Man, Debbie Wasserman Schultz never seems to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. A busy bee at Monday morning's breakfast for the Florida delegation to the Democratic National Convention, she nonetheless made a glaring omission:

"I’ve given 2,500 dollars to Joe Garcia, 5,000 dollars to Raul Martinez. I will be involved in their campaigns and supportive of them," said Wasserman Schultz. "I haven't been asked to be an attack dog. I am supporting Raul Martinez and Joe Garcia, and I’m looking forward to their successful election on Nov. 4."

Kossacks know exactly what I'm talking about: Deb forgot to mention progressive fighter Annette Taddeo, running for Congress in Florida's 18th congressional district. Now, I'm thrilled that DWS has changed her tune and is openly backing Garcia and Martinez. (Remember, she previously tried to recuse herself from these races, despite being co-chair of the DCCC's Red to Blue program.)

But there's no reason at all for her to leave out Taddeo, who is also running in the greater Miami area. And doing so in front of Florida's convention contingent, which includes important political figures, activists and super-delegates, is really beneath contempt. It sends all the wrong messages.

Fortunately, another Florida congressman who had previous been reluctant to get involved, Rep. Kendrick Meek, has changed his tune - he gave $2000 to Taddeo and has pledged to raise more. That sends all the right messages. And it's not too late for Debbie to follow suit. But I think she'll need some more nudging.

So here's how you can help. Call Debbie Wasserman Schultz's campaign office at (202) 741-7154 and ask her to do as Rep. Meek has done: make a sizable donation to the Taddeo campaign and solicit her network for more contributions. We need more progressive champions like Annette Taddeo in Congress, and we need well-connected leaders like Wasserman Schultz to help them get there.

You can also e-mail her at AskDebbie@DWSforCongress.com, and her Finance Director, Jason O'Malley, at FinanceDirector@DWSforcongress.com. Whether you call or write, as always please be polite and brief. Our message is simple and our cause is just. Also, please do not call Debbie's congressional office, as this is purely a political issue which staffers on the federal payroll cannot get involved with.

If you do call or write, please let us know about it in comments. You can also help Annette by donating on the Orange to Blue ActBlue page.

Earlier, we took a look at a shady episode from John McCain's past - the time when he applied for permits for a quarter-million dollar home renovation on a house outside his congressional district under an assumed name, Eldon Smith.

Now, it may well have been a regulatory misdeed to fill out official paperwork with false information - but the statute of limitations I'm sure has long since passed, and I'm no Inspector Javert. What I'm more curious about, though, is how McCain picked the unlikely name of "Eldon Smith." As it happens, a couple of sleuthing Kossacks have observed that it's possible that John Sidney borrowed "Eldon" from the family histories of a pair of remarkable Vietnam-era POW/MIAs.

First, Paul Anderson picks up on the tragic story of Capt. Hallie "Bud" Smith, an RF-4 pilot whose plane was lost in Vietnam in 1968. Bud Smith's body was never recovered, and his loss was felt particularly hard in his home state of Oregon. According to one source:

His disappearance prompted the larger community - including students in the local schools - to get involved in prisoner-of-war humanitarian efforts. Fifty thousand letters were received by Governor Tom McCall to be delivered to the North Vietnamese during upcoming peace talks.

That same source says Bud's father was one Eldon Smith.

Meanwhile, route66 discovers Capt. Phillip Smith. According to this reference, Smith was the only Air Force pilot during the Vietnam War who was held captive and later released (after seven-and-a-half years of solitary confinement and torture) by the Chinese. His extremely unusual and harrowing tale returned to the news in early 2001 when a US spy plane made an emergency landing on the Chinese island of Hainan, where Smith himself was held for a time after his plane crashed.

Smith's full name, by the way, is Phillip Eldon Smith.

Now, Smith is the most popular surname in America. And believe it or not, according to the 1990 census, Eldon was actually the 529th-most popular male first name. Even so, the number of Eldon Smiths out there of any sort just isn't going to be all that high.

And the fact that two of these Eldon Smiths share such a connection with McCain's wartime experience is quite exceptional, to say the least. Indeed, both Bud and Phillip Smith were pilots, just like McCain, and their personal stories are all striking. But if John Sidney is borrowing the names of fellow war heroes to cover up his own shameful deeds, then I think we're entitled to know why.

Why, that would be none other than John Sidney McCain:

It turns out that this isn't the first time the issue of John McCain's lavish multiple residences has emerged in the heat of a campaign.

In 1986, when then-Rep. McCain was running for the Senate seat vacated by Barry Goldwater, he quietly began remodeling a $500,000 house in central Phoenix owned by his wealthy father-in-law James Hensley. The $225,000 project -- which included the construction of a 4,000-square-foot addition, swimming pool, jacuzzi, cabana and barbecue -- held political peril for McCain, who was already fighting charges that he was as an opportunistic carpertbagger.

The new house was located in Phoenix's fourth congressional district -- outside of the first district in Tempe which he represented at the time.  

AP caught wind of the work at 7110 North Central Ave. shortly before the general election and dispatched a reporter to examine blueprints at the planning department. They found the permit applicants were listed as Hensley and a mysterious "Mr. Smith."

The reporter tracked down McCain's plumber, who told him he'd been told Mr. Smith's first name was "Eldon."

Eldon Smith, it turned out, was John McCain.

Good old Eldon John didn't want people to know that he was planning to leave his congressional district - and also wanted to hide the cost of his lavish quarter-million dollar rennovation plans - so he came up with a ridiculous nom de maison, hoping to keep his plans buried under a sockpuppet. Of course, this might help explain why he lost track of the number of homes he's got.

Barack Obama has been remarkably open about his entire life story - a bio which has been subjected to endless scrutiny. But if there's anyone whose background we should be "unsure" of, it's John McCain's. I, for one, would like to learn about what else he's done in his life under an assumed name.

The self-hating basement-dweller known as Michael Goldfarb lays down a marker:

We believe Obama will see a significant bump, and believe it is reasonable to expect nearly a 15-point bounce out of a convention in this political environment.

John McCain owns at least seven times as many houses as Barack Obama. He's had twice as many marriages and is 50% older than his opponent. Surely his convention bounce will be at least double ours, no?

So let's set down a benchmark of our own: If John McCain fails to see a 30-point spike coming out of the Republican convention, then we can be sure his candidacy is an utter failure.

As you know, we're trying to get Annette Taddeo to 200 contributions on the Orange to Blue page by tonight's FEC deadline. But as I explained yesterday, there's one very important Democrat who hasn't yet given to Taddeo, even though she's sent $2,500 checks to candidates in two other South Florida house races. I'm talking, of course, about Red to Blue co-chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

So I'd like to ask my fellow Kossacks to do two things today. First, if you can, please spare a few bucks for Annette. As Markos detailed, she's a committed progressive running in a difficult but winnable race. She stands with us on all our core issues and is exactly the sort of person we want in Congress.

My second request is that you take just a couple of minutes to call Debbie Wasserman Schultz's campaign office at (202) 741-7154 and ask that she give the same amount to Taddeo that she has to Joe Garcia and Raul Martinez, $2,500. All three are excellent candidates running competitive races in Debbie's back yard, and she should support all of them.

If you do call, please be polite and brief. Our message is simple and our cause is just. Also, please do not call Debbie's congressional office, as this is purely a political issue which staffers on the federal payroll cannot get involved with.

If you can chip in, tell us in comments. And if you give DWS's office a call, please let us know what, if anything, the folks on the other end have to say. We've got Annette's back, and Debbie should, too!

I'm sure you haven't forgotten Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She's the co-chair of the DCCC's Red to Blue initiative who, a few months back, infamously tried to recuse herself from helping fellow Democrats in three top-tier races:

But as three Miami Democrats look to unseat three of her South Florida Republican colleagues, Wasserman Schultz is staying on the sidelines. So is Rep. Kendrick Meek, a Miami Democrat and loyal ally to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

...

This time around, Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their relationships with the Republican incumbents, Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and his brother Mario, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, leave them little choice but to sit out the three races.

Of course, just like there's no crying in baseball, there are no recusals in politics - especially not if you're in charge of the very program tasked with electing more Democrats to Congress. Rahm Emanuel understood this perfectly, and he raised holy hell trying to get this message through his thicker colleagues' skulls.

It clearly didn't take with Debbie, though, a softie who moaned "it's just too sensitive for me" when pressed on her refusal to help Joe Garcia, Raul Martinez, and Annette Taddeo. But after the blogosphere cranked into action - and after she heard it from local Democrats, too - DWS started having second thoughts and decided to lift a pinky or two on behalf of our South Florida trio at the end of March.

Months later (at the end of June), Debbie finally put some of her money where her mouth wasn't: On the very same day, she gave $2,500 apiece to Martinez and Garcia. But not Taddeo. While this might not seem like a huge amount in the scheme of things, this particular $2,500 matters a lot. DWS is a very high-profile member of Congress, and she's the front-runner - if not heir-apparent - to head the DCCC next cycle. When she helps a candidate, that sends a signal to other members, PACs, labor unions, and wealthy donors: this is a candidate you should get behind.

Which is why it's up to us to stand up for a strong progressive like Annette Taddeo and send that message if Debbie won't. Taking on an incumbent Republican in a red district is always an uphill battle, and this race is no different. But if the progressive movement stands for anything, it's the principle that Democrats must never leave a worthy fellow Democrat behind.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz says, "I can't say enough good things about Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; she has been my friend since I was first elected to office." The netroots say, "Progressives will be lucky to have a friend like Annette Taddeo in Congress."

Remember, we're aiming for 200 contributions before Wednesday night's pre-primary filing deadline, so let's make it happen.

Netroots Nation just published the complete conference agenda for next month's gathering in Austin. A number of Daily Kos Contributing Editors and Featured Writers are serving as panelists:

• Energizing America: Setting an Agenda for Progress (Meteor Blades, Devilstower)

• The Next President and the Law (Adam B.)

• Working from the Inside Out: Success Stories in Netroots Organizing (mcjoan)

• Restructuring U.S. Science Policy (DarkSyde)

• Hot Topic Panel (Hunter)

• Bloggers and Books: Think Before You Write (Markos)

• 60/275: The Races We Aren't Watching but Should (and Those We're Watching, Too) (Brownsox, DavidNYC, Markos)

If you're going to be a Netroots Nation panelist yourself, tell us about your panel in comments.

In March of 2006, political newcomer Ned Lamont jumped into an unlikely race against the execrable Sen. Joe Lieberman. The early portents were not promising: a Quinnipiac poll taken the prior month showed Lieberman with an almost preposterous 68-13 lead. With time enough for only a five-month sprint to the primary, few outside the netroots thought there was any hope here. For the local politicians who made up Connecticut's electoral establishment, there was every reason to stick with the safe horse.

But among the bold few dissenters was a Democratic Town Chair and affordable housing executive named Jim Himes. Just weeks after Lamont's kickoff, when there was little reason to doubt that February Q-Poll, Himes took a stand and endorsed Lamont. Even more impressively, he convinced his fellow town committee members to join him - in total, sixteen went with Lamont, and not one backed Lieberman. Himes's early leadership helped pave the way for other delegates to the crucial May state convention to declare their support for Lamont.

Ultimately, Lamont won more than double the 15% he needed at the convention to secure a spot on the ballot, and then of course went on to shock Joe Lieberman and the political world with a stunning primary victory that August. And at that point, Democratic endorsements for Lamont flooded in.

But during that cold month of March right at the beginning, the easy choice for a guy like Jim Himes - or anyone in Connecticut politics, really - would have been to stay quiet. Crossing the Lieberman juggernaut meant you were probably consigning yourself to political purgatory once the junior Senator inevitably steamrolled in the primary. Yet Himes was not willing to remain silent. He knew that he had to take action against Joe Lieberman's support for eternal war in Iraq and ceaseless attacks on what were, at the time, still his fellow Democrats. Standing up for the party and standing strong against a disastrous war were more important to Himes than any personal political ambitions.

Jim Himes, in other words, acted like a progressive's progressive. I'm not sure you could ask for more. But of course, there is more - plenty of it. He supports virtually the whole panoply of core progressive issues: universal healthcare, Iraq withdrawal "beginning tomorrow," net neutrality, restoring habeas corpus, protecting Social Security, safeguarding reproductive freedom... and that's just for starters. He's also fluent in Spanish, having lived his first ten years in Peru and Columbia, and left a successfull Wall Street career to join a non-profit devoted to building affordable housing.

So when it comes to our mantra of "better Democrats," you can see how Himes fits the bill perfectly, and that's why we're proud to welcome him to Orange to Blue. Those of you who have followed this campaign a bit, though, might be wondering why we're getting involved with a top-tier race like this one, when we've usually stuck to more under-the-radar affairs. It's a fair question, but it has a very good answer.

The maddening truth is that certain fellow Democrats and ostensibly left-wing groups have been undermining Jim Himes - the epitome of a true-blue, bona fide movement progressive - at every turn. It's as baffling as it is dismaying. Yet there is still a very dysfunctional segment of the party which insists on cozying up to so-called "moderates" like Chris Shays, the Republican incumbent in CT-04. Here's just a partial list:

• The League of Conservation Voters just endorsed Shays - and didn't even let Himes fill out their questionnaire. Shays's anomalous voting record aside, does the LCV seriously want the Republicans back in charge?


• Democratic Rep. Jim Langevin co-sponsored a healthcare bill with Shays - one that has zero chance of passing, but allows Shays to claim the mantle of "bipartisanship" and look good on an important issue.


• Alleged Democrat Harold Ford came to Connecticut and declared: "There is not a better Congressman in Washington than Chris Shays." Yeesh.


• While the rest of Connecticut's House delegation earns straight As, Citizens for Global Solutions inflated Shays' weak B- grade to a B+ through "extra credit" - this despite his vote for the odious Military Commissions Act.


• The Human Rights Campaign, whose mission it is to support GLBT equality, also endorsed Shays. Once again, there's just no debate as to which party cares about HRC's goals - and Chris Shays ain't a member of it. (Is this starting to sound familiar?)


• And in perhaps the biggest betrayal of all, Rep. Lynne Woolsey - a co-chair of the Progressive Caucus - also co-sponsored another no-hope bill with Shays, this time on Iraq. Needless to say, Iraq is a huge vulnerability for Shays, and Woosley, who should be eager to welcome more progressives into the caucus, is doing her best to shut the door on one.

Just as Jim Himes did at the very start of Ned Lamont's campaign way back when, it's our duty to take a stand here. We need to show what our values are, what it means to be a movement progressive. When other would-be allies turn their backs on a candidate like Himes, we need to fill that void. And when people who should be our partners instead side with our adversaries, we need to demonstrate once and for all that we no longer accept this kind of destructive politics of the past.

I think Jim Himes could one day be a real progressive leader in Congress. To get there, though, he'll need all the help he can get, including the support of progressives like us. And once he is there, we'll want him to know that he has a broad, solid group of friends he can count on. So please give to Jim Himes and the other Orange to Blue candidates, and help us reach our goal of 1,000 donors before the end of the quarter on June 30th.

Update: Despite that League of Conservation Voters endorsement, Shays just came out in support of coastal drilling for oil.  This is yet another example of how too many groups that should be supporting Jim Himes are supporting someone who's nowhere near as good as Jim Himes, and why he needs our support.  

For a moment, ponder the unimaginable: Could Barack Obama win Mississippi this fall?

Bear with me – it’s nowhere near as implausible as you may think. I’m not saying it’s gonna happen, or that it’s even likely, or that the state is even a toss-up. But within the realm of possibility? Yes indeed.

Here’s my thinking: George Bush beat John Kerry here 59-40 in 2004. That’s a pretty good drubbing, no question about it. But blacks, who are exceptionally loyal Democratic voters, make up 36% of the population in Mississippi, the largest proportion of any state. And as we know, Barack Obama’s candidacy has sent black turnout through the roof.

For instance, exit polls show that black primary turnout spiked in South Carolina this year. African Americans made up 47% of the primary electorate in 2004 but 55% in 2008. (I use SC rather than MS as a basis for comparison because SC was contested in both years. Kerry had already wrapped up the nomination before MS voted in 2004, so those primary numbers are not meaningful.)

The black vote was also very heavy in the recent MS-01 special election (won by Democrat Travis Childers). What’s more, between the first round on April 22nd and the run-off on May 13th, turnout soared in counties with large black populations, in some instances doubling. Many people have cited not just Obama’s popularity as the cause for this outpouring of support, but the relentless GOP attacks on him as well – attacks which will surely continue, and continue to galvanize.

So what has to happen for an energized black electorate in Mississippi to make things competitive for Obama? Let’s take a look at the statewide exit polls from the 2004 general election:

Vote            Bush      Kerry
White (65%)     85%       14%
Black (34%)     10%       90%
Total           59%       40%

As you can see from the bottom line, when you multiply out the vote by race, you wind up with the exact final election day total, which says to me that these exit polls were quite accurate. Using these numbers as a baseline, here’s how Obama can get to victory:

Vote            McCain    Obama
White (60%)     80%       20%
Black (40%)      5%       95%
Total           50%       50%

Three things have to happen here - what I call the "ten, ten, ten" plan. First, the black share of the vote has to shoot up to 40%, pushing the white vote down to 60%. This would represent a shift of about ten points in the racial composition of the vote. Second, Obama has to run ten points better among blacks than Kerry did. And third, he also has to run ten points better among whites than Kerry did.

The question, of course, is whether all of these things actually can happen. As I explain above, there’s already ample reason to believe that black turnout will break all kinds of records. Similarly, with Republicans so utterly demoralized and their party all but shattered, I can definitely see the conservative white vote getting depressed. (Certainly, the GOP loss in MS-01 isn’t helping morale much.) Consequently, I think we're more likely than not to see a materially different black-white voting mix in MS on election day. Will it really shift ten points? Hard to say, as there isn't much precedent for a candidacy like Obama's, but I think it could.

The next question is, will blacks be even more loyal to Obama than they were to Kerry? This may in fact be the "easiest" part of the equation (not that any part is actually easy, though). If blacks in MS were voting for a northeastern white guy like Kerry at 90-10, then it’s surely plausible that they’ll support Obama in even greater numbers. After all, he’s the very guy who is driving African American turnout to such historic proportions.

It’s that third piece of the puzzle which is by far the most difficult. Whites in Mississippi were almost as hostile to Kerry as blacks were to Bush. I think it’s safe to say that Kerry was not exactly a great fit culturally for the South, at least as far as much of the white vote was concerned. But will Obama fare any better? As with blacks, he’d have to move the needle ten points in his favor among whites, but that is unquestionably the vastly greater challenge.

But I think it might - just might - be within the realm of possibility. In neighboring Alabama, for instance, Bush won whites in 2004 with the same margin Obama would need here, 80-19. And in 1996, Bill Clinton won 24% of the white vote in MS. Of course, Clinton was a Southerner, and as much as Kerry was a fish out of water here, he was, of course, white. For all we know, it's quite possible that Obama will do worse than Kerry did.

However, one piece of data is cause for a (very small) bit of optimism. A SurveyUSA poll of the race (the only one that I'm aware of so far) already shows Obama getting 20% of the white vote against McCain (who pulls "only" 74% of it). There may well be something of a Wilder Effect going on here - it's impossible to say. But it's a start. (The SUSA poll, incidentally, shows McCain with a 54-41 lead. But the racial balance is 65-33, and Obama wins the black vote by 83-13, which, per my thoughts above, I think is pessimistic.)

There's also the John McCain factor. Simply put, I’m not sure how well McCain will play in MS. The New Englander Bush strove mightily to portray himself as a son of the South – and with the press as willing lackeys, he succeeded. McCain can’t even pretend to pretend like George Bush did.

What’s more, McCain presents himself as the ultimate anti-pork crusader. But one man’s pork, of course, is another’s vitally important home-district project, beloved by constituents. And in few places is this view more prevalent in the deep South. In 2005, for example, Mississippi ranked second in terms of federal tax dollars spent in the state vs. revenue collected from the state. I’m not in favor of policies such as these, but that’s beside the point: The fact is, running against earmarks, while popular with an element of the wingnut base, is not going to be well-received in the Magnolia State.

I’ll also add in an extra factor that goes to Democratic turnout more generally, rather than any of these individual factors. Rep.-elect Childers in MS-01 will have to fight a rough re-election battle. Meanwhile, former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, who is running for the Senate, is waging the most competitive Democratic senate campaign MS has seen in some time. These two candidates will undoubtedly help drive up Democratic turnout, just as Childers did earlier this week. And on a related note, the Obama campaign is moving forward with what looks like a monster voter registration drive throughout the country, including a focus in the South.

Obviously, it’s very easy to play with numbers and tweak them just enough to come out the way you’d like. And as I said at the start of this piece, the scenario I’m outlining is not at all likely. But what’s important is that it’s possible, thanks to the unusual candidate, state demographics, and election year we have before us. And the mere fact that you can even talk about Obama competing in MS with a straight face means that the GOP will be sweating bullets. If they have to spend so much as a dollar here to defend the state, that alone will constitute victory.

This is it, folks. The one. The final piece of straw set atop the shambling camel of the GOP, the one which clove its dessicated humps in two.

Only it's more like a ton of bricks crushing the Republican roach.

Let's take stock of this race to see what I mean:

• This district has a PVI of R+10. It voted for Bush 62-37 in the last election. Only seven Democrats sit in comparably red seats - and not a single Republican sits in a seat as blue as this one is red. And almost every major prognosticator (at least at the start) treated this as a safe seat.


• The GOP had a perfectly serviceable candidate in Greg Davis - a standard wingnut with none of the baggage of Woody Jenkins in LA-06 or Jim Oberweis in IL-14.


• The NRCC spent $1.3 million on this race. Freedom's Crotch spent at least $400K more - and used illegal tactics to boot. And of course Davis himself raised over a million.


• They sent in Mike Huckabee, Thad Cochran, Trent Lott, Haley Barbour, and Roger Wicker.


• And when that wasn't enough, Darth Cheney came to town, to stump and raise money.


• The GOP played up Obama/Pelosi/"librul" fear-mongering to the hilt. They were shameless in exploiting whatever racial angle they thought would work.

And yet what happened? Despite all this, Travis Childers just became the newest member of the Democratic Caucus with a resounding 54-46 win. It's utterly unspinnable. Even Tom Cole knew not to try.

But a sober press release only sees him through a single night. At dawn the next day, he has to face the same vast universe of problems that existed even before Childers won, except they will loom much larger and much more sharply. Almost every potentially contestable Republican seat is in play now. The "every man for himself" mentality that has taken hold amongst the GOP will become even more firmly entrenched, dooming already-weak NRCC fundraising. In Congress, discipline will likely suffer as vulnerable members (ie, much of the caucus) are tempted to side with the Dems. And we may even see some more retirements. Things are going to get much, much worse before they ever get better for the GOP - if they do at all.

For a lot of reasons, this to me is the sweetest of our three recent special election victories. But to the GOP, seldom has more bitter medicine passed their lips. Glib commentators will say that the Republican brand is tarnished. The fact is, it is the Republican Party which itself is broken.

And this election is what helped break it.

A week from Tuesday, voters in Indiana (and North Carolina) won't just be casting votes in the presidential primary - they'll be choosing downballot nominees as well. In Indiana, the hottest race on the Dem side is the gubernatorial primary. It features former Rep. Jill Long Thompson vs. architect Jim Schellinger.

Long Thompson held Indiana's 4th CD for a couple of terms in the early '90s until she was swept out in the Republican wave of '94. Schellinger, meanwhile, is a fairly wealthy first-time office seeker (he runs an architectural firm in Indianapolis) who has given a lot of money to fellow Dems over the years. Schellinger out-raised Long Thompson about $1.9 million to $1.1 million through March 31st, but the two are locked in a tight race, according to two very similar recent polls:

Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne (likely voters, 4/14-16):

Jill Long Thompson (D): 47
Jim Schellinger(D): 41
Undecided: 12
(MoE: ±4.2%)

Research 2000 (likely voters, 4/21-24):

Jill Long Thompson (D): 48
Jim Schellinger (D): 42
Undecided: 10
(MoE: ±5%)

Both candidates are vying to take on Bush apparatchik Mitch Daniels, whose job approval rating in the Research 2000 poll had him underwater at 42-49. Due to "My Man Mitch's" unpopularity, prognosticators consider IN-Gov to be one of the hottest gubernatorial races this cycle. Cook (PDF) and Rothenberg both have this race as a toss-up, while CQ puts it in the next-most competitive category, lean Republican. The polls show why:

Mike Downs Center:

Jim Schellinger (D): 46%
Mitch Daniels (R-inc.): 47%

Jill Long Thompson (D): 47%
Mitch Daniels (R-inc.): 48%
(MoE: ±2.8%)

Research 2000:

Jim Schellinger (D): 44
Mitch Daniels (R-inc.): 45
Undecided: 10

Jill Long Thompson (D): 45
Mitch Daniels (R-inc.): 45
Undecided: 10
(MoE: ±4%)

As you can see, whichever candidate of ours emerges from the primary, we're going to give Mitch Daniels a real race this fall.

(Hat-tip: TXObserver & James.)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz in Miami Tuesday night:

Under fire from Democratic political activists and bloggers for not actively campaigning for three Miami Democrats, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz invited the trio to a Miami fundraiser last night, introducing them to the assembled donors and politicoes.

Joe Garcia, Raul Martinez and Annette Taddeo all got invites to the Chef Allen's fundraiser in Aventura. Beneficiaries of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser: four incumbent Democratic House members from Arizona, Pennsylvania, Indiana and California.

This is a good start, considering that just last week, DWS said she preferred "working behind the scenes to help those Democratic candidates but not - by not publicly coming out against my - the Republican incumbents." (See 1:22.)

However, it's not enough. This was merely an invite to a fundraiser for other candidates. What we've asked is for Debbie to endorse our South Florida trio without reservation, and throw fundraisers for each of them - just like she did for Ron Klein, just like she did for Suzanne Kosmas. Really, it's not that hard.

I think our pressure on this issue has helped push Wasserman Schultz in the right direction. Now she just needs to take a few more steps.

As you know, this week - the final week of the first fundraising quarter - Blue Majority is pushing to reach a total of 6,500 donations. We're getting there - following on the heels of our endorsement of Barack Obama, we've now moved past 5,800 donors. That means we need about 700 more, so if you haven't given yet, please do. Donations of all sizes are welcome.

There's also another way you can contribute. We'd like to solicit nominations for new candidates to add to the page. To be clear, this isn't a vote - we won't simply pick the people who get talked about the most. Rather, we want to get a sense of who our communities like, and why. We also don't have a specific timetable for adding new names, but we hope to choose some soon.

As a guide, here are some of the criteria we like to look at - some of these are old, and some are new:

Is the candidate running against a Republican incumbent or for a GOP-held open seat? (This is close to being an absolute requirement.)

Does the candidate embody the kinds of progressive values you'd ideally like to see in Congress?

Is the race not a top-tier affair? (Our dollars can go further in races which, so far, have received less attention and institutional backing.)

Has the local blogosphere embraced the candidate - and vice versa?

Does he or she pass the partisanship litmus test?

Is the Republican an easy target? (Think back to Tom DeLay.)

How blue is the district or state?

Please submit your ideas in comments - and again, please be sure to donate before the end of the quarter.

"Everyone else was told to sit on their bulletproof vests," Clinton said. "And we came in, in an evasive maneuver....There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened."

- Associated Press, 3/17/08

"I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

- Clinton speech, 3/17/08

"[S]he evoked foreign battlefields, recalling a trip to Bosnia as first lady, when the welcoming ceremony ‘had to be moved inside because of sniper fire.’ She said she had traveled to more than 80 countries and was ‘on the front lines’ as the United States made peace in Bosnia and Northern Ireland and helped save refugees from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo."

- New York Times, 3/1/08

"I was the first, you know, high-profile American to go into Bosnia after the peace accords were signed because we wanted to show that the United States was 100 percent behind the agreement. We wanted to make it clear to the Bosnians of all backgrounds. Plus we wanted to thank our American military and our allies for a great job. So, we landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire. I don’t remember anybody offering me tea on the tarmac."

- CNN 1/1/08

Clinton said she was "sleep-deprived" and "misspoke" when she said last week that she landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996, when she was first lady.

- Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 3/25/08

Sleep-deprived... on all of these occasions? And she's the one telling us she'd be the best person to answer the red phone at the wee hour of 3 o'clock in the morning.

(Hat-tip to reader JS for the inspiration.)

Did anyone attend this fundraiser?

Please Join

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Senator Nan Rich

Commissioner Sally Heyman

for a reception honoring

Suzanne Kosmas

Candidate for Congress, FL-24

"She is considered the first legitimate challenger to Feeney, whom Democratic insiders see as vulnerable because of criticism targeting him as one of the "most corrupt" members of Congress." Daytona Beach News-Journal, October 11, 2007.

Sunday, December 2, 2007

6:30pm to 8:00 p.m.

Sheraton Airport Hotel

Windows Room

1825 Griffin Road

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

Host $4600 • Sponsor $1000 • Friend $500 • Supporter $100-250

(donations in any amount appreciated)

I'm glad I didn't, because really, it would appall me to violate long-standing tradition like this. I'm a big believer in habeas corpus, I despise the designated hitter rule, and after all, it's my people that Tevye sings about. So when DCCC Executive Director Brian Wolff says:

Brian Wolff, executive director of the DCCC, says the bloggers are making "much ado about nothing," noting that it's "customary" for members to remain neutral in races involving GOP members of their respective congressional delegations.

I have to wonder what Debbie Wasserman Schultz is thinking. Clearly she didn't get the message.

UPDATE: Just to be clear: Suzanne Kosmas (the candidate Debbie Wasserman Schultz raised money for) is a Democrat taking on incumbent Florida Republican Tom Feeney. But according to Brian Wolff, it's "customary" for incumbents not to assist challengers to members of their state's delegation.

It's that time again: A week from today, all federal campaigns have to close the books on the fundraising quarter. This means that if you want your favorite candidates to be able to issue strong quarterly campaign finance reports, you've got to contribute by March 31st.

Now, I'll be honest - this is one of my least favorite parts of blogging, and it's certainly one of the less pleasant aspects of politics in general. But money still matters - a lot. If we want to expand our majorities in Congress - and especially if we want to see progressive change - we'll need a lot of cash to do so. Many big players - including labor unions, progressive organizations, and deep-pocketed donors - will look at these reports to decide which candidates to give to. It may not seem fair or even wise, but it's reality, and we've got to work the system as best we can.

So we're asking you to contribute to the Blue Majority candidates on ActBlue. These men and women are all strong progressives who are taking the fight to Republicans all over the country. Of course, they can't do it without our help, which is why it's the netroots' duty to get involved.

Right now, the Blue Majority page stands at about 5,500 total contributions (you can see the number right at the top). Our goal is to add a thousand more contributions by the end of the quarter so that we can hit 6,500 overall. The size of your contribution doesn't matter (though of course, we encourage you to give as generously as you are able to). We're looking for aggregate numbers of donors. As the Obama campaign in particular has shown, smart campaigns can get a lot of mileage out of small donors, especially those who give early on. (And it's still early.)

So please, stand up and be counted - make a donation to a worthy Democrat or three. And of course, if your favorite candidates are not on the Blue Majority page, we strongly encourage you to give to them at their own websites. Let's nail that 6,500 target!

The DCCC's Executive Director, Brian Wolff, recently posted on Democratic efforts to take three Republican-held House seats in South Florida over at the Huffington Post. As you are probably aware, there's been a tremendous amount of controversy over the fact that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, co-chair of the DCCC's Red to Blue program, has recused herself from these three races, despite the fact that we have quality challengers in each. (Rep. Kendrick Meek has also abandoned these candidates.) Wolff had this to say about the controversy:

This is in keeping with Wolff's prior comments on how importantly he views this issue:

Brian Wolff, executive director of the DCCC, says the bloggers are making "much ado about nothing," noting that it's "customary" for members to remain neutral in races involving GOP members of their respective congressional delegations.

If you, however, take a different view of things, I encourage you to call or write the relevant parties and let them know:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (campaign office):
E-mail: AskDebbie@DWSforCongress.com
Phone: 202-741-7154

DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen (campaign office):
E-mail: chris@vanhollen.org
Phone: 301-942-3768

DCCC Headquarters:
Contact form
Phone: 202-863-1500

At a town hall meeting Tuesday night (it's a Congressional "district work period"), Debbie Wasserman Schultz had this to say about her abandonment of three strong Democratic challengers in South Florida:

I know there are people here that are interested in a political matter, so I will get that out of the way right at the beginning. If you have a concern about my previous comments about my staying out of the races in South Florida where candidates are challenging Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros- Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, I will tell you two things:

First off, I have not endorsed any of the three incumbents in South Florida, nor will I, and I do not support their re-election campaign. I am supportive of the Democratic candidates who are running against them. I have never said otherwise.

Second, I have a national role as one of three co-chairs of Red to Blue Program. All candidates, from Florida to Alaska, have criteria that have to be met to get on this targeted list. Let me guarantee that if they fulfill those criteria, these three Democratic Candidates will be part of our Red to Blue Program...period, end of story. We have three co-chairs in order to be able to spread the workload among us.  It makes much more sense to have someone from outside of one's own region to be able to make the hits necessary.  

But at the same time I am a representative of the 20th Congressional district of Florida, and I think it is absolutely my responsibility to work with my Republican colleagues.

But just one cycle ago, Debbie had an entirely different outlook - and with good reason:

While her moxie during debates over Terri Schiavo and Hurricane Katrina has earned kudos, it has also gotten the 39-year-old rookie into some trouble. She has rankled the longest-serving and most powerful congressman from South Florida, Republican Clay Shaw, by openly supporting his Democratic challenger.

Shaw's staff said he tried to welcome her to the Capitol by offering advice and temporary office space and was upset to learn that she was helping state Sen. Ron Klein raise money and meet party leaders.  

...  

Wasserman Schultz served with Klein in the state Legislature for 12 years, and they are close friends. She was tapped by Democratic leaders to help with recruitment and said she could not stay out of a competitive congressional race.  

"It's not good for my relationship with Clay Shaw, but Democrats can't afford to leave a seat like that uncontested," she said.

Why was it okay to do things that weren't "good for her relationship" with Clay Shaw, but not okay to do so with Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and the Diaz-Balarts? If Debbie Wasserman Schultz values "working with Republicans" more than expanding our majority in Congress, then she should step down from Red to Blue, regardless of how many co-chairs there are. Everyone running Red to Blue needs to be a partisan bulldog.

And, of course, if the shoe were on the other foot, would any of these three Republicans hesitate to stab Debbie in the back? Of course not.

(Hat tip: FLA Politics.)