Thursday’s political round-up

February 23, 2006

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:

* In a setback that is both disappointing and rather humiliating, Ohio state Sen. Charlie Wilson (D) will not be the Dems’ U.S. House candidate in Ohio’s 6th — because he failed to get the 50 signatures needed to appear on the ballot. He turned in 46. The seat, which will be vacant now that Rep. Ted Strickland (D) is running for governor, is now considered up for grabs. Wilson is considering a write-in campaign.

* Politically-engaged celebrities routinely contribute to candidates at the presidential and statewide level, but usually don’t bother with House races. For Tom DeLay, many are making an exception. Screenwriter and producer Norman Lear, Rob Reiner, Barbara Streisand, and Don Henley have all recently contributed to former Rep. Nick Lampson’s (D-Texas) campaign, as he takes on DeLay in November.

* Peter Camejo, Ralph Nader’s running mate in 2004, announced yesterday that he will run for governor of California this year. It will be Camejo’s second attempt at the office, after his 3% showing in the state’s 2003 recall election.

* New York’s Republican gubernatorial candidates are still vying for the ballot slot for the state’s Conservative Party, but party leaders are now fighting amongst themselves. Earlier this week, party chairman Mike Long personally endorsed John Faso, but yesterday, three county leaders split ranks and backed former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld.”

* Former Rep. Chris Bell’s (D) Texas gubernatorial campaign got a boost yesterday, thanks to an endorsement from former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk (D). Kirk was the party’s Senate nominee in 2002, and is the only African-American in Texas to ever win a major-party Senate nomination. Bell faces former Texas Supreme Court Justice Bob Gammage in a Dem primary on March 7.

* A new WNBC/Marist poll shows that two-thirds of Americans believe Sen. Hillary Clinton will run for president, but only one-third believe she can win. Almost 80% said they don’t think Condoleezza Rice could win either. Pollster Lee Miringoff said gender is, unfortunately, still an issue. “It looks like whether you treat them together or separately, it would certainly be an uphill fight for either of them, and clearly part of that has to do with a continuing reluctance on the part of a large number of American voters to think in terms of a woman in the White House.”

Anyone who can’t turn in a measly 50 signatures doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.

  • Hillary Clinton is not a good barometer of women in politics. She is one of the most polarizing people in the country. She is absolutely loathed by the right. Then as a senator, in an attempt to appear more moderate, she has either mangled her response to, or outright betrayed, traditional Democratic values.

    Polarizing figures can’t turn their backs on their support and expect to have a prayer of winning. They are going to lose supporters among those who like them faster than they pick up supporters among those who hate them.

    Senator Clinton just has bad polticial instincts. For that reason she is not a good barometer of gender politics (neither is Condi Rice, but for different reasons).

  • But, Shargash, why is she so reviled by the right? I’ve tried asking one or two righties and they can’t give an honest answer based on anything she’s actually done. Amongst all the blubbering all I’ve gotten was that she didn’t live in New York before running for Senator. As if she’s the first person to do that, and as if New Yorkers didn’t know that themselves when they decided to elect her to represent them in the US Senate, and as if their favorite son is actually a native Texan as he pretends to be.

    Yet when one polls senators on both sides of the aisle that she’s worked with for 5 years, they absolutely love her. Both Republicans and Democrats. It seems to be a very strong but only a very visceral reaction. I think that that has to do with her being a woman.

  • I agree with you, Ed. As to Hillary, many people who hate her do so as an extension of hating Clinton. I agree too that she has alienated her natural constituency and will never win over the Clinton haters. But also–and I say this as a New Yorker and a woman and a progressive–as charismatic as her husband is, there is just something unlikable about her. Condi is simply an incompetent serving in an arrogant, incompetent and corrupt administration. Do I think the country is ready to elect a woman president? No. But we’ll never know if all we have is these two to choose from.

  • I continue to be baffled by this idea of Condi Rice running for President that never seems to die. Hillary Clinton running at least makes sense, regardless of how one thinks it’ll turn out for her. Condi, however, has said she won’t run, Bush says she won’t run, she has never campaigned for or held elected office, she was a terrible manager when she was National Security Director, and when she’s not parroting White House talking points, she’s telling some of the biggest whooppers in an Administration that’s known for them.

    Who started this idea of Hillary versus Condi? Right-wing spinmeisters? A reporter bored on a slow day? Condi Rice running for President is an urban myth, right up there with the toy poodle in the microwave oven.

  • Rian,

    But, Shargash, why is she so reviled by the right?

    I’m not on the right, so I can’t answer definitively, however, FWIW, here are my thoughts.

    Part of the visceral hatred stems from what Frak identified: residual hatred for Bill Clinton. I think a larger part of the hatred stems from the fact that she is a woman who is a) successful, b) not particularly deferential to men and c) out-spoken. Add to those items the fact that she actually tried to do policy work as a first lady and I think you can see why the right is all in a huff. Its okay for Madaline Allbright or Condi Rice to do work as that was their job. The job of first lady however is, at least in the right’s mind, to be a Laura Bush or Nancy Regan: stand by your man, nothing more at least publically.

    In sum, she is a strong successful woman who “was an uppity first lady trying to create/implement policy which a first lady should not do”. Throw in the fact that she wanted to reform healthcare and ensure that all americans had access to healthcare and I think you can see why the right gets crazy whenever she is mentioned.

    Just my $0.02

    As an aside, I think she would be a terrible Dem nominee for President. The only person she could beat would be Condi Rice, IMHO, notwithstanding JonnyB’s accurate perception that Condi as the likely GOP nominee is a myth.

  • Sorry Ed and Phrak but I can’t agree about Charles Wilson. According to the Beacon Journal article, he turned in at least 98 (probably more than 100) signatures. Most of them were disqualified, because the canvassing boards determined the voters were registered in other legislative districts within those counties. If true, that does seem a bit sloppy on his part, but I suspect that is one of the issues that might be subject to a challenge.

    The most disturbing part of the story was to read that Wilson realized he might not have enough singatures approved before the filing deadline and tried to submit a new petition with more signatures. But fucking Ken Blackwell ruled that Ohio’s 2002 voting law made it to withdraw and submit a new petition and forced the counties to use his initial petition.

    • Comments are closed.