Friday’s political round-up

July 13, 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:

* A conversation between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton was accidentally picked up by a live microphone, and the two were overheard discussing excluding long-shot Democratic candidates from future events. In Detroit, the national NAACP convention featured speeches from the whole crew, leading Clinton to tell Edwards. “We’ve got to talk because they, they are, just being trivialized.” “They are not serious,” Edwards responded. The AP also heard Clinton say, “We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group.”

* Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, has been one of the many religious right leaders searching for a top-tier GOP candidate who isn’t a) a Mormon; b) a pro-choice adulterer; or c) John McCain. With that in mind, Land told TV preacher Pat Robertson’s CBN yesterday, “My assessment is that at this moment in time it is Fred Thompson’s race to lose.”

* If Mitt Romney loses the race for the GOP nomination, clips posted to YouTube will have had something to do with it. In the latest embarrassing video, put together by the Massachusetts Democratic Party, Romney is seen repeatedly distancing himself from the Republican Party during his 2002 gubernatorial race.

* Hillary Clinton is not usually considered one of the favorites among the progressive netroots, but she’ll be on hand for the YearlyKos convention next month in Chicago.

* And Roll Call reports that the Republican Party’s troubles are clearly having an effect on fundraising. The National Republican Congressional Committee raised $13 million in the second quarter, but lingering debt led the NRCC to have “a couple” of million dollars left in cash on hand. The DCCC, meanwhile, raised $17 million in Q2, while banking around $19 million.

If the Republicans need more money, why don’t they divert a few million from Iraq spending. With no oversight, who would notice?

  • Land told TV preacher Pat Robertson’s CBN yesterday, “My assessment is that at this moment in time it is Fred Thompson’s race to lose.”

    Sounds like a mighty fine idea.

  • Youse Fellas still don’t get it. Willard is a force of nature. It is impossible to embarrass him. Impossible. He’s a graduate of the George Costanza “It’s not a Lie if you truly Believe It” School. Summa Cum Laude, I do believe. That’s French and it means he did wicked pissa good. He is up against the sorriest collection of Republicans seen in some time. The “Base” has the attention span and intellect of a gnat. In short, it’s in the Bag. Meet your 2008 Republican Candidate for President, Willard M. Romney.

  • WRT the idea of who to include and exclude from early campaign cattle calls, it’s a bit tricky. Normally I’d say the majors just have to cope with the irrelevancies in the early going. There is an argument that the race is at a much more mature point right now than it was in past cycles at this point, so it’s not too early to winnow the field.

    OTOH I think the very early start to the campaign is in itself not a good thing; there’s no compelling reason why campaigns have to drag on for two years prior to the vote. I certainly don’t see that all the extra time and money has given us any noticeable improvement in candidates. And the longer race, requiring more money to run in it, forces questions of finance to become ever more important, to the exclusion of almost anything else.

    Still, would early exclusion of the stragglers actually help to shorten the campaign season? If not, then why are we spending months listening to these people?

  • J Flower – republicans were probably behind that bank robbery in Bagdad on Wednesday.

  • I’m of two minds as far as the Clinton/Edwards exchange. They’re probably right on the substance; Kucinich and Gravel aren’t doing anything but wasting people’s time. But it’s a pretty ugly thought that Democrats would silence even those voices on the fringe. Not sure what should be done.

  • “and the two were overheard discussing excluding long-shot Democratic candidates from future events.”

    Life imitating reality TV.

  • Re: dajafi @ #6
    Kucinich and Gravel aren’t doing anything but wasting people’s time.

    Glad that you have your finger on the pulse of the American People, dajafi. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are such great leaders after all, they don’t even have to express their contempt for King George. Apparently, we’re just supposed to assume that they have the best interests of our Constitutional Republic in mind because they’re Democrats, even though I hardly hear a peep out of them about the horrendous abuse of the Constitution perpetrated by Dick&Bush. Some leadership I say.

    Edwards and Clinton are right, less choice is always a good thing for Democracy. Our Constitution has been trivialized, so why not exclude the only two candidates speaking up for our Democracy and our Constitution. Matter of fact, why even bother with elections? Just appoint the candidate with the biggest bank account as King.

  • In response to what should be done about the Clinton-Edwards exchange . . . nothing. They were just espousing their opinions. How it affects public perception of each of them . . . now that’s a good question! I’d wager it doesn’t affect Clinton, since she is already perceived as cold and overly opportunistic. Edwards could really take a hit from this, though– he’s supposed to be the one who stands up for the little guy, has concern for all Americans, etc. Wanting to silence the less mainstream candidates doesn’t jive with that image.

    My take: Obama gets points by default, simply for not being part of the exchange.

  • Does anyone think a successful Hollywood actor with a taste for younger women is NOT a serial adulterer? Fred Thompson believes in the show biz saying, “Trust me” which is Hollywood for “Fuck you.”

  • Edwards and Clinton are right, less choice is always a good thing for Democracy. Our Constitution has been trivialized, so why not exclude the only two candidates speaking up for our Democracy and our Constitution. Matter of fact, why even bother with elections? Just appoint the candidate with the biggest bank account as King.

    Yeah, that’s *exactly* what I was saying. I’m so ashamed…

    As it happens, I’m not a fan of either Clinton or Edwards, and I share your dismay at the fact that few of the candidates–other than Dodd, whom I wish could get more traction–aren’t standing up for the Constitution. But I haven’t noticed either of the two fringe guys saying much either; the Angry Little Elf seems to think that cosmic forces will lead to a great psychological realignment by which we all suddenly see his inner nobility and move to sweep him into power, and Gravel evidently is angry that the ducks and pigeons aren’t responding with more enthusiasm to the breadcrumbs he throws at them.

    Like it or not, they aren’t viable candidates. They won’t become viable candidates. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be there, or be heard. But I agree that there’s an opportunity cost to putting them on the stage–which is that we get to hear less from those who might actually get nominated and elected.

  • re#9:
    We’ll just have to watch and see if his campaign finances improve all of sudden.

    re Clinton/Edwards exchange. Even if the lower tier has no chance or being elected or even nominated, it doesn’t mean that they don’t have some good ideas which ought to be heard. Especially by the more “electable” candidates. One should learn from *every* available source, instead of shutting one’s mind. We’ve already had, for the past 6+ years, a willfully ignorant president and it’s costing us dearly.

    • Comments are closed.