Friday’s campaign round-up

April 18, 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:

* Rasmussen, which seems to have been hit or miss this year, shows the race in Pennsylvania tightening. Hillary Clinton now leads Barack Obama by three, 47% to 44%. On Monday, Rasmussen showed Clinton with a nine-point advantage. The same poll, however, said Obama’s support “appears to be a bit softer” than Clinton’s.

* Stephen Colbert pulled off quite a feat last night, with one episode featuring Clinton, Barack, and John Edwards (Obama appeared via satellite). Both Clinton’s and Obama’s appearances are online. (And I’d just add that anyone who thinks Clinton doesn’t have a sense of humor is wrong.)

* Gallup polled the 12 most competitive states from 2004 and found Obama and Clinton both leading John McCain by the exact same margin, 47% to 43%.

* In a bit of a surprise, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich endorsed Obama this week. He said he’d resisted, but was pushed over the edge by the Clinton’s campaign tactics: “We have three terrible traditions that we’ve developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn’t possibly believe and doesn’t possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I’ve seen growing in Hillary’s campaign.”

* I’m not optimistic: “According to his calendar, John McCain will appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos this Sunday. Something tells me that a lot of people will be watching to see if Steph asks McCain tough ‘gotcha’ questions designed to gauge his ‘electability’ and his ability to handle future attacks, as he claimed to be doing at Wednesday’s Dem debate. Anyone offering odds?”

* Jonathan Martin has an interesting item on the structure of the McCain campaign: “For reasons of financial necessity, personal preference and plain politics, John McCain is gearing up to run one of the least traditional presidential campaigns in recent history. The problem is that even prominent strategists within McCain’s own party wonder if his unorthodox strategy will work.”

* The flap over Obama’s “bitter” remarks is working its way down-ballot: “In a mail card for Republican congressional candidate Matt Shaner, who is running for the congressional seat being vacated by retiring Rep. John Peterson in Pennsylvania’s 5th Congressional District…. Voting for Shaner will ‘send a message’ to Barack Obama. Shaner’s message: ‘I’m a god-fearing, church-going, NRA member and I’m proud of it!'”

* The NYT’s David Brooks doesn’t love Obama anymore.

* And in the opposite direction: “From the politics/strange bedfellows file: Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has won an endorsement from Republican and former Nixon Watergate figure William D. Ruckelshaus. Ruckelshaus was serving as deputy attorney general in 1973 when he made history as part of the infamous Saturday Night Massacre. He and his boss, Attorney General Elliot Richardson, were fired after they refused Nixon’s order to dismiss the independent counsel investigating the Watergate break-ins…. ‘Senator Obama’s ability to attract not only Democrats, but also Republicans and Independents, makes him uniquely qualified to build the broad coalitions needed to address our nation’s challenges,’ said Ruckelshaus in a statement.”

The problem is that even prominent strategists within McCain’s own party wonder if his unorthodox strategy will work

“McCain will rely on free media to an unprecedented degree to get out his message in a fashion that aims to not only minimize his financial disadvantage but also drive a triangulated contrast among himself, the Democratic nominee and President Bush.” – Politico

Is this what he meant by ridding politics of Soft Money?

  • Something tells me that a lot of people will be watching to see if Steph asks McCain tough ‘gotcha’ questions designed to gauge his ‘electability’ and his ability to handle future attacks, as he claimed to be doing at Wednesday’s Dem debate. Anyone offering odds?

    That would depend on what Sean Hannity’s current position on McCain is.Puppets are only predictable if you know what the puppetmasters are thinking….

  • Scott @ 2

    I’ll do it for him… Reich is obviously a Judas…

    The nomination and presidency belong to Hillary by inheritance. And after 8 years of Hillary, we can have 8 years of Jeb Bush. Sorry Neil, you don’t get a turn! Then Chelsea will be old enough to have her turn & then it will be Jenna’s turn.

    Gosh, we don’t need to have elections. We can just turn the Imperial Unitary Presidency over to the Bushs & Clintons forever!

  • If Democratic voters had listened to my appearance on Sean Hannity’s show rather than mindlessly reciting what they told Gallup, they would know that flag lapel pins are foremost on the minds of Democratic voters, not the war, economy, corruption, civil rights and the environment. Had they listened to Sean Hannity, they would have known to place lapel pins higher on the list of priorites. I don’t like asking inane questions, believe me. They force me to ask them because that’s what they would want to hear, if they listened to Sean Hannity. Because I am objective, my past position in the Clinton Administration did not prevent me from taking a very good question of concern to Democrats from Sean Hannity. If they had paused for a moment to cool down between those thousands of nasty postings on our blog and could get past their partisan biases against Sean Hannity, they would see that Hannity is right, and that what they really want to hear is fluff and trivialities. So let’s all stop being elitist intellectuals and admit that we give you what you most crave. Believe me, if you didn’t have such a hunger for this stuff, I would be asking about stuff that matters, but you wouldn’t watch. My viewers are the shallow ones, not me.

    Continuing in this tradition, I will again turn to Sean Hannity to gather questions foremost on people’s minds about John McCain. For instance, we are all very familiar with the heroism you displayed as a POW in Vietnam, but could you relate the story to us again? I love that story. And when you’re done, can you give us an idea of how your heroism continues as a public servant? Is it difficult standing up to your party? Is it difficult when a crusader for reform like yourself is portrayed as having a cozy relationship with lobbyists? How do you keep such a positive attitude in the face of these attacks by the liberal media? Could I be doing a better job of shooting down the horrible distortion of your 100 year comment?

  • So McCain is going to use the media as his own personal team? Good luck with that.

    The real problem McCain is going to face is the rapidly stumbling US economy, gas prices that will be $4+ US a gallon, and inflation. He can’t run from the “outstanding” Republican record on this. He can wax poetic about being a Maverick and the family line and how he’s a war hero, but it’s not going to do anything to give Americans jobs or pay their bills. All they are going to see is a guy who doesn’t have a clue except tax cuts for those who already have so much.

  • “According to his calendar, John McCain will appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos this Sunday. Something tells me that a lot of people will be watching to see if Steph asks McCain tough ‘gotcha’ questions designed to gauge his ‘electability’ and his ability to handle future attacks, as he claimed to be doing at Wednesday’s Dem debate. Anyone offering odds?”(TPM)

    I will be interested to see how the FCC reacts to a blowjob performed on network T.V.

  • Stephanopoulos has sold out just like David Gregory did. He’ll play patty-cake with McCain and then defend his performance as “tough, fair and exactly what Hannity told me to say.” Can’t hardly wait to see it, can we?

  • In a bit of a surprise, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich endorsed Obama this week.

    I hope Robert Reich will be willing to serve in the Obama cabinet. He has consistently impressed me as the smartest liberal economist in the country.

    No, make that the smartest economist in the country — period. Conservative economics has been tested and found wanting.

  • Funny how the shillary trolls come here and post how clinton is surging – like somehow Amercians overwhelmingly want a continuation of the bush-clinton-bush-clinton cabal.

    As noted in the post – Obama is even catching up in PA, once looked like a blowout. I know that it is too much to expect honesty from those that support dishonest politicians, but the lies are till, you know, lies from lying liars.

  • George S has listened to the people and now will not ask gotcha questions of John McCain. Now that’s integrity. I’d love to see him ask some of the questions Libra and Furious listed yesterday.

  • “I will be interested to see how the FCC reacts to a blowjob performed on network T.V.” – SteveT (#7)

    Blowjobs are Clinton’s gift to the Democratic Party. Stephanopoulos is Greek, remember. Either way, it’ll be fun watching Grampy gobbling enough AARP-supplied Viagra to perform.

  • The most challenging and probing question George S is likely to ask St. John McCain on this Sunday’s program is likely to be: “Nice weather we’re having, isn’t it?”

  • Reich appeared on Colbert a little while back. Stephen pressed him to say who he endorsed and Reich wouldn’t do it. So Stephen tried another tack of “which would you prefer” and after several tries got Reich to say that he preferred a chocolate bunny to a yellow marshmallow chick (or something like that; it was right before Easter). So it’s not too surprising, I guess. I, too, hope Reich would consider serving in an Obama administration.

  • “…a lot of people will be watching to see if Steph asks McCain tough ‘gotcha’ questions designed to gauge his ‘electability’ and his ability to handle future attacks, as he claimed to be doing at Wednesday’s Dem debate.”

    I won’t be one of them. I used to reserve my Sunday mornings for the news show, but George S., ABC and Disney is on my boycott list…possibly forever.

  • Joe said:
    I used to reserve my Sunday mornings for the news show, but George S., ABC and Disney is on my boycott list…possibly forever.

    The cynical prostitute who recognizes the error of her ways and joins the side of good is a cliche, but I’m willing to give Stephanopoulos a chance. At worst, it will be a waste of 30 minutes.

    I won’t get my hopes up, though.

  • anyone who thinks Clinton doesn’t have a sense of humor is wrong

    Yeah, she’s really cracking me up with her Republican impressions.

    Laugh. Riot.

    Can it be any clearer for the Hillary people? Can Reich’s word’s spell out any clearer what they are backing?

    So what’s changed? I asked Reich.

    “I saw the ads” — the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama’s bitter/cling comments a week ago — “and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It’s the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we’ve developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn’t possibly believe and doesn’t possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I’ve seen growing in Hillary’s campaign. And I’ve come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can’t in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They’re lending legitimacy to a Republican message that’s wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past 20 years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It’s old politics at its worst — and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It’s just so deeply cynical.”

    Now I am sure the True Hillary Believers will say that Robert Reich was just pretending to be a Hillary supporter, but he was just waiting for the time to thrust in the knife. And what he’s saying about Hillary’s ads being “the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics” is just more BS from the Obama campaign. As if.

    The rest of us see a man who was trying to find a reason to be loyal to a family who had given him so much, but could not stomach the negative, Republican style politics that the Clintons have engaged in. He’s been right on a huge number of other things, I am proud to see him on our team. And shame on the Hillary folks who made his wrenching decision necessary.

  • Paul Krugman says why Obama was wrong to link the Clinton years and the past 8 years with Bush.

    ..the suggestion that the American heartland suffered equally during the Clinton and Bush years is deeply misleading.

    In fact, the Clinton years were very good for working Americans in the Midwest, where real median household income soared before crashing after 2000…

    We can argue about how much credit Bill Clinton deserves for that boom. But if I were a Democratic Party elder, I’d urge Mr. Obama to stop blurring the distinction between Clinton-era prosperity and Bush-era economic distress.

  • Racer X @ #20

    Robert Reich was not pretending to be a Hillary supporter, he was pretending to be neutral, which of course, he was not. He chose his timing to come out of the “closet” very well, just like Bill Richardson.

    I believe his support means nothing, just like Richardson.

    Howard Dean has spread the lie that 60% of super-delegates have “voted” on CNN. They have not “voted”, they have expressed their support of a candidate. They don’t vote until they get to the convention, or possibly earlier if his plans to once again throw the rules out the window when it benefits Obama works.

    Super-delegates can and many certainly will change their minds in the coming weeks, Hillary supporters among the undecided super-delegates have done what Hillary has been asking them to do, and that is to remain undecided, which is why you see more Obama supporters coming out of the woodwork, but not Clinton supporters.

  • ABC: Obama Forgets Writing on Gun Questionnaire

    ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Talal Al-Khatib Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., maintained at Wednesday’s ABC News debate in Philadelphia that his handwriting does not appear on a 1996 questionnaire stating support for a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns. The Democratic presidential frontrunner made this claim even though a copy of the original document suggests otherwise….

    …The questionnaire asked: “Do you support state legislation to: ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?”

    Obama’s campaign answered: “Yes.”

    Obama’s response to an earlier 1996 questionnaire from the same group has the same statement of support for a sweeping ban on handguns.

  • Hillary supporters among the undecided super-delegates have done what Hillary has been asking them to do, and that is to remain undecided, which is why you see more Obama supporters coming out of the woodwork, but not Clinton supporters.

    Now that one is worthy of Mary and IFP. My God, but that’s beautiful.

  • Ok, Greg, enough with the propaganda about how great the economy was during the Clinton administration. Yes, there were marked improvements/gains, but most of them were short-term profits at the expense of long-term stability. Moreover, the economy was heading into the tank before he left office. We never really noticed because the Fed reinflated the bubble…which they are currently trying to re-reinflate.

    Here’s a few things you might enjoy reading. Some detractors from Clintonomics include his own advisers, Nobel prize winners (same person, actually), the BBC, and Chalmers Johnson.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E4D81231F935A15753C1A9659C8B63
    http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0109-04.htm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1110165.stm
    http://www.counterpunch.org/pollin10182003.html

    Here’s my favorite quote:

    Joseph Stiglitz argues that, “the roots of roots of today’s economic malaise lie in the Clinton years.” ”Americans should face up to the fact that in the very boom were planted some of the seeds of destruction, seeds which would not yield their noxious fruit for several years,”

    We haven’t even started reaping what Bush has sown…god help us.

  • There is zero chance that George or ANY of the TV talking heads will ever ask McCain a tough question. After all, as McCain likes to brag, the media are his base! Already, Matthews is using that asinine argument that Obama is not comfortable walking into a diner and drinking a beer. For god’s sake, this is how we ended up with the worst president in our country’s history! The media just loved George W. Bush and gave him a free pass to the presidentcy. Believe me, they will do the same with McCain. They just LOVE manly Republicans. We can’t let them get away with this again this time. We must flood them with emails and calls, and we must contact their sponsors. I don’t ever intend to watch ABC, Hardball, or Morning Joe again. Just pitiful! Countdown is the only decent Democratic voice on any of the news channels. I just wish MSNBC would give Rachel Maddow her own show. She would be as popular as Olbermann in a week! You would think they would want to increase their ratings.

  • You would think they would want to increase their ratings.

    Yes, but their overlords want Republican presidents (or at least cooperative Dems—I won’t mention any names…).

    What I’m wondering is this: By consistently giving the liberals short shrift, they would seem to be driving us to the Internet for news and commentary. I know that’s been the case with most people I know, especially young people and even boomers. But then that leaves the MSM even more in the tank for the right wing, and those who don’t use the internet for their info, and especially their political info, end up getting propagandized all the more by the right. By abandoning TV (I certainly have) are we ultimately exacerbating the problem? Or would it make no difference because of the agenda of the owners? (in this case, General Electric) Just wondering if we’re creating a digital divide of sorts that will be reflected in upcoming elections, perhaps to the detriment of the left. I would hope not.

  • Every time someone comes out and endorses Obama lately, they say it is because of Clinton’s campaign tactics. The sameness of this theme is odd. You’d expect a variety of reasons, since different things matter to different people. In fact, it suggests that the arguments used by Obama’s folks to convince such people to endorse him are focusing on attacking Clinton for her tactics. It also suggests that there are not sufficiently strong substantive differences in policy that might be used as a reason to support Obama over Clinton. I find myself wondering whether Obama is asking these people to refer to the tactics in order to further the “Clinton campaigns dirty” meme.

  • Every time someone comes out and endorses Obama lately, they say it is because of Clinton’s campaign tactics. The sameness of this theme is odd. You’d expect a variety of reasons, since different things matter to different people…in fact, it suggests that the arguments used by Obama’s folks to convince such people to endorse him are focusing on attacking Clinton for her tactics.

    Does it suggest that to you? To me it suggests that virtually everyone agrees that Clinton’s campaign tactics are teh suck. Occam’s razor, you know.

    But if you’re determined to blame the nearly universal response to Clinton’s atrocious behavior in order to not have to look at that behavior, by all means keep playing that mind game with yourself.

  • Steve @ #7, very funny!

    Yeah, Lex…we had it good in the 90’s when Clinton was prez, but when you look at the underpinnings, not so good.

    That said, I am sure all of us wish we were back in the 90’s before this war and Georgie and the Neocons (the ultimate blues band) screwed us for a long time to come.

    And Hillary Clinton isn’t anymore a Bill Clinton than GWB is a GHWB. I don’t want more of the same, especially when you look under the covers and find (heh, Monica?) that it wasn’t All That.

  • Haritio wrote, “…there are not sufficiently strong substantive differences in policy that might be used as a reason to support Obama over Clinton.”

    I don’t know this to be the case, to be perfectly honest.

    I don’t believe Hillary when she says she wants to pull troops out quickly. She voted for putting them in there. I don’t believe her when she wants stronger trade agreements. She supported them in their current form. I don’t believe Hillary when she says she’s committed to health care mandates. She copied the idea from Edwards and removed the teeth (penalties) that would encourage people to comply with them. She voted for the bankruptcy bill, she voted for Kyl-Lieberman and on and on.

    Hillary’s proposals might not be significantly different from Obama’s but her record sure is, and I think it’s telling. I live in Georgia and I, regrettably, voted for Zell Miller when he was first up for election to the Senate (he was initially appointed when Paul Coverdell died). Big mistake! In addition, the people of Connecticut are already regretting sending Lieberman back to the Senate.

    I think Hillary might actually be a Zell Lieberman-like president who would ebb and flow with the political winds as dictated by Sean Hannity and his newfound friends, Georgie Boy and Chuck. She’s a follower–not a leader. And I don’t know if you’ve heard, but she does have a rep for not being entirely forthcoming and honest.

  • It also suggests that there are not sufficiently strong substantive differences in policy that might be used as a reason to support Obama over Clinton.

    It’s arguable whether Clinton’s and Obama’s current policy differences (as opposed to their records) are so narrow as to be insignificant. But if one does feel that those differences are so small that they fail to make a case for one of the candidates, the obvious choice for our vote is not the person in second place who has no hope of winning without pulling a stunt that tears the party apart, who has limited downticket appeal, and who enjoys the distrust and lack of respect of the majority of voters.

    In other words, Horatio laughably sees Clinton as the default candidate. America sees it differently.

  • David Brooks raises a question about Sen. Barak Obama, D-Ill., that’s on most white Americans minds but has been skillfully avoided by most media, and not readily admitted by many Americans, “Is he like us?” That’s the 84-thousand dollar question to many Americans, and frankly, what seems most important by white correspondents, and issue costumed in a cloak of trivial questions about patriotism, the absurd notion of black racism and being out of touch with the American people. It makes me wonder, “what speeches are news correspondents listening to? What candidates are they looking at?”
    Take Sen. John McCain, R-Arz. for instance, gray-haired, pretentious, referring to Reagan policy that are several decades olds and he is considered a candidate who represents the future? Give me a break.
    Now turn to Senator Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, both appear youthful – one actually is – both speaking of programs that refer little to the past –with the exception of Sen. Clinton who often refer to the good old time when her husband was in office, which still isn’t that far in the past. Contrasting the two democrat candidates to the republican is like comparing a 73’ Ford LTD to a 73’ Toyota Corolla, one huge bulky and inefficient, the other small sleek and fuel-efficient.
    I call for the media to come out of the closest. Admit, you have never witnessed a campaign like this before in your life and you have instilled bias that prevents you from being balanced relevant. How could you be expected to know how to cover a campaign like this one anyway, there’s never before in history been a serious African American or Woman run against an old white male anyway. Terry Haywood

    • Comments are closed.