Fisher Campaign Mining Hillary's Email List. Brunner . . . Responds?

Got an email today titled "Why Lee Fisher Is Right for Ohio." I've gotten some other Fisher communiques, so nothing unusual there. Upon opening I read, after the opening grafs:

We are contacting you as an Ohio resident and a member of Hillary Clinton's online community. If you do not wish to receive email messages from Lee Fisher's campaign, please click here to unsubscribe.

The opening is artfully managed:

Back during the presidential campaign, Lee worked hard to help Hillary win the Ohio primary and helped Barack Obama win in November, just as he's worked hard for Ohioans in the state legislature, as Attorney General, Director of Economic Development, and Lieutenant Governor.

None of this is a surprise. Fisher (well, Strickland and Fisher went along) did indeed come out early for Hillary; Fisher's campaign manager Geri Prado (the putative author of the email), is a Hillary campaign vet; and of course Bill is actively campaigning for Fisher. Whatever else you can say about the Clinton's, they know how to repay favors. Whatever else you can say about Fisher, he knows how to bank favors and call them in at the right time.

What's funny about all this is the fundraising email I got from Brunner just ahead of the Prado/Fisher solicitation. The opening is a not-at-all veiled reference to the Clintons:

Last Tuesday, voters in Virginia defeated the well-funded "establishment" candidate for the Democratic nomination by a huge margin - 50% to 26% in a three-way race - sending State Senator Creigh Deeds to face the Republican in November. Deeds won resoundingly because, as the Washington Post noted, his "message and momentum" swept him to a big victory.

Who was that well-funded "establishment" candidate? Uber-Clintonista Terry McCauliff. Don't know if Brunner got wind of Fisher using the Hillary list or if it's just a coincidence they went out so close together. In any event, Brunner is calling out to Clintons without calling them by name.

This is still a race between two people I have a hard time caring one way or the other about, but at least it's entertaining.

Lee Fisher's Gay Marriage Flip Sends Me to the Wayback Machine.

I've been asked offline who I'm supporting in the Senate primary. Frankly the contest is between two people about whom I have a hard time caring one way or another. I'll get to why Jennifer Brunner gives me the blahs at a later date. As to Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher's, look no further than his sort-of maybe flip-flop on gay marriage. I've seen this movie before and know how it ends.

In 1994 I was a volunteer in the Summit County office of the Tom Sawyer/Joel Hyatt/Lee Fisher combined campaign. I was a drone, but nonetheless we heard things, and of course we were paying attention to the race. Fisher was defending his Attorney General seat against Betty Montgomery in a bad year for Democrats -- between Clinton backlash (the less virulent pre-Lewinsky strain, but still), the House check-kiting scandal, and Republicans who generally felt energized and optimistic, everyone was running scared.

Montgomery's main attack on Fisher was that she was a career prosecutor and he wasn't. "Lee Fisher has never even tried a criminal case" she cawed in her commercials. A few weeks out from the election the Fisher campaign trotted out a counter-attack -- that Montgomery's office pled down a child sex case. Having litigated more than my share of such cases I can tell you that every responsible office has plead down child sex cases. They are hard to win and traumatic on the victim. If you can plead down to get 9 years out of a possible 25 and spare the victim having to testify, that's the smart play.

Montgomery's office was able to document why the case was pled down, the papers generally went against Fisher, the campaign backed down and his lead in the polls slipped. Then he did it. Again. We couldn't believe it. The exact same scenario all over again. And again his lead dwindled.

What it looked like was a politician with poor political instincts overreacting to campaign events and unable to say no to his staff. And that's what this looks like as well. In the party primary, Brunner is tacking left, having declared her support for marriage equality long before that looked like a winning issue. Despite being on a ticket that won Ohio with a yes on partnerships/no on marriage position, and despite watching Obama carry Ohio with an identical campaign platform, he is overrunning the volley from Brunner and saying "me too."

And while I agree with the (apparent) policy change, let's be real -- this isn't even good politics in the long run. Fisher's one good argument on this point is that his position is far less of a liability in the general election in a state that overwhelmingly voted for one of the most restrictive anti-equality amendments in the country a mere five years ago. He's not just pandering, he's pandering a hole in his foot.

Lee Fisher isn't the only candidate in the field who has run a statewide campaign before. But he is the only one who has lost one. Stuff like this right here is why.

Ohiosphere Alum now Blogging for Brunner Campaign

A quick and hearty congrats to my friend Jeff Coryell, late of Ohio 2006 and Ohio Daily, and now house blogger for the Brunner campaign. Personally I'm still not sold on her as the candidate, but if she keeps showing this level of taste and judgment, she'll win me over eventually.

One quick note about the blog. One issue on which Brunner is able to put daylight between herself and Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher is gay rights. No coincidence that the two most recent posts highlight the issue -- one announces Brunner's upcoming participation in the Dayton Pride parade and another her support for the workplace discrimination bill now before the General Assembly. Time will tell whether tacking left on this issue will work over the long haul, but it will be interesting to watch.

Push Polling for the Akron Mayor Recall: Field Report and Call for Comments

Commenter Eric announced that he got what sounded like a push poll call supporting the mayor recall campaign to which Warner Mendenhall is so generously donating his time. I got the call today which, along with some research on the internets, raises questions.

The call is entirely robo. Caller ID says it is "Voter Alerts," originating from area code 402 (eastern Nebraska, including Omaha). The call starts with a doth-protest intro claiming it is a poll like those seen on CNN and ABC News. Never heard anything like it. You are prompted to press one if you want to take the poll.

Next comes a standard poll question: "If the recall vote were held tomorrow, would you vote to recall the mayor?" One for "no," two for "yes." I pressed one.

Next you get what appears to be a rotating series of push-poll slams. Eric says he got one blaming the Mayor for the city's economic problems and claiming the recall election will cost only a dollar per citizen. A commenter on Ohio dot com says the call blamed gang activity on the Mayor.

Mine was approximately as follows: "If you heard that tax money will be spent installing fencing on the Y bridge while high-priority projects go untouched, would that change your vote?" Um, no. And it doesn't change my opinion of the recall effort so much as deepen my pre-existing contempt.

Once again I pick 1 over 2. The call concludes by cheerily assuring me that I've participated in an "independent poll." Whatever else it is, it's not a poll. The "poll" offers one follow up question pushing in one direction with many variables and dubious accuracy. No pollster worth a mention on CNN would construct a question that shoddy.

I wish I had kept a note on the robo-call service Team Recall used for Warner's robo-calls announcing the organizing meetings. It was something generically like "Voter Alerts." The name itself defies effective Googling, though I did find a complaint on a Do Not Call message board suggesting that some dirty trickster nuisance calls aimed against the Obama campaign bore the same name (scroll to the bottom of the page).

At some point we will get expense reports from the recall campaign and can check if they have directly paid for the push poll. In the meantime, it's clear that someone acting in the the name of cleaning up the city is engaging in some grungy tactics.

UPDATES: First off, I originally intended to make a call for reports from readers, which a couple regular readers have been kind enough to supply already. It looks like the economy and the number of "active gang members" were the two in circulation prior to the Y Bridge fencing announcement that hit the papers Friday.

One commenter says that he's received more than one of these. If we needed proof that Team Recall is push polling, we need no more than multiple "poll" calls to the same number.

Also David from Buckeye State asks aloud if anyone has audio. Good question. If they try to hit me again I'll work it. The best bet if you see Voter Alerts on the Caller ID is to let the machine pick up, then answer. If you get such a thing in a digital file, I'd like to hear it too.

Is Arizona Obama's Head Fake?

For political junkies, the question of week is why is Obama bothering to advertise in Arizone. Sure the polls show him within striking distance -- in some cases even within the MoE. But they consistently show McCain ahead and the RCP average puts him outside the MoE.

Futhermore, as 538 demostrates, Arizona pretty much can't make a difference in any conceivable scenario. That is to say, it's impossible to imagine Obama surging enough in Arizona to win but losing enough other states that he actually needs the ten electoral votes.

One hypothesis offered by Chris Cillizza is that the Arizona ad buy is a signal to the electorate as a whole that the race is in hand. As an alternative consider this. By going after McCain's home state, Obama could deke his proud opponent into abandoning his game plan and doing something rash. Like, say, cutting way back on GOTV for a last minute ad buy.

Anyone passingly familiar with Obama's biography knows his lifelong love of basketball. You've got to admire his head fake. Just hope he doesn't miss the layup.

I Never Metaphor I Didn't Like

But obviously McCain/Palin have. The big political news this week was a fluffy controversy over whether Obama called Sarah Palin a pig.¹ Some of my friends have suggested that Obama set himself up for the attack by referencing "lipstick." But with McCain/Palin so settled on calculated umbrage as a campaign tactic, it seems unlikely Obama could have found a metaphor to convey the message that

• Can't polish a turd: Sly reference at Palin changing diapers; subliminal attempt to touch off Mommy Wars.
• Deja vu all over again. Quote comes from Yogi Berra who is old and dottering (though he was dottering when he said it and is old now). Clearly an agist attack on McCain.
  
• Can't teach an old dog new tricks: Calling Palin a dog now? Completely inexcusable. Bonus campaign flip-flop after Biden opined that she is good looking.
• A leopard can't change it's spots. Does Palin wear animal print?
• Putting old wine in a new botttle. Now it sounds like he's asking her on a date.
• The more things change, the more they stay the same. The original is in French -- Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. 'Nuff said.
  

Everyone has advice for Obama this week. The clear lesson from L'affair de la cochon? Stop speaking. Now.


¹Here's a close as I can come to a complete transcript of the infamous remark splicing together MediaMatters and Ben Smith:

Let's just list this for a second. John McCain says he's about change, too. Except -- and so I guess his whole angle is, "Watch out, George Bush, except for economic policy, health-care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics. We're really gonna shake things up in Washington." That's not change. That's just calling some -- the same thing, something different. But you know, you can't -- you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink. We've had enough of the same old thing

And as for Obama's second metaphor? I'm not going near that.

The Palin Mud Wrestling Strategy

In the classic vulgar comedy Stripes, John Candy gets talked into Um, it was the Eighties. Anyway, the best bit is when he hits one of his opponents who cries "You hit me and I'm a girl." He lets his guard down to apologize and she decks him. I don't entirely trust AOL's embed code, but here goes. Warning, not entirely SFW.



"You hit me and I'm a girl" seems to be the running slogan for the McCain/Palin campaign. Specifically, Gov. Palin will feel free to jab at Obama/Biden (and embellish her own record) but any critcism of Palin causes collective vapors in the McCain campaign. "You can't hit her like that, she's a girl," they cry as she's rearing back for a roundhouse.

Jill opines that the campaign is sequestering her out of sexist concern for her weakness. I think it's a conscious strategy to immunize her from criticism. The Candy bit is funny because it touches on something primal -- we have a problem with seeing a woman being, well, manhandled. Whether it's cultural or instinctive doesn't matter -- it's there and it's powerful.

So will it work? That depends entirely on the willingness of voters to call BS, something we collectively seem incapable of doing. The media didn't help with their many missteps in the first week of Palin vetting. (It's reassuring to know that we don't have to worry about Palin cozying up to a treasonous separatist party just because it was falsely reported that she was a member.) Still, the capacity of McCain/Palin to piss on our collective legs and convince us it's the weather has thus far been breathtaking.

Will Sarah Palin Help? She Already Has.

It's an open question whether John McCain's choice of half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will significantly shift voters to McCain's side. But her out-of-right-field selection helped in two important, short term ways.

First, the announcement completely such Obama's air out of the room. Even the lefty blogs are entirely done talking about his speech last night, about the historicity of the moment, about the bounce. All anyone is talking about is Sarah Who? and what does it mean. It's Sarah Palin's news cycle, Barack Obama is just living in it.

If McCain had made a more conventional choice, it's unlikely he would have shouldered Obama out of the way quite so successfully. The most conventional choice -- Pawlenty, probably -- would have elicited something like "Yeah, that's what we thought, and how will that relate to the race after Obama's historic nomination last night . . ." By making a selection this unexpected and risky and historic in its own right, McCain/Palin has dominated the conversation since noon.

Second, Sarah Palin being a woman has softened somewhat the fact that Sarah Palin is a Christian Right darling. If McCain had picked a relative unknown and inexperience man with lockdown social conservative credentials, the move would be widely seen as a pander to the religious right base. Because Palin breaks a gender barrier (at least as far as GOP veep choices), her selection is seen less as a sop to the hard right than as more maverickiness from McCain.

Will this advantage endure in the long run? Time will tell. Palin's youth and inexperience cause problems, both by blunting the same criticism of Obama and heightening concerns about McCain's age. And it's hard to claim maverick status when you've picked the least qualified candidate on your short list purely because she might help win an election.

Still, no question that McCain/Palin have won this day.

New Nanosite Takes on Dobson's Take on Obama

Yesterday Dr. James Dobson, one of the most influential evangelical opinion makers, dusted off a 2006 Obama speech about faith in the public sphere and trashed it. Today God-o-Meter notes that a nanosite (remember them?) is up: James Dobson Doesn't Speak for Me.

Named as an organizer is one Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, pastor of a Houston megachurch. While Rev. Kirbyjon has been on the O Train from early in the cycle, he is also a friend of W. Bush. So the Reverend is probably left of center politically, but not someone likely to be painted as another Jeremiah Wright.

The site features a good side-by-side of Dobson's remarks and what Obama actually said. As of now if a transcript of Dobson's rant is available it's hard to locate, meaning you have to listen to all 18 minutes of it which, no thanks. But based on the JDDSFM website, it looks like most of what Dobson objects to and calls undemocratic or inimical to his freedoms is a wild misreading of what Obama was saying. Check for yourself.

Hillary's Serve

Anthony asks a number of questions about how . . . someone . . . is going to react to Hillary's possible concession tonight. At times he seems to be addressing Obama, at times he must be addressing Obama supporters and for some questions he can only be addressing Hillary Clinton's worst critics. I'm unaware of anyone explicitly aligned with the Obama campaign using the words "witch, bitch and pig," or for that matter insinuating that Hillary is only a strong candidate because she is a woman which at least would mirror statements from her proxies about Obama.

In any event, my predictions are 1) some nominal Obama supporters will embarrass the rest of us and 2) that the Hillary camp will continue to play the game of calling on us on those embarrassments without acknowledging the Ferraros in their midst and 3) the reaction in the bulk of the Obama camp will depend on Hillary herself.

As to that third, remember the tradition in American politics is for the loser to concede graciously, throw his/her support to the victor and then and only then the victor praises the hard fight and tenacious spirit of the vanquished. Given transmissions from Planet Hillary that she won the popular vote (need I say more about that. I hope not) it's not at all clear that she will show the class Anthony speaks of in his opening.

If she suspends and calls for unity behind Obama, most of the Obamasphere should rise to the occasion and we who do should scold those who don't If she concedes that Obama has the delegates but she has the popular vote and that everyone should reconsider the "fairness" of all that, no one should be surprised if a mighty shitrain does fall.

Transmissions from Planet Hillary Are Increasingly Surreal

After a bit of a lull, the ebag has received two curious email from the Clinton campaign. Yesterday Chelsea sent one under the subject "An Important Decision . . ." What, how long her mom will push her longshot campaign? Whether to tone down the negative rhetoric?

No, it's a T-shirt contest. That's right, according to Chelsea, "We need your help to make a critical decision -- our next official campaign t-shirt." The designs in the semi-final are nice and all, but a campaign on its last legs and tens of millions in the red probably has better things to commit money to than printing up a new set of Hillaryware.

Then today Hillary sends an email titled "How we win." No, she's not coming clean about her count-every-vote bait-and-switch. No, she's not even admitting to supporters that she is relying on the superdelegates to overturn the popular will. Instead, "We are depending on the voters of Puerto Rico in our fight to secure the nomination [emphasis in original]." This conjures up a mental reworking of the Dean Scream speech: "We're gonna go to Puerto Rico and Guam and the Marshall Islands and Montana and South Dakota. And then we're gonna go to Colorado and strong-arm the supers . . . Heeyaaaaa!!!"

Oh, but she's not talking about the supers. Not at all. In fact the email actually says, " It doesn't matter what the pundits say. You and I know this race is up to the voters, and I'm going to keep fighting for every last vote [Emphasis in original]." Please. If the race is actually up to the voters, game over, with or without MI/FL. The only reason she's still anywhere in the conversations is that it isn't ultimately up to the voters, it's up to the supers.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the fundamental dishonesty of her campaign rakes my nerves. She talks voters, she talks democratic process, but she will ultimately make the case to the supers to overturn the result of that process to win.

On the bright side, if she succeeds, we'll have a really nice T-shirt for November.

The Rise of the Nanosites?

TechPres riffs on two new "nanosites" set up to answer the question "Is Barack Obama a Muslim?" This one simply says NO, while this one gives the same answer with some links. Perfect for anyone who can't do better than take him at his word.

Nanosites, as I glean from the TechPrez article, are simple, generally one page and convey a compact message. TechPrez notes that lately they have generally called to action. But reading all this brought to mind the first microsite to cross my radar:

The day after the first 2004 debate K-Pho emailed, asking in the subject line "How long does it take to set up a website?" The answer was a link to You Forgot Poland, a brilliant Bush satire, mostly in Photoshopped pictures. A quick Google search pulled up YouForgotPoland.org, something of a micronostalgia site in which the original creator offers the story, the images from the site, the backstory, and of course, the opportunity to buy a T Shirt. (The answer to K-Pho's question apparently is two hours)

Returning to the topic of nanosites as political campaign tools, the TechPrez post wonders aloud how effective something like IsBarackObamaMuslim can be against a viral email. Dunno and we'll find out. It certainly does offer a quick and easy way to send an email of one's own, (not to mention a blog post.)

Hillary's Latest: She Leads the Popular Vote if You Count the Ballot Obama Wasn't On

Received from Team Hillary last night:

I owe our 35-point win in Kentucky yesterday to your incredible support. So let me ask you -- do you think we should let the TV talking heads have the final say in this race? Or should we do what we have always done, and fight together for what you and I believe in?


* * *

I've won more votes than anyone running for the Democratic nomination in the history of our party. I've won states that will total 308 electoral votes in November -- more than enough to carry the general election. And it is critical that we make certain the more than 2 million voters in Florida and Michigan are heard.[emphasis added]

Well, has she? The statement she made is true, just misleading. Here's a vote breakdown from ABC's poll guy:

            With        Without      With FL,
        MI and FL    MI and FL    Without MI
Obama    18,176,329   17,600,115   18,176,329
Clinton  18,214,506   17,015,211   17,886,197
    
       Cl +38,177  Ob +584,904  Ob +290,132

So it's technically true that she has "won more votes" than any other candidate. But given that Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot, it's a hollow statement. If he hadn't agreed to DNC rules and taken his name off, he would have gotten some share of Michigan -- certainly enough to tip the popular vote back to him. In fact, if you give him just one-fifth of the 238-odd thousand votes for "uncommitted" (a.k.a. NotHillary), he moves ahead in the popular vote again.

This is why it's "crucial" for Hillary to count Michigan and Florida. Not because it actually puts Hillary ahead by any responsible measure, but because it makes the result look close enough that she hopes the supers will entertain arguments in favor of overturning the popular will.

Hillary is for respecting the democratic process, until she is against it.

Cuy Co. Rs Response to O'Malley Mess, Annotated

The Cuyahoga County Republican Party sent a presser to the Carnival mailbox about the scandal surrounding disgraced County Recorder Pat O'Malley. Here it is, with some thoughts

Chairman Rob Frost of the Republican Party of Cuyahoga County remarked today on the guilty plea entered by County Recorder Patrick O‘Malley on federal obscenity charges. Chairman Frost stated, —O‘Malley‘s guilt on these disturbing charges comes as no surprise, considering his lack of leadership and disgraceful behavior as a public official whose career has been marred by corruption and brazen patronage.

Wha . . .? Not surprising? Because political corruption and pedophilia go hand in hand? Did anyone actually read this before it went out?

Tom Noe is probably the most corrupt figure to afflict Ohio politics in a generation. Yet, if he had kiddie porn on his computer I would be genuinely surprised. And I would go around saying "Well, there go those corrupt Republicans again."

Whatever the federal authorities expose, it is obvious that the Democratic Party has embarrassed and failed Cuyahoga County citizens, in particular through the unethical behavior of County Prosecutor Bill Mason in supporting and shielding fellow Democrat O‘Malley for years. It is clear that Mason could not protect his old college roommate from the FBI and federal prosecutors who are willing to do their jobs.

Well, Bill Mason is on his own. This annotation isn't going to carry his water. The investigation will reveal what it reveals and, if it drives him out of office, the House of Pho won't exactly be hanging a mourning wreath

O‘Malley‘s resignation was both necessary and welcome, yet it is disappointing to realize that any appointee to fill a vacancy in the Recorder office will most certainly be another Democrat collaborator,which would only perpetuate the current reality of deceitful and corrupt leadership that has failed our county over the past 20 years.“

Yes, and truly disappointing to consider that the Republican Party hasn't had the chance to fail Cuyahoga County like it did the rest of Ohio. And shocking to think that with a communications strategy like this, people in Cuy.Co aren't buying what the local party is selling.

Two-term former North Royalton Mayor Cathy Luks, who is slated to run against O‘Malley in this year‘s election, commented on the breaking story today, —Regardless of my opponent, I am focused on the need for reform of our county government. It is time for effective change in Cuyahoga County, and I am the only candidate who can bring ethical leadership to the office and restore public confidence in our government.

OK, this is how to respond to this kind of scandal. Mayor Luks brings the discussion back to reality. It's a shame her well-drafted comments had to appear side by side with the embarrassing driven put out by her party.

By the way, in the ProgOh story linked above, O'Malley expresses the hope that he won't go to prison. Um, pack your toothbrush, Pat. The sentencing guidelines say you must go, and a cantankerous former prosecutor like Judge Dowd isn't going to buck the guidelines on your account.

Hillary Hitting the Creative Math Again

Got this All Hands on Deck notice in the ebag from Terry McCauliff:

Dear Pho,

The West Virginia primary is just a few days away, and we need you on the phones!

Hillary is within striking distance of winning the popular vote nationwide -- a key part of our plan to win the nomination. That means we need every last vote we can get in West Virginia on Tuesday and in the races to follow.

Striking distance of the popular vote? That sounds odd, given that she most recently lost North Carolina by double digits and won Indiana by only a fistful of votes. The answer, probably, comes from Larry Sabato. An article on Sabato's Crystal Ball discusses the many different ways one can calculate the popular vote. As you look at the chart reproduced below, bear in mind that Hillary's reasoning for both prolonging the primary and seating the Michigan and Florida delegatins is that every vote should count:



Given TeamHillary's strategy of dismissing the legitimacy of caucuses, the number McCauliff is looking at is no doubt the top one. In the end game, the actual tag line will be "Every vote should count except those votes in caucuses But if we get to within an arguable statistical dead heat, only the votes in swing states should count."

She should be congratulated for one thing. No matter how many times she makes the argument, the magnitude of the intellectual dishonesty remains stunning.

Are Dems Close to Resolving Florida and Michigan?

Taegan Goddard flags this from MSNBC's First Read:

Everything we're hearing is that a deal over Florida and Michigan could be cut in the next few days. The Obama campaign apparently realizes they have plenty of room to give. The hurdle isn't Clinton and Obama anymore, though; it is folks in the DNC who believe those two recalcitrant states still need to be punished in some form, so states realize there are consequences to doing this in 2012. The latest offer from Michigan is a 69-59 split, with supers going however they want. The two state parties don't want to be halved, meaning their delegate votes become .5, a la Democrats Abroad. But it's clear to us that DNC types want some flesh on this issue. Many hate the idea of Florida and Michigan getting full delegations simply because now it appears their delegations won't make a difference in the process.

Hillary's end game strategy appears to be 1) argue for seating Florida and Michigan under the theory that every vote should count, 2) note that she is by some measure in shouting distance of Obama as a result and argue that it's essentially a tie and 3) press the supers to give her the nod on the theory that only votes in the swing states count.

(If that sounds like a steaming pile of hypocricy, well you just don't understand).

Another Goddard post points the way to a couple of articles on the latest iterations of that strategy, and reports that Dems central wants nothing to do with it. If the Dems are able to resolve Michigan and Florida, and in particular if they minimize Hillary's gains in doing so, what rationale does she have to continue campaigning?

Marc's Dannage Just Beginning

Fraudulent GOPper astroturf blog Stark Politics notes that State Sen and Congressional candidate John Boccieri (D-New Middleton) was asked about whether Marc Dann should resign. StarkPol of course drops a somewhat constricted version of the quote. Here's the discussion of Boccieri's position in full from the Repository:

"It's sad to see," said state Sen. John Boccieri, D-New Middletown. "At the end of the day, all of us as elected officials are held to a higher standard of accountability for our conduct in and out of office. These jobs take a lot out of the families; that's for sure."

Dann said the relationship was between consenting adults. He said it came during "a difficult time" in his marriage to Alyssa Lenhoff, a journalism professor at Youngstown State University. They have three children. He said the extramarital affair was wrong "and I deeply regret it."

Boccieri was satisfied with that.

"It's a personal matter as long as there were no criminal or ethical standards crossed," he said. "Clearly with the others, there were ethical and criminal issues that are pretty serious."

StarkPol has the obvious take: That boinking a staffer in itself crosses ethical lines. I would add that larding supervisory staff with unqualified drinking buddies also constitutes a breach of public trust if not more.

Sympathies to Sen. Boccieri. He's faced with the impossible mission of threading between party loyalty (and loyalty to a former Senate colleague from an adjoining district, no less) and maintaining assured clear distance from the slow-motion car crash ahead.¹ Point is, he didn't pass the test², and every other Democratic elected official and candidate faces the same test as long as Dann remains in office.

Stop the bleeding, Marc. Do the right thing and step down.

¹ By my count that sentence mixes three metaphors. I defy anyone to do better in the same number of words.

²Fourth metaphor in two sentences. Is this some symptom of Dann Derangement Syndrome?

Obama's Campaign Jack Makes Hillary Sad

The Hillary campaign is taking a break from telling me to sign a petition against The Horrible Injustice Done to Michigan and Florida for a new cringe-inducing tack. The email goes like this:

Dear [Pho]:

With 14 days to go until the people of Pennsylvania vote, the Obama campaign has decided to go all-out. They're trying to end the race for the White House with an unyielding media blitz. Right now, we're being outspent 4-1 on Pennsylvania television.

So now, here's what we have to ask ourselves: Have we come this far in our history-making contest for the Democratic nomination only to see the race decided not by the quality of our ideas but by the size of our opponent's media budget?

To paraphrase Jim Rome, Obama spends a lot of money because he has a lot of money. And he has a lot of money because over a million people (myself included) have given him money. He doesn't have a lot of money because his spouse pulls in a quarter million per for speaking engagements. And his self-imposed restriction on lobbyist money, though not perfect, has limited the money he's gotten with an expectation of future consideration.

So now here's question we really have to ask ourselves: What does it say about the two campaigns that one has generated such excitement that people have given more than votes and the other hasn't?

And it goes deeper than that. Remember all the stories about Hillary hiring canvassers in Ohio? It suggests she has burned more money on staff than Obama has because he brings out more volunteers. In a study of contrasts, my Obama email today didn't ask for money. It asked for Ohioans to make the roady to PA to help out. For obvious reasons, Hillary's contributor list hasn't gotten that email.

When they are not defending democracy, Hillary's flak cloud argues that the democratic result should be overturned because she is more electable based on her performance in big states. She doesn't understand that Obama's war chest is a far more compelling electability argument,

Another Day, Another Inane Billary Argument.

Let's get two things out in the open at the start:

1. I voted for Barack Obama.
2. I have a penis.
   

For a distressing number of otherwise sensible people, these two facts together appear to render my opinions on the Presidential race hopelessly flawed. If you fall into that category, feel free to stop reading, surf over to see Susie's¹ latest anti-Obama screed.

For the rest of you, let's sift through Team Clinton's latest iteration of "You hit me and I'm a girl!" An argument is going around that it is sexist -- sexist, do you hear -- for people to suggest that Hillary should quit the race, given the long odds that she could overtake Obama. Susie points out one particularly vociferous post, riffing off of an article on Real Clear Politics (because if a Clinton supporter can't find talking points on a right-leaning site, she just isn't trying).

The thesis of the RCP writer is that calls for Hillary to step down are unprecedented and caused by "Clinton fatigue." To wit:

To review the history:

• In 1988, Jesse Jackson took his hopeless campaign against winner Michael Dukakis all the way to the convention, often to great media praise.

• In 1980, Ted Kennedy carried his run against Jimmy Carter all the way to the convention, even though it was clear he had been routed.

• In 1976, Ronald Reagan contested the “inevitability” of Gerald Ford all the way to the convention. Few, then or since, have ever thought to criticize Reagan’s failure to step aside and let Ford assume the mantle.

• Also in 1976, three candidates — Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, and Frank Church — ran against Jimmy Carter all the way through the final primaries, even though Carter seemed more than likely to be the eventual nominee.

• Even in 1960, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson fought the “certain” nomination of John F. Kennedy all the way to the convention floor.

In fact, until this year, it’s been an axiom of American politics that candidates are allowed to pursue their runs until they decide to drop out — which is usually, by the way, when they run out of money. Even Mike Huckabee kept running against John McCain in this campaign long after it was obvious he had no hope of winning the GOP nod.

The post Susie sites then argues that the candidates who were "allowed" to continue their quixotic runs all have in common possession of a penis. She argues that this, not Clinton Fatigue, is the root of the double standard.

No, let's really consider the history. All those candidates had something else in common. They were all implored, loudly and repeatedly, to sit the f*ck down already. Set aside Jackson's run which had nothing to do with actually seeking the nomination. Kennedy's 1980 run to this day is considered a black mark on his record (not easy to see among the many others.) Reagan's '76 run cost him mainstream party support at the beginning of the '80 campaign. In both cases, the losing candidates are widely credited with mortally wounding their party's nominee.

Udall was the only challenger anywhere near Carter and was pretty much a candidate in name only. He was not trashing Carter and arguing against the legitimacy of his nomination.

In every case, people made the argument that the clearly trailing candidate should stand down for the good of the party. That is what is happening today. And what is truly unprecedented is a trailing candidate throwing every dirt clod within reach of the leader. Hillary would be asked to step down regardless of her genitalia.

It's what comes of not winning.

¹Because she calls Barack Obama "Barry" of course.

Ohio 16: Schuring's Near Miss; ABJ's Bad Call

Ohio dot com still (at 8:56) has Matt Miller beating Kirk Schuring in the GOP primary for the 16th Congressional District. The SOS site shows that Schuring pulled well ahead, apparently sometime in the night, 47%-42% (if you would rather add than scroll down, the county breakdown is here.) Canton Rep. also has the correct results.

A Miller win would have been a major blow to Republican prospects for holding onto the seat. Schuring is a nice guy moderate with cross-aisle appeal throughout Stark County. Miller is a hard right conservative who vowed to run on immigration as "the biggest threat America is facing" in a heavily agricultural district, no less. Also, Schuring is a Stark County native. While Boccieri represents part of Stark County as State Senator, he is from Mahoning.

So it looks now, notwithstanding the ABJ's miscall, that it will be Boccieri versus Schuring as we all expected.

Meanwhile, a funny thing happened after Mary Cirelli announced for the Democratic nomination -- absolutely nothing. She raised negligible money, campaigned hardly at all and mustered an anemic 36%. One would be tempted to speculate that she entered as a stalking horse candidate to allow Boccieri to get his name out, especially outside Stark where he campaigned pretty hard. One be tempted to, but Mary Cirelli is not that kind of team player. I've worked with her before and she is an irascible contrarian, often at odds with her party.

It's doubtful Cirelli was trying to help Boccieri, but help him she did; he netted more votes than the top two Republicans combined. Given the asymmetric campaigns on the top of the ballot, that's not much of a portent, but it does demonstrate how valuable having a primary contest can be.

UPDATE: No sooner did I hit "post," but Ohio dot com ripped down their erroneous story. Here's the screen shot of the original: