(Updated) Political bits - Nasty, Brutish, and Short.
(ABC) Hillary Clinton does not deny that her campaign is pushing Jeremiah Wright to the superdelegates.
(CNN) Ferraro just won't shut up. (What is the circulation of The Daily Breeze?)
(Politico) Jeremiah Wright was a White House Guest under Bill Clinton. (This fact and picture brought to you by the Obama campaign.)
(Politico) The back and forth over the Wright/Clinton picture gets nasty. (I think the revelation that the Clinton camp was pushing Wright to the superdelegates took this up a level.)
Later (Fri AM): Americablog thinks it has a picture of Hillary Clinton sitting next to Wright at the White House appearance. (Still not sure it matters.)
(FoxPoll) According to a poll by FoxNews, Wright in and of itself doesn't matter so much. (Figure that 25% who care weren't voting Dem anyway.)
(TheNation) Then, of course, there's this piece in The Nation about secondary Clinton ties to The Fellowship. (If you've never read about this group, they are a spooky, weirdo Christian cult with ties all over the right wing power structure.)
(E&P) Not only did John McCain accept anti-gay, anti-Catholic John Hagee's endorsement, he actually sought it out.
And, (NYTimes, FirstRead, NYTimes) the consensus appears to be that Clinton appearing in Michigan and a dozen of her donors offering to pay for the primary actually hurt the revote effort. (The optics of all the one-sided pressure made it much more difficult.)
PS. (AP) McCain broke the public spending limit, spending $58 million so far. If he used a promise of public financing to obtain his loan last fall, he is in willful violation of election law.
(After all this, I need a shower.)
Fri AM: The AP has the end of February Dem money totals, although it's pre-Texas Ohio. (I think the way the calendar lays out, money is getting less important.)
(CNN) Ferraro just won't shut up. (What is the circulation of The Daily Breeze?)
(Politico) Jeremiah Wright was a White House Guest under Bill Clinton. (This fact and picture brought to you by the Obama campaign.)
(Politico) The back and forth over the Wright/Clinton picture gets nasty. (I think the revelation that the Clinton camp was pushing Wright to the superdelegates took this up a level.)
Later (Fri AM): Americablog thinks it has a picture of Hillary Clinton sitting next to Wright at the White House appearance. (Still not sure it matters.)
(FoxPoll) According to a poll by FoxNews, Wright in and of itself doesn't matter so much. (Figure that 25% who care weren't voting Dem anyway.)
(TheNation) Then, of course, there's this piece in The Nation about secondary Clinton ties to The Fellowship. (If you've never read about this group, they are a spooky, weirdo Christian cult with ties all over the right wing power structure.)
(E&P) Not only did John McCain accept anti-gay, anti-Catholic John Hagee's endorsement, he actually sought it out.
And, (NYTimes, FirstRead, NYTimes) the consensus appears to be that Clinton appearing in Michigan and a dozen of her donors offering to pay for the primary actually hurt the revote effort. (The optics of all the one-sided pressure made it much more difficult.)
PS. (AP) McCain broke the public spending limit, spending $58 million so far. If he used a promise of public financing to obtain his loan last fall, he is in willful violation of election law.
(After all this, I need a shower.)
Fri AM: The AP has the end of February Dem money totals, although it's pre-Texas Ohio. (I think the way the calendar lays out, money is getting less important.)
posted by mikevotes at
10:03 PM
13 Comments:
Ummm... here is how they "laid it squarely on the Michigan legislature":
"Mr. Obama’s allies in the Legislature blocked it for a variety of legal, technical and political reasons."
(from paragraph 6 of the Times story.)
As for Corzine and Rendell... it ain't like the Obama campaign was going to come up with the money, is it?
I'm still not entirely sure that Clinton wanted the re-do, but she certainly took the position that she did. It's quite clear Obama DIDN'T want it; if he did, it would be happening. So by any fair reckoning, he's to blame.
By
Anonymous, at 3:28 AM
Yeah, I realized that as I went to bed. I wrote this in a hurry.
I'll probably rewrite this. sorry.
By
mikevotes, at 6:53 AM
PS. If you've never noticed, I'm generally not as rational in those last posts of the day.
I don't know why.
By
mikevotes, at 7:17 AM
Obama has been consistent in his support for the "DNC rules" and that he'd go along with "whatever the DNC approves." But he's no patsy.
The whole thing with Hillary's lobbying for a re-do and her tortured, unconvincing attempts to find the higher moral ground, as well as the very Republican-like work by Corzine and Rendell (a 12 million dollar pledge from just 10 fat cats!!! all (almost all?) from out of state) really left a stink in the room...
By
-epm, at 7:45 AM
True, but that position is much easier to be consistent on when you're winning and the rules are helping you.
By
mikevotes, at 8:00 AM
Still... I think an argument could be made that in a free, fair and open election, Obama could do actually win MI... or at least run to a draw. The real sticking point was the lockout of dems who took a repub ballot in the primary from participating in the re-do.
Anyway, Obama still comes out of this looking the more presidential... One risk for Hillary and the approach she's taking with MI and FL is that she's sounding a little Nader-esque. Add that to her money-men surrogates acting all BushCo and it's not a pretty picture for a supposed stadard bearer of the Democratic party.
By
-epm, at 8:08 AM
You're reading it more negative for Clinton than I am.
And I agree that Michigan would likely be tight. The polling I've seen (inexact) shows a tie and her winning by a couple.
By
mikevotes, at 8:12 AM
If Obama comes out of it looking "presidential," the president he looks like is George W. Bush... disenfranchising voters so he can win an election.
As I've said before, it's not about what's "fair" between the candidates, as if this were a sporting event... it's about what is fair to the voters. If Hillary is at fault here, it's for ever agreeing in the first place to rob voters of their voice. None of the candidates had the right to do that... the only thing you can say in their defense is that they all figured it wouldn't make a difference one way or the other.
Now that it does (potentially) make a difference, the voters should be given a voice. And Obama is the one preventing that. So much for a "new politics."
By
Anonymous, at 2:28 PM
I'm still not giving you the right impression.
I do believe Obama (or at least his surrogates) were largely responsible for killing this thing, but, for the reasons you cite, where blame attaches is very important.
Outside of the Clinton camp and supporters, the blame is not being placed solely on Obama, and that matters alot.
Broadly speaking, the perception is not that Obama personally is disenfranchising voters, it's that a deal couldn't be arranged.
Frankly, his campaign was the primary block to a deal, but blame is being attached to all parties, Obama, Mich locals, DNC, and Clinton.
This will definitely make the reachover to Clinton supporters much harder.
(Personal: Just personally, I'm sorry. I know this turn regarding Michigan and Florida must be very hard from where you sit.)
By
mikevotes, at 3:31 PM
Rules matter and so do agreements to play by the rules. It is as if she is a divorcing spouse complaining about a pre-nup and bringing in lots of fat-cat lawyers to try to sway the judge. I don't buy the disenfrancise-argument at all...no one is constitutionally given a right to vote in a state primary...
By
Anonymous, at 6:07 PM
Mike, I was responding to EPM's "presidential" comment and using it as a springboard to vent. I do agree with your point that Obama is having some success shaping perceptions about who is responsible for torpedoing the re-vote.
Anonymous, to use your divorce metaphor... It's not just about a husband and wife. It's as if in the pre-nup she had agreed that their children should be sent to a foster home (something neither party should have agreed to). Now she's changed her mind. But the husband still insists on sending them to the foster home. The judge's decision should be based, not upon prior agreements, but upon what is best for the children--the voters.
By
Anonymous, at 7:58 PM
but your analogy of my analogy is poor since no rational parents ould agree to such a thing. What hrc and OB agreed to was a rational and mutually acceptable position not only to themselves but to the DLC leadership.
It would be different if at the time of the agreement someone brought up the chance of either state not having their votes "count" and one or each candidate said "so what" and just plowed ahead. neither state is gauranteed primary elections - the states are responsible to organize them and play by the rules. It is not like MI and FL are being told they can't vote in the GE.
I don't see it as torpedoing a re-vote. besides that, it is very foolish to think hrc would be doing anything different if the roles were reversed...
By
Anonymous, at 8:59 PM
Y'all are arguing about pre-nups?
By
mikevotes, at 9:55 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home