This is the place for news on Alaska politics -- state, local and national. Public life in the Last Frontier may never have been more interesting than right now -- the broad and still-evolving corruption investigation, a new governor, powerful members of Congress under scrutiny, and the usual hardball politics on the state, national and local levels. Come here for the latest news and join the discussion. Keep your comments civil and on point. Avoid personal attacks. Do not use profanity. Posts that violate the Terms of Use will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.
Kyle Hopkins
Kyle Hopkins writes about Anchorage city government and politics. He covered last year's campaign for governor, and has blogged extensively about Alaska politics for the past year. He grew up in Southeast Alaska and was a reporter at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Anchorage Press. E-mail Kyle at khopkins@adn.com
Sean Cockerham
Sean Cockerham writes about Alaska state politics. He spent three years based in Juneau for the Daily News before joining the Tacoma News-Tribune two years ago to write about Washington state politics. He went to Iraq twice for the News Tribune, and previously wrote about Alaska government and politics for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Now he's back in Anchorage. E-mail Sean at scockerham@adn.com
Erika Bolstad
Erika Bolstad covers Alaska issues, including the congressional delegation, from Washington, D.C., for McClatchy Newspapers. Before joining the bureau this summer, she spent seven years as a reporter at the Miami Herald, where she covered politics, government and the state legislature. E-mail Erika at ebolstad@adn.com.
'Fairbanks what!' - 5/9/2008 10:19 am
Jackson Q&A - 5/8/2008 7:15 pm
Health commissioner resigns - 5/8/2008 4:17 pm
Surreality recap - 5/8/2008 2:50 pm
The prosecutors - 5/8/2008 1:14 pm
Full Kohring statement: 'I refuse to cower ...' - 5/8/2008 12:30 pm
A ride home - 5/8/2008 11:53 am
The judge - 5/8/2008 10:46 am
42 months - 5/8/2008 10:32 am
Hitchhiking to court - 5/8/2008 10:00 am
'I'm here to proclaim my innocence' - 5/8/2008 9:24 am
'Old Valley' - 5/8/2008 9:07 am
At the courthouse - 5/8/2008 8:39 am
Where they make their money - 5/7/2008 5:42 pm
Recycling the recycling plan - 5/7/2008 4:52 pm
Metcalfe drops out - 5/7/2008 1:53 pm
Legislative director - 5/7/2008 9:15 am
Is that it for Jake? - 5/6/2008 7:04 pm
Tonight - 5/6/2008 4:29 pm
Wuerch resigns - 5/6/2008 3:06 pm
Assembly: Trashtastic - 5/5/2008 8:54 pm
"...They've really screwed up." - 5/4/2008 5:12 pm
Posted by Alaska_Politics
Posted: February 14, 2008 - 4:43 pm
From Sean Cockerham in Anchorage --
It’s looking increasingly likely neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will win enough pledged delegates in the state primaries or caucuses to cinch the Democratic nomination.
That could give superdelegates the deciding voice.
Superdelegates, who make up about 20 percent of the total delegates, are free to back whomever they choose. Alaska’s Democratic superdelegates are divided between Obama and Clinton.
State party chair Patti Higgins is for Clinton and national committeeman John Davies is for Obama.
Alaska’s national committeewoman, Cindy Spanyers, and party vice chair Blake Johnson are both uncommitted. The party will elect a fifth unpledged delegate at its state convention.
Obama won 75 percent of the vote at the Alaska state party caucuses last month and some Democrats think the superdelegates should abide by what the voters said.
I’ll have a story on it in tomorrow’s paper.
13 February 19, 2008 - 2:48pm | rfn
rule that any delegate has to follow the "suggestions" of their caucuses. Oh, they "should", but that's not a requirement.
So one must wonder whether Alaska's delegates will stick with Obama on the first ballot and risk horrific retribution when Hillary is elected in November....or come to their senses and minimize the harm. Just bow to the inevitable while there's time!
But think how much worse it might be were McCain (Mr. Keep ANWR closed forever - amen) elected! Hillary is pragmatic and does the practical (though not necessarily the ethical or moral thing) and would surely open ANWR when the national energy crisis hits and people are stranded in gasless cars and freezing in unheated homes. Wouldn't she?
12 February 18, 2008 - 11:46am | cosmo
When the fifth delegate is elected, do they know who he/she intends to vote for before they are elected as a superdelegate? I have a hunch that Edwards is going to endorse Obama in the near future and it will tip the scales for Obama. As soon as this happens I think a lot of people are going to jump on the bandwagon.
February 18, 2008 - 1:12pm | rfn
like the price tag for Edwards endorsement of Obama will be the vice presidency. That will attract some but will utterly repel others. If anything does happen involving Obama and Edwards there'll be a lot of bandwagon jumping....both ON and OFF.
Go Hillary!
11 February 18, 2008 - 3:11am | monty_doe
Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee Rep or Dem and the electoral college ah com'on when as voters do we reject this haywire good old boy network and make our votes as individuals count. Guess that would make my opinon popualist, is that a bad thing?
10 February 17, 2008 - 11:59pm | tlamb775
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ArmstrongWilliams/2008/02/18/its_about_to_get_real_ugly
"...The word on the street is that the Obama campaign and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg have already met and devised an incredible plan if Clinton wins the nominee. Mayor Bloomberg would give nearly $1 billion to Obama's campaign after which Obama would bolt from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent candidate with king-maker Bloomberg as his running mate. The Obama campaign realizes that Obama is too new at this game and doesn't have the political weight of the Clintons to bring in the true heavy-hitters of the party's hierarchy. So, according to sources it was Bloomberg himself who suggested this cunning strategy. It's mind boggling that the Clintons are willing to destroy the entire Democratic Party, and potentially in the process lose the White House and seats in Congress, for their own selfish thirst for power and glory."
If this gets legs let the fireworks begin.
9 February 15, 2008 - 9:25pm | Natalie_0
Leave it to us, as demos, to split the vote and fight amongst each other on whose the better candidate. This is why we're in this mess and its exactly the way the repubs want it to go down. You don't see the repubs tearing each other up like that, do you? Romney dropped out and endorsed McCain and something tells me that it won't be long before Huckabee throws in his towel and support towards McCain. They're rallying behind their candidate for the good of the party. Right, wrong, or indifferent, its a smart move. Meanwhile, we're still debating. We're going to mess around and with a blink of an eye, before you know it, McCain will be sitting as the president. We have to be smarter than that. I'm comfortable with either Obama or Clinton being president, but if we need to ensure that we don't go through hell again like we've endured during the past 7 years with Bush, then I'm all for bringing in the tie-breaker......AL GORE!!! God Bless America
February 16, 2008 - 10:56am | rfn
is the great uniter, Jimmy Carter, when The Democrat Party needs him most?
Remember, he only served one term and he IS eligible to be President again!
February 16, 2008 - 9:04am | cosmo
I think Gore is going to be named VP by either of the candidates when they get the nomination, especially if its Hillary. You know she must have a billion bumper stickers in a box somewhere that say Clinton/Gore that they have been itching to use up.
8 February 15, 2008 - 6:48pm | akallegro
Its not just the super delegates
the pledged delegates reflect the preferences of the voters, but are not actually legally bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged for.
However, since candidates may remove delegates who they feel may be disloyal, pledged delegates generally vote for the candidate they represent
This rule and the superdelegate one are part of the democrats party rules put in because the leaders of the party wanted to make sure they had a means to stop laymen from putting someone at the top of the ticket they deemed to be unworthy.
It certainly inspiring to see the turnout generated by Obama but lets not get confused as to who is in charge.
The power brokers in the Democrat party will decide who is on the ballot in November, not 18 year old kids and grannies in wheel chairs.
February 15, 2008 - 8:49pm | desaerica
I'm calling on those 18 year olds and grannies in wheel chairs to come to the Boogae' for Barack dance/fundraiser at the Sheraton on March 14 at 7 pm to 12. COME AND REGISTER TO VOTE AND SEND A MESSAGE TO THE SUPERDELEGATES NOT TO MESS WITH YOUR CHOICE! Learn the Obama Boogae' and hear the Dick Cheney Blues recorded live. Musicians are welcome to be a part of "Alaskans Jammin' for Obama." Fill and sign the Alaska Honey Buckets for Barack with pledges and donations. Drink Barack "Coolade" of all flavors in a glass filled with hope. Have an Obama Bread Sandwich filled with the choice of your voice on all bread that isn't stale, doesn't stay flat but rises! Admission is a donation of $5.00 per adult, seniors 55 and older are $1.00. Minors pay $2.50 and children under five are free. Courtesy blocked rooms are available also. Dance and meet other candidates who support Obama. Bring you cell phones and be part of history, send Obama a message of support. WE DO NOT NEED THE PERMISSION OF ANY SUPERDELEGATE TO DO THE RIGHT THING! Come to the Boogae' for Obama and Barack the Vote! Whoever wants a copy of the flyer, let me know.
7 February 15, 2008 - 3:29pm | jacekone
I remember living in Tok in the seventies and eighties. There was one TV channel and most of the shows were broadcast 2-3 months late, with the exception of GMA and Walter Cronkite and some sporting events (Mac winning the US Open). For example, I remember the death of John Wayne scrolling as a newsflash on the bottom of the screen nearly 2 months after his passing; Mother's Day commercials in July.
This blog gives me flashbacks of Tok TV. Whether it be the giggle heard 'round the state or superdelegates - this blog is about a week behind the newscurve. Superdelegates are so last week and that is forever in an election cycle. Either it's overdone (think caucus night) or there is a looooong pause in news here.
Otherwise, love that ADN blog. Really.
6 February 15, 2008 - 12:49pm | desaerica
If the national committeewoman and the vice chair haven't a clue after Super Tuesday and 21 states to Hillary's 11, they should be removed to sit on the Mosquito Commission. The numbers speak for themselves and are a mandate for change. There are some things that need to be changed like a dirty diaper. Hillary's comment that Obama's words are cheap show how desperate she has become. What she said is wrong and ignorant. Words are powerful and carry great weight. The word inspire means, "God Breathed." Hillary asked us to believe in her. Obama asked us to believe in ourselves.
Obamcans + Obamcrats + Obamadents = Obama Wins.
Barack the Vote!
February 16, 2008 - 11:59pm | bmcdaniel9
I've believed in myself for decades. He sounds like he's trying to get me to believe in him when he hasn't "done anything for me lately" and it's a real turn off.
February 18, 2008 - 2:10am | bmcdaniel9
You really don't know?
Hillary Clinton:
opposed the nominations of both of the recent Bush appointees to the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and joined in the filibuster of Alito.
co-sponsored the Prevention First legislation in the senate and has introduced new legislation to ensure Medicaid coverage of contraception for low-income women.
led the fight, along with Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) to force the Food and Drug Administration to allow emergency contraception to be sold in pharmacies without a doctor's prescription.
supported and is the lead sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act.
has supported raising the minimum wage every time it has come up in Congress.
was a leader in the fight to prevent the Department of Labor from undermining overtime protections for low-income workers, mostly women.
Darn, the list is way too long. I guess you'll have to do some research on your own.
Oh, and I loved her appearance at the 2004 March for Women's Lives! One and a half million femnists were there four years ago. Was Hillary's opponent there?
February 17, 2008 - 8:46pm | Natalie_0
...then the voters! Come to think of it.....this present administration has made alot of us cry so much that we're all cried out!
5 February 15, 2008 - 12:01am | amoeba
I think the superdelegates are a strange way to settle the question. It's undemocratic. Kind of like letting the Supreme Court decide who will be president. I'm not a fan. I hope the Alaska superdelegates will reflect the will (overwhelming mandate) of their party members and support Obama.
February 15, 2008 - 5:17pm | Special_Agent_Roswell
The same people who helped bring Jim Duncan in his role as the man contracted to do nothing and multi billion dollar PERS deficits will also be deciding who will be the democratic nominee?
SUPER!
February 15, 2008 - 12:51pm | TheSdog
Given the Democrats have disenfranchised the good people of Florida and Michigan the superdelegates should consider this in their voting.
That is just like the way they tried to disenfranchise military voters in the election you are whining about. That is also the one where every impartial recount has shown Bush won Florida and all but the extreme lefties can even admit that now.
They should break down and vote proportionally with their state as a general rule. Then again the elitist limosine liberal view is they know better than you so as one of their brothers or sisters you should go along with them.
As an aside, the Caucus process favors supervoters and should be eliminated in favor of primaries. It is really no different than the superdelegate process. It also explains why Obama is cruising in Caucus states where he has mobilized the supervoters better.
February 15, 2008 - 2:18pm | seewhy
you must be feeling a lot more that way, if you're a republican. first the state goes for mitt and he drops out two days later! and can't you just feel the love for mc cain...?
February 15, 2008 - 2:01pm | celtic_diva_ak
The good people of Florida and Michigan...
...should thank their state idiots for disenfranchising them.
The DNC is only applying the rules that Florida and Michigan chose to disobey.
This whole flap is a total reflection of Hillary's air of "entitlement." The other candidates follow the rules and she does not, then she expects the DNC to reward her for refusing to be a team player.
There is a reason Obama got 75% of the Alaska Democratic support. The Superdelegates should remember that if they want to keep those influential positions that give them their status.
February 15, 2008 - 4:34pm | TheSdog
and that justifies taking away their votes?
what reason is it that Obama won 75% support from AK Dems?
Is it that we are a state that constantly supports politicians for putting form above function? Rhetoric over results? Talk over experience?
Obama is Palin with different social views.
February 16, 2008 - 11:54pm | bmcdaniel9
I've been paying attention for a long time to people fighting for equal rights for all women and I never saw or heard his name until about a year ago.
Meanwhile, I've noticed Hillary has been working for all women, children and families here and all over the world for over 35 years. What's he done for all women?
She's taken leadership roles over and over promoting women's health, safety and equality. What's he done for all women?
She held up the senate on confirmation of Bush's nominees until she got what we wanted on Plan B. What's he done for all women?
After graduating from Yale Law School with honors, she didn't go to a corporate law firm. She went to work for a nonprofit, the Children's Defense Fund, not for a select group of kids but for all kids. What's he done for all women?
While I expect many, many Alaskan men don't care to help women secure the equal rights they were born with (which Hillary will very, very definitely do) why wouldn't all Alaskan women want that?
February 17, 2008 - 11:58am | TheSdog
That is nowhere near where I was going with my post.
You are the resident militant feminist on here so I suppose that explains your tangent.
It is amazing to me that the feminists in this country stood by idly for the most part during the Monica Lewinsky fiasco. The silence was near deafening with a couple of notable exceptions.
It harmed the feminist movement. It is impossible to stand up for women's rights and then not be after blood when the President of the United States is a letch and has been a letch for a long time. Bill Clinton clearly has little if any respect for women.
The Clintons are all about playing politics. Hillary would have left Bill a long time ago if she had any convictions at all. It would not have allowed to run for office in the future however.
You can call it a double standard that it would have hurt her. The problem is until modern day feminists quit playing political games and actually start to stand for something they will remain what they are... a crazy aunt in the Democrat coalition.
And by the way, Hillary will abandon you in 3 seconds for political expediency just like her husband did.
February 18, 2008 - 2:30am | bmcdaniel9
Feminist men and women carried the Mat-Su caucus on their backs. Before, during, and after it was over. What did you do?
February 19, 2008 - 3:07pm | iHEARTmea
Not sure what you're saying here,
but I was at the Mat-Su caucus, and I didn't see or hear anything about "feminist men and women." Sounds like more revisionist history to me.
February 19, 2008 - 2:25am | Special_Agent_Roswell
a crazy aunt in the Democrat coalition.
a crazy aunt in the Democrat coalition.
That's Golden!
February 18, 2008 - 11:12am | bmcdaniel9
Are you confusing "militant" with "unshackled?" Assertion and aggression are two very different behaviors.
As a character who appears to live on this blog, what is your resident role?
My cohorts and I are very realistic about what we can expect from politicians--to promote and support policies that serve our best interests.
Feminist men and women stand for equal rights. That's not nothing; that's everything.
Has name-calling been an effective method for you to shut people up who express a point of view that doesn't interest you? Isn't that classic batterer's behavior?
February 18, 2008 - 2:58pm | TheSdog
The word I wanted was militant.
There was an occasion once when the Womyn's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell (WITCH) wanted to douse my college president with red paint soaked tampons, or at least we hope it was paint. The effort was thwarted when a couple of innocent bystanders toppled their containers. It was but one of many escapades. Why do they replace the "e" with "y" when they hate the Y choromosone too much? Perhaps that is where womben comes from?
The thing is WITCH really is no different than NOW. The rhetoric and the agenda are the same. Principles get lost in the shuffle chasing the agenda. It is no different than other fringes whether it be environmentalists or evangelicals.
There is a lot that gets lost in the "equal rights for equal pay" arguments. Many women do choose to take time off for families or other activities and it tends to affect career advancement and paycheck. I know Dr.(Mrs) Sdog who goes by her own last name has made that choice to a certain extent.
One thing that is going on is the fringe has consumed the public school system. Normal male behavior is being repressed by political correctness. The result is boys are becoming less and less of a percentage of incoming college classes. The militants seem to forget that equal does not necessarily mean the same.
The use of the word "batterer" by you is exactly what I mean by militant. That along with the flying tampons and burning bras that tend to be the trademark of the feminist movement. It is full of vitriol and hate.
If you consider "crazy aunt" and "militant" to be namecalling you really need to grow some thicker skin.
Bang! There goes my toy gun again.
February 17, 2008 - 1:02am | iHEARTmea
And well-stated, too. But you delude yourself if you think Hillary's agenda is all about women.
February 17, 2008 - 4:26pm | bmcdaniel9
Hillary is not at all a one-issue candidate.
McCain would beat up Hillary's primary opponent on national security but it will be a nonissue between Hillary and McCain as they are both strong candidates on national security.
February 17, 2008 - 12:20am | jerrydfuller
You are right on. Even the black man had the right to vote before women in this country. Women need to step up and stand up for themselves. Those women stepping up to vote for Obama due to "white guilt" need to look and be aware and acknowledge "treatment of woman guilt". Be good to yourself and other women first. Women have had generations of being second class citizens. Make women issues first.
February 17, 2008 - 1:13am | Special_Agent_Roswell
Lewinski's ex boyfriend's wife for president!
So I guess when you see the state avoid a contract, merit principle, and educational qualifications so they can hire a sexual plaything into an unannounced position then you would get it. Discrimination works both ways, and President Bill C. had a favorite whitehouse page.
Quid-pro-quo happens without checks, is the court's true definition of corruption, and your Democratic chairs associated with state hiring policy sponsor it. Even if it does violate the state executive branch ethics act. Get a clue who these people are, who pulls their strings, whose they don't pull, and why they commit to Hillary.
Sex discrimination / favoritism is a double edge sword- if you don't know that ask Billy. Don't pretend otherwise until you figure it out.
February 15, 2008 - 5:17pm | iHEARTmea
different social views.
Thanks for the as always cutting-edge analysis.
February 15, 2008 - 9:51pm | TheSdog
I am a social liberal and I suspect stags is as well. The thing is issues like abortion, school prayer, same-sex marriage creation, etc. are way down on my list of importance.
Hence, I hold my nose and put up with the Huckabee crowd. The problem is there has been no party for a fiscal conservative like me for about 6-8 years now. It would also be difficult to win an election without the evangelicals.
The Dems face the same problem as lawyers, labor unions, limousine liberals who want to feel good and the entitlement crowd do not always see eye to eye.
It often comes down to who controls the crazy uncles the best in American politics. You notice Howard Dean and Al Sharpton seem to be locked in a closet somewhere. The Rs are actually doing a far worse job of controlling the fanatics right now.
If there ever was a time that a 3rd party candidate would have a chance this would be the year. It would have to be a strong conservative Democrat most likely from the South. It would be analagous to Lieberman in CT.
Here's a dark horse prediction. Lieberman could become McCain's running mate. Unlikely, but not outside of the realm of possibility.
February 16, 2008 - 12:06am | iHEARTmea
A McCain-Lieberman ticket would be a step in the right direction toward diminishing the stranglehold partisanship has on the system. But I agree it is unlikely. Any other thoughts on who it might be? Do you think the country is ready for another Bush so soon, even if Jeb -- the smart son -- were interested?
I totally agree about fanatics. The Rs are in danger of breaking under the dead weight of an overreaching far right. The Ds need to be not so drunk with euphoria that they forget to do some major soul-searching and house-cleaning.
Whatever the outcome of the election, there is certain to be a major shift in voting patterns. Like him or not, Obama has a lot to do with that.
How about Bloomberg as a serious third-party challenger?
February 16, 2008 - 7:16am | akgen
I wonder if Bloomberg is 'known' enough? Me thinks a third-party challenger has to have that excentric twist to make it. Bloomberg just doesn't have that kind of reputation, yet.
The voting dynamics is going to change this year and it will be the younger crowd that moves this change. A third party challenger will come out of the younger voting crowd. 2008 is just the sunrise of the possibilities for a third party. Hoorah !
February 15, 2008 - 4:42pm | akgen
"Is it that we are a state that constantly supports politicians for putting form above function? Rhetoric over results? Talk over experience?"
Bribes over (elected) public service?
February 15, 2008 - 9:54am | heyworth
after the overwhelming vote Statewide for Obama, not even one "super delegate" from Alaska even dare vote for Clinton.
it will cause a party revolt here. the will of the people shall not be usurped.
and it would clearly show the hypocrisy of this "caucus" party by the party. that the good old girls system is alive and well here.
too many folks from all parties braved the cold and long lines to have their will betrayed at Convention. think long and hard before voting wrong super delegates!
February 15, 2008 - 2:05pm | celtic_diva_ak
...that Patti Higgins will be voted out of her chair position. Not sure if the main reason is her too-early commitment to Clinton.
February 16, 2008 - 11:56pm | bmcdaniel9
The contest is far from over. There wasn't much noise about throwing in the towel on him when he was 49 delegates down. What's the difference?
Keep telling the specifics about Hillary. Keep sending Hillary's campaign money. Keep demanding real answers from her opponent.
February 15, 2008 - 1:54pm | windsongdrive
Obama is like some bloggers....a bag of wind....he says nothing. The movie stars, pundits and those short on experience flock to him because he has a gift for gab."Change! Change!" ;"Take back our country"; "Talk to our enimies" all bulls........!! There is no substance and his wave will crest, hopefully before November.
February 15, 2008 - 4:16pm | OneofWe
He says quite a bit just not real loud. One thing he's saying is that he wants all your money, all your children's money and all your grandchildren's money and he wants to give it to the poor in some other country but he thinks its wrong to be fighting wars in other places--we should be spending that money here---wtf? Spend here, there, everywhere....
February 15, 2008 - 7:02pm | akallegro
Obama wants to send American troops into a civil war on the other side of the globe. He wants to supply one side with aircraft to a facilitate faster attacks by one side on the other. He has been advocating for this for over 2 years.
I agree that no one is listening to him but they do seem to like what they hear.
Important warning about e-mails purporting to be from the adn.com staff.
© Copyright 2008, The Anchorage Daily News, a subsidiary of The McClatchy Company 
Contact Us | Newsroom Contacts | Communication Forms | Subscriptions | Advertising | Terms of Use
Daily News Jobs | RSS Feeds | ADN Store | Newspapers in Education | Privacy Agreement
14 February 20, 2008 - 12:14pm | akmooster
super delegates are just the d's way of saying...
WE will decide the candidate. You silly voters cannot be trusted with it. They use mondale and dukkakis and not being educated or speak english well enough to de-hang your chad as evidence. Funny how the d party is doing something so NOT d.
login or register to post comments | flag this »