More money = more enjoyable, less negative campaign, right? Ri...right? I mean, jeez...even Bill Richardson and Joe Biden combined for $10 million. Who in the world is giving money to Joe Biden??
Meanwhile, via Avedon, I find this E.J. Dionne write-up from Friday that shows Fred Thompson (??) suddenly getting 12% in Republican polls...4x higher than Mitt Romney, who should go ahead and drop out and save his money. Romney’s gotten lots of attention and a supposedly key endorsement from Ann Coulter, and yet he can only manage 3%. Ouch. I mean, my god...Joementum polled higher than 3% in 2004! However, he did manage to raise $23 million, so...yeah. I guess we’ll find out just how much money talks, eh? Meanwhile, from the same column, here’s an assessment of Hillary/Obama...
David Kusnet, the chief White House speechwriter in the early years of Bill Clinton's presidency, sees Obama and Clinton as having opposite problems.
"A presidential campaign is a contest to define the historic moment, and winning candidates are usually the ones who best do that," says Kusnet, who on the whole likes this year's Democratic field. "Obama has the best definition of the moment but doesn't yet have the substance underneath it. Hillary brings a wealth of experience and ideas to the table, but she needs to offer a definition of the moment."
I think that’s about right. And I think Obama’s problem is much easier to overcome than Hillary’s. Then again, I’m rarely right about these things.
And speaking of Hillary, Booman takes a long look at the DLC. You already know what it says, though, and it’s not favorable.
|