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.
Fuel costs & Fairbanks - 5/15/2008 6:06 pm
Palin pitches $1.2B program to help offset energy costs - 5/15/2008 1:22 pm
Palin energy plan: Grants to utilities and energy debit cards. - 5/15/2008 1:08 pm
AGIA special session - 5/15/2008 12:29 pm
A snowmaking gun with your name on it - 5/14/2008 7:05 pm
Mt. McKinley: Pride of the Rockies - 5/14/2008 6:29 pm
Put it on the governor's tab - 5/14/2008 3:50 pm
Congressional delegation: Not happy - 5/14/2008 3:48 pm
Young legal defense fund: "No activity." - 5/14/2008 3:07 pm
Alaska Newsreader special edition -- the polar bear decision - 5/14/2008 2:59 pm
Marketing the mayor - 5/13/2008 6:02 pm
Browne withdraws - 5/13/2008 12:33 pm
Larry Bird vs. Georgianna Lincoln - 5/13/2008 11:39 am
An Alaskan VP? - 5/13/2008 7:48 am
ANWR vote...sort of - 5/13/2008 6:57 am
Palin to call special session - 5/12/2008 6:06 pm
Campaign season - 5/12/2008 5:32 pm
Gara's fundraising - 5/12/2008 5:10 pm
AK superdelegate update - 5/9/2008 3:56 pm
'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
Posted by Alaska_Politics
Posted: May 9, 2008 - 3:56 pm
From Sean Cockerham in Anchorage --
It looks like Barack Obama erased Hillary Clinton's lead among Democratic party superdelegates today. But Alaska's superdelegates aren't joining the national rush to get on the Obama bandwagon.
Alaska's four superdelegates are still evenly split - one each for Obama and Clinton and two who haven't committed to either.
"This probably the most monumental decision I have made in my life," said Cindy Spanyers, an uncommitted superdelegate from Juneau. "The overwhelming importance of it is weighing on me and causing me to reflect and think about my values, Alaskan Democrats, the future."
Blake Johnson, the other uncommitted Alaskan, seems to be enjoying the attention.
"Basically we're getting an opportunity to talk to people we never would if we had committed," said Johnson, who lives in Kenai.
He said he was recently on a teleconference with Hillary Clinton, for example. Johnson said he takes the opportunity to push Alaska issues and lobby to have the candidates spend some time here.
Alaska Democratic voters, of course, were a lot more pro-Obama than the state's superdelegates. Obama got 75 percent of the Democratic vote in Alaska's February caucuses.
May 12, 2008 - 2:46pm | I_am_Spartacus
Recent polls showed that Hill's people had no trouble with Obama as VP if she won. But Obama's supporters would view Hill on the ticket as a betrayal. Besides, the last time there wasn't either a Bush or a Clinton as President or Vice President, Jimmy Carter was in the White House. It's time for both of these families to fade into history's trash heap.
May 13, 2008 - 10:31am | akmooster
plus it would be very dangerous for Obama to have hill a heartbeat away from the oval office, HIS heartbeat.
What was the name of the guy in bill's white house that hill had killed (I mean committed suicide)?
May 13, 2008 - 10:39am | rfn
But I bet Vince Foster might be able to enlighten us.
Or, if not he, Ron Brown.
For some reason, though, neither of them blog here.
11 May 10, 2008 - 8:25pm | Stumpy1
AIDS, "God Damn America", and the KKK
If any white, right wing, politician had sat in a church and listened to a white preacher preach the white version of the racist filth that Obama's friend and pastor has for 20 years, would he even be considered a viable candidate?
Not likely, you say?
Hmm, is there a double standard for Obama?
From the Chicago Tribune- and the transcript of the racist remarks of Obama's buddy before the National Press Club:
"The most widely quoted and most controversial was a 2003 sermon in which he condemned America for mistreatment of its black citizens and for racism. His quote: "Not 'God bless America,' 'God damn America,'" he said. "God damn America for treating its citizens as less than human."
In another sermon, he accused American policymakers of being under the sway of the Ku Klux Klan -- the U.S. of KKK A., he said.
Last month these fiery sermons draw unflattering media attention for Senator Barack Obama, a member of Wright's congregation for 20 years. Obama said it was Wright's sermon "The Audacity to Hope" that inspired the title of his best-selling memoir and 2004 Democratic National Convention speech. Obama is now distancing himself from the preacher."
Go ahead and read the entire transcript at the Tribune web site. You'll also learn about Wright's contention that the AIDS virus is a white invention made to wipe out blacks.
(This is what happens when the press does not do its job. Obama was given a free ride early in the campaign, now the truth is coming out).
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-wrighttranscript-04282008,0,5339764,full.story
May 10, 2008 - 8:58pm | Cartman3_15
McCain, Hagee and Robertson? Plenty of hate speech in that rhetoric over the years.
And unlike Obama, who has denounced, renounced and rejected, McCain has "embraced and welcomed."
May 10, 2008 - 10:12pm | Stumpy1
Are you deflecting? Obama may be bad, but McCain is worse? Is that it?
You might share some details about McCain's involvement with these clowns. (This is for others who might be considering supporting him- I will not be voting for McCain).
May 12, 2008 - 5:46am | hitman
Mc Cain said in a CNN interview he was proud to have the endorsement of Rev Hagee.
here's the exact quote:
"Well I think it's important to note that pastor John Hagee who has supported and endorsed my candidacy supports what I stand for and believe in. When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes. And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership".
On hurricane katrina: "I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that."
On Catholicism: "There is a clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews."
On women: "Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist."
In an unrelenting war on Catholics, Hagee calls them "the great whore", "the anti-christ", "false cult system".
Until he repudiates this bigot, the question of Mc Cain's character remains as well if people insist on continuing the same attacks on Obama.
May 11, 2008 - 12:00am | Cartman3_15
one candidate in this context without talking about the other.
It's either no big deal for both of them, or it's a moral outrage for both. In terms of this guilt by association silliness, I definitely come down firmly on the no-big-deal side.
Personally, though, I think it says a lot about Obama that he would publicly reject someone he's known for 20 years over this. Just as it says a lot about McCain that he refuses to do the same with people he knows only superficially, and for superficial reasons.
Through it all, it seems the only chirping going on over any of it comes from the usual right-wing blowhards -- and SDog. So it has a predictable anti-Obama bias, and there is never so much as a peep about McCain and his associations.
That's when you know the moralizing is dishonest.
May 11, 2008 - 8:34am | TheSdog
Obama has drawn inspiration from Rev Wright and is not afraid to say it in his book. He also was still treating him with kid gloves until Wright got out there and essentially forced him to make the denouncement. You think this says something good about Obama?
Obama is a poor judge of character and his associates definitely prove it. The people the president surrounds him/herself with are at least as important as the office holder.
Still waiting for you to produce a close friend or confidant of McCain or Clinton for the past 20 years who is half the wackjob that Wright is. Good luck.
May 11, 2008 - 11:57am | bmcdaniel9
Hey, I don't have time to read that book. Tell me, how much "blow" did he say he used, when was the last time he used, does he say what friends he bought it from, how much money he spent, could he afford it, how did it affect him, did he get that really common overinflated ego? Did he ever sell any? Does he believe "blow" should be legalized?
May 11, 2008 - 12:02pm | TheSdog
The cocaine revelation was in his first book. Cocaine is significantly different than use of other drugs in many people's estimation but it is doubtful Obama still uses it.
His second book was actually named after a Rev Wright sermon and yet you have people wanting us to believe simple endorsements are the same thing.
You also should have left your hip-hop comment. Obama has tried to distance himself from rap the same way he used to distance himself from Wright. He may be forced to politically denounce rap as well in the future but for now enjoys the cozy endorsement relationship he has with the likes of Jay-Z and Ludacris.
Here are a couple of links to long exerpts one from the National Review and the other from the left leaning Time. The second piece is actually very insightful and makes some sense.
By the way, you can get the books cheap on Amazon.
May 11, 2008 - 12:22pm | bmcdaniel9
But I'm still way too busy for that book. The Hillary supporters in Mat-Su are working nonstop preparing for the convention and I also have a Fulbright scholar graduating in S. California this weekend who deserves my attention. Maybe I'll read it after the anti-Hillary book my sister sent me. That 60's photo of her in striped bell-bottoms sure resonates!
May 11, 2008 - 9:26am | Cartman3_15
You're so full of it, Dog. Using your self-serving "logic," whether Obama denounced or not, you'd be criticizing him. Yet your hero McCain, who not only does not denounce the same kind of hate speech, but openly embraces it, is fine with you.
Like I've said previously, that's right-wing rhetoric flimsily propping up a right-wing double-standard. Let's call it what it is.
I refuse to continue to engage someone who is unapologetically one-sided with criticism under similar circumstances. You have made it clear that, like John McCain, you approve of the anti-American hate speech of Hagee and Robertson. That's your prerogative. Just as it is mine to deem you a dishonest hypocrite for doing so while criticizing the associations of someone you disagree with politically.
It is worth noting, again, that it is really only you, Rush, Sean Hannity and Stumpy who believe this stuff. That says all that needs to be said about the fairness --and value -- of what you're trying to say.
That's my final word with you on this.
May 11, 2008 - 10:03am | TheSdog
You still have not made any point worth repeating.
My hero McCain? There is nowhere here where I call him a hero. In fact, my statement was that whoever I vote for in November will make me hold my nose.
I also have made it clear that Hagee and Robertson do not represent what I believe in posts.
But hey, do not let reality get in your way, you never have before.
May 11, 2008 - 7:09am | KatRock_AK
As long as you're talking about guilt by association
look who Hillary's married to.
May 11, 2008 - 12:34pm | Stumpy1
Lets compare spouses. When Bill left office we had a balanced budget and we were not fighting a senseless war. Our economy was also in good shape.
Michele Obama says that she is not proud to be an American. And she has that troubling land deal with the guy who will be going to jail for six years.
Yeah. Lets compare spouses.
May 12, 2008 - 6:01am | hitman
Mc Cain cheated on his first wife after she was in a horrible, disfiguring car accident. He shacked up with Cindy while a Naval Liason to congress. Her money and political ties were too tempting. Her daddy bank rolled his first run at congress.
May 11, 2008 - 1:22pm | TheSdog
You better check your history books stumps.
The economy was starting to slow up in 1999. The late 1990s is also when most of the corporate shenanigans started and falsely inflated the market along with irrational exuberance. Throw in a little Y2K paranoia which stimulated the economy as people defended against a ghost and we were set for a fall.
9-11 just assured that fall was deep and the drop in federal revenues severe. If Bush had not cut taxes there would have been a depression. The revenue curves started to recover around 2002-2003 and are just now getting back to where they should be.
Clinton should have let oil prices go up instead of releasing oil from the strategic reserve for one thing. He also should have pressured Greenspan to raise interest rates earlier and higher than when it occurred. It would have helped if they had paid closer attention to Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, etc. as well. Instead, the stage was set for trouble which would be worse than it otherwise would have been.
The war was one of the worst errors in history but it is not the reason for the deficit. The primary reason the budget is not balanced is 9-11 along with an irresponsible Congress which has spent more money on non-war issues than should have been done.
If you want to make an argument oil prices have trashed the economy and that is due to Iraq, that is not completely clear either. Demand in places that have never had similar demand is the main reason for that.
Iraq also was not exactly flooding the world market with oil before the war and instability has existed elsewhere as well. The market is as much a victim of psychology as supply and demand sometimes. That is why ANWR may seem like a drop in the future bucket but nonetheless could help. The same could be said about the strategic reserve.
Bush has made a Clintonesque mistake with the mortgage crisis. Someone should have stepped in 4 or 5 years ago and stopped the bad lending practices. It is analogous to Clinton and the stock market of the late 90s. The problem is people would have went ballistic if you rained on their chances to buy a house much like they would have moaned at the Clinton administration and Greenspan if they had tried to reel in the economy.
The moral of this story with the economy is it tends to respond more to the stupidity of the population rather than the president.
I am not a McCain fan but there are two things he has said in this campaign I agree with:
1. Let the people and the mortgage companies suffer the consequences of their actions. The government cannot be there to always bail people out and the purge must happen.
2. The line-item veto Constitutional Amendment. It would add more responsibility to spending in DC
Nobody advocating flat taxes or consumption taxes or social security reform or a number of other real solutions will ever get elected without a purge.
Bring on Obama, the way I see it you tear down the soldier before you rebuild him.
May 11, 2008 - 2:19pm | bmcdaniel9
#2 means four more years of "unitary executive" policy
I support the S. Court's decision that the line-item veto is unconstitutional. The president may not change laws after they have been passed by congress but may only veto entire laws. I respect bicameralism and balance of power between our three branches of government.
What else--another four years of "signing statements?"
May 11, 2008 - 2:55pm | TheSdog
with many items completely unrelated to the main legislation there is no "changing" going on.
The purpose of bills is not endless amounts of special interest projects and earmarks attached to every piece of legislation.
Congress can still override it issue by issue.
It is about balance of power and abuse by the legislative branch by producing bills that do not stick to one topic. The wters of the Constitution could not forsee this kind of abuse and it makes sense to amend the Constitution to address it.
If the Dems are serious about earmark reform (which w already know they are not given the billions passed since they took control) they would pass it and give it to the states.
What is wrong with letting the states decide in they want it amended? are you afraid too many of them have already figured out it is a good idea?
May 12, 2008 - 1:21am | bmcdaniel9
Voters are supposed to hold poor lawmakers/legislators accountable. Monkey-ing around with the constitution is not the appropriate solution.
May 12, 2008 - 8:34am | TheSdog
you clearly demonstrate you do not understand the difference between a republic and a democracy.
It is interesting that someone of your liberal persuasion talks like this given activist liberal judges just make up laws when they feel like it.
May 13, 2008 - 9:46am | bmcdaniel9
Republic and representative democracy are often synonymous but there are also many types of republics.
May 12, 2008 - 9:24am | Lysander_Spooner
you clearly demonstrate your "Dittohead" mastery of right-wing rhetoric.
The left hardly has a monopoly on "activist" judges.
May 12, 2008 - 9:32am | TheSdog
As a matter of fact, the left wing does have a monopoly on activist judges.
It really is not surprising since judges are lawyers and lawyers give incredible amounts of money to the Ds and bread crumbs to the GOP.
The only saving grace right now is that the SCOTUS has conservative slant so it can address the lawmaking going on at lower levels in the judiciary.
May 12, 2008 - 9:43am | Lysander_Spooner
I suggest you consult a dictionary
for the meaning of "fact." Then review the last seven years of SCOTUS decisions.
Your bias in clear. When lefties do it, it's "activism." When righties do it, it's "addressing the lawmaking going on at lower levels ..."
Spin it anyway you want. As usual, your inability to see through your own prejudices speaks for itself.
May 12, 2008 - 11:51am | TheSdog
Your inability to tell the difference between making laws and interpreting laws is where you fail.
The Consititution is "silent" on most things as Scalia is fond of saying. You just cannot make things up as you go no matter how hard left leaning judges want to do it.
The way to change it if you do not like it is to make a law and that is the realm of the legislature not the judiciary.
May 11, 2008 - 11:35am | bmcdaniel9
Eight years of peace and prosperity
You've actually got a problem with eight years of domestic/international peace and prosperity under Bill Clinton? And Hillary is even more politically/socially astute than he was.
May 11, 2008 - 11:38am | akmooster
yeah peace till he tried to bomb
Osama and missed during his failed effort to get his name off the front page for his affair and perjury.
But hey we didn't get bombed for that until 8 months after he was out of office.
"politically/socially astute" read 'slick'.
May 11, 2008 - 12:23pm | TheSdog
He made sure Pakistani intelligence knew we were coming which as good as telling Bin Laden we were coming. He "missed" Bin Laden only if you accept the fact that he ever really tried to get him and his actions speak otherwise.
It is interesting you never hear lefties moan loudly (they did whine a little at the time) about the target in Sudan that same day.
The sad truth is if Clinton had spent as much effort on Al Queda as he did on cigars and Monica things might have been different. He had 8 years and the lefties only seem to think the 8 months after he left office matter. Jamie Gorelik was a big reason 9-11 happened and she was on the panel, talk about conflict of interest.
May 11, 2008 - 7:31pm | akmooster
missing osama. To clarify he was told by the military they could kill him, but could miss too. bill chose to not take the chance and let him live.
That cowardly act puts a lot of blood on his hands, all the blood of the twin towers dead, yet he is 'remembered' as a president of peace.
May 11, 2008 - 11:59am | bmcdaniel9
Do you shun all men who get their oral sex from someone other than their wives and lie about it? If so, you must not have too many guy friends you can speak to.
Chelsea is obviously very glad her parents found a way to hold their nuclear family together.
May 11, 2008 - 7:27pm | akmooster
you d's tried hard to make it....
about sex and still do. But it never was. It was about the president lying under oath, and it was about a commander and chief having an affair which could have easily led to blackmail.
If he would risk and lose his membership in the bar by lying under oath, what else might he do to keep it a secret? That question is why every one of his officers under his command suffer removal from the military for similar 'shortcomings'.
If people cheat on their mates it is there business. If that person is president, it is everyone's and should be. As for holding the family together it was for appearance sakes so bill could help hill get elected prez. If that fails you can bet you won't be seeing them in the same frame ever again.
Give up on the 'it was about sex' rhetoric, it doesn't work.
May 12, 2008 - 9:31am | akmooster
YOU DID. In the post I was responding to: "Do you shun all men who get their oral sex from someone other than their wives and lie about it?"
As a champion for the clintons, I guess one must first explain to you what 'sex' is.
Oral sex is sex. Does that help?
Now that you know what it is, the impeachment of bill was about lying under oath, not about sex.
May 13, 2008 - 9:52am | bmcdaniel9
You said, "get his name off the front page for his affair." You brought it up.
May 11, 2008 - 2:19pm | Cartman3_15
Careful, Barb. The man-hating side of your extreme feminism is showing.
I wonder how you'd respond to an equally general and offensive comment about women. Then again, I'm sure there's some twisted feminist rationalization for such a double standard.
May 11, 2008 - 2:44pm | bmcdaniel9
Why assume I hate men? It's sexism I despise. Maybe you lack a genuine understanding of the female experience. Do you really need me to look up statistics for you?
I'm curious. What have you got to say against most women?
May 11, 2008 - 3:35pm | Cartman3_15
Exactly what I referred to when I mentioned rationalization of a double standard.
You say you hate sexism, yet you make sexist comments. It speaks for itself.
May 12, 2008 - 1:44am | bmcdaniel9
Double standard in what way? What sexist comments? Is your intent to argue against the truth of my joke about the ratio of faithful to unfaithful men or simply to attack feminism? Why don't we choose one or the other or both and go after it in all candor? It'll be fun, I swear.
May 11, 2008 - 1:25pm | TheSdog
would be an interesting person to have a beer with and pick his brain.
He faced no real challenges and accomplished nothing significant while in office. The men who judge these things in the history books tend to lean left so they will likely treat him kindly. An honest historian who looks at the big picture will realize the ultimate longterm affect of Clinton was in what he did not do.
May 11, 2008 - 3:02pm | TheSdog
That takeover in 1994 saved his presidency.
The Rs in 1994 came in with a fresh look and great ideas and Clinton got out of the way of most of it. 80% of the Contract with America passed.
Before that, Clinton was heading into being another Jimmy Carter. His ability to understand that most of what the Rs wanted were good ideas at the time is about the best thing he ever did.
Again, it was about inaction, rather than action.
10 May 10, 2008 - 4:16pm | metanoia2k
GOP getting crushed in polls, key races
...from today's POLITICO
By: Jim VandeHei and David Paul Kuhn
May 10, 2008 03:46 PM EST
John McCain is planning to run as a different kind of Republican. But being any kind of Republican seems like some sort of death sentence these days.
In case you’ve been too consumed by the Democratic race to notice, Republicans are getting crushed in historic ways both at the polls and in the polls.
At the polls, it has been a massacre. In recent weeks, Republicans have lost a Louisiana House seat they had held for more than two decades and an Illinois House seat they had held for more than three. Internal polls show that next week they could lose a Mississippi House seat that they have held for 13 years.
In the polls, they are setting records (and not the good kind). The most recent Gallup Poll has 67 percent of voters disapproving of President Bush; those numbers are worse than Richard Nixon’s on the eve of his resignation. A CBS News poll taken at the end of April found only 33 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the GOP — the lowest since CBS started asking the question more than two decades ago. By comparison, 52 percent of the public has a favorable view of the Democratic Party.
Things are so bad that many people don’t even want to call themselves Republicans. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has found the lowest percentage of self-described Republicans in 16 years of polling.
“The anti-Republican mood is fairly big, and it has been overwhelming,” said Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis.
With an environment so toxic, does McCain have even a chance of winning in November?
The McCain camp thinks so — but only if he sands down the “R” next to his name. “Nobody ever gets elected president by running on their party label,” said Charlie Black, a senior McCain adviser. “The character, the qualities, the independence — that certainly allows him to rise over the party label. It is more important than usual to rise above the party label.”
This statement seems a little at odds with the current McCain strategy. The presumptive GOP nominee has spent much of the recent campaign fastening himself to the traditional Republican brand and even to Bush himself. McCain’s views on the war, the overall economy (especially supporting the Bush tax cuts he previously opposed), the mortgage crisis and judicial appointments are hardly the stuff of a new kind of Republicanism.
McCain risks looking inauthentic and conventional to both camps if he simply solidifies his standing with conservatives and then races back to the middle to appeal to swing voters.
For now, Republicans are heartened by how well McCain sometimes does in head-to-head polling with Barack Obama, the likely Democratic nominee. But it’s silly to watch those numbers: They fluctuate and reflect nothing more than momentary feelings about the candidates, and they come at a time when public attention is fixed on the final rounds of the Democratic slugfest.
Right now, most voters with any familiarity with McCain probably know him as a war hero, somewhat of a maverick in the Senate and a pretty affable candidate. Let’s see how they view McCain after Democrats use their decisive money advantage to paint him as a much-older Bush clone who loves an unpopular war and knows little about the economy.
Democrats provided us a look at their polling data from 17 swing states — data they’re using to craft new attacks on McCain as Bush 44. The Democratic National Committee polling, according to a memo it provided, has two-thirds of swing voters expecting McCain to pursue policies very similar to Bush’s. The voters’ top three concerns about McCain: his age, his support for the war and his similarities to Bush.
The latest DNC ad ties two of the three together, slamming McCain over the war and showing a picture of him embracing Bush. Lots more to come on that front, DNC officials said. The DNC will leave the age issue alone for now.
Many top Republicans seem heartened by Obama’s likely victory on the Democratic side. They say they’re confident Obama will pay a big price for his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the persistent questions about his patriotism and his inability to connect with working-class whites in swing states.
These are all big problems for Obama. But he will have a massive cash advantage when it comes time to fight back, and the Republican National Committee’s fundraising edge over the DNC won’t be enough to overcome it. Consider this fact: Since the beginning of last year, Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and the DNC have raised $460 million total — about $200 million more than what McCain, Mitt Romney and the RNC raised together in the same time span.
Rich liberals operating outside the traditional fundraising structure are also in private talks to vastly outspend the GOP on issue ads and voter mobilization efforts.
Still, McCain’s biggest problem is the toxic political atmosphere for his party.
It’s so toxic, some Republicans are pointing to 1976 as a favorable historical comparison. That was the year Gerald Ford ran in the dark shadows of Watergate and lost to Jimmy Carter. Says Dick Wadhams, the chairman of the Colorado Republican Party: “When voters really homed in on the choice between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and what each stood for, Gerald Ford almost won the election despite this horrible environment.”
Almost.
© 2007 Capitol News Company, LLC
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
12 May 12, 2008 - 9:44am | rfn
Hillary for VP?
That's being speculated on the "front page" of adn.com this morning.
Think about it...
That would set things up neatly so that were, May God Forbid (I used to sell insurance and can't get that phrase out of my mind), anything to happen to Obama either before or after the election she'd be assured of her rightful place. If she doesn't get the nomination she'd be foolish to let pride stand in her way and lose her best shot at being President.
login or register to post comments | flag this »