Friday’s campaign round-up

June 6, 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:

* After shaking the reporters who follow him, Barack Obama met privately with Hillary Clinton last night. No one knows what they said to each other — it was literally just the two of them, alone in a room — but the discussion has been characterized as “positive” and “productive.” The two met at the DC home of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has talked a bit about the logistics of the private chat.

* Clinton is now starting to push back against speculation about her joining the ticket: “Clinton today disavowed a campaign by some of her supporters to pressure Senator Barack Obama into choosing her as a running-mate, saying they were acting on their own and the decision on who to pick was ‘Senator Obama’s and his alone.'” Clinton spokesperson Howard Wolfson added, “[S]he is not seeking the vice presidency.”

* Clinton seems to have taken an unequivocal tone when urging her leading donors to support Obama.

* There’s been considerable talk about Obama struggling to win the Latino vote, but the latest numbers actually look pretty encouraging: “A new Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May shows Obama winning 62% of Latino registered voters nationwide, compared with just 29% for McCain. Others have found a wide gap as well. The pro-Democratic group Democracy Corps compiled surveys from March through May that showed Obama with a 19-point lead among Latinos. And a Times poll published last month showed Obama leading McCain among California Latinos by 14 points.”

* Clinton’s campaign debts are up to $30 million, and she’s looking for some help from Obama.

* McCain is now comparing Obama to William Jennings Bryan. Given that Bryan last ran for president literally 100 years ago, and there are concerns about McCain being too old for the White House, this might not have been the best analogy.

* McCain raised $21.5 million in May. It’s his best month to date, but it’s not especially impressive compared to Obama.

* John Edwards has said before that he’s not interested in being a running mate again, but he reiterated his position yesterday.

* A new Rasmussen poll shows Obama edging McCain in Missouri, 43% to 42%. A month ago, Rasmussen had McCain ahead by six in the Show Me State.

* Don’t forget to look down-ballot: “The Cook Political Report, whose ratings of Congressional races are well-respected by political pros, has just changed its ratings on ten House races — and has changed them all in favor of the Dems. It’s very rare that Cook flips so many ratings at once — much less flipping them all in favor of the same political party.”

* Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) must be pretty upset with Clinton right now. He’s not going to her concession speech tomorrow, and when asked why, Rangel said, “It’s a Jewish holiday — enough said.” Rangel isn’t Jewish.

* Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle wants to be Secretary of HHS. Sounds good to me.

* Mark Halperin did a nice job coming up with 15 ways in which McCain “underestimates” Obama.

I almost feel sorry for the Clinton “true believers” who are now in the position of Wile E. coyote, 3 feet out from the edge of the cliff, over the deep canyon. It will be interesting to see who scrambles back in time.

There are a few however, who have certainly passed the “character test” (i.e., do they have any?) with a big negative. I used to like and respect Larry Johnson, but seeing what he’s pushing now, I’m through waiting for him to “come around.” If you’re as smart as he appeared to be, there are things you don’t do to begin with, like the Michelle Obama/Farrakhan lie. As I said to him today “don’t bother responding, you’re in my killfile. Permanently.”

  • Flat denial: “I already had the privilege of running for vice president in 2004, and I won’t do it again,” Edwards told El Mundo newspaper.

    Non-denial of interest: “Clinton today disavowed a campaign by some of her supporters to pressure Senator Barack Obama into choosing her as a running-mate, saying they were acting on their own and the decision on who to pick was ‘Senator Obama’s and his alone.’” Clinton spokesperson Howard Wolfson added, “[S]he is not seeking the vice presidency.”

    Not seeking it–as in figuring out that her supporters trying to force Obama’s hand isn’t a great plan–but not clearly rejecting the idea, either.

    We shall see.

  • Yeah Tom Cleaver,

    I was just posting on some other thread somewhere that this primary season has been very enlightening but not really in a good way. I have learned a lot of things about fellow Democrats that I would have never guessed at a few months ago. Truth will out. I suppose that is ultimately a good thing but it is surely pretty distressing.

  • I haven’t seen another mention of Brad Blog [h/t Truthdig] recent tribulations with electronic voting machines: “My Own Votes, Four of Them, Were Flipped Yesterday Before My Very Eyes”

    Also from Truthdig, an important heads up on the need to get serious about confronting voter suppression.

  • Tom, I do feel sorry for them. If Obama lost I’d be pretty sour too. I really think they’ll come around, at least enough of them.

  • Clinton’s campaign debts are up to $30 million, and she’s looking for some help from Obama.

    Can someone please explain to me how Obama can bail her out? Campaign contribution limits would seem to prohibit more than the maximum contribution of $2500, or whatever the limit is.

    Not to mention the fact that many Obama donors would be royally pi$$ed that their dollars are going to pay of Clinton’s debt.

  • Not appropos to anything in particular mentioned in the roundup but…

    If I was on the Obama campaign team, I would try hard to gain the endorsements of Bret Favre, Larry Bird and David Ortiz. And I would create a series of ads featuring them. Obivously, I don’t know if they would be at all interested in doing something like that (and I wonder if leagues prohibit active players and coaches from giving political endoresements). I just imagine the huge positive (white blue-collar male and Hispanic voters) it would give Obama if any or all of them gave him their “thumbs-up.”

  • Re Clinton’s debt: Our local paper had an article yesterday saying that the Clinton campaign hasn’t paid our school district’s bill for using a HS gym in April for a Bill C. visit. The Obama campaign paid its bill for his May 10 visit promptly. None of which is a surprise for anyone paying attention. When I heard that Bill C. was coming I almost called the district to warn them to collect up front. Guess I should have.

    It’s encouraging to read that HRC and Barack have met and hopefully worked things out, and that HRC is pushing back on the VP thing.

    Rangel was upset at HRC the other night when she refused to concede. He must be REALLY upset to not attend tomorrow speech.

    I noticed on demconwatch.blogspot.com yesterday that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL) who was an ardent HRC supporter and was onstage after her speech Tuesday night has now come out in support of Obama. Also, the entire NY state congressional delegation switched from HRC to Obama. This seems to be a sign that HRC has released them and that she will truly, finally concede.

    Let the healing begin…

    See this link for June 5th Superdelegate action:
    http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-thursday.html
    There were several other switches as well.

  • A little OT, but since this is a “Campaign Roundup” …

    While looking up some other stuff, I noticed that Sen Tim Johnson switched his Superdelegate endorsement from Obama to Clinton on Wed. He had endorsed Obama just before Super Tuesday. In all fairness he had announced recently that he would go with SD voters, but I still find the timing really odd.

    Also while I don’t draw any conclusions per se, if I did the math right, 13 of 39 members of the Black Congressional Caucus are still listed as Clinton endorsers. 7 of the 13 were men. Maxine Waters (and I think a couple others) switched from Clinton to Obama at the last minute. Maybe sex and gender aren’t the only things that are important to people.

  • William Jennings Bryan? Seriously?? It’s like McCain is purposely baiting Obama’s people to go after his age.

  • #4 Very true. I wrote about voter suppression the other day… that it would be ironic if African Americans were denied the right to vote for the first AA president because of idiotic voter ID laws, long lines/few machines, or having their names taken off voter rolls.

    Things have changed since 2000 & 2004 thank goodness, as there has been a major turnover in secretaries of state (NO Blackwell in Ohio!). The new CA SOS is very good as is the MO SOS (who was a major force in keeping MO’s voter ID law from passing).

  • According to the Politico article, Clinton is not actually required to pay off the $30 million. She could just shut it down, and start a new one the next time she wants to run for something. Let’s hope she doesn’t threaten to do that. I’m guessing that schools and other venues like Hannah describes in #8 simply assume that national Dem campaigns are good for the money.

  • Can someone please explain to me how Obama can bail her out? Campaign contribution limits would seem to prohibit more than the maximum contribution of $2500, or whatever the limit is.

    That’s right; he can’t do that. What he’ll do is encourage his own fundraisers and donors to help her out.

  • 6. On June 6th, 2008 at 12:18 pm, Michael W said:
    Clinton’s campaign debts are up to $30 million, and she’s looking for some help from Obama.

    Can someone please explain to me how Obama can bail her out? Campaign contribution limits would seem to prohibit more than the maximum contribution of $2500, or whatever the limit is.

    Not to mention the fact that many Obama donors would be royally pi$$ed that their dollars are going to pay of Clinton’s debt.
    ___________________

    In a word: Fundraisers. Even if Obama wanted to use some of his fundrasing $$$ to bail out Hillary, FEC rules prohibit it. As you noted, he can donate the maximum amount any individual or group, by law, can donate, which is a drop in the bucket for her sizable debt.

    But he can ask people, in the spirit of party unity, to throw a few bucks Hillary’s way. 30 million is not chump change, but when you consider the sheer quantity of donors Obama had…I mean, Hell, I’ll throw a couple of bucks to a homeless guy if he’s got a good rap. I can certainly spare 2 or 3 dollars to get Clinton to stop crying poor and go back to the Senate.

    Although I’d probably first give that money to the kid who sold his bike & video games to donate to Clinton’s campaign. Part of me thinks “eh, eff him, this is a good way to show the kid that the world sucks and sometimes you back the wrong horse,” but then again, I could say the same thing to Clinton. If people think, in the interest of party unity, she should get a bailout, then, in the interest of karma, that kid should get a bailout, too.

  • CNN: “Feinstein served [Obama and Clinton] water but nothing else.”

    Thanks for the crack reporting, CNN. What should Feinstein have served? Can we have a talking heads panel to opine on that please?

  • “I have learned a lot of things about fellow Democrats that I would have never guessed at a few months ago. — brent”

    I think that what we’ve seen is common any time the status quo is threatened, something Obama has done on a number of levels. His being relatively unknown was also a factor, enabling some to project their hopes onto him while the adventurous projected their fears onto him. It’s been a gut-check time for all Americans, not just politically but also on a personal level. Everyone has had to deal with this guy and for some, it’s going to take longer than for others.

    There’s no telling how successful he’ll be in changing the way we think about ourselves, our government and our role in the process, but I think there will be some positive movement among a large segment of the population before this is over.

  • Things are finally over.

    HUGE sigh of relief.

    The primary has ended, and we’re finally starting to gather around one candidate.

    I’m really hoping Obama switches to Clinton’s health care plan. Hers is simply better.

    I have to wonder at this movement to get Clinton on the ticket as VP. Do they think she’ll be the next Cheney or something? The VP has pretty much nothing to do. Particularly when the Senate probably will *not* be split down the party lines.

    Edwards doesn’t want VP either. Can’t say I blame him. I’m still thinking he’ll have a cabinet post. AG or maybe Sec of State.

  • I’d be more inclined to donate to a school or something similar that got stiffed by the Clinton campaign than to give any money to retire her debt.

    I mean, seriously, if they managed to roll up >$100 million in personal wealth since leaving the Whitehouse, and they made the decisions to keep the campaign going when the math pointed overwhelmingly to stop, and all it was doing was harming my preferred candidate for the GE, why should I help them off the hook for that? Especially when a huge chunk of that debt is to the uber-a$$wipe Mark Penn.

  • Would like to hear campaign theme suggestions…

    My starters are:

    Obama
    – We’ve tried stupid and ignorant for 8 years. Why not try intelligent and informed for the next 8!
    – We’ve tried Corporate Rule for the last 40 years. Why not try government of the people, by the people, and for the people again!

    McCain
    – SWW for McCain. He’s one of us! (SWW = stupid white warmongers)
    – Workers unite to vote against your own best interests! It’s an American tradition.
    – Lobbyists for McCain! Write your own legislation! It’s a Republican tradition.

  • I have to wonder at this movement to get Clinton on the ticket as VP. Do they think she’ll be the next Cheney or something? The VP has pretty much nothing to do. Particularly when the Senate probably will *not* be split down the party lines.

    If he offers it and she takes it, it will be positioning herself for 2016, nothing more.

  • On the one hand, Clinton is encouraging her donors to contribute to Obama. On the other hand, she apparently wants Obama to help reduce her debt.

    There’s only so much money that can be contributed, and paying off the hundred-millionaires that are the Clintons is, sorry, a little low on my list.

  • Clinton’s campaign debts are up to $30 million, and she’s looking for some help from Obama.

    Can someone please explain to me how Obama can bail her out? -Michael W

    Many of his donors, even those who have maxed their donation to him, haven’t maxed their donation to Hillary Clinton. Obama could only encourage those people to donate to her. The reciprocal would be to suggest that her maxed out donors donate to him in return for the favor. Frankly, since several of her donors are holding their money hostage in exchange for a veep nod, I’d tell them to politely shove it.

    This one is hard for me to swallow when:

    1. A lot of these bills were racked up through poor management (like hiring and retaining Mark Penn.)

    2. The campaign continued longer than viable. How much of this debt was racked up past the point all of us reality dwellers understood it to be futile?

    3. Clinton is extremely rich. Paying them herself would make her just slightly less extremely rich. In other words, Obama, the DNC and down ballot candidates could use that money to better cause than making sure the Clinton’s stay very rich.

    4. That money was spent attacking Obama. Only a masochist would pay for a beating like that.

    I just see this as kissing the ass of the ‘woe is me’ crowd, and that’s just not high on my priority list now. If they want Clinton’s debt paid, they should have donated more during her campaign, or advocated that she use her money wisely.

    Frankly, I can’t help in this effort because I don’t even want a fraction of a cent I’ve earned to go into Mark Penn’s, Terry McAuliffe’s, or Harold Icke’s pockets.

  • I just hope Obama changes his mind about the long, drawn out process of choosing his VP. It just means the press and media continue this ridiculous 24/7 soap opera coverage of Obama/Clinton, and we need to get them focused on the substantive differences between McCain and Obama.

    I’m afraid it’s not enough for Hillary to deny interest in the job (if she even does that). The media won’t have it. They love this soap opera. They’re terminally obsessed with all the minutiae of it.

    So, somebody please, persuade Obama to make his choice sooner, rather than later, and preferably not Hillary, because then all we’ll hear about is 24/7 speculation about who will really dominate the administration as McCain sneaks into the White House.

  • McCain is now comparing Obama to William Jennings Bryan.

    Ya know, there’s not a lot of outrage let among the public about the whole Bryan thing. Maybe it’s outrage-about-19th-century-politicians fatigue. Well, I guess Darwinism IS still an issue unfortunately. Hey, scope this out.

  • Michael W said:
    Not to mention the fact that many Obama donors would be royally pi$$ed that their dollars are going to pay of Clinton’s debt.

    Good point. it’s like negative campaigning in the sense that he would be paying for something that was negative about him. Plus Mark Penn and them better not see a penny of that money.

  • “If he offers it and she takes it, it will be positioning herself for 2016, nothing more.”

    At which point she will be in, if memory serves, her late 60’s. Not much younger than McCain is now. I’m finding it tough to believe she’s hoping to be in the White House when she hits 70.

  • Hey, scope this out.

    We have limits. You will pay for that. Oh, yes, you will pay.

    At which point she will be in, if memory serves, her late 60’s. Not much younger than McCain is now. I’m finding it tough to believe she’s hoping to be in the White House when she hits 70.

    Me, too. But if she’s considering the VP slot (and apparently she hasn’t ruled it out or she’d have definitively said so), that’s the only reason why.

  • Hey, scope this out.

    We have limits. You will pay for that. Oh, yes, you will pay.

    Now, Maria, you just have to be more o-pun minded about these things. 😉

  • Hey, scope this out.

    We have limits. You will pay for that. Oh, yes, you will pay.

    Awwwww, Maria, Dale was just monkeying around. Don’t put him on trial over his bad pun.

  • Oh, you guys are gonna get it. You won’t know how, you won’t know when…

  • “Me, too. But if she’s considering the VP slot (and apparently she hasn’t ruled it out or she’d have definitively said so), that’s the only reason why.”

    I guess so. But we’re actually sliding away from the subject. I was originally asking about the movement, not about Clinton herself. She hasn’t made a definite stand on the issue yet, as you point out. But a lot of people are pushing it anyway. I’m wondering what their motivation is. I guess some of it could be left over from the hero worship we’ve been seeing from so many of them, and maybe also some of them are hoping to position her for a future presidential run.

    But I wonder if they really understand what the VP position is all about. I wonder if for many of them, it is just about keeping Clinton in the spotlight and giving her *something* to take away from the primary campaign. A consolation gift (for Clinton *and* themselves), so to speak.

    Or maybe they think that Cheney has created a new paradigm, and the VP will be a lot more powerful from now on.

  • Yes, you’re right, Shade Tail; I was thinking about the Clintons’ (plural because reports indicate he thinks her being VP is her best future chance at the presidency) motivation, not those of her supporters pushing a joint ticket. I think residual hero worship and wanting to grab something tangible and high-profile pretty well sums it up for the latter group. Doubt most of them are thinking long-term at all.

  • “McCain is now comparing Obama to William Jennings Bryan. Given that Bryan last ran for president literally 100 years ago, and there are concerns about McCain being too old for the White House, this might not have been the best analogy.”

    Man, that was dumb.

    Bryan is probably best known for prosecuting the Scopes trial. He’s probably most popular with the evangelical voter base that still opposes evolution and went for Huckabee in the primaries.

    Bryan was most popular in the South and West, the states McCain is trying to hold onto. Check the maps on Wikipedia for 1896, 1900, and 1908. Carefully examine the states Bryan won each time and compare them with the states the Republicans won in 2000 and 2004. The 1896 map is particularly shocking.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1896_Electoral_Map.png

    Think McCain has a good grasp on his “base”? I’m knocking him down to 9 states.

  • Growing Number of Clinton Backers
    Push for ‘Dream Ticket,’ Despite Long Odds
    By AMY CHOZICK
    June 6, 2008; Page A6

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121267970020648781.html

    And from David Frum: Why Clinton shouldn’t be on Obama’s ticket

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/06/06/david-frum-why-clinton-shouldn-t-be-on-obama-s-ticket.aspx

    “It’s not unusual for the winner of a U.S. presidential nomination to choose the runner-up as his running mate. John Kerry did it in 2004. Ronald Reagan did it in 1980. John F. Kennedy did it (under very different rules) in 1960….And after all — she did win more votes, didn’t she? That achievement mattered a great deal to Democrats when the winner of the popular vote was Al Gore and the loser was George W. Bush. Why does it suddenly matter so much less today?”

  • I’m finding it tough to believe she’s hoping to be in the White House when she hits 70. — Shade Tail, @27

    It could be something as simple as having a renewed cachet for 8 yrs. Accept — unlike Cheney — that VP is a purely decorative position, visit a few countries as a representative of US. Kazakhstan, maybe…

  • Many nonprofits such as the United Way allow donors to designate where they would like their funds allocated. I would donate to retire Hillary’s debt if I could specify to where my contribution went. Specifically, to any of the self-employed vendors whose livelihood depends on receiving their paycheck on time…and they’re still waiting. To pay Mark Penn? Not so much.

    • Comments are closed.