Sunday Show Wrap-Up

Republicans obviously have a vested interest in the Democratic presidential primaries, and nothing warms their hearts more than the brewing identity politics battle on that side of the aisle. As David Brooks pointed out last week, the first viable female candidate for president and the first viable African-American candidate for president are reaping what their party has sown–and Democratic apparatchiks couldn’t be more terrified. On This Week, Katrina vanden Heuvel said that she thinks “the important thing is that this race not become a fractious fight about race and gender.” And why, pray tell, is it important not to race bait this time around? As former Bush strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out in response to Vanden Heuvel’s comment,

“The big problem is, for Democrats to win the presidency, in this day and age, they have to have an unbelievable turnout and support among African Americans, and they have to have an unbelievable support and turnout among younger voters: Both of which groups are voting for Barack Obama right now, in fairly large numbers.”

On the Republican side, the sniping between Mitt Romney and John McCain is getting almost as nasty; the former Massachusetts governor used his time on Fox News Sunday to accuse Sen. McCain of, essentially, being a corrupt pawn of special interest groups. “I just don’t think that somebody who has spent their life inside Washington, that has lobbyists on every elbow, that has been chairman of one committee or another, and has all those connections, and all the favors that are owed, and owed in return, all of the scores to settle: I just don’t think that’s going to get Washington fixed,” Romney said. Nevermind the irony of calling one of the Washington insiders committed to cutting pork barrel spending a pawn of lobbyists; consider instead the irony of Romney, whose key advisors (as Glen Johnson rudely, argumentatively, and unprofessionally pointed out on the campaign trail) are, you guessed it: lobbyists!

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson showed up on Face the Nation to talk about his boss’s big win in Nevada, noting that, regardless of how many delegates each side picked up, the junior senator from New York had a much better weekend than the junior senator from Illinois:

“And exit polls show that actually it was Senator Clinton who won the rural areas of Nevada, not Senator Obama. So they can try to spin a six-point loss into whatever they want, but the fact is Senator Clinton won a resounding victory. She won a resounding victory despite the fact that, when the Obama campaign got the culinary workers endorsement, the Obama campaign suggested that this would be the margin of victory for them. It wasn’t. We overcame that because we focused relentlessly on the issues that people care about, most certainly the economy.”

Over at Meet the Press, historian Doris Kearns Goodwin lamented the fact that Obama’s historical literacy–specifically his muted praise of Ronald Reagan and the conservative movement’s injection of ideas into our political discourse–may have cost him support from movement types like Markos Moulitsas:

“You know, it’s a sad point in our history when a presidential candidate cannot look back over the course of our history and show admiration for a president who did what he said. He didn’t really say that he had better ideas, he said that he had transformed the country, created a conservative movement. Now, I can understand why Edwards and Hillary take that point up, but I think what’s happening here is that Hillary has a sense of playing to the base, as Edwards was, and the base doesn’t like Ronald Reagan. They don’t like Bush. But what Obama was trying to say was, if you want a transformative presidency, if you want somebody who is going to be able, as Teddy Roosevelt was, as FDR was, as perhaps John Kennedy was, to inspire and move the country forward, you’ve got to have those skills that Ronald Reagan had. It’s an historical fact! There was nothing wrong with saying that.”

Indeed.

Related Content