Tuesday’s political round-up
Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* Barack Obama yesterday became the third senator to announce his opposition to Michael Mukasey’s nomination as Attorney General. “We urgently need an Attorney General who will check the vast and unconstrained executive powers that have been accumulated under the Bush-Cheney Administration,” Obama said. “Judge Mukasey has failed to send a clear signal that he understands the legal and moral issues that are at stake for our country, and so I cannot support him…. No nominee for Attorney General should need a second chance to oppose torture and the unnecessary violation of civil liberties…. It’s time to reclaim our values and reaffirm our Constitution.”
* Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced this morning that the senator is “troubled” by Mukasey’s responses to questions on torture and unchecked executive power, but would not say for sure whether Clinton would oppose the nomination.
* Obama appeared at an MTV forum yesterday, and finally said something the netroots didn’t hate. In response to a question about whether he would make net neutrality a priority in his first year, Obama said he would. “What you’ve been seeing is some lobbying that says [Internet providers] should be able to be gatekeepers and able to charge different rates to different websites…so you could get much better quality from the Fox News site and you’d be getting rotten service from the mom and pop sites. And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet — which is that there is this incredible equality there…as president I’m going to make sure that is the principle that my FCC commissioners are applying as we move forward.”
* Interesting report from the WaPo: “Ten months into his presidential bid, Rudolph W. Giuliani continues to work part time at the security consulting firm he promised to leave this past spring to focus on his pursuit of the Republican nomination. Giuliani’s continuing involvement with a firm catering to corporate clients makes him unique among Republican contenders. It also complicates the task of separating his firm’s assets from his campaign spending.” The Post added, “Federal election laws prohibit Giuliani’s firm from absorbing costs or providing services that legally should be covered by political donations, campaign experts said.”
* Mitt Romney’s tendency to reverse course on almost everything is legendary, but he was in rare form yesterday. In response to a question about Social Security, Romney said he is “not in favor of privatizing Social Security,” but added 20 seconds later that he wants people to be able to divert money out of the system and into “private accounts.”
* Fred Thompson was asked by a voter yesterday whether he could support civil unions. He responded, “I would not be in support of that.” He went to talk about gay marriage, as if the two policies were the same thing.
* Campaigning in New Hampshire yesterday, John Edwards suggested Hillary Clinton is mostly running for president out of personal ambition. “She said it, didn’t she?” Edwards said. “Wasn’t her phrase early on in her campaign, ‘I’m in it to win?”‘ (Isn’t every presidential candidate motivated in part by personal ambition?)
* Bill Richardson said this morning that he regrets the “negative tone” of the criticism directed at Clinton. “I think that Senators Obama and Edwards should concentrate on the issues and not on attacking Senator Clinton,” said Richardson, who officially added his name to the New Hampshire ballot. “It’s OK to get aggressive on the issues, but to make personal attacks on somebody’s attachments to lobbyists, that’s not the kind of positive tone I want to see.” (Criticizing connections to lobbyists is a “personal attack”?)
* Speaking of Richardson, the New Mexico governor got some good news in New Hampshire yesterday when Portsmouth Mayor Steve Marchand, considered a rising star in the party, endorsed Richardson’s campaign. Marchand cited Richardson’s success as a diplomat in driving his endorsement.
* Ron Paul unveiled his first television ads of the campaign season yesterday, part of a new $1.1 million ad blitz. Putting aside questions about the candidate and his ideas, the ads just aren’t very good, and this one, in particular, includes some of the worst acting I’ve ever seen in a campaign commercial.
Oh how sweet… she’s “troubled” by simulated drowning.
This cutie-pie can really triangulate the moral cake…
Can’t she?
Obama… torture is your wedge issue.
Get your whip and flog this one…
I too am troubled by Ms. Clinton’s inability to take a stand against unfettered executive power. How does she see the Geneva Convention? Is that also a “quaint document”? I think her triangulation is very annoying.
The smartest thing the Democratic contenders could do is turn their attention to the Republican field, and tar and feather them to the point that, when there is a GOP nominee, the criticisms will already be out there. This may sound odd, but I would rather see the Democratic field as one potential nominee and the rest as potential VPs than I would one potential nominee, the rest filled with rage and animosity at the nominee, being very unconvincing supporters, and the VP ending up being someone like Beige Evan Bayh.
Unfortunately, I have a hard time seeing anyone in the current field willing to take a back seat to Hillary, which means I think we get Beige Evan, or someone like him. Yuck.
I’m troubled by a flat tire. I’m outraged by torture. Mrs. Clinton’s reluctance to take a clear stand on this issue is just one more reason that I won’t vote for her under any circumstances.
“includes some of the worst acting I’ve ever seen in a campaign commercial.”
This criticism would be more apt if they were actually actors. They’re not. They’re Meetup Group members who were sought out by the campaign.
This is how sick our media-saturated culture has become: You’d like fake supporters better than actual ones – and you’re hardly alone. I can hear French philosophers scribbling away on this subject even now.
I do know what you mean about the quality of the ad. But there’s just something wrong when all of us are so used to ersatz presentations of…well…virtually everything, that it becomes the norm and reality is judged by how well it measures up to the fake.
Fluffy’s (#5) right about that ad. Genuine now looks awkward and cheap — and therefore bad from the point of view of US consumers, who are used to slick and polished regardless of how expensive and phony.
I’ve had the same experience for years in live vs. taped/filmed performances. We’re so used to note-perfect recordings and technically flawless TeeVee shows, and (most of us anyway) so unused to live symphonic performances or dramas, that the natural “errors” which are bound to show up in the “real thing” seem like defects. Our politicians are so deathly afraid of making a “mistake” before rolling cameras that they’ve become scripted robots. And the corporations are very, very happy.
I agree with Anne @ #3. Let each candidate start hammering the real enemy and emphasize how each individual would go about making things right, and let whoever has the greatest personal charisma carry the day. Whoever gets the nomination has to win (emphasis on “has to”), and developing an aura of true statespersonship would be a big leg up in the general election, in my opinion.
I believe that the phrase “worst acting” applies to the complete lack of spontaneous reply by these individuals. Add to that the obvious “staging” that took place (three “students” walking on campus—and not another living soul anywhere around? I get more realism from my two-year-old daughter pretending to be a Jedi Knight—and her Pooh bear gets to be Darth Vader). Yo—where’s Gene Siskel when you need a hearty “thumbs down?”
And once agin, UnAware fred demonstrates that he is categorically, undeniably, and neurologically—unaware….
I usually agree with Anne on most things but not this. The use of torture and the abuse of executive power are important issues which should not be swept under the rug so we can present a united front. These are values which need to be clarified now, not during the general election. If the Democrats win it will not be because they are republican-lite, but because they stand for something. I like Hillary Clinton, but I wish she would be a little more clear on her positions about these important issues.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced this morning that the senator is “troubled” by Mukasey’s responses to questions on torture and unchecked executive power, but would not say for sure whether Clinton would oppose the nomination.
Fuck you, Hillary. The guy is supposed to be AG and he can’t say whether the president has to obey the law or not. He’s a “legal scholar” but he can’t say whether a technique the US has prosecuted people for using is torture.
I swear we’re back to the AUMF vote and giving BushCo the benefit of the doubt, as if the last six years haven’t even happened. What part of “despotism” don’t you understand, bitch?
The more I see from Hillary the better Canada looks. Seriously.
Update on Hillary (Re #10):
I guess the triangulator figured out that Mukasey was a loser. What a smart lady.
For the third and last time (every time I try to comment I get “try again”)
To quote the late, great Molly Ivins, ” I will.not.vote.for.Hillary.”