-
sponsorship
From a Ron Paul press release titled, “Ron Paul Campaign Statement on Beating
Giuliani and Thompson… Again”:
“After beating Rudy Giuliani in
Michigan, and Fred Thompson in New Hampshire, Ron Paul has now bested both ‘national frontrunners’ in
Michigan, and in the three races held thus far Paul has received over 30,000
votes more than either of the candidates.” [emphasis
added]
Little did we realize, Paul is Thompson's biggest
supporter.
-
sponsorship
In a conference call this afternoon, Hillary addressed the Michigan exit poll result that showed “Uncommitted” beating her among African-Americans, nearly 70 percent to 26 percent.
Asked whether this could hurt her in South Carolina and beyond, she replied, “No, I’m committed to running a broad-based campaign,” and said she’s “thrilled that we have people contesting for the nomination of the Democratic Party that represent the historical progress that America has been so noted for.” The campaign’s official response points out that Obama supporters organized on behalf of “Uncommitted,” despite his pledge not to campaign in Michigan.
All fair and true. But neither answer addresses the disparity between the overall results—Hillary beat Uncommitted handily, 55 percent to 40 percent—and the results among blacks. No matter how much behind-the-scenes, pro-Uncommitted antics were going on, it’s clear that that campaign penetrated among African-Americans much more than it did among the rest of the population.
The Obama campaign likewise played down the results in a memo: “[T]he results of the primary tonight have no bearing on the Democratic nomination contest.” Which is, of course, the right move given that Hillary beat Obama in head-to-head match-ups, 46 percent to 35 percent. But no doubt some people on Team Obama saw the exit poll results and smiled.
-
sponsorship
Somebody should tell John McCain that it isn't 2007 anymore. McCain's campaign announced today that they're recycling a Woodstock-themed ad that first ran in New Hampshire last October. Predictably, it's terribly outdated.
Here's the basic gist of the ad, which pulls footage from a Fox News debate: McCain says Hillary wanted to earmark $1 million for a Woodstock concert museum; McCain makes a poignant quip about not going to Woodstock because he was "tied up" at the time; roll footage of McCain on a bed as a POW; standing ovation; McCain says sinister earmarkers like Clinton shouldn't be president; John McCain approves this message.
Here's the problem: The ad comes from a long-ago epoch when Hillary Clinton was the inevitable Democratic nominee, Fred Thompson was still a major player, and McCain still symbolized a failed candidacy more than a rejuvenated war hero.
The election has matured quite a bit since then, even if the level of discourse hasn't. Originally, the ad used Clinton as a prop to show that John McCain isn't afraid of the Clinton machine. But that's not the situation on the ground anymore. Now that Obama short-circuited Hillary, the Republicans have to run against all Democrats, not just Clinton.
Considering how old the ad is, there must be a reason why McCain is recycling it. A working theory: The segment touches on the economy (wasted government spending) while still hyping McCain's national security credentials. For McCain, who doesn't like to pander on economic issues, hyping his commitment to curtailing pork-barrel projects is the smartest way to address the growing economic concern in the country.
The original ad didn't stay on the air very long in New Hampshire. Fox News sent a cease-and-desist letter to McCain's camp saying it doesn't allow debate footage in political advertisements. That prompted McCain to redo the ad and release a different version. The new South Carolina ad is an exact replica of the first Woodstock ad, just without the Fox News logo onscreen. This seems like a curious and not-so-kosher way to get around the cease and desist issue.
The McCain campaign and Fox News haven't returned requests for comment.
-
sponsorship
It’s no secret that union endorsements are more powerful in states with caucuses than in those with primaries. Without the privacy of the voting booth, you’re much less likely to flout your union’s preference. But that’s exactly what Bill Clinton is asking Nevadans to do.
The former president told an audience in Sparks, Nev., yesterday that he had spoken with members of the Culinary Workers union who said they would ignore the union's endorsement and caucus for Hillary. “They think they're better than you are at identifying and physically getting people to their caucus sites,” he said. “And I bet they're wrong.”
The Clintons have made their disdain for caucuses plenty clear. “You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard,” Hillary said last week after Obama won Iowa and the Culinary endorsement. “That is troubling to me. You know in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time—they're disenfranchised.”
But then, when it became clear that otherwise-disenfranchised culinary workers would likely dominate the at-large precincts set up in Vegas hotels, the Clintons opposed that, too. The Nevada State Education Association, whose leadership largely supports Clinton, filed a suit protesting (legitimately, it seems) that the at-large precincts give caucus-goers disproportionate influence. Bill agreed with the complaint: “I think the rules oughta be the same for everybody.” Of course, there was no objection to the process before Obama won the union's backing.
This argument—that caucuses are inherently unfair and undemocratic—has merit. It doesn't allow everyone to vote. It weights some votes more than others. There's no secret ballot. But somehow these points only come up in the statements of the losing (or handicapped to lose) party. Watch them resurface if Hillary doesn’t win Nevada. If she does … well, then maybe the system isn’t so bad after all.
UPDATE 4:22 p.m.: The Culinary Workers union weighs in on Bill's statements. “I think if we had endorsed Hillary Clinton, they probably wouldn’t be saying
that,” spokesman Chris Bohner tells me. “I think they would be urging members to follow
the union leadership.”
-
sponsorship
If you were watching last night's Democratic debate closely, you probably noticed that Dennis Kucinich was not there.
That's because, in the hours leading up to the debate, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that NBC did not have to allow Kucinich to participate. The decision overruled a district court judge's order that the network include Kucinich.
Ultimately, the high court decided that the lower court didn't have the power to force NBC's hand. Here's an excerpt from the decision:
In other words, Kucinich should have complained to the FCC, not a local court. A footnote later explains that the lower court's attempt to exercise prior restraint on NBC is a violation of the First Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.
With respect to Kucinich's second claim—that NBC violated its contract by going back on its initial invitation—the Supreme Court decides thusly: "We conclude that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in determining that a contract existed between the parties." A contract by definition requires "an offer an acceptance, a meeting of the minds, and consideration. Here, the element of consideration is absent." That's basically a fancy way of saying they never made a deal.
The decision isn't just a rebuke of Kucnich's complaint. It seems to rather harshly criticize the thinking of Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson. (The court "manifestly abused its discretion.") In retrospect, his musings about "fairness" and opposing viewpoints turn out to be as flimsy as they sounded at the time.
Kucinich is still getting his platform, albeit a smaller one. This morning, he appeared on the radio show Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman, where they replayed the audio from last night's debate, pausing it to allow Kucinich to answer the questions as well. You can listen and read the transcript here.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?