“The issue: Feingold’s recently signed campaign finance reform bill. Clinton, whose husband’s leasing of the Lincoln Bedroom had helped inspire the new law, was accompanied by an attorney. The attorney’s job: Look for loopholes, loopholes that would allow the Democrats to keep raking in soft money — unregulated, unlimited contributions to the party coffers. When Feingold objected, Clinton scolded him like Empress Livia dressing down a courtier. ‘You’re not living in the real world,’ she shouted. ‘Senator,’ Feingold responded coolly, ‘I do live in the real world, and I’m doing just fine in it.’” Hey, Hillary…want to see what a real “modern progressive” looks like? Writer Edward McClellan reviews Sanford Horwitt’s Feingold, a new biography of the Senator, for Salon, placing him in a long tradition of Wisconsin mavericks dating back to the inimitable Robert La Follette. “As Horwitt puts it, Feingold’s campaign was in the tradition of La Follette’s ‘progressives, who “mostly thought of themselves as perpetual underdogs against the big-money interests.‘”
Tag: Election 2008
Court Vision.
Also concerning the NBA (and along the lines of this post last year), friend and colleague Ben of The Oak sent along this noteworthy article on which basketball players are contributing to what 2008 candidates. Supporting fan of the game Barack Obama: NY Knick Stephon Marbury, Shane Battier, Billy King, and Baron Davis. For Edwards (in the past): Charles Barkley, Mike D’Antoni, and Travis Best. For Clinton: many NBA owners, including Paul Allen and the Maloofs. For Mitt Romney: Celtic exec Danny Ainge. For the Dems in general: The Commish, David Stern.
No Choice at All.
“‘Democrats are reasonably comfortable with the range of choices. The Democratic attitude is that three or four of these guys would be fine,’ David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political scientist. ‘The Republicans don’t have that; particularly among the conservatives there’s a real split. They just don’t see candidates who reflect their interests and who they also view as viable.’” Currently leading the Republican race for President: “none of the above.” I wholeheartedly agree.
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.)
McCain ain’t able?
“‘The campaign is imploding,’ said one McCain staffer, echoing a word used by others.” With his campaign leadership resigning en masse, some serious funding problems looming on the horizon, and a possible mobile phone slip-up that might prove illegal, is John McCain’s 2008 bid already derailed? Slate‘s John Dickerson surveys the wreckage. “Those who remain are trying to argue that McCain is showing leadership by holding his top brass accountable, but the episode looks more like the last scene in Hamlet — a stack of bodies piled up just before the curtain.” Update: McCain circles the wagons.
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.”
One Sick Puppy.
Where do they find these people? The GOP leadership has already given us Dr. William “Catkiller” Frist, he of the feline felonies. Now comes word that Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney apparently sees nothing wrong in strapping his family pet to the top of a moving car for twelve hours at a time. (To him, Seamus the Irish Setter just “likes fresh air,” so much so that I guess he’d move his bowels in abject terror only occasionally.) Um, Governor, Berk likes fresh air too, but that doesn’t mean I bolt him down to the top of speeding NYC taxis. Here’s a tip: Having animals ride atop moving cars…good for Teen Wolf, bad for dogs.
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.)
There can be only one Hizzoner.
“Giuliani’s Escape from New York was already tough enough, but Mayor Mike makes it nearly impossible. Bloomberg is the Ghost of Rudy Past — a constant, high-profile reminder of the cultural distance from the South Carolina lowlands to the New York island.” Slate‘s Bruce Reed examines how Mike Bloomberg’s recent flirtations with a presidential bid spell serious trouble for the Giuliani candidacy (as does — according to Fred Kaplan — Rudy’s “greedy” behavior with the Iraq Study Group.)