Thursday’s political round-up

October 18, 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:

* Before the end of the year, former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) is expected to announce his resignation from Congress, setting up a special election to replace him. Hastert announced his intention to retire at the end of his term several months ago, but apparently he no longer wants to do the job. There’s been some speculation that Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) could schedule the special election on the same day as the state’s Feb. 5 presidential primary.

* Rudy Giuliani told the Club for Growth yesterday that he “would rule out a tax increase” to help shore up Social Security as president. A month ago, he told the AP he was open to raising taxes to support the retirement program. I guess he was for it before he was against it.

* Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) indicated yesterday that he will endorse Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. He will be the second sitting governor to back Obama, following Virginia’s Tim Kaine (D).

* Speaking of Obama, the Illinois senator was on The Tonight Show last night. Jay Leno asked whether Obama finds the recent polls discouraging. “Hillary appears to be a shoo-in,” Leno said, adding: “How discouraging is that?” Obama said, “It’s not discouraging.” “A little bit?” Leno asked. “Hillary is not the first politician in Washington to declare mission accomplished a little too soon,” Obama responded.

* John Edwards is hammering the electability argument pretty hard. According to a campaign memo written by Edwards’ pollsters, Edwards “outperforms the other Democratic candidates in match-ups with Republican candidates in key battleground states including Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio. Further, unlike other Democrats who must ‘run the table’ in states where Democrats have been competitive in recent elections, Edwards brings new states into play. This provides alternate scenarios – and a margin for error – when it comes to amassing 270 electoral votes.”

* And the Romney campaign unveiled a new TV ad that hits Giuliani where it hurts, without ever mentioning his name — it features Mitt, his wife, their kids, and their grandkids.

“Hillary is not the first politician in Washington to declare mission accomplished a little too soon,” Obama responded.

Silly me! I totally missed Hillary’s declaration, announcement, whatever.

  • When you put words in somebody’s mouth that they never said, isn’t that the politics-as-usual Obama has been promising we wouldn’t see from him?

  • Despite vivid memories of what happened last time I made a similar comparison, when you put specific words in a specific person’s mouth that they never said, isn’t that worse that going “Some say…”

  • That concerned me, too, sarabeth, but if he modified it to something like “it wouldn’t be the first time people in Washington were a little quick to declare a mission was accomplished” or otherwise not attribute Leno’s question to HRC, it would actually be a pretty funny and pretty effective answer to a question he is going to get with increasing frequency.

    On a tactical level, I also think Romney’s latest move makes a lot of sense. NPR had a fairly nice interview with Anne Romney last night on ATC. She represented him well, except for an incredible willful naivete about how Mitt’s Morman faith will actually turn out to be an asset in the election. Um, good luck with that. And her adherence to acupuncture and reflexology may be a bit New Age-y for the PBR-drinkin, WWE watching crowd.

  • Obama, who pledged a “positive” campaign, has, in the last week or so, begun to attach names to his criticism – mostly Hillary’s. It seems like he’s testing the waters to see how far he can go before he gets pushback on his pledge. But he’s over-thinking his responses, and even I – not a huge Hillary fan – was annoyed by that comment.

    One of my problems with Obama is that he’s way too cerebral about all of this – he’s John Kerry and Al Gore in that respect – really smart, but wants to stay so far above the fray that he seems detached. People who have seen him in person are quite taken by his fire and passion – but that’s not what I’m seeing – or feeling – from him.

    Edwards is really at the top of my list these days, but the media isn’t giving him – or anyone else – any visibility.

  • Anne –

    I like Edwards, but HE’S not giving the media anything to give him attention over. He needs to be doing something to attract attention, and he’s not doing it.

    The media likes to cover the Obama/Clinton stuff because, well, there’s stuff to talk about. Any given cycle one or the other of them is breaking some kind of fundraising record, or doing something in the Senate, or even just sniping at one another. And heck, even when they’re NOT actively doing something, there’s still the novelty of having a woman as the front-runner for the Presidential nomination or having a black man as the candidate breathing down her neck – they kind of do something just by running.

    Edwards actually has to give them something to talk about, and it’s hard – and when he’s not getting the endorsements that everyone just kind of figured he’d get, the little coverage he gets ends up being these negative stories about NOT getting endorsements and NOT having the funds to compete. I’m not sure what he can do differently, but he needs to change tactics somehow.

  • Anne, the media may actually be doing him a favor – so long as he can keep the money coming and keep within striking distance. Much like in 2004, he is setting up well for a “surprise” story in Iowa. As the media increasingly focuses on either a two-person Clinton-Obama race, or on raising expectations that HRC already has it won, Edwards has picked up Iowa SEIU and today the Iowa Postal Workers Union. Organized labor tends to be overrepresented in the caucuses, so this is very beneficial to Edwards.

  • “really smart, but wants to stay so far above the fray that he seems detached”

    I’m sorry, but don’t we actually want a smart guy in the White House vs. somebody who simply panders to “little guy?”

  • Hey now, Jr., George Bush is proud to be a C student! Besides, who likes havin’ a beer with some pointy-headed intellectual?

    (Aside: as we near the – hopefully – end of Dumbya’s tenure, can someone in the media go back to any one of those poll respondents who said they supported Bush because he was who they would “rather have a beer with” than Gore and ask them exectly how many beers they have actually had with the President since 2000?)

  • What’s really funny about your comment JRSJr, is that it wasn’t Obama’s smarts I was critical of, it was his attempting to be above it all. It is possible to be both smart and in the thick of it, you know, and I hope that is the kind of president we elect.

    For me, lack of intelligence is a deal-breaker – we’ve seen the consequences of that and will not survive another George Bush-type.

    Nony – Edwards does need to do more to make himself visible, but Zeitgeist makes me feel a flicker of hope that his low profile may not be such a bad thing, at this stage of things.

  • I’d be more impressed with Edward’s talking points if they were a little less vague and were not created by his own pollsters. Not exactly objective observers since making their boy look good is what they’re paid to do.

    What do they mean he ‘brings new states into play’? Did somebody make some new ones when we weren’t looking? I don’t buy the Southern angle, either. Al Gore was from the South, too, and that certainly wasn’t enough to ensure victory for him, either.

    Hillary is going to be viciously attacked if she gets the nomination, but so will every other candidate. Edwards has his own vulnerable points himself so it’s not like he’d be Mother Teresa out there. He’s going to have to do better than this if he wants to re-freeze the melting snowball that represents his current campaign.

  • I should have said that the House is taking a vote that will either override or sustain Bush’s veto of the S-CHIP legislation.

  • Obama was on target with his comment — quite witty. I wonder if he really is that quick on his feet.

    “Edwards is really at the top of my list these days, but the media isn’t giving him – or anyone else – any visibility.” As I think is on most Democrats who follow politics. I think it’s way to early to count out any of the top 4, as many polled Dems are undecided.

    The “right” would love to have Hillary win the nomination as they feel she will be the easiest to defeat of the top 4 and to the end the media will play. I expect the media to have an impact in this regard, the question becomes one of how much?

  • Obama, who pledged a “positive” campaign, has, in the last week or so, begun to attach names to his criticism – mostly Hillary’s. -Anne

    I don’t think his ‘politics of hope’ brand is about not criticizing people in general or by name, and I think it would be impossible to campaign in a primary or general election without some criticism as a method of distinguishing one from the next.

    It seems like it’s more about pledging to compromise and leave behind the irrational (and sometimes rational) partisan hatred. I interpreted it as he’s basically against the ‘us versus them’ mentality.

    I don’t know if he’s always held true to it or if it is even a good idea but I don’t think it’s about not criticizing his opponents.

    As far as his comment on Leno goes, it just continues to strike me as desperation. If he wants to link Clinton to Bush, he should probably avoid lame jokes with invalid punchlines.

  • Look…it was a funny way to criticize Bush while answering a question that had no other valid response except ‘no’.

    I don’t see the harm here. He was being witty. If you’re going to say that Obama is putting words in Hillary’s mouth, then I think you’re looking a little too deeply.

  • “Hillary is not the first politician in Washington to declare mission accomplished a little too soon,”

    There is some serious Hillary ragging going on here. =D It’s 1 part amusing and 2 parts juvenile, junior school SCR campaigning.

  • New words:

    Retroactive immunity:

    That’s when you rape someone and get them pregnant but don’t have to ever buy shoes for the kid because the President told you it was okay to stick your pud in the drugged-up woman and sate yourself with no-bid orgasm after no-bid orgasm…

    Proactive immunity:

    That’s when you pardon a buddy for outing a CIA spy whose husband wasn’t the type to fear waking up next to a horse’s head and so needed another type of kick to the balls….

    Rockafella:

    That when lobbyists yank the choker around your Democratic neck and make you sit up and fawn like a closeted republican with a bathroom stall fetish for Verizon repairmen. Here boy… suck the marrow out of this bone. Now boy! That’s a good doggy.

    Waterboarding:

    That’s not physical torture… even though not one of your elected perps in Washington will dare volunteer to prove it to you. By the way: They were all against it, before they were for it, before they were against it.

    Patriotism:

    That’s the stupid leash that the Military-Industrial -Cheney/Bush-complex uses to yank a bunch of ignorant Americans into Iraq and keep them there.

    General Betrayus:

    That’s an illicit term for a cherry-picked General who cherry-picks facts to keep us in a war that was based on a lot of cherry-picked lies. The proper way to address this General is “Yes Sir! I am just an ignorant civilian Sir!!! May I suck you now Sir!!!”

    MoveOn:

    That a derogatory term for anyone who speaks truth and refuses to cry and beg forgiveness when Russ and Company come calling in their white sheets.

  • Two more….

    Abandoning the politics of Hope:

    This pet phrase is to be used after trashing the first serious Black-American Presidential candidate’s positions as immature and rash and to prevent him from responding in kind.

    To wit: There you go again… abandoning the politics of hope. Have you thought about shining shoes for a living?

    By the way Hillary was against dialoging with Iran before she was for it. And she was against waterboarding before she was for it… before she was against it… before she was for it.
    No. Don’t ask her to clarify…
    Or give up her stool at Club Verizon either.
    That would be abandoning the politics of hope…
    There you go again…

    GFY

    Go fuck yourself.
    A Cheneyism that can be used in both polite and vulgar company.
    It captures the zest and zeitgeist of our times.
    Who we are as a Nation.
    Who are as a Species.
    And what the over-heated planet is going to look like in 20 years time.

    • Comments are closed.