red states rule
08-02-2007, 04:25 AM
Special All-Negativity Edition
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 1, 2007; 9:28 AM
I have surveyed the media landscape, and it is my sad duty to report that no one has anything good to say about any of the '08 contenders.
They are, without fail, a bunch of misguided hacks and befuddled losers, who might make halfway decent presidential candidates if only they had the wisdom to listen to the pundits who are trashing their campaigns.
The dog days have officially arrived--it's August--and the race has been kind of static. Maybe the heat is making some people cranky. But I've just been reading one thumbs-down posting after another.
Hillary, as I noted the other day, has gotten some grudging recognition even from conservatives. But now that we're all supposed to talk about her cleavage--or how she's trying to raise money by decrying the Washington Post fashion column about her flash of skin--the chatter is a little less favorable.
First up in our game of piņata is Fred Thompson, who has somehow been branded a disappointment without actually getting in the race. That has to be some kind of indoor record, dontcha think? How dare he raise only $3 million in the last quarter?
"Many Republicans had seen the 'Law & Order' actor and former U.S. senator from Tennessee as a potential savior in a tough election cycle," says Politico's Mike Allen. "He attracted support from such top-shelf party figures as Mary Matalin, Liz Cheney, George P. Bush and other GOP stalwarts who saw him as a potential Hillary Clinton slayer. But many Republicans have turned queasy as Thompson has ousted part of his original brain trust and repeatedly delayed his official announcement, which is now planned for shortly after Labor Day, in the first two weeks of September. Some are already saying a prospective Thompson run is a flop."
The New York Sun's Ryan Sager says Fred's fundraising haul isn't terrible, but:
"Thompson boosters have been saying that Republican fundraising -- in comparison to the Democrats -- has been slow because donors were waiting for a Thompson-like candidate to jump in. Well, Mr. Thompson's essentially in, and the money is nothing spectacular.
"The argument that this can't be judged like an active campaign is convenient for the Thompson folks, but it doesn't hold much water . . .
"The argument that they're just holding back because this is a 'testing the waters' committee -- and to do otherwise would run afoul of the law -- is just silly. If their burn rate is really less than 20%, then they're already raising more money than they need. They would have loved to have blown us all way with $5-6 million."
Why does Obama seem to have stagnated? Slate's John Dickerson has a theory:
"Obama receives his highest marks in polls from people who think he is new, fresh, and inspiring. If voters vote with their hearts, his experience problems might not matter that much. His candidacy also will test how voters assimilate their feelings about George Bush. Bush had no foreign-policy experience, and while he was surrounded by people who did have such experience, he has proven that there's no substitute for actual knowledge. On the other hand, voters are so depressed after the Bush presidency (70 percent of the public think the country is going in the wrong direction) they might rush to a candidate who seems able to electrify the country.
"Democratic strategists debate whether experience is Obama's biggest problem or whether he faces a bigger challenge broadening his support among voters. Despite his success in recruiting record numbers of donors and turning out huge crowds, Obama's position in national and key state polls has leveled off. He does well with upper-income voters but has trouble connecting with those who make less than $35,000 and those who have graduated only from high school. He is often compared to other boutique candidates such as Eugene McCarthy and Bill Bradley, who were always in the murmur of elite drawing rooms but never caught on with the blue-collar base of the party.
"For the moment, Obama is hampered by his own celebrity. To build a connection with voters in the early caucus and primary states, he needs to work smaller venues. Close interaction with voters allows them to take away a deeper impression and gives him feedback about what people are worried about and what they want to hear. He has an ear for this. Obama has compared talking to black church audiences to a jazz session where his rhetoric feeds off the room. But he can't jam if the room is too noisy, and for the moment, too many people are showing up at his rallies for him to create that intimate feel . . .
"Obama's other challenge, as one adviser put it, is the perception that he's 'all sizzle and no steak.' The huge crowds and stirring but vague reform rhetoric don't give voters anything they can take home in their pocket."
On that point, there was this from a recent Iowa swing:
"One line that landed a little flat, though, was when Mr. Obama sympathetically noted that farmers have not seen an increase in prices for their crops, despite a rise in prices at the supermarket," the NYT Caucus blog notes.
" 'Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?' the senator said. 'I mean, they're charging a lot of money for this stuff.' "
"The state of Iowa, for all of its vast food production, does not have a Whole Foods, a leading natural and organic foods market."
John McCain has gotten so much bad press that it must be time for an uptick, right? Wrong! Here's the New Republic's Michael Crowley saying the senator can't "un-sell out":
"In hindsight, McCain's decision to run for president as the 'Republican establishment' candidate seems utterly ludicrous. It's true that, stylistically, McCain was far better-suited to a freewheeling, unscripted candidacy. But, beyond that, becoming an Establishment Man was an ideological absurdity. Even today, the extent of McCain's leftward shift during and after his last presidential run remains underappreciated.
"When he last ran for president, McCain denounced Bush's tax cuts as unaffordable and unfairly tilted toward the rich. He described a GOP corrupted by business lobbyists and hostage to 'forces of evil' like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. After his return to Congress, he went even further, championing a patients' bill of rights despised by the HMO industry and the Bush administration; pushing through a sweeping campaign finance reform bill that Bush signed unwillingly; enraging the NRA by pushing legislation to close the 'gun show loophole'; and sounding the alarm over global warming. McCain even contemplated ditching the GOP altogether. In 2001, he discussed with Senate Democratic leaders the possibility of joining their party and mulled an independent presidential bid.
"It's not surprising, then, that however hard McCain tried to repent, his heresies were simply too much for conservatives to forgive. But McCain also ditched the core component of his identity that made him a rock star in the first place: his reform crusade."
Was Hillary shrewd to push back on the cleavage issue? Dick Polman sounds skeptical:
"If the Clinton campaign was really interested in letting this episode die, it merely needed to ignore it. Instead, it decided to exploit it -- and magnify it - by sending out the fundraising email, and voicing general outrage about 'the media.'
"Perhaps it would have been appropriate to complain about 'the media' victimizing the candidate if The Post had placed the fashion story on page one, or if the story had been written by one of their national political writers. But it ran in the Style section, the 'C' section on July 20 -- an implicit statement by the paper that this was to be considered a feature commentary, not news. It's the Clinton team, not The Post, that has literally kept the column alive. As [a] result, it became grist for conversation on Meet the Press, and Hillary didn't necessarily fare well. John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal said that 'for her to argue that she was not aware of what she was communicating by her dress, is like Barry Bonds saying he thought he was rubbing down with flaxseed oil, OK?'
"Indeed, a lot of people became aware of the Post column only because of the Clinton team's fundraising effort."
Yes, the contretemps also spread to the NYT, which had been a cleavage-free zone.
Romney is drawing fire from Americablog's John Aravosis, who writes with religious fervor:
"JFK never ran as a Catholic. JFK never intended to jam to his religion down America's throat. Romney, running as a religious right candidate, is doing quite the opposite. Romney isn't just running on his faith. He is openly proud of the fact that he plans to use his religion as a litmus test to determine his position on every issue. While JFK assured us that he wasn't going to be taking orders from the Pope, Romney assures us that he will be taking orders from Pat Robertson and the men at the Concerned Women for America."
Taking orders? Litmus test? I've never heard Romney say anything other than that his faith is part of who he is. Don't Hillary and Obama say the same thing?
for the complete article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 1, 2007; 9:28 AM
I have surveyed the media landscape, and it is my sad duty to report that no one has anything good to say about any of the '08 contenders.
They are, without fail, a bunch of misguided hacks and befuddled losers, who might make halfway decent presidential candidates if only they had the wisdom to listen to the pundits who are trashing their campaigns.
The dog days have officially arrived--it's August--and the race has been kind of static. Maybe the heat is making some people cranky. But I've just been reading one thumbs-down posting after another.
Hillary, as I noted the other day, has gotten some grudging recognition even from conservatives. But now that we're all supposed to talk about her cleavage--or how she's trying to raise money by decrying the Washington Post fashion column about her flash of skin--the chatter is a little less favorable.
First up in our game of piņata is Fred Thompson, who has somehow been branded a disappointment without actually getting in the race. That has to be some kind of indoor record, dontcha think? How dare he raise only $3 million in the last quarter?
"Many Republicans had seen the 'Law & Order' actor and former U.S. senator from Tennessee as a potential savior in a tough election cycle," says Politico's Mike Allen. "He attracted support from such top-shelf party figures as Mary Matalin, Liz Cheney, George P. Bush and other GOP stalwarts who saw him as a potential Hillary Clinton slayer. But many Republicans have turned queasy as Thompson has ousted part of his original brain trust and repeatedly delayed his official announcement, which is now planned for shortly after Labor Day, in the first two weeks of September. Some are already saying a prospective Thompson run is a flop."
The New York Sun's Ryan Sager says Fred's fundraising haul isn't terrible, but:
"Thompson boosters have been saying that Republican fundraising -- in comparison to the Democrats -- has been slow because donors were waiting for a Thompson-like candidate to jump in. Well, Mr. Thompson's essentially in, and the money is nothing spectacular.
"The argument that this can't be judged like an active campaign is convenient for the Thompson folks, but it doesn't hold much water . . .
"The argument that they're just holding back because this is a 'testing the waters' committee -- and to do otherwise would run afoul of the law -- is just silly. If their burn rate is really less than 20%, then they're already raising more money than they need. They would have loved to have blown us all way with $5-6 million."
Why does Obama seem to have stagnated? Slate's John Dickerson has a theory:
"Obama receives his highest marks in polls from people who think he is new, fresh, and inspiring. If voters vote with their hearts, his experience problems might not matter that much. His candidacy also will test how voters assimilate their feelings about George Bush. Bush had no foreign-policy experience, and while he was surrounded by people who did have such experience, he has proven that there's no substitute for actual knowledge. On the other hand, voters are so depressed after the Bush presidency (70 percent of the public think the country is going in the wrong direction) they might rush to a candidate who seems able to electrify the country.
"Democratic strategists debate whether experience is Obama's biggest problem or whether he faces a bigger challenge broadening his support among voters. Despite his success in recruiting record numbers of donors and turning out huge crowds, Obama's position in national and key state polls has leveled off. He does well with upper-income voters but has trouble connecting with those who make less than $35,000 and those who have graduated only from high school. He is often compared to other boutique candidates such as Eugene McCarthy and Bill Bradley, who were always in the murmur of elite drawing rooms but never caught on with the blue-collar base of the party.
"For the moment, Obama is hampered by his own celebrity. To build a connection with voters in the early caucus and primary states, he needs to work smaller venues. Close interaction with voters allows them to take away a deeper impression and gives him feedback about what people are worried about and what they want to hear. He has an ear for this. Obama has compared talking to black church audiences to a jazz session where his rhetoric feeds off the room. But he can't jam if the room is too noisy, and for the moment, too many people are showing up at his rallies for him to create that intimate feel . . .
"Obama's other challenge, as one adviser put it, is the perception that he's 'all sizzle and no steak.' The huge crowds and stirring but vague reform rhetoric don't give voters anything they can take home in their pocket."
On that point, there was this from a recent Iowa swing:
"One line that landed a little flat, though, was when Mr. Obama sympathetically noted that farmers have not seen an increase in prices for their crops, despite a rise in prices at the supermarket," the NYT Caucus blog notes.
" 'Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?' the senator said. 'I mean, they're charging a lot of money for this stuff.' "
"The state of Iowa, for all of its vast food production, does not have a Whole Foods, a leading natural and organic foods market."
John McCain has gotten so much bad press that it must be time for an uptick, right? Wrong! Here's the New Republic's Michael Crowley saying the senator can't "un-sell out":
"In hindsight, McCain's decision to run for president as the 'Republican establishment' candidate seems utterly ludicrous. It's true that, stylistically, McCain was far better-suited to a freewheeling, unscripted candidacy. But, beyond that, becoming an Establishment Man was an ideological absurdity. Even today, the extent of McCain's leftward shift during and after his last presidential run remains underappreciated.
"When he last ran for president, McCain denounced Bush's tax cuts as unaffordable and unfairly tilted toward the rich. He described a GOP corrupted by business lobbyists and hostage to 'forces of evil' like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. After his return to Congress, he went even further, championing a patients' bill of rights despised by the HMO industry and the Bush administration; pushing through a sweeping campaign finance reform bill that Bush signed unwillingly; enraging the NRA by pushing legislation to close the 'gun show loophole'; and sounding the alarm over global warming. McCain even contemplated ditching the GOP altogether. In 2001, he discussed with Senate Democratic leaders the possibility of joining their party and mulled an independent presidential bid.
"It's not surprising, then, that however hard McCain tried to repent, his heresies were simply too much for conservatives to forgive. But McCain also ditched the core component of his identity that made him a rock star in the first place: his reform crusade."
Was Hillary shrewd to push back on the cleavage issue? Dick Polman sounds skeptical:
"If the Clinton campaign was really interested in letting this episode die, it merely needed to ignore it. Instead, it decided to exploit it -- and magnify it - by sending out the fundraising email, and voicing general outrage about 'the media.'
"Perhaps it would have been appropriate to complain about 'the media' victimizing the candidate if The Post had placed the fashion story on page one, or if the story had been written by one of their national political writers. But it ran in the Style section, the 'C' section on July 20 -- an implicit statement by the paper that this was to be considered a feature commentary, not news. It's the Clinton team, not The Post, that has literally kept the column alive. As [a] result, it became grist for conversation on Meet the Press, and Hillary didn't necessarily fare well. John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal said that 'for her to argue that she was not aware of what she was communicating by her dress, is like Barry Bonds saying he thought he was rubbing down with flaxseed oil, OK?'
"Indeed, a lot of people became aware of the Post column only because of the Clinton team's fundraising effort."
Yes, the contretemps also spread to the NYT, which had been a cleavage-free zone.
Romney is drawing fire from Americablog's John Aravosis, who writes with religious fervor:
"JFK never ran as a Catholic. JFK never intended to jam to his religion down America's throat. Romney, running as a religious right candidate, is doing quite the opposite. Romney isn't just running on his faith. He is openly proud of the fact that he plans to use his religion as a litmus test to determine his position on every issue. While JFK assured us that he wasn't going to be taking orders from the Pope, Romney assures us that he will be taking orders from Pat Robertson and the men at the Concerned Women for America."
Taking orders? Litmus test? I've never heard Romney say anything other than that his faith is part of who he is. Don't Hillary and Obama say the same thing?
for the complete article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html