“Forty percent of Americans have never lived when there wasn’t a Bush or a Clinton in the White House…Does a nation of 303 million people really have only two families qualified to run the show?” The AP’s Nancy Benac reflects on the Bush-Clinton problem with our politics. “‘I think we would be fundamentally healthier if we broadened the zone of candidates who could make it to the top,’ [presidential advisor David Gergen] said. Historically, politics has been open to newcomers who rise up to reflect the grass-roots sentiment of the country, Gergen said. That’s still possible, he said, ‘but it’s harder than it used to be, especially because it’s so hard to raise money’ for expensive national campaigns. The Clintons and Bushes, he said, have built up strong ‘brand’ recognition for their names.“
Category: The Dem Primary
Dolla Dolla Hil, Y’all.
Well, if the family business issue is bothering primary voters, it’s not being reflected in the funding tallies. In the third leg of the all-important money primary, Hillary Clinton comes out tops in 3rd quarter fundraising with $27 million raised, with Obama clocking in at $20 million and Edwards — who’s announced he’ll accept public financing — coming in third at $7 million. “Overall, Sen. Barack Obama has raised slightly more than Clinton for the primary, and the two look to be fairly evenly matched financially as they head into the final stretch before the first electoral contests in January.” And, whoever your primary candidate is, the real silver lining here is that Dems overall have raised twice as much as the GOP. “‘This just shows the difficult political climate that Republicans are facing,’ said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist. ‘The bright side is that next spring, the Republicans will have plenty of money to give the candidate who goes up against Hillary Clinton.’” We’ll see.
Death and Taxes.
“‘Instead of having all of us pay our fair share, we’ve got over $1 trillion worth of loopholes in the corporate tax code,’ he said. ‘This isn’t the invisible hand of the market at work. It’s the successful work of special interests.” In a speech at Washington’s Tax Policy Center, Barack Obama unveils his tax plan. “The plan means billions in breaks by: nixing income taxes for the 7 million senior citizens making less than $50,000 a year, establishing a universal credit for the 10 million homeowners who make less than $50,000 annually and do not itemize their deductions, and providing 150 million Americans with tax cuts of up to $1,000…Obama proposes funding the tax cuts by closing corporate loopholes, cracking down on international tax havens and increasing the dividend-and-capital-gains tax for the wealthy, he said.“
Meanwhile, not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton unveils her new health care plan. “A Clinton adviser compares the plan’s ‘individual mandate’ — which requires everyone to have health insurance — to current rules in most states that require all drivers to purchase auto insurance…Clinton is the third of the front-running Democratic White House hopefuls to formally unveil her plan, following Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and former Sen. John Edwards.” Said Edwards of the Clinton plan: “I’m glad that, today, the architect of the 1993 plan has another care proposal — and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then I’m flattered…The lesson Senator Clinton seems to have learned from her experience with health care is, ‘If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.’ I learned a very different lesson from decades of fighting powerful interests — you can never join ’em, you just have to beat ’em.”
At what cost Clinton?
“‘Republicans are upset with their candidates,’ Arnold added, ‘but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls.’” Although few Dems seem willing to go on the record publicly about their doubts, the AP’s Ron Fournier reports on widespread Democratic concern over Hillary’s reverse coattails in the general election. “The problem is her political baggage: A whopping 49 percent of the public says they have an unfavorable view of Clinton compared to 47 percent who say they hold her in high regard, according to a Gallup Poll survey Aug. 3-5. Her negative ratings are higher than those of her husband, former President Clinton, former President George H.W. Bush and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry at the end of their campaigns. A candidate’s unfavorability scores almost always climb during campaigns.”
Echoes of Dean…
“He raises tens of millions of dollars over a few months. His supporters are passionate, almost fanatical. And his grass-roots movement threatens a more established rival. A description of Howard Dean in 2003 or Sen. Barack Obama today?” In today’s cover story, the Washington Post toys with many of our worst nightmares by comparing the current state of the Obama campaign to that of also-rans Dean and Bradley. “Like Dean and Bradley, Obama is strongest among elites, whom other Democrats derisively call ‘latte liberals’ — a group that voices strong opinions but is not big enough to win him the nomination. Polls show that Obama is ahead of Clinton among voters with college degrees, while Clinton has a huge lead among voters who make less than $35,000 and those who have graduated only from high school…But one major difference is that Obama has strong numbers among African Americans, about 40 percent of whom are backing him, putting him in a tie with Clinton.” Hmm. Hillary Clinton, heroine of the working-class? I’m not buying it. (More like name recognition, I’d wager.) Well, call me an inveterate latte-progressive elitist of the first order, but I just hope Obama finds a way to get his message out to the more, uh, likely-to-be-uninformed among us. However dignified their daily struggles, that crowd has burdened us with virtually unelectable candidates for two elections straight. (And it’s not like Gore or Kerry had any common-man cachet either.)
…or Echoes of Camelot?
“On civil rights, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the race to the moon, and other issues, President Kennedy succeeded by demonstrating the same courage, imagination, compassion, judgment, and ability to lead and unite a troubled country that he had shown during his presidential campaign. I believe Obama will do the same.” Also concerning Sen. Obama and from the pages of this week’s New Republic, Kennedy speechwriter Ted Sorensen compares his old boss to Barack Obama. (If you’re not a TNR subscriber, Sorensen makes a similar case on Youtube here.)
Obama’s 31.
Round 2 of the money game is in the books, and, surprisingly (or perhaps not), Barack Obama came out on top with $31 million to Hillary Clinton’s (estimated) $27 million. (John Edwards pulled $9 million, Richardson $7 million.) “Obama’s war chest in the second quarter was built on the strength of 154,000 new contributors, giving him well over a quarter-million donors since he started the race…[Clinton’s] fund-raising team has been relying much more heavily on larger donors.”
My Clinton Concerns | State of the Field.
“‘You can look at this stage and see an African American, a Latino, a woman contesting for the presidency of the United States,’ Clinton said. ‘But there is so much left to be done, and for anyone to assert that race is not a problem in America is to deny the reality in front of our very eyes.'” Unfortunately, I missed the third Democratic debate at Howard University debate last night, so I can’t comment on the performances of Clinton, Obama, Edwards et al. I can say that this new NBC poll showing that 52% of the electorate wouldn’t consider voting for Hillary under any circumstances conforms to one of my major concerns with her nomination. As I said before, she’s a smart, talented, and impressive politico who’d undoubtedly sail the ship of state much more smoothly than the current administration. (Of course, so would you, I, the night-janitor at the local McDonalds, or almost anyone else one can think of.) But, really: [1] she’s thoroughly lousy on campaign finance reform, to my mind the issue that bears on virtually all others; [2] she apparently didn’t have the wherewithal or leadership instincts to realize the Iraq war was a terrible idea in 2003 (it didn’t take all that much to figure it out, particularly when you figure how much more information Clinton had access to than we did); [3] her view of centrism is apparently to act like Joe Lieberman every so often; and [4] most of the nation has already decided for various reasons that they don’t like her. With the Republicans scattered and in retreat, their ideology in eclipse, why do we keep throwing up marginal, tired candidates — Gore, Kerry, Clinton — on the off-chance that the electorate will manage to surmount their strong negatives, hold their collective nose, and vote for them?
To be fair, the other Dems haven’t been all that great at articulating a progressive alternative to Republican-lite DLC-ishness yet either, but at least there’s some potential for it there. Sen. Obama‘s got all the right JFK moves, and this all-things-to-all-people ambiguity may be one of his strongest political assets. But right now I think he’s relying too much on his initial spate of public goodwill, and missing a chance to really draw the nation’s attention to the issues that concern him. And John Edwards‘ son-of-a-millworker-made-good brand of populism, while laudable, doesn’t yet seem fully formed to me. But, at the very least, Edwards — unlike some of his more-willing-to-triangulate opponents — seems more often than not to let his flag fly, and act from the courage of his convictions. Right now, particularly with McCain hopelessly derailed by his blatant compromises of principle, Edwards may be the closest we’ve got to a Straight-Talk-Express this year (well, this side of Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul.)
At the moment, I’m still leaning towards Obama, just because of his tremendous upside — he, unlike virtually every other candidate, has the possibility to transform, revitalize, and realign our current political debate if he plays his cards right. But, Edwards is still in my estimation, and I’ll be taking a long hard look at him over the coming months (and either, in my humble opinion, are preferable to Senator Clinton, for the reasons listed above.)
The Revenge of Gore-bot?
“But what if he does? What if he could take who he is now, all that he’s learned, and carry it back into the maelstrom? Could he stay as he is or would he revert? What if he launched a new kind of campaign: no handlers, just the liberated Gore talking about what really matters to him? Would he seem too squishy?” No. He would seem like Al Gore. This week’s Time pushes the 2000 nominee as a potential 2008 Democratic dark horse, and, Lordy, I am so not feeling it. Anybody who argues Gore has “the grassroots appeal of Barack Obama” doesn’t remember the man on stage. Obama can be certifiably electric. Gore is…Gore, in all his stilted, sighing, pedantic glory. I’m thrilled the man has found a happy second career fighting global warming — It’s suited him ever since Earth in the Balance. But, please, by all that is good and holy, keep him out of the Democratic presidential field.
The “Go Obama” Party?
“‘I disagree with Obama on the war but I don’t think it is a test of his patriotism,’ Martin says. ‘Obama has a message of hope for the country.‘” Come on aboard, you won’t hurt the horse: Disillusioned Republicans wander over to the Obama bandwagon, including “Power and Weakness” author Robert Kagan. “In an article in the Washington Post, Kagan wrote approvingly that a keynote speech by Obama at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was ‘pure John Kennedy’, a neocon hero of the cold war…’Personally, I liked it,’ Kagan wrote.” And, really, after seeing what the Republicans have to offer at the first debate last week, can you blame him or anyone else for defecting?