Bob_Tarlau's Blog

Over the past several months, I’ve often wished that I were back in one of my university political science classes.  Admittedly, those were a long way back -- in the 60’s.  Yet I still think about what it might be like to be taking those courses today, and getting an academic overview of this year’s exciting presidential campaign.   It just doesn’t get better than Campaign ‘08. 

This week (starting Sun Feb 24) alone has been a good example.  It started with Ralph Nader – a man with some heartfelt ideas but clearly a gigantic ego – tossing his tattered hat back into the ring.   On NBC’s Meet the Press, Nader once again denied the obvious, that he was the spoiler in the 2000 presidential election.  Without him, Al Gore clearly would have won Florida.  And just in case you missed it:  Nader was back in the news on Thursday, revealing that his vice presidential candidate this time around will be Matt Gonzalez, a former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.     Gonzalez, a Texan, ran for mayor of San Francisco as a Green Party candidate in 2003 but lost to Gavin Newsom.

That brings us to a bit of political trivia:   Who were Nader’s VP candidates in 2000 and 2004.  Keep guessing as you read this.  I’ll have the answer at the bottom of the column.  No scrolling ahead now!

On Tuesday we had the final Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama pre-“Super Tuesday 2” debate.   No knockout punches thrown.  And by mid-week we witnessed the significant defection of Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a leader of the civil rights movement from the Selma march onwards.  He acknowledged this was a very tough decision, but he swung from strongly supporting Clinton to backing Obama.   The same day, a black state lawmaker and superdelegate from Texas also announced she would no longer support Clinton.

Let me take side road for a moment for a thought about Democrats who are African-American.  A pair of columnists on Politico.com (a favorite website of mine), note:  “The pressure on black officials to switch may increase as they realize not supporting Obama could be detrimental to their own political careers. Obama has regularly won large majorities of the black vote throughout the primary process, so many black pols who support Clinton not only are not supporting a black politician with a realistic chance of winning the presidency, they are supporting someone whom a majority of their constituents do not support.  Always a risky move.”

And now back to the political week.

By Thursday, we had New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg finally foreswearing a presidential run.  Good for you, Mr. Mayor.  I wish Nader had done the same.   Bloomberg doesn't mention any names but dangles the prospect of an endorsement, writing in the New York Times:  "In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. … If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I'll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."

All through this political week past, we had far-right elements of conservative talk radio condemn Obama, in a harshly personal and demeaning manner.   Twisting the dial through the week, I heard one after another mock the candidate’s middle name, Hussein.   “Barack Hussein Obama” they kept chanting.   Some substituted other middle names, making them up as they went along.   It was like a kindergarten class.  If the Republicans really want to debate the now likely Democratic Party nominee, they should do it on the issues.  Same applies to the Democrats:  don’t make it a personal attack on John McCain.

On this same subject, you probably heard about Cincinnati talker Bill Cunningham's act at a McCain rally in Cincy… the warm-up-act that left the candidate cold.  Cunningham – standing on stage in front of sign-carrying McCain supporters delivered a 10-minute speech in which he insulted Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton, and the media in general.   He called Obama a "hack Chicago-style Daley politician’’ and twice used Obama’s middle name, joining the others in the shrill radio chorus.

An infuriated McCain apologized, saying such a thing would never again happen at one of his events.  "I take responsibility and I repudiate what he said."

Later, Cunningham – reacting to McCain’s condemnation of his remarks – told his radio audience he had “had it with McCain. I’m going to throw my support to Hillary Rodham Clinton.”   It’s hard to image she would want it.

By week’s end the Republican National Committee chair had had it with all this, with national party chairman Mike Duncan issuing this statement:  “The RNC rejects these kinds of campaign tactics.  We believe this election needs to be about the critical issues confronting our nation.”    Well said.

Also this week, we’ve been looking at the polls forecasting the outcome of the balloting on four states next Tue Mar 4.  The most important of those, of course, are Ohio and Texas – with the general consensus that if Clinton can’t capture at least one, her campaign will be off the rails.    Clinton is ahead by a bit in Ohio but now trails in Texas.

Turning to money—we learned on Thursday that Obama and Clinton both had a record-breaking month of fundraising in February, bringing in more than $80 million combined, but Obama again raising significantly more than his opponent.

As of this writing, Obama’s campaign had not released an official estimate of its February fundraising, but it’s thought to be about $50 million.  On many days, the campaign took in as much as $2 million.  The Clinton campaign was busy trumpeting the $35 million it took in. 

Please read the new issue of Time magazine, out today (Friday).  The cover – with a picture of Obama -- asks:  "How Much Does Experience Matter?"  The answer to that question, found in the article is that character matters more.  The piece is a very good read.

The Time article makes the point that some of the most experienced candidates turned out to be lousy presidents, while some of the least experienced — Lincoln for one — turn out to be among the greatest.  Time says:  "An ideal President is both ruthless and compassionate, visionary and pragmatic, cunning and honest, patient and bold, combining the eloquence of a psalmist with the timing of a jungle cat. Not exactly the sort of data you can find on a résumé."   Wise words to consider – whether you are Democrat, Republican, Green, American Independent or just plain independent.  

And before I sign off, a note of tribute to William F. Buckley – who died this week in his library at home in Stamford, CT.  He was 82 and had spent much of those years stoking and riding a right-wing wave as an erudite commentator and conservative herald.  Whether I agreed with him or not, he was a joy to listen to and a pleasure to read. 

George W. Bush said of Buckley:  "He brought conservative thought into the political mainstream, and helped lay the intellectual foundation for America's victory in the Cold War and for the conservative movement that continues to this day."  And from Rush Limbaugh: "He had time for everybody. Look, he had an ego, he knew who he was, but he was modest and he was humble."

Finally—the answer to my quiz.  Who were Ralph Nader’s prior VP candidates?  The answer:   Winona LaDuke in 2000 and Peter Camejo in 2004.   Come on now, did you really know?   I’ll be honest.  I had forgotten about LaDuke.

I’ll be back with my next “This Political Week” blog next Friday.  Now it’s your turn to comment.

Cheers, Bob