Let's see What Stood Out This Week, dear B&E readers. We'll call this "The Kansas Edition," not because Kansas has anything to do with What Stood Out, but because I'm reporting from the Sunflower State this morning...
The RepublicansNow that he's won the nomination, John McCain largely disappeared from view, it seems, in order to focus on that thing all good politicians do so well: Raise money. He's even raising money in London, which makes me wonder if he's not tapped out over here. Somehow I doubt it.
I read some stuff in
the Nation about McCain, which scared the bejesus out of me, because in terms of foreign policy he's a lot scarier even than George W. Bush. Seriously, this is a man who loves war. Bombing Iran is the tip of the iceberg. He's ready to antagonize Russia and China in big, bad ways, too. It's fucked up, yo.
On the flip side of things, I also read a little ditty in
the Nation called, "Who Would Jesus Vote For?" about how especially younger evangelicals believe that fighting poverty and providing good health care for all are more important values than banning abortion or denying gays the full rights of their love. As the son of a preacher man, I have to say that this sounds a little bit more Christian to me.
The DemocratsGeraldine Ferraro got nasty and resigned from Hillary's campaign. I loved Hillary's response that she's part of her "very large" finance committee, implying that her role was already just one of many.
Oh, and Barack Obama won Wyoming and Mississippi by wide margins, wiping out whatever gains Hillary made last week in Ohio and Texas.
Hillary's campaign is now pushing for superdelegates to consider
which states she's won (large ones) when making their decisions about whom to support. Meanwhile Obama's won more states, more delegates, more popular votes, so he's pushing superdelegates to consider that.
In other words, Hillary's campaign has the Al Gore and John Kerry campaign approach to winning (or losing as the case turned out to be) -- put all your money in the states with large numbers of delegates, write off the rest of the country, and hope for the best. This strategy was developed to help Bill Clinton win two elections, and it worked quite well for him. I wonder when his advisers (I'm talking to you, Terry McAuliffe, Mark Penn, James Carville) will realize that this strategy only works when the candidate has mass appeal and charisma in the style of, say, Bill Clinton. How come these supposedly smart people don't get this so obvious thing?
It seems to me that Barack Obama not only has the appeal that would make that strategy work, but that he could also compete where the Clinton campaign would never -- ever -- be able to compete. Am I on crazy pills?
Barack Obama's pastor has said some not terribly original or unreasonable things that Obama's now denouncing. And yet another
Nation article points out correctly that no other candidate or president has ever been responsible for what their spiritual leader has said. So that's not terribly fair, is it? On the other hand, if people hear that his pastor (not imam) is controversial, perhaps they'll also realize that yes, Barack Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim.
Meanwhile, Florida and Michigan. Oh, Florida and Michigan. You defied the Democratic National Committee and held early primaries, thereby earning a stripping of delegates by the DNC. And now the DNC, the Florida and Michigan Democratic Parties, and the Clinton and Obama campaigns are trying to figure out if it's possible to have a do-over. Basically, no one wants to pay for it, and we're talking about a $10 million plus investment in each state.
Hillary's been claiming that the original results should stand, which is a ridiculous argument (and one that doesn't seem to be gaining any kind of traction), since no one else was even on the ballot in Michigan, and no one campaigned in Florida. Plus, of course, when people thought their votes weren't going to count, they didn't show up to vote. So Hillary, if you're going to steal the election, you're going to have to do it another way.
I think that the Clinton and Obama campaigns should split the costs down the middle. They're the ones raising enormous amounts of money right now. Both are states that could well get Clinton close again (the demographics seem to play to her strengths), or could serve to push Obama over the top. So they're the ones that would benefit most from do-overs in Florida and Michigan.
I'm sure it's not legally possible for that to be the solution, and I'm guessing that if this idea was posed to either campaign it was greeted with the attitude of Darryl Hall: "I can't go for that. No-oh-oh, Aaaaahhh. No can do."
That's What Stood Out This Week, dear B&E readers. Only five-plus weeks to go until Pennsylvania. Keep your eye out for more mud!
Labels: politics