Venting Some Frustration on Obama and controlling the narrative

Oy. The past week or so has been a frustrating one in election land. Obama seems to be pulling the usual Democratic triangulation in order to stave off attacks against his perceived super-liberalism and lack of patriotism. Obama has recently straddled the issue on guns in reaction to the Supreme Court's recent decision overturning the DC gun ban. He caved in on FISA after pledging just a few months ago to actively support a filibuster, and rubbed it into our faces by acting like Dems got something out of the "deal". To top it off, Today we find out that Mr. Civility has chosen to renounce a smart, legitimate attack by Wes Clark on McCain's presidential qualifications.

In a statement, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "As he's said many times before, Sen. Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by Gen. Clark."

To clarify, the crux of General Clark's statement yesterday was as such:

"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.

"He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility," Clark said. "That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron."

Moderator Bob Schieffer, who raised the issue by citing similar remarks Clark has made previously, noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark replied.

So what about this doesn't Obama agree with? Does he believe that getting shot down does qualify McCain to be president? Does he think that going after McCain's history is out of bounds, even after McCain has made it a central part of his campaign? Or d0es he harbor the notion that refraining from direct attacks on John S. McMaverick is a safe election strategy? I worry it is that last point motivating Obama's thinking here. If this is indeed the case, he is ceding an crucial rhetorical point to the GOP, one that will hurt him later on.

See, McSame doesn't have much to run on, since he is a Republican and most voters that the current Republican president all but ruined the country.

• The economy? A mess, and getting messier. McCain loses badly if this is at the forefront of voters' minds.
  
• Ethics and fiscal sanity? Maybe 15 years ago, but not now, not as a member of the party of wide stances, lobbyist-sponsored brothels and a trillion dollar defense contractor boondoggle in Iraq.
• The environment? HAH!
• Immigration? Not an electoral winner, and McCain has a similar position to Obama anyway.
• Guns? Long past its relevance as a mobilizing issue, and defused by the recent Supreme Court decision anyway.
• God and Gays? Maybe effective to appease a chunk of the ornery GOP base, but definitely not enough to win a nationwide election by itself.

Military and security? Ah, now there's an issue in which McCain might have a prayer. McCain is a war hero and withstood torture in Vietnam, whereas Obama did not serve. That issue, if it becomes the defining issue of this race, will vault a clearly inferior candidate into the White House.

I suspect you all knew this already, but it's important to reiterate how crucial it is that Obama take on this issue headfirst, and not allow Sen. McOrnery to define the terms on this issue. The only way he challenges the media frame of Strong Republican, Weak Democrat is to boldly question the silly assumption that only war heroes can effectively lead a nation in wartime, and every war hero would make a superior president. Any thinking person can recognize that to be a gross oversimplification, even if it were true* (see below for more on this point).

Along those lines, one would think that sending out former military commander Wes Clark to challenge McHero's inherent qualifications would be a purely brilliant tactical move on the Obama campaign's part. So it utterly boggles my mind that the campaign would overtly shun such an effort. Sure, a jujitsu tactic would justify the Obama spokesman's reaction, but "of course rejecting" Gen. Clark's attack is way too heavyhanded if they are really pursuing the good cop/bad cop strategy. If this dichotomy continues further, then the line of attack on Obama as a slick flip-flopping double-talker with no substance will be enhanced immeasurably, and frankly he will deserve it. He will be no better a candidate than all the triangulating Dem nominees before him.

In my mind, the only way Barack comes out of this episode unscathed is by clearly yet subtly concurring with the General's take on McCain's qualifications. While it is not too late, I fear the opportunity to do so may be slipping from his grasp.

**************************
A follow-up note on military vs. civilian leadership: While not a disqualification in itself, a military perspective on governance can lead to skewed priorities. The current cadre of chickenhawk neocons notwithstanding, those more focused on conquest abroad than providing for the citizens at home have been of a military background, while those seeking to improve the quality of life of their people are often of a civilian, highly-educated nature. The argument can easily be made that right now, the American government needs to turn inwards and solve the growing problems of economic instability, health care and energy dependence right here at home.

Texas!

As many of you know I believe Texas to be an important dark horse state in this election. It isn't among the best bets to flip among traditional red states.....those honors go to Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, the upper Prarie states and Alaska (I consider Colorado to be traditionally purple). But Texas' sheer size and importance as the crown jewel of the Republican electoral portfolio means it is a very worthwhile target. Plus it can be competitive under the right circumstances, which I outline below. When we talk about "expanding the playing field", I believe actively competing in Texas is a key component of such a strategy.

That's why I'm very excited by this new Politico article that discusses Obama's robust 50-state strategy and the plan to fully attack some GOP bastions like Georgia and Montana as well as all of the states mentioned above. But the article also contains a passage about Texas:

Obama’s campaign will also devote some resources to states it’s unlikely to win, with the goal of influencing specific local contests in places such as Texas and Wyoming.

“Texas is a great example where we might not be able to win the state, but we want to pay a lot of attention to it,” Hildebrand said. “It’s one of the most important redistricting opportunities in the country.”

Texas Democrats are five seats away in each chamber from control of the state Legislature, which will redraw congressional districts after the 2010 census.

...

Hildebrand’s plans underscore the unusual scope and ambition of Obama’s campaign, which can relatively cheaply extend its massive volunteer and technological resources into states which won’t necessarily produce electoral votes.

In Texas, for instance, Obama’s three dozen offices were overrun with volunteers during the primary; the campaign’s challenge is, in part, to find something useful to do with all that free labor. But, while Hildebrand said Obama is unlikely to pay for television advertising outside a core of about 15 states the candidate thinks he can win, he will spend some money on staff. Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, reportedly told donors in Houston that he would send 15 staffers to Texas, and the campaign has committed to having some staff on the ground in all 50 states.

A promising start to a groundbreaking campaign. This, in a nutshell, is the difference between the factions of the Democratic Party personified by Clinton (either one) and Obama. The former has an all-consuming goal of getting elected, and lacks an overarching vision or agenda beyond obtaining and keeping power. The latter still works hard to win their own election, but also expends considerable resources growing the progressive movement and building a lasting mandate for a focused agenda. Obama's campaign style demonstrates that he wants not only to win the presidency, but to accomplish great things once he is there. Having expanded Congressional majorities in both chambers will be a major boon to his chances of enacting sweeping systemic changes.

In terms of building that movement infrastructure, enthusiasm is truly paramount. Given the natural challenges to moving a progressive agenda through Congress, the progressive grassroots and donor base will need to be much more fired up than their conservative counterparts and keep constant pressure on their elected officials. While a decade-plus of failed conservative governance has assured the left of staying excited for the near future, conservatives still control a large swath of the country. I believe the Republican coalition needs to fully unravel for lasting political change to occur in America, and this is where Texas comes in. The symbolic importance of George Bush's home state to conservative identity should not be underestimated. If Democrats can seriously compete there or even turn it blue, that might be the straw that irrevocably breaks the elephant's back and leads the rats to desert that sinking ship.

Texans traditionally love to seize opportunities without hesitation. Isn't it worth an investment of $25 million, around 3-5% of Obama's expected campaign stash, to give the Lone Star State a chance to finalize this nation's utter rejection of modern conservatism?

Here's why I think Texas is in play:

1) The state's demographics are changing. Of course many older Texans will never vote for a progressive minority Democrat, but they are a shrinking segment of the population. Younger urban voters are growing in number and the ideological divide by age might be as stark in that region as anywhere else in the country. The 18-35 crowd there is as proudly liberal as most of the other places in America, with classic Texas swagger to boot. Plus, the Hispanic population is exploding and carries increasing weight in the voting population. They have traditionally been a swing segment of the electorate, but...

2) Texas Hispanics will be voting overwhelmingly D this year. I'm talking 80/20. First, you better believe they noticed the nativist bigotry flying around the GOP recently over immigration, and that probably alienated a good chunk of those voters for life. Also, the Democratic Senate nominee is a fellow named Rick Noriega, a State Rep and Iraq War vet who reminds me quite a bit of Jim Webb in political style. He is running a tough and coordinated grassroots campaign, is a proud Hispanic with appeal to white moderates in West and South Texas and presents a dramatic contrast to Chief Chickenhawk Jon Cornyn on just about every issue. Cornyn's approval is hanging around something putrid like 40-48 and Noriega isn't taking any of his swiftboating garbage. I think Noriega and Obama will both benefit from each other's demographic coattails and a revived grassroots Democratic base.

3) Along these lines, two polls came out within the past couple months that had both Cornyn-Noriega and Obama-McCain only down by single digits. Statistically competitive, before the general election campaigns heat up and the spotlight is shone on these two deeply flawed Republicans. From what I gather, non-firebreating Texans are really embarrassed of W (approval rating about 37%) and he has the same negative effect on his congressional enablers among independents as just about everywhere else in the country. So I don't think there's as huge a hurdle to overcome as would be expected for Texas.

4) The state GOP machine is corrupt, bloated and lazy. Obama is already sending 15 organizers into the state and may follow with further investment later on if things look close come September. Between that and the partisan energy gap I have a feeling the Republicans aren't prepared to fight a close battle based on retail politics, and will be caught off guard.

UGH - spineless Dems yet again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

Karl Rove & Co is right about something: we have many spineless appeasers among the ranks congressional Democrats. The Neville Chamberlain wing of the party, unable to stand up for its beliefs and under the tragic impression that one can negotiate with terrorists, seems to believe that if one grants enough leeway to those who wish them harm, it will placate those forces and keep them at bay.

Those Rovian hatemongers are wrong about who those appeasers are, though. Ironically, the situation we see is that the true merchants of terror are those who would slander fellow Americans for partisan political gain. The real appeasers are the "Blue Dogs" who mistakenly think that actively enabling the agenda of the conservative establishment and the Bush administration will somehow exempt them from nasty attack ads in the fall.

And these milquetoast traitors have just shredded the fourth amendment because they're afraid to be called weak on terror by KKKarl Rove and his Very Serious Pundit Friends, who will attack them anyway.

Apparently, the loser "Blue Dogs" just can't handle doing their jobs and holding this criminal president accountable to the rule of law. Instead, they feel the need to capitulate on FISA and telecom immunity....after they had already won.

Steny Hoyer, I'm looking directly at you. You are the troglodyte who decided to unilaterally defy the vast majority of your caucus and value AT&T's profits over the American people's freedom. If you said no to them and the Bush junta, we would still have a recourse of action for illegal spying. We would have perhaps obtained evidence necessary to build an impeachment or criminal case against a president that you say you oppose. But that might make Sean Hannity mad, and we can't have that!

If Steny Hoyer remains the Democratic majority leader into 2009, it may be worthwhile for progressive activists to consider whether unconditional support for the Democratic Party is really the best tactic to achieve positive change in this country. Perhaps the Democratic Party just cannot be reformed into a strong voice for the American people.

I'd like to add one more thing. As the standard bearer of the party and likely the next president, Barack Obama has the power to stop this atrocity. He can make a few phone calls to his congressional colleagues and come out publicly to denounce the pursuers of capitulation. This is a major test of what kind of transformational leader Obama really will be. Here's hoping he comes out firmly on the side of the Constitution.

June Senate Roundup

Honestly, I'm getting pretty worn out by the marathon presidential race and especially the unbearably long nomination process that's thankfully reached its conclusion. And based on what I'm hearing from those around me, you probably are too. So as a brief respite from the BIG race, here are my June Senate rankings and race updates. With almost all of the meaningful primaries also wrapping up yesterday on the Senate front, this is a good time for a full rundown.

The wonderful news for Democrats continues unabated, as quite a few races have been upgraded since the last update in March with a mere one looking better for the GOP. Getting to sixty seats is now looking distinctly within the realm of possibility, although Dems would have to knock off some tough incumbents to get there. As a baseline, we would be looking at something around 55-58 (including Lieberman) if the elections were today; that would mean a pickup of 4-7 seats.

To the rankings! As always, 1 means Definite R while 10 means Definite D
Races are ordered by chance of flipping. If "upgrade" is listed, the race got better for the Democrats.

Oh, this time Republican seats go first, because the D-held seats are almost all foregone conclusions at this point.

See the bottom of the post for a summary and the methodology behind my number rankings.

Republican-Held Seats (23)

Virginia (OPEN): 9 (Probable D)
Democratic Nominee: Former Gov. Mark Warner
Republican Nominee: Former Gov. Jim Gilmore
To put it simply, Virginians know Warner as the guy who cleaned up the mess that Gilmore made. Gilmore barely got the nomination Tuesday over a nobody state delegate. There's a good chance Warner will end up giving a hefty chunk of his campaign cash to the DSCC to fund other, closer contests.

New Mexico (OPEN): 8 (Favored D)
Democratic Nominee: Rep. Tom Udall
Republican Nominee: Rep. Steve Pearce
The conservative Pearce edged out faux-moderate Heather Wilson (of nipplegate fame) for the nomination. It matters little. A slew of polls have had Udall beating both by very comfortable margins. It may tighten a little, but right now it's hard to imagine Pearce winning.

Colorado (OPEN): 8 (Leans D) - 2 point upgrade
Democratic Nominee: Rep. Mark Udall (Tom's brother)
Republican Nominee: Former Rep. Bob Schaffer
This contest was shaping up to be a hard-fought nailbiter. That was before the torrent of corruption revelations began to hit Schaffer. The worst one: while in congress he went on a Jack Abramoff-sponsored trip to the Mariana Islands to "investigate" sweatshop conditions, and of course reported everything to be hunky-dory. Then, in Congress he once tried to say the U.S. should emulate its workplace regulations after those of the Marianas, known as one of the most cruel places for workers in the Western Hemisphere. In other words he's a transparent Grade A Dirtbag. To make matters worse, his campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, handled Macaca Allen's implosion in 2006, so you know he can't handle PR crises particularly well. All I'm saying is, get out the popcorn, this should be entertaining to watch.

New Hampshire (John Sununu): 7 (Leans D)
Democratic Nominee: Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen
Sununu is a Bush toady representing a state that doesn't take well to toadies, and especially not the Iraq-enabling kind. Shaheen remains pretty popular and despite a few years out of the state, still has very deep roots in the NH political community. Polls have her consistently ahead by around 10 points and that probably will not change much as both have very high name ID. If McCain can sell his case on Iraq and wins the state, Sununu has a shot. Otherwise, stick a fork in him.

Alaska (Ted Stevens): 5 (Barely R)
Challenger: Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich
Boy, Alaska Republicans are a mess of corruption right now. Stevens, as the king of Alaska politics, heads the list of course with his notorious Bridge to Nowhere and much much more. Despite the good will Stevens has generated over the years, he is starting to be seen as a black eye for the state by its residents (those who pay attention, anyway). Begich, the son of beloved former congressman Nick Begich, is also well-regarded and already governs a large chunk of Alaska's population so is widely known. This matchup should be really fascinating and I expect it to resemble many of the '06 congressional campaigns. Gonna be a close one.

Minnesota (Norm Coleman): 5 (Barely R) - downgrade
Challenger: Al Franken
Yikes! After I gushed about Franken in the last roundup, a major story came to light about how he owed back taxes in 17 states. The story may have been blown a little out of proportion, but it seems like it stuck as a scandal and may have opened a door for Coleman to build a narrative of Franken as dishonest and flippant. Even though the story broke a month ago or more, it is still too early to tell whether Franken can weather the storm. All we know is, there will be more storms to come; Coleman is very sleazy (yeah, even among senators) and will throw the kitchen sink at his opponent. This race may be the ugliest and nastiest one of the whole cycle, and yes that includes the presidential contest. Now that we see some chinks in Franken's armor, all bets are off.

Oregon (Gordon Smith): 5 (Barely R) - upgrade
Challenger: State House Speaker Jeff Merkley
The more I see of Merkley, the more I like him. This guy is just a natural leader. He got past the first step a couple weeks ago by fighting off a spirited primary challenge from activist Steve Novick, who would've made a solid albeit different candidate himself. Merkley isn't the most fiery guy out there, but he's a true progressive with a track record of getting things done. I'm guessing the election will end up as a referendum on whether Smith is actually the principled moderate that he tries to come across as. At the moment, I'm cautiously optimistic, but at the moment the incumbent has to remain a slight favorite. Oh, recent polls have the contest locked in a statistical tie.

North Carolina (Elizabeth Dole): 4 (Leans R) - upgrade
Challenger: State Sen. Kay Hagan
We already knew Liddy Dole was a top DSCC target, and recent post-primary polls have vindicated their interest in the race. Multiple polls have shown a very close battle, with some actually putting Hagan on top. This is before she really starts the general election battle. Dole has a sizable campaign stash, so she has to be given a slight edge at the moment. But that could change as the summer unfolds. Dole has shown signs that she is running scared. I should mention, however, that Kay Hagan would not be a particularly reliable party line vote - she is actually opposed to SCHIP expansion.

Maine (Susan Collins): 4 (Leans R)
Challenger: Rep. Tom Allen
Amazing that the Maine race, considered early on to be at or near the top of the list of pickup opportunities, is now just 9th. That partially is a testament to Collins' ability to sell her moderate image despite a voting record to the contrary, but there are just so many other wonderful possibilities for Dems at the moment. Collins continues to hover just over 50% in polls, and this one will certainly tighten as November draws closer. If Iraq is still a major mobilizing issue in Maine, the solidly progressive Allen has a decent chance.

Mississippi-B (Roger Wicker): 4 (Leans R) - upgrade
Challenger: Former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove
There are two ways to look at this. One, Musgrove is kind of a schmuck. He would be rather infuriating as a Blue Dog senator, breaking with the party on many important issues. But on the other hand, he would be a Democratic Senator from deep red Mississippi. If you didn't hear, Democrat Travis Childers won a recent special election victory in Wicker's deep red former district, which is of course a fantastic sign. Wicker still has to be the favorite, but Obama coattails may just be enough to put Musgrove over the top.

Texas (John Cornyn): 3 (Favored R)
Challenger: State Rep. & Lt. Col. Rick Noriega
While not moving the Texas race up to Leans R, this race has definitely picked up some momentum in recent weeks. Two polls in May had Noriega within five points of the odious Cornyn. I am an enthusiastic supporter of Noriega's; he would be one of the more exciting Democrats to have in the Senate and is rock solid on all the major issues; plus he can likely appeal to disaffected Republicans in West and South Texas. Noriega is actually taking two weeks off at the moment to complete his annual National Guard training; how can chickenhawk Cornyn possibly match up with that? If Noriega can raise some serious $ over the summer and/or the DSCC makes a financial committment, this race moves up the ranks.

Kentucky (Mitch McConnell): 3 (Favored R) - upgrade
Challenger: Fmr Commerce Sec. Bruce Lunsford
I must admit I'm conflicted about this race. Same issue as Mississippi, really. Lunsford isn't so much a Blue Dog as just a classic pro-business "Republicrat". He's actually endorsed and donated to McConnell in the past. But then again, he may actually knock off the GOP Minority Leader. Revenge for Daschle in '04 would be pretty sweet, and polls have them running in a dead heat. Of course, McConnell has about $10 million to play with, or else a more competitive ranking would be deserved. Only time will tell.

Idaho (OPEN): 3 (Favored R)
Democratic Nominee: Fmr Rep. Larry LaRocco
Republican Nominee: Lt. Gov. Jim Risch
No real updates since the March version. LaRocco continues to rule and Risch continues to be a schmuck, but there hasn't been a poll of the matchup in a long time and no major stories have broken on either candidate. One potential issue lurks, however: Risch apparently is encouraging Kuwait to dump enormous amounts of radioactive waste in Idaho. I'm sure Idahoans will loooooove that.

Kansas (Pat Roberts): 3 (Favored R) - 2 point upgrade
Challenger: Fmr Rep. Jim Slattery
Talk about your turnarounds! As of my last roundup, it seemed that Democrats would be unable to find a credible challenger to relatively unpopular Bush enabler Pat Roberts, former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Then lobbyist and former Congressman Jim Slattery stepped up at the last minute. As lobbyists go, he seems to be okay and really gets it on financial regulation issues. He has only recently launched his official campaign, but a poll had him within just 12 with very low name recognition against the universally known Roberts (and Obama only down 9 to McCain!). Slattery has to prove he is willing to fight a nasty battle against a savvy politician likely to go hard negative, but if he has the drive and fundraising ability, he just may have a shot.

Note: I'd like to take a second and point out that Democrats are legitimately competitive in an astounding 14 seats. That makes the current ceiling 65 (with Lieberman) if everything breaks positively. Could we see a Constitutional Amendment or two pass in the next few years?

Oklahoma (James Inhofe): 2 (Probable R)
Challenger: State Sen. Andrew Rice
This race does have sleeper possibilities. Rice is an exciting young (meaning 32 years old) Harvard grad and popular state legislator from Oklahoma City. Inhofe is notorious for his staunch global warming denial. In addition, he very recently put out a campaign ad suggesting Iraq to be in Africa. If the stereotypes of Oklahoma as a state full of ignorant yokels are accurate, Inhofe is the perfect Senator for them. My co-worker and friend lives in Oklahoma, personally knows Andrew Rice and suggests he is light years too liberal to win a statewide election there.

Nebraska (OPEN): 2 (Probable R)
Democratic Nominee: Scott Kleeb
Republican Nominee: Former Gov. Mike Johanns
Kleeb is a netroots favorite, but like Rice he is really young to be running for the Senate. Johanns is a top-tier candidate for the GOP and while Nebraska may actually be somewhat competitive on the presidential level, it's hard to see Kleeb making Johanns seriously sweat barring some sort of scandal (which is certainly a possibility with any prominent Republican these days).

Tennessee (Lamar Alexander): 2 (Probable R)
Challenger: Former TN-Dems Chair Bob Tuke
Tuke will have to run a stellar campaign and/or a bombshell scandal will have to be unearthed on the relatively well-regarded Alexander for this to become a top-tier race. But hey, anything's possible.

Georgia (Saxby Chambliss): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: TBD (nominee not known until August 5th)
There are four or five viable candidates for the Democratic nod. Although national Dems despise Chambliss for the way he viciously smeared war hero Max Cleland in '02, it would probably take Cleland himself to make the race close. Cleland's not running, leaving a bunch of 3rd-tier candidates in the mix. One guy, former state rep. and Lt. Gov. nominee Jim Martin, could make things slightly interesting, but he's polling about third in the primary.

Alabama (Jeff Sessions): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: State Sen. Vivian Figures
There was a top-tier challenger flirting with a run in State Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, but he declined in lieu of Ms. Figures. It's a shame, because Sparks was a very intriguing potential candidate. Figures, meanwhile, is African-American and therefore likely to lose big in Alabama along with Barack Obama. Sadly, it doesn't even matter how effective a campaigner she is.

Wyoming-B (John Barrasso): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: Fmr State Sen. Keith Goodenough
Barrasso lucked out by avoiding a matchup with Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal and any serious primary competition in a special election. The Dem bench in Wyoming beyond the centrist Freudenthal is virtually nonexistent, so both Senate seats are virtual locks.

South Carolina (Lindsey Graham): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: Attorney Michael Cone
The biggest threat to Graham is in the GOP primary, from RNC member Buddy Witherspoon among something like eight other lesser-known candidates. Conservatives in SC seem very frustrated with Graham, but not enough to cost him his seat.

Mississippi-A (Thad Cochran): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: Fmr State Rep. Erik Fleming
Cochran is an icon in Mississippi. He was thinking about retiring after losing his Appropriations Committee chairmanship as Dems took the Senate, but decided otherwise. A couple top-tier Dems decided to pass on a challenge. That's really all that matters here.

Wyoming-A (Michael Enzi): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: Prof. Chris Rothfuss
Rothfuss is an interesting character, but that doesn't get him more than 30% in what may be the reddest state in the country. Hey, at least there's a Democratic challenger for every GOP-held seat, which is a pretty major accomplishment.


Democratic-held Seats (12)

Louisiana (Mary Landrieu): 7 (Leans D) - upgrade
Challenger: State Treasurer John Neely Kennedy, turncoat Democrat
Landrieu has done a terrific job consolidating her support early on and has proven that Kennedy will have to step things up a notch to defeat her. She has a huge money advantage and has led in every poll taken thus far, including a couple by double digits. It really says something that this, the only realistic GOP pickup opportunity, may be starting to slip away a full five months before election day. Of course, that could change quickly as Kennedy goes on the attack, but for now one has to give a definitive edge to the incumbent.

South Dakota (Tim Johnson): 9 (Probable D) - upgrade
Challenger: State Rep. Joel Dykstra
At this point I would be shocked if this race ended up in single digits. Of course anything can happen and another health issue for Sen. Johnson, who suffered a life-threatening brain hemorrhage only 18 months ago, could make things more interesting. Nevertheless, Dykstra does not seem to have the name recognition or fundraising prowess to give Johnson any sort of scare in the absence of unforeseen events.

New Jersey (Frank Lautenberg): 9 (Probable D)
Challenger: Lobbyist & Fmr Rep. Dick Zimmer
After a ton of flux in this race until yesterday, I thought about upgrading this to a 10. Rep. Rob Andrews decided to launch a quixotic primary challenge to Lautenberg and lost by over 30 points on Tuesday. Meanwhile, the GOP barely avoided a major embarrassment by recruiting Dick Zimmer, an accomplished politician, into the race at the last minute. While he may be able to capitalize on an unforeseen event, Lautenberg is likely way too experienced and vetted for that to happen.

Michigan (Carl Levin): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: State Rep. Jack Hoogendyk
After the three races above, the field just gets embarrassing for the GOP. This should be around a 20-point blowout, and it only gets worse moving down the list.

West Virginia (Jay Rockefeller): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: Jay Wolfe
Not really sure who this Wolfe guy is, but maybe some people will only look at their first names and get confused. Rockefeller is a household name in WV. Nothing to see here....

Illinois (Dick Durbin): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: Dr. Steve Sauerberg
Sauerberg seems to have some money and will at least run an active race. Nevertheless, nobody short of Michael Jordan could beat the very powerful Durbin. Another blowout.

Montana (Max Baucus): 10 (Definite D) - upgrade
Challenger: Bob Kelleher
Wow, I'm really not sure what to make of this race now. Baucus has been pretty safe for some time, but Tuesday's GOP primary yielded a truly shocking nominee. Voters bypassed both of the leading candidates to pick the 85-year old retired attorney and activist Bob Kelleher. This race may actually turn out to be really fun; Kelleher once ran for Senate with the Green Party, and if he campaigns will probably be attacking Baucus from the left. He seems very, er, colorful on the surface (for comparison, imagine if Lyndon LaRouche won a major party Senate nomination), and may turn out to be the first Republican I've ever enjoyed following.
Oh, here's the official reaction from a leading progressive Montana blog:

OMG!!!!! Bob Kelleher. OMG!!!!!!

It's worth scrolling down through the comments of the linked post if you want a laugh.

Iowa (Tom Harkin): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: Christopher Reed
Apparently Reed winning his primary yesterday was also an upset. Nobody really knows who he is. I don't think Harkin's had a truly easy victory in his long Senate career, so I guess he's due for a cakewalk.

Massachusetts (John Kerry): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: Jeff Beatty
Yet another huge embarrassment for the GOP. They had handpicked recent congressional nominee Jim Ogonowski to take on Kerry, and he had raised nearly a million dollars to this point. Well, the filing deadline was yesterday and guess what? The supposedly second-best NRSC recruit of the cycle didn't even qualify for the ballot. Truly pathetic. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Arkansas (Mark Pryor): 10 (Definite D) - upgrade
Challenger: NONE
Arkansas?! They couldn't find a live body who wanted to run for Senate in Arkansas?! Now this one clearly deserves a laugh. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Delaware (Joe Biden): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: NONE
The real election may be in early 2009, after Biden is appointed to be Obama's Sec of State. We shall see....

Rhode Island (Jack Reed): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: NONE


Summary
Democratic pickups are bolded
10 (Definite D): AR, DE, IL, IA, MA, MI, MT, RI, WV
9 (Probable D): NJ, SD, VA
8 (Favored D): CO, NM
7 (Leans D): LA, NH
6 (Barely D): NONE
5 (Barely R): AK, MN, OR
4 (Leans R): ME, MS-B, NC
3 (Favored R): ID, KS, KY, TX
2 (Probable R): NE, OK, TN
1 (Definite R): AL, GA, MS-A, SC, WY-A, WY-B

Methodology
1: 0-5% chance Dems will win seat
2: 5-15%
3: 15-25%
4: 25-40%
5: 40-50%
6: 50-60%
7: 60-75%
8: 75-85%
9: 85-95%
10: 95-100%

From the "Never Thought I'd Quote Him" Department

Rahm Emanuel, a few weeks ago:

“The way the loser loses will determine whether the winner wins in November.”

With the primary schedule concluding tonight, and rampant speculation circulating that Clinton will throw in the towel, I remain more cautious in leaping to conclusions. She can suspend her public campaign efforts, which is all but certain. Yet that will not necessarily mean she supports the efforts of Barack Obama or even acknowledge that he is the legitimate nominee. Without a full and overt endorsement, followed by active efforts to build bridges, mend fences and other euphemisms for pursuing unity, Hillary Clinton's proclaimed exit from the already finished race will be meaningless. I worry that the Clintons themselves have little interest in seeing Obama reach the White House, but hope my hunch is proven wrong rather promptly.

Clinton's core supporters, on the other hand, perhaps should not be expected to come around so immediately. They are still working through the five stages of grieving and that process has to work itself out naturally for divisions among the party's rank and file to fully heal.

Hopefully by the time we reach Denver, this matter will be put fully behind us and every true Democrat will be pumped to clobber John McSame and the crumbling conservative reality-denying coalition.