“Not really, I mean he was a friend, I’m proud of what we did together. He clearly knew going in that I was for John McCain, although that was eighteen-nineteen months ago. You know my guess is he thought John McCain was probably not going to be our nominee. But, I have been a McCain supporter for many years and you know, Barack knew it. I limited what I said to just that [Obama] did work with Republicans in Springfield and nothing else.”
* And, apparently, there is an agreement not to run that ad in the fall if Obama gets the Democratic nomination…
“I have spoken to his staff and said if Barack is the nominee, and it is still not settled as we sit here [April 27], but when it is a head on head race, pull the ad.”
* Asked if he believes that the Obama campaign will honor the agreement, Dillard replies…
“I would hope they honor that because I think Senator McCain will come back…I think the McCain campaign will say look, somebody who knows Senator Obama is for me, John McCain, and many of the reasons that I am for John McCain, Jeff, are the reasons that I actually struck a friendship with Barack: John McCain works well with both political parties; John McCain has worked on ethics reforms at the national level. But, the difference is John McCain has national foreign policy experience and I most importantly believe that America needs a check and balance, whether it is Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee or John McCain, the Republicans are a good balance and we need a check and balance on [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and a Democrat Congress, so there are many reasons why I am for John McCain.”
* Here’s the script from the Obama TV ad that first aired in Iowa last year. It’s called “Carry“…
Script for “Carry” (30 seconds):
Obama: I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.
Obama (from the 2004 Democratic National Convention): There is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America.
Kirk Dillard (Republican Illinois State Senator): Senator Obama worked on some of the deepest issues we had and was successful in a bipartisan way…
Larry Walsh (Democratic Illinois State Senator): The legislation that he carried, he believed in. He was not carrying it for a group. He was not carrying for a lobbyist.
Kirk Dillard: Republicans legislators respected Senator Obama. His negotiation skills and an ability to understand both sides would serve the country very well.
* And here’s the ad, which has been used many times and in many states since Iowa…
On an afternoon conference call, Republican Illinois State Senator Kirk Dillard, who is featured in the ad titled “Carry”, talked about personally working with Obama and seeing firsthand his ability to bring people together to accomplish important goals.
“Senator Obama and I spent hundreds of hours working on issues together in a bipartisan fashion,” said State Senator Kirk Dillard. “I’ve seen firsthand that Senator Obama can take tough problems, reconcile parties and races and explain difficult topics to everyday people. We worked as a tag-team on many complex issues, and I feel privileged to have worked with Senator Obama in the early part of his career.”
Well, certainly McCain has been going out of his way to “play nice”.
But I will be a lot of money (and I am notoriously cheap) that the ad WILL be used, and that somehow, someway, Obama will make it seem like it’s not his fault.
Well, I think one interpretation is: the Republicans are so powerless, nationally and locally, that their individual pols have been given permission (or have simply decided on their own) to make their own way, as best they can. Every pol for himself.
Obama being a Chicago Democrat and all, I’m sure
Dillard will be rewarded with something nice when
Obama becomes Prez. We are likely to see more de facto defections in this vein. One wonders why Jim Thompson hasn’t come out for Obama. He was such a
Blagojevich toady, and Obama, as Prez, offers far more potential for sitting on commissions, puffing around, and acting like the cat’s p.j.’s.
What is Will County Executive Larry Waslsh doing in this advertisement? It is my understanding that he just recently got in trouble for driving under the influence. I would think that the Obama campaign would be somewhat conscious of that.
Not being snark, but who cares, really? Illinois is a solid Blue State. Running those ads outside of Illinois won’t have the same impact as it does interstate.
One could view Dillard as burning the candle at both ends, and I don’t have a problem with that. He’s republican, but did/does continue to foster a personal relationship with Obama.
Well, I think one interpretation is: the Republicans are so powerless, nationally and locally, that their individual pols have been given permission (or have simply decided on their own) to make their own way, as best they can. Every pol for himself.
Since we are so powerless, and since Democrats have all the power, we can BOTH agree that the blame for everything wrong right now (nationally, and in Illinois) can be rested in the lap of the Democrats. Thats Cassandra for shining a light on that!
I’m curious as to why he did it in the first place. He’s a pretty sharp guy, he knew what the reaction would be from the GOP.
I don’t buy the friendship explanation. It’s one thing to say something nice about your “friend” on the other side of the aisle, quite another to cut an ad.
There are a few ways to look better than your political competition. One of them is to claim you have no interest in the office, but supporters talked you into it. Another is to claim bipartisanship as your mantra. Both approaches are understood by seasoned politicans as a load of bull generated for voters and journalists idealistic enough to believe the ruse.
Bush claimed that his guberatorial record showed bipartisanship and that he was a ‘uniter - not a divider’. John Kerry, ‘reported for duty’. Bill Clinton was the great ‘triangulator’ and loved all equally. But that is NOT how they voted or lead the country.
While voters love the idea of the great man called to serve his country a-la-George Washington, and love the idea of the great compromiser, a-la-Henry Clay, deep down political reality drives partisanship and ambition. Frankly, voters don’t support Chauncey Gardners or Forrest Gumps, but they want to be told by every presidential candidate that fate drives their virgin candidacies.
As a result, every election year we hear how candidates are not really politicians, or how they are not really partisan, or how they are not really ambitious or egotistical enough to consider themselves presidential material.
It’s a load of bunk, and we all know it.
Dillard is supposed to know this too. He was used to buff-up Barack Obama’s bipartisan halo by giving credibility to Obama ads touting his self-righteousness. Dillard was used because he is a credible Republican and added luster to the fable.
On the Republican side we see Joe Lieberman. He was the 2000 Democratic VP nominee. He was so bipartisan he was booted from his party. He campaigns alongside John McCain. McCain is so bipartisan he is considered a political pariah to many GOP conservatives. McCain-Feingold? You can’t get more bipartisan than teaming up with Mr. Flaming Wisconsin Liberal - willingly.
Instead of the hype, look at the votes. With McCain you see bipartisanship on a number of major issues. John McCain likes to break from the GOP when the political wind is favoring it. While he may be a safe conservative on most issues, he has a long record of jumping ship.
But you don’t see this with Obama, do you? He repeatedly votes straight Democratic, even when those votes do not add up to a majority. Even when the issue has strong bipartisan support. How many times did Obama show up alongside John McCain in a presser, supporting a ‘third way’ compromise? Zero.
So Dillard was used. Instead of recognizing that he was being used, he either went along with it for future favors, or he was naive. Yes, he could be a personal friend, and friendship survives within political battles. But politicians understand that when the battles are being fought, you don’t sacrifice those friendships. Obama and Dillard obviously knew this, but Dillard surrendered to Obama for Obama’s benefit.
Maybe he didn’t believe that Obama would win the nomination - whatever. Maybe Obama won’t use Dillard in the General against Dillard’s preferred candidate, (and true bipartisan), McCain - whatever.
But what we all know is that Dillard was used and he made a poor choice in publically supporting Obama. Barack would have understood if Kirk said, “no”. Dillard made a poor choice.
Kirk Dillard and Larry Walsh have had long careers in public service and are universally recognized for being able to work across party lines. They also both have a strong personal friendship with Obama.
I think we should be proud of the fact that Obama highlighted two of our good public servants as indicators that he can reach out to diverse constituencies and get things done.
I am confident that if Dillard has expressed his opinions to Obama that we will not see this ad in the general.
- Dan Johnson-Weinberger - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 12:28 pm:
I think we should encourage public officials from recognizing the ‘good guys’ on the other side of the aisle (however one defines ‘good guys’). McCain’s greatest strength as a nominee is his interest in working with Democrats to pass public policy. Obama has demonstrated the same interest, and since people always lament that politics is getting too partisan and legislators can’t work together to get things done, we should not punish legislators from one party for recognizing legislators who are candidates from the other party for doing what lots of people say we want our politicians to do! Good for Senator Dillard.
I hope that most of us (other than the die-hard idealogues) prefer bipartisanship to the crazy partisan gridlock we have now at most governmental levels.
“When, since he’s been elected as US Senator, has Barack Obama showed bipartisanship on a major issue?”
The Obama-Coburn bill created a public database of federal expenditures. That’s Tom Coburn, Republican of OK.
Obama and Sam Brownback have teamed up on legislation dealing with Darfur and the Congo, as well as on an Iran divestment bill. Brownback is a Republican from KS.
Obama and Dick Lugar, an Indiana Republican passed laws on alternative fuels and securing loose nukes from former Soviet republics.
And there was work with Chuck Hagel (R-NE) on poverty and nukes, Kit Bond (R-MO) on veterans health care.
If the ad helped keep the Clinton’s out of office in ANY WAY whatsoever, then good for Dillard. Either way, I’m sure Dillard took enough flack for the ad from the GOP, and it’s done.
Regarding honoring the promise to limit the ad, even if Obama leaks it and then plays dumb, it’ll work against him. It can be used against him as a slam against his character and can be positioned as betraying a friend.
If he does limit the ad’s run, then perhaps it’s a sign that he is sincere in wanting to work with Republicans, which works for both sides and could work for both the citizens of Illinois and the US overall.
With regard to Rs “out for themselves”…whatever! The option is for all the Rs to go home until it’s over and that certainly is not a solution. I think we need some Rs to survive the upcoming bloodbath to keep some sort of balance. Otherwise, it’ going to be Ds running wild everywhere and we’re (Ds and Rs alike) doomed.
- Pat collins - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 10:32 am:
Well, certainly McCain has been going out of his way to “play nice”.
But I will be a lot of money (and I am notoriously cheap) that the ad WILL be used, and that somehow, someway, Obama will make it seem like it’s not his fault.
- Pat collins - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 10:33 am:
Bet a lot of money.
- Cassandra - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 10:33 am:
Well, I think one interpretation is: the Republicans are so powerless, nationally and locally, that their individual pols have been given permission (or have simply decided on their own) to make their own way, as best they can. Every pol for himself.
Obama being a Chicago Democrat and all, I’m sure
Dillard will be rewarded with something nice when
Obama becomes Prez. We are likely to see more de facto defections in this vein. One wonders why Jim Thompson hasn’t come out for Obama. He was such a
Blagojevich toady, and Obama, as Prez, offers far more potential for sitting on commissions, puffing around, and acting like the cat’s p.j.’s.
- Pat collins - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 10:34 am:
I’m proud of what we did together.
And, as per my comment about Ray LaHood, I bet Sen. Dillard walked 99 feet, 11 inches as well all those times.
- Squideshi - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 10:40 am:
What is Will County Executive Larry Waslsh doing in this advertisement? It is my understanding that he just recently got in trouble for driving under the influence. I would think that the Obama campaign would be somewhat conscious of that.
- BandCamp - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 10:47 am:
Not being snark, but who cares, really? Illinois is a solid Blue State. Running those ads outside of Illinois won’t have the same impact as it does interstate.
One could view Dillard as burning the candle at both ends, and I don’t have a problem with that. He’s republican, but did/does continue to foster a personal relationship with Obama.
Good for him.
- Wumpus - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 10:49 am:
Kirk Blowhard did something to get him additional face time on the camera? Oh noes!
- Moderate Repub - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 11:04 am:
Cassandra - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 10:33 am:
Well, I think one interpretation is: the Republicans are so powerless, nationally and locally, that their individual pols have been given permission (or have simply decided on their own) to make their own way, as best they can. Every pol for himself.
Since we are so powerless, and since Democrats have all the power, we can BOTH agree that the blame for everything wrong right now (nationally, and in Illinois) can be rested in the lap of the Democrats. Thats Cassandra for shining a light on that!
- wordslinger - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 11:15 am:
I’m curious as to why he did it in the first place. He’s a pretty sharp guy, he knew what the reaction would be from the GOP.
I don’t buy the friendship explanation. It’s one thing to say something nice about your “friend” on the other side of the aisle, quite another to cut an ad.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 11:55 am:
There are a few ways to look better than your political competition. One of them is to claim you have no interest in the office, but supporters talked you into it. Another is to claim bipartisanship as your mantra. Both approaches are understood by seasoned politicans as a load of bull generated for voters and journalists idealistic enough to believe the ruse.
Bush claimed that his guberatorial record showed bipartisanship and that he was a ‘uniter - not a divider’. John Kerry, ‘reported for duty’. Bill Clinton was the great ‘triangulator’ and loved all equally. But that is NOT how they voted or lead the country.
While voters love the idea of the great man called to serve his country a-la-George Washington, and love the idea of the great compromiser, a-la-Henry Clay, deep down political reality drives partisanship and ambition. Frankly, voters don’t support Chauncey Gardners or Forrest Gumps, but they want to be told by every presidential candidate that fate drives their virgin candidacies.
As a result, every election year we hear how candidates are not really politicians, or how they are not really partisan, or how they are not really ambitious or egotistical enough to consider themselves presidential material.
It’s a load of bunk, and we all know it.
Dillard is supposed to know this too. He was used to buff-up Barack Obama’s bipartisan halo by giving credibility to Obama ads touting his self-righteousness. Dillard was used because he is a credible Republican and added luster to the fable.
On the Republican side we see Joe Lieberman. He was the 2000 Democratic VP nominee. He was so bipartisan he was booted from his party. He campaigns alongside John McCain. McCain is so bipartisan he is considered a political pariah to many GOP conservatives. McCain-Feingold? You can’t get more bipartisan than teaming up with Mr. Flaming Wisconsin Liberal - willingly.
Instead of the hype, look at the votes. With McCain you see bipartisanship on a number of major issues. John McCain likes to break from the GOP when the political wind is favoring it. While he may be a safe conservative on most issues, he has a long record of jumping ship.
But you don’t see this with Obama, do you? He repeatedly votes straight Democratic, even when those votes do not add up to a majority. Even when the issue has strong bipartisan support. How many times did Obama show up alongside John McCain in a presser, supporting a ‘third way’ compromise? Zero.
So Dillard was used. Instead of recognizing that he was being used, he either went along with it for future favors, or he was naive. Yes, he could be a personal friend, and friendship survives within political battles. But politicians understand that when the battles are being fought, you don’t sacrifice those friendships. Obama and Dillard obviously knew this, but Dillard surrendered to Obama for Obama’s benefit.
Maybe he didn’t believe that Obama would win the nomination - whatever. Maybe Obama won’t use Dillard in the General against Dillard’s preferred candidate, (and true bipartisan), McCain - whatever.
But what we all know is that Dillard was used and he made a poor choice in publically supporting Obama. Barack would have understood if Kirk said, “no”. Dillard made a poor choice.
- Anon - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 11:58 am:
Kirk Dillard and Larry Walsh have had long careers in public service and are universally recognized for being able to work across party lines. They also both have a strong personal friendship with Obama.
I think we should be proud of the fact that Obama highlighted two of our good public servants as indicators that he can reach out to diverse constituencies and get things done.
I am confident that if Dillard has expressed his opinions to Obama that we will not see this ad in the general.
- Dan Johnson-Weinberger - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 12:28 pm:
I think we should encourage public officials from recognizing the ‘good guys’ on the other side of the aisle (however one defines ‘good guys’). McCain’s greatest strength as a nominee is his interest in working with Democrats to pass public policy. Obama has demonstrated the same interest, and since people always lament that politics is getting too partisan and legislators can’t work together to get things done, we should not punish legislators from one party for recognizing legislators who are candidates from the other party for doing what lots of people say we want our politicians to do! Good for Senator Dillard.
- Anon - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 12:42 pm:
Dillard is a stand up and reasonable guy - a lot of his colleagues there in IL could learn from him.
- Pat collins - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 1:36 pm:
Obama has demonstrated the same interest,
And of course, Pres. Obama will not complain when HIS judicial nominees get filibustered, but will remember why he didn’t join McCain’s gang of 14.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 2:22 pm:
–Obama has demonstrated the same interest–
When, since he’s been elected as US Senator, has Barack Obama showed bipartisanship on a major issue?
- steve schnorf - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 2:43 pm:
I hope that most of us (other than the die-hard idealogues) prefer bipartisanship to the crazy partisan gridlock we have now at most governmental levels.
- JonShibleyFan - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 3:33 pm:
“When, since he’s been elected as US Senator, has Barack Obama showed bipartisanship on a major issue?”
The Obama-Coburn bill created a public database of federal expenditures. That’s Tom Coburn, Republican of OK.
Obama and Sam Brownback have teamed up on legislation dealing with Darfur and the Congo, as well as on an Iran divestment bill. Brownback is a Republican from KS.
Obama and Dick Lugar, an Indiana Republican passed laws on alternative fuels and securing loose nukes from former Soviet republics.
And there was work with Chuck Hagel (R-NE) on poverty and nukes, Kit Bond (R-MO) on veterans health care.
The Google. It works.
- Pat collins - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 4:28 pm:
And which of those was in any way controversial?
None.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 6:29 pm:
If the ad helped keep the Clinton’s out of office in ANY WAY whatsoever, then good for Dillard. Either way, I’m sure Dillard took enough flack for the ad from the GOP, and it’s done.
Regarding honoring the promise to limit the ad, even if Obama leaks it and then plays dumb, it’ll work against him. It can be used against him as a slam against his character and can be positioned as betraying a friend.
If he does limit the ad’s run, then perhaps it’s a sign that he is sincere in wanting to work with Republicans, which works for both sides and could work for both the citizens of Illinois and the US overall.
With regard to Rs “out for themselves”…whatever! The option is for all the Rs to go home until it’s over and that certainly is not a solution. I think we need some Rs to survive the upcoming bloodbath to keep some sort of balance. Otherwise, it’ going to be Ds running wild everywhere and we’re (Ds and Rs alike) doomed.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 6:32 pm:
All in all, a mid-level risk and gamble on Dillard’s part, but probably a good call under the circumstances.
- JonShibleyFan - Tuesday, May 13, 08 @ 8:13 pm:
“And which of those was in any way controversial?”
Moving the goal posts to facilitate your point.
Must be a Clinton supporter (snark).
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 14, 08 @ 9:01 am:
Not at all. Just calling Obama’s ‘bipartisanship in the US Senate’ bluff.
All hat - no cattle.
- JonShibleyFan - Wednesday, May 14, 08 @ 3:41 pm:
It’s only calling a bluff if you’re right.