Monday’s political round-up

July 30, 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:

* John Edwards has a provocative new response to the media focusing on political trivia over political substance during the campaign: it’s an intentional strategy. Late last week, Edwards told an Iowa audience that the media’s negligence is “not an accident” and that “they want to shut me up” to silence his message about Iraq, healthcare, and poverty. Edwards paraphrased the establishment as saying: “Let’s distract from people who don’t have health care coverage. Let’s distract from people who can’t feed their children…. Let’s talk about this silly frivolous nothing stuff so that America won’t pay attention.”

* NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg continues to say he’s not running for president, but he keeps doing little things to raise eyebrows. In the latest step, Bloomberg registered a bunch of domain names, including michaelbloomberg.com, mbloomberg.com, and mike2008.com.

* Bill Richardson announced the other day that he would give voters a preview of his Cabinet before they pick the next president. “I would announce my Cabinet before the election. If I’m the nominee, I would tell you who my team would be,” the New Mexico governor told a Service Employees International Union conference in New Hampshire. “It would have independents, Republicans and Democrats. Don’t worry, I won’t overdo the Republicans.”

* Newt Gingrich believes the Dems will run a Clinton/Obama ticket next year. He made the prediction on Fox News yesterday morning. The former Speaker also dismissed John McCain’s chances, saying he “has taken positions so deeply at odds with his party’s base that I don’t see how he can get the nomination.”

* And the WaPo began speculating over the weekend about possible Democratic VP candidates, a mere four months before a single voter backs a single candidate. Specifically, the Post explored the possibility that Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio, who has not yet endorsed a candidate, could join the Democratic ticket.

I’m drifting towards Edwards. He’s speaking out strongly and directly on matters dear to my heart and this latest – media distraction – is a subject that should be front and center in everybody’s mind.

I can’t get behind Hillary, not in the primaries and not in the general election, because so much of the country hates her and she will divide and polarize when we need unification. Teddy K is getting old and she will be his worthy successor in the Senate.

Obama is shiny bright and worthy but I just can’t convince myself that America will elect a black man in 2008. I will happily vote for him if he’s the nominee but there is nothing wrong with Edwards either, and Edwards is readily electable.

Edwards’ electability is, no doubt, why the MSM is going out of the way to trivialize him.

  • Bill Richardson announced the other day that he would give voters a preview of his Cabinet before they pick the next president.

    A good idea in theory, but doesn’t that just mean that instead of picking through Richardson’s record for embarassments, we’ll have a dozen different records to play with?

    On the plus side, if he can actually convince a potential cabinet to hitch their careers to Richardson’s political future, he’ll have that many more foot soldiers out there campaigning — an orgy of running mates. But if every candidate did the same, does that mean their cabinet picks must be mutually exclusive? And that rivals for the nomination are excluded from the cabinet?

  • Regarding Newt Gingrich’s appearance on Fox News —

    [he] also dismissed John McCain’s chances, saying he “has taken positions so deeply at odds with his party’s base that I don’t see how he can get the nomination.”

    Which positions? Iraq, no (he supports Bush); immigration, yes; campaign finance reform, certainly (Republicans don’t like the idea of not being able to buy elections).

  • Given the endorsements that Hillary has received from the opposing party, it may be that she is more comfortable receiving the Republican nomination.

  • If the Democrats need Ohio to win, and they probably do, then Strickland is the obvious choice. Don’t you think???

  • Strickland as VP???? But he’s barely been in office there! I know the thought process– pick Strickland, carry Ohio– but in this political climate, the Dems have a good chance of carrying Ohio no matter who they pick. Plus, if either Obama or (G-d forbid) Hillary gets the nomination . . . well, both of them have strong connections to Illinois. Would it make sense to have a VP who is also from a Rust Belt state? Methinks not.

    If Obama gets the nomination (which, barring an entrance by Gore, I hope he does,) Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana would be an ideal pick.

    Of course, if Gore jumps in, Obama should be VP.

  • I’m sure this is a dream ticket in the minds of Gingrich and the other Repigs. The one thing that bothers me about Richardson, Grumpy, is his close ties to the Clintons. In the back of my mind I am waiting for him to pull a Vilsack and throw his support to HRC in hope of a VP nomination or cabinet post.

    I would vote for any of the Democratic candidates except Clinton. I think it would be a risk nominating a black, but Obama is the best black candidate to come along or who will come along, appealing to large numbers of whites, and I think he would be very effective in healing the breach we have with the rest of the planet. In the end, though, I wonder if the Democratic voters will get cold feet and go with the white male, Edwards.

  • I give Richardson a lot of credit for having the best anti-war plan, but sometimes he comes up with some seriously baffling shit, like bragging about putting Republicans – not a token, like Bush w/Mineta or Clinton w/Cohen (by the way, bang-up job on the framing, as if Dems didn’t have enough trouble projecting strength on stereotypical defense issues already) – yes, Republican*S*, into his cabinet.

    Really, Bill, what the *FUCK* have Republicans gotten right lately, or proven they can administer competently?

    There’s one reason to include a Republican in your cabinet, and that’s to use as a scapegoat if anything goes wrong. (I’m not saying it’s a polite thing to do/say/admit, but it’s true)

    Any hope that a Republican will help make it easier to deal with other Republicans is futile.

    Any hope that you’ll get credit from the media for being “serious” and “centrist” and “bi-” or “non-” partisan in a quantity sufficient to outweigh the danger of sabotage by the opponent you’ve just handed over power to within your midst is stupid.

    Any hope that you can appease the howling jackals of the reality-averse conservative base (who really ought to replace “Hail to the Chief” with “King of Wishful Thinking” as a theme song), or even their two-faced enablers in the GOP establishment, isn’t just stupid, it’s suicidally stupid – not just of the Administration’s power, but of *OUR* power. If we vote for a Democrat, it’s because we want a goddamn Democrat. Why is this so fucking hard for some people to understand?

  • I like Edwards, but he is suffering for not being female or a person of color. I think Edwards/Obama would be a good ticket – maybe even a great one – and far more preferable to me than Hillary/Anyone else.

  • To answer your question, Wahoo – not unless that president served only one term. A two-term president cannot serve as VP because he would be next in line to serve and he is prohibited from serving more than 2 terms.

    Besides, not even Poppy as VP will be enough to make McCain the nominee…

  • Amendment 22 – Presidential Term Limits

    1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

    Anne ~
    It doesn’t say he can’t serve. It says he can’t be elected president. Bill Clinton would be a great vice-president.

  • WaPo thinks Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is a GOP VP contender? Says who?? Palin hasn’t even been in office for one year yet.

  • Wahoo – found this in Wikipedia:

    Some have questioned the interpretation of the Twenty-second Amendment as it relates to the Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, which provides that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”[8]

    While it is clear that under the Twelfth Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the president and vice president, it is unclear if a two-term president could later be elected—or appointed—vice president. Some argue that the Twenty-second Amendment and Twelfth Amendment bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as from succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States Presidential line of succession. Others contend that while a two-term president is ineligible to be elected or appointed to the office of Vice President, he could succeed from a lower position in the line of succession which he is not excluded from holding. Others contend that the Twelfth Amendment concerns qualification for service, while the Twenty-second Amendment concerns qualifications for election. Neither theory has ever been tested, as no former president has ever sought the vice presidency, and thus, the courts have never had an opportunity to decide the question.

    So, I guess it’s really an open question, but one we are not likely to need an answer to, as Bill Clinton is not going to be anyone’s VP.

    As to whether he would be great, that might be open to question.

  • Yes, but what kind of message was she trying to send when she wore this sexy number? http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/BB/B/B/P/S/_/bbbbps.jpg . Yes… yes… I do believe there is a definite indentation at the sternum there. Is that a married man she’s with?

    You can’t tell me her handlers didn’t know this would have journalists gaping at her t!ts? http://www.nndb.com/people/140/000023071/thatcher-1-sized.jpg

    Is that a V-neck? http://www.urmyhero.co.uk/vault/43702/images/thatcher.jpg

    Tony Blair obviously noticed: http://www.moneymad.org/Previous/tony_blair_margaret_thatcher.jpg

    Vra-vra-vra-vrooom!

  • Re: the Clintits (sorry, but that’s what coverage of the “story” might as well call Hillary’s breasts; it’s like the Clenis, but cruder and dumber, just like the coverage)

    Does Ann Althouse know about this? (side note: does Ann Althouse know that as a woman, *she* may be at risk of having breasts?)

  • I find the increasing number of Republicans who are comfortable with Hillary as the Democratic nominee utterly disturbing and more sure that she’d loose the general elections. They seem to think, she’s their only hope.

  • John Edwards has a provocative new response to the media focusing on political trivia over political substance during the campaign: it’s an intentional strategy. Late last week, Edwards told an Iowa audience that the media’s negligence is “not an accident” and that “they want to shut me up” to silence his message about Iraq, healthcare, and poverty. Edwards paraphrased the establishment as saying: “Let’s distract from people who don’t have health care coverage. Let’s distract from people who can’t feed their children…. Let’s talk about this silly frivolous nothing stuff so that America won’t pay attention.”

    This is a pretty good response, but he’s a little slow on the draw. Hopefully he’ll keep singing this all the way through- it will carry him far. I’d like to see all of our top three people do well and say things that are good for liberals in general.

    Doubtful wrote:

    I find the increasing number of Republicans who are comfortable with Hillary as the Democratic nominee utterly disturbing

    It’s just a bluff. It’s supposed to disturb you.

    NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg continues to say he’s not running for president, but he keeps doing little things to raise eyebrows. In the latest step, Bloomberg registered a bunch of domain names, including michaelbloomberg.com, mbloomberg.com, and mike2008.com.

    It’s not going to happen- that’s my guess. These are just feelers- it’s like what Newt’s been doing.

  • Ah, I see the circular firing squad of Senator Hillary Clinton bashers have found each other on this thread. Awwww.

    Although Clinton is my third choice right now and I’m definitely voting “not-Hillary” in the primary, I have no problem with her impeccable Democratic Party credentials as opposed to say, the Republican nominee. If she wins the nomination (God forbid as you put it), I’ll have no problem whatsoever voting for the first woman president in US history.

    You, on the other hand, should form another One-Fifth-As-Popular-As-Ross-Perot Party like you had in 2000. Won’t that be neat?

  • I agree with colonpowwow, but I’d like to add that this Bloomberg maneuvering concerns me. I’d hate to see another 3rd party mess somehow continuing the rule of incompetents of the Greedy, Oily Party.

  • Bloomberg registered a bunch of domain names, including michaelbloomberg.com, mbloomberg.com, and mike2008.com.

    Oohhh…I bet Mike Gravel is verrrry unhappy with his team right now. Although, if he were to be Bloomberg’s running mate, it would still work…

  • naschkatze @8: Obama is the best black candidate to come along or who will come along

    And you know this how?

  • Ah, I see the circular firing squad of Senator Hillary Clinton bashers have found each other on this thread. Awwww.

    What’s really cute is how you think it’s circular.

  • I’ve expressed this before. The last time I did, one regular poster here took particular offense and actually “chastened” me with a nasty, ill-written, personal attack (saving his better stuff for Hillary, I presume). He reduced my 40-year working life in Democratic politics to “many years of marking in circles on ballots” (while lecturing me about my being condescending).

    To be most clear, Hillary sits right now at being my third choice for the nomination, and I’ll be voting “not-Hillary” in my state’s primary election. That said, let me write this next part r e a l s l o w so that even those dumb enough to sit out the 2008 presidential election rather than voting for Senator Hillary Clinton can understand.

    In 2000, we lifelong progressive Democrats pleaded, “Oh, most progressively purist ones, please, pretty-please don’t go too far. Here’s a number of convoluted ways we can “vote-trade” to protect your tender sensibilities, and to help you build your mighty One-Fifth-As-Popular-As-Ross-Perot Party. And all the while we will be keeping Mr. Nader’s brand of social progressivism at least breathing! We love you and puhlease help Mr. Gore to win and . . . (blubber, snort, sniffle).”

    Now, we ALL know how that turned out. And, in retrospect, we Dems were actually understating the case a bit, weren’t we?

    So, pardon me all to hell this time around if my honest, heartfelt plea to the intellectually-irresponsible, more-progressive-than-thou types who would continue to enable a right wing agenda by sitting out the election before they would vote for a bona fide, democratically-elected Democrat (Hillary) is this:

    Please, please, don’t let the saloon door hit you in your irrelevant elephant on your way out. The rest of us will stick around with the real party going on. And if Hillary uses her impeccable Democratic credentials to win election to the nomination, we fully intend to raise a toast to salute the first woman president in the storied political history of our nation!

    BTW – I would fight to the death for your “right” to choose to not vote if that’s your alleged fix on things, even though recent history has shown your course of (in)action to be marvelously both awesomely destructive and unendingly tiresome at the same time. And in Constitutional America as it still exists today, there will always be a seat at the table for your views on the Sean Hannity Show – Fox News at Eight – “Dems Themselves Help Take Out The Evil Hillary.”

    Reality-based community, indeed!

  • Neneh at 24, I think that in future elections the Hispanics are going to come on strong. They are doing extremely well in California politics with the only major prize they haven’t attained yet being the governorship. And as far as minority candidates go, they will surpass the blacks. So, I think this is the moment for a black president.

    • Comments are closed.