Lee Fisher And His Paid Celebrity Endorsement?
Submitted by David Potts on Wed, 12/09/2009 - 4:40pm.
I’ve been a little bit puzzled by something that happened this morning that really just didn’t add up right, Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe endorsed Lee Fisher for Senate.
And why doesn’t this add up? Because I just finished reading Plouffe’s book. It’s filled with his thoughts about taking on Hillary Clinton in the primary. And as the book went on, I increasingly found the same themes applied to the Ohio Senate primary.
- Media
Plouffe often talked about how it felt like the media was covering an entirely different race. Show me one newspaper stating that Fisher and Brunner only poll a few points apart. - Cash
The Clintons and Lee Fisher were both known for their ability to raise cash. - Inevitability
Like Hillary, Lee Fisher has widely been regarded as THE candidate of party insiders
So why would Plouffe throw his support behind a candidate who relies on the very things Plouffe showed don’t matter?
But Anthony got it, and I could just kick myself for not catching it. Lee Fisher pays AKPD Media, which Plouffe is a senior partner in, to do some work for his campaign. In fact, Fisher has used AKPD before, with his Attorney General race clearly listed under AKPD’s clients page.
Hillary
Submitted by kweber7 on Wed, 12/09/2009 - 9:14pm.
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. I think we all can agree that picking Obama over Hillary was a disaster at this point, as she was obviously more qualified to lead the country.
I don't think we can remotely "all agree"
Submitted by AmberCat on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 11:52am.
on any of this. In fact, it's virtually certain Hillary would be doing almost exactly what Obama is policy-wise, since there was little difference between them. In terms of how she would be dealing with congress and public satisfaction, it would likely be much, much worse. You think you don't like Rahm Emanuel? How do you think you would like Mark Penn running the show, with the secretive, top-down, backstabbing team that was the Hillary campaign? I think they'd be so inept at handling public opinion that the backlash against her doing exactly the same things Obama is doing (which she would) would be even greater.I doubt Mark Penn et al would be any more cordial to progressives' ideas about health care or any less prone to cater to the Lie-bermans, Baucuses and Snowes.
Obama is far from a "disaster." And it's not even sligtly "clear" to me that Hillary was more qualifed. When she was trying to make that argument, I went over their bios with a fine-tooth comb and found that their amonut of relevant experience was almost identical. So were their policies.
It's easy to think the grass is greener, but frankly, despite frustration, I think we are doing better than I expected. I'm actually relieved that the Penn crew never got anywhere near the White House. We'd be consumed with rage right now.
What Amber Cat said
Submitted by BuckeyeNation on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 12:51pm.
The HRC PUMAs make me laugh.
If Hillary Were President...
Submitted by David Potts on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 3:33pm.
I think we'd be worse off. Not because of her, I think she's have tried for the same things. But Republican opposition would have been much stronger because they'd have another Clinton to beat up on.
How was Hillary's relevant
Submitted by kweber7 on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 6:06pm.
How was Hillary's relevant experience the same? She participated in and witnessed a great deal of the decision making process in an 8 year white house term (and don't try to tell me she was your average "dumb to what's going on" first lady), then served as a senator for longer. She had longer lasting relationships with more senators, and worked time and time again across the aisle. Of course, bipartisanship doesn't mean anything to most of the people on this board, but it does to the majority of Americans. Obama is such a powerful personality that many thought he could bring everyone together just on that, and that's a key reason why they voted for him. That has obviously not worked. We're as divided as a country as ever, and Obama has no meaningful leadership experience to know what he's doing. He hasn't been a key part of a successful White House like Hillary has, or at least been a governor, and he was only a functional senator for two years.
I think Hillary would be doing a better job with this health care reform because she'd be more willing to work with the other side, she'd be more proactive, she'd know all the senators involved better, and she simply knows more about it after failing the first time. I am a moderate (and therefore frequent this board since most democrats in power in OH are moderates), so like most Americans I couldn't care less about how cordial someone is to progressives' ideas. I just want someone to fix the health care system without driving up our debt a ton. If there is any White House that knew more about managing the country's finances better than the Clinton White House any time in the last 50 years, I'd love to hear about it.
For the record, I voted for Obama. I was no PUMA. I thought he was going to unite the country, and be moderate like his rhetoric suggested. In retrospect though, I wish I hadn't voted for President in the general election.
David: I'm not sure Republican opposition could be much stronger than it is now.
I'm pretty sure its over....