Friday’s campaign round-up

February 1, 2008

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:

* Just how serious were the financial troubles facing John McCain’s campaign up until recently? He took out a $3 million loan, but had to take out a special life-insurance policy in the event he died during the presidential race. Wow.

* Speaking of finances, Barack Obama, fresh off the best month of primary fundraising any presidential candidate has ever had, is poised to launch “an eight-figure, 24-state barrage of television advertising, heading into the Super Tuesday contests and beyond, that will carry his message to twice as many states as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ads will reach with her current ad buy.”

* And in still more financial news, Mitt Romney “spent $18 million of his own fortune in the fourth quarter on his bid for the White House, according to reports filed today with the Federal Election Commission. That brings Romney’s total personal contribution for 2007 to $35.35 million. Romney, founder of Bain Capital, is worth a reported $250 million in addition to money he has stored in a trust for his five sons.” Romney raised about $9 million from individuals in the fourth quarter and $53 million for the entire year.

* A number of unions had backed John Edwards’ presidential bid, and with his departure, the race is on among Obama and Hillary Clinton to pick up their support. Today, the 200,000-member Transportation Workers Union will move from Edwards to Obama, the first national AFL-CIO union to endorse Obama’s presidential campaign. California’s SEIU may do the same.

* Following up on a reference she made in last night’s debate, the Clinton campaign is “buying an hour on the Hallmark Channel on the eve of Feb. 5 Super Tuesday presidential primaries to air part of a 90-minute national town hall meeting. Dubbed ‘Voices Across America,’ it will take place in New York and will air Feb. 4 at 9 p.m. Eastern Time. The extra 30 minutes will also be available on the internet and at 21 live events across the country.”

* The conservative Washington Times reports this week that Obama, four years ago, told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use or possession. A campaign spokesperson said the senator has “always” supported decriminalizing marijuana.

* Salon’s War Room: “With the approval of a majority of its members, MoveOn.org has convened a poll to help determine whether the group will endorse a candidate in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination and, if so, who that nominee will be. MoveOn, which began during the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, has never endorsed a presidential candidate, though last time around former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean came close to earning the nod. This cycle, the Nation’s Ari Melber reports, it will be even harder for either of the two front-runners, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, to reach the threshold required for the endorsement. In the last presidential election cycle, the support of a simple majority of the group’s members was needed to get the endorsement; this time, MoveOn has decided to require a supermajority of 66 percent.”

* Connecticut’s Democratic primary, one of many on Feb. 5, is drawing increasing attention because it’s likely to be one of the more competitive contests. Yesterday, Reps. John Larson and Chris Murphy threw their support to Obama.

* Is Al Franken really ahead in Minnesota’s Senate race? Apparently, so.

* Giuliani backers are starting to move to their second choices. Rick Perry and Ted Olson are moving to McCain, while Sean Hannity is going to Romney.

Appropo to nothing, but just a curious question:

When I hear reporters talk about Super Tuesday, I normally hear something like “when more than 20 states cast ballots…” Why not say “when 24 states cast ballots”? Why sacrifice precision? The “more than” construction isn’t any easier to say. Do people prefer to think in round generalities rather specific numbers? Is this construct more accessible to people who are number phobic or lack numeracy? Or is it just lazy reporting? (“I’m not really sure about the number so I’ll just say it in a general way.”)

  • Ted Olson endorsing McCain: Olson is the guy whose law firm represents Cong. Jerry Lewis in his corruption case. They hired U.S. Attorney Debra Wong Yang, who had been investigating the case, away from the Justice Dept. It seems to have languished since then. Perhaps this endorsement could be huge for establishment Republicans.

  • I can imagine a Romney solicitation:

    “Hi, I’m Mitt Romney. Although I have $250 million, I need you to send me a check so I won’t have to tap into my kid’s multimillion dollar estates. We really need to win in November so we can eliminate the death tax…”

  • Following up THE DESPERATE PLUG she made in last night’s debate, the Clinton campaign is “buying an hour on the Hallmark Channel on the eve of Feb. 5 Super Tuesday presidential primaries to air part of a 90-minute national town hall meeting.

    I just love town hall meetings. Don’t you?
    They make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
    I love it when candidates hear us ordinaries out.
    And look us in the eye and tell us help is on the way.

    For a moment…
    I feel just as important…
    As the lobbyists who give the candidates the money to hold these televised town halls.

    Really looking forward to Monday.
    Can’t wait to have my voice heard!

  • Following up THE DESPERATE PLUG she made in last night’s debate, the Clinton campaign is “buying an hour on the Hallmark Channel on the eve of Feb. 5 Super Tuesday presidential primaries to air part of a 90-minute national town hall meeting.

    Will she roll up her sleeves? Will she have Security check the parking lot for cars with “Obama” stickers?

    Just asking.

  • I thought HRC’s plug for her “show” during the debate was slightly more annoying than the CNN chyron touting their “Broken Government: Health care crisis” during the substantive healthcare discussion… I guess she thought she was on the Today show or something 😉

  • McCain’s not too old to be president, he’s too old to get a loan without additional life insurance.

  • Obama’s assertion about “changing the mindset” that got us into war is spot-on, and perfectly illustrates what’s wrong with Hillary’s “toughness” on Iraq — “tough”, as in Bush appeasement.

  • Obama totally spanked Clinton in the MoveOn poll:

    Today Barack Obama earned the endorsement of MoveOn, one of the largest grassroots membership organizations in the United States, after clobbering Hillary Clinton by 40 percent in Internet balloting. Obama led the final tally 70.4% to 29.6%, clearing the supermajority required for the endorsement.

    Not even close!

  • Move On Endorses Obama

    Zeitgeist…
    If you are out there…
    And you must surely are:
    Now that is irony.
    (at least the way we wee folk use the term.)

  • Move On Endorses Obama

    Interesting. I wonder if this will be a net positive or negative for Obama, since MoveOn is widely misperceived as a “highly liberal partisan” group who were so radical they had to be censured by Congress.

    That, combined with Ted Kennedy’s endorsement (among others) might make his “post-partisan” message a bit tougher to sell in general to the low information voters out there.

  • RacerX said:

    McCain’s not too old to be president, he’s too old to get a loan without additional life insurance.

    LOL And I bet that was some very expensive life insurance too.

  • RacerX, @13,

    Pretty stunning, no? Just after CB finished telling us that supermajority would make be that much harder to achieve, too.

    Though how MoveOn’s endorsement is gonna play with the “moderates” of JRS’s kind is anyone’s guess 🙂 And the hardcore Repubs are going to have conniption fits and redouble their efforts at tearing Obama down; I don’t think they’ve ever forgiven us the “General Betray-us” ad.

  • Tom Bisson @ 1 – I think the reason is that in some of these states, it is only a primary for one party, with the other party’s primary being held on a diffferent date.

  • memekiller said:
    Obama’s assertion about “changing the mindset” that got us into war is spot-on, [deletia]

    That is so true. No more policeman of the world. No more vice squad of the world. No more protection racket to the world.

  • Not to rain on anyone’s parade – really – but here’s a little context: the 280,528 votes cast represented only 8.7665% of MoveOn’s 3.2 million membership. I received an e-mail asking for my vote –and I didn’t; apparently 91.2335% – or 2,919,472 members, also did not vote.

    I don’t know what it means – maybe that there are a lot of people who still have not made up their minds to the point where they are ready to choose. Maybe there were a lot of Edwards supporters who haven’t decided which of the two remaining candidates will be the progressive voice they thought Edwards represented. Maybe there were a lot of people who know that they will be voting for whichever one is the nominee, so it doesn’t matter to them.

    I was probably in all three of those camps when the e-mail arrived yesterday, which explains why I didn’t cast a vote.

  • Sean Hannity is going to Romney

    Sean who?

    “Though how MoveOn’s endorsement is gonna play with the “moderates” of JRS’s kind is anyone’s guess… ”

    No impact probably… although it does hint is he already the more liberal of the two candidates, Obama overcomes that with his claims that he will work accross party lines.

  • Dale:

    Has an anti-war candidate ever won the presidency?

    Yes.
    But only those that oppose a war
    AND…
    simultaneously refuse to set a withdraw deadline.

    By the way:

    Barack’s insistence on the need for the clarity of such a date was the debate’s most important moment. Everything else… was pretty much circumlocution.

  • Thanks for clarifying Anne. Good to hear such things from one of the horse’s mouths.

    NonyNony #16 makes a good point. Barack needs to be a little careful about all of the far left hanging on him … it could drag him down.

  • Has an anti-war candidate ever won the presidency? -Dale

    Assuming you mean Obama: Obama is not anti-war. He’s anti-stupid-unnecessary-wasteful-mismanaged-war.

    He seemed like we needed to refocus on Afghanistan in the debate last night.

  • This is a little disturbing: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/obama-does-harry-and-louise-again/

    Obama does Harry and Louise, again

    The Obama campaign sends out an ugly mailer. Sorry, but this is just destructive — like the Obama plan, the Clinton plan offers subsidies to lower-income families. And BO himself has conceded that he might have to penalize people who don’t buy insurance until they need care. So this is just poisoning the well for health care reform. The politics of hope, indeed.

    This isn’t something that helps Obama push his plan over hers, it’s something that helps kill universal health care altogether.

    Not the best use of judgment as far as I can tell.

  • Whoa!

    Krugman is worried about a small time mailer about dual health care plans that differ nominally?
    Neither of which will become law as they are currently composed?

    Meanwhile Bill is running around in private planes putting together shady deals for business friends to corner the uranium market in Kazakhstan?

    Uh…
    Knock-knock Krugman….
    Answer this for me:
    What is Hillary going to do when that uranium company comes knock-knocking on the White House door. Demand a blowjob?

    Conclusion:
    Krugman, in his Barack Obama hatred, has jumped the shark.

  • Wow…Moveon members voted to endorse Barak. Guess my friend’s 35-36 votes(he couldn’t be sure) really helped. On line voting…gotta love it(the site said “you promise to only vote once”..seriously). I believe the voters are already united to change our current situation. Glad to see that Obama will get those obstrutionist senators to unite with us. Glad to see all those war supporters finally coming around to our way of thinking and give up on the billions they are making war profiteering, and especially grateful that Obama will convince the evangelicans to forget about teaching creationism in schools. There will be no more outsourcing of jobs and the wealthy will finally agree to give up the billions they save in tax cuts and big pharm will have to negotiate on drug prices. And I was worried that Exxon/Mobile would continue trying to keep us dependent on oil for all our energy needs. No other candidate before was able to unite the country since Bush/Cheney/Rove set about to divide it but now we will all come together as one great nation. I forgot…how was he going to do that again? Not that it makes any difference but I’m so grateful Obama is a Democrat. He will be one of the greatest presidents ever…if he would just look down once in awhile…see where his feet are planted. This man will generate more love than any president this decade except maybe Bill Clinton. Perhaps with enough love everything else will fall into place. Maybe even get to love Mitch McConnel, or Rush, or Shawn, or Bill O’Reilley, or even Bill Kristol when Obama unites us with them.

    Right now no one in the senate is doing anything to stop the lawlessness of Bush. They enable or approve every single instance of lawbreaking done by Bush or his corporate buddies. Mukasey has essentially told congress that Bush is above the law and congress has no business even questioning anything he does. He holds congress irrelevant and because there are no consequences for lawbreaking by the exec. or for the DoJ they will not even bother to explain themselves to congress. Congress is even begging them to be responsible to their checks and balances set in place by our founders and Mukasey’s answer (and he is speaking for the administration) is piss off, we’ll do whatever we want. Bush did another signing statement taking the ban off using tax payer money to build permanent bases in Iraq. The senate does nothing. I’ll be glad when Obama tells the DoJ to piss off and do their job as part of uniting the country under the rule of law. Maybe I should ask him if he will do that.

  • ***ROTMFL???WTF*** You always make asshole assumptions. Krugman doesn’t show hatred toward Obama by talking about his positions (or lack of) With you everything is hate and comdemnation. Krugman is not motivated by hatred of Obama. You so easily mange to get “blow-job” and “Clinton” in the same sentence. Obama is also a big nuclear power supporter. Isn’t Goldman-Sachs his largest campaign donors. Why aren’t you making the same claim about the knock on the door with Obama? You drag any discussion into the gutter by such remarks so why do you feel the need to take the discussion there? Most of us here just ignore your trash talk but once in a while you need to be reminded of how unhealthy you make the commenting section when you reduce it to name calling by innuendo and misogyny. Most here want to know both candidates and discovering is not attacking and there is no need to debase either candidate.
    How the hell would you know what Bill Clinton is doing enough to paint such a shady scenario. Was Bill wearing a disguise too? Pure bias and slanted opinion.

    ***Anne***Thanks for the stats. I get over 300 emails in my trash folders and only became aware the MO vote yesterday due to mention on this site. It’s extremely significant that over 91% of members didn’t vote. Puzzles me that move on would go ahead and endorse a candidate when less than 10% of its members didn’t vote. They should make that clear.

  • Krugman really has it in for Obama. He takes minor, arguable-on-the-merits distinctions and misrepresents them as progressive apostasy.

    My only guess is that after years of being demonized, probably in quite personal and painful/scary ways, by the unhinged nuts of the right, he so badly wants payback that he’s willing to overlook other candidates’ flaws. Y’know, like zeitgeist 😉

    I feel great admiration and enduring respect for Krugman–who was prescient in his characterization of the Loyal Bushies as a “revolutionary force” bent on destroying 220 years of American governance norms. But just because he can’t get over it, or fails to see that Democratic realignment is the best revenge, doesn’t mean all of us must follow suit.

  • bjo sez: Obama is also a big nuclear power supporter.

    Oh, really? Because he keeps it on the table, while Hillary says she’s “agnostic” about nuclear power? What the hell is that about?! Is she perhaps also agnostic about Bertrand Russell’s orbiting teapot? By saying she’s agnostic about it, all she’s saying is that she’s too afraid to offend somebody on either side by taking a position, or at best that she’s too ignorant about nuclear to make up her mind. In either case I’ll take Obama’s position over her non-position any day, though Obama still has a lot to learn about it. His energy advisor has his head up his ass, unfortunately, and Obama himself has been unable to get the information to make more informed decisions because the info can’t get through his lame advisors. Will he have better advisors if he wins the Oval Office? I sure hope so.

    And speaking of people who don’t know squat about nuclear power, bjo, what’s your excuse?

  • **Lindsay***what are you talking about? I never said anything about knowing about nuclear power. “…And speaking of people who don’t know squat about nuclear power, bjo, what’s your excuse?” This comment relates to nothing said . Never said anything about anybody not “knowing squat about nuclear power”. I never give excuses…only explanations and your last sentence makes no sense. Like saying ” I know you are but what am I” to the air. Is that your “so there” comment? lol.

  • Wow. Now I’ll have to fire up the kiln and start producing high-quality ceramic bookends. They’ll come in matching pairs—Krugman on the one side, and ABC’s Jake Tapper on the other. Now THERE’S a matched set if I ever saw one….

    • Comments are closed.