Howard Dean Pollster Paul Maslin Joins Richardson Campaign
Time for some staff notes, junkies: Former Howard Dean pollster Paul Maslin has agreed to join Bill Richardson's Presidential campaign, I've confirmed.
The oft-quoted Maslin was Dean's pollster from March 2003 to the conclusion of Dean's Presidential campaign nearly a year later. Reached for confirmation, Maslin confirmed he'd agreed to join the Richardson campaign but declined to comment further.
"Maslin's a big get for Richardson," a Dem who's worked with Maslin says. "He's got real live Presidential campaign experience, and he's one of the smarter guys out there." Maslin -- whose firm is called Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates -- also worked for the aborted Presidential campaign of Senator Evan Bayh and has worked for a host of other high-profile elected officials, including Senator Patty Murray of Washington and former Governor Gray Davis of California.
Richardson is my man. I only wish he had a machine behind him; perhaps this will help build his profile and help secure his Veep candidacy. The Dems can not lose with that guy.
March 23, 2007 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny how there's always talk about "the first African-American" president or "the first female president", but little mention of Richardson being half Hispanic. Of course that's not surprising when you have an internationally respected diplomat and crisis negotiator who was UN Ambassador, Secretary of Enegy; is the governor of a swing state in the West that is popular, has done a lot for his state and still doesn't get any air time. It's a shame that he's usually relegated to a discussion of VPs.
The only one I have above Richardson is Clark. Both can get to work right away in the Foreign policy arena. They are already respected and involved in international diplomacy and development. But, I guess good rhetoric is equally as important.
March 23, 2007 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Richardson's rhetoric and speaking skills are as good anyone else's. I'm surprised you don't talk him up more GQ. Who knows? He could take Nevada and surprise us all.
March 23, 2007 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would love to have Richardson as President. He's got an absolutely terrific resume and is clearly 'can do' - he might just prove right the theory that the the Dems can blow off the south if they win the West.
Then again, I'm sort of in the "anyone but Hillary camp."
Still, since he's already a Governor, he has a better chance - at least historically speaking, than a Senator. Kennedy was one of only a handful of Senators that made the grade.
March 23, 2007 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I think name recognition is his major hurdle. He's not at all the Dukakis type that some make him out to be. When I've seen him in national television appearances, he comes off with a bit of the Ross Perot type thing, plain talk ala "cut this crap, we know what has to be done." He can run circles around the others on the immmigration topic (as well as on a lot of foreign policy,) and if people like Lou Dobbs have their way, it's going to be a major issue in the campaign.
Many liberals seem to get all gaga about the inspirational personality and charisma factor in someone like Obama, ala wanting a JFK or MLK type figure, which I am not so sure many cynical Americans fall for as much in recent decades as far as the presidential elections are concerned where many more people vote than just the political junkies. While many are still looking for an inspirational or charismatic figure, I think that the appeal of "plain talk" and someone who appears not to be too partisan continues to grow. I think many in 2000 voted for Bush because the uniter not divider thing was heavily publicized, as was the "plain talk" persona, and don't forget the "humble foreign policy" thing. This was also the appeal of Perot. Neither of them were inspirational charisma types, and certainly not pretty to look at.
He's got the confidence for "plain talk," and lacks the need to be extremely scripted. He doesn't talk rhetoric of any kind, many voters prefer that to "inspiration." Congresspersons they dislike are often full of rhetoric, often partisan.
March 23, 2007 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
mark,
If Clark were to drop out, I would be solidly behind Richardson, and contribute significant amounts of time to that campaign ;). Right now, I think Clark can get the most done and most easily neutralize the right-wing; and also put to rest the idea that Dems are weak on defense and don't support the military. Also, I tend to spend most of my time here debating dubious anti-Clinton comments.
March 23, 2007 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What bothers me about Obama is that he seems to imply that the cynicism is equally because of Democrats and Republicans. The evidence suggests, not that Dems are pure, but that it's heavily one-sided. Frankly, he seems to be giving the GOP some cover through his campaign.
My entire political consciousness has been dominated by Gingrich, DeLay, and Rove. The Dems "cynical" behavior has come no where near the Republican "cynical" behavior. I went from being independent in my first voting experience (1996) to solidly Democratic by 2000 specifically because of the one-sided cynicism. I'm active today, more than I have time for, specifically because of the one-sided cynicism.
March 23, 2007 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maslin has an excellent reputation California and national reputation and in the months ahead he could nudge Richardson closer to the top tier.
March 23, 2007 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
gq look at that poll above. Dems are trusted on nat'l. security 46 to 44% over Repubs and we've had the lead on that issue since before last year's election. Be interesting to see the post House vote poll.
I like Clark's positions but as a political candidate he's pretty raw. At least he was in 2004.
March 23, 2007 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what Obama is saying is we shouldn't use the same Rovian tactics as they do. We're above that crap. Call them on it everytime but never respond in kind.
That's one reason I object to this nonsense about Hillary being some kind of closet likudnik warhawk for her vote on the AUMF in 2002. Virtually everybody who says that voted for Kerry in 2004. He voted the same way as did Edwards. It's a demented construct. It's not even good Rovian bullshit and so distorts her position it makes these people look ridiculous. That's why you don't see Obama piling on.
There's no need to smear anybody. Most of our candidates can beat Republicans on the facts and policy. Obama can beat them with all that and more.
March 24, 2007 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink