Clinton

More From The Money Men
and
October 30, 2007

One more quick dispatch from the inside world of campaign fundraising: It appears that the Obama and Clinton money men already view the Edwards campaign as something of a carcass, with both sides making the argument that Edwards's decline will lead to an unforeseen fundraising boomlet for them. The Obama fundraiser I spoke with earlier argues that Edwards's trial-lawyer supporters will flee en masse to Obama because they're worried about a future Clinton administration tossing them overboard as part of some triangulation exercise.

Wednesday Blog Talk
and
October 17, 2007

The Center Holds [Joe Klein, Swampland]: "The fact that the two leading Democratic candidates, Obama and Clinton, are essentially running moderate campaigns--and that John Edwards' populism hasn't exactly caught fire--is an indication that the Democratic base isn't nearly as partisan as the Post seems to think it is." Angling for No. 2... [Matt Lewis, Townhall.com]: "Why would [Texas Gov. Rick] Perry endorse Rudy? Obvious speculation is that it puts him on the short list of running mates. In fact, Perry will accompany Rudy to Iowa today, following Rudy's presentation at the Club for Growth.

Can You Be A Partisan Moderate?
and
October 17, 2007

I agree with Joe Klein over at Swampland that part of Obama's problem is that he hasn't found an issue he can own--which, I think, is mostly a testament to the skill with which Clinton has run her campaign. (Last week I suggested Obama might have an opening on Iran, but even that's much more complicated than you'd like if you were Obama.) That said, I still think Obama's bipartisanship is a problem for him.

Analogy Of The Day
and
October 16, 2007

Chuck Todd says Hillary isn't Dean. She's Bush: Lots of folks keep bringing up Howard Dean when talking about Clinton's vulnerability vs. inevitability. The comparison, though, doesn't work since Dean never led the national polls by this much -- a new USA/Today Gallup poll has her at 50%, with Obama at 21% -- nor had a stranglehold on the establishment the way Clinton does. The better comparison (if there is one historically and there's a chance there isn't one) is George W. Bush in 1999 or Walter Mondale in 1983.

Rudy: "i Don't Care" About Clinton's Mistakes
and
October 15, 2007

A footnote to Giuliani's speech in Rock Hill: During a long riff on national security, Rudy ripped into Bill Clinton for the "massive damage" Clinton supposedly did to the U.S. military by underfunding it during his presidency. He called this "the biggest mistake" Clinton made, before throwing in a striking aside: I don't care about his other mistakes... some [of which] we may have exaggerated as Republicans. To me this sounded like a reference to the Clinton impeachment. Apparently Rudy opposed impeachment, something I hadn't known until checking just now.

Rudy: "i Don't Care" About Clinton's Mistakes
and
October 12, 2007

A footnote to Giuliani's speech in Rock Hill: During a long riff on national security, Rudy ripped into Bill Clinton for the "massive damage" Clinton supposedly did to the U.S. military by underfunding it during his presidency. He called this "the biggest mistake" Clinton made, before throwing in a striking aside: I don't care about his other mistakes... some [of which] we may have exaggerated as Republicans. To me this sounded like a reference to the Clinton impeachment. Apparently Rudy opposed impeachment, something I hadn't known until checking just now.

Hillary's (semi-)evitability
and
September 26, 2007

My reasons for thinking this aren't any better-formed than Matt's, but, like him, I have a gut feeling that the inevitability of Clinton's nomination has been overstated. She's clearly a huge favorite. But, if you pressed me, I'd say she has something like a 55-60 percent chance of winning, to Obama's 20-25 percent and Edwards's 15-20.* A 40-45 percent chance of someone other than Hillary is, by definition, hardly a lock. But it's not nothing either. --Noam Scheiber *Again, these numbers are pretty much based on nothing, other than maybe the logic I laid out on Monday.

Quote Of The Day
and
September 13, 2007

"Oh, I like Senator Clinton, but she's just got too much baggage. We got so many damn rednecks in this country--they wouldn't vote for a woman if she was the Pope!" --A sixtyish woman emerging from an Obama event in Anamosa, Iowa. This supports my earlier hunch that Democratic voters have become less concerned about Hillary's war position than about her electability. Of course, it also completely fails to account for Obama's race. --Michael Crowley

Chelsea's Green
and
July 31, 2007

Today's NYT on Chelsea Clinton's career path: Friends say financial independence is important to Ms. Clinton. Okay, but why? Her parents are multimillionaires and she is more or less American royalty. Chelsea has all the freedom in the world to follow her heart and so she chooses... a hedge fund? --Michael Crowley

Viewers V. Pundits
and
July 24, 2007

By Cass Sunstein Here is an oddity about last night's Democratic debate: Immediately after it concluded, the announcers on CNN went right to a discussion of the Obama/Clinton answers to the "would-you-meet-with-leaders-of-Iraq-Syria-Cuba-etc." question. The main conclusion, on the part of the key analyst (Jeff Toobin), was that Clinton had given a much better answer than Obama had, and that his answer showed his inexperience. Immediately thereafter, the announcers went to a focus group, which said that Obama had won the debate.

Pages