It's Still The Economy, Stupid

Joe Sestak:

The Pennsylvania Senate race is now former President Clinton's top political priority this fall, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) asserted Thursday. [. . .]"Actually, I was talking with them the other day, and they just want to know what days," Sestak said of Clinton during an appearance on MSNBC. "They told me I'm their top priority, and I'm going to keep working on that."[. . .] Sestak suggested Clinton was likely to campaign again for him this fall in the Keystone State, where the Clinton brand remains popular.

Sestak wants to be associated with the Clinton brand because the Clinton brand means good economic times. The current Dem brand does not. It's still the economy, stupid.

Speaking for me only

< What Digby Said | It's Still The Economy, Stupid: Young Voters Edition >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is such a good move (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:46:56 AM EST
    as far as winning an election goes.

    Hmmmmm...and any bets (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:47:54 AM EST
    on whether or not Bill will be talking about who got us into this fricken mess?

    When Bill talks about who got (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:26:23 AM EST
    us into this fricken mess it will the Republicans full throttle.

    Clinton On The Stump (none / 0) (#18)
    by norris morris on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 07:41:35 PM EST
    Whatever Clinton says on the stump this Fall you can bet that his ear for going directly to the heart of the problem and to the people will be authentic.

    Clinton's talent for deal closing and reading the minds of voters is one of his strengths. True, Obama was facing a great meltdown, but it was up to him to correct course.

    Obama had plenty of advance notice that Bush's stimulus was only the beginning. His advisors knew this too. Obama's choice to ignore the economy after his inadequate stimulus is his problem.

     I believe Clinton will find way to talk about Sestak that goes beyond Obama.  We'll see.


    I have never viewed Sestak (none / 0) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:24:56 AM EST
    as a "progressive" candidate. But give the man his due, from what I've read, he has run a smart race geared to this environment.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#5)
    by smott on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:27:50 AM EST
    Toomey is comfortably ahead in the polls at the moment. Hopefully Big Dawg can change that. But Sestak is one of the few Ds I'll vote for this time around.

    Sestak is a mainstream Dem (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:38:51 AM EST
    As compared to Toomey, there's really no question that he's far preferable.

    Mainstream is a word I would (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 10:15:30 AM EST
    also use to describe Sestak. Just couldn't think of it at the time and other common descriptors didn't fit. Wasn't meaning to put him down. So far I haven't read that he wants to maintain the tax cuts for the rich, so I would gladly trade him for my choice of a Dem Senator.

    Having said that, I would prefer that primary challengers to existing pols be much more liberal. Even if they lost, at least people could hear what the alternatives were.  


    IMO the only difference b/t him (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 10:21:27 AM EST
    and Carnahan is the difference between the political lean of MO and PA.

    I'd vote for both, but neither will set the world on fire.


    He's not progressive (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 10:02:58 AM EST
    But he's not a blue Dog either.

    I think Specter would have been the better candidate in the GE, but who knows?


    Yeah, (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:35:53 AM EST
    the Clinton name is still gold in PA. I hope he can help Sestak because he's one of the few that I believe actually are deserving of votes. If I lived in PA, I would show up to vote for him. Fortunately, Roy Barnes is running here in GA against Nathan Deal a Bush sleaze bag so I will be showing up to vote.

    It's sad (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by smott on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:46:45 AM EST
    That we're showing up to vote motivated by Preventing Worse Sh-t than the Sh-t We're In.

    But that does seem to summarize the Dem's appeal at the moment.


    Every time I'm offered a choice (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:58:41 AM EST
    between the frying pan and the fire, I'll show up to vote for the former. I won't enjoy it, though.

    Well (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:50:28 AM EST
    actually it's not that way in the Barnes/Deal race. I know it sounded like that in the way I said it. I'm showing up to vote FOR Barnes because of his economic record but Deal is so bad that I would likely show up for anybody who ran against him.

    Good to hear (none / 0) (#12)
    by smott on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 10:09:03 AM EST
    A Dem worth voting for...for the right reasons...

    Jon Walker has an interesting post (none / 0) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 12:45:54 PM EST
    on "America's Informal Third Party."

    It is sometimes much easier to understand American elections if you look at it as a three party system instead of a two party system. While Republicans and Democrats tend to be the only two parties that win most elections, there is the informal "just stay home" third party which is often the top choice for many Americans and can end up tipping the balance in many elections. In many elections, easily one quarter or more of people who have voted at least once before will not go to the polls, a share of the vote that many parties in true multi-party democracies would envy.

    Shhh. The Just Stay Home party (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 06:33:30 PM EST
    is not acknowledged here by commenters who keep resorting to the dichotomous view of our political democracy.  Everybody turns out, everybody votes, choices are only A vs. B!

    (Me, I'm of the Go to the Polls But Do Write-Ins party when some races don't really give me a choice.  Many of my relatives have received a vote!)


    Irony Alert (none / 0) (#20)
    by Politalkix on Sat Sep 04, 2010 at 08:53:45 PM EST
    I remember that many members of the Just Stay Home Party in TL were very vocal in criticizing the President for voting "Present" a few times in the Illinois State Senate, i.e. not voting yay or nay on some morally difficult issues. The Illinois legislature gave Senators the choice to exercise "Present" votes for well considered reasons. "Present" votes on bills, where both yay and nay votes were both morally unpalatable in some respects, are more justifiable, IMO, than "Absent" or "Write-in" votes that some TL commenters seem so enthusiastic about.

    F**k the UAW (none / 0) (#19)
    by norris morris on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:00:12 PM EST
    This kind of ham handed contempt and vulgarity from Rahm is all part of the mixed maze of undisciplined messaging and doublespeak from Obama and all his advisors. They have not been able to frame or control the messaging.

    From the Press Secy to the cordon of bubbleheaded advisors the messaging or lack thereof continues to be filtered from Obama on down. The "staging" of the newly decorated Oval Office is another example of public relations gone awry. It's  obviously stupid and phoney.

    From the Vanity Rug complete with Seal, the rug is ringed by all our great men from Lincoln,FDR,Kennedy,King,etc.  This is to remind us that Obama is a Great Man, too.

    Then the photos that are personal re: facing us all from the rear instead of facing the President when he sits at his desk.  We have to be told that he loves his family?

    Then there's the bowl of apples that's supposed to remind of us of Reagan and his jelly beans.  Except for one thing. Apples eaten in the Oval Office from that deplorable mica coffee table?
    Where would the cores of these eaten apples go?

    The beige,brown, and taupe are weirdly  noncommital and Obama's choice reminds us of a Midwest Hotel Convention room.  What happened to the appropriate "feel" of history and importance this room deserves?

    This ham handed bunch are amazingly out of touch. This inauthentic staging tells us a lot about the brown leather bubble and miserable lack of common sense that have emerged from this White House.

    It also tells us Obama is not in the room.