David Remnick on Imus plugging a book and

[babylonsister]

dissing Kerry. What's his story? He writes for New Yorker.
He can't imagine Sen. Kerry running, but he can imagine Hil because she's raised so much money.
I so hope he's proven wrong! :grr:

[ProSense]

1. Well, he should give up writing.

His imagination sucks. Imus plugs McCains. Jerk offs!

[babylonsister]

2. Imus has a McCain fetish.

OK, time to turn.

[wisteria]

3. Remnick is right up their with Dick Morris- the toe sucker - IMO.

he obviously is not up to date on Senator Kerry, and skimmed the pages on info on Senator Clinton. Screw him!

[karynnj]

4. I heard it too

He was simply repeating old conventional wisdom. He said:

- It made him sad whenever he saw Gore in the news. He said Gore would have been a competent but unliked President - better than what we have. The New Yorker gave Kerry their first ever endorsement for anyone - and it was extremely long. It when through all Kerry's accomplishments, described his intellect and his character, and marvelled at how really clean of scandal he really is.

Imus mentioned Kerry as well and said he might be running. Remnick said something to the effect that Kerry did a poor job running. He said that Hillary has raised a prohibitive amount of money and that McCain would have a hard time getting the nomination, but could win a general election. This is CW circa 2005!

He ignores that Senator Kerry has raised a bit of money for others. As most people on Kerry's list likely are solicited via other parts of the party, it seems significant they contribute via Kerry. He also said nothing about the quality of President Kerry would be - though he said Gove would be unloved. There really wasn't an amazingly big difference in the 2000 and the 2004 results - just that they sit on either side of win and loss. Remnick didn't say anything encouraging Gore to run or anything positive about Hillary other than that she had raised a huge amount of money and would have the Democratic establishment behind her.

In my opinion, he showed no enthusiasm for any one mentioned. (On Kerry, he may still be one disheartened because his hopes were dashed.)

[ProSense]

5. The other thing about Hillary Clinton

is that she is in a race this year. When she ran in 2000, she raised a lot of money then too. People are making it out as unsual.

2000 RACE: NEW YORK SENATE

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
(55% of vote)

Raised: $30,153,926
Spent: $29,871,577
Cash on hand: $282,347
Last Report: 12/31/2000

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?ID=NYS1&Cycle=2000

Her opponent raised $9 million more. The Senate race in NY was expensive. She's problably tapping into those same sources.

2006 RACE: NEW YORK SENATE

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)*

Raised: $39,235,742
Spent: $19,814,667
Cash on hand: $19,703,421
Last Report: 3/31/2006

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?ID=NYS1&Cycle=2006

[ProSense]

7. Another thing

This is an off year for Kerry, but he is raising funds to support other candidates.
In Hillary's off year, 2002, she raised $1.4 million.

Fund raising by Cycle:
2006: $6,646,294
2004: $4,150,081
2002: $9,477,242

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00000245

The 2004 amount is independent of the presidential race for which Kerry raised $326 million. So can she surpass that? Surpass the levels Bush achieved?

It's beginning to seem like all this campaign money talk is all part of the Hillary Hype.

[wisteria]

6. Your being nice, which is fine. I just get fed-up with the old outdated

talking points.

[karynnj]

8. I basically agree with your original summary

I just think he was pushed to talk politics by Imus. It clearly wasn't something that he was passionate at. Dick Morris is slime - I really still hate that Bill Clinton ever used him as an adviser. He doesn't seem good enough to justify putting up with the untrustworthiness and sliminess.

I think Remnick was simply repeating what he has heard - that he never paid much attention to. I don't know who at the New Yorker wrote the absolutely unusual Kerry endorsement. Although I'm going beyond what was said and know too little to say this, he may be just the type of person that the 2008 Kerry needs to excite. He needs people to either see that his campaign wasn't that bad in 2004 (and sitting in NYC, he saw very little (we get NYC media)) or that Kerry has been transformed by the loss, the connection to 1971, being healthier (iow, anything that says he will be an inspiring candidate in 2008.) Maybe sending him the links to the Faneuil Hall speech and saying he should check the CSPAN archive and actually see Kerry campaign in 2004.

[wisteria]

9. Good points, he may just need to recharged, so to speak. Thanks! n/t

[Dr Ron]

10. Don't follow the logic

If money is the key issue (which it very well is) then Kerry remains one of the more likely candidates along with Hillary.

[ProSense]

11. Excellent point! n/t

[TayTay]

12. I agree.

Kerry needs to stay visible and in the top tier. He has and should continue to do so.

And, ahm, the man can raise money. He had proven that.