Tuesday’s campaign round-up

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:

* The very last primaries in the Democratic nominating race are one week from today, when voters in Montana and South Dakota head to the polls. On ABC’s “Good Morning America,” George Stephanopoulos said the race is “almost certain to end” shortly after those contests, and predicted that “several dozen” superdelegates will move to Obama shortly after June 3.

* CNN: “Former President Bill Clinton said that Democrats were more likely to lose in November if his wife Hillary Clinton is not the party’s presidential nominee, and suggested some people were trying to ‘cover this up’ and ‘push and pressure and bully’ superdelegates to make up their minds prematurely.”

* Software used by the Federal Election Commission can’t download data files with more than 65,536 rows or 256 columns. Given the success of the Democratic presidential candidates in raising money, that’s proving to pose quite a practical problem: “The campaign finance reports filed by Obama and Clinton have grown so massive that they’ve strained the capacity of the Federal Election Commission, good government groups, the media and even software applications to process and make sense of the data.”

* The Clinton campaign has repeatedly argued that Bill Clinton didn’t win the Democratic nomination in 1992 until June. The NYT fact-checks the claim and finds that it’s rather misleading. (Even the former president’s own autobiography explained that he locked down the nomination in early April.)

* USA Today: “Twice as many veterans of the Iraq war are running for Congress than in 2006, and this year Republican candidates outnumber Democrats. Although many of the veteran candidates still face primaries and some are long shots, the outcome in November could well increase the number of combat veterans serving in Congress, a group that has been dwindling since 2000.”

* In the early ’90s, John McCain forcefully opposed women pilots having the opportunity to fly in combat missions. McCain ultimately lost, and American women have since flown hundreds of combat missions. Nearly two decades later, however, McCain continues to believe he was right, and that the women who have served in combat missions should have been kept on the ground.

* After a rough few weeks, Al Franken may be regaining his footing in the Senate race in Minnesota. A new Rasmussen poll shows him narrowing the gap against incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R), 47% to 45%. A month ago, Rasmussen showed Coleman up by seven.

* Speaking of encouraging polls, I’m almost reluctant to believe this one: “The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the Kentucky Senate race shows Democratic challenger Bruce Lunsford with a five percentage point lead over long-time Republican Senator Mitch McConnell. The poll, conducted just two days after Lunsford won the Democratic nomination, shows the challenger with 49% of the vote while McConnell earns 44%.” When considering the various scenarios in which the Dems gets to 60, Kentucky is rarely if ever considered part of the mix.

* Mike Huckabee laments the fact that Republicans use a winner-take-all delegate system when picking a nominee. (I bet Mitt Romney is thinking the same thing.)

* And if the landscape weren’t bleak enough for Republicans, appointed Sen. Roger Wicker (R) of Mississippi is struggling in his plans to win a full term in office. Wicker now has a new ad running introducing himself to voters.

I suspect that every one of today’s women combat pilots is a more competent pilot than John “Wet Start” McCain.

  • Bill Clinton …suggested some people were trying to ‘cover this up’

    This is just sad. A conspiracy theory?

    Mike Huckabee laments the fact that Republicans use a winner-take-all delegate system

    I’d be willing to bet that a lot of Republicans agree. The problem is even if you like their platform, they didn’t have any candidates that could pass a vetting process. But their primary was a lot like a game of musical chairs. Everyone had his share of problems. You just had to hope the music stopped while your candidate was in the right spot.

  • I *could* make the argument that our military is currently undermanned (underwomanned?) because these types of anti-woman and anti-gay opinions are quite common among our military “leaders”.

    But really, the primary reasont that we’re undermanned is because of a stupid war.

  • John McLame is giving a speech and there is a someone in the crowd yelling to bring home the troops…..you go guy!

  • I suspect that every one of today’s women combat pilots is a more competent pilot than John “Wet Start” McCain.

    I would equally suspect that every one of today’s women combat pilots—COMBINED—have lost less combat aircraft than John “Wet Start” McCain. I don’t know that any of them have tried to immolate an aircraft carrier (USS Forrestal) and its crew, either….

  • Bill Clinton should know better than to use campaign blackmail. No republican will win the WH after this current disaster no matter who wins the dem primary. Threatening a McCain win unless we vote for their candidate is prevalent on both sides and is fear mongering blackmail as if this is a way of punishing the “other” side. What crap. No repub will win the WH this election and he knows that.

  • “* Software used by the Federal Election Commission can’t download data files with more than 65,536 rows or 256 columns. Given the success of the Democratic presidential candidates in raising money, that’s proving to pose quite a practical problem: “The campaign finance reports filed by Obama and Clinton have grown so massive that they’ve strained the capacity of the Federal Election Commission, good government groups, the media and even software applications to process and make sense of the data.””

    Just a quick question. Why is this the first time this has been a problem? Normally the Democrats have relied on a smaller number of big donors, but the Republicans have always had a large base of small donors. Even if this the first time the Democrats’ fundraising has broken the system, shouldn’t the Republicans have done so in the past?

  • Former President Bill Clinton said that … some people were trying to ‘cover this up’ and ‘push and pressure and bully’ superdelegates to make up their minds prematurely.

    I guess he forgot that Clinton started the primary with a 100-margin lead among superdelegates. No, nothing premature about that.

  • Hearken unto the pearls of military wisdom from John “I served you didn’t” McCainiac:

    Gays in the military pose an “intolerable risk.” (At least the U.S. military, pay no attention to the dozens of other countries that allow gays and lesbians to serve outside the closet.)

    Increasing soldiers’ educational opportunities will harm the military. (CB has already covered that one.)

    “At no time in the history of our nation have women been in combat roles.” (Pu-leeze.)

    That’s 3-for-3 in the Wrong Sweepstakes from the guy who is trying to run on his military experience. And given the logic behind the historical argument, you have to wonder what his stance would have been on racially integrating the military.

    I am so looking forward to watching this hack go down in flames.

  • Bill Clinton has substantially confirmed any doubts that I ever had about him and Hillary. He now has officially shit in his own hat and pulled it over his eyes while wagging that nagging finger in front of our faces. If Bill looks in the mirror he will be looking at the Clinton dynasty terminator himself. Thanks Bill!

  • Folks, again, I don’t think that attacking McCain’s military service or airmanship is a good idea.

  • Bill Clinton seems bent on proving that he has completely slipped his gears and no longer has even a nodding acquaintance with reality. What a terrible tragedy.

  • CNN: “Former President Bill Clinton said that Democrats were more likely to lose in November if his wife Hillary Clinton is not the party’s presidential nominee, and suggested some people were trying to ‘cover this up’ and ‘push and pressure and bully’ superdelegates to make up their minds prematurely.”

    I read this article and it was reminiscent of most of the other sad, lame conspiracy theories that abound on the net.

    I did get a chuckle yesterday when Cokie Roberts was talking about her new book “Ladies of Liberty” on the Diane Rehm show and Diane asked Cokie whether she thought Bill was trying to sabotage Hillary’s campaign since “…after all, she’d be the one remembered in the history books as the first woman President.”

    That would explain a lot!

  • Franklin – yeah, it would never work, especially against a real hero

    Cough (Kerry) Cough
    Cough (Swiftboat) cough

  • Buzzmon-

    Aside from it just not being right (in either McCain’s or Kerry’s case), I remain unconvinced that it’s going to work on a guy who spent 5 years being tortured.

    It’s good to be respectful when respect is due. It makes one look more reasonable.

    -Franklin

  • Remember the Rove motto: attack their strengths. I don’t generally agree with Rove, but we’ve got to stop McCain from using his POW status as the answer to EVERY question about his platform (like he responded to the recent comment about his enjoying govt provided healthcare most of his life with how insulted he was by the comment implying he was covered in the Hanoi Hilton)…

  • BTW, I sure hope Mitch McConnell gets the boot. Every time I see him on TV with his tiny mean lips, I want to barf. Has anyone noticed how many Republicans have mean little mouths (like they just ate a prune)?

  • I would love to see some variant of the Chris Carney FISA ad used against McConnell (details on Carney ad here). I fully support going after the worst Blue Dogs even if it risks a couple of House seats, the issue is incredibly important. Just saying it might be pretty effective against Republicans like McConnell in close races too.

  • Not only will Excel 2007 open 1 million rows, there is free spreadsheet software that will as well. This shouldn’t be a problem.

    ….but the Republicans have always had a large base of small donors.

    Not really. The GOP has always lived off a small number of large donors. It is internet fund raising exploited by the Democrats that has really made it easy for small donors to chip $10, $20 or $50 in a quick and easy method.

  • The Democratic Party should go all out against McConnell. If he gets knocked out, that’s big. Even if he doesn’t, putting him on the defensive will pay dividends in terms of how he leads Republicans in the Senate between now and November. For instance, if he’s personally on the defensive on telco immunity for FISA violations then he’ll be less inclined to pay legislative hardball when this comes back to the front burner in August (or perhaps sooner).

  • On the one hand Franklin is correct. There is no need to go after McCaniac’s war record because his war record is largely irrelevant to the job he wants. In addition, he would have had to single-handedly wiped out the Viet Cong to cover up the stench of his political record. The guy stinks on dry ice.

    However, I’m always puzzled by cautions to watch what we say. Huh? Why? Sure some desperate McCain operative could go nut picking through the liberal blogosphere and publish nasty comments about his service, but I triple dog dare the GOP to get into that kind of contest with any Democratic candidate. A dem wouldn’t even need to go into the murky depths of the comments section. He could pull what the actual blog owners are writing for some prime examples of the major psychoses that afflict the fRight Wing.

    Plus, we have a basic grasp of grammar.

  • True, true.

    However, if I may make an analogy to the Clinton/Obama wars, I think it’s mainly the rabid Obama *supporters*, not Obama himself, who has turned off many of those who support Clinton. And it is precisely because they attacked everything about Clinton in such a vitriolic fashion. (And vice versa, of course, but I’m ignoring that because the primaries are over for all intents and purposes.)

    If any actual swing voters actually read the comments here, I think they would be turned off by people attacking McCain’s war record. I for one tend to listen more intently to people who appear reasonable.

    I guess that’s what I’m saying. I’m not trying to stifle truth; maybe McCain *did* wet start his jet. As Orange says, though, does that really tell us about his presidential qualities, especially given the sketchiness of the information about the incident?

  • I don’t think it makes sense to attack McCain’s military record but I think it’s fine to attack his military judgment. So far I think Sen. Obama’s done it right: “I respect the service he gave to his country when he was younger but he’s still misguided on the concerns of today”. (Also highlights the age difference.)

  • Franklin – you make good points, there are issues of right and wrong here. McCain’s years in captivity (even when offered an out because of his father’s position) is something that should out of bounds.
    So why do I feel that some of his military history is permissable? Perhaps the treatment that Kerry got (not to mention the purple band-aids). My anger directed at these people is so deep, I want to go nuclear on them, wipe them off the map for their collective evil. For instance, how many Iraqi children have been killed, maimed or orphaned by their actions? Now think of our fellow Americans serving in the military, think of their families.
    So, if McBush graduated close to the bottom of his class (as a legacy student)crashed a few planes, possibly caused the USS Forrestal fire, perhaps we should make mention of these situations.

  • * Mike Huckabee laments the fact that Republicans use a winner-take-all delegate system when picking a nominee. (I bet Mitt Romney is thinking the same thing.) — CB

    While Clinton’s campaign laments that our system is *not* winner take all, ’cause, if we had, she’d have been in the same catbird seat that McCain’s in and wouldn’t have to pander to Floridians and Michiganders and all those “hardworking voters, white voters”…

  • Buzzmon-

    Between the stolen 2000 election and all the points you’ve brought up (and more), there’s plenty of good reason to be angry. I recommend controlling it. Consider the following:

    This morning I received an e-mail from my cousin, addressed to me, other members of our family, and various names I did not recognize. The e-mail contained a “quote” from Barack Obama defending his non-usage of the flag lapel pin, where he *supposedly* said something to the effect of, “I don’t like choosing sides, in fact our national anthem is too bellicose … if it was up to me it would be, ‘I’d like to teach the world to sing.'” At the end of the e-mail, it urged readers to send Obama back to one of his favorite Muslim countries.

    My heartbeat skyrocketed. Quickly I checked snopes.com, and found exactly what I was looking for (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp). Note that version is ever-so-slightly different, missing the “send Obama back” part.

    Despite my anger, I had to balance this against my wish to keep the family on speaking terms. I simply replied (to All), “Senator Obama never made that statement” and included the link to snopes.

    Could I have said more? Certainly. But anything else that came out of my fingers could have came across as harsh, especially in an e-mail that is already pointing out that my cousin is spamming ridiculously false information. I think I played it fairly smart.

    -Franklin

  • if you had told me six months ago that today i would be screaming “bill clinton, STFU!” i would have said you were nuts.

    sadly, you would have been right.

    can somebody please ask that man to sit down and stop making an ass of himself?

  • Comments are closed.