The statement that "New Jersey politicians are almost never truly popular" isn't true. Some obvious examples of very popular politicians are Tom Kean, Bill Bradley and Peter Rodino. More recently, Richard Cody charmed nearly everyone as interim governor.

Posted at April 4, 2008 7:03 PM in response to New Jersey Senate Primary Could Be A Real Race

Here's a question: We all know campaign finance laws limit contributions to $2,300 each for the primary and general election campaigns. So why does Clinton adviser Lanny Davis get to give his candidate $5,000, or $400 over the legally allowed max?

I noticed this is the campaign finance tracker on the Washington Post site. Apparently, Davis made two $2,300 contributions on January 26, 2007, which would have been right after Hillary announced her candidacy. But there was another $400 contribution made on February 26, 2008. All three payments are listed as contributions to Hillary Rodham Clinton. She had just won reelection to the senate, so she wouldn't need to raise money for that.

Here's a link to the WashPost site: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/finance/search/?last_name=davis+&first_name=lanny&employer=&occupation=&zipcode=&recipient=&date_from_year=2007&date_from_month=1&date_from_day=1&date_to_year=2008&date_to_month=3&date_to_day=1&at_least=&up_to=

Posted at April 4, 2008 3:15 PM in response to Obama Camp: "Almost All" Of $40 Million Raised In March Is For Primary

Obama knows it's coming. I attended the lunch fundraiser in NYC last week. Obama said he was anticipating three lines of attack from the Republicans in the general election: patriotism, immigration and war/terror/fear.

Posted at April 2, 2008 4:21 PM in response to Karl Rove Praises Hillary's 3 A.M. Ad As "Gutsy"

In this column today, Krugman says Obama's economic plan was "significant" but then, because he hasn't explained in detail how it would be funded, "raises questions about how determined he really is to pursue a strongly progressive agenda."

My point is simply that Krugman, in what is ostensibly a fair-minded assessment of policy, gives the benefit of the doubt to Clinton but not to Obama. In doing so, Krugman is truly embracing hope over experience.

Krugman writes that Clinton's policy "proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive."

I live in NY state and have yet to anything in the legislative record of my junior senator that qualifies as bold or progressive.

Posted at March 28, 2008 7:28 PM in response to JB on PK vs BHO

For years, the first thing I turned to in the NYT on Monday or Friday is Krugman's column. It's been disappointing to see his commentary on Obama. It's disappointing because his support of Hillary has reached the point where he uses the kind of disingenous tactics against Obama that he deplores when they are used against liberals. Bernstein flagged the most obvious example: Clinton has been talking for months about imposing a five-year freeze on interest rates. It's been the boldest and most distinctive policy she had made on the economy. Yet Krugman, who likely thinks this it is a terrible idea, ignores it, even in a column reviewing all three candidates' economic proposals.

For a long time, it appeared that Krugman didn't believe Obama could withstand the Republican attack machine. He wrote not too long ago that he worried Obama would be "Dukakised," or Swift boated. (Much like his colleague Maureen Dowd, who called him Obambi before coming around.) Then it was because HRC's health plan called for mandates and Obama's did not.

But now Krugman is basically peddling the idea that Obama is somehow a centrist, whereas Clinton is the real populist. Hard to believe he could be taken in again by these people.

Posted at March 28, 2008 6:59 PM in response to JB on PK vs BHO

I don't think it's a stretch at all to believe that Bill Clinton was trying to play the patriotism card here. If you look back at the campaign in recent weeks, it is becoming clear that the Clinton "kitchen sink" strategy, which is focused on making Obama unelectable, has three legs: 1) challenging his experience to be commander in chief, 2) race, and 3) Obama's patriotism.

There is no amibiguity on point #1. Hillary actually stated that Obama did not have the chops to be commander in chief while she and the Republican do. On #2, the timing of the Ferraro eruption and the emergence of the edited Wright tape seems mighty fishy. So what's left? To challenge Obama's patriotism. No doubt the Clinton's regard this as a Republican attack strategy in waiting, what with Michelle Obama's statement about being proud of America, Barack's American flag lapel pin and Wright's "goddamn America."

There is really no credible reason to give Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt on this.

Posted at March 24, 2008 11:09 AM in response to Obama Campaign Manager Hints Clinton Camp Has "Pattern" Of Questioning Obama's Patriotism

This will not play well in Pennsylvania.

The Reverand's controversial comments were going to come up again. Better now than closer to the PA primary or in the general election.

Posted at March 14, 2008 12:29 PM in response to Obama: I "Profoundly Disagree" With Pastor Over "God Damn America" Comments

Could this whole flap be the Clintons' attempt at outsourcing a 2008 version of a Sister Souljah moment?

The convention wisdom is that this Ferraro incident is turning into a nightmare for the Clintons. But is it really? Ferraro's comments began to dominate the news cylce on the day Obama won Mississippi, a state, like South Carolina, where votes would show clear divisions along racial lines. In effect, the role of Bill Clinton in South Carolina got to be played by Ferraro, who is well remembered by older, working-class voters in PA.

Hillary has already lost the African-American vote. And the upper income, highly educated voters in the Philly and Pittsburgh suburbs are already leaning toward. But it's hard to see how this dust-up won't do more good than harm among the voters who are the core of HRC's base.

Posted at March 13, 2008 10:45 AM in response to Hillary: "I Regret Deeply" Ferraro's Remarks

It seems pretty obvious that this whole Ferraro flap is part of a Clinton plan. Sen. Clinton should be directly asked: Can you say without equivocation that you or no one else in your campaign has been discussed Ferraro's comments with her?

Racall who played the race card in South Carolina. Bill Clinton. That didn't play so well. But Mississippi offered another opportunity to peg Obama as the "black" candidate. Ferraro is in some ways the perfect surrogate. She can disarm critics by saying, as she did, that she wouldn't have been the VP nominee if she wasn't a woman. Suggesting that Obama is benefitting from some kind of political affirmative action is clearly targeted at working-class white voters in Pennsylvania.

Posted at March 12, 2008 12:20 PM in response to Wolfson On Ferraro's Latest: "We Have Made Clear That We Reject Her Remarks"

Hard to believe HRC doesn't have more to say on this, given her "35 years of experience" on such matters.

Posted at March 10, 2008 8:04 PM in response to Hillary: "Let's Wait And See" On Spitzer