Election Central Saturday Roundup
Obama Premieres The Presidential YouTube Address
Barack Obama has posted the first of his weekly YouTube addresses to the nation, a modern-day replacement of the old-fashioned weekly radio addresses. In this one, Obama urges immediate Congressional action on the economy:
"Next week, Congress will meet to address the spreading impact of the economic crisis. I urge them to pass at least a down-payment on a rescue plan that will create jobs, relieve the squeeze on families, and help get the economy growing again," Obama says. "In particular, we cannot afford to delay providing help for the more than one million Americans who will have exhausted their unemployment insurance by the end of this year. If Congress does not pass an immediate plan that gives the economy the boost it needs, I will make it my first order of business as President."
Biden Meeting With Son On His Way To Iraq
Joe Biden and his wife Jill are meeting privately today with their son Beau Biden, a captain in the Delaware National Guard who is set to be deployed to Iraq.
Transition Team Officially Announces Key White House Appointments
The Obama transition office officially announced this morning some key appointments, two of which had been widely reported: Valerie Jarrett will be a White House senior adviser, assistant to the president for intergovernmental relations, and public liaison; Ron Klain will be chief of staff to the vice president; and former Congressional aide Phil Schiliro will be assistant to the president for legislative affairs.
Obama's Pick For Sec. of State: ???
The story about Barack Obama's search for a Secretary of State just keeps getting more intricate, with the president-elect having met yesterday with Bill Richardson after media speculation surrounded possible discussion with Hillary Clinton about the post.
New York Pols Scrambling Over Possible Senate Vacancy
The New York Times reports that New York Gov. David Paterson and other state Democrats are giving serious consideration to who would replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate should she be appointed to the Obama Administration. Possibilities include state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Reps. Nydia Velasquez, Brian Higgins, Nita Lowey, Gregory Meeks and Steve Israel, and Robert Kennedy Jr. and Caroline Kennedy.
NYT: Despite Restrictions, Potential Lobbyist Influence Still Seen In Transition
The New York Times reports that Washington lobbyist connections can still be detected in the Obama transition effort, despite sweeping restrictions meant to keep them out: "Among the full roster of about 150 staff members being assigned to government agencies between now and Inauguration Day are dozens of former lobbyists and some who were registered as recently as this year. Many more are executives and partners at firms that pay lobbyists, and former government officials who work as consultants or advisers to those seeking influence."
GOP Sen. DeMint Blames McCain For Not Being Conservative Enough
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) told a group of GOP officials yesterday that John McCain lost because he watered down the GOP's conservative message with his support of campaign finance reform, programs to fight global warming, and immigration reform. "Americans do prefer a traditional conservative government," said DeMint. "They just did not believe Republicans were going to give it to them."
One of the things that Obama will need to address with the American people is that lobbyists are not inherently evil. I think Obama gets this, in that he says that in his administration they will not be the only ones with chairs at the table. They will have a voice, but one that is equal in the final analysis with all the other voices at the table.
November 15, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I think, making a defense for "good" lobbyists versus "bad" lobbyists is a slippery slope.
New York Times article on lobbyist ties and influence gives us all a reality check. My understanding from the article is Obama transition team clearly is breaching its own guidelines and that's dissappointing.
Whether breaching the rules for "good" lobbyists or "bad" lobbyist- I don't know.
But again we knew Obama election campaign itself was never fully free from lobbyist donations and financing. So it shouldn't come as a surprise.
November 15, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly I didn't get the same read of the article as you. It seems that there was a person who lobbied in the last twelve months in a particular area who was moved to work on an unrelated matter. There are former lobbyists (12 or more months removed from their area of lobbying) working on transition matters. What I didn't see was a slew of recent lobbyist working on matters they lobbied on in the last 12 months.
Did I miss that part (in all seriousness, I only read 3/4ths of the article) where he was violating his policy? As I recall the policy didn't prohibit lobbyist from working on the transition team. They just had to comply with certain restrictions/limitations. I didn't get the sense that any of them were running afoul of those restrictions/limitations, but it could have been buried in the bottom quarter of the article.
November 15, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
May be you should take a closer look at the article. Anyway, bottomline, while it doesn't surprise me I'm not going to pass any judgements.
I think they're making an effort to curb the numbers but sometimes you confront with Washington reality.
November 15, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finished the article. Still nothing to get myself exercised about.
November 15, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bobby Jindal to the white courtesy phone!
November 15, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess my issue is with this quote in the article -- " After campaigning on promises to end the influence of lobbyists in the White House..." Obama never said he would end their influence, instead he would end their ability to dictate policies. And of course when we talk about lobbyists, what we're really talking about are corporate lobbyists, as opposed to those who represent non-profits, citizen groups, etc.
November 15, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This mischaracterization of what Obama actually said reminds me of the "He broke his pledge to public financing!!@#!!"
He never made any such pledge.
Maybe that's too "nuanced" for the political reporters at the Times to get, but it's pretty obvious to me.
November 15, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully by the end of his second term, Obama will have influenced the media to the extent that they, and the public, expect are politicians to be more nuanced when they discuss the issues and the solutions.
November 15, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I started to read the NYT article and got half way before MEGO (my eyes glazed over).
What I failed to get from the article was any indication of how much Obama's transition rules have reduced the influence of lobbyists, compared to previous incoming administrations. I mean like, zero? 50%? 80%? 90%???
Without any attempt to quantify the results, NYT has nothing more than a wannabe gotcha piece.
November 15, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts exactly. I kept thinking 'Can I have some numbers here?'. I guess that is a little too much like investigative reporting.
November 15, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow!!!!!
November 15, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your slippery slope analogy is on target.
Good Democrat lobbyist are bad repug lobbyist and
bad Democrat lobbyist are good repug lobbyist. It's a no-win scenario.
November 15, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality is a slippery slope. Learn to ski!
November 15, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of the experienced hands in Washington have done a stint as lobbyists. To automatically disqualify them all would essentially drain the available talent pool.
November 15, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
As other administrations have shown, if you don't have people with experience working inside the beltway, you are setting yourself up for failure. The existence of the K Street dynamics in D.C. may not be ideal, but it is a reality and there is nothing Obama can do in the next few months to change that.
November 15, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lobbyists aren't "good" or "bad." They're informed advocates for their employers. When, as in the Bush administration, they are given free rein to fashion laws and regulations, they will of course take advantage of the situation. When they are listened to, when their points of view are subjected to analysis, when other voices are brought in to dispute and discuss the issues, then their intimate knowledge of the intricacies of this or that industry, interest group or whatever can be of great value. It's like fire, electricity, pit bulls or any other tool that has the power to do good and harm -- it's who's using them and how.
November 15, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
November 15, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 15, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would LOVE Caroline Kennedy to fill Hillary's seat if Obama makes the monumental mistake of choosing her for SOS.
November 15, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
So how do you really feel about Hillary being SoS? :)
November 15, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
monumentally nonplussed.
November 15, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently Caroline Kennedy may become the US ambassador at the U.N. Speculation anyways.
November 15, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think she might be too timid for the U.N. Obviously I don't know what she's like behind closed doors, but publicly, she strikes me that way.
I actually think the Senate would be the perfect place for her to get her political chops sharpened up. She'd have a long grace period both from the public & the other Senators. In fact, I think she be treated like a star. And, we could use a star here in NY in yet another junior senator (as opposed to getting lost in the Senate shuffle).
HRC was a star and it made a difference in how deferentially a junior Senator was treated.
November 15, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So would I! Maybe we'd actually get a vote against the next war.
November 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
GOP Sen. DeMint Blames McCain For Not Being Conservative Enough
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) told a group of GOP officials yesterday that John McCain lost because he watered down the GOP's conservative message with his support of campaign finance reform, programs to fight global warming, and immigration reform.
You go, girl! If only the rethugs would move even further to the right, then everyone will love them again!
/schadenfreude
~
November 15, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking of writing to Republicans and asking for their positions on abortion, gay rights, and the environment to get strongly into Rush Limbaugh territory. It's obvious that they lost because they were too liberal.
snark
November 15, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone needs to tell the guy to go back and take a peek at the polls on the theoretical matchups they were doing during the primaries. McCain was always doing better than any of the other (more conservative) repubs.
November 15, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim DeMint is as crazy as a bedbug. Have you ever heard him speak? He seems to be much more concerned with the Bible than the Constitution. Come on SC, throw this guy out in the next election!
November 15, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he was home schooled. :)
November 16, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Mac was down by 5 the rest were down by double digits. Mac lost by 7 and almost 9 million votes, now you KNOW the rest would have been even worse.
November 15, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the "old-fashioned" radio addresses (is it old-fashioned if it's on my iPod?), it looks to me like the YouTube product is not a replacement. A supplement, maybe. But the radio address hasn't actually gone anywhere.
November 15, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is the radio portion fades away or becomes a podcast.
November 15, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "radio address" will simply be the audio track from the YouTube address.
Who broadcasts the radio address, anyway? I've never once listened to it on a radio.
November 15, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me niether. I don't know how, when and where to tune in.
November 15, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
NPR plays it regularly. Good listenin'. Try it.
November 15, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about broadcast radio, but the Democratic party has been publishing the audio files to its website for at least a few years now.
November 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if it's a mistake for BigO to run these weekly public addresses during the transition?
For me, this first one fell very flat. It sounded like a retread stump speech mixed with a showering of broad platitudes. Hang in there, baby, change is comin' soon!
It had nothing specific about what he's gonna to do. And how could it? He's got no authority yet. He's got to be careful about not stepping on Dubya's toes (too much). And the road from here to Jan. 20 is as clear as mud and is clogged with clip-winged fowl.
Dunno what to suggest. Nine more plops like this one and people will learn to tune them out.
November 15, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps that is Obama's purpose: to get people so used to a black man making policy statements about the US that by the time he takes office, it won't be the "big historic thing" any more, but just "yet another youtube message from the POTUS."
November 15, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. I can see some advantage to introducing this weekly-video idea early, but I hope subsequent editions are either shorter or not quite so substance-free.
Maybe he felt he had to say something, given how fast things are going down the tubes and how severe the need is for some assurances from somebody credible?
November 15, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems always release a short radio address every week. The difference now is that they have a president-elect. They typically do what this last one has done--respond to some current event or issue and reinforce a set of talking points. They're best enjoyed alongside Bush's addresses, which are often about the same topics.
November 15, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 15, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Obama introduced his transition team, the blogosphere and the traditional media have been constantly asking if Obama is Clinton-Lite and what happened to the change he promised - all of this handwringing just one week after he was elected. Then you have stories about how the Dems are worried that Obama won't come through on his health care promise. Add to that more stories of job loss and automakers in big trouble. What kind of impression do you think this leaves on voters? They get worried, very worried. Obama repeating his promises from his stump speeches is all about reassurance. He's telling the American people that he knows what's going on, but as he promised, we are his top priority.
November 15, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't Robert F. Kennedy Jr. supposedly being considered for head of EPA?
November 15, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, Jim Demented can't count, because if the GOP goes back to immigrant-bashing, the growing Latino demographic will forever be lost. Or maybe he has memory problems, because immigrant bashing worked so well in 2006 and 2008!
November 15, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, they should keep bashing those immigrants.
Also showcase Moose-a-lini whenever possible, and the American public will flock to them in droves.
November 15, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin/Dobbs 2012!
November 15, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boot to the Head!
November 15, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good idea and should be insightful during his term. This one used a lot of language from his stump speeches though.
November 15, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
al giordano isn't buying the "hillary's been offered the job" story. he's a smart guy.
November 15, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
SoS is not policy making...just policy interpretation. HRC doesn't strike me as the type who relishes long, lengthy explanations. She likes to get in there with the hammer and nails and make it happen.
November 15, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think she would be a better AG than SoS anyway (if we must). not as complicated vis a vis foreign entanglements of bill, her support of the war, etc.
November 15, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you're talking Crucifixions and Hangings. She'll have to change her title to Judge Hillary Rodham Clinton Bean - Law, East and West of the Potomac!
November 15, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al is a smart guy. Obama is a smart guy. The potential conflict of interest in the CGI should by itself be a show-stopper. If that doesn't do it, the mean girl petulance ought to. If Hillary is named SOS I'll eat my shoe.
November 15, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
By saying this, you can be identified instantly as no smarter than he is, and very possibly less. Not good. He is dumb.
November 15, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
i certainly can't argue with "reasoning" like that.
November 15, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
flawed logic, too.
November 15, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
crappy style, as well.
November 15, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem sourcing the rumor to the Clinton camp. Obama's transition team is far more disciplined. I can also believe that the "leak" was engineered as payback to Richardson and Kerry for backing Barack in the primaries. I have enormous respect for the Clintons but unfortunately this is the way they operate. And it's a great reason why HRC shouldn't hold a senior cabinet post.
November 15, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
shh! casey has more invective he'd like to unload, don't distract him with an actual issue. go ahead, professor.
November 15, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you bluemeanie...this is more Clinton drama for Obama...they always stirring up shyt to 'leverage' something.
You would think by now they would have figured out that they USE to be the best political machine in town...but it is ObamaNation now...and he has shown them more than once that he can out manuever them...but they just keep coming back for more.
November 15, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary to Call Obama to Accept Sec. of State — at 3 AM!
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=4839
November 15, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Richardson's gonna be SoS, he needs to grow back the beard. He looks like Horatio Sanz without it.
November 15, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
On a purely superficial level, I completely agree. Richardson with beard? HOT. Without? NOT.
November 15, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually disagree. I understand a lot of people here expect Obama to act as a progressive 24/7 with progressive ideas trumped over republican/conservative ideas, I mean after all, Obama won a very large mandate, 365 electoral votes! The thing is, lots of these decisions shouldn't be surprising. Obama has wanted to bridge the gap and this requires compromises on all sides.
For Lobbyists, does anyone honestly believe that Obama in one term could end the reign of lobbyists? He could set a strong example, in cutting back on ties, that would make it difficult for anyone to have massive lobbyists again in the White House, which appears to be the intent.
For the Hillary Clinton decision. This is something I've been battering around. I think its enormously gracious, and although, she wasn't a supporter until the general, and ran a VERY tough primary campaign, I can't see how she would lose to Richardson/Kerry for the position. The Clinton brand is very strong, and with the media trumpeting "Team of Rivals", what would happen if Obama chooses someone else? I think that Clinton is pretty progressive though, and I'm surprised that no one has brought up her FISA vote. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama gives a similar position to John McCain. I know it's not "progressive", but it's about changing politics, it's about showing that there are good people on all sides and heck, this could change the way we think about politics forever. That's not hyperbole. All I'm asking is for everyone to chill, relax and be more gracious to the opposing side.
We may have won a mandate, but by pressuring the republicans into oblivion, we could lose a big chance to truly change the country.
November 15, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The answer to Team of Rivals, is great concept but Lincoln was assasinated.
November 15, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm.... I wonder if VP candidate with Iraq-bound child is enough of a hook to segue into Sarah Palin? Probably not, but tough noogies anyway.
Dick Cavett has an amusing article on his NYT blog: The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla. Enjoy!
November 15, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks man for that Cavett link. I enjoyed it though with the terrifying thought that majority repugs consider her the future face of their party.
November 15, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
My pleasure. For a bit more of light, feel-good reading, try this Garrison Keillor article. Here's his comment on the current G-20 meeting in Washington:
November 15, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was fun, thanks JZ!
November 15, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG! I would hate it if he gives McCain ANYTHING! If he does that, then next he'll give Lieberman some plum position and ask Cheney if he wants to stay around a while...very bad idea.
November 15, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I've heard is that he isn't going to offer McCain a position, rather it is to mend fences and to see where the two of them can work together in the coming year (ie climate change). My guess is that now that McCain no longer has to think about presidential elections, he can go back to not caring what the far right religious camp of the GOP thinks of him. He can focus on working on issues that he wants to be remembered by.
November 15, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Official Obama-administration Minority Party Liaison?
I hope BigO talks to McSlime about the bankruptcy of the demonizing wing of the GOP. How it's got no future and how this might be McScum's chance to lead it into being a respectable opposition party.
Nah. Nevermind!
November 15, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is too old to run anything responsible.
November 15, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oooooh, that comment smacks of ageism. But then again, anyone paying attention to McCain during the campaign had reason to question his mental acuity.
Some bloggers have suggested that Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be a suitable post for McCain. Plus, he wouldn't have to run for the Senate again in 2010, most likely against Napolitano.
November 15, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Americans do prefer a traditional conservative government," said DeMint. "They just did not believe Republicans were going to give it to them."
Yeah, so instead they voted for the man conservatives said was the most liberal senator in the history of the universe -- makes perfect sense.
November 15, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
this whole lobbyist flip-flop crap is the meme the GOP is pushing. i recognized it plain as day when my campaigns & elections prof started pushing it in class as soon as obama released the lobbying restrictions for the transition. the NYT is just picking up the ball for the GOP and carrying it a bit further down field.
November 15, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink