Nita Lowey: Worst Clinton Surrogate Ever?
One of the big problems with the fact that the Democratic primary process continues to grind on and on and on and on with nothing new on the horizon until Pennsylvania -- unless some other governors would do us all a solid and get caught screwing some whores again -- is that the media is running out of campaign surrogates with whom to talk. The A-Listers have long passed, and the B-Listers all said crazy things about how lucky black people are and how God hates America for Hiroshima. That's why we were saddled with the jowly drone of Bill Bradley today, his voice as dynamic as a bowl of week-old wheat crackers, boring us to tears today on Meet The Press. And yet, this is a net win for the Obama campaign because of the gaffe-filled performance of Nita Lowey for the Clinton campaign.
Highlights? Yeah, we've got them. First up, here's Lowey making the case for Clinton based upon their oft-hyped "some states are more important than other states" strategy. Except she confuses "Ohio" -- which Clinton won -- with Iowa, a state that Obama won back in January and then apparently re-won this week when some Edwards delegates shifted to his side.
LOWEY: Now, you and I both know that no one since 1960 has won the presidency without winning Iowa. We know you have to win Iowa, we have to win Pennsylvania, have to win Florida, they are key states that are critical to getting the number of votes in the electoral college, and I think right now, frankly, it's a tie.
Even better is the answer Lowey attempts to give Russert on the matter of Clinton releasing her tax records, which ends up being long, convoluted, comically inept, evasive, shallow, and then finally bad for the campaign, as she more or less commits them to a firm date of April 15 for the release of these records, after weeks of the campaign using "on or around tax time" as the deadline, which would have bought them the entire month of May.
RUSSERT: Congresswoman Lowey, should Bill and Hillary Clinton release the list of $500 million of donors to the library, the tax returns since they left the White House, and her schedules and records from the National Archives relating to her activities as First Lady so people can make a true judgment about her experience as she's portraying it.
LOWEY: Several points. First of all, it's my understanding that there are 20 years of tax returns in the public view from both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Secondly, in terms of earmarks and transparency, the Democrats have cut earmarks in half and now there has to be a certification next to each earmark that the person who's submitting them will not have any financial interests in that earmark. In terms of the Clinton and the work he's done in the fund raising, I've been to several countries in Africa. I've seen the work of the Clinton Foundation and the positive work he's done for HIV/AIDS. I do believe that the Clintons have a long record of releasing their tax returns and as I understand, that on April 15th, they will release their other records and with regard to the National Archives, that is going -- it's been gone over line by line and it will be released. Was there anything else? I don't remember.
Tune in next week, when Tony Rezko and Geraldine Ferraro perform a pantomime adapted from the Eliot Spitzer wiretaps!
March 16, 2008 12:50 PM