One dollar and one cent for every hour Sen. Davis filibustered

At Heidi Li’s Potpourri, Heidi Li is pointing out that both money and filibustering talk, and she’s urging each of us to follow her example and invest $11.11 in Sen. Davis’ future. Sounds like a worthwhile investment to me. If you want to donate, go to the Texas state senator’s website here.

Heidi Li explains:

I do not live in Texas.  I have never met State Senator Wendy Davis.  I just invested $11.11 in her political future. That donation is one dollar and one cent for every hour she stood filibustering a law proposed by the Republican, male governor of Texas, a bill that "would have shut down almost all the abortion clinics in the state, under the guise of expanded health and safety requirements"; a bill that also aims to ban abortion after 20 weeks with no exemption for women who are victims of rape or incest.

Davis is getting all sorts of media attention.  Now, we should make sure she gets all sorts of moolah.

Read more:

Hillary Wins Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas

Photo Credits: Getty

It’s nearly midnight here in Minnesota, and Hillary Clinton has won in Rhode Island and Ohio, and she’s still hanging on to a slim lead in the Texas primary. As she gave her victory speech in Columbus, Ohio the crowd went wild, interrupting her several times to chant “Yes, we will,” the more determined version of the Obama camp’s “Yes, we can.”

(Watch the video of Clinton’s speech here.)

According to CNN, we may not know the final results from Texas until morning.

Oops! I just checked a couple of online news sources and discovered the networks have projected Clinton the winner of the Texas primary.

And minutes ago, I found this message from Hillary in my Inbox that says it all:

It's a pretty incredible feeling, isn't it? After our victories tonight we have the momentum, thanks to your will, determination, and hard work.

Some people were ready to count us out. But you and I proved them wrong, just as we have every time they tried to declare this race over prematurely. And we're going to keep showing them exactly what we can do.

We're going to do it for everyone across America who's been counted out -- but refused to be knocked out. For everyone who's stumbled -- but stood right back up. And for everyone who works hard -- but never gives up.

I hope you enjoy our victories tonight as much as I am. We won this one together, and that makes it that much better. Thank you so very much for all you have done for our campaign.

Let's build on this remarkable momentum. Each and every one of you can make a statement tonight by going to www.hillaryclinton.com

Thank you so much for everything you did to make this night possible.

All the best,
Hillary

What a day this has been for Hillary Clinton, her campaign staff, and her supporters around the country.

Clinton Seizes Momentum in Texas and Ohio

Photo credits: AP

Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor of the Boston Globe, reports:

“The latest round of polls out today suggest that Hillary Clinton might have some momentum heading into Tuesday's crucial contests in Ohio and Texas.

“The Ohio surveys, which were all completed Sunday, indicate that Barack Obama is no longer closing the gap and that Clinton might have rebuilt a double-digit lead. For instance, a SurveyUSA survey of 873 likely voters gives her a 54 percent to 44 percent edge. Meanwhile, a Public Policy Polling survey gives Clinton a 9-percentage-point lead.

“The Texas polls, also finished Sunday, suggest that Clinton is catching Obama after he overtook her in recent weeks. The SurveyUSA survey of 840 likely voters gives Obama a 49 percent to 48 percent edge, well within the margin of error. The Public Policy Polling survey says Clinton now leads in Texas.”

Clinton Opens Solid Leads in Both Texas and Ohio

Public Policy Polling's results from today's polls for Texas and Ohio show Clinton with solid leads in both states:

Texas:
Hillary Clinton 50
Barack Obama 44

Ohio:
Hillary Clinton 51
Barack Obama 42

New Ads and Potential Wild Card for Clinton in Crucial Primaries

Photo credits: NBC's Today Show

Senator Hillary Clinton has three new TV ads out today; two appeal to Ohioans, and the third reaches out to voters in Texas. (To view the new ads, go here, here, and here.)

The new ads bolster Clinton’s campaign in the face of tomorrow’s crucial primaries described by John Harwood in today's post in the Caucus (NY Times) as a decisive moment in the Democratic primary.

Harwood notes:

“the hinge could still swing either way. If Mrs. Clinton carries the behemoths of Ohio and Texas — despite her opponent’s momentum and financial advantage — Mr. Obama may rue this week as both an end and a beginning.

“Specifically, Tuesday could be the end of his coronation as Democratic standard-bearer and the beginning of a wrenching springtime struggle. With Clinton victories on Tuesday, neither political realities nor “delegate math” would preclude it.”

Continuing his analysis of Clinton’s prospects, Harwood first mentions a potential wild card in her favor and three reasons she might prevail:

“One wild card both campaigns are weighing: sympathetic supporters could vote in large numbers to save her candidacy from extinction. 'She has a shot' at carrying both Texas and Ohio, said her husband’s onetime strategist, James Carville.


“'If she does, Mr. Carville said, 'This thing is going on.'


"There are three reasons that could happen.

“The first is financial. Trailing candidates usually quit for lack of money. Yet the $35 million Mrs. Clinton raised in February — even if dwarfed by her opponent’s total, which some Obama aides peg at about $60 million — suggests that she’ll have the means to continue, especially if she starts winning.


“The second concerns delegates. David Plouffe, the Obama campaign chief, painted a daunting picture of his candidate’s edge in pledged delegates, which ranges from 134 to 159 depending on who’s counting. To erase it, Mr. Plouffe noted, Mrs. Clinton would have to win more than 60 percent of the pledged delegates selected after Tuesday.

“What he didn’t say was this: Even if Mr. Obama wins more than 60 percent, he won’t have enough pledged delegates to reach the 2,025 needed for the nomination. Unless Mrs. Clinton quits, either candidate will need votes from the so-called superdelegates.

“Which leads to the third reason: Mrs. Clinton could make a case to superdelegates that she wins the biggest battles, while Mr. Obama rolls up delegates in states like Idaho, Utah and Nebraska that matter little in the general election.

“‘That’s a great line if it’s true,’ said Bill Carrick, a Democratic strategist. With earlier victories in California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, and a good chance to win Pennsylvania on April 22, taking both big contests on Tuesday would bolster that argument.

“It would also increase pressure on the Democratic Party to schedule do-overs in Michigan and Florida, both stripped of delegates for accelerating their primaries. Both states went ahead with nonbinding votes, most of which went to Mrs. Clinton.”

To read Harwood’s complete article, go here.

The Eyes of Texas Are Upon the Clinton Campaign

Photo credits: AP


The eyes of Texas are on the Clinton campaign this weekend as the critical March 4th primaries draw near; it’s a tribute to the character of Bill and Hillary Clinton that they’ve maintained ties with so many loyal friends over the years, in Texas and elsewhere. In today’s NY Times, Julie Bosman writes:

“In fighting for a crucial victory in the Texas contest, the Clintons are drawing from a deep network of friendships that was formed 36 years ago, when they were in their mid-20s, not yet married and working around the clock as volunteers for Mr. McGovern’s campaign.

The list of former McGovern supporters with leading roles in Hillary Clinton’s campaign in Texas includes Frank Herrara, a prominent lawyer; Gary Mauro, veteran Texas Democrat, Gonzalo Barrientos, a former state senator; and Carlos Truan, another former state senator.

Bosman quotes Truan: “I have worked more hours than I care to admit. I’ve been involved with strategy meetings, preparing people to vote, speaking out on her behalf. This all goes back to 1972.”

Bosman continues:

“Many of their {the Clintons} allies from 1972 have stayed involved in Texas politics, amassing wide networks of friends and political connections. Mr. Truan has tapped into a list of 850 friends and associates and lobbied them to support Mrs. Clinton. (Mr. Clinton, who was a state coordinator for the McGovern campaign, paid back Mr. Truan for his recent help by introducing him at a rally last month as ‘my good friend.’)

To read the entire article, go here.

Clinton’s Substance Trumps Obama’s Style in Austin Debate

In his CapitolAnnex post, Vince Leibowitz agrees with the conclusion I reached last night in my Katalusis post that Hillary Clinton won the debate in Austin hands down.

Arguing that Clinton had more substance than Obama, Leibowitz provides an excellent, in-depth analysis of the policy differences between the two candidates, beginning with a question about the economy (Text from Leibotwitz's post at CapitolAnnex is shown below in blue):

Check Obama’s answer:

OBAMA: Well, first of all, let me emphasize the point that you just made, which is: You don’t need an economist or the Federal Reserve to tell the American people that the economy’s in trouble, because they’ve been experiencing it for years now. Everywhere you go, you meet people who are working harder for less, wages and incomes have flatlined, people are seeing escalating costs of everything from health care to gas at the pump. And so people have been struggling for a long time. In some communities, they have been struggling for decades now. So this has to be a priority of the next president.

In that first part of the answer, Obama pulled a classic move that high school debaters are taught: when you are unsure how to respond to the question or are trying to formulate your response, restate the question and expound on the question and offer some generalities, i.e., “this has to be a priority of the next president.”

Read, now, the remainder of Obama’s answer, followed by intermittent commentary from CapitolAnnex:

Now, what I’ve said is that we have to restore a sense of fairness and balance to our economy, and that means a couple of things. Number one, with our tax code: We’ve got to stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas and invest those tax breaks in companies that are investing here in the United States of America.

Standard, boilerplate stuff–what you’d expect. Then, more of what you’d expect:

We have to end the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy…and to provide tax breaks to middle-class Americans and working Americans who need them. So I’ve said that if you are making $75,000 a year or less, I want to give an offset to your payroll tax that will mean $1,000 extra in the pockets of ordinary Americans. Senior citizens making less than $50,000, you shouldn’t have to pay income tax on your Social Security. We pay for these by closing tax loopholes and tax havens that are being manipulated.

There is some substance there, but it isn’t all that substantial: end the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, give middle class tax breaks.

More:

On our trade deals, I think it is absolutely critical that we engaged in trade, but it has to be viewed not just through the lens of Wall Street, but also Main Street, which means we’ve got strong labor standards and strong environmental standards and safety standards, so we don’t have toys being shipped in the United States with lead paint on them.

Again, generalities and visuals, i.e., “Wall Street, but also Main Street.” Notes bringing in strong labor standards, etc., but doesn’t give much detail and then mentions a hot-button issue like lead-tainted toys. Lots of style, little substance.

Then, check this out, later in the response that rambled on a good bit:

The question people are going to have to ask is: How do we get it done? And it is my strong belief that the changes are only going to come about if we’re able to form a working coalition for change. Because people who were benefiting from the current tax code are going to resist. The special interests and lobbyists are going to resist. And I think it has to be a priority for whoever the next president is to be able to overcome the dominance of the special interests in Washington, to bring about the kinds of economic changes that I’m talking about.

“Coalition for change,” “special interests,” “lobbyists,” all buzzwords. But no specifics on the “kinds of economic changes [Obama is] talking about.”

Then check out Clinton’s response:

CLINTON: Well, I would agree with a lot that Senator Obama just said, because it is the Democratic agenda.

All Obama did was essentially recite party-line-platform points, and Clinton summed that up in one sentence.

Then, more:

CLINTON: We are going to rid the tax code of these loopholes and giveaways. We’re going to stop giving a penny of your money to anybody who ships a job out of Texas, Ohio or anywhere else to another country. We’re certainly going to begin to get the tax code to reflect what the needs of middle class families are so we can rebuild a strong and prosperous middle class.

You know, the wealthy and the well-connected have had a president the last seven years, and I think it’s time that the rest of America had a president to work for you every single day.
Clinton offers more specifics earlier in her response: (1)close the tax loopholes, end corporate giveaways; (2) end incentives and tax credits for outsourcing jobs to foreign countries; (3) reform the tax code to reflect the needs of middle class families. Yes, Obama said “tax breaks,” but that is different from a reform of the tax code. A tax-break implies a one-time deal or provision that must be renewed. Clinton implies actual reform.

More differences:

We will also have a different approach toward trade. We’re going to start having trade agreements that not only have strong environmental and labor standards, but I want to have a trade time-out. We’re going to look and see what’s working and what’s not working, and I’d like to have a trade prosecutor to actually enforce the trade agreements that we have before we enter into any others.

We’re also going to put much tougher standards in place so that people cannot import toys with lead paint, contaminated pet food, contaminated drugs into our market. We’re going to have much more vigorous enforcement of safety standards.

Specifics galore: (1) strong environmental and labor standards (yes, Obama mentioned that, too); (2) a trade “time-out;” (3) re-examination and evaluation of existing trade agreements; (4) trade prosecutor to enforce existing trade agreements; (5) no more trade agreements until we enforce what we have.

More from Senator Clinton:

CLINTON: Now, in addition, there are steps I would take immediately. One is on this foreclosure crisis. I have been saying for nearly a year we had to crack down on the abusive practices of the lenders. But we also need a moratorium on home foreclosures.

Everywhere I go, I meet people who either have been or about to lose their home. 85,000 homes in foreclosure in Texas; 90,000 in Ohio. I’ve met the families: the hairdresser, the single mom who’s going to lose her home, the postal worker who got really hoodwinked into an agreement that wasn’t fair to him.

So I would put a moratorium for 90 days, to give us time to work out a way for people to stay in their homes, and I would freeze interest rates for five years. Because these adjustable-rate mortgages, if they keep going up, millions of Americans are going to be homeless. And vacant homes will be across the neighborhoods of Texas and America.

Again, Obama has a teaspoon full of actual plans, Clinton has an overflowing bucket: (1) foreclosure moratorium; (2) interest rate freeze on adjustable rate mortgages; (3) crack down on the practices of abusive lenders.

Still, more:

CLINTON: Now, in addition, there are three ways we need to jump start the economy.

Clean green jobs; I’ve been promoting this. I wanted it to be part of the stimulus package. I thought a $5 billion investment in clean green jobs would put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work helping to create our future.

We also need to invest in our infrastructure. We don’t have enough roads to take care of the congestion, we have crumbling bridges and tunnels. We need to rebuild America, and that will also put people to work.

And, finally, we need to end George Bush’s war on science, which has been waged against scientists and researchers…
Again, Clinton offers solutions while Obama offers rhetoric: (1) clean green jobs as part of the stimulus package ($5 billion investment); (2) additional investments in infrastructure; (3) end the GOP war on science.

Too, Clinton touches on specific, progressive issues that Obama never really seems to bother with. For one, infrastructure needs and the correlation that this will also help put Americans to work. And, the “war on science,” which includes not only stem cell research but a variety of other scientific arenas the GOP has screwed–or attempted to screw–with.

Read More