The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« IRS Contractors Cost Taxpayers More than They Collect | Main | First Civilian Contractor on Trial for Allegedly Stabbing another Contractor »

April 15, 2008




D. Cupples


thanks for sharing the article.


"Less than 50,000 people voted in caucuses to decide who got Wyoming's, Hawaii's and Rhode Island's combined 74 delegates."

D. Cupples, Did you mean Iowa's caucus? In the next paragragh you mention RI again as a primary.

Great Article!

Only 2,501 voters in Iowa's caucus? That's it?! Christ Florida should move right to the front with million voting.

I like the idea of a nationwide primary all in the same week with early voting.



The issue with nationwide primary voting on one day is it removes the possibility of a poorly funded or relatively unknown candidate emerging and getting more support. A 1-day national primary will be won by the candidate with the most name recognition and/or the most money.

That said, I agree that having Iowa and NH first every year is crazy - it should rotate around. Also, there shouldn't be any late straggler primaries. It should start small but build to a big finish where all the remaining states vote.



If I were looking to accuse a campaign of Bush-style tactics, I would probably look first to the campaign that has been running the exact same attack strategy that Karl Rove drew up for Al Gore and John Kerry. I can find you a dozen articles from the last few days talking about how Hillary is running the Republican attack playbook against Barack Obama.

Given the current "elitist" epithet coming out of Hillary's mouth, it doesn't take a semiotics professor to figure out why "latte-sipping crowd" might be an insult.

Oh, and Bill made a speech yesterday where he said Obama voters support him because they lack wisdom.

As I said before, it requires a big dose of cognitive dissonance to come to the conclusion that Obama is running a more negative campaign than Hillary.


On the money thing, there's no need for me to respond at length again. You admit that they're not lying. You don't see refusing PAC and lobbyist money as making a difference, but the proof is self-evident. If it were easy, than campaign finance cover boy John McCain would certainly do it, and Hillary would probably do it as well to take away Obama's talking point. They don't do this precisely because it is hard and forces you to completely shift the focus of your fundraising.

For the Obama campaign to claim that their funding sources are "distinctly different from Senator McCain and Senator Clinton" is empirically true. The base of their funding support, and the source of the majority of their funds, is uniquely broad-based. It's not even a half-truth or a slight distortion, it is a statement that means exactly what it appears to mean. Nobody has ever received as many small contributions as Obama has.


David Axelrove strikes again.

d. cupples


As I've said many times, Obama created a higher standard for himself by claiming that he is above things like Rovian tactics. A large plank in his platform is to clean up "politics as usual" (which includes the Rovian stuff).

That aside, when did the Bush-type stuff start in this race? When Obama surrogates implied (or stated) that Hillary (and Bill) were racists (before SC).

Obama's campaign opened the door. The media played along for a while (some outlets still are playing).

As for media accusing Hillary of Bush-style tactics: consider the sources. Are they some of the same media that have ignored substantive "negatives" about Obama or have gone after Hillary over non-substance?

If so, what do their opinions matter now? Of course they're accusing Hillary of bad things: they've done that all along

Again, I don't mind anyone's attacking Hillary on stuff like Bosnia or her issue positions or credentials.

But much of the MSM un-objectively campaigned for Obama or against Hillary at least during most of January, Feb and March. Some are still doing it.

d. cupples


About the money: Obama is faking out the public with technicalities, pure and simple. Damozel just did a good post based on today's USA TODAY article.

And my post yesterday that mentioned CRP also shows that Obama most certainly has special-interest-tied money, just like the other candidates.

The only reason it matters is that Obama has sold himself as NOT connected to S-Is.

Perhaps he's the only one making misleading claims is that Hillary and McCain knew that such claims would ultimately cost them some credibility -- as it will likely cause Obama, given that USA Today has finally picked up the story.


"As for media accusing Hillary of Bush-style tactics: consider the sources. Are they some of the same media that have ignored substantive "negatives" about Obama or have gone after Hillary over non-substance?

If so, what do their opinions matter now? Of course they're accusing Hillary of bad things: they've done that all along"

No, it's not those people. It's people from across the spectrum. Here's former Clinton secretary of labor Robert Reich:

"I saw the ads" — the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago — "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It's the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we've developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn't possibly believe and doesn't possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I've seen growing in Hillary's campaign. And I've come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can't in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past 20 years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst — and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical."

While we're on Reich,

He claims HRC was going negative before you claim Obama first was. And this is emphatically NOT a guy with an ax to grind against the Clintons.

The comments to this entry are closed.