Thursday’s political round-up

August 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:

* AP: “Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton will give to charity the $23,000 in donations she has received from a Hong Kong-born fundraiser who is wanted in California for failing to appear for sentencing on a 1991 grand theft charge. The decision came Wednesday as other Democrats began distancing themselves from Norman Hsu, whose legal encounters and links to other Democratic donors have drawn public scrutiny in the past two days.”

* In his 2000 campaign, McCain would allude infrequently to his time as a prisoner of war during Vietnam. This year, he’s ready to use the experience quite a bit: “The McCain campaign — in a new video unveiled exclusively to CNN on Wednesday — is aiming to showcase the Arizona Republican’s service in the Vietnam War, including his time spent in a North Vietnamese prison. Called ‘Courageous Leadership,’ the twelve-minute video begins with footage of McCain being interrogated by enemy soldiers.” The campaign apparently intends to use the video at house parties and speaking events, and as the basis for television commercials.

* Barack Obama unveiled a mortgage plan yesterday, which would target unscrupulous subprime lenders with steep fines, which would in turn be used to help bail out borrowers facing a wave of foreclosures, according a report in the Financial Times.

* Wyoming Republicans made a bold move yesterday by moving its presidential primary to Jan. 5 — before even Iowa or New Hampshire vote. “We’re first in the nation,” said Tom Sansonetti, the state party’s 2008 county convention coordinator. “At least for the next couple, three weeks until New Hampshire and Iowa move, which I expect they will.” Expect the RNC to come down hard on Wyoming.

* While some unions are starting to line up behind their favored presidential hopeful, AFL-CIO leaders said yesterday that they probably won’t endorse anyone during the primary season.

* Though he stopped short of an endorsement, former President Jimmy Carter had some strong praise for John Edwards yesterday, lauding the former senator’s positions on the environment, healthcare, and poverty.

* And in keeping with the trend, Elizabeth Edwards continues to be the most aggressive voice in the Democratic presidential process, telling Time, “I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified. I don’t know where it comes from. I don’t begin to understand. But you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won’t energize them, Bush won’t energize them, but Hillary as the nominee will.”

I’ll be making an announcement on Friday of the Dem Primary candidate I will be endorsing. Sorry no questions at this time.

  • I’m sick of Elizabeth Edwards already. If her husband weren’t boring and pretty unappealing on his own, her shit talking would be the real turn-off.

  • And in keeping with the trend, Elizabeth Edwards continues to be the most aggressive voice in the Democratic presidential process, telling Time, “I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified. I don’t know where it comes from. I don’t begin to understand. But you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won’t energize them, Bush won’t energize them, but Hillary as the nominee will.”

    I have no hatred for HRC. But I am indeed energized to not support her candidacy under any circumstance because she voted for the “Patriot” Act.

    In my mind she has endorsed what I like to call the Plenipotentiary Executive.

  • Elizabeth Edwards is speaking out loud what a lot of people are thinking. The Dems may be swooning over Hillary, but the country overall isn’t.

    I’m tired of the Dem propensity for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Nominate someone that is actually electable instead of a manipulative and secretive first lady who thinks that she deserves the presidency.

  • Nominate someone that is actually electable

    Concerning ourselves with predicting electability is how we got the uninspiring and refusing-to-fight-back Kerry who, in a sad irony, turned out to be unelectable, instead of the stronger, never-would-have-taken-that-Swiftboat BS Howard Dean, who win or lose at least would have taken several pounds of Bush’s flesh in the fight.

    I agree that “electability” in principle is important, but I think the percentage of Americans who are politically active have a horrible track record of accurately identifying what it means to be “electable.”

  • Here’s an idea: Not only should elected officials have to put their assets in a blind account, candidates should not be able to know who contributes to their campaigns or how much.

  • McCain is still a prisoner of war.

    brilliant, dale. that campaign finance idea’s a good one, too.

  • I’m not in love with Hillary by any means, but if the best Elizabeth Edwards can do to help her husband against Hillary is parrot the demonstrably false conservative talking points (“she’s not electable”), then she’s not doing the Democratic side of the election any favors. Her media presence shouldn’t be spent agreeing with Sean Hannity on anything.

    Argue against your competition’s policy ideas, or their record. But don’t blather on like a Fox News correspondent about how people hate Hillary… You don’t see the other Democratic campaigns spending time talking about haircuts.

  • Dale @ 7,
    Seems like there’d be no reason for anyone to contribute (big donors, anyway). If the candidate doesn’t know to whom he/she is to be beholden, then why donate? (rhetorical question)

  • I don’t know – I think the GOP may be so demoralized by the time the election gets here that they may not be able to drag themselves to the polls. I don’t see the GOP scandals letting up anytime soon, the occupation looks like it will continue to be a losing issue for the GOP as well. With the stock market rocketing from one extreme to another, and the sub-prime mortgage debacle threatening to plunge us into a recession, what, exactly can Republicans run on with any credibility?

    While all of that is filling up the handbasket to hell, I would like to see some actual leadership on the part of those candidates who are members of Congress – a few things that would show their willingness to take definite stands on things that are more than just rhetorical, when-I’m-president speeches.

  • Re Hillary not electable –

    In espanol: El Toro Poop!

    In the last few months’ Rasmussen polls, Hillary beats the crap out of any Democratic rivals, and leads every possible Republican. She will energize the country all right. She’s energize Democrats and women (the largest chunk of the electorate) to elect the first woman president in history. For reference of this phenomena, look up Harold Washington, Mayor of Chicago. He was unelectable because Chicago would energize the vast white racist voting bloc.

    Have some faith in your fellow citizens and stop listening to Sean Hannity and her Fox News disciple, Elizabeth Edwards to the manor born.

  • Whether she’s annoying or not, Elizabeth Edwards is right, and all you have to do to prove it is cruise the websites of the slobbering wingnuts. If Hillary is the nominee, they will crawl over broken glass to vote against her. If Hillary is not the nominee, a lot of those idiots will stay home rather than vote for any of the “fake conservatives” (as they see them) running on the Republican ticket.

    If you think Hillary isn’t a lightning rod, just go out and look around the web. The wingnuts see her as Satan, and with all the Republican scandals, they have little else to fire them up. They really, really want her to be the nominee just so they can go vote against her. They’re that stupid and hate-based.

    I would add that since Hillary still hasn’t admitted that she made a huge mistake on the Iraq war vote, she’s disqualified anyway. WTF is wrong with her? It’s like she has an AIPAC tattoo on her ass somewhere.

  • “Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton will give to charity the $23,000 in donations she has received from a Hong Kong-born fundraiser who is wanted in California for failing to appear for sentencing on a 1991 grand theft charge.

    Big damn deal.
    That donor is a little gonif.

    These are the corps Hillbilly sock-puppets for…

  • I’m a flaming liberal, and I don’t particularly want to vote for Hillary. I will if I have to, but I don’t want to. (And most of the liberals I know, women included, feel the same.) Unfortunately, EE and other commenters here are right– she’s the only thing out there that energizes the Republicans at this point. With the lousy job they’ve done, they’ve certainly made sure there’s nothing and no one else they can rally behind.

    Do I think she might be able to win? Yes. Do I think she’s the best choice? No.

  • Barack Obama unveiled a mortgage plan yesterday, which would target unscrupulous subprime lenders with steep fines, which would in turn be used to help bail out borrowers facing a wave of foreclosures

    I’m a Barack fan. But as a matter of policy, politicians need to be extremely careful about bailouts of upside-down homeowners. Were some duped? Certainly. And good riddance to no-doc loans (aka “liar loans”), no money down loans and the subprime ARM business.

    A large percentage of subprime borrowers simply had no business owning a house. We as taxpayers are not obligated to bailout everyone who falls for the next too-good-to-be-true scheme (“You can afford a home with no money down!”), any more than we should’ve refunded money to people who lost big in the tech stock bubble.

    I also have to wonder how Obama proposes to collect fines from companies that can’t pay their creditors, have declared bankruptcy … or have folded altogether.

  • We nominate a candidate based on not “energizing” the conservative base at our own peril.

  • In my little corner of the world, a lot of people call themselves Democrats and vote for Democrats, but hate Hillary and will vote for any Republican against her. Remember that the rePublican smear machine has been doing a job on her for fifteen years now.

    I like Hillary and think she would make a good president. But I’m scared of what will happen if she is the nominee.

    If we nominate Edwards or Obama, we win big. If we nominate Hillary, we win small. Or lose.

  • “Called ‘Courageous Leadership,’ the twelve-minute video begins with footage of McCain being interrogated by enemy soldiers.” The campaign apparently intends to use the video… as the basis for television commercials.”

    Interrogated by enemy soldiers using techniques McCain would now let American soldiers – and subcontractors – use on other people.

    I don’t think the McCain camp will be the only folks using that video as the basis for television commercials – how hard is it to imagine one that goes: “John McCain was tortured for years during the Viet Nam War. So why did he let George W. Bush sign legislation legalizing torture by Americans?”

    No, it won’t come from anyone he’s running against, because no Republican is so dumb they’d write off the torture-porn base vote, and no Democrat is going to antagonize a fellow senator by pointing out the hypocrisy of McCain letting Bush/Rove twist his arm (or maybe they didn’t have to, and he *chose* to be a torture-enabling douchebag on his own), or worse, air an ad that lets a Republican attack them for “protecting terrorists’ rights.” (though *any* Democrat will face that attack, so they might as well not bother trying to negotiate with unappeasable conservatives, as Hillary seems willing to do). But someone’s got to do *something* with that.

  • Uh, everyone here seems to buying into the BS of Hillary not being electable. Why then do the polls (Rassmussen- August show otherwise in head-to-head matchups with all potential Republican rivals from PA to MO, with the trends showing Hillary extending her leads.

    The more the Dems (even those tending toward Fox-encouraged mysogeny) and women of both parties, and others see that Hillary is as “normal” as any politician, smarter than most, and a lifelong liberal Democrat who has vocally fought for important socal legislation from way before anyone ever even heard of most of the others in this race, the only significant energizing will be the wave cresting toward the election of our first woman president.

    A significant step forward for progessives, if you ask me.

  • Okie said:

    If we nominate Edwards or Obama, we win big. If we nominate Hillary, we win small. Or lose.

    I’m not sure I buy this, and it isn’t just a matter of drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid.

    I understand there are a lot of Repubs-who-might-vote-Dem who hate Hils. And Indepedents and even some Dems who hate Hils.

    But I’ve also heard enough gray-haired good ol’ boy laborers who are lifelong Dems use the “N-word” and I saw how well the infamous “pink slip” ad worked for Helms against Gantt and how the “call me” ad worked against Ford. Anyone who thinks there is anymore of a latent “anti-Hillary” vote than a racist latent anti-Obama vote is kidding themselves.

    And really, the same people who hate forceful women and successful blacks hate pretty boy trial lawyers. It wont take much to convince them that Edwards is the end of their jobs and lifestyles and fire them up against him, too.

    In short, if a voter is inclined to be a simple-minded bigot of any stripe, they probably aren’t going to vote for any candidate most of us here would find progressive enough to support.

    Which is why we should stop all of the “which Dem do Repubs hate most” nonsense and make our own choices instead of reacting, prediciting or otherwise letting the R’s influence our primary.

  • #23 Zeitgeist

    Hear, hear!

    Enough cowtowing to the bigoted azzholes (aka Republican base). Time to get together and change the direction and philosophy of this country.

    And spare me the “buh…buh… but they’re all just different shades of the same capitalist criminal” Naderist nonsense (I hope his stock portfolio is weathering this recent storm) from the “progessiver-than-thou” element on this board.

    Let’s get a progressive Dem in, then let’s maybe talk cultural revolution after taking a breath of the fresh air. In case you haven’t read it from me yet, I’m voting Kucinich in the Democratic primary. I hope he wins the nomination. But if he doesn’t – and Hillary does, or Obama, or even Edwards (ugh!) – I will put my whole soul into getting any of the Dems in this fine field elected President.

  • Racerx at 15: “If Hillary is the nominee, they (wingnuts) will crawl over broken glass to vote against her.” Agreed, but those same wingnuts, if they’re allowed to vote as crossovers in primaries, will crawl over glass to vote for her. The state Democratic parties which allow crossovers and independents to vote in their primaries ought to consider prohibiting them before the 2008 primaries. This is a Rovian tactic the Republicans used in the general election in Connecticut between Lieberman and Lamont–they did not vote for the Republican candidate. If the Democrats allow the crossovers to stand, they will be setting themselves up for another stolen election.

  • Hillary is a divider, not a uniter. That’s why a lot of Dems won’t vote for her.

  • Excuse me, but I thought we fancied ourselves the fact-based reality people here. Yet posters here are making wild statements like “Elizabeth Edwards (with a not-too-hidden agenda) is right.” (re Hillary-hate-based crossover vote). Meanwhile the polls (as close to scientific reality as we have in this area) show that Edwards is overstating this at best and is getting wronger by the week at worst.

    What percentage of Republican voters are represented by the wingnut-site participants? They speak for the typical Republican voter (and to be clear I’m pulling this “fact” out of my orifice now) – undoubtably even in a smaller percentage then, say, that the “moonbat” sites speak for all the rank and file, working class Democrats.

  • I find it mildly amusing that people dislike Hillary because she is a “triangulator” – a strategy predicated on uniting, on moving to the middle in a way that seeks consensus, principles be damned, but also dislike her because she is a “divider.”

    This would seem to mean that she either does a really lousy job of triangulating, or one group of haters or the other has a baseless reason.

    I’m not sure what she does that is so divisive; the Right chose to go after her because of (a) a serious anti-feminist bent and (b) who she is married to. Yes she voted wrong from a progressive perspective on numerous bills (a more legitimate reason to oppose her candidacy); so did far too many of her colleagues and I don’t hear them labeled as “dividers.” The “divider” label seems to me to be allowing the right wing a “hecklers veto.”

  • Have some faith in your fellow citizens and stop listening to Sean Hannity and her Fox News disciple, Elizabeth Edwards to the manor born.

    With this post, you sort of outed yourself as a shill, if not simply a jerk. With your subsequent posts, you confirmed it. Elizabeth Edwards has more integrity and character in her small figure than Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation does in her whole person, plus her HillaryWorld entourage.

    If you think Hillary Clinton in any way resembles a “liberal Democrat,” you’re laboring under considerably more delusion than most Faux News viewers. And if you believe that Obama–who placed third in a recent poll of Iowa *Republicans* and consistently has the highest favorables of anyone in the race–will trigger the same blind loathing as Hillary, you’re probably beyond any fact-based argument.

    Rasmussen’s polls don’t do much for me. It’s still too far out before the election, and the intensity gap–which right now favors Democrats–will swing back to Republicans if we nominate a candidate millions of us don’t care for or believe in, but whom virtually all of them hate like Hitler.

    Not to mention that Sen. Clinton would kill us down-ticket, to the point that the Democrats could easily lose their House majority. I wish someone would ask the likes of Brad Ellsworth and Heath Shuler if they relish running for a second term with HRC as the Democratic standard-bearer.

  • Uh, everyone here seems to buying into the BS of Hillary not being electable. Why then do the polls (Rassmussen- August show otherwise — colonpowwow, @22

    Rassmusen, of all polls “out there” is, to me, the least trustworthy. I have *yet* to see them post Bush’s popularity stakes to stand at less than 35%. Usually, it’s closer to 40%. Even when *everyone else* is posting 28%. Something is rotten in the state of Denm… I mean Rassmussen.

  • #32 dajafi

    So, I’m a “shill and a jerk” because I think Elizabeth is hiding her agenda under the skirts of a Sean Hannity talking point?

    Thanks, I stand corrected. I think the posters here can tell who is a jerk by the degree of personal name-calling involved in a reply.

    • Comments are closed.