The recent flap regarding John McCain’s ethics provides a huge opportunity for Obama. Remember, it was McCain who challenged Obama to stand by the “pledge” to receive public financing for the general election.
Through the dust up, we discover that McCain, if nothing else, games the system. He used eligibility for public financing to secure a campaign loan. He also used the public campaign finance system to waive the petition requirements in the Ohio Republican primary. Now, McCain wants to wiggle out of his public financing commitments and be able to rake in donations from his lobbyist friends. Nothing outlandish, but simply political expediency – and it stands in stark contrast with the self-proclaimed “Straight Talk Express.”
On the other side, Obama has nearly 1,000,000 donors. He has not accepted money from any PACs or lobbyists (unless they have donated as individuals). For the first time in my lifetime, Obama will enter the White House not owing anyone. I think this is why the Edwards endorsement is taking so long – I have the sense that he wants more from Obama than Obama is willing to give. Since Obama is dealing from a position of strength, he should not make promises that will be difficult to keep if elected.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Penn in Ohio
I'm sure the Obama camp knows more about this than I do, but why don't they make more of a case against Clinton regarding Mark Penn's company. As is well known on the internets, Penn's company has done quite a bit of anti-union work. He claims he has walled himself off of it, but he still profits from it.
It seems to me that this would be a pretty significant issue in Ohio where union busting and job losses have been devastating. Plus, it's the truth. Why does Clinton not distance herself from this guy? Why doesn't Obama go after them?
Questions, questions.
It seems to me that this would be a pretty significant issue in Ohio where union busting and job losses have been devastating. Plus, it's the truth. Why does Clinton not distance herself from this guy? Why doesn't Obama go after them?
Questions, questions.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Moving the goalposts
Just to be clear about the kumbaya moment last night. I think this is the best strategy for Clinton. Her campaign is clearly trying to show a vulnerable Hillary – witness the “Hillary, we got your back” signs at rallies. Her comments regarding the super delegates and the “we’ll be fine” moment are designed to blur the edges of a tough politician.
With this strategic shift, I’m also sensing tactical maneuvering from the Clinton camp. Bill mentioned earlier this week that if Hillary wins Texas and Ohio, he believes she’ll be the nominee. If she doesn’t win, he doesn’t think she can do it. The MSM echo chamber has been focused on the negative aspect of that statement, and Hillary has only said that Texas and Ohio are critical not must wins. I’d like to focus on the other half.
Essentially, what Bill did, was continue a narrative that began with James Carville. Just before the Wisconsin primary, Carville said that Hillary was poised to begin the greatest political comeback in history, by winning Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Bill is building upon this theme, suggesting that wins in these upcoming primaries will give the nomination to Hillary.
So, forget about the delegate count, forget about the previous primaries and caucuses, and forget about the popular vote. It all comes down to TX, OH, and PA. Brilliant.
With this strategic shift, I’m also sensing tactical maneuvering from the Clinton camp. Bill mentioned earlier this week that if Hillary wins Texas and Ohio, he believes she’ll be the nominee. If she doesn’t win, he doesn’t think she can do it. The MSM echo chamber has been focused on the negative aspect of that statement, and Hillary has only said that Texas and Ohio are critical not must wins. I’d like to focus on the other half.
Essentially, what Bill did, was continue a narrative that began with James Carville. Just before the Wisconsin primary, Carville said that Hillary was poised to begin the greatest political comeback in history, by winning Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Bill is building upon this theme, suggesting that wins in these upcoming primaries will give the nomination to Hillary.
So, forget about the delegate count, forget about the previous primaries and caucuses, and forget about the popular vote. It all comes down to TX, OH, and PA. Brilliant.
Democratic Debate, Texas Style
There really was no new information in the Democratic debate last evening. Both Clinton and Obama spoke fluently about policy and issues, showing a command of details that makes them both exceptional candidates. There were a few testy moments, and, of course, everyone will be talking about the “change you can Xerox” comment from Hillary. I could almost see her reaching out to pull the words back as she spoke them – she really needs to put a lid on Wolfson and Penn.
The other big moment that seems to be echoing is the kumbaya sentiments expressed by Clinton at the end of the debate. My sense watching this was relief. Taken in context with her statement that the super delegate issue would work itself out, this final statement signaled, at least initially to me, that Hillary is preparing to be magnanimous in defeat.
Clearly the attack mode is not resonating with Dem voters. Clinton tried to riff Obama with a remark about one of his surrogates not being able to identify any legislative accomplishments on national television. Obama remained calm and simply recited many of his good works, and said something to the effect that they shouldn’t be trying to tear each other down, but lifting the country up. An excellent moment for him, I thought.
So, basically a tie between two formidable and impressive candidates. Senator McCain has his work cut out for him.
The other big moment that seems to be echoing is the kumbaya sentiments expressed by Clinton at the end of the debate. My sense watching this was relief. Taken in context with her statement that the super delegate issue would work itself out, this final statement signaled, at least initially to me, that Hillary is preparing to be magnanimous in defeat.
Clearly the attack mode is not resonating with Dem voters. Clinton tried to riff Obama with a remark about one of his surrogates not being able to identify any legislative accomplishments on national television. Obama remained calm and simply recited many of his good works, and said something to the effect that they shouldn’t be trying to tear each other down, but lifting the country up. An excellent moment for him, I thought.
So, basically a tie between two formidable and impressive candidates. Senator McCain has his work cut out for him.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
It's the sex, stupid...
Unless the NYT backs up the initial story about le affaire McCain with some hard facts (pun intended) then I think I’ll not comment too much.
It’s probably fair to suggest that without any other info, this helps McCain, solidifying the conservative angst about MSM, and especially the commies at the Times. On the other hand, if more bombshells jump out of birthday cakes, McCain’s done. He doesn’t have the charm or support to beat back this story if it continues to break.
All in all, I’m delighted that this is taking up space in the MSM echo chamber. Can’t wait to hear Mathews slobbering all over himself tonight.
The icing on the cake is that this story acts like an etchasketch in that it erases almost every other non-story story that the Clinton camp has been raking up about Obama. I can just hear the Clinton brain trust pounding their collective fist on the Red Roof Inn table in Texas, damning McCain. There’s some irony in how this sex story is casting a shadow on the Clintons…
It’s probably fair to suggest that without any other info, this helps McCain, solidifying the conservative angst about MSM, and especially the commies at the Times. On the other hand, if more bombshells jump out of birthday cakes, McCain’s done. He doesn’t have the charm or support to beat back this story if it continues to break.
All in all, I’m delighted that this is taking up space in the MSM echo chamber. Can’t wait to hear Mathews slobbering all over himself tonight.
The icing on the cake is that this story acts like an etchasketch in that it erases almost every other non-story story that the Clinton camp has been raking up about Obama. I can just hear the Clinton brain trust pounding their collective fist on the Red Roof Inn table in Texas, damning McCain. There’s some irony in how this sex story is casting a shadow on the Clintons…
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Happy trails
Good people, good candidates sometimes lose. The narrative in the Democratic primary is not yet complete, but only the epilogue remains. Here is where Hillary must be careful.
She must make a decision about whether she presses on with negative attacks, or begins to gracefully draw distinctions with Obama. The latter provides a future opening for magnanimous withdrawal from the primary and support for the Democratic nominee. Conversely, the former begins to paint Clinton in unflattering colors, risking not only the 2008 Presidential race, but also creating a rift in the Democratic Party.
It must be difficult for the Clintons. They have been good Democrats. Not great, but solid. I think what they failed to recognize can be summed up in the Ned Lamont senatorial contest against Leiberman in Connecticut. Bill and Hillary had an opportunity to campaign for Lamont against Leiberman, and did not. Perhaps they were helpful behind the scenes, I can’t pretend to know. But Lamont was a movement, a grassroots movement similar to the Obama phenomena. I think the Clintons (and the Dem Party establishment) failed to recognize the unrest in the party, and the degree to which change is desired.
Maybe it would not have been different if Hillary had actively campaigned for Lamont. I’m almost certain that Lamont would have still lost…but the greater point would have been made for Clinton. She would have supported grassroots movements, stood for changing the status quo, and would have become part of the movement. Instead, in my eyes, she’s viewed as part of the problem. Same old, same old.
There is a groundswell out in the American landscape. Most establishment Dems think they can ride it out…they’re wrong. Get on board or get swept aside.
She must make a decision about whether she presses on with negative attacks, or begins to gracefully draw distinctions with Obama. The latter provides a future opening for magnanimous withdrawal from the primary and support for the Democratic nominee. Conversely, the former begins to paint Clinton in unflattering colors, risking not only the 2008 Presidential race, but also creating a rift in the Democratic Party.
It must be difficult for the Clintons. They have been good Democrats. Not great, but solid. I think what they failed to recognize can be summed up in the Ned Lamont senatorial contest against Leiberman in Connecticut. Bill and Hillary had an opportunity to campaign for Lamont against Leiberman, and did not. Perhaps they were helpful behind the scenes, I can’t pretend to know. But Lamont was a movement, a grassroots movement similar to the Obama phenomena. I think the Clintons (and the Dem Party establishment) failed to recognize the unrest in the party, and the degree to which change is desired.
Maybe it would not have been different if Hillary had actively campaigned for Lamont. I’m almost certain that Lamont would have still lost…but the greater point would have been made for Clinton. She would have supported grassroots movements, stood for changing the status quo, and would have become part of the movement. Instead, in my eyes, she’s viewed as part of the problem. Same old, same old.
There is a groundswell out in the American landscape. Most establishment Dems think they can ride it out…they’re wrong. Get on board or get swept aside.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
