Monday’s political round-up

November 5, 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:

* It looks like John Edwards will go a little further than he has before in challenging Hillary Clinton: “Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire,” Edwards plans to say in Iowa today, according to excerpts of a speech provided to the NYT by his campaign. “We only need one mode from our president: tell-the-truth mode all the time…. With less than 60 days to the caucus, Senator Clinton has still not given specific answers to specific questions. How many troops will she withdraw, and when will she withdraw them?”

* Speaking of Edwards, the former senator still can’t quite make a persuasive case about what he’ll do in a general election campaign while staying within the public-financing system: “I will have taken a principled stand. They will be awash in this corporate and lobbyist money, and the distinction will be absolutely clear. We can’t be a lighter version of them. We have to give Americans very clear choices in this election, and that’s one of the choices.” That’s pleasant rhetoric, but in this case, “principled stands” translates roughly to “not keeping up financially with a Republican juggernaut.”

* Fred Thompson survived his first Meet the Press appearance as a presidential candidate, but probably raised a few conservative eyebrows by noting his opposition to a constitutional amendment banning abortion, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo matter.

* Speaking of Thompson, his campaign got a little bad news yesterday when the WaPo discovered that businessman Philip Martin, a top Thompson backer who makes his private jet available to the candidate on the campaign trail, has a controversial criminal background, including charges of cocaine-trafficking and conspiracy.

* In response to Thompson’s MTP comments, Mike Huckabee is wasting no time going on the offensive. “Sen. Thompson’s philosophy seems to be more ‘cut and run’ when it comes to these issues, rather than stand and lead,” Huckabee said in a statement.

* Tomorrow is Election Day in Kentucky, and with Dems poised to do very well, the state Republicans are scraping the bottom of the homophobic barrel: “The state GOP is now sending a robo-call throughout the state featuring none other than Pat Boone, warning that as a Christian he is concerned that Democratic nominee Steve Beshear, who has been way ahead in the polls, will work for ‘every homosexual cause.’ … And at a campaign stop last night, the Lexington Herald-Leader reports, the Republican nominee for Lt. Governor made a direct attack upon the Democratic ticket: ‘Do you want a couple of San Francisco treats or do you want a governor?'”

* Former Vice President Walter Mondale endorsed Hillary Clinton yesterday, praising the frontrunner for not criticizing her rivals who trail her in all the polls. “One thing that I like about her campaign,” Mondale said, “is that she’s stayed focused on her positive vision for change. She knows that it’s not the time to tear down our fellow Democrats with personal attacks.”

* Chris Dodd made the case yesterday that “Earth Day” shouldn’t just be one day. “It takes leadership that can truly make this an issue not just on ‘Earth Day’ but every single day that you’re in the White House,” the Connecticut senator said.

* In case you missed it, Barack Obama made a surprise cameo on Saturday Night Live over the weekend, in a pretty funny bit.

I’ve hit TV’s Fred pretty hard since his hot wife evidently dragged him into the campaign to satisfy her ambition, but I applaud his principled consistency on the federalism point. This is a guy who–in very sharp contrast not just to his Republican rivals but the Democratic front-runner as well–clearly gets that checks and balances are a strength to be preserved, not an obstacle to be knocked over. This includes the checks and balances between states and federal authority as well as between the executive and legislature.

If we somehow had to have a Republican president, kept in check by a (hopefully more) Democratic congress, Fred would be my clear choice.

  • Not only is Edwards a losing proposition, his stand is not even a principled one. His claims of being more principled than Obama and Clinton don’t hold up very well when he receives a huge percentage of his contributions from fellow trial lawyers, placing him more in the debt of a single special interest than any of the other candidates.

    Edwards has also been more secretive than Obama and Clinton in revealing the identies of those who have raised the most money for him. More here:

    http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2328

  • Edwards is at the end of his rope.
    That’s good.
    Someone has got to be the bull in the hair salon.

    What he needs to do is back up charges of triangulation with some actually quotes.
    Connect the dots for us.
    Show us how they form a red triangle of deception.
    If he does that things can get interesting.

    One thing is certain…
    If Hillary wins the nomination, he won’t be vice president.
    He has stomped that possibility into the ground.

  • If we somehow had to have a Republican president, kept in check by a (hopefully more) Democratic congress, Fred would be my clear choice.

    My clear choice would be a Democratic congress, as in a congress that does what the people need it to do and defend the constitution. So far all we have are a bunch of assholes who sell us all down the river every chance they get. Read Greenwald today if you think the Dems intend to stand up against any of the atrocities.

    They don’t.

    What Judge Mukasey believes is, without question, radical and disturbing. His beliefs — from the power of the President to violate Congressional statutes to limitless war powers to the authority to order barbaric interrogation methods — would have been unthinkable six years ago in an Attorney General. But now, it and he are well within mainstream Beltway ideology, thanks to some combination of acquiescence and active support from the core of both political parties. And there is something deeply artificial and manipulative about a Congress that has decided to permit all of these things to take root to pretend suddenly that they are so offended by them…

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/02/mukasey/index.html

  • “With less than 60 days to the caucus, Senator Clinton has still not given specific answers to specific questions. How many troops will she withdraw, and when will she withdraw them?” – John Edwards

    This is a spectacularly stupid tactic, and just shows the desperation in the Edwards campaign at this point. No candidate can give specific answers to something like that, including Edwards himself. Notice that he gives no dates and numbers either, which proves my point.

    Instead of being forceful and agressive, he continues to come across as petulant and whining. Give us a break, John. You should be better than this.

  • That’s pleasant rhetoric, but in this case, “principled stands” translates roughly to “not keeping up financially with a Republican juggernaut.”

    Maybe Edwards has more faith that the American voter can’t be fooled by multi-million dollar ad campaigns. What makes you so sure that they will be fooled? Apart from every election before now, especially the last one.

  • It looks like John Edwards will go a little further than he has before in challenging Hillary Clinton: “Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire,” Edwards plans to say in Iowa today, according to excerpts of a speech provided to the NYT by his campaign. “We only need one mode from our president: tell-the-truth mode all the time…. With less than 60 days to the caucus, Senator Clinton has still not given specific answers to specific questions. How many troops will she withdraw, and when will she withdraw them?”

    This is being a bully. He’s trying to make her sound like she’s something she’s not just to chip away at her.

  • Edwards is correct in calling Clinton out into the light of day. She votes with the Republicans while saying she is for change.

    Thompson has distanced himself from the other Republicans, which is a breath of fresh air from a very stale party.

    Dodd as always is right on target, but receives such little publicity.

    Who would be my top three for the job? Dodd, Richardson, Edwards. Are they the top three in the public mind? — Not if money and corporate media means anything.

  • Hang on a second with Thompson. I understand that he claims to be opposed to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage outright, but he is in favor, or at least has said he was in the past, of a federal constitutional amendment that would prevent state courts from interpreting their own state constitutions to require gay marriage (a la Massachusetts). This is not consonant with a principled stand on federalism. And it is not some sort of liberal position on gay marriage, either. It’s ludicrous.

    • Comments are closed.