Tag: 2008 Pres

A lot of ink has been spilled in the past couple of days over this YouTube clip, which mashes up Apple’s 1984 Superbowl commercial with the image and voice of Hillary Clinton presiding over a numbed Orwellian dystopia.  But whatever–you’ve all seen it at least once by now, so I don’t need to describe it any further.  Let me share with you some commentary, though, from the National Journal’s Blogometer that really dogs my cats:

We don’t know whether the creative license taken by the creator of the “Hillary 1984” infringes on any of Apple’s intellectual property rights claims (some bloggers did not even know of the original ad), but there’s no doubt the official Obama logo on the hammer lady’s shirt infringes on Barack Obama’s copyright and trademark properties. Trademark in particular would be a strong claim since many viewing the ad could conclude the logo signals Obama’s endorsement of the message. YouTube policy on intel. property rights enables Obama to flag the video, and given the clear violation involved, YouTube would have to remove the video if Obama protested.

Currently the Obama campaign refuses to discuss the spot, only saying: “There is a lot of energy for Sen. Obama on the Web, in communities all over the country … and frankly, that energy will manifest itself in a lot of ways.” But what if those manifestations come on Swift Boat-style anonymous ads? Shouldn’t a candidate, especially one campaigning on ending ‘negativity‘ in politics, move to silence such ads when they can? We certainly Hope Obama isn’t playing a cynical game of allowing other to attack for him while he stresses how positive and uplifting politics should be.

For the record, I like the National Journal’s Hotline, and by and large I have a great deal of respect for the work they do.  Heck, back in the good old days when Hotline-on-Call actually bothered to write about House, Senate, and Gubernatorial races, I would link to them regularly on this blog.  Conn Carroll, the author of this particular piece and the editor of the Blogometer, is by and large a sharp guy who has a decent grasp on the dynamics of online activism.  But this note of “concern” misses the mark in so many laughable ways.

Carroll makes an attempt to equate this viral YouTube clip with the nasty “negative” politics that Obama has condemned in the past, and therefore he argues that Obama has only one choice: that he must to pull the plug on this wildly popular video by filing a legal complaint.  Carroll and others like him should get a grip.  For one thing, this is hardly the “Swift Boat-style” ad that Carroll implies it is.  Anonymous, sure, but this ad does not in any way possess the vile character defamation of a Swift Boat attack, nor the kind of crass “negativity” that Carroll puzzlingly attributes it with.  What’s so offensive about this ad to Carroll?  If anything, it complements Obama’s narrative about unlikely actors bucking the grain to achieve impossible results.  Heck, it’s pretty easy to view this ad and see it as “positive and uplifting”, depending on your perspective.  I’m not sure what Carroll’s “concern” is trying to accomplish here.  If this is an attempt to A) preemptively disarm Obama, and/or B) de-energize his netroots base, then it’s an extremely weak one.

Since I have an exam in the morning, I won’t be able to liveblog Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel’s 10 AM Central news conference on his “future plans”.  Instead, I’ll leave this up as an open thread where you can discuss and dissect his announcement as it happens.  The New York Times boils down the possibilites to three:

It’s another cryptic announcement from Mr. Hagel, whose options include:

A.) Throwing his hat into the ring for the Republican presidential nomination.
B.) Announcing his plans to seek reelection to the Senate in 2008.
C.) Stepping down from politics when his second term expires next year.

To which I would add: D.) Both A and B.  Of course, since Hagel resolutely promised us that “twelve years in Congress is enough for anyone” back in ’96, surely the former won’t be his course of action.  After all, Chuck Hagel is integrity personified, right?  Stay tuned.

The DSCC and the speculative (and conditional) Democratic nominee, Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey must be waiting with baited breath to find out whether Nebraska will have an open Senate race next year.  I’d keep UNO Democrats and the New Nebraska Network bookmarked for front row seats.

Update: Chuck Hagel joins Thad Cochran (R-MS) and John Warner (R-VA) in the ranks of indecisive and coy Senators up for re-election in 2008.  How disappointing.

Atrios flags an AP report wherein presidential aspirant and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee complains about John McCain’s campaign finance reforms. Bottom line is that senators can transfer unlimited amounts of campaign cash to their presidential warchests, but governors can’t do the same. It’s crap, and it’s one of the many reasons I oppose much of our current campaign finance regime. But that’s not why I’m penning this post.

Rather, what I want to know is why Mike Huckabee’s presidential chances are taken any more seriously than Felix Macaca’s at this point. Just take a look at this:

2006 Ark. Gov. Results (Open Seat)

Mike Beebe (D): 55
Asa Hutchinson (R): 41

Hutchinson, the Republican candidate who sought to succeed Huckabee, got utterly pounded. And yeah, 2006 may have been a good Democratic year, but several Republicans in much bluer states hung on: Arnie in CA, Pawlenty in MN, and Carcieri in RI just to name a few. Sure, those guys were incumbents, but Arkansas went to Bush by ten points in 2004 – Rhode Island went to Kerry by twenty. Consequently, I consider Hutchinson’s loss to be one hell of a shellacking.

Now can you imagine if Tim Kaine (VA) or Chet Culver (IA) had gone down to defeat like this? Mark Warner and Tom Vilsack would have been laughed off the presidential wannabe stage. Indeed, the victories of their successors were crucial to both Vilsack and Warner, as it keept their future ambitions alive.

So could someone please tell me why Huckabee isn’t a joke? At least George Pataki and Mitt Romney can offer lame reasons for their own failures (northeastern open seats should never be easy for the GOP to defend). But what’s Huckabee’s excuse? He’s got none. I know Arkansas has traditionally been more hospitable to Dems than other Southern states, but right now it’s got three of four Dem Congressmen, two Dem Senators, Dems in control of the entire state legislature, a Dem Governor, and Dems elected to every other statewide office. This guy has clearly done jack to build his own state party.

My only answer for now is that the Gang of 500 must love him. I won’t bother to speculate as to why that might be (though feel free), but in a just world with a thoughtful, critical media, Mike Huckabee would rate no higher than Screaming Lord Sutch.