Malaysiakini - DAP Wins Sibu By-election

DAP wins Sibu, majority 398

LIVE REPORTS [PHOTO GALLERY] Earlier reports Small, big and giant steps for Pakatan 'Political tsunami' finally reaches East M'sia A 'historic' victory, says Kit Siang 11.30pm: Speaking at a press conference, a beaming Wong Ho Leng says: "This victory is one small step in Sibu, one big step to (state administrative capital) Petrajaya, and one giant step to Putajaya." Robert Lau, meanwhile, expresses sadness: "I'm sad, because Sibu is going to lose out on a lot of things. I have said in my campaign that if we lose, we lose the confidence of the federal government. "But my heart is still with the people of Sibu and I will serve them in whatever capacity that I can," says the SUPP leader. 11.10pm: A crowd of 3,000 gather outside the main tally centre at Dewan Suarah to celebrate DAP's victory in Sibu. They shout, "Dacing tipu". Independent Narawi Haron forfeited his RM10,000 deposit for failing to obtain at least one-eighth of the total vote cast. The Election Commission has revised the voter turnout. It now says the turnout was 70% instead of 59.86% (which is higher than the 68% in the 2008 general elections). Votes cast - 37,919 votes Turnout - 70% Spoilt votes - 395 votes Majority - 398 votes Postal votes - 2,429 votes 10.58pm: Election Commission makes official announcement: DAP - 18,845 BN - 18,447 Ind -232 Majority - 398 The two-hour delay in the announcement of the result was due to a dispute in the postal ballots where 208 votes were rejected. This however did not change the final result. According to the EC, the dispute was over the validity of witnesses' signature for postal votes. DAP leaders claimed that there is a discrepancy in the postal vote tally between what they have and the Election Commission's, which caused much anxiety among the opposition that their win could be "stolen". The final result of the postal ballots: DAP - 70 BN - 2,323 Ind - 36 Rejected postal votes - 208 10.55pm: Election Commission is expected to announce that DAP has won the Sibu by-election with a majority of 398. On the spot analysis: Pakatan Rakyat has managed to reverse its series of losses (Bagan Pinang and Hulu Selangor) with this win in Sibu. Of the 11 by-election since March 2008, Pakatan has won eight while BN three. Sibu is also Pakatan's first victory in East Malaysia (PKR lost in Batang Ai in April last year). For DAP, this is the first by-election which the party has won in 13 years. Sibu will be the party's second parliamentary seat in Sarawak to its existing Bandar Kuching. With the defeat in Sibu, BN may delay the Sarawak state election to next year. Sarawak will need to call the state polls by middle of next year. 10.35pm: It appears that there was some minor dispute over the postal ballots. However, it is learnt that the Election Commission will be announcing the result soon. It is almost certain that DAP has won this closely fought by-election by between 300 and 400 votes. 10.30pm: SUPP Sibu chief Wong Soon Koh at Wisma Sanyan criticised Lim Guan Eng for acting rude by "leading people to come to 'kacau'." "This is not a healthy culture," he said. Robert Lau is also reported to be dissatisfied that Lim and four other DAP members met with the SPR officer without the presence of Barisan people. They said they will "consider taking the election dispute to court." 10.15pm: At the main tally centre in Dewan Suarah, two SUPP officials are meeting with returning officer Wong See Meng. It is believed that they are discussing about the delay in the announcing of postal vote results. They are later joined by DAP officials Ng Wei Aik, Lim Lip Eng and Ronnie Liu. It is still raining in Sibu. The rain began about two hours ago. Supporters from both sides, many of them holding umbrellas, are waiting calmly outside Dewan Suarah. 10.10pm: Election Commission chief Abdul Aziz Yusof tells Malaysiakini in an SMS message that the postal ballots Form 15 is on its way to the main tally centre in Dewan Suarah. "EC is waiting for the official postal ballot result," he says. Meanwhile, EC deputy chief Wan Ahmad Wan Omar says the commission will explain the delay soon. "I'll explain after we announce the result shortly," he tells Malaysiakini. 10.09pm: All top DAP leaders are waiting at Wisma Sanyan, where the postal ballots were counted. Lim Guan Eng tells Malaysiakini that he is worried “something suspicious could be going on” and he hopes that the Election Commission officials can release the Form 15, a document which certifies the final result of the postal ballots. Should it be true that BN has won the postal votes by a margin of 2,300, then DAP will be declared the winner of the Sibu by-election with a tissue-thin majority of 300 votes. It is confirmed that Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin has returned to Kuala Lumpur. There is no movement at the main tally centre in Dewan Suarah in Sibu. The official tally still indicates that 16 boxes, including the postal votes, are yet to be sent to be included in the final result. 9.50pm: DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang questions the hold-up in the Election Commission's announcement of the 2,571 postal ballots. "The postal ballot counting started at 5.30pm and finished at 8.30pm." He asks why there is more than an hour delay in the announcement of results. "Up to some trick?" he wonders aloud. 9.35pm: The counting of postal votes has ended. However, DAP scrutineers are unable to get Form 15 - the official tally signed by the returning officer. It is understood that BN has won 2,300 out of a total 2,571 postal votes. This will translate into a DAP victory with a margin of 300 votes. DAP candidate Wong Ho Leng refuses to claim victory as yet. "I don't want comment. Please wait for the official announcement," he told Malaysiakini. 9.24pm: The final result may not be announced anytime soon. The 2,571 postal votes are still being counted. All DAP leaders leave the party's operations room in Sibu for Wisma Sanyan where the postal votes are being tallied. DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang wants to know what is holding up the Election Commission from announcing the by-election result. 9.21pm: Election Commission chief Abdul Aziz Yusof sends a SMS message to Malaysiakini saying that the voter turnout "could be more than 60 percent". Malaysiakini has earlier asked him to confirm whether the voter turnout was 59.86% as announced by the EC a few hours ago. 9.10pm: Penang Chief Minister and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng and other party leaders are set to leave the party's operations room in Sibu. But instead of going to main tally centre at Dewan Suarah, they plan to go to Wisma Sanyan, where the postal votes are being counted. 8.57pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, BN has reduced DAP's lead down to 2,590 votes. A total of 109 out of 110 polling streams have been counted thus far. DAP - 18,570 BN - 15,980 Ind - 201 Majority - 2,590 On the spot analysis: Only one polling stream and 2,571 postal votes yet to be included. BN is expected to win over 90% of these votes but will it be enough for it to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? 8.40pm: An umbrella revolution is swelling outside of the main tally centre at Dewan Suarah, with 200 people standing in the rain to show their support for DAP's Wong Ho Leng. Around 200 cops estimated in area, but no untoward incidents so far. No top leaders from either BN or Pakatan Rakyat are there at the moment. 8.33pm: DAP members and some leaders at its Sibu operations room are celebrating, but top party leaders are still waiting for confirmation and refuse to declare victory. 8.14pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, DAP has increased its lead to 3,944 votes. A total of 103 out of 110 polling streams have been counted thus far. DAP - 18,211 BN - 14,267 Ind - 138 Majority - 3,944 Postal votes are still being counted. In addition, no results yet to come in from BN stronghold Kg Ilir Nangka. In the 2008 general elections, DAP lost by 1,272 votes in Kg Ilir Nangka and 2,571 in postal votes. However, two DAP MPs - Anthony Loke and Jeff Ooi - have claimed victory. "Sibu Pakatan Rakyat set to win by wafer-thin majority... probably less than one hundred!" says Loke in his tweet message. On the spot analysis: DAP is close to victory but it is still too close to call. By all estimates, the margin of victory will be in the hundreds. 8.13pm: A crowd of supporters stand with umbrellas in the rain outside the counting centre compound, chanting "Wong Ho Leng" (DAP candidate) off and on as they wait for the official result to be announced. The projector outside the centre however has gone offline, and no updates available so far. 8.10pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, DAP has increased its lead to 3,279 votes. About 95.5% of votes have been counted so far. DAP - 17,120 BN - 13,841 Ind - 137 Majority - 3,279 8.04pm: Unconfirmed reports on the final few thousand votes - DAP lost Malay/Melanau-majority Ilir Nangka by 1,354 votes but won Chinese-majority Oya Lane by 665. It now hinges on the 2,571 postal votes. If BN can win 2,441 of these postal votes, which is possible, it will win the by-election. The margin of victory will be less than 100 votes. 7.58pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, DAP has increased its lead to 3,130 votes. About 93.9% of votes have been counted so far. DAP - 16,786 BN - 13,656 Ind - 136 Majority - 3,130 7.52pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, DAP has increased its lead to 3,048 votes. About 92.6% of votes have been counted so far. DAP - 16,538 BN - 13,490 Ind - 136 Majority - 3,048 DAP leaders and supporters, who are watching the unofficial results displayed by a LCD projector, are biting their nails. On the spot analysis: BN stronghold Kg Ilir Nangka and postal votes still yet to be announced. In the 2008 general elections, DAP lost by 1,272 votes in Kg Ilir Nangka and 2,571 in postal votes. 7.40pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, DAP's lead breaks the 3,000 mark for the first time - it is now 3,022 votes. About 90.5% of votes have been counted so far. DAP - 16,178 BN - 13,156 Ind - 135 Majority - 3,022 On the spot analysis: DAP appears close to victory, but with postal votes and a key Malay/Melanau area yet to be tallied, BN can still win this by-election. Whatever the result, it will be close either way. 7.35pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, DAP has again increased its lead to 2,920 votes. About 90% of votes have been counted so far. DAP - 15,981 BN - 13,061 Ind - 134 Majority - 2,920 7.30pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, DAP has again increased its lead to 2,817 votes. About 87% of votes have been counted so far. DAP - 15,655 BN - 12,838 Ind - 132 Majority - 2,817 On the spot analysis: The 2,571 postal votes are now being counted. This is where BN is banking on clawing back into lead. In the 2008 general elections, SUPP won 94% of the postal votes. 7.15pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, DAP has again increased its lead to 2,236 votes. About 81% of votes have been counted so far. DAP - 14,283 BN - 12,047 Ind - 129 Majority - 2,236 7.13pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, BN has narrowed DAP's lead to 1,577 votes. About 75% of votes have been counted so far. DAP - 12,966 BN - 11,389 Ind - 126 Majority - 1,577 7.07pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, DAP has further increased its lead to 2,091. About 67% of votes have been counted so far. DAP - 11,941 BN - 9,850 Ind - 99 Majority - 2,091 On the spot analysis: BN stronghold Kg Ilir Nangka and postal votes yet to be announced. In the 2008 general elections, DAP lost by 1,272 votes in Kg Ilir Nangka and 2,571 in postal votes. In addition, also yet to be counted is Rejang Park, a major DAP stronghold. 7.02pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, DAP has further increased its lead to 1,544. So far, 66 out of 110 polling streams, or about 62% of votes, have been counted. DAP - 10,773 BN - 9,229 Ind - 97 Majority - 1,544 On the spot analysis It appears that DAP has benefitted from a slight swing of Chinese voters. However, there is no change in Iban and Malay/Melanau vote. Indeed, BN could have won more votes from these two groups. DAP will need to a sizable lead if it is to win this by-election as it is expected that BN will get the lion share of the 2,537 postal votes, which are yet to be counted. According to DAP sources, they won in all Chinese-majority polling streams but the turnout was low, especially among young voters. MCA Youth chief Wee Ka Siong says in a tweet that DAP has won over 66% of the Chinese votes. BN will need to bag at least 80% of the Malay/Melanau vote to win this by-election. 6.50pm: Rain starts to fall in Sibu as ballot boxes continue to stream into the counting centre at the main tally centre in Dewan Suarah. A crowd of onlookers has swelled to about 100 people in surrounding shops, mostly curious about the hive of activity at the hall. 6.46pm: The Election Commission announces that the voter turnout for today's by-election is 59.86% or 32,742 voters. The total in postal votes are 2,537. 6.42pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, DAP has further increased its lead to 914. So far, 59 out of 110 polling streams, or about 54% of votes, have been counted. DAP - 9,188 BN - 8,274 Ind - 89 Majority - 914 6.38pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, DAP has increased its lead to 838. So far, 57 out of 110 polling streams, or about 52% of votes, have been counted. DAP - 8,888 BN - 8,050 Ind - 87 Majority - 838 6.35pm: EC deputy chairman Wan Ahmad Wan Omar is chairing a closed-door meeting to discuss an objection raised by DAP candidate Wong Ho Leng over discrepancies in postal votes. Dapsy chief Anthony Loke said the objection was over inconsistencies in signatures of witnesses, and DAP are claiming fraud. "The EC are not happy about it. We don't know what the intend to do," Loke said when contacted through SMS. It is understood that Wong has walked out of the postal votes counting centre but no decision has been announced yet by the EC. 6.24pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, DAP is leading for the first time as the Chinese-majority areas are being counted. DAP - 7,026 BN - 6,243 Ind - 52 Majority - 783 So far, 44 out of 110 polling streams, or about 43% of votes, have been counted. "It's a clear sign that Chinese votes have swung in favour of us," says DAP leader Anthony Loke. "The question is whether this is enough to carry us through." DAP sources say that ballot boxes of Malay/Melanau areas yet to be counted. They comprise 10.5% of the Sibu electorate. Also the estimated 2,000 postal votes, where BN is expected to win over 90% of the votes, are not factored in yet. 6.16pm: A crowd of 150 gather at the DAP operation room in Sibu. As the unofficial results stream in, the crowd cheer. 6.09pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, BN is leading by 1,869 votes. So far, 26 out of 110 polling streams, or about 20% of votes, have been counted. BN - 4,303 DAP - 2,434 Ind - 41 Majority - 1,869 6.01pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, BN is leading by 1,957 votes. So far, 25 out of 110 polling streams, or about 20% of votes, have been counted. BN - 4,205 DAP - 2,248 Ind - 41 Majority - 1,957 It appears that DAP is slowing bridging the gap as polling streams from Chinese-majority areas are now being counted. 5.50pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, BN is leading by 1,985 votes. So far, 22 out of 110 polling streams, or about 18% of votes, have been counted. BN - 3,804 DAP - 1,819 Ind - 37 Majority - 1,985 EC chair Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof says he was not satisfied with the lower voter turnout which fell lower than the 67% recorded in the 2008 general election. Meanwhile, Sibu police chief ACP Shafie Ismail says polling went smoothly except for a minor incidents of heckling among supporters of the contesting parties. 5.40pm: A few ballot boxes arrive at main tally centre in Dewan Suarah. Dark storm clouds and strong winds coming in, heavy rain expected in Sibu. 5.25pm: Election Commission workers are seen going into the main tally centre at Dewan Suarah in Sibu town. This is where all the votes from the 54 polling centres in today's by-election are tallied. The final result will be announced by the returning officer later tonight. DAP sources say the party appeared to have performed worse in Iban areas compared to the 2008 general election. 5.05pm: According to the latest unofficial tally, BN has increased its lead to 2,097 votes. So far, 19 out of 110 polling streams, or about 13% of votes, have been counted. BN - 3,493 DAP - 1,396 Ind - 33 Majority - 2,097 5pm: The remaining 22 polling stations close. Another 23 pollings stations had closed earlier and counting is in progress. 4.50pm: A total of 31,119 have voted by 4pm. Voter turnout is 56.9% with one hour to go before the closing of the remaining 22 polling stations. The voter turnout is expected to be far below the 68% in the 2008 general elections. 4.30pm: According to the latest unofficial tally in the polling stations which have closed early, BN has increased its lead to 1,930 votes. So far, 16 out of 110 polling streams have been counted. BN - 2,959 DAP - 1,029 Ind - 18 Majority - 1,930 Of the 16 polling streams counted, at least 10 are from Iban areas where DAP is expected to lose. Iban comprise 4.29pm: Umno vice-president Shafie Apdal (left in pix) denies a scuffle ever occurred at Sekolah Kebangsaan Sg Aup as alleged by DAP MP for Bakri Er Teck Hwa (see below - 12.30pm). “There wasn't a scuffle (as reported). I was there (to request the DAP supporters) to disperse. There was no scuffle,” the minister told Malaysiakini. Shafie said that he was there with a group of BN supporters. “The MP (Er) was in the middle of the road distributing leaflets to voters. That can't happen,” said the Umno vice-president, referring to election laws against campaigning on polling day. “I told him (Er) that he wasn't allowed to do such a thing. In the election laws, it is prohibited. As a member of Parliament, he should know the laws. 4.20pm: According to the latest unofficial tally in the polling stations which have closed early, DAP is trailing by 1,784 votes. BN - 2,808 DAP - 1,024 Ind - 18 Majority - 1,784 It is still too early to spot the trend as the result is from 15 polling streams out of 110 polling streams in areas which BN is expected to do well. 4.14pm: DAP youth chief Anthony Loke tweets about his altercation with EC officials tallying the votes. He describes them, particularly those coming from Kuala Lumpur, as being “rude” and accusing them of “harassing” the DAP polling agent for “complaining too much.” They are upset because, fighting “for every vote,” the agent is questioning too much. To the EC officer's complaint that the agent is being 'leceh' (demanding), Loke says he “shot back” with the words: “Don't we have rights to complain? Dah biasa makan gaji buta!” ('You've become used to earning an easy salary!'). 3.40pm: According to latest unofficial results from 12 polling stations which has closed, DAP is trailing by 1,029 votes. BN - 1,839 DAP - 810 Ind - 15 Majority - 1,029

Related articles by Zemanta

• Malaysian Opposition Wins Election (online.wsj.com)
• Postal ballots are not the same as postal vote application forms (libdemvoice.org)

An Expatriate Filipino Writes of a Parallel Life - NYTimes.com

By JOYCE HOR-CHUNG LAU

HONG KONG — The story begins with the death of Crispin Salvador, an expatriate Filipino author living in New York, whose body is found floating in the Hudson River. He had been scathingly critical of his home country before his mysterious demise.

Christie Johnston for The International Herald Tribune

Miguel Syjuco's first novel, “Ilustrado,” written after he left the Philippines, won the Man Asian Literary Prize in 2008.

It is part of a novel, a satire of the chaos and violence of Philippine politics called “Ilustrado,” the first book by Miguel Syjuco, an expatriate Filipino author living in Montreal. And — if the book was not clear enough in its theme that art reflects life — the fictional narrator and Salvador’s protégé is also named Miguel Syjuco.

The real-life Mr. Syjuco, a dapper 33-year-old, has been promoting “Ilustrado,” which won the 2008 Man Asian Literary Prize, on a tour through the United States and Britain, where it will be released in coming months.

Sipping tea amid the wood paneling of the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents Club — in a camel blazer with matching red pocket square and red cuff links — he looked the part of a gentleman from a good Philippine family. Mr. Syjuco, who once held entry-level jobs at The New Yorker and other magazines before deciding to devote himself full time to writing, is clearly from the educated upper classes that he skewers in his book.

“My family, my friends, my colleagues — we are the elites,” he said. “We are a wealthy, beautiful country, and we’ve screwed it up so badly. The majority of wealth is controlled by a minority. And we don’t know when enough is enough. The elite don’t want one mansion; they want three.”

Like his fictional counterpart in the book, Mr. Syjuco came from a political family but declined to enter the business himself.

His real-life father, Augusto Syjuco Jr., known as Boboy, stepped down from a cabinet post in the government of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to run for Congress in national elections on Monday. So far, nearly three dozen people have been killed in attacks linked to those elections. While Mr. Syjuco is disparaging of the violence, he says he is not overly worried about his father.

“He knows what he’s doing,” Mr. Syjuco said. “He’s with Gloria Arroyo — in her party. He is entrenched in his district, and he has his bodyguards. So he is more protected than candidates from grass-roots parties.”

Mr. Syjuco said he did not want to draw too close a comparison between his own life and the book, but the parallels — the fictional Miguel Syjuco, an orphan, disappoints his doting grandparents when he fails to live up to their political ambitions — are obvious.

“My dad wanted me to be a lawyer, a politician, the president of his country,” Mr. Syjuco said. “I have two sisters and three brothers, and not a politician among any of them. I was my dad’s great last hope.”

Mr. Syjuco was unheard of before “Ilustrado” won the Man Asian Literary Prize, which shares a sponsor with the Man Booker Prize and recognizes the best Asian novel written or translated into English. Outside of the Philippines, he could not even get short stories published in journals.

“I got rejected left and right,” he said. “I wallpapered my wall with rejection slips, the way F. Scott Fitzgerald was said to have done.”

In fact, when “Ilustrado” won the award, it was still an unedited draft with no publisher.

Understandably, Mr. Syjuco had almost no expectation of winning. “I just wanted to get on the long list so agents would pay attention to me,” he said.

“I remember sitting in front of my computer, waiting for midnight — since the long list would be announced at that moment — and hitting the refresh button over and over. I did the same thing when the short list was announced. When I flew out to Hong Kong for the awards dinner, I thought I’d just eat a lot of Chinese food and get drunk.”

Miguel Syjuco was born in the Philippines to a Chinese-Filipino father and a Spanish-Filipino mother, into a family whose wealth was anchored in a soft-drink bottling company.

His parents moved abroad during the Marcos era, and Mr. Syjuco spent much of his childhood in Vancouver, British Columbia. “The first thing I wrote was in grade five. I tried to write a sequel to ‘Lord of the Rings,’ ” he said.

He returned to the Philippines for high school and college and, as he says, “got onto the right path when I flunked out of economics in university.”

He and some friends put together Local Vibe, an entertainment Web site. But he could not free himself of family ties and expectations, so he decided to move back overseas.

He knocked around the United States, Canada and Australia, studying, writing and trying to stay financially afloat. He had entry-level jobs at The New Yorker, Esquire and The Paris Review, and earned a master’s degree in creative writing from Columbia University. He is finishing a Ph.D. at the University of Adelaide, in Australia.

“Ilustrado” starts off as a murder mystery. When Salvador dies, the draft of a politically biting masterpiece he had been working on disappears. The book then moves into what are, for the Philippines, complicated and interwoven issues of sex and poverty, migration and work, religion and governance.

Its short chapters come in a cacophony of fonts and voices. There are excerpts from the two main characters’ own writing, plus e-mail messages, newspaper articles, blog comments, flashbacks and dream sequences.

The style is postmodern (or, as some prefix-happy critics call it, post-postmodern) right down to the faux footnotes. The novel is short, sharp and funny, though some critics have called it overwritten. (“Yet it was the internecine intensities of the local literati that gossiped Salvador’s life into chimerical proportions.”)

“I don’t particularly like the postmodern tag,” Mr. Syjuco said. “It’s a novel of today, a contemporary novel. The way we consume information is fragmented.”

Mr. Syjuco explained that “Ilustrado,” which means “enlightened” in Spanish, refers to a period in the late 1800s when the Philippines was a Spanish colony and Filipinos traveled to Europe to be educated in the arts, sciences and politics.

“These young men, the ‘enlightened,’ returned home to aid in the 1896 revolution that ousted Spanish control,” Mr. Syjuco said. “There are 8.1 million Filipinos abroad now. They have the potential to be the new ‘ilustrado’ class. But of those 8.1 million, only 500,000 are registered to vote in the upcoming elections. Maybe they have turned their back on the democratic process.”

Mr. Syjuco, who has already sold a second book to a North American publisher, identifies himself as a Filipino author but says that overseas life gave him the distance needed to see his country’s problems.

“I don’t know if I could have written this if I had stayed in the Philippines,” he said.

He declined to predict what would happen in the coming elections.

“My book asks some tough questions, but it’s not the Great Philippine Novel,” he said. “I’m 33. I don’t have all the answers. If I did, I’d be running for president.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Miguel Syjuco: Home and far away (nationalpost.com)
• Syjuco's 'Ilustrado' blurs reality (cnn.com)
• Climbing the Literary Ladder Backward (online.wsj.com)
• Ilustrado by Miguel Syjuco | Book review (guardian.co.uk)
• The "brilliantly exuberant" ILUSTRADO. (condalmo.wordpress.com)
• Shorties (John Prine Tribute, Christos Tsiolkas, and more) (largeheartedboy.com)
• Candidates wind down Philippine election campaign (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Election 2010: Nevada Senate

Image by talkradionews via Flickr

Two of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Republican challengers have again crossed the 50% threshold and now hold double-digit leads in Nevada’s U.S. Senate race. One big hurdle for the incumbent is that most Nevada voters are strongly opposed to the health care legislation championed by Reid and President Barack Obama.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Sue Lowden, ex-chairman of the Nevada Republican Party, with a 51% to 38% lead on Reid. Seven percent (7%) prefer some other candidate, but just three percent (3%) are undecided.

Businessman Danny Tarkanian posts a similar 50% to 37% lead over the embattled Democratic leader. Nine percent (9%) opt for another candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

Last month, Reid earned 39% of the vote against both Republicans, while Lowden picked up 45% and Tarkanian 47% in their respective match-ups with him.

Tarkanian hit 50% in January, and both he and Lowden posted that level of support last September.

Last fall Reid’s support was in the 40s. Since then, it’s been trending down into the 30s, suggesting that the Senate race continues to be a referendum on Reid rather than a show of support for his GOP opponents.

Former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, continues to run weakest of the three top Republican hopefuls, but this month she leads Reid 46% to 38%. In January, she had a 44% to 40% lead.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Forty-five percent (45%) have a favorable view of the so-called Tea Party movement. Thirty percent (30%) view it unfavorably, and 25% are not sure what they think.

Only 23% of the state’s voters consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement.

Any incumbent who is earning less than 50% at this stage of a campaign is considered potentially vulnerable. Reid, who is seeking a fifth term in the Senate, received 61% of the vote in 2004.

Forty-one percent (41%) of Nevada voters support the health care plan championed by Reid and now working its way through Congress. Fifty-six percent (56%) oppose it, which is slightly higher than opposition nationally.

More significantly for Reid, those figures include just 24% who Strongly Favor the plan and 51% who are strongly opposed. Those who strongly favor the plan overwhelmingly support Reid, while those who strongly oppose it overwhelmingly support the Republicans.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of Nevada voters also think it would be better for the country if most incumbents were not reelected to Congress this November. Only 32% say their local congressional representative deserves reelection.

Twenty percent (20%) of voters in the state have a very favorable opinion of Reid, while 48% view him very unfavorably.

For Lowden, very favorables are 18%, and very unfavorables total 12%.

Tarkanian is viewed very favorably by 15% and very unfavorably by eight percent (8%).

Nine percent (9%) have a very unfavorable view of Angle, and the same number (9%) see her very unfavorably.

At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with a strong opinion more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.

While Barack Obama carried Nevada with 55% of the vote in 2008, just 44% of voters in the state now approve of the job he is doing as president, marking little change from last month. Fifty-seven percent (57%) disapprove of the president’s performance. These findings include 27% who strongly approve and 47% who strongly disapprove. This is comparable to Obama's approval ratings in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Thirty-six percent (36%) say the president has done a good or excellent job handling the health care issue, but 54% rate his performance in this area as poor.

While the president pushes to get his health care plan back on track, 60% of Nevada voters say the better strategy would be to pass smaller bills that address problems individually rather than a comprehensive bill like the one now before Congress. Just 29% see a comprehensive bill as a better move.

When it comes to health care decisions, 51% fear the federal government more than private insurance companies. Forty-four percent (44%) fear private insurers more. Those figures are similar to the national average.

Thirty-three percent (33%) in Nevada expect the economy to be stronger in a year’s time, but 41% think it will be weaker. Again, the views of Nevada voters are similar to the views of Americans nationally. Just 23% say it’s possible for anyone who really wants to work to find a job these days. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree.

Forty-five percent (45%) have a favorable view of the so-called Tea Party movement. Thirty percent (30%) view it unfavorably, and 25% are not sure what they think.

Only 23% of the state’s voters consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement.

Rasmussen Reports also has recently surveyed Senate races in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Florida, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. Most show a troubling political environment for the Democratic candidates.

On the Republican side, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was hurt by the national political mood in her unsuccessful bid to defeat incumbent Governor Rick Perry for the GOP gubernatorial nomination in Texas. Even Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson, who has no serious Democratic opposition to date, falls just under 50% which means he is potentially vulnerable in November.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Sue Lowden Demolishing Harry Reid, But (Fake? Plant?) Tea Party (?) Candidate May Save Harry Reid (minx.cc)
• Reid Falls Further Back in Re-Election Race (politicalwire.com)
• Obama Takes Charge, Demands Vote on Health Care (abcnews.go.com)

G.O.P. Senate Victory Stuns Democrats

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

By MICHAEL COOPER

BOSTON — Scott Brown, a little-known Republican state senator, rode an old pickup truck and a growing sense of unease among independent voters to an extraordinary upset Tuesday night when he was elected to fill the Senate seat that was long held by Edward M. Kennedy in the overwhelmingly Democratic state of Massachusetts.

By a decisive margin, Mr. Brown defeated Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney general, who had been considered a prohibitive favorite to win just over a month ago after she easily won the Democratic primary.

With all precincts counted, Mr. Brown had 52 percent of the vote to Ms. Coakley’s 47 percent.

“Tonight the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken,” Mr. Brown told his cheering supporters in a victory speech, standing in front of a backdrop that said “The People’s Seat.”

Image via Wikipedia

The election left Democrats in Congress scrambling to salvage a bill overhauling the nation’s health care system, which the late Mr. Kennedy had called “the cause of my life.” Mr. Brown has vowed to oppose the bill, and once he takes office the Democrats will no longer control the 60 votes in the Senate needed to overcome filibusters.

There were immediate signs that the bill had become imperiled. House members indicated they would not quickly pass the bill the Senate approved last month.

And after the results were announced, one centrist Democratic senator, Jim Webb of Virginia, called on Senate leaders to suspend any votes on the Democrats’ health care legislation until Mr. Brown is sworn into office. The election, he said, was a referendum on both health care and the integrity of the government process.

Beyond the bill, the election of a man supported by the Tea Party movement also represented an unexpected reproach by many voters to President Obama after his first year in office, and struck fear into the hearts of Democratic lawmakers, who are already worried about their prospects in the midterm elections later this year.

Mr. Brown was able to appeal to independents who were anxious about the economy and concerned about the direction taken by Democrats, now that they control both Beacon Hill and Washington. He rallied his supporters when he said, at the last debate, that he was not running for Mr. Kennedy’s seat but for “the people’s seat.”

On Wednesday morning, he described himself as “someone who’s always been accountable and attentive and an independent thinker and voter, and looking at every single issue on its merits, whether it’s a good Democrat idea or a good Republican idea.” In an appearance on NBC’s “Today” show he cited taxation, government spending and terrorism along with health care as his priorities. “People are angry,” he said. “They’re tired of the backroom deals. They want transparency. They want good government. They want fairness. And they want people to start working and solving their problems.”

Even so, his election was a sharp swing of the pendulum. The Senate seat held for nearly half a century by Mr. Kennedy, the liberal lion of the Senate, will now be held for the next two years by a Republican who has said he supports waterboarding as an interrogation technique for terrorism suspects, opposes a federal cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions and opposes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants unless they leave the country.

In interviews on election day, even Democratic voters said they wanted the Obama administration to change direction.

“I’m hoping that it gives a message to the country,” said Marlene Connolly, 73, of North Andover, a lifelong Democrat who said she cast her first vote for a Republican on Tuesday. “I think if Massachusetts puts Brown in, it’s a message of ‘that’s enough.’ Let’s stop the giveaways and let’s get jobs going.”

Mr. Brown ran strongest in the suburbs of Boston, where the independent voters who make up a majority in Massachusetts turned out in large numbers. Ms. Coakley did best in urban areas, winning overwhelmingly in Boston and running ahead in Springfield, Worcester, Fall River and New Bedford, but her margins were not large enough to carry her to victory.

In a concession speech before cheering supporters, Ms. Coakley acknowledged that voters were angry and said she had hoped to deal with the concerns.

“Our mission continues, and our work goes on,” she said, echoing well-known remarks by Mr. Kennedy. “I am heartbroken at the result, as I know you are, and I know we will get up together tomorrow and continue this fight, even with this result tonight.”

The crowd at Mr. Brown’s victory rally, upset by reports that Democrats might try to vote on the health care bill before he takes office, chanted, “Seat him now!” Mr. Brown, for his part, noted that the interim senator holding the seat had finished his work, and that he was ready to go to Washington “without delay.” And he effusively praised Mr. Kennedy as a big-hearted, tireless worker, and said that he hoped to prove a worthy successor to him.

Ms. Coakley’s defeat, in a state that Mr. Obama won in 2008 with 62 percent of the vote, led to a round of finger-pointing among Democrats. Some criticized her tendency for gaffes — in a radio interview she offended Red Sox fans when she incorrectly suggested that Curt Schilling, a beloved former Red Sox pitcher, was a Yankee fan — while others criticized a lackluster, low-key campaign.

Mr. Brown presented himself as a Massachusetts Everyman, featuring the pickup truck he drives around the state in his speeches and one of his television commercials, calling in to talk radio shows and campaigning with popular local sports figures.

The implications of the election drew nationwide attention, and millions of dollars of outside spending, to the race. It transformed what many had expected to be a sleepy, low-turnout special election on a snowy day in January into a high-profile contest that appeared to draw more voters than expected to the polls. There were reports of traffic jams outside suburban polling stations, while other polling stations had to call for extra ballots.

The late surge by Mr. Brown appeared to catch Democrats by surprise, causing them to scramble in the last week and a half of the campaign and hastily schedule an appearance by Mr. Obama with Ms. Coakley on Sunday afternoon.

“Understand what’s at stake here, Massachusetts,” Mr. Obama said in his speech that day, repeatedly invoking Mr. Kennedy’s legacy. “It’s whether we’re going forwards or backwards.” He all but pleaded with voters to support Ms. Coakley, to preserve his agenda.

As voters went to the polls, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, made it clear that the president was “not pleased” with the situation Ms. Coakley found herself in. “He was both surprised and frustrated,” Mr. Gibbs said.

Although the race has riveted the nation largely because it was seen as contributing to the success or defeat of the health care bill, the potency of the issue for voters here was difficult to gauge. That is because Massachusetts already has near-universal health coverage, thanks to a law passed when Mitt Romney, a Republican, was governor.

Thus Massachusetts is one of the few states where the benefits promised by the national bill were expected to have little effect on how many of its residents got coverage, making it an unlikely place for a referendum on the health care bill.

On Capitol Hill, the fate of the health care legislation was highly uncertain as Democratic leaders quickly gathered to plot strategy in the wake of the Republican victory.

Sentiment about how to proceed was mixed, with several lawmakers saying the House would not accept the Senate-passed plan. Top officials had said that approach was the party’s best alternative, and many members said they still believed it was crucial that Democrats pass a plan.

“It is important for us to pass legislation,” said Representative Baron P. Hill, a conservative Democrat from Indiana.

Reporting was contributed by Katie Zezima, Danielle Ossher and Bret Silverberg in Massachusetts, and Carl Hulse and David M. Herszenhorn in Washington.

In Massachusetts, Republican Brown steps up campaign for Kennedy's Senate seat

Image via Wikipedia

By Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 13, 2010; A01

Fueled by the energy of conservative activists, a solid debate performance and a 24-hour, $1.3 million Internet fundraising haul, Massachusetts state Sen. Scott Brown (R) has thrown a major scare into the Democratic establishment in his bid to win next Tuesday's special Senate election over once heavily favored Attorney General Martha Coakley.

The intensified activity around the campaign to fill the seat of the late senator Edward M. Kennedy (D) highlights the degree to which the race has taken on national significance. A victory, or even a narrow loss, by Brown in the competition for the symbolically important seat would be interpreted as another sign that voters have turned away from the Democrats at the start of the midterm election year.

More urgently, a Brown win would give Republicans 41 seats in the Senate and the ability to block President Obama's health-care initiative and much of the Democrats' 2010 congressional agenda. Strategists on both sides concede that a Brown victory would drastically reshape the calculus of the health-care debate, which is now in its final stages.

Brown still has some distance to go to pull off an upset, but Democrats now recognize they were wrong not to have taken his challenge more seriously from the start and are vowing not to let the race slip away out of neglect and a lack of aggressiveness.

"We believe at the end of the day the attorney general is going to win the race, but we're not going to take our foot off the gas," said Eric Schultz, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Eric Fehrnstrom, a top adviser to Brown, said: "I think it's a tight race, but Scott Brown still has to be considered the underdog. But clearly there's panic setting in on the other side, and they're jumping in with both feet."

Image via Wikipedia

Democrats have buttressed Coakley's campaign this week, adding fresh money and personnel to her operation and vowing to go after the Republican far more aggressively than they have to date.

The DSCC bought $500,000 in advertising time for the contest, and national Democrats sent a pair of experienced strategists -- Michael Meehan and Hari Sevugan -- to Massachusetts to help lead the attack on Brown and oversee the final days of Coakley's campaign. Democrats also have sent fundraising e-mails from Obama and Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.).

Brown countered by announcing he had raised $1.3 million in the previous 24 hours through an Internet appeal. A sizable portion of that money will pay for television ads that combat the Democrats' stepped-up attacks.

Polls have offered a muddled picture of the race. On Sunday, the Boston Globe put Coakley's lead at 15 percentage points. But that came after two automated polls, whose methodology is not always as reliable, showed a far closer contest -- one gave Coakley a nine-point advantage, the other showed a virtual dead heat.

On Monday, national Democrats released the results of an internal survey showing Coakley's lead at 14 points, but their actions since have belied the idea that she is comfortably ahead. A pair of internal polls taken for the parties showed the gap between the candidates in the mid-single digits.

Democratic strategists in Massachusetts and Washington said they remain confident that Coakley will prevail, given the huge Democratic registration advantage in the state and the attorney general's appeal to female voters. But they blamed Coakley and her campaign for letting up over the holidays and allowing Brown to change the dynamic of the race.

More than the Coakley campaign's performance may be at work in Massachusetts. Brown's operation benefits from the fact that Republican and conservative voters appear more motivated, as they were in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections in November. The accelerated activity by Democrats is designed in part to mobilize party voters and remind them of the stakes in Tuesday's balloting.

Coakley and Brown held their last debate Monday night, and while no clear winner emerged, Brown most often appeared to be taking a more aggressive posture. The two traded accusations on taxes, health-care reform and economic policy, with Coakley charging that Brown would take the country back to the economic policies of the George W. Bush administration.

Brown challenged Coakley, who opposes Obama's plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, on national security and terrorism, arguing that she was wrong to support the administration's decision to try self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civilian court. After the debate, he also criticized Coakley for declaring that terrorists "are gone" from Afghanistan in explaining her support for an exit strategy.

Hoping to appeal to Massachusetts's long Democratic tradition, the Coakley camp began running a negative ad Monday attacking Brown as someone who would march "in lockstep with Washington Republicans." He responded Tuesday with his own ad in which he said she had decided "that the best way to stop me is to tear me down" and called on voters to reject her tactics.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Andy Ostroy: Democrats Must Combat the Swiftboating of Martha Coakley (huffingtonpost.com)
• Wheels Coming Off for Massachusetts Democrats? (powerlineblog.com)
• Could Democrats Lose Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat? (seattlepi.com)
• MA-Sen: More on Scott Brown (dailykos.com)
• Martha Coakley Blamed By Dems For Close Race In Massachusetts (huffingtonpost.com)
• Will Scott Brown kill Obamacare even if he loses in Massachusetts? (trueslant.com)
• Coakley: Toast (cehwiedel.com)
• A lot on the line in the Bay State (washingtonmonthly.com)
• DAVID BRODER | Christopher Dodd, Straight Shooter (kitsapsun.com)

'Audacity to Win': Excerpt by Plouffe on Obama Campaign - Time

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

In a new memoir, The Audacity to Win, David Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama's 2008 race for the White House, provides a behind-the-scenes glimpse inside the campaign. Here's an excerpt:

Agony. Ecstasy.
The [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright story broke on a Wednesday and exploded across the media landscape the next day. We decided Obama had to take questions about [his former pastor's inflammatory sermons] head-on on Friday, in a series of lengthy national cable interviews.

There was one not-so-minor complication. He was already scheduled to do editorial boards that Friday afternoon with both Chicago papers about [real estate developer and political fundraiser] Tony Rezko, two hours each, no holds barred. Given no choice but to address Wright as soon as possible, we decided we would do a round of TV interviews on him directly after the Rezko boards. It shaped into quite a day, like having your legs amputated in the morning and your arms at night. The question was whether we would still have a heartbeat at the end of the day.

It was chaos and, quite frankly, frightening. I felt as if the wheels could easily spin off our whole venture. Still, Obama was the pillar of reassurance. "Don't worry, guys," he told us while making some notes on a stack of pages. "I can do more than one thing at a time. We are taking the trash out today. It won't be fun, but we'll be stronger for it." (See pictures of Barack Obama's convention-week journey.)

Obama handled everything with brilliance. The editorial boards, though grueling, went well. Obama called me after 11 that night, while my wife and son were sleeping. "So we survived. But it feels really unsatisfying — to me and I'm sure to voters ... I think I need to give a speech on race and how Wright fits into that. Whether people will accept it or not, I don't know. But I don't think we can move forward until I try."

Obama had raised giving a race speech back in the fall. At the time, [chief strategist David] Axelrod and I strenuously disagreed, believing that we should not inject into the campaign an issue that for the most part was not on voters' minds. Now we were in a much different situation. I agreed that a traditional political move — the damage-control interviews we had done that night — would not be enough. But a speech was fraught with peril. If it was off-key, it could compound our problems.

He said he was calling Axelrod and that after they spoke, he wanted me to call Ax and then conference him in; the three of us would make a decision. "I don't want a big meeting or conference call on this," he told me. "You and Ax and I will arbitrate this. But know this is what I think I need to do, so I'll need an awfully compelling argument not to give this speech. And I think it needs to be delivered in the early part of next week and I need to write most of it."

Axelrod and I spoke a few minutes later and quickly decided we were in uncharted waters. There was no playbook for how to handle something like this. It had never been done. "He really wants to give this speech," I concluded. "And I don't have a better idea. Do you?"

"Nope," said Ax. He began to fret about the real-world problems of constructing the most important speech of our candidacy largely on the fly, when I interrupted: "Look, let's call him and walk through it," I said. "We'll do the speech, but he has to own the reality of the time constraints." (See TIME's best pictures of Barack Obama.)

We conferenced Barack in. "So?" he asked. "What's the deal?" We told him we agreed with the speech but that it was going to be hard to put it together.

"Tonight is Friday — well, Saturday morning," I said. "We have to give this speech no later than Tuesday. You have a full schedule in Pennsylvania the next three days. It has already been publicized. If we start canceling events, it will fuel the impression that we're panicked and our candidacy is on the rocks."

From The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama's Historic Victory by David Plouffe. ©2009 by Plouffe Strategies Ltd. To be published by Viking, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

Watch a video of Barack Obama at the Inauguration.

Watch a video of Barack Obama's last days on the campaign trail.

"No, we can't cancel anything," Obama interjected. "But I already know what I want to say in this speech. I've been thinking about it for almost 30 years. I'll call [lead campaign speechwriter Jon Favreau] in the morning and give him some initial guidance. And I'll work on this during downtime in the hotel room each night. Don't worry. Even if I have to pull all-nighters, I can make this work." We were flying by the seat of our pants. Somehow we had to keep faith that it would come together. (See pictures of Barack Obama's speechwriting team.)

The speech received rave reviews from political commentators and spawned hundreds of positive editorials. More important, voters also responded very well to it. Wright still bothered them — but they respected how Obama dealt with the issue.

As was the case throughout the campaign, most people did not watch the speech on TV. It was delivered on a Tuesday morning, when just about everyone was at work. Instead, people watched it online, most of them on YouTube, either as it was happening or at their leisure later that day or in the days to come. Eventually, tens of millions of voters saw the speech through various outlets.

This marked a fundamental change in political coverage and message consumption, and one that will only continue as technology rolls forward: big moments, political or otherwise, will no longer be remembered by people as times when everyone gathered around TVs to watch a speech, press conference or other event. Increasingly, most of us will recall firing up the computer, searching for a video and watching it at home or at the office — or even on our cell phones.

Filling Out the Ticket
What surprised me at [our first meeting to discuss the vice presidency] was that Obama was clearly thinking more seriously about picking Hillary Clinton than Ax and I had realized. He said if his central criterion measured who could be the best VP, she had to be included in that list. She was competent, could help in Congress, would have international bona fides and had been through this before, albeit in a different role. He wanted to continue discussing her as we moved forward.

We met again a couple of weeks later in mid-June and winnowed the list down to about 10 names.

At our next meeting, we narrowed the list down to six. Barack continued to be intrigued by Hillary. "I still think Hillary has a lot of what I am looking for in a VP," he said to us. "Smarts, discipline, steadfastness. I think Bill may be too big a complication. If I picked her, my concern is that there would be more than two of us in the relationship." (See pictures of the last days of Hillary Clinton's campaign.)

Neither Ax nor I were fans of the Hillary option. We saw her obvious strengths, but we thought there were too many complications, both pre-election and postelection, should we be so fortunate as to win. Still, we were very careful not to object too forcefully. This needed to be his call.

We had initially received a lot of advice from many of her supporters to pick her, though this "advice" was perhaps more accurately described as subtle pressure. Their fervor was abating a bit every day, though, helped by Hillary's comments that this was Obama's decision and that he should be left to make it.

In early August, he narrowed his list down to three names: Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia. Hillary did not make the last cut. At the end of the day, Obama decided that there were just too many complications outweighing the potential strengths. But I gave him a lot of credit for so seriously thinking about his fierce former rival. Some in the Clinton orbit thought we gave Hillary short shrift. My view is that any serious consideration was somewhat surprising given all the complications and the toxicity during the primary campaign.

Shortly before he took off for Hawaii and his much needed vacation, Obama asked Axelrod and me to meet with the three finalists. [We] pieced together a schedule that had us departing Chicago at 5:30 a.m. for Wilmington, Del., to meet with Biden; then on to West Virginia, where Bayh was vacationing with his family; and then to Virginia to meet with Kaine.

See pictures of Joe Biden.

Read "Biden's Debate Challenge: Keeping His Mouth Shut."

The [first] meeting started with Biden launching into a nearly 20-minute monologue that ranged from the strength of our campaign in Iowa ("I literally wouldn't have run if I knew the steamroller you guys would put together"); to his evolving views of Obama ("I wasn't sure about him in the beginning of the campaign, but I am now"); why he didn't want to be VP ("The last thing I should do is VP; after 36 years of being the top dog, it will be hard to be No. 2"); why he was a good choice ("But I would be a good soldier and could provide real value, domestically and internationally"); and everything else under the sun. Ax and I couldn't get a word in edgewise.

It confirmed what we suspected: this dog could not be taught new tricks. But the conversation also confirmed our positive assumptions: his firm grasp of issues, his blue collar sensibilities and the fact that while he would readily accept the VP slot if offered, he was not pining for it. (Read "The Five Faces of Barack Obama.")

Later that day, we met with the two other finalists. Bayh's answers to our questions were substantively close to perfect, if cautiously so. Seeing Bayh right after Biden provided some interesting contrasts and comparisons. Listening to Bayh talk, I thought, There's no way this guy will color outside the lines. Biden may cross them with too much frequency. Biden will probably end up having more range — he can reach higher heights but could cause us real pain. Bayh's upside and downside are probably the closest spread of the three. As the day grew long, we headed to Richmond, our last stop. We appreciated [Kaine's] opening remarks. "I'd be honored to be picked," he told us. "But I have to assume I'm at the bottom of the list right now. I'll try to explain why I think I'd be a good pick, both for the campaign and after we win, but just know that I won't have an ounce of hard feelings or disappointment if I don't get picked. I signed on to this team in the beginning — all I want is for Barack to be elected President."

There was no great way to explain putting someone with no foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. If we chose him, we would need to rely on some of the same language we had used on this issue as it related to Obama — judgment vs. Washington experience, a new foreign policy vision vs. the status quo — but doubling down would make it twice as tough for us to roll this boulder uphill.

Later that night, we held a conference call with Obama to brief him on our day. "Well, it sounds like you both are for Biden, but barely," he said. "I really haven't settled this yet in my own mind. It's a coin toss now between Bayh and Biden, but Kaine is still a distinct possibility. I know the experience attack people will make if we pick him. But if that really concerned me, I wouldn't have run in the first place. My sense is — and you tell me if the research backs this up — that Barack Hussein Obama is change enough for people. I don't have to convince people with my VP selection that I am serious about change." (Read "Obama and Biden's Chemistry Test.")

The selection of his vice-presidential nominee was his first presidential decision. On the evening of Aug. 17, he called Ax and me with the news. "I've decided," he said. "It's Biden."

Hurricane Sarah
We always knew this day was going to be a pain in the ass. Coming right off the exhaustion and exhilaration of our convention week and VP pick, we would have to jump right in and deal with theirs. But [Sarah] Palin was a bolt of lightning, a true surprise. She was such a long shot, I didn't even have her research file on my computer, as I did for the likely McCain picks. I started Googling her, refreshing my memory while I waited for our research to be sent.

Her story was original: small-town mayor takes on the Establishment and wins a governor's race; she was an avid hunter, sportswoman and athlete, and her husband was a champion snowmobiler; she had just given birth to a child with Down syndrome. A profile out of a novel, I thought.

But here she was, joining our real-life drama. And given her life story, coupled with the surprise nature of her selection, her entrance to the race would be nothing short of a phenomenon. But I also thought it was a downright bizarre, ill-considered and deeply puzzling choice. The one thing every voter knew about John McCain's campaign at this point was that it had been shouting from the rooftops that Barack Obama lacked the experience to be President.

Read "Behind Obama's Palin Strategy."

Read "How Did Sarah Palin Write Her Memoir So Fast?"

With the Palin pick, he had completely undermined his core argument against us. Worse yet for McCain, he would look inherently political in doing so. His strength — and the threat he posed to us — was rooted in the fact that many independent voters believed in his maverick reputation and believed he did not make his decisions by prioritizing politics over what was right. I guessed people would view this choice more as a political stunt than a sound, reasoned call.

On our 6:00 a.m. conference call, [campaign adviser] Anita Dunn, who had worked against Palin in Alaska in the 2006 governor's race, warned us that she was a formidable political talent — clearly not up to this moment, she assured us, but bound to be a compelling player and a real headliner in the weeks ahead. (Read about where Sarah Palin is going next.)

"All of you on this call should watch video of her debates and speeches," Dunn counseled. "The substance is thin, but she's a very able performer. And her story is out of Hollywood. She'll be a phenomenon for a while."

Our strategy with the other potential picks would've been to start by saying that choice X subscribed to the same failed George Bush policies as John McCain; all they were doing was doubling down on the same out-of-touch economic policies that had hurt American families. We should have gone the same way with Palin. But McCain had been haranguing us for months about experience, and we were incredulous that he had picked someone with zero foreign policy experience who had been a governor for less time than Obama had been a Senator. Galled by the hypocrisy, we moved in a more aggressive direction.

We decided to call McCain on the experience card directly. The value was in making him look political — essentially, calling him full of shit — and we sent out a release making that clear. "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency," it read. "Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies — that's not the change we need; it's just more of the same."

Our statement immediately received an enormous amount of attention because it went right at her experience. The press clearly sensed heat and was eager to help drive the fight. Seeing the reaction, I began to think perhaps we had misfired. Obama clearly thought so. He called me from the air. "Listen, I just told this to Axelrod and [communications director Robert] Gibbs," he began. "I understand the argument you guys were trying to make. And maybe we should make it someday. But not today. We shouldn't have put out the first part of that statement. I want to put out another statement that simply welcomes her to the race, and I'll call her and congratulate her when I land." (Read a two-minute bio of Robert Gibbs.)

I didn't disagree but thought backtracking would only add to the sense in the press that perhaps Palin was a brilliant game-changing pick that had scrambled the race. Even the famously disciplined Obama campaign can't get its story straight — this would be the blowback. "Look," I told him, "simply say that you're adding your own personal voice, one principal to another." He acknowledged that he understood and would watch his words. "We'll send out a personal statement from you and Biden," I said, "but it's important you not suggest we misfired on the original statement. Don't throw the campaign under the bus."

But when he took a few questions from the press later that day, he proceeded to drive the bus right over us. "I think that, you know, campaigns start getting these hair triggers, and the statement that Joe and I put out reflects our sentiments," he said. Great, I thought, already imagining the heat we'd take on this. But all in all, I felt solid about our instincts. Despite our clumsiness, I still thought we had nailed, in the predawn hours, what this pick would mean over time.

Obama and I had a long talk late that afternoon to evaluate Palin. "I just don't understand how this ends up working out for McCain," he said. "In the long term, I mean. The short term will be good for them. But when voters step back and analyze how he made this decision, I think he's going to be in big trouble. You just can't wing something like this — it's too important."

"I think we just need to sit back and play our game," said Obama. "It actually won't be bad to be off-Broadway for a few days. We should just leave her out of the equation. This is a race between John McCain and me. To the extent we talk about Palin, I think it should be about the differences in our selection processes — it illuminates differences in how we'd make decisions in the White House."

Read "Plouffe to Democrats: Calm Down."

See David Plouffe as a 2009 TIME 100 finalist.