White House bracing for Arlen Specter loss?

[babylonsister]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/bob_schieffer_white_house_priv.html


White House bracing for Arlen Specter loss?
Greg Sargent


If this is true, it's significant: CBS chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer is now saying that he has it on good authority that the White House is privately bracing for Arlen Specter to lose tomorrow.

Schieffer, to my knowledge, has not said this on national TV yet. But he made the claim in an interview with the local CBS affiliate in Philadelphia. "I have been told on background that the White House is preparing for a Specter loss here, and that the president doesn't want to be associated with that," Schieffer said.

I've also learned that Veep Joe Biden will not be doing any campaign events for Specter in the final stretch, though it's not immediately clear how significant this is. Last week, Biden said he'd be doing events for Specter "as needed."

But a Biden aide confirms for me that no campaign events are scheduled, even though Biden will be in Pennsylvania tonight speaking at his daughter's graduation. Biden has done radio interviews on Specter's behalf.

As for Shieffer's claim that the White House is preparing for a Specter loss, keep in mind that the White House decided against a last-minute visit to Pennsylvania by Obama. Also, the White House would presumably have access to the best intelligence on the race from the DSCC, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, and the office of Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, all of whom have thrown their weight behind Specter.

So if Shieffer's right, all these people may be privately telling the White House Specter may be going down. Which means it just may be true.

[zipplewrath]

1. Suppose they'll notice

Suppose they'll consider it a "mistake" to have tried to oppose their own party?

Nah, I didn't think so either.

[babylonsister]

3. Huh? Last I looked, Specter is a Dem. And seeing as neither the

Prez or the VP is campaigning for Specter, they noticed.

[zipplewrath]

5. They did

They campaigned for him alot. And they fund raised for him as well. And they used the OFA to try to influence the voters in PA. And now that he might lose, they are avoiding him. Do ya think they might ever admit that it wasn't a good idea to back him in the first place?

[babylonsister]

7. Stop picking nits; they have now, per the OP, stopped

campaigning for him-better? And why should they admit anything? This isn't much in the scheme of things, and Specter hasn't lost yet. I think they were doing what they had to do; maybe they promised allegiance to Specter for some crucial votes. That certainly doesn't explain Lincoln, who rarely voted with them.

I don't know the method to their 'madness'.

[zipplewrath]

11. Primary support is no "nit"

They backed him, relatively heavily for a primary. That's no nit. As someone else pointed out, that only made the general election more expensive for the ultimate winner. They'd done better paying better attention in Massachusettes than wasting time, effort, money and reputation on this loser.

[AtomicKitten]

43. Supporting Specter was in exchange for his 60th vote on the HCR bill and the stimulus.

To be accurate, it's Sestak's challenge (which is his prerogative) that caused $$$ being spent in the primary that could be used in the GE.

As to Massachusetts, Coakley is a PUMA who upon winning the primary decided it was a swell time to take a vacation and held the president at arm's length until it was too late.

[zipplewrath]

58. He needed the dems more than we needed him

His challenge wouldn't have cost nearly the money it did cost the DSCC if the democrats had just backed the right guy.

And if they had been nearly as attentive to Coakley, as they were to Specter, they might have stopped that vacation, amongst other debacles.

And if Specter was going to run for a democratic candidacy, he HAD to vote for the stimulus and HCR. Otherwise he'd a been exposed for exactly what his opponents would have claimed, a republican running in a democratic primary.

[AtomicKitten]

83. Again WH support for Specter was in exchange for the 60th vote, support well spent IMO.

The primary will sort it all out.

[zipplewrath]

85. Again, no it was not

If he was going to run as a democrat, he was going to have to vote for those, or lose in a primary. If he was going to run as a repubican, he had already decided he was going to lose. He determined he could not run as an independent. His only other option was not to run at all. An option he didn't want.

Obama supported him because he WANTED him.

[AtomicKitten]

86. It absolutely was in exchange for his 60th vote for HCR and the stimulus.

It had absolutely nothing to do with ideology.

[zipplewrath]

87. How could he have voted against it

And still ran as a democrat? He can't vote against the democrats and then try to win their support. Your position makes no sense.

[AtomicKitten]

89. It makes no sense to you because it has nothing to do with ideology.

I realize it doesn't fit into the fringe narrative that Obama is Bush Lite, but it doesn't take a genius to understand it was actually a brilliant politically strategic move to break a filibuster.

The WH made a deal with Specter and it worked.

[zipplewrath]

90. And a broken clock s correct twice a day

So your entire point of view is based upon the logical fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Where is there any evidence that Specter would have stayed with the GOP and supported the filibuster? He had already figured out that he couldn't win the GOP primary. He was being forced into the democratic fold by the GOP.

Alternately, Obama had a wide range of options to encourage Specter that fell well short of using OFA to campaign for him. Simply promising to not campaign AGAINST him could have been enough, or possibly getting the DSCC to not fund his opponent (which they probably didn't want to do anyway).

[AtomicKitten]

94. Your reworking a deal already struck and executed seems a bit absurd after the fact.

Specter was in trouble, had a pow-wow with the WH, and the deal was struck -- Specter would quit the R party and give the Dems the 60th vote to break the GOP filibuster (on a number of bills) and in exchange he would get the Dem Machine assistance backing him as a Dem in Penn for the seat he currently occupies.

Done and done.

Paint it however you wish but the WH has complied with their end of the deal. However the primary election pans out, it's really a win/win for the WH.

[zipplewrath]

102. Which is why they are running away from it

It's such a win win that they are running away from it.

I have no doubt they promised him support. The question is why. They could have gotten what they needed without agreeing to have the POTUS campaign for him, and put his organization OFA behind it. That's way beyond anything needed to get votes on issues that Specter would have had to vote yes on anyway. I realize it destroys your image of Obama to think he actually WANTED Specter to win, but remember, Biden is a Specter friend.

[AtomicKitten]

107. Oh good grief. They fulfilled their commitment to him.

It was Political Strategy 101 to keep and grow a majority. Beyond the agreement struck is the fact that defending a seat is easier and less costly than going for an open seat.

Specter has voted along party lines every step of the way since his conversion to the left side of the aisle. In fact, Nate Silver compared their records and found Specter to be more liberal than Sestak.

That's where your argument that this is ideological falls flat. No worries, though. I'm convinced the narrative you are promoting depends on it being ideological, so knock yourself out.

[zipplewrath]

110. You're right

There's nothing to be lost by backing ANOTHER losing candidate. I mean, Scott Brown was such an insignificant loss, they aren't worried at all about backing a losing candidate in their own party primary. Throwing around the full weight of the presidency behind a candidate who has to vote with you anyway is just standard procedure. Woulda done it for anyone. The fact that he was a personal friend of Biden was meaningless. The fact that Obama has shown a preference for centrists over progressives is meaningless. The fact that Silver was about the ONLY one who found Specter to be more liberal than Sestak, also meaningless. The fact that the analysis only included since he turned democrat shouldn't be seen as significant by anyone.

Gee, I just can't see how it could be anything else.

[AtomicKitten]

116. Didn't read it, did you?

He wrote the piece on 5/1/09 while Sestak was still mulling over running. For the bonus round he quoted three other scores going back to 2007.

Not only do you not get it, but I am now convinced you don't want to get it. Your narrative is already written. Screw the facts when you have unfocused rage to fuel your arguments.

Here you go. I'm done with this ridiculous exchange.

For the time being, however, progressive Democrats have ample reason to be wary of Specter. Their problem is that Joe Sestak, the PA-7 Congressman who has refused to rule out a primary challenge, might not be any better from the standpoint of progressive policy.

In fact, it's plausible that he could be a bit worse.

ProgressivePunch.org ranks Sestak as the 158th most progressive member out of 221 non-freshman Democrats, and notes that he's an order of magnitude or so more conservative than you'd expect of a Congressman from his Democratic-leaning district.

Sestak's DW-NOMINATE score in the 110th Congress was -.287 on a scale that runs from -1 for extremely liberal to 0 for moderate; this is actually slightly more conservative than the score that we'd projected for Specter, which was -.303.

The National Journal, moreover, found that Sestak took the liberal position only 63 percent of the time in the votes they tracked in 2007.

[zipplewrath]

117. I'm familiar with the analysis

And if I felt like taking the time, I dig out the reports that show him in a vastly better light if you look at longer terms, especially for the both of them. There's little doubt he's no Kucinich, but neither is Specter.

You're willing to ignore everything and make excuses on any basis except the fact that Obama and Biden actually like a prefer Specter because of his centrist positions, which really is the only reason they would put this much effort behind a candidacy. Presidents don't run out this kind of support out of some sense of needless obligation.

[AtomicKitten]

119. What occurs to me is this.

I believe your feigned or real ignorance about politics and elections is simply a cover for your festering unhappiness with Obama over something real or imagined. I've read the conspiracy theories that are long on drama and short on fact.

Specter's changing parties was a shrewd political move orchestrated by the WH. It enabled the Democrats to move legislation through the barrage of filibusters.

I can guarantee that Obama's only interest lies in keeping the seat blue and in that vein I think all Democrats are united in the sentiment: May the best man who can annihilate Toomey in the GE win. Now that's a nutjob you should be worried about.

Have fun storming the castle.

[zipplewrath]

126. So it's all based upon belief

Facts be damned I take it. You believe things about me based upon the most scant of information. You believe things about Obama, despite evidence to the contrary. You believe these things because you want to. Any other possible explanation would harm your positive impressions of Obama.
Never mind that Specter is a personal friend of Biden.
Never mind that the Specter needed the democrats more than the democrats needed Specter.
Never mind that they could have promised way less and still gotten what support they needed.
Never mind that Obama's leanings have been far more towards the centrists than progressives.
None of that matters.

What matters is that you are "guarantee" me what Obama's interests are, despite having no particular information whats so ever. But I'm the one coming into this "short on fact" and "long on drama". Yeah, right. Talk about projecting.

[AtomicKitten]

131. I'm sorry you don't understand political strategy.

Everything you cited above sans Biden and Specter being friends is your opinion. The problem is even your opinion is inconsistent: In this same thread you said Obama should butt out of Penn but should have butted in in Massachusetts. You must be dizzy from rationalizing that.

Fact: Obama got the 60th vote from Specter on HCR and the stimulus.
Fact: Obama cut a campaign commercial and a robocall for Specter.
Fact: Neither Obama nor Biden hit the campaign trail for Specter.
Fact: Gov. Rendell campaigned for Specter and is in charge of GOTV.

Another DU'er today flat-out said their vote in Penn was a vote against the WH and Rendell. I believe your axe-grinding here is in the same vein. Your attitude is emotional but political strategy is calculated. Maybe that's why you don't understand it.

[zipplewrath]

132. Opinion

Hardly opinion. Talk to anyone who understand predidential power and its use and they'll tell you that they're delivering WAY more than they had to for a single vote.

As for your facts.

Fact: Obama got the 60th vote from Specter on HCR and the stimulus.

You really wanna argue Post hoc ergo propter hoc? What leads you to believe that the vote wasn't there to begin with?
He needed the dems more than we needed him. Oh, by the by, Specter voted FOR the stimulus before he switched parties. It was the fallout of that vote that got him realizing he'd lose the primary. So ya might wanna rethink your whole point now.

Fact: Obama cut a campaign commercial and a robocall for Specter.

Something presidents don't do every week in a primary. Way beyond the need of getting support on a bill Specter had to support anyway if he wanted to win the dem primary.

Fact: Neither Obama nor Biden hit the campaign trail for Specter.

You wanna stick to this http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/97105-biden-doesnt-know-if-obamas-schedule-will-permit-campaign-strop-for-specter|story>?

Vice President Joe Biden couldn't say on Tuesday whether President Barack Obama would make another trip to Pennsylvania to campaign on behalf of Sen. Arlen Specter (D).

Biden said that while he planned to campaign alongside Specter, who's facing a tough primary election next Tuesday against Rep. Joe Sestak (D), he couldn't say whether the president's schedule would permit Obama to make such a trip.

"He already has gone out and campaigned for Arlen Specter," Biden noted on NBC's "Today" show when asked if Biden would travel to Pennsylvania again to campaign for Specter.

and

Fact: Gov. Rendell campaigned for Specter and is in charge of GOTV.

So?

My understanding is flawed, but you can't get your facts straight. The facts are on my side. They like Specter. They want Specter. Obama said he LOVES Specter. What part of that don't you understand?

[AtomicKitten]

133. Correction: Obama and Biden are not campaigning in the end-run.

I realize you're still cranky over the deal forged between Specter and the WH for that elusive 60th vote, but it remains a calculated political move. What part of that don't YOU understand? Regardless of how much you disapprove of the deal, it was a shrewd move that yielded passage of major pieces of legislation.

Your literal interpretation of a campaign commercial is precious. "He LUVS Specter, he really LUVS him!" Good grief, are you that naive?

The WH (Obama and Biden) have stepped back ... As it should be.

Now it's up to Pennsylvania to decide ... As it should be.

I don't like either candidate but it's not my state, so I will rally behind whoever wins today ... As it should be.

Amen.

[zipplewrath]

141. Where do you get this "inside" information?

The deal wasn't for the 60th vote, they could have gotten that without a promise to have OFA campaigning for Specter.

Biden and Specter are friends.

Obama likes him.

He has said as such on more than one occasion.

The ONLY reason they aren't campaigning in the "end run" is because they don't wanna be associated AGAIN with losing.

But I know, you're in on the secret.

[AtomicKitten]

144. This primary has provided an opportunity for you to oppose this president vicariously.

Your antagonism toward this president has clouded your reason and thus your theory.

It's really quite simple: It was a political quid pro quo. Obama got the 60th vote to pass HCR and the price was supporting Specter in the primary. Voila!

Now it's Pennsylvania's turn to sort it out and let the chips fall where they may.

[zipplewrath]

145. Your love is blinding you

Your unabashed worship of Obama has blinded you to the facts before you.

Specter voted for the stimulus before he switched, it is what drove him to HAVE to switch.

Specter needed to run as a democrat. He'd lose as an independent. HE decided that.

Obama didn't have to do much at all to encourage the switch. Reid held more sway. Biden had merely been working him for YEARS.

The White House rarely puts this much behind a primary candidate.

They didn't need to here, and now that it looks like they'll lose, they are pulling back.

The only clouding here is from your rose colored glasses.

[AtomicKitten]

146. LOL!!! !!!ELEVENS!!!! Repeat after me: Quid Pro Quo. nt

[zipplewrath]

147. Repeat after me

Biden is the VP
Biden is his friend.

[Phx_Dem]

35. Opposing their own party? Specter's a Dem, and the polls are evenly split .

What you probably meant to say was, "opposing you."

[zipplewrath]

78. Actually no

I really meant opposing the majority. Of course I'm projecting into the future, but so are they at this point.

[saltpoint]

129. Party kicks in more in some elections than in others. In this one IMO,

party is less the point than perception of service.

In that scenario, I think we're free to speculate that a few things are true.

One is that Toomey would likely have defeated Specter had Specter remained a Republican. Toomey almost won the GOP primary last time -- it was a very, very close squeaker of a primary. Arlen knew he'd face Toomey again, a better-funded and more-focused Toomey, and that job jeopardy was imminent.

Another is that some understanding was struck between the White House agreeing to support Specter's switch to the Democratic Party in exchange for his vote on health care and financial reform. I have no clinical evidence of this but it stands as a best guess. Specter faced likely defeat in the GOP primary; he had no reason to think he could not defeat Sestak when the White House discussion took place over a year ago. Sestak's surge came in the last weeks of the campaign. Specter led in polling for at least a year prior.

Last, the party switch was a gamble. If Specter holds on to win, he becomes the 80-year old iron man of the Senate. If he loses, IMO, it will be because he is asking Democrats who have voted against him for decades to switch THEIR allegiances and save his political life. I don't see the incentive for that, and even less if Sestak, a reasonable alternative with a 2007 ACLU rating of 100% and key endorsements from the National Organization of Women and the Sierra Club, is on the ballot. There are not a whole lot of conservative Republicans in either of those organizations.

[AtomicKitten]

137. I just hope that the candidate who can best defeat Toomey wins today.

I think most here agree they want the seat to remain blue. Frankly I don't care who does the deed, but Toomey is batshit crazy and must be defeated.

I have every confidence that Pennsylvania will sort it out today.

[saltpoint]

168. Hi, AtomicKitten. Calling Toomey batshit crazy is certainly a

charitable assessment.

:toast:

[Hippo_Tron]

47. No they won't consider it a mistake

They supported Specter because they needed his votes in 2009 and they need them right now. The White House probably doesn't give two shits about whether Specter or Sestak is the next senator from Pennsylvania (as long as one of them is). What they care about is that right now Specter is the senator from Pennsylvania.

[ClassWarrior]

67. I'm guessing they also promised Specter to support his campaign when he jumped the shark...

...I mean jumped ship.

:D

NGU.

[old mark]

98. He was promised support from the nationa and PA state Democratic parties

by Obama and by Ed Rendell, PA governor...and he was promised full seniority on all his committees and in the Senate despite the new party affiliation...Looks like they can't deliver.

I am hoping the Administration and the Party get a message out of this...

mark

[Radical Activist]

2. This is why I don't think its smart to emphasize Obama's support for Lincoln and Spector.

First, I want it to be politically easy for Obama to distance himself for those races.
Second, if both lose, I want the media narrative to be a victory for progressives. It should be seen as a rejection of the Senate's conservative leanings, not a rejection of Obama. That's what will help get more progressive legislation passed before the end of the year.

I know some people can't help themselves when there's a chance to take shots at Obama. But, if we're concerned about making progress on liberal issues then the smart thing is to emphasize that Obama is only doing what's expected from the head of the Democratic Party when an incumbent is up for re-election. That message helps boost the primary challengers as well.

[zipplewrath]

9. Agree to some extent

I want them to be signs of a progressive grass roots success. I also want it to be represented as a "message" to everyone, including Obama, that there is a "cost" associated with ignoring progressives, and "rejecting progressive ideas".

I realize that some people can't help themselves when there is a possibility that Obama might be seen in a unfavoring light to run to his defense on every issue. But if we're concerned about making progress on liberal issues, then the smart thing to do is to emphasize that he's expected to do what he was elected to do, not just what is easy. That message helps boost progressives already in congress who aren't switching parties as well.

[Radical Activist]

17. It would be much easier

if there weren't such a consistent cookie-cutter template for how to pressure Obama.

1) Pick an issue.
2) Downplay or ignore anything Obama has already done.
3) Portray any small progress as a complete failure and catastrophic betrayal of the left.
4) Assume that lack of immediate action exactly along the lines of what the writer wants represents a complete abandonment of the issue by Obama.
5) Claim it's no different than Bush's policy. Then copy and paste the sensational language used to attack Bush on the same issue a few years ago.
6) Don't forget to sarcastically ask if this is hope and "change we can believe in."

More accurate, less exaggerated criticisms of Obama's policies would yield better results without needlessly alienating people and spreading counterproductive cynicism. There's so much silliness that fits this pattern that it's easy to tune out because it's predictably misleading. The people who overuse the above hyperbolic approach quickly lose any credibility they could have used to legitimately push Obama left. It's overdone to the point of being cliche.

[zipplewrath]

18. Wow nice strawman

Way to take this from a discussion about a specific issue, and create a strawman out of thin air. Bet that really helps Obama.

[Radical Activist]

19. You brought up a topic

that wasn't directly related to what I posted. I responded. That's how a conversation works. My point relates to something we see everyday at DU so I'm not setting up any straw men at all.

[zipplewrath]

21. Um, I was addressing the history of their support for Specter

You created some vague comment about cookie cutters and can't point to single example of what you are speaking. That's a text book example of strawman.

[Radical Activist]

24. I'll remind you of what you wrote.

You wrote: "I realize that some people can't help themselves when there is a possibility that Obama might be seen in a unfavoring light to run to his defense on every issue. But if we're concerned about making progress on liberal issues, then the smart thing to do is to emphasize that he's expected to do what he was elected to do, not just what is easy. That message helps boost progressives already in congress who aren't switching parties as well."

I responded with my thoughts about the most effective way to do that and why the current approach taken by many on the left isn't useful. I believe that many people are so quick to defend Obama because they see the attacks against him as being unfair and inaccurate, which they often are.
You raised the topic. I could point to 20 examples on the front page of GD and GDP right now if that's what you're looking for. It's pretty much a nonstop thing around here. Maybe you're getting defensive because you do it on a regular basis?

[zipplewrath]

28. you didn't recognize that at all did you?

Look at what I was responding to. That's virtually our sentence, with a few phrases replaced. I was adopting your tone to make the exact opposite point.

[Radical Activist]

30. It was a pretty obvious and boring point.

Yes, Obama should be pressured to move left. I guess I made a mistake by trying to have a little more discussion around tactics.

Looking through some of your posts, I think the pattern I outlined fits you pretty well. Do you agree? You seem to think it should be all attack all the time.

[zipplewrath]

33. Then your missing some

Although as someone pointed out once, I'm not going to spend alot of time basically saying "oh, I agree". Kinda makes for a dead end discussion. My posts are going to tend to appear when I DISagree. It is in effect a "bias of sampling", not of my total position. If I dug around long enough I could dig up posts indicating my degree of support on various positions. The sad reality tough is that he has taken ALOT of positions, on core issues, that are contrary to progressive ideas or intents. And he has used the left as a sort of punching bag to help him position himself in the center. It's going to generate alot of response from progressives.

As for tactics, when he's wrong, I say so and explain why. Seems fairly straight forward to me.

[freddie mertz]

45. Indeed. He constantly contrasts his own positions with what the "left" wants.

That is HIS decision to do so.

What does he expect?

Classic example HERE:

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002055/

[guruoo]

27. You nailed it.

[AllentownJake]

91. I just post that he's woefully wrong on an issue

Generally considering his team of Economic advisors.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

106. Nicely done. When are we going to learn to stop doing the wingnuts'

job for them?

While there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the president and holding him accountable, I do see a pattern here on DU that some folks cannot wait to take insignificant, unsubstantiated digs at Obama any chance they get.

It's unproductive.

[zipplewrath]

112. Such as?

Most of the complaints hardly are "insignificant" and are on positions that the right wing would hardly find useful.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

115. I don't have time to go down the list, for it's too long. Do a search. n/t

[zipplewrath]

118. Pick 3

From a long list, that'd be easy I'd think

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

165. O.K., I'll bite...

1. Constantly lamenting the obvious fact that Obama isn't liberal without having done prior research on his respective records in IL and the Senate, is very annoying. Rather than listening to right wing dribble and buying into M$M talking points, we all should have known this, not by what they weren't saying, but by researching this man's record.

2. Putting forth the ridiculous assertion that Obama is a bigot because he hasn't moved quickly enough to repeat DADT/DOMA. I could go on and on about this, but don't have the time nor the desire. The arguments have been revisited here ad nauseum.

3. Not understanding that Afghanistan is complex; the choices that the administration faced when deciding what to do are not as easy as suggesting that we leave or stay. There was much more to that decision; all the available options were bad among the ones to choose from. Damned if we decided to get out; damned because we decided to stay in. (A much more compelling case could be made that we needed to be in Pakistan, a plea from Biden.)

Maybe the word "insignificant" should have not have been used. "Naive" is probably where I'm coming from.

Am I Obama's biggest fan? No. I have been disappointed in a number of decisions that he has made. As a liberal, am I disappointed? Sure. But I knew what I was getting into when I finally decided to vote for the man after a long time of soul searching. I knew that he would face seemingly insurmountable challenges. And yes, I maintain that few presidents have ever had to deal with such massive problems as we have now.

I also understand that there are those on all sides of the political spectrum who want to see this man fail. Given the current political climate; understanding the political and social realities that we are confronted with in this time, I'm willing to give the guy some break with the hope that he is making the right decisions.

[Number23]

114. Keep that list handy. You'll be posting it again and again and again...

[Radical Activist]

120. That's why I made it a journal entry.

I'll just start linking to it when needed.

[AtomicKitten]

135. K&R this response. You nailed it. nt

[AllentownJake]

31. Nah I want the President to eat the dinner he cooked within the party nt.

[Radical Activist]

36. So the next time Obama calls for something progressive,

like he did by repeatedly pushing the public option for a very long time, you want his ability to pass legislation to be diminished? I don't see that as being very productive.

[freddie mertz]

40. Yes, we really want a crusading progressive like we saw with the public option!

On second thought...maybe not....

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002055/

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/white-house-public-option-not-essental--a-sliver-of-reform.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/whos-killing-the-public-o_b_334372.html

[Radical Activist]

44. He introduced it and got it passed through the House.

I don't know who gave the orders that the public option was the end all be all of where progressives should take our stand. I think the overemphasis on it is bizarre and I agree with Obama's point in the video. But the fact is that he introduced a bill with the public option and got it passed in the House. Compromise is what happens in the US Senate. Stop obsessing and get the fuck over it.

[freddie mertz]

46. He spoke about it, then undermined, then denied it.

It's part of history now.

And it wasn't ME who brought it up.

It was you.

[Radical Activist]

49. Yes, he undermined it in your mind

in secret meetings because he's so devious and hates the idea of universal health care and he wants to destroy all progressives. Jesus fucking Christ are you that cynical? If you don't like what happened then work to move the Senate left. The Senate is what forced the compromise. That's what the topic of this thread is about. Also, read this because it's about you:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=301699&mesg_id=301770

[freddie mertz]

50. He undermined with the "sliver" speech. in public.

We all saw it, I posted the video for you.

Next.

[Radical Activist]

51. I wonder if he knew something that you didn't

like the chances of getting it through the Senate.
It's easy to live in a dream world where you never have to compromise but some of us have to exist on planet earth.

[freddie mertz]

55. Whatever. Maybe you should just find a better example of presidential "support"...

For a tough, controversial progressive cause.

If you can find one.



:shrug:

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[freddie mertz]

59. WTF kind of thing is that to say?

Vile.

[Radical Activist]

62. Nice avatar.

You know what they say about imitation.

[AllentownJake]

68. because they have generally been right nt.

[AllentownJake]

65. Public Option crusade

You are being sarcastic and funny right.

[freddie mertz]

71. Obviously.

It was a response to the preceding argument.

[Radical Activist]

76. I don't want the next George W. Bush to be in charge of my health care.

I'm an anti-authoritarian, small government type. So no, I don't think single payer and/or a public option is necessarily better than a system of smaller non-profit, member controlled co-ops. What's going to happen when Republicans are in charge again and everyone is stuck on a government insurance plan that conservatives are trying to fuck up? Bad move.

I found it completely bizarre how all of a sudden the public option was the only thing progressives were supposed to care about. Where did this order come from and why did so much of the left conform to focusing on that one issue? I'd like to know.

[AllentownJake]

81. I'm fine with PA declaring itself a soverign nation

and divorcing ourselves from the rest of the insanity.

That being said, you brought up the President's Public Option support, which was non-existent past July of 2009.

[zipplewrath]

82. Single payer is cheaper

It's been studied, it's cheaper. I don't care what your "small government" beliefs are. The public option is cheaper than what we have now too.

But apparently you prefer that this "small government" mandate that you buy health insurance, that has no guarantee of actually providing health CARE, and leaves 25 million people STILL uninsure.

And exactly what do you think the GOP will do with a mandate like that when THEY are in charge. Imagine all the companies they'll want you to buy things from.

And the reason that the public option became so important is because OBAMA made it important. He made it important when he adopted mandates. He made it important when he excluded single payer AT ALL. It became important when he converted the bill from a health CARE reform to a health INSURANCE reform. At the end of the day, the only progressive aspect left was the public option. So THAT had ta go.

[zipplewrath]

80. Long time?

You mean until about July when the WH let it be known it was expendible?

"Pushing" is what he did in Ohio in front of Kucinich's constituents.

The public option.... not so much.

[rapturedbyrobots]

93. hahahahaha

this from the 'radical' activist. sporting a che avatar.

hahahaha

i suppose che & the other barbudos should've stopped pushing for 'reform' and stayed up in the sierra maestra until it was safe to pass some legislation.

btw...che was a murderous asshole who would've had a politician like obama in a work camp until executed.

[AllentownJake]

99. Obama is not totally stupid

He'd be in Miami at the first sign of trouble shaking his fist at the Island he once called home working with the CIA, but not putting anything personal on the line.

[freddie mertz]

42. Since when is it up to US HERE to "emphasize" his support or not?

He supports them and had put political capital on the line in both races.

His endorsement video is on TV here every five minutes or so.

It's not my fault or anyone else's that he decided to be so assertive in these cases.

It is just a fact.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Pres. Obama did what he had to do in order to get his legislations passed.....

And in fact, Specter gets to vote in the Senate till a new congress convenes.

Whatever anyone wants to say, the reality is that Obama is practical.
He was able to get Specter to become a Democrat at a time when we needed
a Democrat. Those who don't want to understand that; this is politics,
not a quilt making circle. :eyes:

[Bluenorthwest]

8. So in essence, he is supporting a Republican

who changed tee shirts. The voters will flip the bird to that.

[zipplewrath]

12. As well they should

I only wish they had in Connecticut

[FrenchieCat]

13. He supported a Republican willing to become a Democrat and vote that way for

an entire year.....with 7 more months to go; that's nearly two years.

If you don't get that, then you aren't interested in passing anything,
just interested in being right about nothing....since not passing legislation
means doing nothing.

That's ok for you as you sit at your desk typing,
not so good for this country as a whole.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. He changed more than shirts, he became a reliable Dem vote

Although I would add that was probably in no small part thanks to Joe Sestak challenging him from the left.

[AtomicKitten]

139. I think you're right. Funny how things work out that way. nt

[brooklynite]

6. I don't begrudge DSCC supporting incumbent candidates...

(and yes, despite being late to the party, Specter joined the Democrats -- as opposed to Jim Jeffords becoming "Independent" -- and has been a fairly reliable vote since).

That being said, DSCC better be prepared to bulk up Sestak quickly if he pull off a win, since he'll have had to spend a lot of resources on the Primary.

[zipplewrath]

10. Yup

This race will cost them twice as much because they backed the wrong horse to begin with.

[fugop]

15. No problem as far as I'm concerned

Had the White House backed Sestak against Specter in the primary, I wonder how Specter would have voted over the next bunch of months? Would he have suddenly gone back to his GOP roots? No way to know. The President, as far as I'm concerned, had to give some support to Specter in the hopes of keeping him in the fold. Now, even should Spector lose, maybe he'll still feel some allegiance and keep voting with the Dems. Because if he doesn't, we're even more screwed by the anti-everything-Obama vote. So I still call it the smart move for Obama to have backed Specter.

Had he backed Sestak and seen him beat Specter, I just wouldn't trust that we'd get Specter's vote for anything from now until the election. He may be a side-switching manipulator, but for now at least, he's still voting our way.

[zipplewrath]

20. Nice false dichotomy

How about if they had just stayed out of the whole mess? Specter switched parties because he felt HE had to. How is he gonna vote when he loses anyway? Will he back the democratic candidate? Or will he back the GOP candidate? The smartest thing to have done here was to stay away from the whole mess until after the primary, which of course is why they are running away now as fast as they can.

[fugop]

23. I'd be shocked if he backs Toomey

There's no way to know what Specter would do if he loses after the White House gave him its support. But the odds of him continuing to vote with the Dems, in my opinion, are better over the next few months (and, frankly, in the months that lead up to this primary) because the White House didn't toss him aside. They courted his party switch pretty heavily, from what I recall, so I'm sure Specter felt they owed him something. You can disagree with that all you want, and I'm no fan of Specter, but I understand why the White House had to back him. As I said, Specter may very well be an untrustworthy party-switcher, but I'm not so blind as to miss how crucial his vote has been for the Dems since his switch. We'll see what he does from here on out. But I'm absolutely fine with Specter getting support up until now.

Now if you want to talk about Blanche Lincoln, I don't know why the hell the White House is giving her a thing. That one's a mystery to me. But Specter, I get.

[zipplewrath]

26. They are related

As generous as you are being with them on Specter, I suspect their reasons for him and Lincoln are similar. They agree with them far more than we'd all like to admit.

[laughingliberal]

69. +1 nt

[AlinPA]

101. If he loses the primary, he will switch back; they would be glad to have that extra filibuster vote.

[tsuki]

121. +1

[and-justice-for-all]

14. U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak 2010..nt

[stray cat]

16. Spector has been one of the top two supporters of medical research

including jobs. It will be hard to replace his measure of support as no one else in the senate republican or democrat comes close

[kjackson227]

22. According to some polls, Specter supposedly does better...

against Toomey(sp), than Sestak. Hopefully, Sestak can pull it out if the polls prove right.

[Radical Activist]

25. That should be expected.

Specter is a long-time statewide elected official with far more name recognition. The only concern would be if Sestak had high negatives and polled very poorly against a GOP challenger.

[MadBadger]

96. I havent seen any like that of late.

[AtomicKitten]

138. It seems this primary has motivated Democrats in Penn.

For all the gnashing of teeth, it just may turn out to be a good thing for turn-out in the GE.

[AtomicKitten]

29. It's all good.

If the Dems in Penn choose Sestak, that's democracy in action plus the WH kept their promise to Specter in exchange for his 60th vote that made passing the HCR bill and the stimulus package possible.

[freddie mertz]

32. The Specter ads here feature Obama at a rally declaring "I love Arlen Specter!"

Which seems a bit over the top.

Just saying.

I wish he would have kept his OFA operation out of it too.

That was bad judgment I think.

[zipplewrath]

34. OFA was really over the top

And probably out of line with some of the folks that contributed. This was a simple case for him to have explained that a sitting president couldn't show open bias in a primary, and limited his efforts to quite support.

[Beacool]

37. Yeah, I was in PA a couple of weeks ago and saw that commercial.

I laughed outloud at it.

Ahhh, politicians and their constant B.S.......

:7

[freddie mertz]

39. If it is any consolation, the president does not look comfortable...

He stumbles over the line, which comes after a general "I love you" to the audience...

Surely he is old enough to remember Anita Hill.

[Hippo_Tron]

54. It's the price he paid for Specter's vote on health care reform

[freddie mertz]

63. It's an embarrassing clip.

Watch it here:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/Arlen_love.html

[AtomicKitten]

136. Exactly. Obama said he promised Teddy and he delivered. nt

[AlinPA]

38. A lot of us (seniors) just can't see voting for Specter after 25 years of voting against him. nt

[freddie mertz]

41. Yeah, there is that, too.....nt.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. I bet the White House is actually very thankful for Joe Sestak

The President supported Specter because Specter switching parties and voting with the Democrats on several key bills (including health care) was contingent on this and the White House needed the votes in 2009 and 2010. But Sestak was also a crucial part of this equation because if Specter had no primary opposition, the White House could not have the credible threat to take their support elsewhere if Specter didn't hold up his end of the bargain.

The White House will take a bit of a hit for their preferred candidate not winning, but nobody will give a shit in a week. But at the end they walk away with health care reform and with Sestak winning the nomination (who has a better shot in November). It's really a win-win.

[zipplewrath]

56. Wishful thinking

On your part I suspect. Sestak has suggested they tried to get him to drop out of the race. The DSCC didn't give him any money, and they'd a prefered not to have to had to given Specter money. Now they have to spend money to prop up the guy they tore down.

It was a bad bet from the start, and Specter needed the democrats more than the democrats needed him.

[Hippo_Tron]

60. It's the price they paid to get Specter's votes (partcularly on health care)

Specter probably told them that they had to pressure Sestak to get out or he would take his business elsewhere.

[zipplewrath]

61. Specter need them

If he tries to run on the GOP side, he had already concluded he would lose. If he runs democratic, he has to support HCR and stimulus or he'd lose in a primary. He needed the White House more than the White House needed him. They supported him because they LIKED him.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. Specter could've easily run as an independent and opposed health care reform

He ran as a Democrat and supported health care reform.

[zipplewrath]

70. Easily run, and lost

He could have run as a green party member too. But if he wanted to win, he was going to need a party apparatus behind him.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. Tell that to Joe Lieberman and Charlie Crist

[zipplewrath]

79. Lieberman was different

He had the backing of the GOP. Specter couldn't have looked forward to this.

Crist hasn't won anything yet. He isn't expected to. No one's openly promised him anything. And he vetoed GOP legislation anyway.

Like I say, Specter needed the dems more than the dems needed him.

[Hippo_Tron]

124. Crist is leading in the polls

But regardless of whether Specter could've won as an independent he would have had no chance of winning the Democratic primary without the President's endorsement. Without the Dem machine behind him, Democratic primary voters wouldn't vote for a guy who had been a Republican for his entire career. He would've had a better shot remaining a Republican and trying his hand against Pat Toomey. An independent bid probably would have been the least worst option.

Specter certainly needed the Dems but the Dems were useless without locking up the primary for him.

[zipplewrath]

127. No, he's not

Well, it's tightened. AFter his initial announcement, his numbers plummeted. He and Rubio are polling very close.

The only reason Specter considered running as a dem at all was because he had come to the conclusion he couldn't even win the GOP primary. Staying in the GOP was his best option. But he already figured out that wasn't gonna happen. And he had already determined that an independent run was a loser. His one best chance to run was as a democrat.

Given that, he needed the democrats more than the democrats needed him. The democrats knew this. What he needed to hear from the democrats was that the DSCC would discourage primary challengers (which they generally do), and that the White House wouldn't work against him either. If he wins the primary, their support in the general election is a given. So it's all about the primary. What he can't demand is OFA working for him, personal appearances by the President and Vice President, and a "open" fundraising for him. He got that stuff because he is a personal friend of Biden, and Obama likes him and wants him in the Senate.

People keep wanting to hide Obama's centrist leanings, but they just keep piling up.

[Hippo_Tron]

148. We will have to agree to disagree on that one

I don't think the DSCC discouraging a challenger was going to be good enough for Specter to bolt the GOP. In order to even have a shot at the nomination he needed the entire party both locally and nationally to get 100% behind him and that includes the President coming and making appearances if the race tightens up (which it has). If the party wasn't pulling out all of the stops, Sestak would be leading by double digits and Specter knew that would be the case.

Also I don't really think Sestak is more liberal than Specter, although I think it's difficult to tell how Specter would vote now given that he's been a Republican for so long. I am pulling for Sestak, though, simply because I think he's more electable.

[zipplewrath]

149. It's a matter of history

Specter got in trouble when he voted to support the stimulus. He pretty quickly figured out that he wasn't going to win the GOP primary. He had two choices. He could run as an independent, or he could run as a democrat. If he ran as an independent, he'd have to run against both a dem and a Republican. What he was looking for from the White House and the DSCC was that they wouldn't go looking for a primary challenger in the democratic party. That meant either overtly, or otherwise.

So what the White House had to do was to basically promise to not search for, encourage, nor back a challenger, in any way really. The DSCC had to promise to do the same. For this, he'd switch immediately and run dem. He had little to bargin with. About all he could do was to wait to run as an independent and so wait to announce any switch. Biden had been working him for years, so he did have some pull with Biden.

But the White House was in a very strong barganing position. He needed the democratic party, with or without the White House. He was going to have to vote for HCR, if only to distinguish himself from the GOP candidate. He'd already voted for the stimulus.

But Biden liked him. Obama almost assuredly likes him. It's not so much that they DIDN'T like Sestak, but they made two calculations. 1) It would be easier to have Specter sooner than later. 2) There was concern that Sestak couldn't beat Toomey.
How they figured that Spector would have a easier time winning than Sestak, especially with the White House coming out in support of Sestak, is beyond me. The only real explanation is that they WANTED it to be true.

So Biden had an easy time convincing them to "go all in". OFA, personal appearances, fund raising, robo calls. Mind you, sitting senators with multiple years of service to the party don't always get this treatment in the general election. Specter didn't get it for a vote or two. He got it because they liked him and they thought they could get the folks of Pennsylvania to like him too. Some where around this week they started to get a clue.


Much of this isn't opinion, it's virtual fact. The rest of it is less of a stretch than "they went all in for a guy they barely liked but wanted one or two votes he had to make anyway".

[Hippo_Tron]

150. Again, I don't see why you think Specter would've agreed to those terms

Specter had been a Republican for his entire career which means he had zero credibility among Pennsylvania Democratic voters. The odds of him attracting a serious primary challenger were very high and the odds of him getting his ass kicked by said primary challenger were very high unless the party went "all in" for him.

[zipplewrath]

154. No other choice

He knew who the potential challengers were. He made the calculation, rightly so, that if the democratic party didn't actively work to replace him, and that the White House wouldn't back anyone else, it was his best chance. Pennsylvania is not a "rabidly" liberal place. His calculation was that he could win, mostly on name recognition. We'll see, he may still be right. He is facing a challenger anyway, and may still win.

But furthermore, Specter was not in a position to "demand" anything else. He basically already knew he was beaten as a republican. The White House knew this as well as he did, and probably better. If he DOESN'T run as a democrat, he's guarenteed, in the general election, of facing BOTH a democrat AND a republican. His only chance is to win the democratic primary, then move onto the general election. One opponent at a time. All he had to offer the White House was to switch sooner than later. The White House only had to offer not to oppose him, even covertly. They chose to do much more than that.

[Hippo_Tron]

155. Again I think his best chance to win on "name recognition" was in a three way as an independent

And I think that was a better alternative than running in Dem primary without the national party's backing. The fact that Sestak will probably win this thing even with the party fully backing Specter is evidence enough to me that Specter needed the party fully backing him to even have a chance.

[zipplewrath]

156. He had no chance

In the end, it may be he had no chance, regardless.

He determined, and I suspect the WH knew this too, that he had no chance as an independent. I'm not sure why you don't agree with him.

He determined that he couldn't win as a republican.

That left him one choice. The White House knew everything he knew, and more I suspect.

Actually, he had another choice, one he decide, again, not to pursue. He could just have retired.

[Hippo_Tron]

157. Running as a Dem was NOT a choice unless the White House backed him in the primary

Without the White House's backing he had three paths that would all have more than likely lead to his demise. He could run as a Dem and lose in the primary, run as a Republican and lose in the primary, and run as an Independent and lose in the general. Without the White House's backing, running as a Dem was not a viable option. Therefore he had no incentive to become a Democrat over his other two (abysmal) choices.

[zipplewrath]

159. Tell that to Sestak

The dire nature of his situation was that bad. Running as a republican was that bad. Running as an independent was that bad. Running as a dem was his "best" choice. Think how bad that made the other two choices. With or without (and you can see how good "with" was) the White House, running as a Dem was his "best" choice. That's how bad the other two were. He never runs as a dem if he has ANY chance otherwise. Getting the national party, including the White House to not oppose him was the best he could ask for. (The DSCC would have done it as a matter of course). They couldn't stop a challenger, they could just not support the challenger. He STILL took the deal. That's how bad his choices were.

Biden and Obama were there because they WANTED to be there, not because they had to. As soon as it looked bad for them, they were gone.

[Hippo_Tron]

161. The national party did everything in their power to win the Dem primary for him

And by doing so, it made running as a Dem his best choice. Without the national party doing that, it would've been just as bad as any of the other choices.

[zipplewrath]

162. He didn't think so

And neither did most folks around him. Like I say, if he had ANY other choice he would have taken it. Support from the national level was only going to help him so much, less in the general. That's how desperate he was.

[Hippo_Tron]

163. How do you know what he thought?

Like I say if you look at the situation objectively running as a Dem was no better without the national party and White House backing. With the national party backing and full support from the White House it was marginally better.

[zipplewrath]

164. He said as much

He said the only way he could win was to run as a democrat. When he switched, it was discussed at length just how lousy his position was to have chosen to try a switch under these conditions. He knew what everyone else knew. Many/most were a tad surprised he tried at all. Even if he wins the primary, he's not given much of a shot in the general anyway.

[Hippo_Tron]

166. Which he said after the party had already backed him 100%

Did any of the reporters in the room ask him to be more specific as to whether or not he thought he could win the primary without the backing of the President and the party?

[zipplewrath]

167. Not that I'm aware of

However, there was ample discussion about what his realistic options were. There were none really. Most really thought he had little shot as a democrat in the general election. No one thought he had a prayer as an independent. It is inevitable that he was getting the same advice privately.

[zipplewrath]

88. He didn't think so

It's why he joined the democrats. The political calculation was that he couldn't win as an independent. He was going to lose much of the GOP vote, and at best he'd split the democratic vote. This wasn't Connecticut and Lieberman where the GOP refused to back their own guy and backed Lieberman instead. Specter knew he could only win as a democrat.

[Hippo_Tron]

123. He wouldn't have stood a chance in the Dem primary without the machine backing

Without the President's endorsement, running as an independent would've probably been his least worst option.

[zipplewrath]

128. What he really needed, he didn't get

He needed a primary with no challengers. He didn't get it. If there is something interesting here it is why. The DSCC and the DNC have been able to stop people before. Rahm knew how to do it when he lead the DCCC. It may be because Sestak already had support from his congressional days. It may be because Specter already had opposition from 40 years of being a GOP kinda guy. However, it may also be that the White House was only willing to go "so far" it trying to stop it. We may not know for years what went on, if at all. The unions have lined up behind Specter, but on the local level they are quietly backing Sestak.

There have been assertions that Sestak doesn't have the "ground game" to get out the vote on Tuesday. That may be true since the "formal" support from the unions may go to Specter. But if Specter loses, it may be a story about how the national party is losing its ability to dictate at the local level, even with White House backing. Or it may be a story of how UNwilling Obama is to play "hardball" in his own party, even with the "left".

[Jennicut]

72. Actually, they needed his votes. We needed as many as we could get.

I fail to see why playing politics here is such a shocker. Maybe people want it to never happen but it is DC...bartering for votes is a what can you do for me type of thing all the time. It was an obvious deal...support for the switch. Did we want another Dem vote? Of course we did.

[zipplewrath]

77. False dichotomy

That point of view rests upon the false dichotomy that there were only two choices the president had. Support Specter in the primary, or lose his vote on HCR. It ignores the fact that Specter had already concluded he couldn't win in the GOP and that his only hope was to run as a democrat. As such, he needed the democrats more than Obama needed him. Because if Specter is going to run as a democrat, he's going to have to support stimulus and HCR or appear to be exactly what he is, a republican running as a democrat.

All Obama and the DSCC had to do was to promise NOT to fund an opponent. They could have also promised to work quietly to discourage an opponent, including blocking funding sources. They did more than that. The unhappy conclusion is that they actually LIKE Specter and WANT him in the senate. Not surprising, Biden liked him and wanted him and there was going to be a problem in having the VP letting it be known he supported Specter and Obama trying to appear neutral.

[Jennicut]

97. Biden and Specter are friends, they commuted together on Amtrak.

Of course Biden wanted him to stay out of friendship. He also convinced him to switch to begin with. I think Obama and Biden do like Specter. I am not sure Specter agreed to switch without their directly giving support to him, who knows? I still don't see the huge deal. Obama has provided support to all the incumbents. Also, Obama is not a liberal. He is a moderate to centrist. I hate people acting shocked that he is, just like I dislike people denying he is.

Maybe it is because I have Lieberman as my Senator. You know what....I would take Specter over Lieberman. He has been a more reliable vote in his desperation. Of course, Sestak may prove to be better. I would vote for Sestak since he is overall closer to my views.

[zipplewrath]

103. Well, he didn't run as a centrist

That's where the shocking part comes in. He ran to the left of the DLC darling, Hillary. You'd expect this from Hillary, but it was surprising from the "anti-war" candidate that was "against mandates" and would "have us out of Iraq in 16 months". Not to mention repeal DADT in the 1st 100 days.

I'm sure Biden was big in all of this. It's really my larger point. People want to rationalize that Obama was somehow forced to support Specter. He wasn't forced, he wanted to support him.

[Jennicut]

125. The left of the DLC? He ran to the slight left of the DLC. He was never a raging

progressive. I think Obama liked Specter too. That does not surprise me.

[AtomicKitten]

134. Obama ran as the anti-dumb-war candidate.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/warspeech.pdf

If you heard anti-war, you need to consult an ENT specialist immediately.

[Enrique]

53. Gibbs tomorrow: Arlen who?

never heard of him. :shrug:

[freddie mertz]

64. Kinda like the public option....

Out of sight, out of mind....

[laughingliberal]

73. Will be hard for the WH to spin a Specter & Lincoln loss or near miss...

as evidence Democratic voters favor 'moderate' policies.

[AtomicKitten]

84. The WH support has nothing to do with ideology.

* WH support for Specter was in exchange for the 60th vote which passed HCR and the stimulus.

* WH support for Lincoln follows the theory that possession is 9/10 of the law. It's easier and less costly to defend a seat already occupied versus an open seat.

[laughingliberal]

100. Perhaps. But I think a lot of the WH policy is right in sync with the Blue Dogs.

At least, as I said, a loss or near miss for these 2 will be difficult to spin as an indication that Democratic voters want to continue 'moderate' policies.

[zipplewrath]

104. Unsupportable assertion

Specter was a friend of Biden.
Obama has shown himself to be friendly to the centrists, Blue Dogs, and conservative democrats. He has moved away from progressives.
He WANTED Specter, his hand wasn't forced. Specter needed him, and he didn't need to promise nearly this much support to get Specter's vote on critical issues.

[AtomicKitten]

108. Wrong again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=301699&mesg_id=302371

[Uzybone]

74. If Sestak wins the GE, only the bitter will remember this

its a non issue IMO. Hope that Sestak wins the primary and the GE.

[Aramchek]

92. another Senate seat down the drain...

[saltpoint]

113. Current polling suggests that Sestak is within the margin of error with

Toomey, and it's still quite early.

I think this seat stays blue if Sestak is the nominee. If Specter holds on to win, I think Toomey destroys him.

[AtomicKitten]

140. Sestak has done a good job turning around the polls.

From what I can tell, it is Sestak who is the strongest candidate against Toomey. It was a good political move to get the 60th vote from Specter to pass HCR, and this primary has invigorated Dems in Penn. That may be just what is needed in the GE to beat Toomey's sorry ass. All's well that end's well.

[MadBadger]

95. God i hope they're bracing for a Specter Loss

[NorthCarolina]

105. Once again the administration stands with the least progressive choice.

Just sayin'.

[saltpoint]

109. This is kind of tantalizing.

There was a lot of great political theater, for those of us who love it that is, when Specter changed parties, then when the State honchos tried to get Sestak out of the way, then Sestak's long climb into contention, and now this juicy little ham bite from Bob Schieffer.

Politics can be awful tasty sometimes.

Recommended.

[saltpoint]

111. Intrade is not scientific, but actual folks are betting real money on

political races on that site, and this evening does not bring good news for Arlen Specter.

Through yesterday evening Specter held roughly from 30 to 34, I think averaging 32.

Tonight he is tanking at 22 currently.

On the eve of the primary election, my guess is that is not a positive indicator.

[saltpoint]

122. It's after midnight in Philadelphia and by god now that the younguns are

tucked in bed I'd just like to say I hope Arlen Specter gets his ass kicked in tomorrow's primary.

Thank you.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

130. Aren't there some people in Pennsylvania who simply think it's beyond time for Specter to retire?

Apart from the Democrat-Republican-Democrat stuff.

Why do many Senators feel they have a lifelong stranglehold on their seat?

[zipplewrath]

142. Yes

The question is, do they vote.

[spinbaby]

143. They're backing away fast

From the AP:

White House distances Obama from Pa.'s Specter

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100518/ap_on_el_se/us_obama_specter

[mvd]

151. I just voted for Sestak

I'm sure if we wins, the WH will get behind him. I understand the Specter thing but not the Lincoln thing. I also voted for Hoeffel and Trivedi in other local races.

[joanski0]

152. I voted for Sestak today.

Hope he wins!

[Bravo Zulu]

160. I voted for Sestak today,too!

I think he will win.

[MrSlayer]

169. As did I.

Go Joe!

[Sebastian Doyle]

153. Arlen Specter helped cover up the murder of the President of the United States

and ensured that the real murderers were never caught.

Fuck him. Good riddance.

[EndElectoral]

158. Specter is 80. If he is elected and dies in office, Corbett would appoint a Republican. Vote Sestak