battery of lifestyle and issue questions. From the massive poll, EMILY's List and Garin Hart Yang were able to profile distinct clusters of voters. These groups were then given names like Educated Postgraduate Democrats or Downscale Union Independents. Each cluster was scored for how likely it'd support Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, their affinity toward the Democratic Party and the likelihood they will vote.

Then, using reams of the appended demographic data, each of more than 6.7 million names on the statewide voter file was given a score that corresponded to the clusters they most closely matched. Based on the cluster score, voters will be targeted with precise appeals. The project aims to increase turnout statewide, not just in traditionally Democratic counties like Wayne, but in heavily conservative areas of Western Michigan, and Oakland and Macomb counties in the east.

If the state modeling projects work, America Votes hopes to set up a similar effort in every battleground state in 2008. Officials at Catalist, America Votes and EMILY's List will unveil the program to major Democratic donors. Similar efforts are under way at the Democratic National Committee, which has spent more than $6 million to craft robust voter files for state parties, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which has modeled clusters of voters in its targeted states, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

In 2005, the DNC worked with the Virginia Democratic Party, then-Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine's gubernatorial campaign and a private firm called Copernicus Analytics to identify Democrats who had voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 but not for then-Gov. Mark Warner in 2001. Kaine saw his turnout increase more than 40 percent among those so-called drop-off voters. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's re-election campaign has employed the same microtargeting firm, Copernicus Analytics, to help them find new voters in New York.

The impulse to find new ways to flush voters to the polls was midwifed from the party's failure in 2004. Democrats and their allies spent more than $100 million to turn out a record number of voters in areas with high concentrations of Democratic voters. It worked, but Republican targets were far higher. The Republican National Committee and the Bush-Cheney campaign had pioneered several new technique for tunneling to their voters. One, dubbed microtargeting, allowed them to find hidden warrens of Bush voters in Democratic precincts. It also predicted the best way to send persuasive messages to those voters.

"While there used to be a time when progressives could feel secure in having a field advantage over conservatives that came to an abrupt end in November 2004," said Cabrera.

Some Democrats worry that the Republican National Committee is cycles ahead of the Democratic Party in using the technology, and they fear that the Democratic National Committee's efforts to catch up are underfunded and proceeding too slowly. Also, dozens of outside Democratic groups have worked for years with voter and membership lists dubbed "dirty," meaning they were out of date and not dynamic. Ickes, the deputy chief of staff to President Clinton, started the Data Warehouse in part to help these outside groups. Laura Quinn, who ran the DNC's database in 2004, became its president. America Votes became its first client; the two share an office in Washington. Last week, Data Warehouse changed its name to Catalist.

The Republican machine is massive. The party will use an enhanced version of micro targeting and voter persuasion programs in every contested House race in the country. For months, state parties have been adding and updating identified voters to their centralized database, called Voter Vault. In several states, the number of identifiable voter clusters exceeds 40. More than 200,000 volunteers will make telephone calls and knock on doors on election day.

Told about the Michigan program, one senior Republican party official said he wasn't worried. "We've been doing this for years. They're just starting."

And Rep. Tom Cole, who is coordinating get-out-the-vote efforts for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said that no matter what Democrats or allies do, "We'll clearly enjoy a significant resource advantage over our counterparts."

Mike?: "Mr. Civility" and "Stand Up Guy"

Darryl:

I was thrilled to read about your “three strikes” plan with its mandatory drug-abuse testing for Welfare recipients. It is about time we take action against those societal leaches, and make them think twice about signing up to pick our pockets. And your proposal to snatch away parental rights for those who “strike out” is a beautiful example of Compassionate Conservativism™ baked to perfection!
(snip)
I think all too much has been made of the irony that you were once arrested for DUI. The blogs are going nuts suggesting that your right to be in a relationship should be revoked because you drove your wife-to-be around while you were stinking drink. I’ve even heard demands that you submit to substance abuse evaluation for the good of your own young children out of fear that you might be setting a bad example (perhaps fueled by your recent admission that you still socially drink and drive).

Don’t concern yourself with these silly criticisms. Remember, Mike!™, you can diffuse such arguments in a way that only a man of your stature and achievement can. You can simply point out that you have given your children the gift of a gated community, the moral fiber of a home life isolated from the ugliness (and, frankly, the raw stench) of poor people with their filthy little habits. You have given your children the gift of a trust fund conditional on a clean record. Finally, you have given your children the emotional security of knowing that, if need be, they have the financial certainty to spend a few months in rehab.

Frankly, Mike!™, you are just plain better than poor people, and that’s why you deserve to be our next Senator.

My favorite comment from a reader of Goldy's post on this topic:

How about drug testing for corporate welfare recipients? They receive a helluva lot more in federal money than do individual recipients. Maybe Halliburton’s shareholders should all have to pee in a cup before we give them any more taxpayer dollars.

And my favorite part of Goldy's post:

Leaving aside the obvious irony of Mike?™ calling for a crackdown on substance abuse, I guess my biggest question for the candidate would be whether he has a dollar figure attached to his proposal, and how he expects to pay for it?

"Suit: Ban computer voting"

Rocky Mountain News(CO):

Voting on computer screens is so vulnerable to massive fraud that Colorado's November election is "headed for a train wreck," says an attorney who is seeking to have the equipment barred at trial next week.

An expert would need just 2 minutes to reprogram and distort votes on a Diebold, one of four brands of computerized voting systems attacked in the suit, says attorney Paul Hultin. His firm, Wheeler Trigg Kennedy, has taken on the case pro bono for a group of 13 citizens of various political stripes.

And he's not the only one alarmed as details of the case spread this week.

The Colorado Democratic Party on Thursday urged all voters to cast absentee ballots for the November election to avoid potential fraud, after a key state official said in a deposition that he certified the computer voting equipment even though he has no college education in computer science and did little security testing.

"New 527 Ripoff Schemes from 'Top Democratic Strategists' "

Matt Stoller:

Ok, so Harold Ickes is trying to raise $25 million for a new 527 to focus on field and advertising. Rahm Emanuel is hiring the Bob Shrum of field operations, Michael Whouley, to run his DCCC field plan. And another 527 with a presumed budget of $8-10 million is being run by former DNC bigwigs Martin Frost, Tony Coehlo, Joe Andrew, and Don Fowler.

Ok, let's look at what's going on here.

"How Chafee Won"

UPDATE: This news story in the WaPo, "In R.I., a Model for Voter Turnout," provides more details.

Hotline:

Rhode Island will become a case study in the effectiveness of the Republicans’ 72 Hour Program. Behind the curtain, Chafee’s campaign spent $500,000 to squeeze out every conceivable voter from neighborhoods across the state. They searched for independents who voted Democrat in municipal elections but who had once upon a time voted for a Republican for president or governor or senator. There were a few of those. They looked for non-affiliated voters in Republican neighborhoods. Using microtargeting techniques, they even tried to figure out which committed Democrats might be tempted to vote for Chafee.

By the end of the summer, Chafee’s campaign had identified 42,000 potential supporters. Then the second part of the program kicked in. Message, here, is a verb. The campaign “messaged” these voters, often individually. Chafee himself called more than 100 of them who were identified as being capable of swinging the votes of colleagues and friends. The standard complement of robocalls, mailings and personal visits were employed. In the twelve days of September, Chafee, the RNC and NRSC made more than 198,000 phone calls to the voters on their list. Many voters received one every two days.

On election day, the Chafee campaign stationed poll watchers at 100 key precincts across the state. By 10:00 am, the RNC and the NRSC were confident that Chafee would win.

"The Army Field Manual, The Torture Scandal, and The Intelligence Scandal"

Rolling Stone:

Thanks to reader Ancon for digging up what should have been in a box on the front page of every newspaper the day Bush proposed rewriting the Geneva Conventions:

I would simply like to quote the Army Field Manual here, which I think summarizes how this works in reality quite well:

“The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”

"Senate Forecast Update, and a Generational Gap Among Forecasters"

Chris Bowers:

I have the new Senate forecast up. It features updates on virtually every race, so summarizing them here would be pointless. Just go read it. I have also made some adjustments to the House forecast, thanks to your excellent comments in the update thread form this afternoon. It would be impossible to do this forecast without you guys. Thank you!

I also wanted to highlight what I think is a very insightful comment by Charlie Cook on a generational gap among election forecasters. From his latest column:

As a general rule, election-watchers under the age of 40, regardless of their party or ideology, see the contest for control of the House as fairly close. They foresee Republicans' losing at least 10 seats, but certainly no more than 20, and they put the odds of a Democratic takeover at 50-50, give or take 10 percentage points. As for the Senate, these observers tend to expect Republicans to lose three or four seats, but probably not five and certainly not the six required for Democrats to take charge.

Observers over age 40, meanwhile, tend to see a greater likelihood of sizable Republican losses. They think that the GOP could well lose more than 20 House seats and more than five Senate seats.

Most of the professionals toiling in the vineyards of the party campaign committees and watching individual races most closely are in the under-40 cohort. They tend to see control of the House as a close call and tend to be most conservative on their House seat counts. They're also the least likely to think the Senate will change hands. Invariably, these younger pros acknowledge that for Republicans this is a "very challenging election cycle," the euphemism that GOP spokesmen use to keep from saying that 2006 is shaping up as "a really bad year" for their party. Yet these younger observers focus almost exclusively on where each contest stands right now, employing a sort of political version of the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Older pros, while often one or more steps removed from the day-to-day developments in each contest, appear to read a bit more into the races, placing greater emphasis on the national political environment and what it is likely to mean for contests that are currently too close to call or for Republican incumbents with precarious leads. These relative old-timers vividly remember the midterm elections of 1994, 1986, 1982, and 1974, as well as the presidential year of 1980, when the late Speaker Tip O'Neill's adage "All politics is local" clearly didn't apply.

I think that Cook is absolutely correct in what he writes here. As someone in the under-40 crowd, the only wave election I remember was 1994. I don't even remember that election very well, since I was in England during my study abroad year at that time. For me, the House has basically been static and local, with the exception of one huge landslide that I was unable to follow closely. When I was 14 years old in 1986, I did not follow congressional elections much at all.

In addition to what Cook wrote, I think there is something else fueling this generational gap. Younger people who follow politics closely are used to Republicans winning. I remember brutal Republican landslides from 1984, 1988 and 1994. I remember Republicans pulling out tight elections in 1998, 2002, and 2004. In my experience, with few exceptions, Republicans have consistently won elections, while Democrats have consistently lost. For an older generation, the opposite was true--and how!--for a very, very long time. I have often thought that this difference in experience has led to a different political attitude by the older and younger generations in the Democratic Party and progressive ecosystem, where one generation views us as the natural governing party, and one does not. I think that this leads to a desire for much fiercer opposition tactics from the younger generation, as well as a desire to shake up existing infrastructure (especially advocacy and consulting infrastructure). We don't view our return to power as the natural course of things, we are convinced that the old ways have failed, and we have grown utterly paranoid of Republicans pulling out any election no matter how dire the circumstances seemed for them. Thus, in addition to the differences I just described, generally speaking we also view the 2006 situation as slightly better for Republicans than an older generation might. Most of my friends don't really believe that we will win in November, and while I am not as pessimistic as some, I am certainly not the most optimistic forecaster out there. In fact, among the professional forecasters, I think only CQ politics rates the situation as worse for Democrats than I do. I want to believe in a national wave, but there is no way I am going to let my hopes get that high. Until Election Day, I will try to stay away from a focus on national trends, and instead look at races on a district-by-district basis. Back in 2004, I used a theory known as the Incumbent Rule to predict a narrow Kerry win, but it did not pan out. Even leaving aside my own personal hopes for the moment, the last thing I want is to once again be the person who caused 250,000 people to get their hopes too high, only to see them dashed to the curb on a Wednesday morning in early November.

The Devil Comes to Town for Dave

Lynn Allen gives us a short history of Turdblossom's deeds in "Dirty Tricks Master, Karl Rove, to Stump for Reichert:"

Why would “the Sheriff” bring someone to raise money for him who has repeatedly skirted the law? Desperation? We have to assume it is nothing else. The latest poll shows his opponent, Darcy Burner, ahead by a couple of points, and that is without the 90% plus name recognition that Reichert commands. So, Karl Rove, the man who groomed George Bush for President and ran a series of truly dirty political campaigns to get him elected and re-elected, is coming to Medina this Friday to raise money for Dave Reichert. This is the man whom “the Sheriff” has asked to come help him stave off the increasingly successful campaign of Darcy Burner.

Let’s make certain it doesn’t work.
(snip)
Only now, with the rise of the progressive blogs and the ability of the blogosphere to research and articulate the truth about what is going on and to support the Democrats who dare to speak the truth, are we overcoming the strategy and tactics that have made Karl Rove so dangerous.

This is the man whom “the Sheriff” has asked to come help him stave off the increasingly successful campaign of Darcy Burner. Contribute to Darcy's campaign to prevent Rove from maintaining his control of the Republican House.

"Frameshop: The Physics of 'Safety'"

Jeffrey Feldman:

This year on 9/11, President Bush made the odd statement that five years after the attacks "we are safer, but we are not yet safe," and that as a result of 9/11, Americans seek a "safer" world.

Bush is claiming, in other words, that invasion and occupation of Iraq is his strategy to keep us 'safe'--to create a condition that he calls 'safety.'

But what is this 'safety' of his, anyway? What is President Bush's view? Should we even be talking about 'safety'? What is the alternative?

While there is some question as to whether or not we should view our foreign policy in terms of war or police action, President Bush is framing the debate in terms of a much more general premise: safety.

To reframe the debate, Progressives must shift the logic from the Physics of Safety to the logic of Security as a Program.

Wednesday Political Potpourri

John Dean on the Impeachment of the President:

A prolific author, most recently of the New York Times bestsellers “Worse Than Watergate” and “Conservatives Without Conscience,” Dean discussed with Truthdig managing editor Blair Golson (via e-mail) his view that the Democrats should not initiate impeachment hearings unless they have strong reason to believe the Senate would then vote to remove Bush from office – or else risk the kind of “sham” proceedings that characterized the Clinton impeachment saga.

Record $1.3 Million Spent so far to Elect Groen to Washington State Supreme Court:

Breaking all records, reported campaign contributions and spending to elect John Groen to the Washington State Supreme Court now exceeds $1,294,608. Over half a million dollars ($557,980) alone has been spent by by the BIAW (Building Industry Association of Washington) and PAC's it controls.

The BIAW and other special interest groups are trying to defeat current Supreme Court Justice Gerry Alexander. Groen is running on a program of defending developer interests over those of individual property owners and comunities. The BIAW is trying to elect their third Supreme Court Justice that represents their special interests. Previously they were the main spenders to elect James Johnson and Richard Saunders to the Court.

E-Voting: Corrupted Machines Not Needed to Rig an Election:

You don't need to corrupt the software in electronic voting machines to gain an unfair advantage for one party in an election. All you need do, in certain, select precincts (e.g., ones which vote predominately Democratic), is simply delay getting the the electronic cards needed to operate them when the polls open.

Air America To Declare Bankruptcy, But Progressive Radio Remains Strong:

Air America Radio will announce a major restructuring on Friday, which is expected to include a bankruptcy filing, three independent sources have told ThinkProgress.

Air America could remain on the air under the deal, but significant personnel changes are already in the works. Sources say five Air America employees were laid off yesterday and were told there would be no severance without capital infusion or bankruptcy. Also, Air America has ended its relationship with host Jerry Springer.

"Dean Agrees to Finance Some Programs for Turnout"

NY Times (AdNag):

Ending a long and cantankerous standoff with House Democratic leaders, Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has agreed to a limited program to finance get-out-the-vote operations this November, party officials said Tuesday.

But Mr. Dean remained at loggerheads with Senate Democrats, who continued to insist he provide more money.

The committee said it would provide $12 million to finance turnout operations for candidates running for the House and the Senate, and for state races. Just $2.6 million would go to finance turnout operations in 40 House races, far less than House Democratic leaders had asked for.

By contrast, the Republican National Committee has said it will spend more than $30 million of the $176 million raised this cycle to finance Republican turnout efforts, most of it going to House and Senate races.

Mr. Dean had staved off demands for more money from Democratic leaders in Congress, saying it was in the long-term interest of the Democrats to instead use the nearly $100 million he has raised this year to build strong Democratic organizations in all 50 states by giving them money to hire staff members.

The disagreement had sparked a lively feud between Mr. Dean and Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, who is leading the Democratic effort to win back the House. Mr. Emanuel and Mr. Dean stopped speaking to each other several months ago.

Mr. Emanuel’s aides said he was satisfied with the deal. “Yeah, we’re happy,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Between our effort, the D.N.C. effort, the labor effort and what other Democrats are doing, we’re going to have what we need for voter turnout.”

Mr. Emanuel’s counterpart in the Senate, Charles E. Schumer of New York, did not share his assessment. “We’re still in the process of negotiating,” Mr. Schumer said. “We’re hoping that we’ll have an amicable agreement that will make everyone happy.”

"WA-Sen: Cantwell leaps forward"

This just hit the front page of Kos:

Rasmussen. 9/6. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (8/15 results)

Cantwell (D) 52 (46)
McGavick (R) 35 (40)

Ouch. Republicans really, really had high hopes for this race. So what the heck happened? No Senate Democratic incumbent is seriously in trouble this year. Not anymore. Our biggest challenges holding Blue seats are the open seats in Minnesota and Maryland.

September 11th QUOTE OF THE DAY (with video)

Keith Olbermann:

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ’something to do’ with 9/11, is "lying by implication."
The impolite phrase, is "impeachable offense."

Here's some instant commentary on MyDD and reality-based educator.

Comparing Apples to Apples

Danny Schechter:

The last time a docudrama triggered a such a sh*t storm was not that long ago, when CBS was offering a fictionalized dramatization of the live and loves of Ronald Reagan. That was back in November 2003. Right wing organizations went ballistic with websites like insultspunished.com blasting it as biased and an unacceptable attack on a living President. Other outlets compared it to a media assassination.

Remember what happened then? CBS first defended it as accurate but then as the heat grew, yanked the whole series, no ifs and buts, and put it on Showtime, another Viacom-owned outlet.

"Howard Dean breezes through Chris Wallace interview" (Video)

Crooks and Liars:

Howard Dean gave a good performance on this morning’s (Sunday) edition of Fox News Sunday. He breezed through Chris Wallace’s interview with clear, honest and realistic answers. Chairman Dean presented one of the most unified voices for the Democratic Party of the election season so far.

"9/11 Video Tribute"

Truthdig presents a range of footage from the plane crashes to David Letterman to Jon Stewart to "9/11: Press for Truth" and "Loose Change."

Sunday Parts and Pieces

Hotline on Call.

Expect a rapproachment: an agreement between DNC chairman Howard Dean and occasional sparring partner Rahm Emanuel on how the party will help House campaigns is near, sources say. The two have agreed in principle about specific interventions the DNC can make in specific House races.

Paul Waldman in the Boston Globe (hat tip to Lynn Allen):

To see how Democrats have misunderstood the question of strength, we can examine Iraq -- likely to be the most prominent issue in the 2006 congressional elections and the 2008 presidential primaries and general election. It seems safe to assume that there were some Democrats who thought the Iraq war was a bad idea, but voted for it anyway out of fear that if they didn't, they would be called weak.

Three years later, with most Americans now believing the war was a mistake, do the Democrats who voted for the war look strong? Hardly. They look like pushovers who didn't have the guts to stand up to President Bush when it mattered most.

Yet today there are still some Democrats in Washington who believe their problem on national security can be solved by adopting positions as close as possible to those of the Republicans.

But strength doesn't flow from a policy proposal, and it can't be demonstrated with a hawkish vote. The public will be convinced that Democrats are strong when they stand up for their beliefs, take political risks, and don't run scared every time they get attacked by Republicans. Think about it this way: Martin Luther King Jr. was a pacifist, and no one ever called him weak.

In short, it isn't about voting the way you think the public wants you to vote, and it isn't about your 10-point plan. It's about who you are. That's just one lesson Democrats need to learn from Republicans.

Cheney Stays the Course on "Meet Tim Russert":

CHENEY: You’ve got Iraq and Al Qaeda, testimony from the Director of C.I.A. that there was indeed a relationship — Zarqawi in baghdad. et cetera. Then the

RUSSERT: The committee said there was no relationship. in fact saddam —

CHENEY: I haven’t seen the report. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet.

BONUS: Meet the Ignoramus: Russert Lets Cheney Completely Off the Hook" by Stephen Kaus:

As usual, Cheney said that Sadaam "kicked out the inspectors." Russert apparently does not know that the inspectors returned on November 27 2002 and that Blix reported on the increasing cooperation several times, including a report on March 7, 2003 describing three months of inspections. It made sense to threaten war to get the inspectors back in. It did not make sense to attack anyway.

Russert also let Cheney say that he has not seen or had a chance to read the Senate Intelligence Committee Report released late Friday that says that not only was there no link between Sadaam and Al Qaeda, but that Sadaam was trying to kill or capture al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The report also faults the administration for relying on Ahmad Chalabi. Shouldn't Russert have asked why Cheney did not get a chance to read the report during the year that committee chairman Pat Roberts has been suppressing it?

"In a pivotal year, GOP plans to get personal"

UPDATE: MyDD is first out of the gate with commentary on this story and their readers join in.

Washington Post:

Millions to be spent digging up dirt, ‘defining’ Democratic candidates---Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.

The hope is that a vigorous effort to "define" opponents, in the parlance of GOP operatives, can help Republicans shift the midterm debate away from Iraq and limit losses this fall. The first round of attacks includes an ad that labeled a Democratic candidate in Wisconsin "Dr. Millionaire" and noted that he has sued 80 patients.

"Opposition research is power," said Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (N.Y.), the NRCC chairman. "Opposition research is the key to defining untested opponents."

The Republican National Committee, meanwhile, has enlisted veteran party strategist Terry Nelson to run a campaign that will coordinate with Senate Republicans on ads that similarly will rely on the best of the worst that researchers have dug up on Democrats. The first ad run by the new RNC effort criticizes Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) for voting against proposals designed to toughen border protection and deport illegal immigrants.

Challengers make easy targets
Because challengers tend to be little-known compared with incumbents, they are more vulnerable to having their public image framed by the opposition through attacks and unflattering personal revelations.

And with polls showing the Republicans' House and Senate majorities in jeopardy, party strategists said they have concluded that their best chance to prevent big Democratic gains is a television and direct-mail blitz over the next eight weeks aimed at raising enough questions about Democratic candidates that voters decide they are unacceptable choices.

"When you run in an adverse political environment, you try to localize and personalize the race as much as you can," Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said.

In a memo released last week, Cole, who is running to succeed Reynolds at the NRCC, expanded on that strategy. The memo recommended that vulnerable incumbents spend $20,000 on a research "package" to find damaging material about challengers and urged that they "define your opponent immediately and unrelentingly."

GOP officials said internal polling shows Republicans could limit losses to six to 10 House seats and two or three Senate seats if the strategy -- combined with the party's significant financial advantage and battled-tested turnout operation -- proves successful. Democrats need to pick up 15 seats to win control of the House and six to regain power in the Senate.

Going for the local body blow
Against some less experienced and little-known opponents, said Matt Keelen, a Republican lobbyist heavily involved in House campaigns, "It will take one or two punches to fold them up like a cheap suit."

Republicans plan to attack Democratic candidates over their voting records, business dealings, and legal tussles, the GOP officials said.

John Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University and the author of a book on negative advertising, said Republicans and Democrats alike lack positive issues on which to run because of divisions over the war and economic policy. This will be a "very negative campaign and probably a more negative campaign than any in recent memory," Geer said.

As Republicans try to localize races, Democrats' hopes for the most part hinge on being able to nationalize the election and turn it into a referendum on the Iraq war, President Bush, and the performance of the Republican Congress -- all faring poorly in polls this year.

Bush will try to make terrorism the issue nationally, casting the election as a choice between two distinct approaches for protecting the nation from attack. Beyond that, however, most Republicans want to distance their elections from the national context.

That strategy is born of necessity. Republicans are alarmed by the large number of House and Senate incumbents who are trailing or tied in their internal polling. Many are attracting the support of less than 45 percent of likely voters -- a danger zone for any incumbent 60 days before an election. The political rule of thumb is that incumbents rarely draw a majority of voters who make up their minds in the days shortly before Election Day.

Do voters have an appetite for change?
History shows how the combination of opposition research and negative advertising can work. In 2000, Republicans unleashed a furious attack on the spending practices of Democratic House candidate Linda Chapin, including her purchase of an $18,500 bronze frog as a legislator in Florida. Chapin, then the favorite to win an open Florida House seat, lost to Republican Ric Keller. That same election cycle, Republicans dug up a tape of state Rep. Eleanor Jordan (D-Ky.) asking to speed up a vote so she could attend a fundraiser, an image that destroyed her chances of knocking off Rep. Anne M. Northup (R).

This year, the challenge is tougher, as national polling shows voters dissatisfied with the party in power and ready for a change.

"When all [Republicans] do is launch potshots, they look like they're trying to cover up the fact that they have no solutions" said Phil Singer, communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

As in past elections, the bulk of negative advertising this year probably will be delivered by party committees -- a strategy that allows the candidates to distance themselves from the trash-talking messages that turn off some voters.

Digging for dirt
Wisconsin's 8th District offers an example. Earlier this summer, the NRCC sent a young staff member to the district for one week to look through court records, government and medical documents, and local newspapers to find embarrassing information about physician Steve Kagen, one of the leading Democratic candidates in an important swing district, an NRCC aide said. The researcher discovered that Kagen's allergy clinic has sued more than 80 patients, mostly for failing to pay their bills.

A new NRCC ad airing in the Green Bay area, the district's main media market, warns: "What Dr. Millionaire doesn't want you to know is his clinic left more than 80 patients behind -- suing them. That's right, suing more than 80 patients."

In recent elections, Democratic officials have complained that Republicans are much better at opposition research. But Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chair the Democrats' House and Senate campaign committees, have invested more heavily in research. Notably, the researchers dig not only into Republicans, but also their own candidates. This allows Democrats to anticipate what is coming and be ready to respond quickly.

Dems also do opposition research
One Democratic research success this year came when Emanuel's staff combed though the archives of several universities to find a copy of an article Colorado Republican candidate Rick O'Donnell wrote for an obscure publication in the mid-1990s. A researcher eventually found the article at George Washington University. In it, O'Donnell argued that Social Security should be abolished -- a revelation that was highlighted in three sharply worded DSCC mailings in the district.

Direct-mail appeals often carry the most negative and potentially damaging messages. Dan Hazelwood, a leading GOP direct mail consultant, said that if a hypothetical Democratic candidate favors the establishment of a garbage dump in a section of the district, for instance, it makes more sense to "narrow-cast" this message by mail to the people most affected rather than buying an expensive, districtwide television ad.

The RNC's expanded role in part reflects concerns that Senate Republicans may not have enough money to take the fight to Democrats. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, under Chair Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), had $15 million less to spend than the DSCC at the end of July. But, the RNC is planning to make up the difference. The committee ended July with nearly $44 million in the bank, four times what the Democratic National Committee had on hand.

In setting up a separate arm to spend money on Senate races, the RNC is altering its past practice. In the past, the RNC simply transferred a large sum of money to the House and Senate campaign committees and let the chairmen decide how to spend it. This year, Nelson -- a former top official in the Bush reelection effort and political strategist for House Republicans -- will work with consultants Tony Feather and Curt Anderson to oversee the TV and direct-mail campaign, which by law must remain independent of coordination directly with candidates.

"Osama Bin Missing?"

Video (51 seconds) from the DNC.

Why You Want to See "Path to 9/11"

Bruce Kluger:

I have been watching with increasing curiosity the rage that has erupted over ABC's two-part miniseries, Path to 9/11, and once again I am shaking my head at how those who don't know what they're talking about (just Google "Path to 9/11" and take your pick of blogs) are working against their own best interest.

Trust me: You want this movie to air. I saw it. All six hours. Back in July.

Yes, the sections that portray the Clinton Administration bungling the capture and/or murder of Osama bin Laden are unconscionably irresponsible and historically inaccurate (just ask Madeleine Albright, or Sandy Berger, or President Clinton himself -- they were there); and certainly ABC should excise these egregiously reckless portions of the movie before it airs -- which I presume they are doing, even as I write this post. (Oh, what I'd give to be the owner of the Starbucks outside the ABC editing studios at this very moment.)

But the reason the film itself should not be cancelled is because it includes scene after scene that those of us who deplore this Administration will want the rest of America to see.

It shows how former White House anti-terror adviser Richard Clarke's complex strategy for dealing with Al Qaeda was arrogantly spiked as the Clinton Administration moved out of the White House, and the Bush posse moved in.

It shows how Condoleezza Rice patronizingly blew off those who'd work tirelessly for years on end dealing with the terrorist threat, and how the narrow-minded and insular officiousness of the incoming Administration helped lead us down the road to that awful day in September 2001.

It shows how middle management muddle at the FBI and CIA (all paid for with our tax dollars, thank you very much) effectively buried a memo from an FBI field officer in Phoenix, warning that Arabs who were under watch were suspiciously enrolled in flight training schools.

And it shows how FBI Agent John O'Neill -- arguably the man front and center in the fight against terrorism -- was so consistently hobbled by political infighting within the agency and the government, that with the arrival of the Bush presidency, he left his job (or was squeezed out of it) and took a new assignment as chief of security at New York's World Trade Center -- where he died on September 11, 2001.

These and many other scenes in Path to 9/11 are the reason it's important for America to see this movie. As long as ABC deletes the controversial passages -- which it would be wise to do -- the rest of the film makes a convincing case why the Bush regime should be sent packing, beginning this November.

"Dean: 'Who funded this $40 million dollar slanderous propaganda?' "

Raw Story:

Referring to the controversial docudrama Path to 9/11, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is calling on ABC/Disney to reveal "who funded this $40 million dollar slanderous propaganda," in a DNC press release received by RAW STORY.

"It's deeply disappointing that ABC would put something on the air that has been proven to have factual inaccuracies about one of the most important events in our nation's history," said Dean in the press release. "ABC should not air this distortion of history."

Path to 9/11 writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh "has ties to an evangelical Christian group whose goals include 'transform[ing] Hollywood from the inside out,' according to research by readers of prominent blogs," Justin Rood reported for TPMmuckraker earlier today. "Path director David L. Cunningham is also involved in The Film Institute, an offshoot of the Hawaii-based global evangelical group, Youth With a Mission."

"The fact that the writer/producer of the piece is a well known conservative raises additional concerns and questions," said Dean. "The American people deserve to know who funded this $40 million dollar slanderous propaganda."

"Use of the public airwaves is a privilege conferred upon broadcasters in the public interest," Dean continued. "It comes with a responsibility to the American people and a responsibility to the truth."

Here's the full text of the DNC press release.

"Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions"

AMERICAblog:

This letter was sent today (Thursday) by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.

Read it, then read my analysis of it here.

Tell KOMO not to air "Path to 9/11"

Andrew at Northwest Progressive Institute:

Eli Sanders of The Stranger reports that our local ABC affiliate, KOMO TV (owned by Fisher Broadcasting, Inc. which also owns KVI) is planning to air the right wing mockudrama and work of fiction, "Path to 9/11":

I'm told by a programming director at KOMO that they’ve been receiving quite a few angry calls and emails (and some thank-you notes) about the station’s plan to air The Path to 9/11. But as of now, the station has no plans to pull it.
Please call, write, email or fax KOMO and register your disgust and unhappiness with their plans. Here's their contact information, but this is the best place to write to:

programming@komotv4.com

And, if you're someone who likes to watch the local news, let them know you'll be tuning in to KIRO or KING in the future.

"Full Text Of Letter From Bill Clinton Lawyer To ABC Obtained"

From Raw Story:

...while we have not been given the courtesy of a viewing, based upon reports from people who have seen the drama you plan to air, we understand that there are at least three significant factual errors:

-- The drama leads viewers to believe that National Security Advisor Sandy Berger told the CIA that he would not authorize them to take a shot at bin Laden. This is complete fiction and the event portrayed never happened. First of all, the 9/11 Commission Report makes clear that CIA Director George Tenet had been directed by President Clinton and Mr. Berger to get bin Laden (p. 199 & 508-509). Secondly, Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism from 1999-2001, has said, on more than one occasion, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”

In addition, ABC’s own counter-terrorism consultant, Richard Clarke, has said that contrary to the movie:

1) No US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden;

2) The head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was nowhere near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see bin Laden; and

3) CIA Director Tenet said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single-sourced and there would be no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

As Clarke and others will corroborate, President Clinton did in fact approve of a standing plan to use Afghans who worked for the CIA to capture bin Laden. The CIA’s Afghan operatives were never able to carry out the operation and the CIA recommended against inserting Agency personnel to do it. The Department of Defense, when asked by President Clinton to examine the use of US troops to capture bin Laden, also recommended against that option.

-- The drama claims that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright refused to sanction a missile strike against bin Laden without first alerting the Pakistanis and notified them over the objections of the military. Again, this is false.

-- Using newsreel footage of President Clinton, the drama insinuates that President Clinton was too pre-occupied with the impeachment and the Lewinsky matter to be engaged in pursuing bin Laden. This allegation is absurd and was directly refuted by ABC News consultant Richard Clarke in his book, Against All Enemies: “Clinton made clear that we were to give him our best national security advice without regard to his personal problems. ‘Do you recommend that we strike on the 20th? Fine. Do not give me political advice or personal advice about the timing. That’s my problem. Let me worry about that.’ If we thought this was the best time to hit the Afghan camps, he would order it and take the heat.”

Netroots Talking Point of the Day

BuzzFlash:

In the spring of 2004, we ran an editorial early that urged John Kerry to come out and define Bush before Rove defined Kerry. John must have not read our editorial. Because first they stereotyped him as an untrustworthy flip-flopper, then they swift boated him. As a result of Kerry’s failure to forcefully define Bush first, he came off looking like the caricature that the Bush slime machine had made him into.

Right now, despite the tidal wave of anti-Republican sentiment, Bush is going to gain ground with the continued repetition of the appeasement stereotypes of Democrats. This type of demagoguery works.

The Democrats better start running ads of Bush kicking out the CIA briefer who warned him of 9/11; ads of Bush saying when asked what happened to Osama, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."; ads of Bush saying there is no relationship between Iraq and 9/11; ads of Rumsfeld saying that the Iraq War would be over in six weeks but no more than six months; ads of the broken promises about the Iraq War turning around soon and being in the "last throes of insurgency."

We could go on and on, but you get the point.

The American people deserve the truth. They need to feel it in the gut. Because elections are no longer won by what goes on in the head; they are won by what goes on in the heart.

The Democrats should give it to them.

Bush is the appeaser; Bush has succeeded in enabling the goal of the terrorists to terrorize us; Bush has failed in defeating al-Qaeda by letting them escape to and live peacefully in Pakistan. Bush has made Iran into a regional power by weakening Iraq.

It’s time to define the Republicans as not being up to fighting a War on Terrorism.

And that’s easy to do, because all the Dems have to do is broadcast the truth. But they have to be brutally honest and pull no punches.

Over and over and over again. Until the truth drowns out the lies.

And Americans feel the truth in the their guts.

Democratic Talking Point of the Day

Howard Dean:

For what we spend in one week in Iraq, we could be securing our ports, airports and borders. Democrats want a new direction for our national security and will continue the fight and win the war on terrorism."

Olbermann to Bush, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

The only news guy in video who tells the truth, via YouTube (2 minutes, 43 seconds).

Joe Biden Makes The Rolling Stone

In this case, not a good thing:

Eat Me, Joe Biden---"He is an impediment in this effort."
--Sen. Joe Biden, on Donald Rumsfeld's Iraq war legacy

An impediment. That's kind of a funny way to describe the architect of the Iraq war, isn't it?

Put a mythical six chimpanzees to work on a mythical six typewriters and one of them might eventually type out Hamlet, but I feel fairly confident that a billion years could pass before any healthy primate would make it even halfway through the unlikely sentence Donald Rumsfeld impeded the Iraq war effort. Yet there was Joe Biden, saying it on live television last week.
(snip)
I can take this stuff coming from most of the Democrats, but it's awfully hard to listen to this crap from Joe Biden. Actually, listening to Joe Biden sound self-righteous about anything makes me want to puke my guts out. I don't know what it is about him. Maybe it's that creepy poof of blowdried gray pubic fuzz he has now covering up that dime-store plug job on his head. Maybe it's the fact that he's been ponderously wondering aloud about his chances for the White House for eighteen straight years, his painfully obvious hard-on for power straining against his suit-slacks, ever since a plagiarism scandal and an aneurysm knocked him out of his first run. Maybe it's that his idea of outflanking the Republican Party is outspending them on the War on Drugs.

Or maybe it's just that Biden, more than almost anyone in American public life, will do or say anything that he thinks will secure him even the most temporary electoral advantage. A year and a half ago, back when the Iraq war was still a winner politically, Biden spent a lot of his time slamming other Democrats for not being On Board enough with the war effort, and he even went out of his way to bitch out Democrats for criticizing Ronald Reagan.

Ouch.

Rove-Reichert Lovefest in Medina, September 15

With some stories, resistance is futile.

Al Gore: "US politics 'obsessed' with ads"

BBC News:

On the subject of the expenditure of political parties, Mr Gore, a Democrat, said: "Two days ago, I was at an event helping to raise money for a candidate of my political party, running for governor in one of our most populous states.

"I asked the question of him: 'What percentage of your campaign budget, between now and election day in November, will be spent on television commercials?'

"The answer was 80%," he told an audience of several hundred media industry figures on the final day of the festival.

"In my country, the average American watches television for four hours and 39 minutes a day. Astonishing, really.
"That's why candidates spend 80% of their money on advertising campaigns."

TV commercials lasting 30 seconds were "not thoughtful statements of policy" but were "usually emotive" and "well-tested" on focus groups, he said.

And he claimed the power of modern advertising had led to the ability to create demand for products "artificially".

"Now you sometimes see, in extreme cases, advertising created before the product, and then the product is based on what looks as if it's going to succeed.

"That same phenomenon has now happened to democracy," he said, suggesting that too often, political parties made decisions based on reactions to their advertising campaigns.

"Iraq for Sale"

Dina Johnson:

Hi everyone. Recently I announced the "Iraq for Sale" movie screening on Tuesday,
October 3, 2006 at 6:15 PM--a documentary from an award-winning
filmmaker ("Outfoxed") about war profiteering in Iraq. I'm very eager
for us to see this!

In order to get this DVD FREE from DFA Headquarters, we must have 15
people signed up by mid-September. So don't forget to RSVP and ask
friends if they want to see it too.

Here's the trailer and here's the homepage for "Iraq for Sale."

"Insidious anti-labor bias hurts workers"

Joel Connelly:

In what I hope was an early-morning miscue, the weekend KPLU newsreader recently told listeners that "labor bosses" were gathering in Wenatchee for the Washington State Labor Council's annual convention.

Defining terminology, on the airwaves and deftly inserted in mainstream media, has been one of the right wing's small triumphs in forging America's new Gilded Age.

Anyone who protests social injustice is a "bleeding heart." Those who commit themselves to its prevention are "do-gooders." "Liberal" is practically a curse word. Anybody who preaches reconciliation is "soft" -- on crime, on communism, on "Islamic fascism."

Union officials get labeled as "bosses," while executives who slash corporate payrolls or dump employee pension plans get celebrated as "cost cutters" and "downsizers."

A generation ago, Sen. Robert Kennedy was joining Cesar Chavez as the leader of California's impoverished farm workers broke a fast by taking communion. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was checking into a Memphis motel to continue his support of striking sanitation workers.

Nowadays, vulgar billionaire Donald Trump gets feted on a TV show where his function is to say, "You're fired!"

Howard Dean on "Face the Nation"

CBS News:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean discusses the upcoming elections and his party's chances for gaining a majority in Congress with Russ Mitchell.

Text and video (scroll down).

"Voting for Judges.org"

There are primary elections for the third branch of government, too. Go to the "Show My Elections" link to see your candidates.

An information resource for Washington voters: Welcome to http://www.votingforjudges.org/ a nonpartisan source of judicial evaluation information for appellate court candidates running for office in Washington's September 19, 2006 primary election.

On the primary ballot, you will find candidates running for three seats on the Washington Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices are elected on a statewide basis.
Some voters will also be asked to vote for Court of Appeals judges. For the Court of Appeals, voters in a particular county will only vote for judges who seek to fill the particular seats allotted to their division and district of that court. You can find the elections in which you will be able to participate through the Show My Elections link.

Most of Washington's appellate court races will be decided in the primary; you cannot wait until the November general election.

A few counties will have Superior Court positions on their ballots this year, and many District Court positions are up for election. These local contests are beyond the scope of this site, so please review the Official Judicial Voter Pamphlet and other materials to learn about Superior Court and District Court candidates.

Please note: This site is being updated constantly as additional information becomes available. We hope you will check back periodically for new materials. We especially urge you to revisit us "one last time" when the day comes for you to mark your ballot. Remember, the primary is critical.

"Progressives the Death of the Democrats? Americans Say Otherwise"

Eric Schmeltzer:

Rasmussen has a fascinating poll out regarding party self-identification among American adults, which is very telling.

In recent weeks, I've gotten reports from the states that Democratic registration is on the rise in most places, while Republican registration is not far outperforming the Democrats anywhere. Not until, today, however, has there been a national picture of this trend.

While it is important to note that this a poll of all American adults, and not likely voters, the trend among likely voters almost always matches that of the general public, though maybe not as severely.

Reading into the findings, here are a couple of conclusions:

1) Howard Dean's stewardship of the party, and his 50 state strategy is paying dividends - Looking at party ID numbers since the beginning of 2006, when Dean's infrastructure changes had a chance to take hold, the rise among self-identified Democrats is dramatic. In January '06, 36.1% said they were Democrats, while 34.5% said they were Republicans - a 1.6% difference. By July, that gap had exploded. In Rasmussen's latest finding, 36.8% identify as Democrats, while 32.8% ID as Republicans - a 3.9% advantage for Democrats. That's a 2.3% widening of the gap in less than one year.

Compare that to the stewardship of Terry McAulliffe in 2004 when Democrats lost ground to the tune of 0.6% from the beginning of the year to the end, and 2005, when Democrats widened the gap by just 0.8% as Dean was changing things up. It's clear the new party infrastructure is having an effect. The party is expanding its reach-out efforts, and it's paying dividends.

2) The netroots are having success at driving the dialogue - Besides Dean making sure that the Democratic party was alive in every town and city, the netroots and bloggers have really established themselves, since they were newcomers on the scene in the 2004 elections. At that time, they were more of a novelty, and news stories were about their effect on fundraising and organizing - not on what they were actually saying.

Now, you're as likely to see Markos or Stoller quoted or on a TV segment as you are any consultant. If they're not directly quoted, they've helped shape the news because they have become so influential that most of the mainstream media monitors what they are saying. Often, the netroots reaction is taken as much into account as official Democratic reaction. The way netroots writers and activists have framed the debate is much stronger than past framing done by the inside-DC consultants. The result has been that people have a clearer sense of where the "other side" stands than they did in 2004.

Again, in 2004 when netroots were seen as an ATM machine, vs. now, when they are seen as drivers of the debate in many respects, the numbers have really turned to the Democrats advantage.

3) The rise of progressive candidates has had appeal - Tons of insiders worried what would happen when the party voters turned to guys like Jon Tester and Ned Lamont, and allowed them to become stories in and of themselves. The Republicans have been pretty blatant in their talking points - trying to marginalize Democrats by making guys like this the "face" of the Democratic party. It has backfired.

As voters showed when they elected George W. Bush twice, policy stances not withstanding, they'll take someone who speaks clearly and forcefully over one who seems poll-driven and cautious. Since Lamont really started to become news this summer, through July, Democrats have gained 0.4% in party self-ID among Americans. So Lamont has done anything but "destroy" the Democratic party, as some would have you believe. If anything, his refusal to buckle or waver on Iraq has earned voter respect nationwide, and reflected well on the party.

Of course, the one final piece is fairly obvious - people aren't happy with the performance of the administration or Congress. That is a major factor, but to say it is the only factor is really quite ignorant of the entirety of the political landscape. People weren't happy with either the President or Congress in 2004, but Democrats lost appeal over the year, and the GOP retained the White House and Capitol Hill. Something else is at work here, and it is becoming clearer and clearer that the shift in power in the Democratic party has paid off beautifully for them.

The numbers, as they say, don't lie.

QUOTE OF THE DAY

Lynn Allen:

Five years on, I still respond to events spawned by the 9/11 attacks with a heightened awareness borne of my time at Ground Zero. I believe strongly that we have started along that second path of more violence and less safety. Our nation's leaders have used our natural fear from that day to upend our moral compasses and to convince us that our safety lies in an unending "war on terror." Under cover of that war, they are whittling away at the constitutional rights upon which this nation was built.

Is this the path we want to pursue? It's not too late to change direction, to write the alternative story, the one about remembering that we are all interconnected peoples on this planet, that we have far more in common than we have that divides us, and that we don't have to live our lives in constant fear and shock.

"Democrats put focus on field organizations---Getting out vote is seen as crucial"

Boston Globe:

While the Democratic rivals for governor spend millions of dollars on television ads, another battle for votes is taking place on the ground, where the campaigns are mobilizing get-out-the-vote efforts precinct by precinct in the far-flung towns of rural counties, in affluent suburbs, and in the cities.

A candidate's field operation is crucial in a close race, because a well-run organization can deliver a bloc of loyalists on election day -- and on that front, Democrat Deval L. Patrick may have the inside track. He has created an Internet-linked network of passionate supporters, modeled in part after Howard Dean's 2004 run for the Democratic nomination for president, and also landed more traditional support among some unions and elected officials. He easily cleared the first two hurdles of the campaign, beating his rivals in the February caucuses and the June state convention.

``It was the basis of the candidacy from the beginning," Patrick campaign manager John Walsh said of the campaign's field network. ``We decided that a grass-roots model is the only one which has worked for Democrats in the last 20 years."

Both of Patrick's Democratic rivals insist they will compete with him vote for vote.

Christopher Gabrieli has moved over the summer to construct a field organization, tapping into his deep financial resources to build on voter interest he has created around his candidacy with some $5 million in television ads since late April.

And Thomas F. Reilly, a two-term attorney general who started the campaign as the best known of the candidates, aims to generate votes from more traditional sources -- unions and the elected officials who have endorsed him and can mobilize their own networks on the Sept. 19 primary.

``Field organization is everything in a tight primary," said Democratic Party chairman Philip W. Johnston, who shunned advertising to build a strong grassroots organization in a 1996 congressional race that he lost by a handful of votes. ``That usually determines the outcome. It's clear that all three candidate are increasingly emphasizing the need for a strong field organization."

Complicating the equation is that Reilly and Gabrieli are pursuing some of the same moderate and conservative voters, while Patrick tends to enjoy support among liberals, those with higher levels of education, and minorities. Gabrieli is also targeting independents, who can vote in the primary.

One consensus among strategists throughout the state is that Patrick, who entered the campaign with no experience in politics, has emerged with the most technologically sophisticated and far reaching of the organizations.

Using Patrick's campaign website, supporters and donors can identify fellow supporters, communicate with each other, or check in with Patrick's Boston headquarters. A supporter who signs up on the website gains access to a statewide voter list, allowing that person to reach out to friends and families to urge them to back Patrick. The campaign has also raised about $1 million over the Internet.

The website also enables the campaign to communicate with thousands of supporters at once. For example, this week the campaign sent an e-mail to its Boston supporters, all listed in the campaign database, encouraging them to identify 15,000 new supporters in the next 10 days.

The operation has a system of rewards and incentives. If a supporter meets certain thresholds, he or she will get a personal call from Patrick. If a supporter signs up 500 voters pledged to Patrick, the candidate will cook dinner for that supporter.

While Patrick has used the Internet, Reilly has built his field effort on more traditional sources: unions, state representatives, state senators, and other elected officials, including many mayors of urban centers where his strategists expect to pick up his core voters -- blue-collar, working middle class, moderate, and older Democrats.

Reilly hopes to be helped by Democratic primary races for legislative seats that are taking place in areas where he is expected to be strong, driving up local voter turnout. The elections include a primary race for open House seats in Methuen and Fitchburg, and an open Senate seat in Springfield.

The attorney general has also lined up support from 15 mayors, the most important being Thomas M. Menino. In Springfield, Reilly has picked up Hampden County Sheriff J. John Ashe.

In Worcester County, the Reilly campaign is depending on Sheriff Guy Glodis, who is putting his field-organization skills up against those of US Representative James P. McGovern, a popular Democrat who is backing Patrick.

Corey Welford, Reilly campaign spokesman, said the campaign has set up regional phone banks that are making ``thousands of phone calls" to identify Reilly voters. He said the campaign has also mailed literature to voters, distributed lawn signs, and will hold a statewide literature drop.

``We have been preparing for Sept. 19 and Nov. 7 for more than a year and will execute a smart, focused, winning strategy to get out the voters," Welford said.

Gabrieli, who has already spent nearly $7.5 million of his own money for his campaign, has been constructing a field organization quickly over the last month. His spokesman, Joseph Ganley, said the campaign has hired four staff members to head up four regions of the state.

``The bulk of it is done by volunteers," he said. The campaign has created a system by which each Senate district coordinator finds 50 people who can identify 20 Gabrieli voters.

Last weekend, the campaign held an organizational meeting at Florian Hall in Boston to organize its get-out-the-vote effort.

Ganley said the campaign has identified 75,000 Democrats and independents who say they will vote for Gabrieli. He would not elaborate, but recent campaign expense reports suggest how the Gabrieli campaign will target those voters.

Gabrieli's most recent expense reports show a $66,000 payment to a California firm, Polimetrix. The Palo Alto-based firm has created cutting-edge technology for identifying voters, a process referred to as ``microtargeting." It used a database that incorporates personal and consumer information. Using that information and providing updated voter lists, Polimetrix superimposes its data information on the voter lists to ``mine" a sub-group.

The lists are also used for the sort of heavy direct-mail effort that Gabrieli is carrying. The mailings, which Ganley says have so far cost about $350,000, are followed up with phone calls.

Meanwhile, the campaign is opening regional phone-bank centers around the state. Like his rivals, Gabrieli is counting on several of the unions that have endorsed him, such as Ironworkers Local 7 and the Boston Carmens Union and others, to help get voters to the poll.

``For us, it is a turnout game," Ganley said. He said a turnout close to that of the 2002 primary, when Gabrieli ran for lieutenant governor, will be key. ``If we can get that, we are in good shape," he said. ``A more liberal, insider turnout, that is something we need to be careful about."