Interesting post-Election discussion by campaign leaders in the Obama and Romney campaigns hosted by Harvard's Institute of Politics: 2012 Campaign Decision Makers Conference.
Axelrod generates a lot of heat in the 'Discussion of the Democratic Strategy' particularly versus the press ("difference between the world we inhabit and reality"). Sad comment on the times: to the question of something you didn't expect, answer: the strength (particularly financial) of the Super PACs. Not good.
The obvious take-away from last week's election was quite simply, 'We Won', or in the words of Rachel Maddow:
.... President Barack Obama, yes, will go down in history as our nation`s first African-American president. But he will also go down in history as the most successful Democratic presidential candidate since FDR.
I'm not sure why so many pundits are declaring the first presidential debate a "victory" for Romney. Even TPM which usually has better judgement, gets into the act with the title of their report, "Romney Shines In Denver, Obama Camp Says So What"
I love how Republican candidates are running around the country presenting themselves as the true protectors of Social Security and Medicare. GOP VP candidate Paul Ryan just did it at an AARP confab where he claimed yet again that Obama wants to gut Medicare by $716 billion.
Just '2-1'? Naturally that's where the Democrat currently is enjoying the benefits of incumbency. What happens when this isn't the case, say in 2016, and the floodgates really do open? 10-to-1 may be 'low-balling' the advantage.
PBS has a documentary discussing the Clinton legacy (see Tapped post).
Ultimately you have to ask, what got accomplished? The incumbent from one party leads the country in one direction while the incumbent from the other party, thanks to his accomplishments, leads it back. The problem with Clinton is, it's hard to identify anything he accomplished that wouldn't have been done by a moderate Republican. The pendulum, so to speak, didn't swing back -- it just kind of got stuck.
The Chicago Tribune Editorial Board goes all Greek on Obama's proposed budget, not bothering to mention that we still are in a deflated economy with millions of unemployed. They even single out (not surprisingly) probably the only benefit going to all working people, namely the couple of bucks coming from the payroll tax cut. For them it's all about debt. But what would you expect from a group of dandies gone bankrupt?
A ton of news organizations including TPM are reporting that the Obama Campaign is supporting the (I'm assuming) Dem-friendly Super PAC, "Priorities USA"
This ought to work for Obama. He's got the advantage of being an incumbent. But after him, I just don't see how a Democrat, even one who's only mildly progressive, will ever get elected if Citizens United is allowed to stand.
The corruption of big money will overwhelm all other voices.
Actually the title reads, "
