Wednesday’s campaign round-up

February 13, 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:

* Big surprises in Maryland primaries last night: “A longtime GOP congressman who initially voted for the Iraq war but later accused the Bush administration of bungling it was defeated by a state senator, joining a Democratic House member in becoming the first incumbents to fall this primary season. Republican Rep. Wayne Gilchrest was seeking his 10th term representing Maryland’s 1st Congressional District, which includes the state’s Eastern Shore and parts of the Baltimore suburbs. He lost Tuesday to state Sen. Andy Harris in a five-way race. Democrat Donna Edwards upset eight-term incumbent Rep. Albert Wynn in Maryland’s 4th Congressional District, which includes many of Washington’s eastern and northern suburbs, in a field of six candidates.”

* No one seems to know with absolute certainty exactly how many delegates either leading Democrat has, but Greg Sargent reviewed the tallies from CNN, AP, CBS, and ABC, and all had Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton in the overall count. They’re all close — the largest margin was 67 — but this is the first time they’ve all shown this result.

* The NAACP is urging the Democratic National Committee to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida, despite the states’ decision to ignore DNC rules, and despite the fact that none of the presidential candidates competed in either contest. Al Sharpton, however, is arguing the opposite: ”I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic Party’s rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice.”

* This must be frustrating for the Clintons: “The man who served as national manager of former President Clinton’s 1992 campaign plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama, an aide to Obama said Wednesday. Obama’s campaign planned a 1 p.m. conference call Wednesday to announce the endorsement by David Wilhelm, who later became chairman of the Democratic National Committee, according to an aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement would be made public later in the day.”

* A poll released yesterday shows Obama ahead in Wisconsin, 50% to 39%. Obama’s margin among Dems is much narrower, but his lead among independents is huge.

* On a related note, the Clinton campaign has a new ad up in Wisconsin, attacking Obama for not agreeing to weekly debates. “Maybe he’d prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions,” the ad says.

* In response to an Obama challenge, Clinton said this week that she would only release her tax returns if she won the presidential nomination, not before. She didn’t elaborate as to why.

* Would John McCain consider following Bob Dole’s lead and giving up his Senate seat to concentrate on his presidential campaign? “If I get the nomination, we’ll figure it out,” he told the WSJ this week.

* CNN: “‘If I really wanted to torpedo McCain, I would endorse him,’ Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show. ‘Because that would send the independents and liberals who are going to vote for him running away faster than anything.'”

I’m with Al Sharpton. I don’t see how you can expect Obama supporters to unite behind Hillary if she wins by seating delegates everyone agreed would not be seated.

Maybe this shows why you want HIllary in your foxhole, but Howard Dean and the delegates ought to not let her get away with it.

  • Clinton said this week that she would only release her tax returns if she won the presidential nomination, not before.

    Sad. That pipe full of dottle can only be knocked out two ways:

    1) She’s got something to hide.
    2) She’s got something to hide.

  • I think the debate ad is a cheap shot. He has had literally 18 debates already and has signed up for 2 more still.

    I think that is just a cheap shot and about the only she knows how to do now – go negative.

    If she continues to trail, will she know how to concede gracefully? That is a hope that may be false.

  • Ironic, how Hillary complains about Obama not answering questions when so many questions about her approval of the war are still unanswered. Can she please point to a serious question that is not addressed in one of Obama’s position papers?

  • I would vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, but here are three things she’s doing that make me prefer that Barack be the winner:

    1) Trying to get Michigan and Florida delegates seated when she would be the only one to benefit from it. If the situation were reversed would she be in favor? I think not.

    2) Demanding weekly debates and chiding Barack for refusing. This is a transparent attempt to keep Barack from being among the people where he is strongest, again solely for her own benefit and not from some high-minded principle. It’s not even so much that she’s trying it, it’s the whining and complaining over it’s lack of success that offends me more.

    3) Her refusal to do what her opponent has already done, release her tax returns as a simple act of good faith with the voters to show that she has nothing to hide. I couldn’t care less how much she makes or where it came from (unless it was from Rupert Murdoch or some other neocon slimebag), but the fact that she’s playing coy and not being up-front about it just does not sit well with me.

    As I said, if she is the Democratic nominee I would vote for her since she is orders of magnitude better than any Republican option, but I hope it doesn’t come to that. My two cents.

  • Atrios linked to a great article about the National Association of Homebuilders taking their campaign contribution war chest and going home. It’s a good sign that the business community is looking at the carcass of the US economy and feeling failed by Bushian Republicanism.

    “Lawmakers and the Bush administration, ‘have not adequately addressed the underlying economic issues that would help to stabilize the housing sector and keep the economy moving forward,’ the trade group’s president, Brian Catalde said in a statement. ‘More needs to be done to jump-start housing and ensure the economy does not fall into a recession.'”

    While I shed no tears for this group, they have been to an extent victimized, as well as beneficiaries of, unregulated and abhorrent lending practices that are now in full collapse. But I am thoroughly amazed how in good times the business community is all about laissez-faire economics and getting government off their backs only to cry out “the government needs to do something” when economic systems make their ruthless corrections. Can’t have it both ways guys.

  • Note to self: Learn to type faster so you’re not just re-stating everybody else’s good points who got in first. 😉

  • If you thought this year’s kicking and biting by the states who wanted to be the first to have a primary was nasty, then you’ll love 2012. That is, if the delegates from Florida and Michigan get seated without a second round of primaries and some proper campaigning by the candidates.

  • Ironic, how Hillary complains about Obama not answering questions when so many questions about her approval of the war are still unanswered. Can she please point to a serious question that is not addressed in one of Obama’s position papers?

    Exactly, and not even just about the war. The fact that she’s fighting so hard to protect her tax returns is really going to hurt her, especially if she’s accusing of Obama of hiding at the same time she’s refusing to divulge important information herself. Counter-productive strategy no matter how you look at it.

    The one positive I see in this is that hopefully Hillary’s campaign will wake enough people up to just how bad Mark Penn is for the Democratic party, as all indications put the blame for bad massaging squarely on his shoulders. We can always hope, but he seems about as ready to go away quietly as the neocons.

  • Am I wrong???

    It appears Clinton didn’t get more than 40% of the vote in ANY state since Super Tuesday.

  • Re Maryland Primaries – Dumbocrat defeated was a DINO. Donna Edwards was getting a lot of progressive blog support.

    Re Delegate Tallies – I find it disingenuious to refer to delegate counts without providing breakouts between real delegates & super(political hack)delegates. Is this setting us up for the Corporate News Media to cover up the Clintons’ stealing the nomination?

    Re Release of Tax Returns – Yesterday on ‘Hardball’ with Tweety Matthews, a representative of Obama was asked whether Obama would join Hillary in releasing his tax returns! Tweety is a rethugnican idiot!

  • Actually, the Michigan and Florida Delegates, at this point, might not have so much of an impact… After all, in Michigan, Clinton won over Uncommitted 55-40%. If the Uncommitted delegates were to be placed over in Obama’s column (which would be fair, since they were clearly Not votes for Hillary), then there really wouldn’t be that much of a net gain for Hillary.

    Florida went 50-% Hillary to 33% Obama, but there is still Edwards and Kucinichs’ 14 and 1% to add in…

    So, in a nutshell, if we look at this one overall, Hillary would get a slight boost, but not necessarily a lot out of seating the delegates.

    I bet that Obama’s campaign has already crunched the numbers and, if they still have a winning margin after the delegates are added in, they will allow it, under certain conditions, (like, for example, assigning Uncommitted to Obama, and maybe a 50-50 split of Edwards votes).

  • “Clinton said this week that she would only release her tax returns if she won the presidential nomination, not before. She didn’t elaborate as to why.”

    This could lead a reasonable person to speculate that she might have something to hide.

  • If Obama had known Michigan & Florida could be counted, he would have campaigned there, and probably would have won. We will never know, but you can’t say otherwise.

  • “Clinton said this week that she would only release her tax returns if she won the presidential nomination, not before.”

    Clinton’s refusal to release her tax returns undermines her claim to be both “vetted” and “battle-tested”. If we have to worry about what her returns might reveal during a general election, then this argument is moot.

  • “Clinton said this week that she would only release her tax returns if she won the presidential nomination, not before.”

    Frankly, I don’t believe her. When it was politically expedient, she told the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire that she supported the DNC decision not to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. Then, within weeks, when it was politically expedient, she told the voters of Michigan and Florida the exact opposite.

    With regard to the tax returns, I believe she’s saying what she feels is necessary to get her through the primary. If given the opportunity, she’ll come up with something else during the general. But she’s not going to release those returns. If she had nothing to hide, she would have released them by now.

  • “Grave injustice” is going a bit far, but as Ohioan said, the results are void because the MI and FL elections were uncontested. And by void, I mean meaningless; they don’t represent the will of the voters, had there been an actual contest. Which there wasn’t, because the candidates agreed in advance there wouldn’t be.

  • Initial numbers on the mainline Ohio polls:

    http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/ohio.html

    Clinton’s initial mid-twenties lead is now down to a 16-point spread. First, the most recent polling data was “Pre-Potomac.” Second—and probably very, very important: there’s still three weeks until Ohio votes.

    Note to Clinton staff—you guys did know that “a firewall” is supposed to be fireproof, or at the very least, fire-resistant—yes? “Bales of straw” (unfounded rhetoric) do not good firewalls make….

  • Has McCain released his returns? If he hasn’t, I’d bet her strategy is to wait til she gets the nomination, then declare she won’t release hers since he hasn’t released his. I truly think the Democrats have a right to know as much as possible about their candidate BEFORE they nominate them. Releasing tax returns is an easy way to do this.

    And if she wins by seating the Michigan and Florida delegates, she can kiss the general election goodbye. The Democratic Party would be ripped in two and her base is not big enough to beat the hordes of GOPers who would come out salivating over the chance to finally beat the Clintons. And indpendents would go to McCain in a landslide.

    Another very serious and as yet largely ignored vulnerability Hillary has is her getting Bill to pardon members of a Puerto Rican terrorist group to advance her Senate campaign in 1999. How many ads will we see deriding Clinton as the candidate who had convicted terrorists freed in order to advance her career? The GOP is not talking about this now, but I guarantee we will never hear the end of it if Hillary wins the nomination.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120277819085260827.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

  • Grumpy: …the candidates agreed in advance there wouldn’t be.

    And so I’ve read.
    But FL and MI are fast becoming an online firewall for Clintonistas.
    Anybody know if a copy of the signed agreement exists online?

  • Oops.

    Clintonistas = Clinton followers
    [insert: Ah-shucks-I’m-sorry-smiley-face here]

  • Isn’t AZ’s gov – Napolitano, IIRC – a Democrat? If McCain jumps the Senate ship, it would be a gain for the Dems.

  • The NAACP is urging the Democratic National Committee to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida…

    This is getting ridiculous at this point.

    It is one thing to disagree with the rules, but breaking them has consequences. If residents of these states don’t like having their votes not count, they have the wonderfully democratic opportunity to vote out those responsible for this bad decision in the future. If they are seated, there would be no stopping the flood of early ‘me toos’ next time.

    Having a new primary is impossible at this point. Because they are open primaries, it would give people who voted a Republican ballot last time a second vote. Some independent voters may have voted the Republican ballot knowing that the Democratic delegates were revoked. It is also dramatically unfair to candidates such as Edwards who had an opportunity to compete previously, but have since dropped out. There is also the cost and time to consider. To organize a re-vote would take copious amounts of time. It would be the end of summer at the earliest (probably longer because the GOP would be fighting tooth and nail every step of the way).

    I think counting them at this point would destroy the Democratic party. I know I would no longer consider myself a Democrat. One of my core beliefs as a Democrat is that we play by the rules. Don’t agree with the rules? Do what it takes to change them. Breaking them willy-nilly is not a viable strategy.

  • doubtful– count on it as being probably inevitable that Florida and Michigan delegates wil be seated at the Convention. The Democratic Party doesn’t want to see “The Democrats didn’t even count your vote” ads being aired during the Presidential run post-convention (which, if they aren’t seated, I am willing to bet a few years’ paychecks that the republifucks would run).

    So, ultimately, the question will come down to how to seat them without it throwing the candidacy to one side or another. As I mentioned above, if they seat based on the percentages Clinton won, with all or a fair share of the rest falling to Obama, it really wouldn’t swing the delegate count that much either way– after all, Hillary only got 55% of the vote in Michigan, against nobody, and 50% of the vote in Florida to Obama’s 33% and Edwards’ 14%.

    So, even seated, she would pick up, what, maybe a 30-40 delegate advantage in pledged delegates? Trust me, if Obama is ahead by 200 or 300 delegates– very likely, under current trends– he will seat the delegates, and let his margin of victory fall slightly for the good of the electorate.

  • I understand the Florida DNC position. If they would have picked to not follow the date that the Republican legislator set it would cost them millions of dollars. Now I think that that the National DNC should have offered to pay for elections on an acceptable date. This sounds like a solution that should have been thought about before the election not after.

    But seating the delagates now would be a bit like the Bush Administration trying to change the desired results of the surge after it was clear they would not be met.

  • doubtful– count on it as being probably inevitable that Florida and Michigan delegates wil be seated at the Convention. -Castor Troy

    I guess I should be more specific and say that they cannot be seated in a way that will have an impact on the race. I’ve always assumed that once a clear winner emerged that they’d be seated for just the reasons you enumerate, but only in a ceremonious and symbolic way.

    Michigan and Florida will not be allowed to have a meaningful impact on the Democratic primary.

  • I think it’s obvious that the reason Hillary is waiting until the generals to release her tax return is because they’re so interesting and she’s just trying to tease us so we nominate her. And it worked! I’m so intrigued that I’m going to vote for her just so I can get my hands on the thing ASAP. I wonder if Tom Clancy prepared it or something,

    UPDATE: Sorry, I just got a sneak peak. They’re just regular tax returns showing her making more money than she might like to admit to her progressive followers and from a few sources that might embarrass her. Damn. Well, at least I didn’t waste my primary vote. I’m in Texas and for once these things are like gold.

  • But surely, in trying to have the Michigan and Florida delegates seated, HRC is simply pursuing her key principle of having all voters be heard, just the way she fought for holding special caucuses for casino workers in Nevada, so that they would be able to participate. No, wait, she was against the special caucuses. Ah, she was against them because she thought that they ran counter to the rules that everyone had initially agreed to. Oh foo, now I’m completely confused.

    🙂

    • Comments are closed.