Thursday’s political round-up

December 20, 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:

* Rudy Giuliani was hospitalized overnight in St. Louis, suffering from what his campaign described as “flu-like symptoms.” The former mayor is reportedly fine now and will return to New York later today.

* Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey has formally apologized to Barack Obama over this week’s “Muslim” flap, sending the Democratic presidential hopeful a written note and email. “I answered a question about your qualifications to be president in a way that has been interpreted as a backhanded insult of you. I assure you I meant to do just the opposite,” Kerrey wrote. (A cynic might wonder if the apology was a way to keep the story in the news for just one more day.)

* The Christmas campaign ads are now hitting airwaves pretty quickly. Huckabee was first, followed by Obama, and now Giuliani, Clinton, and Edwards are all on the air with holiday wishes.

* Clinton got a boost in South Carolina yesterday when she picked the endorsement of Don Fowler, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and husband of current South Carolina Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler. He called the senator a “wise leader who understands American government and politics better than anyone in the race.”

* John McCain, responding to Obama’s comments about withdrawing troops from Iraq, questioned Obama’s judgment, telling reporters, “That’s the difference between (having) experience and judgment — and not having it.” Tough talk from a guy who’s been wrong about Iraq every step of the way for five years.

* Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters yesterday that chances are “rather slim” that Republicans will win a Senate majority in 2008. “There’s no question that if you just look at the numbers, we have a daunting task,” McConnell said. “I think the chances of you all calling me the majority leader a year from now are rather slim because of the number situation.” That’s a safe bet, Mitch.

* I get the distinct impression that Paul Krugman will not be supporting Obama in the Feb. 5 New York Democratic primary, though Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter thinks Krugman, while brilliant, is off-base on Obama.

* Ron Paul is took some heat yesterday for accepting a $500 campaign contribution from a prominent white supremacist, and then insisting that he had no reason to return the money.

* CNN: “Perry Kucinich, brother of Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, was found dead Wednesday morning at his eastside Cleveland home, officials said…. Powell Caesar said the cause of the 51-year-old man’s death won’t be known until the results of the autopsy are returned. But, Caesar said, the body did not show injuries and there appeared to be no signs of foul play. Dennis Kucinich said in a statement that his brother struggled with mental illness but led a productive life. The congressman and his wife were flying in to Cleveland later Wednesday.”

* And rumor has it that Tom Tancredo will drop out of the Republican presidential race later today. I’ll have more once it actually happens.

“A cynic might wonder if (Kerrey’s) apology was a way to keep the story in the news for just one more day.”

I must be a cynic too, CB.

  • i’m hoping we won’t be calling mitch “minority leader” either. i’m hoping he’s not even in the senate in 2009.

  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters yesterday that chances are “rather slim” that Republicans will win a Senate majority in 2008. “There’s no question that if you just look at the numbers, we have a daunting task,” McConnell said. “I think the chances of you all calling me the majority leader a year from now are rather slim because of the number situation.” That’s a safe bet, Mitch.

    Actually, the chances of Dr. Death being called “Senator” – let alone “majority leader” – are pretty thin, given that his support in KY is under 45% and still falling, from what I was told yesterday by a KY State Dem Committee member I spoke with. The man has a target on his back and is one of the four Senators on the “Endangered Species List” who haven’t had the sense to just raise the white flag and retire.

  • “I think the chances of you all calling me the majority leader a year from now are rather slim because of the number situation.” That’s a safe bet, Mitch.

    But… but… Your buddy Bush is confident that the GOP is going to “pick up seats in the Senate”. You calling him stupid, Mitch?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071220/ts_alt_afp/usvotebush_071220165044

    BTW, McConnell was in rare form last night on PBS newshour, defending the oil companies and the uber-rich. The man is a whore, and he’s proud of it.

  • Re: “I get the distinct impression that Paul Krugman will not be supporting Obama…”

    Krugman has nothing to worry about — Obama’s health care proposal is a political document, not a policy document etched in stone (as are Clinton’s and Edwards’). The public won’t remember or care about the fine print of Obama’s plan if he’s elected. Undoubtedly, he would work to reign in health care costs, insurance premiums and extend health care coverage to the extent possible given the political climate. I’m confident that Edwards/Clinton/Obama would all prefer single-payer, but unfortunately, the country isn’t there yet. Jonathon Alter makes a strong case that Obama would be as or more effective at moving the country toward that end. I think he’s right.

  • Ditch Mitch! This guy hasn’t done squat for your average kentuckian since he’s held office. He represents everything that is wrong in our supposed representative government.
    We are excited here, because it looks as if an Iraqi war veteran is going to take him on, and that really is the only hope Mitch has, to rally invoke 9-11 and the war. Having a real combat vet put him in his place is going to be fun to watch.

    http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/8971

  • Krugman has nothing to worry about — Obama’s health care proposal is a political document, not a policy document

    The fact that, as you seem to interpret the word “policy,” a leading contender for the nomination has basically no publicly stated policy positions isn’t something to worry about? Even in light of the fact that his political rhetoric would have him negotiating from a position of weakness with people lacking all interest in compromise?

    Obama’s policies are nonexistent, his political rhetoric seems a clear effort to blow the Overton window as far right as possible so that the very moderate Clinton and Edwards positions look unacceptable in comparison to Obama’s stated political policy of compromising with the uncompromising devil, the only thing his supporters have are “undoubted[]” hopes unsupported by any evidence about what he’d do if elected, and there’s nothing to worry about?

    Obama supporters really and truly scare me.

  • What bothers me about Obama is that I see him as willing to negotiate on issues like health care right out of the gate, instead of drawing a line, advocating for the position that line represents, garnering massive support for necessary changes in the health care system, and working toward that end with relentless energy.

    Of course you need to “bring people together,” but I would prefer to see someone bringing people together with a goal of moving them to a strong position, instead of starting out with a willingness to give up important elements. Sure, there might be some incremental change, but can’t we do better than that?

    Doing better requires leadership – compromise is what others have to do in order to follow that lead.

  • “John McCain, responding to Obama’s comments about withdrawing troops from Iraq, questioned Obama’s judgment, telling reporters, “That’s the difference between (having) experience and judgment — and not having it.” Tough talk from a guy who’s been wrong about Iraq every step of the way for five years”.

    You know all the experience in the world is no good unless that judgment is sound

    Here’s Obama in 2002, he seemed to have a good grasp of things back then.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

  • (A cynic might wonder if the apology was a way to keep the story in the news for just one more day.)

    Not me.
    Anything is fair game.
    Are those the footsteps of Vince Foster I hear sneaking up behind someone?

  • Building on Anne’s point #8, wouldn’t it be interesting if Obama proved to be more of a conciliator than Bill Clinton? With all the damage done to this country, I think we need a fighter who is capable of reconciliation, not so much the other way around.

  • Hey—if Paul gives up one contribution from the “ziggie-heilers,” it could be construed as setting a precedent—and he’d have to give back ALL the “Amerikanishe Reichsmarken.” Given all the pro-Paul solicitations on all the “ubermenschen” websites, that could all up to quite a bit….

  • In regard to the Krugman-Obama flap, Krugman is right: policy matters most.

    Here’s a question for those flirting with Obama: When does “the Great Conciliator” become “the Great Capitulator”?

    Answer: When there are 40-plus Republican senators in the US Senate; and if you see 60-plus Democrats in the Senate in 2009, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

  • Endorsement for Clinton “wise leader who understands American government and politics better than anyone in the race.”

    Not exactly a ringing endorsement considering her voting record of “Stay the course”

  • “What bothers me about Obama is that I see him as willing to negotiate on issues like health care right out of the gate”

    That is because he’s a realist and understands that one must compromise to get things done the right way in Washington.

  • Hey, cynics — Kerrey sent the letter to Obama, not the media, and expressly said they could use it or not as they wish. Did you notice the AP article? That’s gotta hurt HRC as much as it potentially hurts Obama. The Obama campaign decided there was more positive than negative in the letter and sent it to the media. If the story is going another day, it’s because the Obama folks decided Kerrey’s positive comments were worth it.

  • Ask yourselves, Hillary backers, which of these three approaches is likely to lead to positive policy change.

    Edwards: frontal assault on “the other side”
    Clinton: non-specific rhetoric to the hoi polloi, winks and nods to the entrenched interests who fund her
    Obama: gives “the other side” a choice between working with him on a compromise or having him come after them hard in 2010

    What makes me so certain Obama’s on the right track? It’s that, unlike Clinton (who can’t, because half the country reflexively hates her) and Edwards (who won’t, because his deliberately polarizing approach confirms “soft opponents” in their opposition), Obama believes that he can take the discussion to the country and convince them to vote his way–inflicting an unbearable political price on those who won’t work with him.

    Once upon a time, this was what great political leaders did–moved public opinion through exhortation and explanation. But you need a certain type of personality and a certain quality of intellect to pull it off–which is why, for instance, when Bush tried to “sell” the country on Social Security privatization, support for it went over the cliff.

    I’m not sure Obama will succeed; I am almost sure the other two will fail. (And–mark my words–Hillary, when push comes to shove, won’t even try. As the Iraq AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman votes remind us, her next act of political courage will be her first.)

  • dajafi has it right.

    Edwards’ rhetoric is basically the “you’re either with us or against us” of health care. That’s all fine and dandy for the partisan base, but, since, as slip under the radar notes at 14 (ironic, he has the premise right, and draws the exact wrong conclusion), there will be 40+ GOPers in the Senate in 2009. That means 40+ who say, “alright, we’re against you.”

    Health care battle? Over.

    Great!

    The fact that there will be enough Republicans in Congress to block reform is an argument for needing Republican votes on the bill, and I fail to see how that gets accomplished by telling the GOP we’re going after them hard.

    Americans like populism, but they dislike partisanship, which is this is all going to come off.

  • Regarding R Johnston’s post at 12:46:

    As I wrote in the earlier post, Edwards’ and Clinton’s health care proposals are political documents as well. If the prevailing mood of the country is that they must scale their proposals back, then that’s exactly what they would do (e.g. First Lady Clinton and health care in the early 90s).

    As Anne wrote at 12:48, leadership is required, and unfortunately, we would not get it from a President Hillary Clinton (e.g. First Lady Clinton health care in the early 90s and Senator Clinton and Iraq/Iran). If elected, Clinton would triangulate when given the opportunity to lead. If elected, Obama would lead when given the opportunity to triangulate (e.g. Iraq/Iran).

    And of course, it doesn’t follow from my observation that the details of a campaign policy proposal aren’t etched in stone that the candidate has “no publicly stated policy positions”.

  • I should add that I’d happily enough vote for, and probably support with money and maybe time, Edwards should he win the nomination. Not so for Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation.

  • This isn’t about partisanship, it’s about quality of life for ALL Americans. It’s about knowing that a healthy populace is good for the economy, not bad. It’s not about being needy – as in needing votes on legislation – it’s about using the power of the electorate to move otherwise corporatist legislators to the side of the people they represent.

    There will be a long way to go before legislation ever makes it to a committee, to hearings, to debate, to a vote – and during that time, there is an opportunity for the people to act as a force to move toward that goal of universal health care.

    Little story…a number of years ago, my husband had a computer he wanted to sell, so he put an ad in the paper: “$1,500 or best offer. In other words – “here’s what I want, but I’m willing to negotiate.” Prospective buyer reads that and thinks, “I wonder how low he’s willing to go” – and so $1,500 becomes the point of downward departure. Now, what happened to my husband is that he got a call from someone not familiar with the “or best offer” concept, and thought he needed to offer more – which he did – “how about $1,600?”

    You know and I know that the health care industry is not going to come to the table with a higher offer – they are going to be seeking the point of downward departure. If that point is established right from the get-go, it will no longer be about getting what the American people want, but about settling for what the health care industry is willing to do at the smallest cost and the least inconvenience to them.

    Don’t get me wrong – I am not saying there is no room for compromise, that it’s either all or nothing – but I am saying that we need someone fighting for us. The corporations have deep pockets, and more or less direct access to members of Congress and the inner circles of power. What do we have? We have our own voice – which, thankfully, we are using to better and better effect – and we have Senators and Representatives, who need to stand with us and for us in this fight for what is right.

    If whoever the president is goes into this with the attitude that it’s all about the best offer of the industry – an offer that will start at the bottom – you can forget about significant change.

  • Anne, with respect, I think you’re reading way too much into Obama’s position–or, more accurately, Krugman’s mis-characterization of Obama’s position.

    There’s also some ground, often a lot of ground, between “negotiation” and “compromise.” If you think Edwards can just blast his way through this problem, I’d love to hear just how he’ll do it.

  • I agree with Anne. I used to think compromise and reaching across the aisle were important. Maybe when we had sane people on the Republican side. But take a look at CB’s post on the FEC. Compromise, sure. See how good that’s working. I want someone who will face the Republicans face on and show them up for what they are. I’m not interested in sitting down with big business.

    Already the insurance industry is talking about making a few changes (sorry can’t remember where I read that). Why do you think they’re doing that? Because they’re scared and want to control the debate before they lose control of it. I want a president who is going to walk in and say this is what we want and draw that line in the sand as Anne said. In another time, I’d be fine with Obama’s approach, but not now. Let them be the first ones to blink.

    • Comments are closed.