Joe Sestak:

The Pennsylvania Senate race is now former President Clinton's top political priority this fall, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) asserted Thursday. [. . .]"Actually, I was talking with them the other day, and they just want to know what days," Sestak said of Clinton during an appearance on MSNBC. "They told me I'm their top priority, and I'm going to keep working on that."[. . .] Sestak suggested Clinton was likely to campaign again for him this fall in the Keystone State, where the Clinton brand remains popular.

Sestak wants to be associated with the Clinton brand because the Clinton brand means good economic times. The current Dem brand does not. It's still the economy, stupid.

Speaking for me only

At daily kos, Barbara Boxer's campaign is passing the hat. I'll be giving to the Boxer campaign and I urge that you do too.

She fights for progressive issues. Progressives should fight for her.

Speaking for me only

Carl Paladino is vying for the Republican nomination for Governor of New York, competing against Rick Lazio. Tea partiers love the wealthy real estate developer and former lawyer, who hails from Buffalo. Paladino's latest: treat welfare recipients like prisoners:

Republican candidate for governor Carl Paladino said he would transform some New York prisons into dormitories for welfare recipients, where they would work in state-sponsored jobs, get employment training and take lessons in "personal hygiene."

Under his plan, prison guards would work as counselors to the welfare recipients. He says the dorms would be optional, and claims:

"These are beautiful properties with basketball courts, bathroom facilities, toilet facilities. Many young people would love to get the hell out of cities," Paladino he said. [More...]

Booman is right:

This has the benefit of being true:

"This is a 'rip your opponent's face off' election for us," said one Democratic campaign manager. "It's clear from polling that Americans don't like the policies that got us into this mess and they do not blame Obama for what started it. They blame him for not doing more about it, which they have every right to do. That means we have to make the other choice unbearable.[. . .] If [the Dems] use [their] money edge not only to make the election a choice, but to make it a choice in which the Republican is an unacceptable option, Democrats will save seats."

That's what's left in the political kit.

Speaking for me only

Sam Stein:

[Robin] Carnahan (D-MO)] isn't the first Democratic Senate candidate to call for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway [[D)] has said that he favors keeping the current rates for "five, eight, maybe ten" additional years. Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), who is running for Sen. Evan Bayh's soon to be vacated seat, also has said he would support extending the entire package of Bush tax cuts[.]

(Emphasis supplied.) Like Heath Shuler and Travis Childers (to name just 2) before them, these Dems are not progressives on most issues. Are they preferable to the Republicans? Of course. But why progressives lift a finger or spend a dime on trying to elect people who fundamentally disagree with them is beyond me. But by all means, join the voices trying to run Charlie Rangel out of office. After all, all Rangel does is fight for the issues progressives care about.

Speaking for me only

As a companion post to my look at a WSJ pundit's "It's Obama" thesis, consider this WSJ article:

Ms. Jones is part of an unmeasured, agitated mass: unemployed Americans who don't believe the Obama Administration and Congress have done enough to produce jobs. With elections coming up, their unease is especially troublesome for the Democrats, who control both chambers.

A poor economy never bodes well for incumbents. Cook Report, the nonpartisan political newsletter that tracks congressional races, estimates that 73 House seats are vulnerable—including Mr. Schauer's. This group has two things in common. Almost all (66 of 73) are held by Democrats, and most include counties that have unemployment rates exceeding the national average, according to data assembled by The Wall Street Journal.

[. . .] "The jobless are the new swing voters," says Rick Sloan, [. . .] "You can talk about deficit reduction, health-care reform—you can talk about all those things but you're talking past the jobless voters."

Robert Gibbs and Jane Hamsher can argue all they want about 'what's progressive enough,' but voters care about jobs. And the Obama Administration and Dems have simply failed on this issue. It is why they will lose the November election.

Speaking for me only

I got this releae by e-mail from the Joe Sestak campaign:

Clinton Prosperity and Jobs vs. Bush Deficits and Recession?

[. . .] On the eve of President Clinton's visit to Pennsylvania, a close look at Congressman Toomey's choices and the Wall Street values that have led him to support the failed policies that have devastated Pennsylvania's economy show that his mindset would hurt Pennsylvania families all over again given the opportunity.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, President Clinton's fiscally responsible budgets and focus on tax breaks for working families created 87,000 new jobs per year in Pennsylvania over eight years. President Bush's fiscally irresponsible budgets and focus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans turned the largest budget surplus in history into massive, big government deficits. And during the entire Toomey-Bush period, Pennsylvania created a grand total of 67,000 jobs - fewer jobs for working families in eight years than President Clinton's priorities produced in just one year.

This is an interesting approach. Obviously Dems can't really brag about the Obama economy right now. Can they turn the 2010 elections into a Bush v. Bill Clinton affair? We'll see. Good place to start - repealing the Bush tax cuts.

Speaking for me only

The AP takes an unflattering look at Colorado's primaries in "Colorado's Three Ring Political Circus." While I've focused on Bennet vs. Romanoff, and the Republican meltdown in the Governor's race, the description of the two Republican Senate candidates (both conservative, one an elected District Attorney and former AUSA and the other a former Lt. Gov. and the Executive Director of the Denver Police Foundation, married to a former U.S. Attorney appointed by Reagan and Bush I), is telling:

[Ken] Buck, a former federal prosecutor and the elected district attorney from a northern county, raised eyebrows by mocking [Jane] Norton's "high heels" while noting that his cowboy boots are stained with cow dung.

He crusades against illegal immigration, and once obtained search warrants to seize thousands of tax returns filed with a firm that caters to Hispanics..... the state Supreme Court ruled that it violated privacy rights.

Apparently, not too many people are paying attention:

A Senate debate scheduled Wednesday in Pueblo involving Norton, Buck and Romanoff was canceled for lack of interest.

My prediction: It will be Bennet vs. Buck in November.

Andrew Romanoff seems like a nice guy. He really wants to be Senator. If I met him at a social event, I bet I'd like him. If he gets the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senator for Colorado, I'm sure he'll be much better than his Republican opponent and I'll vote for him.

But I can't support Andrew Romanoff in the primary race against Sen. Michael Bennet, and I voted for Sen. Bennet. I voted against Romanoff because of his record as a state legislator (including his tenure as former Speaker of the House) on criminal justice, immigration and sentencing reform issues. I don't want to see a repeat performance in the U.S. Senate. (Details below.)

If you're sitting on your mail-in ballot, I hope you'll do the same, in time to beat the deadline, or vote in person on August 10. [More...]:

Aspen does not allow undercover operations. As I've written before, Sheriff Candidate Joe DiSalvo would keep that policy.

At a debate last night between the three candidates vying for Pitkin County Sheriff, two said they would reverse the policy. Candidate Rick Magnuson, who as I've written before, would make a terrible Sheriff in my view, said:

He pinned the valley’s suicide rate, which is twice the state average, on lax enforcement of drug laws. Magnuson lamented the policy of DiSalvo’s law enforcement agency, which also does not permit undercover sting operations to bust drug dealers, saying it’s something he would like to change.

The third candidate, an ex-cop in Florida and New York, wants to bring in big city cops to Aspen.

DiSalvo is sticking to his guns, and the policies of outgoing Sheriff Bob Braudis [More...]:

In an ironic sidebar to the White House's claim that Labor wasted $10 million, Tom Jenson of the PPP polling outfit writes:

It's nice for Blanche Lincoln that she won the runoff in Arkansas last night but I hope that no groups that care about getting Democratic Senators elected spend another dollar in the state this year. [. . . T]here are just a boatload of races where Democrats have a better chance to win this fall and could use their resources more wisely.

(Emphasis supplied.) To coin a phrase, apparently it would be "f--king retarded" to spend any money on Blanche Lincoln for November. Heh.

Speaking for me only

Stephen Strasbourg went 7 innings, gave up 2 runs, an HR and 4 hits while K-ing 14 (including the last 7 he faced) in the most anticipated MLB debut in recent memory. The Nats beat the Bucs 4-2. Strasbourg gets his first big league win.

Game 3 of the NBA Finals is tonight.

And there are elections going on around the country. I'm paying attention to 2 results-- Bill Halter's effort to retire Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas and Head Birther Orly Taitz's run for the GOP nomination for Secretary of State in California.

UPDATE: Lincoln wins. Sure loser in November though.

Please report in on other interesting races.