Thursday’s campaign round-up

May 15, 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:

* What’s up on the superdelegate front? Over the last 24 hours, Obama has picked up two (Mike Morgan in Oklahoma and Lena Taylor in Wisconsin) and Clinton got one (Vicky Harwell of Tennessee). An Edwards pledged delegate from New Hampshire has also moved to Obama. (At this point, Edwards’ delegates are, to a certain extent, like superdelegates, in that they can pick whomever they want.)

* Speaking of endorsements, the United Steelworkers, which had supported Edwards, also announced their switch to Obama this morning.

* In a classy move yesterday, Hillary Clinton defended Obama from McCain’s Hamas-related attacks. Good for her.

* Bloomberg reported yesterday that Obama picked up endorsements from “three former chairmen of the Securities and Exchange Commission, two of whom were appointed by Republican presidents.” “We believe Senator Obama can provide the positive leadership and judgment needed to take us to a stronger and more secure economic future,” they said

* Obama has been wearing a flag pin on his lapel this week. Reporters find this fascinating.

* A woman reporter pressed Obama on the plight of auto workers before a media availability had begun, prompting Obama to ask her to “hold on one second there sweetie.” He later called her directly to apologize.

* I find it hard to believe, but a Rasmussen poll found that more than one in four Clinton supporters (29%) want her to run as an independent, third-party candidate if her Democratic bid comes up short.

* NARAL’s decision to endorse Obama was not immediately embraced by some of the organization’s state affiliates, who have decided to remain neutral.

* I’d like to hear a little more about this: “Progressive Media will not be running an independent ad campaign this year,” David Brock, the head of the organization, confirmed in a statement. “Progressive Media was established to be an independent on-going progressive issue advocacy organization,” Brock added. “We were not established for one issue, one candidate or one election cycle. But donors and potential donors are getting clear signals from the Obama camp through the news media and we recognize that reality.”

* Bill Clinton suggested yesterday that Florida would not have been punished by the DNC if the state had backed Obama instead of Hillary. I don’t know what he’s basing that on.

* Just in time for VP consideration, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) has a new book out this week.

* In Colorado’s open U.S. Senate race, Republican Bob Schaffer tried to tout his ties to his home state in a new TV ad, noting that he proposed to his wife on the top of Pikes Peak. Unfortunately, the ad makers featured Alaska’s Mt. McKinley in the commercial. The Schaffer campaign pulled the ad.

more than one in four Clinton supporters (29%) want her to run as an independent, third-party candidate if her Democratic bid comes up short

IMO this is about 2012, not 2008. Poisoning Obama. If McCain wins this year, she would be poised to run again, but if Obama wins this round she’s “only” going to be a senator, and how sad would that be?

  • Bill Clinton suggested yesterday that Florida would not have been punished by the DNC if the state had backed Obama instead of Hillary. I don’t know what he’s basing that on.

    I just love how this bozo is going around proving every day that what I saw in him in 1992 (that there was no “there” there) was right. This fits right in there with the story about him telling Kerry to go out and campaign against everything he believed in in the last month of the 2004 campaign in order to win. Something Billy would have done in a heartbeat.

    Little Billy Clinton, the boy who wanted to grow up and become President, who never grew up.

  • This flagpin BS, argh. The flag is *not* supposed to be used as apparel, according to flag etiquette. Why doesn’t anybody report this?

  • I forgot to add that obviously the Rush Limbaugh folks would love Hillary to run as an independent, and they will no doubt be actively trying to push this idea. Look for them to be posing as progressives and trying to make their wet dream a reality.

    Fortunately a lot of them are too stupid to pull it off, and are also still a little unenthusiastic about supporting McCain, who Rush told them was a horrible liberal for years and years before he became a McCain backer.

  • I find it hard to believe, but a Rasmussen poll found that more than one in four Clinton supporters (29%) want her to run as an independent, third-party candidate if her Democratic bid comes up short.

    Who are these abject idiots? Not Democrats. Not liberals. Not progressives. What kind of self-centered asshole tells the poor, the middle class, the uninsured, the military, and every person who enjoys having civil rights and liberties to go screw themselves because any candidate lost the nomination? Haven’t we had enough of the cult of personality with the Dubya voters? Now we need it with Hillary?

    I’d have to vote for Clinton with an airsick bag in my hand in November, but by God I’d do it before I’d help the Republicans further stack the Supremes, destroy our economy and remaining job security, yank our civil rights, ignore the health-care crisis and climate change, rape the environment, promote a theocracy, spit on science and education, and finish turning the entire world against us. And I’m not a particularly heroic figure–I just pass the relatively low bar of not being a fucking sociopath. Too bad these ladies can’t say the same.

  • * I find it hard to believe, but a Rasmussen poll found that more than one in four Clinton supporters (29%) want her to run as an independent, third-party candidate if her Democratic bid comes up short.

    I don’t think that’s as bad as it looks. Remember that a lot of Clinton votes are low-information, and they’ll pretty much just answer “yes” to anything that “sounds good” about their candidate. They’re probably not thinking about hurting the Democratic Party or anything, they just think, “Yeah! Run again! Yippee!”

  • I retract my previous comment. Although the flag is “not to be worn as apparel,” the flag code later goes onto say that a flag patch may be worn by police, military … and patriotic organizations. So I suppose the government is probably considered a patriotic organization! There’s a note about where to where a flag lapel pin, too; it’s not clear if just anybody can wear one, though.

  • What does it tell us about the standard we expect from Hillary Clinton when she gets credit for defending a Democrat against egregious attacks from a Republican. Shouldn’t that be what is expected of her?

  • * I find it hard to believe, but a Rasmussen poll found that more than one in four Clinton supporters (29%) want her to run as an independent, third-party candidate if her Democratic bid comes up short.

    After watching the train wreck that is the Hillary supporting websites I have no doubt this is true. Their love of Clinton is only second to their fear of Obama. I like to term them as Fox Democrats. They are democrats that support Lieberman and watch fox news. Judging from the boards, they probably make up about 25% of Clinton’s supporters so it’s not surprising they would want to run as a third party.

  • Franklin, even if there was a law against wearing the flag as apparel, I have little doubt that it would be overturned on First Amendment grounds if anyone ever tried to enforce it under these circumstances– which I can’t imagine ever happening.

  • I was disappponted to learn that Obama campaigned for Lieberman against Ned Lamont. I guess his karma is that now he has Lieberman nipping at his heels.

  • I was disappponted to learn that Obama campaigned for Lieberman against Ned Lamont. I guess his karma is that now he has Lieberman nipping at his heels.

    He did in the primary, and that disappointed me, too, but once Lamont won the Democratic nomination Obama endorsed him in the general. He emailed his CT mailing list asking them to support Lamont.

    I certainly think Obama should have campaigned harder for Lamont, but the fact that Obama supported Ned in the general is something that the Clinton camp likes to forget to mention. They also “forget” that Bill Clinton campaigned hard for Lieberman in 2006.

  • Obama has been wearing a flag pin

    It has been a while since I saw a flag pin on a lapel, where I was impressed, but it looks good on Obama because of who he is.

  • Bill Clinton suggested yesterday that Florida would not have been punished by the DNC if the state had backed Obama instead of Hillary. I don’t know what he’s basing that on.

    The punishment came before Florida or Michigan even voted, so how does that even remotely make sense? I want some of whatever delusion-inducing stuff Bill is smoking. On the other hand, this is one of those rare instances where Republicans got it right: the DNC should have cut the delegates for each state in half and let the process go on normally. It wasn’t hard to see trouble coming from the decision they did make, though few candidates would have demagogued the issue like Hillary has.

    12. Dale said: I was disappponted to learn that Obama campaigned for Lieberman against Ned Lamont. I guess his karma is that now he has Lieberman nipping at his heels.

    Count me among the people who were very enthusiastic about Obama until he campaigned for Lieberman. If not for that and a few other things I would have been an Obama supporter the whole time instead of a tepid Edwards supporter with no real preference between the top 4 Dems when this year started.

  • “A woman reporter pressed Obama on the plight of auto workers before a media availability had begun, prompting Obama to ask her to “hold on one second there sweetie.” He later called her directly to apologize.”

    I’m a die-hard Obama supporter, but this bugged the shit out of me when I saw it on C-Span yesterday. Occasionally a female stranger will call me sweetie, (How are you today, sweetie?), and it irritates me then too. Obama needs to purge this label from his vocabulary. It’s condescending…whether he intends it to be or not.

  • Steve,

    I beg to differ regarding your appraisal of Clinton’s defense of Obama. Only in contrast with Clinton’s race-baiting and generally disgusting rhetoric could her statement be seen as classy. In any other year, in any other context, her words would simply be a given coming from one Democratic in defense of another.

    But that’s how well the Clintons have succeeded in reframing the expectations for her in this race. Obama has to answer questions about why he can’t attract whites, while his competitor and her husband — a former two-term First Lady and former President, respectively — have been purposefully trying to stygmatize Obama as a black candidate since before New Hampshire.

    It’s disgusting, and I believe you should raise your bar of expectations for her, back to where they would be if she wasn’t a media sensation unto herself. She’s not royalty, she’s a wannabe who blew it and went down ugly. And until I see some actual good works from her on Obama’s behalf — including undoing all the racial opposition to Obama that she and her husband supported, encouraged and exploited, I’m going to think of her in the most unkind terms.

    See also Bob Herbert’s column of a week ago for how the Clintons cannot exhibit class in any circumstance.

    “The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully. Their repertoire has always been deficient in grace and class.”

    Set a high bar. Make them meet it. It’s not enough if they just show up. It’s not their party any more. If they want a legacy — other than a nefarious one — it’s time for them to earn it.

  • ” I find it hard to believe, but a Rasmussen poll found that more than one in four Clinton supporters (29%) want her to run as an independent, third-party candidate if her Democratic bid comes up short.”

    You misread that one- it’s 29% of DEMOCRATS want her to run as an independent (it said her supporters were evenly split). Clearly, that is much more serious. What are these people thinking? I understand that they care about the candidate, but do they really think she’ll win as an independent? If the situation were reversed, I admit I might want Obama to run as an independent, but I think I would eventually swallow my pride and vote for Hillary. I wouldn’t like it, but I don’t want McCain to give Bush a third term. We’ve got less than six months to the election- it’s time to come together.

    But I’m not sure how much credence to lend that article when it says something like:

    “As for Barack Obama, 25% Democrats say he should drop out. That’s down from 22% following the Pennsylvania Primary,”

    Huh?

  • “I find it hard to believe, but a Rasmussen poll found that more than one in four Clinton supporters (29%) want her to run as an independent, third-party candidate if her Democratic bid comes up short.”

    I suspect these folks aren’t progressives and couldn’t care less about values shared by the members of the Democratic party.

    I’m speculating here, but some are likely identity voters who could just as easily support Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison for president, others are ditto-heads continuing to serve their leader and others are independents attracted to the most bellicose candidate out there.

    If all goes well, Obama’s candidacy might actually give them an opportunity to consider two very different candidates, and therefore, to think for themselves.

  • Obama wearing a flag pin when he brazenly said he would not wear one out of spite shows that he has no spine and will say one thing and do another.. just like his promise to stick with government financing if the Republican did too, or his position on banning of handguns, etc.

    Jim Webb would be a very weak choice for VP, he is another freshman Senator which would make for the worst combination of inexperience.

    I think what President Clinton was trying to say was that Obama would not have been against a revote or seating the delegates had he not lost, I think this is a reasonable assumption seeing how many Obama followers claim Clinton is only fighting for the rights of millions of voters because she won.

    It does not help him though that he basically killed the re-votes, thus ensuring the disenfranchisement of millions of voters.

    Thanks for nothing Obama.

  • And Obama picks up four supers so far today, including Henry Waxman and Howard Berman. That makes 7.5 for Obama and 1 for Clinton since West Virginia.

  • ” Obama has been wearing a flag pin on his lapel this week. Reporters find this fascinating.”
    — Where’s his cross?

  • Hillary won’t run as an independent. For all the talk about various nails being THE final nail in her coffin, that would be it.

    At this point, her only hope is to hang on to the convention, an hope that either the supers will swing in her favor (doubtful) or an Obama gaffe will be so egregious it will unravel his campaign (also doubtful).

    After that, her only hope is to quietly, surreptitiously poison the campaign against Obama so she can run in 2012.

    Were she to run as an indie this year, much like the sad decline of Lieberman, her fate will be sealed within the Democratic party. She won’t win as an indie this year; she’ll siphon some Dem votes, but unlike Obama, she doesn’t inspire a lot of loyalty amongst indies, and CERTAINLY not from Republicans. Indies are attracted to her because she’s not McCain, but in a three way race (four way if you include Bob Barr, five if you include Nader), all she’ll do is attract a percentage of Dems. No indies. No Republicans. Obama will get some indies and Repubs, but be hamstrung by what Clinton siphoned and McCain would likely win. After that, there’s no way in Hell the Democratic party would welcome her back as a potential candidate in 2012, and there’s be the stink of loser all over her anyway. She’ll be Perot 2.0, she’ll be Nader The Next Generation…

    OR…she can drop out now, get an important job in an Obama Administration and do the grunt work necessary to make this country the it-takes-a-village utopia she envisions. So she won’t call the shots. If it helps make the world a better place, does it matter where the accolades go? Really?

    Unless she’s a power-hungry hypocrite or something.

  • IIRC, a Iraq veteran at a PA campaign stop gifted him w/ the pin, and on those terms Obama agreed to wear it.

  • “more than one in four Clinton supporters (29%) want her to run as an independent, third-party candidate if her Democratic bid comes up short”

    Actually, you’ve gotten this wrong. According to Rasmussen, 29% of ALL DEMOCRATS want Hillary to run as an independent, which is a MUCH larger statement. The chances of it happening are still slim, but now that Rasmussen has asked the question Hillary was afraid to ask for herself, don’t think she isn’t giving it at least some consideration.

  • Bill Clinton suggested yesterday that Florida would not have been punished by the DNC if the state had backed Obama instead of Hillary. I don’t know what he’s basing that on.

    The Clintonian loathing of Howard Dean and everything he represents, maybe?

  • OT, but for those people who still think McCain has some strength with his base, yesterday he was criticized for not releasing Cindy’s tax return by that ultra-liberal bastion of Democratic talking points —

    The Washington TIMES.

    (h/t Mark Kleiman)

    (And no, that’s not a typo, nor am I conflating the Washington POST and the NY TIMES. I do mean the ultra-conservative Moonie paper. Hmm, given Daddy Bush’s connection with Moon, maybe this isn’t so surprising. Just because McCain may share Bush’s ideas, it doesn’t lessen the positive hatred between him and the Bushes — remember the offhand slap at Jeb that McCain did by describing Charlie Crist as one of the greatest governors in Florida history.)

  • “Obama wearing a flag pin when he brazenly said he would not wear one out of spite shows that he has no spine…”

    Obama never said he “would not wear one” or anything to that effect.

    The fact the Greg cares about this shows that he has no sense.

  • Greg wrote, “I think what President Clinton was trying to say was that Obama would not have been against a revote or seating the delegates had he not lost, I think this is a reasonable assumption seeing how many Obama followers claim Clinton is only fighting for the rights of millions of voters because she won.”

    Greg insists on remaining ignorant.

    Nobody “won” or “lost” in Florida and Michigan since a person can’t win or lose an election in which neither candidate “campaigned” or “participated”. Both Obama and Clinton pledged not to “campaign or participate” in those elections. As a result, the election results do not reflect what the actual results otherwise might have been under ordinary circumstances and are, therefore, invalid.

    In addition, Obama kept his pledge. Hillary did not (left her name on the ballot in Michigan and campaigned in Florida). He shouldn’t be punished for playing by the rules, and she shouldn’t benefit from cheating.

  • Jim Webb is NOT my first choice for VP but he was Secretary of the Navy (albeit under a Republican) by any stretch of the imagination (though I can see how it might make sense) and has sufficient amounts of experience and situational awareness to run as VP. Since people often come to the Senate later in life, it’s just silly to discount their careers and experiences before that as irrelevant.

    The same people who whine about not wanting professional politicians are usually the same folks who moan about lack of experience.

    • Comments are closed.