Not For The Faint Of Heart...Or The Weak of Stomach

Man! I love politics, but if you want to get turned off to 'em listen in on a Clinton campaign conference call for reporters. That's what I did yesterday on XM's Potus '08 and all I can say is, "Yuck"! You can't find more unattractive messengers of disingenuousness, sloppy logic and pure fiction than Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn. I know that this is the underbelly of retail politics and Obama's David Axelrod and David Plouffe aren't much better, but come on! No wonder Hillary's campaign keeps finding itself apologizing for undisciplined surrogates (which Hillary did two nights ago at a town hall Q and A with a group of Black newspaper folks.) If Penn and Wolfson are leading the charge, gutter politics is de rigeur.

The primary goal of yesterday's call was to show how important Pennsylvania was to the Presidential election. The fact that Hillary has a commanding lead there I'm sure had nothing to do with it. As the Obama campaign continues it's fifty-state strategy, refusing to place more importance on PA than say, on North Carolina, the Clinton folks are castigating him for it. Penn went so far to say that, "We believe that [the Pennsylvania primary result] will show that Hillary is ready to win, and that Sen. Obama really can’t win the general election." Wolfson later tried to spin out of that spin by saying that Penn didn't say that Obama couldn't win the general. You can decide for yourself. http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/clinton-strateg.html
The point is, a primary splits the state's party vote. But that vote is mostly united in a general. So saying a loss in a state primary equals losing that state in the general is patently absurd. Then Penn stated that Obama has failed the "Commander-in-Chief test, the economic steward test and now the Keystone test." What? Who handed out those tests? And, by the way, it might be revealing to check out factcheck.org to see exactly how credible Hillary's foreign policy credentials are. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/hillarys_adventures_abroad.html

Now if it sounds like I'm picking on the Clinton campaign, well, maybe I am. But my bigger point is that Hillary Clinton is a much better candidate than her operatives are advocates. These guys cheapen her campaign. They also give Obama's criticism that Hillary equals old politics real credence. And finally, if you want to know why Hillary doesn't get more favorable treatment from the press, imagine having to listen to this drivel everyday. It wouldn't put you in the most charitable frame of mind.

The Senate voted down earmarks yesterday in a defeat for the three Presidential candidates, who were among 29 Senators to vote for it. Many smaller states rejected it because earmarks often provide them with neccessary infrastructure funds. John McCain was clearly disappointed. He said the lack of support from GOP Senators '"makes it more understandable why we lost the 2006 election. It wasn’t the war in Iraq, it was wasteful pork barrel spending. It was the spending that deteriorated our base.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9034.html
The Senate has already passed a bill that would make earmarks more transparent. Apparently that's as far as most of the Senate is willing to go. It's not good for the public trust, but it would be interesting to see how quickly bills would pass if they weren't loaded with pork. The results might surprise us.

Todays question: Can there ever be a change in retail politics as they are played now and does it bother you? Let's hear what you think on this or anything else. Hit 'comments' below, bypass the Google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.