Thursday’s political round-up

August 9, 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:

* Elizabeth Edwards had some curious comments in an interview this week about her husband generating less attention than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. “We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman,” Edwards said. “Those things get you a certain amount of fundraising dollars.” I’m not quite sure what to make of that.

* “With middle class students unable to afford a college education of their choosing,” Sen. Chris Dodd “unveiled a plan for free tuition to community colleges,” the New Hampshire Union Leader reports. “Dodd estimates the cost of providing free tuition to all students in the 50 states as $54 billion over eight years, while he believes eliminating the federal subsidies for banks writing college loans and making them bid to provide the service would save $48 billion.”

* ABC: “In one of the strongest conflicts yet between Republican presidential front-runners, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney attacked rival Rudy Giuliani Wednesday, implying that Giuliani supported illegal immigration when he was mayor of New York. ‘If you look at lists compiled on Web sites of sanctuary cities, New York is at the top of the list when Mayor Giuliani was mayor,’ Romney said. ‘He instructed city workers not to provide information to the federal government that would allow them to enforce the law. New York City was the poster child for sanctuary cities in the country.'”

* John McCain has repeatedly said, over the course of several years, that the U.S. “will” win in Iraq. This week, at a fundraiser, McCain conceded, “I’m not positive we can win this fight.”

* Fred Thompson, who still hasn’t announced, introduced his third campaign manager yesterday: Bill Lacy, who previously served as a top strategist in Bob Dole’s ’88 and ’96 campaigns.

* Mitt Romney may have been governor of Massachusetts, but asked yesterday how many counties his state has, Romney got it wrong. (There are only 14; it seems like the kind of thing a state’s governor would know.)

* Fred Thompson, who still hasn’t announced, introduced his third campaign manager yesterday: Bill Lacy, who previously served as a top strategist in Bob Dole’s ‘88 and ‘96 campaigns.

I think Thompson should just turn his campaign over to his wife and his agent and have them let him know if he wins. An actor of his stature shouldn’t have to audition for a part.

  • “We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman,” Edwards said. “Those things get you a certain amount of fundraising dollars.” I’m not quite sure what to make of that.

    Nothing. And all of the attention that line is getting is much ado about nothing. Since we all proclaim our existence in a Reality Based World, Elizabeth’s comments rate about a shrug, for stating the obvious.

    Obvious Truth One: The candidate’s spouse is just not going to respond to the question by saying “Well, having run and lost last time, John is damaged goods, old news – heck, I trump him these days when I get near a microphone. These days we long for haircut coverage because its better than nothing. The horserace is early enough this year that they just don’t have room for three, and really John just hasn’t been on his game as well as he was four years ago, so the buzz just isn’t there.”

    Obvious Truth Two: While it is largely spin, that doesn’t make her comment untrue. We have never had a President who was female or from a racial minority. That we have very credible candidates representing both in the same year is, simply, news. A first may happen (and long after it has in many, many other countries). For some voters, that statement alone is a factor in their decisions. So Elizabeth is truly just stating the obvious here: the novelty in a could-be-President female or minority draws some increment of media and voter attention. And it is really, really obvious to say that being a woman, for example, is worth a certain amount of fundraising. Emily’s List, to give just one example, is one of the most organized and well-run political funding groups out there.

    Not much to see here. That won’t stop it from getting play, of course.

  • Eric Schultz, a spokesman for Edwards’ campaign, told CNN Tuesday that Elizabeth Edwards was “noting what countless reporters and pundits have said for months, that Senators Clinton and Obama get a lot of media attention, and deservedly so, because of the potential ‘firsts’ of their candidacies.”

    Makes sense to me. Edwards doesn’t have much unique about him, but he is a damn good Democrat.

  • As a resident of Dukes County in Mass., the one he probably forgot, I’m not surprised he didn’t know how many counties there are in his ‘home’ state. He was never in Dukes County, and hardly ever even in the state while he was governor. This was especially true after 2004 when he failed to make any gains, despite investing a lot of political capital in the attempt, in the legislature. The man is a total empty suit.

    Maybe someone should ask him how many states there are, and then name them.

  • “Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney attacked rival Rudy Giuliani Wednesday, implying that Giuliani supported illegal immigration when he was mayor of New York.”

    Yes, just ask abner loima (although loima was a legal immigrant I am sure). but I am also sure the message sent by loima’s treatment was well received by all immigrants, illegal as well as legal. So, to the anti-immigration folks, this might all just balance out.

  • One also can’t make Edwards the husbad of a very popular ex-President of the US. Which I am sure also plays a very large role in fundraising capabilities.

  • “We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman,” Edwards said. “Those things get you a certain amount of fundraising dollars.” I’m not quite sure what to make of that.

    That she should shut up a bit.

    I guess one day this damn species will reach a point where non-caucasians and/or non-males can acheive something without some cretin hinting that said acheivement is based on some sort of Affirmative Action/Sympathy bullshit.

    Clearly that day is still a ways off.

  • Re: Elizabeth Edwards comments, I tend to agree with Zeitgeist. TAIO, I know what you’re saying but I don’t think that’s what she was saying/implying. I think it’s good to mention the pink elephant in the room – that at least some part of the “buzz” around Clinton and Obama is because of their geder/skin color. There’s more to it, but I can see Edwards wanting to say that that’s what’s going on, the message being that, if everyone focuses on the substance, and NOT on gender/skin color, then Edwards will be the obvious choice.

  • “We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman,” Edwards said. “Those things get you a certain amount of fundraising dollars.” I’m not quite sure what to make of that.

    Well, technically, you could make him a woman.

    But I digress. I think her remarks were a bit off-color and too racy for a candidate’s wife. The SCLM will have a hay day, of course. Imagine if a ReThug had made these remarks –I think there’d be unanimous indignation here at TCR.

  • Romney not knowing the number of counties in Mass should be placed in context.
    In Mass the county is just much less important than in other states. Every part of Mass is also in a township or city and there is no area that is just in a county. These towns,etc. provide services like police, water, schools, etc that elsewhere are often done by the counties. All the counties do is the courts and jails, much less than in other states.

    No one considers the counties important.

    I live in Mass and think of myself as well informed, but I have no idea how many counties we have and I seriously doubt very many people do. I would have done like they did and guess some number around a dozen. If he had stated his number with confidence and not turned to his aides for help I doubt if anyone would have caught the error.

    I’m not a particular fan of Romney, but he appears to be the most rational of the Republican candidates.

    This is a ‘GOTYA” question that should be ignored by serious analysts.

  • [Romney] …appears to be the most rational of the Republican candidates.

    Oh Boy. Don’t you think that you’re using the term rational rather loosely, spencer? You’re talking about a man that left his dog in a carrier strapped to the roof of the Family Truckster while he drove 8 hours. Does that sound rational to you?

  • that at least some part of the “buzz” around Clinton and Obama is because of their geder/skin color

    Nuh-uh. Buzz is one thing, Edwards was talking about money. People might be interested because a woman and an African-American are running for President but that doesn’t explain why they are ahead in fundraising. Sure, some donors might give cash just to get in on the excitement but the majority of the donors will back the candidate with whom they agree and think have a shot of making it.

    if everyone focuses on the substance, and NOT on gender/skin color, then Edwards will be the obvious choice.

    Which is what makes it so offensive and the lame ass spin isn’t helping. You can say she isn’t running for president so it shouldn’t matter. Fine. But as JKap points out I don’t think I’d give Mitten’s wife a pass if she made a similar comment.

  • JKap is correct. If one of the GOP wives made such a remark as Elizabeth Edwards did there would be mutual indignation.

    I can’t believe so many are willing to excuse blatant racism and sexism, especially when she’s accusing not the candidates but Americans.

    Do the Edwards’ honestly believe that his candidacy is hindered by his whiteness and maleness? Hell, it’s probably just the opposite, but you don’t see Michelle Obama bitching about Barrack’s inability to be white.

    TCR is right on to have posted this because this subtle, underhanded bigotry is dispicable.

    This incident (unless John publicly denounces it, fat chance), plus his inability to accept gay marriage because of religious reasons and his unsustainable economic policies has firmly moved Edwards from the ‘maybe’ to the ‘no’ column for me.

  • “I live in Mass and think of myself as well informed, but I have no idea how many counties we have and I seriously doubt very many people do.”

    while i don’t doubt for a second that you are well informed, you also weren’t the governor of the state. he definitely should have know how many counties there are.

  • * Fred Thompson, who still hasn’t announced, introduced his third campaign manager yesterday: Bill Lacy, who previously served as a top strategist in Bob Dole’s ‘88 and ‘96 campaigns.

    LOL! Apparently Thompson’s problem is he can’t find a campaign manager who will initiate his campaign!

  • Oh wow. I know I’m like a week late on commenting on the new blog system but it is awesome! I love the real-time updated comment preview area. Great job, CB and Mrs. CB!

  • Taio @ 14 – I think we’re splitting hairs. Buzz leads to money; interest leads to money. The first goal of these politicians is to be heard so that you’ll then give them money, and then vote for them. Her point is that, and I think it’s a realistic one, that Edwards’ not being black or female in this particular race has handicapped him at least a bit. I don’t think it’s offensive to say that race/gender has an impact – to deny it is to deny the obvious. The fact that Hillary is a woman and the fact that Obama is black are both factors in this race. Perhaps more importantly is that it’s a reality that’s not going to change.

  • doubtful, i dont see how she is “accusing” anyone of anything. heck, i personally know women who lean HRC because she is a woman and think it is about damned time we get these testosterone poisoned chickenhawk-but-macho-man-wannabes out of the White House. The White House Project has been pushing for a female Pres for years; Emily’s List only gives money to female candidates.

    you are almost surely correct that in the end being a white, male helps Edwards in the voting booth, where there is still a significant impact of racism and sexism in this country. but you can’t realistically believe that not one media story has been devoted to Senators Clinton or Obama because of the novelty of a woman or a mixed-race candidate doing this well? And if you concede – as I really think you have to – that at least some of the coverage, at least early on, was based on that novelty, isn’t what Elizabeth said then factually true?

    Every column inch on Hillary’s cleavage and every debate question on whether Barack is “black enough” is oxygen in the process used on those gender and race issues. Those inches and questions push coverage of Edwards — and every other candidate — out of the story. That these stories exist is inarguable fact — as is the fact there is nothing John Edwards can do about it.

    So I ask again, how is Edwards “blatently racist and sexist” to point that out? What part of my earlier post (#3) is not accurate?

  • I suspect that gender and race are as helpful in the Democratic primaries as they will be unhelpful in the general election.

    Different people can say the same thing and it will have different meaning, connotation and denotation.

  • …but you can’t realistically believe that not one media story has been devoted to Senators Clinton or Obama because of the novelty of a woman or a mixed-race candidate doing this well? -Zeitgeist

    Right, like the novelty of how ‘slutty’ she is if she wears a v-neck top, just like it was novel to talk about the color of Pelosi’s suits. And the novelty of Obama’s racial and religious heritage and how it makes him a terrorist.

    But, hey, none of that is anymore novel than Edwards’ $400 haircut, which generated a lot of ‘buzz.’ Everytime something is written about that it’s ‘oxygen’ in the Edwards campaign.

    Seriously, 44 Presidents and all of them have been Christian old white men, but poor Liz just can’t help but feel Johnny isn’t getting a fair shake because of how similar he is to all of them. I guess she should have married a black lesbian. That the bullet express to the White House. (No offense Condi.)

    The part of your post that isn’t right is the part where you gloss over a bigoted sentiment from the wife of a major party candidate. You say it doesn’t deserve play, but I disagree. I have higher expectations from my candidates and their representatives than this, and I won’t accept it from a Democrat as much as I wouldn’t from a Republican I’m not going to make excuses for it either.

    Is this country seriously at a point where the wife of a white male running for President can accuse the country of discriminating against him via poor fund raising?

  • Her point is that, and I think it’s a realistic one, that Edwards’ not being black or female in this particular race has handicapped him at least a bit.

    I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. Or we could have a bloody big debate. In the meantime, so far as I know, being a Caucasian male is not a political handicap in this country.

    A hypothetical that has been posed in this thread:

    During an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Jeri Kehn said her husband, Fred Thompson, has been struggling to raise funds. She attributed this the fact that Republicans are making donations to Democratic candidates Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama. “It’s too bad Fred isn’t a black woman,” Jeri quipped. “He wouldn’t have a problem then.”

    Your reaction?

    • Comments are closed.