Thursday, October 26, 2006

Ford/ Playboy/ miscegenation

* courant:
"If the elections were held today, there's a good chance that Lamont would lose, but Democratic challengers would oust Shays, Simmons and Johnson. That would leave Lamont's legacy as a guy who galvanized a national anti-Bush movement, but maxed it out at the state primary, where energized left-leaning Dems could give Lieberman his comeuppance."
* courant:
"Lamont has given his campaign $12.7 million.
But the committee is not prodding its members to give donations. Six senators' political committees did give Lamont $5,000 each: Reid, Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., Barack Obama, D-Ill., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin's committee gave $1,000. Clinton also hosted a fundraiser for Lamont in Manhattan Sunday."

* winterpatriot from brad's place has his own blog. it's good. go look.

* lehrer:
"JIM LEHRER: In general, Dr. Brzezinski, what did you see as the president's message today on Iraq?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, : I was impressed by what I felt to be the beginning of the end of the state of denial in which I felt the administration -- in particular, the president -- has been for quite some time."
* via josh:
"Senators Edward Kennedy and John Kerry are tapping their sizable campaign warchests in an effort to elect a Democratic Congress.

The Massachusetts Democrats donated 500-thousand dollars apiece, half to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and half to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee."
yay. and yay to Bowers if his efforts helped bring this about. (and let's hope they give some more)

* for the record, i don't understand american race politics AT ALL. teh brouhaha over the Ford/Playboy/miscegenation ad i can kinda understand at an intellectual level if it gets explained to me, slowly. the brouhaha over the Ford/jungle drum ad? not so much. i had to listen real hard, repeatedly, when i knew in advance what i was listening for to even hear something that sounded ominous. i'm totally prepared to accept that the jungle thing exists, and that it was intentional - but compared, say, to George Allen who used to have a noose in his fucking office? jeebus. i'm almost prepared to congratulate the repugs for being so subliminal in their campaigns. your mileage may vary. compare and contrast:

* speaking of brouhahas (brouhahi?) - i have no particular interest in the Michael Fox/Limbaugh/Parkinsons brouhaha, but i will note that our friend Doc Reardon suffers from Parkinsons - she wants (that link isn't the exact one i wanted, but it'll do) the pro-blastocyte crowd to pledge to never receive any benefit of stem cell research.

1 comment:

Kathleen said...

It may not be scientific to gauge how a campaign is going by the numbers of supporters who show up at a debate, or the degree of their enthusiasm, but judging by the scene at last Monday's debate, I'd say the polls giving Joe Lieberman a 17 point lead can't be right.

Joe had a small group of supporters, maybe 2 dozen, a handful of firefighters and the rest well dressed operatives. Alan Schlesinger had a brave but tiny group of kids standing around with signs.

Ned, on the other hand, had a contingent of several hundred, 300 according to the press. They gathered a few blocks away from the Garde Arts Theater, in New London, my home town and when there was a big crowd in front of the theater, there they came, with a marching band with bagpipes, carrying signs. It was a very impressive show of force. Even Joe's operatives were impressed. i was standing in their midst so i could eavesdrop and shout them down, when they sarted with their Go, Joe, go, stuff.

I don't know if this is sufficient to overcome some real inadequacies in the campaign, but I don't see how Joe's lead could be as large as reported.

Arianna thinks Dems have not been helping Lamont, but he is one of the few candidates in a position to fund his own campaign so naturally limited funds need to go to other candidates not as well off.

But also, part of the problem has been attitude. Right after the primary victory, Lamont's campaign manager, Tom Swan was quoted in the Courant saying that many Dems had called to offer to come campaign with Ned, but they were being 'very choosey' about who they would "let' come and campaign with Ned. That was foolish and smug.

Further, when Swan was recently questioned about the odd two month lull in the campaing following the primary, he said that they had trusted "insiders" who assured them that they were talking to Joe about withdrawing. So what? Ned had his work cut out for him, with or without Joe in the race. Surely, without Joe, the GOP would have found a much stronger candidate and poured money into a race they thought they could win. Again, naive and inexperienced.

Similarly, the campaign had a strange attitude toward the MSM, leaving it to them to check Ned's website to find out where he would be, instead of nofiying the press and inviting them. It's a race, guys. Waiting for people to check your site is like preaching to the choir. When Maxine Waters was in New London before the primary, there was not one word in the paper, to give you some idea of how ineffective this approach is.

I could go on, but I prefer to cling to the vision of the crowd at the debate and keep my fingers crossed and my eyes rolled heavenward, in hopes that none of these things will matter.