Tuesday’s political round-up

July 31, 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:

* Bill Clinton said yesterday he didn’t want to wade into the Hillary-Obama “spat” from last week, but he shared a few thoughts anyway. “We have to get back to more diplomacy,” Clinton said, adding, “I’ve heard no fewer than four of our candidates say in the last month, remind us that in the middle of the cold war, in the darkest hours, we never stopped talking to the Soviets at some level. So no one disputes that.” The Politico reported, “Bill Clinton, according to an aide, was speaking extemporaneously about the Obama controversy, trying to strike a conciliatory tone but not with a message coordinated through his wife’s campaign.”

* It’s unlikely to become a major issue, but Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also disagree on a domestic policy issue: Obama supports federal funding for needle exchange programs; Clinton doesn’t.

* Last week, Hillary Clinton’s campaign sent a top staffer to Bill O’Reilly’s show to defend Dem candidates appearing at YearlyKos, but this week, Chris Dodd’s campaign will take things up a notch, sending the candidate to “The Factor.” Greg Sargent reports, “Dodd’s spokesperson, Hari Sevugan, tells Election Central that the Senator will hit O’Reilly hard for his smear tactic of selecting a few isolated comments out of literally hundreds of thousands or even millions of comments to smear the whole site and the netroots in general.”

* With John McCain already having announced that he will not compete in the Ames Straw Poll next month, Sam Brownback supporters have a clever pitch. Brownback volunteers are calling known McCain backers and asking, “I see here that you’re supporting John McCain, correct? McCain has chosen not to participate in the straw poll, and we’d like you to show your support for his values by voting for Brownback.”

* All of the Democratic presidential hopefuls would love House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn’s (D-S.C.) endorsement, but it looks like Clyburn may withhold supporting any candidate. In 2004, he backed Dick Gephardt — who withdrew before the South Carolina primary was held.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also disagree on a domestic policy issue…

La-dee-da. Which one is going to reverse the abuses of the Bush administration and try to get us back to some semblance of a representative democracy? You know, laws, Constitution, a DoJ and electoral process that engender confidence? That kind of basic stuff? Enough fiddling…

  • I agree with beep52. Who cares about needles? Give me a break. But as long as we’re talking about it, I’ll just say this is better for Clinton than Obama.

    Obama keeps making mistakes like this. People are going to say he wants to shoot-up with Ahmadinejad and talk about sex with five-year-olds. Why does he keep “going there” on these topics? It hurts him every time.

  • well haik, because its good policy. i for one am tired of having politicians tell me what they think americans want to hear. i want to hear what they really think.

  • Amen, beep52.

    And to me, it begs the question: why aren’t the benevolent Democratic candidates getting back to the basics, as you mentioned? Ah, but two of the Democratic candidates appear to be doing just that — Kucinich & Gravel, the “nuts” as proscribed by the resident politcal calculators and solidaritists here at TCR.

    Now I will be labeled as an “idiot” by said goose-steppers in 3…2…1…

  • Haik, Perhaps he’s pro-needle exchange because he sees it as the best thing to do, given the problems with all the alternatives?

    I know, grown-up political conversations will probably never work in America, but one can hope. I’m pleased that Obama is willing to talk about these things.

    Does America want a candidate who is candid (arguably Obama), one who strives mightily never to say an offensive thing (apparently Hillary), one whose policies shift according to the polls, or one who lies a lot (wide selection of Republican candidates with overlaps in both of the latter categories)?

  • Needle exchange programs may be good policy, but in the scheme of things, to focus on the candidates’ positions on them is taking things really micro, when they need to be pretty much macro. When we get the nitty-gritty of torture and surveillance and anti-terror policies and the occupation of Iraq and what to “do” about Iran, and get all the basics of constitutional principles and privileges sorted out, then we can talk about needle exchange programs; right now, how each candidate stands on needle exchange is not going to sway me in one direction or another.

    Nor is cleavage, hair-dos and hair cuts, the masculinity of someone’s smell, the width of their shoulders, the mane-like quality of someone’s blond tresses, the quality of their sex lives or whether the put the toilet paper under or over the roll.

  • Things like supporting needle exchange programs (or talking up gun control) will only hurt the Democrats in the 2008 general election. Sure, needle exchange programs have proven to work, but the Republican Spin Machine is expert at “tarring and feathering” their Democratic opponents with appealing to the visceral and irrational reactions of the great sea of the uninformed. To her credit, Hillary understands this.

  • I don’t know how to link, but I’d like to recommend an op-ed from yesterday’s (July 30) LA Times titled “Clinton woos the outsourcers feared by US workers”. It’s about Clinton’s ties to an Indian corporation, Tata Consultancy Services, which in cooperation with Clinton has helped export thousands of US high-tech jobs to India and obtain thousands of visas
    for Indians to work in the high tech industry in the US. These are the problems we need to be talking about, but Clinton gets a pass on them during the so-called debates and in the media. Let’s make clean needles the central issue instead!

  • Mr. Carpetbagger,

    All of the Democratic presidential hopefuls would love House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn’s (D-S.C.) endorsement,

    Is there something special about Clyburn’s endorsement or is just that he is clearly one of the leaders of the Dem party? Does his endorsement uniquely help with fundraising, press coverage, volunteers/high quality staffers? Or are those things secondary benefits associated with most endorsements and his is more on par with a major newspaper as oppossed to a regional newspaper?

  • I’d like to think that the Democrats are capable of multitasking and, in addition to recovering from the horrors of this administration, can have opinions on other issues, beep52.

    Haik, you militant support of Clinton has driven you to absurdity. I don’t think Obama is going to care what those mysterious “people” you speak of will say about him.

    • Comments are closed.