Wednesday’s political round-up

October 3, 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:

* John Edwards’ presidential campaign has criticized Hillary Clinton’s campaign for stealing the former senator’s ideas, and yesterday, Team Edwards went after Barack Obama for the same reason. “If you need any more proof that John Edwards is shaping the race for the Democratic nomination, you don’t need to look any further than Senator Obama, who has followed Edwards’s lead on healthcare, poverty and, today, eliminating nuclear weapons,” Edwards spokesperson Colleen Murray told The Hill. “Next thing you know, he’ll be rooting for the Tar Heels.”

* Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign distributed a strategy memo to political reporters, giving its take on the political landscape. Surprise, surprise, Giuliani’s aides believe Giuliani is going to win.

* New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is the biggest campaign spender among the Democratic presidential hopefuls, having bought 3,780 TV spots in Iowa and New Hampshire, totaling $2 million. Barack Obama is the next biggest, with nearly $2 million in ads, primarily in Iowa.

* The Des Moines Register’s David Yespen, the Dean of Iowa media, had an interesting piece this week, suggesting that Chris Dodd still has a shot at pulling an upset, in part because of the perception that the top tier is too timid on Iraq policy: “It could happen. It’s happened before. In this deadlocked race, the front-runners could fizzle if liberal Democratic activists think they’re wimping out on Iraq – or would be wimps in November.”

* Tommy Thompson, Bush’s former HHS secretary and the former governor of Wisconsin, was asked whether he’d be interested in serving in the next president’s cabinet. “I don’t think Hillary will have me,” he said.

All good ideas should be stolen – and then implemented.

If Edwards doesn’t win the nomination, maybe he should start a think-tank for social issues. Good ideas are hard to come by.

  • Obama ran on non-proliferation issues in 2004, worked with Dick Lugar on expanding Nunn-Lugar, and talked about disarmament and non-proliferation as early as his May article in Foreign Affairs.

    The idea that Edwards was there “first” is laughable.

  • “I don’t think Hillary will have me”

    That’s a pretty realistic forecast from a man who attempted a quixotic presidential bid of his own.

  • I’m afraid John Edwards is starting to sound like a whiney loser, which is too bad because we know he’s better than that. But as mop said, these are core ideas that every candidate talks about (or should) and laying exclusive claim to them just makes the claimant look silly.

    If this is all he’s got, things are just not looking too good for him right now.

  • Edwards should talk about stealing ideas and programs…All of his is just a take off from Kucinich who’s been there first on every issue before Edwards or any of the others.

    One thing he should know though is that none of the Democrats differ very much on any of their programs…except for Kucinich who is the only real change from any of the other candidates. The 3 “top tier” candidates ( so the press wants us to believe) won’t even mention Kucinich or speak his name because they know his ideas and plans were first and he is the only real change and they don’t want us to know that.

  • Howie Kurtz explains why he’s so shallow:

    “Are Americans ready to have this woman in their living rooms every night for four years? Are they comfortable with her personality? Do they like her voice?

    “Plus, examining her personality quirks is more fun than deconstructing her stance on Iraq.”

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/howard_kurtz_me.php

    Are Americans ready for an ugly gnome like Thompson in their living rooms for four years? A slick poser like Romney? An insane Screecher like Guilliani?

    They’ll never ask. They’ll never care.

    What does the abundance of male-pattern-baldness in the GOP field say about their masculinity? Are they compensating for something? Who waxed their head? I’ve seen a lot of luster and sheen lately. Can we really vote for somebody who’s going to glow like that at every press conference? It’s going to turn voters off. How much did Romney pay for his haircut? It seems calculating, like a subtle jab at the candidates who are lacking…

  • Well, Tommy, if Hillary turns you down, try Bill. Lower standards.

    Edwards is sounding too much like a whiny crybaby with this tact. I keep expecting his campaign to announce they are taking their ball and going home.

    “Next thing you know, he’ll be rooting for the Tar Heels.”

    Did Coleen top that off with a “zing,” and high five? Are we in third grade?

    (Yeah, I know, I just made a bad joke about Bill Clinton’s promiscuity and I’m accusing someone else of making childish jokes. I’ll refrain as soon as I’m a candidate’s spokesperson.)

  • Every election I become increasingly revolted by the state of the American body politic. It’s like going slowly blind, as it becomes less and less apparent who’s pulling the strings. For all we know, the corporate media is pushing Hilary down our throats because they know she’ll lose. I always suspected this about they way Dean was presented. Also disgusting are the number of dems who actually support Clinton’s candidacy, proof positive that many if not most Democrats are as stupid and forgetful as are republican voters. This woman had her chance; she and her husband wasted 8 years on pandering to the Right and dragging the rest of the party along with them. and she voted for the war and continues to puff up her feathers and play the hawk.

    And I don’t care what gender she happens to be. Women who’re voting for her just because she’s female are being so small minded and limited in their thinking as to boggle the mind. It’s what she’s got in her head that matters and not gender. Do you really need to be reminded of this? Are you really that simple?

    I’ll be voting for a third party candidate if faced with a non-choice between Hillary and whichever hack the Republicans come up with.

  • she and her husband wasted 8 years

    Which 8 years were those? The 8 years of peace and prosperity that interrupted the unmitigated disasters of the Bush years? The only 8 years in the last several decades where the measures of income inequality grew smaller rather than larger? The 8 years where violent crime dropped – not to be confused with last week’s announcement that violent crime reached a 5-year high? The 8 years during which Ginsberg and Breyer were appointed to the Supreme Court as opposed to Thomas, Roberts and Alito?

    I do not have blinders on – I know Clinton did things like DADT that were just wrong, and NAFTA, which many Dems disagree with. But any Republican alternative would have done those — or worse on those issues – and failed to do any of the good things Clinton did. It will be decades (if ever) before the Progressive Left elects a President (as I pointed out the other day, no Democrat elected in my lifetime – Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton – would live up to this blogs’ standards). The left needs to get the sense to elect the candidate closest, not holding out for perfection. Clinton is not “Bush in a skirt,” even if she is closer to his positions than other Dems might be. Bush certainly would never have worked for Childrens Defense Fund.

    • Comments are closed.