Tuesday’s political round-up

September 25, 2007

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* CNN: “Trying to reclaim the health care spotlight from campaign rival Hillary Clinton, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards unveiled his plan to combat HIV/AIDS during an appearance at the Families USA/Kaiser Foundation Health Care Forum on Monday in Washington, D.C. The former North Carolina senator argued that, in order to better combat HIV/AIDS domestically, Medicaid needs to provide more extensive coverage for HIV-related treatment. He also advocated teaching age-appropriate sex education and ending the federal ban on needle exchange programs.”

* Washington Times: “The National Rifle Association, which did not endorse President Bush in 2000 and 2004 until just a month before the general election, is considering stepping into the presidential campaign fray early next year during the primary season, the group’s chief lobbyist says…. ‘Historically, we have not gotten involved in primaries. We traditionally wait until after the conventions,’ said Chris Cox, head lobbyist for the NRA. ‘That being said, given the candidates and the process and the front-loading of the primaries, it is a possibility that we could get involved in one of these presidential primaries.'”

* The Politico’s Ben Smith reports that Atlantic Monthly staff writer Josh Green was poised to have a piece in GQ about infighting among Hillary Clinton staffers, but the magazine spiked the story. According to Smith, “Clinton’s aides pulled a page from the book of Hollywood publicists and offered GQ a stark choice: Kill the piece, or lose access to planned celebrity coverboy Bill Clinton.”

* Barack Obama hasn’t earned as many union endorsements as Edwards and Clinton, but yesterday he picked up the support of the Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association, a New York City union that represents 9,000 jail workers.

* In a piece profiling Sen. Chris Dodd’s (D-Conn.) work in publishing his father’s papers from the 1946 the Nuremberg trials, the NYT noted that Dodd had dated Bianca Jagger and Carrie Fisher during a “very public bachelorhood.” Why include this in the article at all? Isn’t this an example of what the NYT complained about over the weekend?

* And finally, Mitt Romney’s campaign came up with a “Create Your Own Ad!” contest, promising to buy TV time for the winning spot. It appears that Slate’s Bruce Reed came up with the most popular entry — it had more than 19,000 views, a 7,500-view lead over the next contender — but the Romney campaign doesn’t care for it.

…Mitt Romney’s campaign came up with a “Create Your Own Ad!” contest…

What a goddamn joke. 137 entries. It’s so obvious that Mittler’s entire campaign is predicated on the bucks in his bank account. He has zero grassroots support.

Him, Rudolf and Freddie of Hollywood are all strictly corporate frontmen.

  • “Dodd had dated Bianca Jagger and Carrie Fisher during a ‘very public bachelorhood.’”

    Chris Dodd Super-Stud! Is it possible Dodd wanted it added? I mean he is up against Romney’s man musk and runway-like shoulders.

  • So Hillary impedes freedom of speech at the Atlantic, threatening the magazine if it didn’t pull a potentially damaging article. So remind me again why she’s running as a Democrat…

  • * And finally, Mitt Romney’s campaign came up with a “Create Your Own Ad!” contest, promising to buy TV time for the winning spot. It appears that Slate’s Bruce Reed came up with the most popular entry — it had more than 19,000 views, a 7,500-view lead over the next contender — but the Romney campaign doesn’t care for it.

    This reminds me very much of a similar contest the GOP held last spring to have the public ask the GOP candidates a question in one of the debates. The winning question was rather embarassing and needless to say the GOP reneged on its promise.

    Is this how we can expect the GOP to handle real elections from now on? Lying, bait-and-switch tactics, and subverting the will of the voters?

  • Re: #3 – remind me again why you think that someone who writes an article embarrassing someone has a right to expect an interview from that person’s spouse.

  • Sounds like Hillary is taking a page out of the Loyal Bushie Cabal’s book: The 2004 Bush campaign banned a New York Times reporter from Vice President Dick Cheney’s jet…

  • I blame the Atlantic Monthy, not the Clintons. If you’re about real stories, print the Hillary piece. If you’re about advertising, kill it and put Bill on the cover.

    Atlantic had a choice. They made the cowardly one.

  • You want Bush to own the withdrawal? Easy. The Democratic candidate should make it clear their first order of business will be to start withdrawal, and that the military should have plans in place for that contingency. As the election approaches, if a Democratic win looks inevitable, you’ll start to see a withdrawal whether Bush wants one or not.

    People forget, there is almost as many private contractors in Iraq as soldiers, and our military is under no obligation to cover their exit. Once it looks like we’re leaving, then it doesn’t matter how cozy these companies are with the Bush Administration, they’re going to start getting the hell out of Dodge while there are still soldiers there to keep some measure of stability.

    Trust me, at the very least, in the period between the elction and the swearing in, there will be a huge exodus from Iraq in the thousands, all under Bush’s watch. The withdrawal will then be underway before we get in power, and it will be the inevitable mess it will be before we come in to save the day. If Bush refused to have a withdrawal plan, it will become clear we were again left unprepared as contractors leave, hanging any disaster that results around his neck. What’s more, you won’t have many cameramen sticking around to bring home bloody footage once their escorts are gone, and the story of sectarian killings will be the same — the MSM will gratefully move on to other stories unless it spills over into other countries, which should be our focus: the containment strategy we had under Clinton.

  • Re: #3 – remind me again why you think that someone who writes an article embarrassing someone has a right to expect an interview from that person’s spouse. -Rian Mueller

    You’re kidding, right? You can’t honestly believe that it’s acceptable for a former President to pick and choose media appearances based on who was mean to his poor widdle wife. It may be legal, but it is despicable. Using it as a preemptive threat is downright Bush-like. If she can’t take the heat, she isn’t Presidential material.

    Frankly, they should run the article alongside the threat and another article about why Clinton things she should control the media. I like my fourth estate threat free, thank you very much.

  • I think Rian’s position is really just common sense (and Adam at 7 had the right response). No one ever said exercising free speech is without consequences. If a business says something unflattering about me, or any member of my family, or otherwise acts to offend us or make us look bad, it is unlikely any of us will ignore the slight and give them our patronage. There are other choices, people who don’t treat us that way. It is not really some strongarm tactic to say “if you print negative stories on Hillary, you wont get to run favorable ones of Bill.” Bill has a lot of options for feature pieces, probably more than he can ever take – why wouldn’t he choose to go where people are favorable? (And this is not some bubble, Cheney-on-Fox-News thing; we aren’t talking news or official policy. We’re talking feature writing.) How many people here would blithely take the position “here i am to submit myself to you to kick me/my family again!” Not many, I suspect. It just isn’t a logical position.

  • Pingback: Lessons learned in the Romney camp | MegaAwesome

  • Re: #9:

    You’re kidding, right? You can’t honestly believe that it’s acceptable for a former President to pick and choose media appearances based on who was mean to his poor widdle wife. It may be legal, but it is despicable. Using it as a preemptive threat is downright Bush-like. If she can’t take the heat, she isn’t Presidential material.

    Frankly, they should run the article alongside the threat and another article about why Clinton things she should control the media. I like my fourth estate threat free, thank you very much.

    Yes, I do believe it’s acceptable for someone to decide who to associate with and whom to grant the boon (and obvious personal endorsement) of an interview, and who he should avoid granting interviews to. Status as a public figure, in any regard, has never carried with it an obligation to submit to questioning at demand by the media. It it hardly despicable.

    Are the Clintons supposed to come running to the Fox News studio every time Bill O’Reilly wants to shout and rant at them on the air? Of course not. Are the Democratic candidates under any sort of obligation to allow the GOP media to host and moderate one of their debates? Of course not. The freedom of speech includes the right to say no.

    What aggrandizes me is the application of “Clinton rules”, behavior by the Clintons that is perfectly appropriate and reasonable from anyone else, being upheld to put the Clintons in an unjustified and unfair light as power-hungry, unprincipled, and corrupt, when it is never, ever true.

  • Oops. I should have said GQ before, rather than Atlantic. The mention of Atlantic Monthly when the issue is entirely with GQ rather confuses the issue.

    The nature of the publication, I think, is an important distinction to make. Atlantic Monthly prints hard-hitting, adversarial journalism. GQ is a style magazine. I won’t blame GQ for staying true to its non-journalistic nature and choosing a celebrity interview over a adversarial reporting. If we were talking about Atlantic Monthly, and they killed the adversarial story in favor of a celeb interview, I would most definitely think less of them.

  • It’s one thing to shun media who consistently spew falsehoods, but to threaten media because they are critical or reporting something that isn’t all roses is cowardly. Like I said before, it’s legal, but it’s petty and despicable. I want my President to hold themselves to more than just the ‘it’s legal’ standard.

    Under Clinton nothing but the names change when it comes to controlling the media. Access will only be given to those who prostitute themselves literally and figuratively just like the Bush Administration. Good to know.

    (And this is not some bubble, Cheney-on-Fox-News thing; we aren’t talking news or official policy. We’re talking feature writing.) How many people here would blithely take the position “here i am to submit myself to you to kick me/my family again!” -Z

    If it’s not a bubble, it’s certainly the addition of detergent to water in the anticipation of blowing one later. How about looking at the interview as a chance to refute the article, unless of course it is irrefutable fact.

    How many of us are former Presidents and spouses of a candidate? They are in a unique position and I feel they are failing at setting a good example.

    As I understand it, they are holding an already agreed to interview and cover hostage against printing disparaging news.

    When did I wake up in 1980s Russia?

  • So the NRA feels that front-loading of primaries requires their early action….seems more likely that they need to prevent one particular Republican candidate from gaining the nomination.

    • Comments are closed.