NOTE: This is the first in a series of special Election 2008 editions of our popular Around The Sphere link-fest where we offer readers links to weblogs of differing viewpoints — and give you our comments on some of the political issues raised. This version will only contain election-related links. It will appear several times a week until Election Day.
Democrat Barack Obama Is Getting Lots Of Endorsements but here’s one that got away (or did it?).’
Pollster John Zogby Was On Jon Stewart’s Show and after the showing of pollster in New Hampshire you could say that’s where most pollsters belong — on comedy shows. Buck Naked Politics looks at the appearance (and gives you the video so you can watch it yourself) and adds:
Jon Stewart asks the same question I did a few days ago: why do pundits and journalists have to predict an election, instead of just waiting to see what happens?
The real answer is: because the polls are there. The problem as we’re seeing is that the conventional wisdom begins to set-in and it can actually influence voting. But you’d never know it based on what happened in New Hampshire. This points out the CRITICAL need for mainstream journalists AND “new media” citizen journalists to make full use of the “journalist hedge.”
A little “on the other hand” or “this could mean” or “this is likely to mean” can go a long way to offset the breathless reporting of polls as The Voice Of God at best, or the Political Psychic Hotline at worst. On the other hand (see?), if reporting’s goal is to offer the most complete picture to readers (mainstream media or new media) then it is vital to look at trending.
The problem with poll mania (we plead guilty here on this site) is that it sucks up energy that could be used to write about the discussion of issues. On the other hand (again), campaigns increasingly focus on sleazy things such as innuendo about gender, race or personal character. It brings a quicker political return for them than issues do.
Time Sure Matters In Politics: In another one of his truly-superb posts, the great political columnist and blogger Dick Polman writes about “Three Dimensional Republican Chess,” a must-read that must be read in full. A key quote:
And what a difference eight years can make. When McCain last competed here, he was up against Karl Rove and George W. Bush and the mysterious rumors about how he was an unstable, gay-friendly philanderer who had fathered a black baby (among other unsourceable slurs). Last night, nobody laid a glove on the guy, and few bothered to try. He’s still a long way from a nomination, but, after his near-death experience last summer, he’s probably grateful to be taking his turn at three-dimensional chess.
Yes, McCain has made a remarkable comeback. His attempt to woo key pieces of the GOP coalition that sandbagged him in 2000 largely failed, he seemingly lost support from independent voters, lost his campaign money and top staffers. But when he decided to go out and be HIMSELF he caught on again — all the while still being the hawkish hawk embracing an unpopular war.
McCain truly became “last man standing” not just due to a game of political musical chairs, but because he won grudging respect for his outspokenness and sticking to his guns. Consequently, I continue to hear reports that many people like BOTH McCain and Obama — even though the two don’t agree on many issues. This poses a challenge for Hillary Clinton, if she’s the nominee. Also, McCain KNOWS how to use the camera..and it seems to come naturally for him. If you don’t think so just WATCH THIS.
But All Is Not Roses For Senator McCain: He was heckled on immigration in Michigan. Macsmind thinks his response has lost him Michigan — and has the video. But the traders are betting on a McCain win.
A Michigan Poll (Skepticism Alert!) Puts McCain Ahead and political scientist Steven Taylor writes:
If Romney loses in Michigan, I can’t see how he can be considered a viable candidate, although he certainly can afford to keep running as long as he is willing to spend his own money.
But Romney has indeed laid the groundwork — saying he’d go on no matter what. The old saying is that candidates don’t quit their races…they run out of money. And Romney has (a) deep pockets (b) delegates he is accumulating.
It’s still hard to see how someone who has more flip-flops than a ship coming in from China for Wal-Mart’s national distribution center could survive a campaign where voters want someone who can genuinely convince them he/she will bring about change.
THIS JUST IN! Another poll puts ROMNEY ahead. (Here we go again!)
Speaking Of Obama (and I do NOT use surrogates to do so) Taylor Owen, writing at one of TMV’s favorite blogs, Oxblog, posts a new Obama ad from Nevada and notes:
OK…SO MEGALOMANIA MAY BE A BIT OF AN ISSUE….: That being said, this new ad running in Nevada hits a core element of Obama’s message. In particular, the line “I don’t want to spend the next 4 years re-fighting the fights of the 1990’s” is nicely indicative of the generational shift that Obama’s candidacy represents.
Yes, there IS a generational shift and the shocking part is that the once-chic Clintons seem stuck in the 1990s. Talk to many young people (or independents of many ages) and they seem dismayed at how 1990s political anger is now seeping through in the campaign (conservative talk radio displays it when Hillary Clinton’s name comes up; the tactics and rhetoric used against Obama stylistically are right out of the 1990s).
The KEY question is whether this shift is complete enough to make a difference in 2008 — or whether it will take some more time until the Baby Boomers and their perpetual battles anchored in the ’60s and played out in the ’90s mercifully lose their influence. P.S. I am a Baby Boomer.
Click on the link to see the ad.
But That’s Just Our View: We respect Taylor Marsh, who is a Clinton supporter (yours-truly is supporting no one but watching and taking notes on them all). And she is IN Las Vegas with Clinton and gives this MUST-READ account of a rally. A tiny taste 4 U:
I cannot begin to tell you how passionate Hillary’s Hispanic support is in Las Vegas. They’ve got her back in this town. As for her commitment to their community, it was unmistakable today. She sent a clear message with the Hispanic leaders she brought in for this event that they are important to her and she knows there are stars among them that can make the difference next Saturday.
A bit more:
Clinton looked terrific and was clearly having a great time. I’ve seen her many times over the last year. Today there was a marked difference in her presentation and connection. For lack of a better way to define it I’d just say she’s engaging and speaking to the audience in a more specific way. It’s not a general speech, with gradually rising crescendos that mark traditional campaigning of the 20th century. Today Clinton brought the level down, with the energy and intensity of her passion remaining, using the microphone much more, while she walked back and forth across the stage to try to connect with different people in the crowd. She also seems far more relaxed than she has at other times. There is a confidence that was always there, but its grounded now, more at ease. There is none of the push you see in politicians who are trying to force themselves or their ideas or even their enthusiasm on you. It’s a comfortable appeal that has an intimacy that I’ve not seen before. She’s just a much better campaigner, more interesting to watch.
Read it in its entirety.
From the vantage point of yours-truly: that’s what makes these controversies of the surrogates, possible surrogates, innuendos, so sad. Hillary Clinton is considered an EXCELLENT Senator in New York state. Why not get Bill out of the way, tell the surrogates to stow it and let voters see HER and hear HER message ? Without the controversies, some of the things Marsh sees can then dominate news reports.
And How About A Republican View Of Las Vegas? Blogs For Victory (formerly Blogs For Bush) has this post by Mark Noonan (who has been on cable talk shows giving the GOP position from time to time). He reports that Obama-mania is raging and the GOPers efforts seem somewhat diffuse:
As I’ve said before, no one has the slightest clue what is going to happen next Saturday in Nevada – we’ve never had a caucus like this (ie, one anyone cares about – even Nevadans), and given the continual rapid influx of people to the State, there’s no way to tell – even by using data from 2006 – how Nevada will vote overall. But it seems that Obama is making some peoples’ hearts go “thumpa-thumpa-thumpa“….
….Meanwhile, over on the GOP field, Romney’s advertisement seem set to run every hour or so…and I haven’t heard squat from anyone else other than Ron Paul, who’s suddenly talking about how he’s a Christian and that the military has already voted 100% for him (well, that is what it seems like, watching his ad).
Romney continues to be one to watch. He clearly has failed to convince people he has sincerity. But primaries are about collecting delegates and he’s collecting them. And Paul? The days are over when there is speculation about his potential. He hasn’t won huge numbers of independents shopping around, masses of voters have not judged him to be their first choice for change, and recent revelations about his newsletters (even if he didn’t write them all) have chased some supporters away.
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Is Under Fire By Some Bloggers due to his comments about Hillary Clinton and, in general, because some consider him biased against Democrats. Our friend skippy (who writes in lower case) has a letter and email campaign going against Matthews. If you agree with him, he has all the data for you
On this I have to respectfully differ with those going after Matthews (and possibly even some co-bloggers here at TMV). Matthews was a SUPERB and solid political writer when he was a newspaper columnist. The best in the business. He had a high accuracy-rate in predicting political outcomes (although not as stellar as Political Scientist Larry Sabato). Matthews upsets many on the left (and center left) as much as MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann upsets many on the right (and center right). But Matthews fast-paced show is MUST viewing for those following campaign 2008.
Weblogs deal in blunt opinions all time. So do Bill O’Reilly (right), Randi Rhodes (left) and other radio and TV talkers. Feelings are intense in an election year. An election will not be determined based on what Matthews says (he isn’t exactly the king of ratings).
Strong opposing views don’t change elections or cause brain cancer — unless you’re talking about Rush Limbaugh.
Matthews would nonetheless be wise if he spent a little more time thinking and a little less time emoting. He’s narrowing his viewer base.
Is Democratic Senator John Edwards A “Loser”? Lawrence O’Donnell created a big stir with a post in the lively The Huffington Post titled “John Edwards Is A Loser.” Hart Williams responds with equal force HERE in a must-read post. (And lest you think only people on the left or center left felt this way about O’Donnell’s piece, just read Ed Morrissey.)
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.