Wednesday’s campaign round-up

May 14, 2008

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:

* If this morning is any indication, the results from the West Virginia primary have not slowed down Obama’s momentum with superdelegates. Three more announced their support for the Illinois senator this morning: Rep. Pete Visclosky of Indiana, College Democrats of America Vice President Awais Khaleel, and Democrats Abroad Chairperson Christine Schon Marques. (This is actually a net of +2.5, not +3, because Democrats Abroad superdelegates are considered as half-delegates by the DNC.)

* College Democrats of America President Lauren Wolfe also endorsed Obama this morning, and would be a superdelegate from Michigan, pending resolution of the state’s delegate controversy.

* In the latest Quinnipiac poll, both Dems lead John McCain in general-election match-ups: Obama is up by seven (47% to 40%), while Clinton is up by five (46% to 41%).

* More importantly, Greg Sargent found a key tidbit in the Quinnipiac poll: among working-class white voters, McCain is leading Obama by seven (46% to 39%), and also leading Clinton by seven (48% to 41%). These results, Greg noted, “seem difficult to square with her basic argument.”

* Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) is the latest high-profile Clinton backer to urge Obama to pick Clinton as his running mate.

* Even now, Clinton is trying to shore up her support: “Hillary’s holding a meeting at her Washington D.C. home tonight for 30 or 40 top fundraisers, a Clinton backer says. And she’ll be hosting a group of superdelegates who support her at the Clintons’ home in Chappaqua, NY Saturday, two sources said. ‘All of this is about reassuring her supporters,’ said a person who plans to attend one of the meetings.”

* Obama hit McCain pretty hard on global-warming policy yesterday: “It is truly breathtaking for John McCain to talk about combating climate change while voting against virtually every recent effort to actually invest in clean energy.”

* This seems like something that deserves a little follow up: “Senator Barack Obama’s campaign is steering the candidate’s wealthy supporters away from independent Democratic groups, calling into question what had been expected to be the groups’ central role in this year’s Democratic offensive against Senator John McCain.”

* Will the Sierra Club really stay neutral this year? Just because of McCain’s lip-service on the environment?

* The Hill: “Former congressional candidate Scott Kleeb won the Democratic Senate primary in Nebraska on Tuesday, setting up an uphill battle with former U.S. Agriculture Secretary and former Gov. Mike Johanns (R) for the state’s open Senate seat.”

* Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) thinks Obama still might be able to win West Virginia in the fall. That seems overly optimistic to me, but we’ll see.

* Chris LaCivita, one of the Republican strategists behind the Swift Boat Vets smear group in 2004, told the WaPo, “We will attack Obama viciously on all fair issues.” We’ve been warned.

Off-topic…flash traffic via Ohio Public Radio Network…Ohio AG Marc Dann to make live announcement within next few minutes.

  • * This seems like something that deserves a little follow up: “Senator Barack Obama’s campaign is steering the candidate’s wealthy supporters away from independent Democratic groups, calling into question what had been expected to be the groups’ central role in this year’s Democratic offensive against Senator John McCain.”

    All that tells me is that Obama has decided with certainty to opt out of public financing. He will be able to take all of the cash, and all things equal I am sure the campaign would rather coordinate its use than have much of it spent in by people with whom coordination is technically illegal.

    That said, there is something movement building about sharing; if those 527s feel like Obama is suffocating them, it will not promote warm fuzzy feelings among some of the activist left.

    * Will the Sierra Club really stay neutral this year? Just because of McCain’s lip-service on the environment?

    This has always been one of the weaknesses of Progressives and their good government tendencies. Our issue groups really do take pride in independence, and love to show their bipartisanship. The issue groups on the right have no such impediments: they are wholly, unambiguously, part of the Republican Umbrella, and every act is calculated in that context. In many close elections in many under the radar places over the years, that difference has cost us many potential victories.

  • Again, I honestly don’t see why Barack should tag Hils for the VP slot. I’d want someone who wouldn’t undercut me or try to stick a knife (proverbial or literal) into my back, but I guess that’s just me.

    Too much water under the bridge (although there is no never in politics.)

    It would be better to put her on the sidelines for a while and leave it at that.

  • Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) is the latest high-profile Clinton backer to urge Obama to pick Clinton as his running mate.

    Further proof the the fact that Hillary supporters are delusional. If Obama’s going to go with a woman for VP, let’s get one who actually earned the position from something more than marrying a scumsucking con artist.

    Unlike JFK taking on LBJ as VP, Obama can’t let that goddamned piece of roadkill, Slick Billy-J, anywhere near anything.

    Let her see if she has the wherewithal to become a female Ted Kennedy.

  • From the Washington Post:
    Chris LaCivita, one of the Republican strategists behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that attacked Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry, promised, “We will attack Obama viciously on all fair issues, whether they are national security, whether they are taxes or the economy,” And while we don’t want to inject race into the campaign, we will feel obligated to remind Americans of what went on in the Oval Office under Bill Clinton and let them consider whether they want young, innocent white girls put in potential danger. And Americans deserve to know the truth about Barack Hussein Obama attending a Muslim madrassah, where students are taught the Koran and to hate America. And Americans may not yet have heard about Jeremiah Wright, the leader of Barack Hussein Obama’s church.”

    It’s going to get ugly out there. I hope the liberal 527s are ready to “wet-start” their campaigns.

  • Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) is the latest high-profile Clinton backer to urge Obama to pick Clinton as his running mate.

    This is not the talk of anyone who thinks she still has a chance of winning the nomination, and by far not the first. Why is Clinton still in the race?

  • Re. the Politico article. All these 527 folks seem awfully confused – hurt, even! – about the fact that he’s serious about not accepting their support. To me it just seems consistent with his beliefs about campaign finance loopholes. Are people will a moral compass really that rare, even on the left? Maybe these guys can get Lieberman to check their bearings for them.

  • I wouldn’t mind Rendell himself though he wouldn’t be on my top 10 list. There are worse choices. The two change-deflating choices imo would be Hillary and Hagel. We don’t need a Republican on the ticket, and I don’t think my heart could take 8 more years of Clinton-centric news.

  • Further proof the the fact that Hillary supporters are delusional.

    At this point, bashing HRC or her supporters doesn’t help the cause. We need them.

  • We will remain neutral, as we did in 2000 when there was no real difference between George Bush and Al Gore because Bush promised to cut CO2 emissions.

  • I doubt Hillary is going to get much mileage from supporters by telling them she’s got the mountain-dwelling racist vote locked up. But hey, free doughnuts for everyone who comes to the meeting, right?

  • I also would prefer he not take her as his runningmate, but I think it would be politically wise not to antagonize her most ardent supporters with fiery rhetoric like “Slick Willie” or “delusional supporters”. This only agrivates the divide in the party.

    I think a good option would be to pick a prominent Clinton supporter who could help deliver an important swing state. Strickland comes to mind. Choosing someone like that could be a nice gesture and a pragmatic one too.

    Choosing a woman is a prickly proposition because many of Clinton’s most ardent supporters will perceive such a move as a completely callous gesture designed to placate women who supported Clinton. I’m not saying to avoid all female VP possibilities, just that it is something to consider.

  • Curmudgeon said:
    I doubt Hillary is going to get much mileage from supporters by telling them she’s got the mountain-dwelling racist vote locked up. But hey, free doughnuts for everyone who comes to the meeting, right?

    Curmudgeon, please tone down the devisive language. Terms like “mountain-dwelling racist” do not help unify the party.

  • … urge Obama to pick Clinton as his running mate.

    If he’s insane enough to do that he’d better appoint a White House food taster.

    I have great admiration for Hillary, and would gladly support her as the Party’s nominee, but I just can’t imagine her in a supportive VP role. And then there’s Bill who, as an integral part of the deal, kills the deal for me.

    If things were reversed I can imagine Obama serving at Hillary’s VP, but not the other way around. I’d rather Obama pick any of a number of well-qualified governors, including a half dozen women, or as I suggested earlier today Edwards.

  • My take on Rendell and similar folk is that they invested a lot of time, organization, prestige and cash in Clinton and don’t want their investment to be a total loss. VP still gives them great access for their troubles.

  • I’m increasingly of the mind that Wes Clark–a Clinton supporter with national security cred and some ability to close the perceived “patriotism gap” (and whom I supported in 2004, fwiw)–should be the running-mate. Webb would still be my first choice, but if it can be verified that Clark’s selection would somewhat placate the Clinton faction, the General makes more sense.

  • Ed, remember, Edwards has repeatedly stated that he will not run for VP again.

    (Frankly, that’s a good thing. He was a non-starter in 2004. And remember how the right wing slime machine would’ve feminized the hell outta him. Remember the $400 haircut? As stupid as the story was, you know the right wing– and their willing handmaidens, the mainstream media– would never leave it alone. The idea of two young, good-looking men on a Democratic ticket is a death wish. You know the GOP would gay-bait their way to another four years in the White House. Obama needs a running mate who cannot be feminized).

  • One nice thing about Clark is that we dont vacate a seat anywhere by putting him on the ticket. And contrary to Obama’s alleged take, I think a little shoring up on international and military issues would be helpful.

    The absolute coup if they were both willing would be for Obama to name Gore. I happen to think that Edwards would bring a lot to the ticket demographically, geographically and in terms of economic message without any watering down of the “change” theme (and he would neither upstage Obama like Bentsen did Dukakis nor be a drag in the ticket like Quayle did Bush I).

    After that I tend to think Governors – Schweitzer, Strickland, Richardson, Kaine (probably in that order; no Sebelius) – although all of those are risky seats to give up.

  • “Greg Sargent found a key tidbit in the Quinnipiac poll: among working-class white voters, McCain is leading Obama by seven (46% to 39%), and also leading Clinton by seven (48% to 41%). These results, Greg noted, “seem difficult to square with her basic argument.”

    Hmmm – methinks Greg Sargent is missing the key point in this key tidbit: McCain is beating the crap out of both of them in this key constituency. Does this result reflect prejudice against both African Americans and women, or is it the usual voting-against-their-own-economic-interests phenomenon that the Democrats seem poweless to overcome?

  • Anonymensch (great screen name, by the way,) I would say Clark is a much better VP pick than Webb. Clark didn’t sell us out on FISA. Clark wouldn’t put a crucial senate seat in danger (and pave the way for George Allen’s comeback). Clark doesn’t have a history of making incendiary statements about women’s inability to serve in combat. Clark doesn’t come off as unhinged.

    I still think Brian Schweitzer would be the best possible pick for VP, but I definitely think Wesley Clark would be a good choice– and, as you mentioned, if he has the ability to bring Clinton supporters into the fold, all the better!

  • How could any Democrat forget the Republicans wanted Hillary to run against Sooo fuckin’ bad they were willing to vote for her in primaries. . . they may have even delivered Indiana for her.

    Does anyone believe Obama would live out his first term if through some miracle they could win with her on the ticket?

    No. Let Billary fade into the past century with the McBushes where she belongs. Obama needs a running mate that is the new politics as much as he is. That may very well be a woman, but it will never be Billary. See: “The Voters have Stolen My Nomination” at http://tinyurl.com/5s2k98

  • The General was my choice for president in 2004. And he has been my choice for Veep for quite some time. For all the reasons I had in 2004:

    A self-made military man from the south with incredible ethics, war credentials, solid democratic party ideals, and a decent likable family.

    If anything he makes an even better VP choice. He balances the ticket in terms of age, demographics, regions, and international experience.

    Webb of course is another fine choice. An incredibly high-powered choice.
    But, the VP position might dead-end him. He is too valuable a future player to risk burying that way. Wes Clark is pretty much already dead-ended. He would snap at the chance and give it his all. The real questions are: Can he hold his own in a national debate, and can he become a better campaigner?

  • Let me guess. The number of things the Swift boat vets consider to be an unfair issue is equivalent to the number of things the Bush administration considers torture.

    Only this time, FAIL. Reboot, Abort, Ignore?

  • As an Obama supporter who would vote for HRC in November if Obama lost, I have to agree that she would be a smart and strategic choice for VP. Although I’m not a big fan of the Clintons, it is hard to argue that fact that she does carry a large amount of popular vote with her as well as several demographics that Obama could use in November. I once thought Edwards would better fit that position, but he has been a pussy for not throwing his support to Obama, even after NC clearly chose him. By picking HRC, it would quiet her supporters that claim they won’t vote for Barack in the fall. Change can been a jagged pill…….

  • I have to say that I’m conflicted about bashing Hon. Sen. McCain on his environmental voting record, or at least that part of it having to due with governmental subsidization of alternative energy sources. It seems the whole point of the cap and trade, or carbon tax schemes, is to get the government out of the way. Not pushing technologies, companies, or siting decisions based on Congressional district and committee correlations, but on feasibility and degree of environmental benefit.

    That said, it’s true that Sen. McCain seems to advocating a pretty weak version of cap and trade, and there are numerous other areas where his positions have been questionable. Also, I suppose, in the absence of any other policy, some subsidies are better than nothing.

  • Yep. As I was reading this I thought the best balance would be a macho Southern white guy. My fav, Wes Clark, should be the man. Beautiful…
    Oh, and I wish Hillary would go away already. It’s become painful to watch.

  • Everyone should get a grip too. NO ONE ever picks a veep who will upstage them. Aint gonna happen (nor should it); give it up.

  • Even now, Clinton is trying to shore up her support: “Hillary’s holding a meeting at her Washington D.C. home tonight for 30 or 40 top fundraisers, a Clinton backer says. And she’ll be hosting a group of superdelegates who support her at the Clintons’ home in Chappaqua, NY Saturday, two sources said. ‘All of this is about reassuring her supporters,’ said a person who plans to attend one of the meetings.”

    In fact, Senator Clinton will not concede…ever.

    She plans on making her case to the supers, both publicly and privately, throughout the summer. She wants all the states to get their chance to vote. And then she’ll continue to “work as hard as she can” to get the supers to overturn the results of those votes.

    As far as Clinton is concerned, pledged delegate selections and super delegate commitments are irrelevant until the votes are cast at the end of August. So, to our detriment and hers, she won’t leave us alone until then.

    I’m sorry, but I cannot support putting a person on the ticket who is more interested in her own well-being than the well-being of those she seeks to represent.

  • It seems that anything goes when it comes to the Clintons. We as minority doctors times 3, with more education that all three candidates, can’t understand why HR is still in the race. We think that most of her supporters have forgotten that 3/5 of this world is of the colored race. Our country cannot afford, no matter how indirect, to be painted as racial. We have enough problems with our Middle East brothers already. Food for thought — no matter how we cut it HRC’s word in the countries we are having problems with will be compounded. Then to, like she said, “just bomb the daylights out of them”.

  • “Curmudgeon, please tone down the devisive language. Terms like “mountain-dwelling racist” do not help unify the party.” – independent thinker

    Scroll down to the first post today and read this quote from the New York Times:

    “The number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes. More than 8 in 10 who said it factored in their votes backed Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls.”

    No hard feelings, my comrade, but this is the reality of it. And how can we ever hope to change it if we aren’t even willing to acknowledge it exists?

  • After that I tend to think Governors – Schweitzer, Strickland, Richardson, Kaine (probably in that order; no Sebelius) – although all of those are risky seats to give up.

    Kos:

    “It would be tough for Sebelius to deliver Kansas, but she has a proven record of winning moderate and Republican votes without abandoning core progressive principles. She’s a former head of the Democratic Governor’s Association (as is Richardson), so has strong ties to many of the nation’s Democratic governors who will play a large role in delivering the ticket to the Democrats. She has successful executive experience, and was named by Time in 2005 as one of the nation’s five best governors for balancing the states crushing $1.1 billion budget deficit without raising taxes or cutting funding for education. She has convinced a large number of her state’s Republicans to switch parties. Her (Democratic) Lt. Gov is a former chair of the Kansas Republican Party. She is the kind of “reach out” politician that Obama wants to be, and would be a fantastic choice for him.

    And don’t worry, she had a bad night during her 2008 state of the union address rebuttal. She’s a much better communicator and campaigner than that appearance would indicate.”

  • Chris #31 – I understand everyone has a bad night now and then, but I find that SOTU response hard to get past. I really was looking forward to it, I wanted to really like Sebelius (going into that she was on my list of VP faves). But damn was that disappointing. And now, I think any woman other than Clinton creates too messy a mix of reactions from Clinton supporters (and, perhaps, sexists among the Reagan Democrats for whom HRC was tough enough – and married to Bubba – but who would not accept Sebelius).

  • If this were Cabaret we’d be cutting to Joel Grey and Liza Minelli hamming their way through “Money” at the Kit Kat Klub.

    So Hillary is out on the campaign trail playing to the unwashed racists in the back rows and then meeting with her top fundraisers in her swanky Washington home. She’ll stoke up her faithfull and fleece them like an other huckster on the preaching circuit. She’s promising a fight to the end when all she really needs them for is cash to pay herself back. The sooner The Clinton Circus leaves town, the better. She’s becoming a moral and ethical drain.

  • What bothers us is the fact that HRC is willing to destory everything to get her way. The fact that she used the “WHITE PEOPLE’ comment should have automatically disqualified her. If Obama used it he would have been tarred and feathered. It is mighty strange that when it comes to her and Bill (fairy-tale) speak
    off-color it is acceptable. We as a minority family with 3 docotors and mostly all major races (white, black, americian indian and hispanic} represented take it as an insult that a presidential candidate would have the nerve to play the race card so openly. If this lady is going to represented our country we are in big trouble for the next 5 generations.

  • I think a good option would be to pick a prominent Clinton supporter who could help deliver an important swing state. Strickland comes to mind.

    As does General Clark. Obama/Clark 2008!

  • Is Strickland the man who was standing behind Clinton on the stage while she feigning belligerence into the microphone about one of Obama’s flyers while declaring “I’ll see you at the debate Barak Obama!”? You know, the guy back there who was nodding his head, chanting “that’s right” to her ludicrous outburst and clapping like a sea lion? Is that the guy? If so, he’s a weird dude.

  • Why are long-service Reps, especially chairs of key committees, not considered VP material? Their seats are usually safe, and if not. the House isn’t usually undone by a single seat changing hands.

    The Senate is nice, but is it magic?

  • To hell with anybody who says Obama shouldn’t pick Clinton as a running mate, I hope he doesn’ t out of spite and he loses BIG TIME to McCain, that’ll teach you to be careful what you wish for!

  • Note: The above post was written by a classic Clinton neo-con dead-ender.

    Best of breed.
    Or worst of breed.

    Take your pick

  • greg,
    you’re an idiot:
    “I hope he doesn’ t out of spite and he loses BIG TIME to McCain”

    as much as i dislike clinton (as in -vs- obama) i would never wish (if she were the nominee) that she loses.

    what are you, a republican troll?

  • Neocon troglodyte toadie damns anyone who doesn’t do his bidding. I hereby renounce and reject Neocon troglodyte toadie’s existence as an intelligent form of life.

    Update—it took 5 hours for the guy to get up the gumption to come out of his office and face the microphones and media personnel that were set up and in place before noon—but Marc Dann (Ohio AG) has just resigned.

    Dems clean their own house; GOPers look for the nearest rug to sweep it under….

  • * Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) is the latest high-profile Clinton backer to urge Obama to pick Clinton as his running mate. — CB

    Somehow, I don’t think Rendell’s advice is likely to weigh heavily with Obama. I can see the advantages for Rendell (vide Mark Pencil’s comment, @15, with which I agree entirely) from such a course of action, but none at all for Obama. And whatever else Obama is/isn’t, he is not stupid.

  • Greg@38
    Holy smoke.

    At least the Obama people hoped Clinton would lose cuz she stunk on ice.

    You’re the spiteful one. He’s not picking her because they don’t agree on much of anything despite their words.

    Would it be so horrible if he chose Sebelius or Napolitano instead?

    What use is it to have a New York Senator with such high negatives?
    If New York is teetering enough that Clinton could help, he’s going to be in much bigger trouble than she can assist with.

    Other notes:
    The Sierra Club endorses almost no one who isn’t guaranteed to win. They are a tremendous research organization whose political spine turned to warm Jell-O a decade ago. Expedience is their motto when endorsing.

    Look to them for issues, but they’re not much help in picking environmentalist candidates. The last consideration is the Sierra Club desperately wants to be a non-partisan organization. Not many Republicans allow the Sierra Club to support them by voting green. When they get a Republican who gives even lip service, they hesitate. McCain is cover against accusations of their being a Democratic front group. I don’t agree with the threshold they use to qualify for endorsement (or neutrality), but I sympathize a little.

    • Comments are closed.