(cross-posted from ATM Watch)

Starting with Hillary Clinton back in February, several presidential candidates so far this year have visited Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA for a one-on-one chat (Clinton) or a full-fledged townhall meeting (McCain, Richardson and Edwards) in front of 1,000 or so Google employees. While we always hear about Google executives being a great source of Silicon Valley cash for the candidates, these forums are more akin to, as Carla Marinucci puts it,

the New Hampshire pancake breakfast, the Iowa school auditorium, [or] the South Carolina church hall.

Yes, retail politics IS happening right here in California and, thanks to Google's YouTube channel (umm, yeah they have one) the forums are available for all of us to see. They give us a rare glimpse of the candidates off script (rare for those of us not in N.H. or Iowa or permanently glued to CSPAN that is.) And while the candidates do their best to stick to the basic elements of their stump speeches, it's the unexpected little moments that are most interesting, such as Hillary Clinton's sense of humor, the warm war hero's welcome John McCain receives or the stumbles of Richardson (calling on Google to go solar when they already have) and Edwards (it was in this forum that he mistakenly claimed to have read the Iraq NIE.) And yes the candidates even talk California such as when Hillary repeated her praise for California's having kept electricity usage steady over the past two decades while nationwide it's increased 50%.

Want to get a close-up and personal look at the candidates, check out the videos over the flip:

Sen. John Edwards, May 30

Gov. Bill Richardson, May 14

Sen. John McCain, May 4

Sen. Hillary Clinton, Feb. 25

(cross-posted from ATM Watch)

Conventional wisdom has long had it that California's decision to move up its primary to February 5 (along with many other states) would result in several undesirable consequences, not least among them being the increased importance of money in the campaign and the rise in influence of Iowa and New Hampshire (although how they could be more influential than they were in 2004 is beyond me.) Both of these scenarios, so the argument goes, point to a Hillary Clinton victory, making a February 5 “national” primary all the more problematic.

But over the past few months, reality, as it is wont to do, has seeped in and undermined the conventional wisdom. Take Q1 fundraising — Obama outraised Clinton in primary funds taking her title of presumed money leader away; and then there are the Iowa and New Hampshire polls, which have generally shown her to be much more vulnerable in the early states than she is nationwide. So what's a poor would-be front runner to do when the conventional wisdom that she had relied on to take her to victory falls down around her? It looks increasingly as though Clinton's answer is to buck conventional wisdom altogether and run hard for February 5.

This strategy requires the dismantling of one of the central assumptions about a frontloaded primary schedule, namely the heightened kingmaker status of Iowa and New Hampshire. 

Follow me…

Step one in shattering this assumption: change the media narrative. Central to this was the “leak” last week of the memo by a Clinton deputy campaign manager recommending that Clinton skip the Iowa caucuses altogether. Clinton, of course, immediately came out and denounced the memo, stating unequivocally that she intends to compete hard in Iowa. But the memo did its job, which was to plant the seed in the media that for Clinton, Iowa isn't make or break. And we all know the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire depends entirely on the expectations game spun by the media. For example, right now, Iowa is must-win for Edwards, which is a dangerous place to be. Clinton is slowly building a new media narrative, which is about lowering expectations for herself in Iowa and building up the importance of Feb 5.

Step two: develop an aggressive early vote strategy. As juls wrote HERE, the fact that Iowans actually will not be the first to vote in the 2008 presidential election was central to the controversial Clinton strategy memo. California has that honor, as our permanent absentee voters, 3.9 million strong, will be able to vote beginning January 7. And how better to reduce the importance of the results of Iowa and New Hampshire than to maximize the number of votes people cast before those results are even known.

As we've seen Clinton swoop in for money over the past few months, it's become clear that California IS much more than an ATM for her, but it's not the voters she's engaging with; rather it's the politicians whose endorsements she's racking up, and the staff she's hiring on the ground. As juls put it:

She has locked up the two highest profile Latinos in the state and will use them as surrogates on her behalf…It will be a very top down coordinated campaign that relies heavily on voter files to drive in early votes.

But these endorsements are not only key to winning California, they are central to her overall February 5 strategy. Frank at California Progress Report shares with us yet another strategy memo, this one on winning the Latino vote, released by the campaign on Wednesday morning, the day she received Mayor Villaraigosa's endorsement. The memo cites her polling strength in states with large hispanic populations such as California, New York, Texas, New Jersey, Colorado and Arizona. She's way ahead in all of them. The dates of their primaries or caucuses: February 5. Not surprisingly, neither Iowa nor New Hampshire is anywhere to be found on that memo.

If anyone can pull this off it's Clinton, whose husband turned second place in New Hampshire into a media victory in 1992. Funny thing about conventional wisdom…even when it’s wrong, sometimes it ends up being exactly right.

(cross-posted from ATM Watch)

So far, we’ve received hundreds of questions at our ATM Watch Ask The Candidates page. Today, Senator John Edwards responds. 

In the video below, Edwards addresses two of your most pressing issues, health care reform and energy independence. He then goes on to answer a specific question from Jane in Los Angeles: 

My three issues are poverty, peace and global warming.  I see them as connected.  Do you?  What would you do to address them, both domestically and internationally?  Are they your top priorities and if not, why not?

Great question, Jane.

Video and more over the flip…

Here's the video.  

Tomorrow, Senator Edwards continues to embody the spirit of ATM Watch with his Small Change for Big Change event at San Jose State University. It costs just $15, details are HERE.

If you're going to attend the event and you'd like to blog about it, click HERE button and follow the instructions to start your very own ATM Watch blog. We'd love to hear your first hand account and see your pictures and video of the event.

(cross-posted from ATM Watch)

Now that Memorial Day is behind us, 2nd quarter fundraising begins in earnest and you know what that means — time to visit the ATM.  In the next couple weeks, the top tier Democratic candidates will be visiting California in force with Clinton and Obama each following the other's lead meeting with donors in SoCal, while Edwards, as he has done throughout his campaign, strikes out on his own speaking to regular voters up north.

On Wednesday, Hillary begins her visit to L.A. with one of her usual large-dollar fundraisers at the home of Fox COO Peter Chernin but will then head to a younger hipper event at the Beverly Hills area home of director Brett Ratner in search of what Variety calls "new dollars."

As the year goes on, it becomes harder and harder to find untapped donors, particularly since so many people have maxed out. They cannot give more. So like Barack Obama, Clinton is turning to cheaper and hipper events. Ratner’s event costs $250 per person, $500 per person to also get into an after-party, and $1,000 for a VIP reception, the main reception and after-party.

Obama on the other hand will be heading to Hillary's stomping grounds down in Orange County on June 11 for a $2,300/plate (or $4,600 if you want to max out for the general too!) breakfast hosted by the OC Democratic Party at the home of Michael & Shohleh Chegini.

More…

And like Hillary, Barack currently has no plans to speak to anyone other than donors while he's here, although hopefully that will change. Every time he's come to California for an ATM withdrawal, he's always made time for us regular folks whether it be a massive rally or a speech to the congregation of a local church. We'll let you know what he has planned when we know. In the meantime, if you're an Obama fan, you can find a local Walk For Change event set for June 9th HERE.

Of all the Democratic candidates though, John Edwards has consistently embodied the spirit of ATM Watch and nowhere is that more evident than in his first "Small Change for Big Change" fundraiser scheduled for this Thursday at San Jose State University. And you're not going to believe how inexpensive this event is.

From Edwards campaign manager David Bonior (h/t Edwards in 08):

It's very expensive to reach out to voters in early primary states and across the nation. But the trouble with the usual fundraisers is that they are only open to those ready to write huge checks—and this campaign is built on reaching out to everyone.

So John asked his campaign to organize this series of grassroots fundraisers for supporters who share our passion but may only be able to spare $100, 50, or $25 dollars. In fact, for this Thursday's event, tickets are just $15 each.

You can get your ticket for the event HERE.

Senator Edwards is once again defying the conventional wisdom that no candidate in his right mind would ever attempt anything resembling retail politics in such an unwieldy state. Hopefully Edwards’s strategy will rub off on other candidates and more and more regular California voters will get some actual face time with the candidates.

(cross-posted from Courage Campaign also at dailyKos)

In San Diego, the questions levied at Edwards during his press availability after what I would argue was the speech of the convention were pathetic. Hedgefunds and haircuts was all they could seem to talk about. And the SF Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci wasn’t much better. This was her idea of a probing question:

“So you are saying that YOU are the best positioned candidate to compete all over the country!?”

Edwards’s rightfully dismissive response:

If I didn’t would I be running for president?

Since then the media’s obsession with Edwards’s wealth (as though it somehow undercuts his credibility on the subject of poverty) has only escalated and now Marinucci is doing her darnedest to cement this intellectually dishonest media narrative with a story titled: Recent headlines threaten Edwards’s main campaign theme.

But hey, can’t say she isn’t nice about it. She starts out…

Democrat John Edwards has eloquently established his credentials as an  advocate for the poor with a presidential campaign focused on the devastating  effects of poverty in America.

And then she shoves in the shiv…

But the former North Carolina senator’s populist  drive has hit a series of troubling land mines: a pair of $400 haircuts, a  $500,000 paycheck from a hedge fund, and now a $55,000 payday for a speech on  poverty to students at UC Davis.

D-day put it well the other day:

Just because you talk about people who are poor, it doesn’t mean you have to take a vow of poverty. This is the classic move by people who don’t want anyone to think about the poor; they try and disqualify anyone who has the means and the access to power to do so.

And he gives us Edwards’s response (which he never should have even had to say):

“Would it have been better if I had done well and didn’t care?”

What’s truly amazing about Marinucci’s article is that she even has the gaul to catalog the negative media narrative phenomenon, placing the distorted narratives of Edwards and Al “the exagerrator” Gore alongside Bush’s incompetence meme, which is unique among these for actually being true. And she does it all as though she herself isn’t complicit in actually perpetuating a distorted narrative.

Like so much of the media, Marinucci isn’t concerned with truth, she’s concerned with faux balance. The only way she can talk about all the good Edwards has done and does do is by framing it as a negative, lest she be accused of having a liberal bent. Yes, hidden within her article’s creaky frame is the truth:

Edwards’ campaign spokesman Eric Schultz said the senator has in numerous  ways proved his dedication to the cause of eradicating poverty in America. 

“If you look at where John Edwards comes from and his record, its clear  that what makes him tick (is) helping those who haven’t been as blessed as he  has been,” Schultz wrote in an e-mail. 

Edwards has started a poverty center at the University of North Carolina,  led successful minimum wage initiatives in six states, traveled to  poverty-stricken areas and started a college-for-everyone program for a poor  county in eastern North Carolina, he said. 

“The bottom line is John Edwards is running for president to give every  American the opportunities that he’s had,” Schultz wrote.

Hell, she even provides some context:

Edwards’ supporters note that the senator  —  who donated $350,000 to  charity in 2006 before he began his presidential campaign  —  was not alone  that year in earning considerable cash from speaking fees. 

Former President Bill Clinton, for example, was paid $100,000 speaking at  the same California public university  —  UC Davis. And another presidential  candidate, Republican Rudy Giuliani, charged Oklahoma State University $100,000  for a speech  —  and $47,000 for the use of a private jet. 

But you think any of that matters? Don’t bet on it. As Marinucci rightly observes:

In the 24/7 media environment, a few maelstroms of unconnected and unexpected  headlines and images can quickly gather momentum and morph into a political  storm that obliterates even a carefully crafted strategy and message.

The big question is why the hell Marinucci would lower herself to being yet another swirl in that maelstrom.

Give her a piece of your mind at [email protected].

I wanted to take this opportunity to praise my congressman, Adam Schiff. He’s technically a blue dog and if I have one complaint about him it’s that he plays it way too safe for no apparent reason — he won 64% of the vote last year. So, lately, it’s been nice to see him step up (with votes in support of withdrawal from Iraq and an amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Bill to strengthen FISA) and step out into the spotlight on USAGate.

As a former assistant US Attorney in Los Angeles and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Schiff has brought his expertise and credibility to bear in the Gonzalez hearings (notably telling Gonzalez he felt he should resign to his face.) Today, Congressman Schiff has introduced the House version of the no-confidence resolution against Gonzalez.

More over the flip.

According to Raw Story, the resolution reads:

Resolved: That the House of Representatives and the American people have lost confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and urge the President to request his resignation and to nominate a new candidate more capable of serving as head of the Department of Justice.

In a statement, Schiff said:

“I have been deeply disappointed in Mr. Gonzales’s mismanagement of the Justice Department, his conflicting statements and testimony, and the low regard he seems to have for the professionals in his charge.”

As you can see from this blog entry from his website, Schiff takes this matter very personally.

I told the Attorney General that I spent six years in the Justice Department, that I loved my time in that department and the department itself, and that I was ill over what the Justice Department had become under his tenure. I also told him that to claim, as he did, that there was nothing improper in firing a U.S. Attorney – in firing a good prosecutor – for no other reason than to make way to put someone else there and pad their resume, for the Attorney General to say that reflected a level of disrespect towards his own staff that I found deeply disturbing. I told the Attorney General that I thought the department was broken, that I did not think that he was the one to fix it. I also told him that I thought he should resign. I have never called for a Cabinet official to resign in their presence, but by setting the bar for the department so low, I think the Attorney General left me no choice.

Conventional wisdom is that a vote of no-confidence is much more likely to pass in the Senate than in the House but if Sen. Specter is correct, the mere prospect of a no-confidence vote may be enough to incite Gonzo’s resignation.

Thanks, Rep. Schiff for keeping the pressure on this sorry excuse for an Attorney General.

And in a related story, you can help call for Gonzalez’s impeachment HERE.

DailyKos diarist blueness informs us that Matt Drudge, on his radio show Sunday night, announced an all-out wingnut radio assault against Senator Boxer for statements she made on CNN earlier in the day. What could she possibly have said to raise the ire of Drudge and his minions? When confronted by rightwing attack dog Lindsey Graham with the charge that anyone opposing the escalation therefore believes the troops are “losers,” Boxer pushed back hard:

Now, Lindsey, just be careful what you say. The bottom line here is, the losers are the ones who have, you know, engineered this war, made a huge mistake, Dick Cheney, we’re in the last throes, the war will last six months, and all of you who have supported this escalation and have turned us away from fighting al Qaida into putting us in the middle of a civil war . . . . So don’t say anyone calls them losers. They’re winners. The loser is the commander in chief who has not led our country well.

More…

Boxer clearly took this accusation personally, as demonstrated by this excerpt from the exchange in which she details just how hard this war, which she VOTED AGAINST, is hitting her.

Now, the fact is I want to be very clear on this, Wolf. I’ve lost in California 21 percent of the dead troops. You understand that? Twenty-one percent either were born in California or were stationed in California.

I have their names listed in the front of my office. If you come and see my office, they are all on these charts. And you know what, Lindsey? I have to keep making the print on the charts smaller and smaller to fit all the names on four full charts.

Wingnuts are desperately clinging to any thread of relevancy, trying to gain traction with the public using baseless attacks against Democrats, using 2004 tactics in a post-November 2006 world. Senator, thank you for not letting Graham’s offensive charge go unanswered. Please know that we have your back. When they hit you, we’ll hit them harder.

Transcript and video available over at Think Progress.