I don't think the problem is exactly that they are assuming that most people won't follow the news closely enough to know who is telling the truth and who is lying. As far as I can tell, that assumption is accurate. The problem is that they are playing on that ignorance in a way that displays a different sort of contempt for voters: not the assumption that most people do not follow the news closely enough to be able to say what's wrong with criticizing Obama's 'present' votes on anti-abortion bills, which is probably true, but the idea that it is OK to manipulate them into casting votes they might not cast if people were not telling them lies.
Lies: a short, non-exhaustive list.
(1) The Reagan Quote
Hillary Clinton at the SC Debate:
"The facts are that he has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years, and we can give you the exact quote."Bill Clinton:
""Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas," Clinton told a crowd in Pahrump this morning."
(See also here, and Clinton's new ad.)What Obama actually said (aka "the exact quote"):
"The Republican approach has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they’re being debated among the presidential candidates, it’s all tax cuts. Well, we know, we’ve done that; we’ve tried it. That’s not really going to solve our energy problems, for example."
Steve Benen's takes on this is good, as are Mark Schmitt's and Paul Waldman's.
(2) Iraq
Bill Clinton:
"The only thing I pointed out was that there was substantially no difference in her record and his on Iraq, and that he had said in 2004 there was no difference between his position and President Bush. And he said that was somehow dishonest, but he never answers how it's not accurate. So this is crazy."Bill Clinton, earlier:
"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break."
Big difference between Clinton's and Obama's record on the war: Obama opposed it in 2002, and said he would not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution, which, of course, Sen. Clinton did vote for. The 2004 quote, in context:"He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time."But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. "What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this," he said."
(OMG, I'm repeating a right-wing talking point!!)(3) The 'Present' Votes
Here are accounts (or, in the case of the mailer, a scan) of a mailer, emails, and attack websites about Obama's "present" votes on anti-abortion votes.
From the NYT, in an article that came out several weeks before the Clinton flyer:
"Pam Sutherland, president of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said Mr. Obama was one of the senators with a strong stand for abortion rights whom the organization approached about using the strategy. Ms. Sutherland said the Republicans were trying to force Democrats from conservative districts to register politically controversial no votes.Ms. Sutherland said Mr. Obama had initially resisted the strategy because he wanted to vote against the anti-abortion measures.
“He said, ‘I’m opposed to this,’” she recalled.
But the organization argued that a present vote would be difficult for Republicans to use in campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts who favored abortion rights."
More:
"The Obama campaign has argued his present votes were part of a legislative strategy devised by the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood to counter a Republican leadership strategy to force pro-abortion rights Democrats into politically damaging “no” votes against popular abortion restrictions. The legislators wound then be attacked at election time for voting no legislation with names such as “The Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” The present votes would provide political cover and still have the same effect as a no vote.The Tribune last year found few lawmakers remembered such a strategy and many of those who joined with Obama to vote present were, like him, in politically safe districts. But leaders of Illinois Planned Parenthood have maintained since the controversy erupted that they did in fact devise the present-vote strategy and asked Obama to participate.
Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, vouched again in the conference call that Obama’s present votes were made a the request of Illinois abortion-rights advocates.
“It was our strategy from Planned Parenthood,” Sutherland said.
“Sen. Obama was key to that present-vote strategy,” She continued. “He was always gong to be no votes on all of these bills. But we specifically asked him to vote present because he was so respected among his fellow Democrats that, if he did the present vote, they would follow suit. And that ended up being the case. They did follow suit. And not only did many of the Democrats follow suit. So did a couple of Republicans follow suit."
“It actually worked, because the then-Senate President was no longer able to use these votes against candidates in their races,” Sutherland added.
This is also interesting. And in case anyone wonders whether Pam Sutherland, the head of Illinois Planned Parenthood who appears in many of these stories, is just saying this because of the present election season, here she is giving the same account in 2004. Another person from Planned Parenthood who was involved with this strategy writes about it here.
This line of attack seems to have convinced the former President of Chicago NOW to switch from supporting Hilary to supporting Obama. YouTube videos here.
(4) The Teachers' Union Lawsuit
Bill Clinton on the suit to bar caucus sites in casinos:
"There were teachers who filed the lawsuit. You have asked the question in an accusatory way, so I will ask you back," the former president said. "Do you really believe that all the Democrats understood that they had agreed to give people who worked in the casino a vote worth five times as much as people who voted in their own precinct?""Did you know that? Their votes will be counted five times more powerfully, in terms of delegates to the state convention, compared to delegates to the antional convention."
Matthews noted the state party approved the set up.Clinton: "What happened is nobody understood what happened..they uncovered it. And now everybody's saying, ''Oh, they don't want us to vote...what they really tried to do was to set up a deal where their votes counted five times, maybe even more, as much."
In fact:
"Well that sounds terribly unfair -- the casino workers' votes will count five times as much? Awful! Except it seems to be completely false. So where did Clinton arrive at this number? I can't say for sure, but it seems he just made it up.As is often the case in the Rube Goldberg delegate allocation system used in caucuses, there is an absurdly complex formula to determine how many delegates each precinct receives. But the Las Vegas Sun crunched the numbers, and according to their calculation, if 10,000 people voted at the at-large precincts, they would make up around 6 percent of the total delegates for the state. Now, does that mean that the votes of those who vote there will count five times as much as anyone else's? Only if you assume that statewide turnout will be so large the at-large precincts will only make up 1.2 percent of the vote (6 percent divided by 5). That would mean, under this scenario, that total turnout in the Democratic caucus would have to be 833,333.
Will turnout be that high? Well, no. As the Sun recently reported, "Democratic circles are abuzz with excitement about Nevada’s caucus, and people are starting to think that the state party’s early estimate - recently repeated by Sen. Harry Reid - of 100,000 people might just be possible."
In order for the at-large precincts to be over-represented, the turnout there would have to be incredibly low, while turnout everywhere else in the state is incredibly high, and there is no reason to think that will happen."
(Actual Democratic turnout: 116,000.)The idea that "nobody understood" what rules governed the apportioning of delegates in Nevada until a few days before the caucus, and a few days after the Culinary Union endorsement, is also pretty far-fetched:
"The state Democratic Party unanimously approved the caucus rules last March, and the Democratic National Committee signed on in August. Four of the six plaintiffs [in the suit to ban the caucus sites; hilzoy] are members of the committee that approved the rules."(5) Social Security
Clinton mailer: Headline: "We need a president that will help hard-working families keep more of what they earn." Description of Obama: "a plan with a trillion dollar tax increase on America's hard working families. Lifting the cap on Social Security taxes to send more of Nevada families' hard-earned dollars to Washington."
In fact, Obama has no such plan. He has said he would "consider" raising the cap. Oddly enough, so has Clinton:
"Obama tried to describe his position at a campaign stop outside Las Vegas on Wednesday, saying the worst part about the mailer is that Clinton has said she would consider doing the same thing he wants to do.
He said he thinks requiring high-income earners to pay more Social Security taxes is the best way to prevent a cut in benefits.
Currently, workers pay Social Security taxes on the first $97,500 in income - anything above that is exempt. Obama said he would consider keeping the exemption for up to around $200,000, but anyone earning more than that should have to contribute more. He was not specific about what he would do.
"There might be some exemptions, but once people are making over $200,000 to $250,000, they can afford to pay a little more in payroll tax," Obama said. (...)
Three months ago, Clinton told an Iowa voter privately that she would consider raising the income limit as long as there was a "gap," with no Social Security taxes on income from $97,500 to around $200,000. An Associated Press reporter overheard the conversation."
In addition, the $1 trillion figure is wrong. Eliminating the cap -- not raising it, and not exempting people who make between from $97,500 and $200,000 -- would raise $1 trillion over ten years (cite, pdf), but Obama has not proposed eliminating the cap. Moreover, not including the 'over ten years' part is deeply misleading. (I mean, I could describe a one cent increase in, say, drivers' license fees as "a trillion dollar tax increase" if I got to add, under my breath: "over the next five millenia.")
And let's not even get into the question whether voters making over $200,000-250,000 count as middle class.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Clinton V. Truth
And This
The recent roughing-up of Barack Obama was in the trademark style of the Clinton years in the White House. High-minded and self-important on the surface, smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard to the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four more years. The thought makes me queasy.
A Bright Spot
As people get to know him they Learn what the NY Times and New Yorkers know
The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.
Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.
The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.
What A Great Four Years It Would Be
Let me get this straight: Obama wins Iowa. In a desperate move--unprecedented for an ex-President in American politics--Bill Clinton decides to impede Obama's momentum by inserting himself into the campaign. He attacks Obama on an almost daily basis, sometimes falsely. He makes a spectacle of himself. And then he blames the press for not covering the substance of the campaign?
"This is what you live for," he told CNN reporter Jessica Yellin.. "They just spin you up on this and you happily go along," Clinton said. As aides steered him away, he scolded: "Shame on you."
I can't believe that Hillary Clinton wants the world to think that whenever she gets into political trouble, she's going to have her husband come roaring about, breaking furniture, sucking up oxygen, spewing carbon dioxide. My impression is that she's strong enough to defend herself--she certainly showed that in the recent Democratic debate. But apparently she's not strong enough to control Mr. Bill...and if that's the case, any sane voter would have to think twice before enabling this sort of circus act in the White House
Oh Yeah!
From Daily Kos.
Where the hell has this red-faced, angry, combative Bill Clinton been for the last eight years?
Did Bill get angry and demand that wrongs be righted after the Florida miscount? After Bush v. Gore? After Bush, Cheney, and Rice blew off his concerns about terrorism for 8 months? After Bush's unpreparedness for, inadequate and incomplete response to, and unconscionable exploitation of 9/11? After the unfair media and GOP attacks on Al Gore, Howard Dean, and John Kerry? After Katrina? Plame? The US Attorneys? The "lost" emails? The countless other mistakes and malfeasances of the Bush administration?
Sorry, Bill -- by remaining silent in the face of so many grave catastrophes, you forfeited your right to attack Obama...
What She Said
"I do not begrudge Bill Clinton's working for his wife, but the one thing I would say is really important to President Clinton to think about right now, because of the larger megaphone he has as a former president, he really needs to be careful with the truth."
What He Said
It's not fair – indeed, it's demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama's anti-war position is a “fairy tale”) or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it.
Duh
"I felt, once again, that there was this underlying hostility for homosexuals and Democrats and, well, hippie types. I cannot tell you how much I did not want liberal or gay people to be my enemies. I liked them. The real issue in the Christian community was that (love) was conditional ... You were loved in word, but there was, without question, a social commodity that was being withheld from you until you shaped up,"
- Donald Miller, author of "Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality."
Sick
Fuck him and his awful awful wife.
I'll be back soon
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
We Should All Follow This Example
Watched the NH returns with some friends last night, and something quite unexpected happened when the AP called it for Clinton -- inexplicable ANGER. I was surrounded by people in their early 30's, registered Democrats, receptive to the Clintons in the 90's, and I swear I thought someone was going to throw their wine glass at the tube during her 'victory' speech. We made a pact last that we all followed through on this morning -- logging on to BarackObama.com and donating $100 each to his campaign (this is the first time ANY of us has donated money to a campaign). Oh, and did I mention we're all New Yorkers?
Yes We Can
"We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics who will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks to come. We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.
"But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we've been told that we're not ready, or that we shouldn'ttry, or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people.
"Yes we can.
"It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.
"Yes we can.
"It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom through the darkest of nights.
"Yes we can.
"It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.
"Yes we can.
"It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for theballot; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.
"Yes we can to justice and equality.
"Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity.
"Yes we can heal this nation.
"Yes we can repair this world.
"Yes we can.
"And so tomorrow, as we take this campaign South and West; as we learn that the struggles of the textile worker in Spartanburg are not so different than the plight of the dishwasher in Las Vegas; that the hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA; we will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in America's story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea -
Yes. We. Can.
Las Vegas Baby!
SEIU Nevada Endorses Obama
By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated PressJanuary 09, 2008 9:43 AM ESTLAS VEGAS - Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has won an endorsement from the Nevada chapter of the Service Employees International Union, boosting his prospects against rival Hillary Rodham Clinton in Nevada's upcoming Democratic caucuses.
The influential union claims to represent 17,500 health care and county workers in Nevada. Its executive board approved the decision in a conference call late Tuesday night, shortly after the Illinois senator finished a close second behind Clinton in the New Hampshire primary.
The announcement came as Obama was expecting to get another boost from labor in Nevada. The 60,000 member Culinary Workers Union, Local 226 was scheduled to announce its endorsement Wednesday.
SEIU President Vicky Hedderman said she believes Obama is a candidate "who could take the campaign all the way through November."
Nevada's Jan. 19 caucus is the next major Democratic nomination contest. Under union rules, the endorsement allows SEIU locals in other states to lend resources and volunteers to its Nevada counterpart on behalf Obama.
Do White People Lie?
How depressing.
But Salon looks deeper:
Does race explain the polling disconnect?
Chris Matthews and some other mainstream media voices are pushing the theory that the "Bradley effect" or the "Wilder effect" explains what happened in New Hampshire Tuesday night -- that the polls were wrong because white voters told pollsters that they'd be voting for Barack Obama even though they couldn't actually bring themselves to cast a ballot for a black man.
It's fine as theories go, but the evidence doesn't seem to support it. As the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder explains, the polls actually got Obama's level of support pretty much right. According to Pollster's "standard estimate" based on pre-primary polls -- and if you want to know what that means, there's an explanation here -- Obama was drawing support from 36.7 percent of New Hampshire Democrats. With 96 percent of the precincts reporting, Obama had 37 percent of the vote. The polls were also pretty accurate in gauging support for John Edwards (18.4 percent in the polls, 17 percent on the ballots) and Bill Richardson (5.6 percent vs. 5 percent).
So what happened?
The polls didn't overstate the support for the black man (or any man, for that matter); they understated the support for Hillary Clinton. Pollster's "standard estimate" put Clinton's support at 30.4 percent as the polls opened. When the ballots were counted, she had 39 percent.
Thus, maybe the issue this morning shouldn't be whether white New Hampshire voters hid their racist preferences from pollsters (or even the Iowa corollary -- that in public caucuses as opposed to private voting booths, Democrats wanted to make a good show of voting for the black man). Instead, perhaps it should be why the pollsters didn't have a better grasp on the support for Clinton -- or how it was that undecided and late-changing voters left the race in play long after a lot of us thought it was over.
A Fleetwood Mac Moment
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
The Importance Of 'Why"
Barack Obama and John McCain have political brands that some would kill for right now. For Obama, the brand is a unifying change agent; For McCain, it's a straight shooting, gritty, experienced hand.
And their brands have only become stronger thanks to their respective opponents -- Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney -- who have attempted "new and improved" re-branding campaigns throughout the last six months to seemingly no avail.... I was going to bookend this Romney-Clinton branding problem with a look at Clinton's announcement speech. And then it dawned on me, she never gave one. This is so symbolic. Think about it, she never gave a rationale for her candidacy -- other than she was "in it to win it," making losses more devastating since she didn't "win it."
Ok, that's harsh, she certainly had a rationale for her candidacy, but to not herald it in a traditional announcement speech really does lend to some head scratching.... The closest thing Clinton gave to an announcement speech was her exploratory YouTube announcement video.
In that video, here's the passage that seemed to outline what she planned to campaign on:
As a senator, I will spend two years doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do. But only a new president will be able to undo Bush's mistakes and restore our hope and optimism...Only a new president can renew the promise of America -- the idea that if you work hard you can count on the health care, education, and retirement security that you need to raise your family. These are the basic values of America that are under attack from this administration every day."
Some form of these issues have been a theme throughout her campaign, but a bigger rationale underscoring her brand never materialized. It appears Mark Penn believed the Clinton brand was about working hard to do the little things; something that most voters would believe of a Clinton. But this isn't a "little thing" election; it's a "big thing" election; The above rationale in the video announcement is something somebody runs on if running for a second or third term, not a first.
Go!
What happens after New Hampshire no one can quite tell, but this is Obama's moment and he is driving it and riding it all at the same time. In barely a week, the Illinois senator has transformed the presidential campaign, triggering wholesale reevaluations across the political spectrum.
Ahistorical Whining
If you needed proof that the Clinton's are no longer for the people, but just for the Clintons take a look at this round up from Salon's War Room of HRC's latest basis for Victim-hood - ugh, how anti-feminst is this woman?):
A "free ride" for Obama and Edwards?
In an interview aired on ABC this morning, Hillary Clinton complained that Barack Obama and John Edwards have received "pretty much a free ride" in this political season. "That's fine," she said. "I don't mind having to get up there and take all the scrutiny. But at some point the free ride ends; maybe it ends now, maybe it ends in a month, maybe it ends in the general election. You cannot be elected president if you do not withstand the tough questions."
A "free ride"? While we're not saying that the press has been easy on Clinton -- it hasn't been -- it's pretty hard to make the case that it has given either Edwards or Obama a pass on the way to the White House.Here's the campaign coverage we've been watching:
Jan. 3, 2007: In a front-page story, the Washington Post says Obama's "candor" about "early, bad choices, including drug use starting in high school and ending in college, as well as his tortured search for racial identity," could cause problems for him as he runs for president.
Jan. 17, 2007: Insight magazine reports -- falsely -- that Barack Obama was educated in a madrassa. Fox News picks up the story and runs with it, at least until CNN sets the record straight.
Feb. 8, 2007: The Associated Press produces a lengthy story on Edwards' home, suggesting that the house's large size and cost are in conflict with Edwards' antipoverty message, and that this conflict is hurting him with voters.
March 3, 2007: The Boston Globe reports that Obama racked up $375 in parking tickets and late penalties while attending Harvard Law School.
March 13, 2007: The Associated Press discusses leaked excerpts from political consultant Bob Shrum's book, in which Shrum suggests that Edwards voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution for political reasons. Later in the spring, further allegations from Shrum are revealed, including that John Kerry regretted picking Edwards as his running mate and that Edwards exploited the death of his own son.
April 16, 2007: The Politico's Ben Smith blogs about FEC records showing that the Edwards campaign paid $400 on two occasions to a trendy Beverly Hills, Calif., hair salon. The cost of Edwards' haircuts has been used to attack him repeatedly ever since.
May 11, 2007: The Washington Post publishes an article that links Edwards, through his work for the hedge fund Fortress Investment Group, to the subprime lending crisis.
May 16, 2007: NBC's David Gregory confronts Obama with the charge that there's little difference between his Senate voting record and Clinton's when it comes to the war in Iraq.
Oct. 11, 2007: After Edwards issues an official denial, the Associated Press picks up on a tabloid story alleging that the married Edwards carried on an affair with a woman who had done work for his campaign.
Nov. 11, 2007: On "Meet the Press," Tim Russert confronts Obama with virtually all of the Iraq-related questions Bill Clinton says the candidate wasn't forced to answer in the Democratic debates.
Nov. 16, 2007: New York Times' columnist Paul Krugman says Obama has been "turned into a sucker" and "played for a fool" on Social Security.
Nov. 29, 2007: In a front-page story, the Washington Post spreads mainstream media credibility on false rumors that Obama, a Christian, is actually a "'Muslim plant' in a conspiracy against America."
Dec. 3, 2007: MSNBC's Chris Matthews declares that Obama is "almost Third World in his presentation."
Dec. 12, 2007: Based on comments made by Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire co-chairman, the press wallows in a sea of stories about Obama's past drug use.
Jan. 8, 2008: As voters vote in New Hampshire, the New York Times' Matt Bai says that "whether or not [Obama] actually has the skill and experience necessary to dislodge us from the past is the real question surrounding his improbable campaign" -- and that while we're waiting for an answer, no one should be comparing Obama to JFK.
― Tim Grieve and Alex Koppelman
Any Veep'll Do
Looks like he still want's the title but is open to ever gets the top slot (remember this post?). My Friend Sid will be happy.:
"You know and it's a lot of the Clinton people that are putting this out and I really resent it. It's wrong. I believe very strongly that this was a big vote for Obama because he brought a lot of new people in. That's why he won and those people should stop trying to get scapegoats," - Bill Richardson on the Clinton machine's spin.
We Won't Have To Wait For South Carolina
Culinary workers endorsing tomorrow
The Times reports they'll go with Obama, and that's what all the campaigns expect, though the union — which endorses tomorrow — has managed to hold its cards very close.
If the big Las Vegas union does endorse him, it'll be his first major labor endorsement and perhaps the beginning of a bandwagon effect.The Culinary Workers' parent union had reportedly been leaning toward Edwards, but the Vegas-based organization was courted by all the candidates, and by Bill Clinton, and Hillary was seen as having a real shot at its support.
Definately Call The Printer
New Hampshire Turnout 'Absolutely Huge'
ABC News' Karen Travers Reports: New Hampshire Deputy Secretary of State Dave Scanlan told ABC News that turnout among primary voters today is "absolutely huge" -- and there are concerns about running out of ballots in towns like Portsmouth, Keene, Hudson and Pelham."Turnout is absolutely huge and towns are starting to get concerned that they may not have enough ballots," Scanlan said. "We are working on those issues. Everything else seems to be going smoothly."
Blowback Mountain
"There's a battle in the Democratic Party between the idealists and the interest groups," Matthews began. "And in the beginning of every Democratic campaign for president, there's an idealist who comes forward ... and they do very well in the first offing. ... And then the interest groups get all called in, the meal tickets, all the people that get something out of the party are bussed in, trucked in from out of town ... and they blow away the idealist."
"It has been done so many times," he continued. "Kill the fire of insurgency. And when that's killed, then you go back to the same old interest group politics."
"Once in a while, someone comes along and shakes things up," Matthews acknowledged. "It's a phenomenal thing. And it's going on now. It'll go on through tonight. But at some time, it's going to be really challenged by the forces of the establishment, by the status quo, by the interest groups and the big-money contributors, and they're going to try to put this fire out."
"They will find some way to counter this power. You watch it. It's scorched earth, but the establishment in American politics almost always wins. ... All the people around the Clintons ... are getting together to try to figure out how to stop this.
These are pros, who win year after year.
"They are under threat right now, because if Obama wins, they lose," Matthews went on, turning aside Scarborough's suggestions that this year the dynamics might be different. "If you think it's going to happen, then you are definitely a dreamer.
Maybe I am too. But I've seen this dream die so many times."
"They'll play on every heartstring. They'll make Hillary a more sympathetic figure," Matthews predicted, saying that between now and Super Tuesday on February 5, the newspapers will fall over themselves to give us "the new Hillary, the softer Hillary, the humble Hillary."
"The fawning journalism is yet to come," concluded Matthews. "It's absolutely predictable. ... Oh, it's coming!"
(BTW MSNBC quotes Carville as calling any idea of his involvement 'Ludicrous"):
From RealClear Politics
NASHUA - In addition to the as yet unconfirmed rumors that Carville and Begala are returning to try and save the Clintons' bacon (UPDATE: Major Garrett says it's a done deal according to senior advisers in the Clinton camp, which he called "solid" sources), Tom Edsall at the Huffington Post reports that the special interest groups backing Clinton are throwing around the idea of consolidating resources into an "anti-Obama" 527 group in an effort to try and "Swift Boat" the Illinois Senator turned Presidential front runner. Edsall writes:
Three groups conducting independent expenditure campaigns in behalf of Clinton - Emily's List, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) - have explored the possibility of trying to put together a multi-million dollar effort privately dubbed the Anybody-But-Obama 527 Committee, but they have run into problems finding any Democratic operative willing to become the director of a campaign against the man who now is the odds-on favorite to become the party's nominee.This raises a question I've been mulling for a while. How ironic is it that Bill Clinton - once dubbed America's first black president - is now in the position, along with his wife, of having to go negative against a black man who appears to have the first legitimate chance of winning the White House? If the Clintons are successful in snuffing out Obama's insurgency with swift boat like tactics, how much venom and hatred will that unleash against them by progressive activists and the African-American community - and how might that play a role in the general election?
OK, If That's the Best You Can Do
The fall debates will see a respectful Obama listen intently to the elder statesman and promise to consult closely with him, and then he'll turn to the audience and talk about a new era of change that will include the best of the generation that has served us so well and so bravely. If McCain tries to get tough with Obama, the Saturday night McCain emerges, and the GOP is toast. If he smiles at Obama and comments on his youth and inexperience, everyone will hear their grandpa saying "When I was a kid...." and tune out. Turn out the lights on the GOP at that moment.
Call The Printers
New Hampshire Deputy Secretary of State Dave Scanlan told ABC News that "turnout among primary voters today is 'absolutely huge' -- and there are concerns about running out of ballots in towns like Portsmouth, Keene, Hudson and Pelham.""The ballot strain seems to be on Democratic ballots, which suggests that the undeclared voters are breaking for the Democratic primary."
Don't Stop Thinkin' About Tomorrow
But I'll Live.
Dartmouth Students Walk Out on Bill
By Jose Antonio VargasHANOVER, N.H. -- About thirty minutes into Bill Clinton's nearly two-hour stop here at Dartmouth College, a steady stream of students started walking out of the venue.
Moments later, Clinton -- his voice hoarse, sometimes cracking -- took arguably the toughest question of the night, courtesy of a tall, blond 19-year old freshman wearing a bright red sweater. "My main concern is, if Hillary were elected, it would create a dynastification of American politics. Bush, Clinton, Bush. What do you think?" asked Sebastian Ramirez, standing less than a hundred feet from the former president.
Clinton responded, to rolling laughter across the room, "I'm not responsible for the 12 years that the American people gave to the Bushes." He continued: "I actually tried to talk Hillary into leaving me when we were in law school, that's the God's truth. I told her, 'You have more talent for public service than anybody in my generation that I have met... I shouldn't stand in your way.' She looked at me and said, 'Oh, Bill, I'll never run for office.'"
That got a few cheers from the crowd of about 600, most of them students, with their backpacks and books in tow. But many of the students in the room, judging from more than two dozen interviews, are supporters of Sen. Barack Obama. They plan to vote for him tomorrow night.
"I am not anti-Hillary, I am not anti-Clinton, I love Bill Clinton. But I just think we need a fresh start, a new face," Ramirez told The Trail. "All my life I've known the Clintons. As much as I like them, it's time for someone like Barack."
Foreign Policy Experience
Obama Contacts Kenyan Leaders
By NEDRA PICKLER (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated PressJanuary 08, 2008 1:43 PM ESTHANOVER, N.H. - Between campaign stops in his bid for the White House, Democratic front-runner Barack Obama has been making calls regarding the presidential election and resulting violence in his father's homeland of Kenya.
More than 500 people have been killed in disputes over last week's election in which President Mwai Kibaki was re-elected. His rival, opposition leader Raila Odinga, accused Kibaki of stealing the vote and ethnic clashes ensued.Obama has been working the phones for the past week to urge an end to the bloodletting. He spoke to Odinga for about five minutes Monday before going into a rally in Lebanon, N.H., and was trying to reach Kibaki Tuesday as New Hampshire voters went to the polls.
"What I urged was that all the leaders there, regardless of their position on the election (to) tell their supporters to stand down, to desist with the violence and resolve in a peaceful way in accordance with Kenyan law," Obama said. He said Odinga " gave me some encouraging signs that he would be willing to have such a meeting."
Odinga rejected Kibaki's offer for talks on Tuesday, saying it was a public relations gimmick that would undermine attempts to end the fighting.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, asked about Obama's call to Odinga, said he did not want to get involved in the presidential campaign."Any time you have a person of stature ... who is pushing for a peaceful, political resolution, that's a positive thing," McCormack said.
Obama was coordinating his efforts with the State Department, his advisers said. He discussed the situation with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Jan 1. The following day Obama recorded a statement with Voice of America after a canvass kickoff in Davenport, Iowa.
On Jan. 3, the date of the Iowa caucuses, Obama spoke with Archbishop Desmond Tutu in Nairobi between satellite interviews with local Iowa stations. Tutu has been in Nairobi trying to secure an end to the violence. Obama spoke Saturday with the U.S. ambassador to Kenya, Michael Ranneberger, while in a hold room after a rally in Nashua, N.H.
Obama last visited Kenya in 2006 and was met by large and adoring crowds throughout the visit. Obama's father was an economist studying in Hawaii when he met Obama's mother, but he returned to his homeland when Obama was a toddler and was not around for his son's upbringing. He died in a car crash in 1982.
Odinga told the British Broadcasting Company Tuesday that Obama's late father is his maternal uncle, making them cousins. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Odinga and Obama's father are from the same Luo tribe, but he isn't aware that they are related.
Obama's Kenyan relatives followed the news from New Hampshire via radio reports from Kogelo, his father's home village in western Kenya. Following his win in Iowa Jan. 3, Obama was ahead of rival Hillary Rodham Clinton in polls of New Hampshire voters going into the primary.
Obama said it's important for him to get involved in the situation because of his family connections and because he thinks it's an important relationship for the United States.
"Kenya has been a stable, democratic government in a region that could end up being a base for terrorist activity, for ethnic violence that results in refugees," Obama said. "It could be very destabilizing if the violence there is not contained. And it is, I think, absolutely vital to our long-term national interests to make sure that we continue to see a stable Kenya that can be a partner with us in a whole host of issues, including our national security."
Monday, January 07, 2008
No Crying!
Salon sums it up:
At a campaign stop in Portsmouth, N.H., this morning, a voter asked Clinton how she gets up every morning and keeps at it on the road.
Clinton started out firmly. "It's not easy, it's not easy," she said. "I couldn't do it if I just didn't passionately believe that it's the right thing to do." Then she paused, her voice softened, and she said: "You know, I have so many opportunities for this country, and I just don't want to see us fall backwards -- no."
Clinton's emotions seemed to swallow her words, and the crowd came to her aid with a round of applause.
Her voice still cracking, she continued:
"You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political, it's not just public. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it. And some people think elections are a game, they think it's like who's up and who's down. It's about our country, it's about our kids' futures, and it's really about all of us together."
Clinton seemed to regain her emotional footing as she turned to her talking points: "You know," she said, "some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some pretty difficult odds. And we do it, each one of us, because we care about our country. But some of us are right, some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on Day 1, and some of us haven't really thought through enough. And so when we look at the array of problems we have, and the potential for it getting, really spinning out of control, this is one of the most important elections America has ever faced."
The good news for Clinton: With Mitt Romney having choked up at least twice in recent weeks, there ought to be a limit on how much anyone can make of Clinton's teary eyes and cracking voice. The bad news for Clinton: While Romney got emotional about fallen soldiers in Iraq and the race history of his own church, Clinton seemed to be crying about her own political plight. More bad news for Clinton: Her emotional moment comes just as the evening news shows need a visual representation of a campaign in crisis.
Not Just A Hobgoblin
Eight paragraphs into his new stint as a New York Times op-ed columnist, William Kristol, it turns out, has already made an embarrassing error.
His column, which suggests that the Democrats not underestimate Mike Huckabee's chances to win it all, includes this graf just past the midway point, quotes the "conservative writer Michelle Malkin" as saying, "For the work-hard-to-get-ahead strivers who represent the heart and soul of the G.O.P., there are obvious, powerful points of identification."
There's just one problem: She never said, as she was quick to point out herself on her michellmalkin.com site: "Since I never usually appear on the New York Times op-ed page unless someone's calling me a fascist, I was pleasantly surprised to see the quote. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), I didn't write what Kristol attributed to me. A different MM-Michael Medved-was the author."
Tick Tick Tick
Clinton's National Lead Collapses
The Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll shows that Sen. Hillary Clinton’s national polling lead has collapsed. Before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton held a 17 points lead over Sen. Barack Obama. Today, that lead is down to 4 points in a survey with a four-point margin of sampling error.
Predictions You Can Depend On
Because Kristol has been as reliably wrong as a People magazine Record Review GT12 takes heart from this paragraph from his first column for The Grey Lady
Some Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of a Huckabee nomination. They shouldn’t be. For one thing, Michael Bloomberg would be tempted to run in the event of an Obama-Huckabee race — and he would most likely take votes primarily from Obama. But whatever Bloomberg does, the fact is that the Republican establishment spent 2007 underestimating Mike Huckabee. If Huckabee does win the nomination, it would be amusing if Democrats made the same mistake in 2008.
Vote For Me Because Iowa Is Mean and Fucked Up And Democrats Don't Need Independents (or Independence)
The Iowa caucus process is a broken and flawed process. It was designed to allow for the active party Dems generally known to one another to assign delegates and was not designed to handle a flood of students and independents. It was a system designed to give more power to Dem party loyalists. In the tension over whether the candidates should be chosen by the party or by the general public, the Iowa caucus was designed to give the party the advantage. For this reason, the Iowa system failed on Thursday.
Maybe Not So Honorable ... But Still An Idiot
McCain Falsely Claims He Has ‘Never Asked For A Single Earmark Or Pork Barrel Project’ For His State »
In tonight’s Fox News GOP presidential forum, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) attempted to argue that if elected president, he will eliminate “wasteful spending.” As evidence, he claimed that he has never asked for an earmark for his state of Arizona:
And I’m proud to tell you, Chris, in 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state and I guarantee you I’ll veto those bills. I’ll ask for the line item veto and I’ll veto them and I’ll make the authors of them famous.McCain’s claim is false. In 2006, the senator teamed up with fellow Arizona senator Jon Kyl (R) to funnel $10 million toward the University of Arizona for an academic center named after the late Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. Even Arizona lawmaker, Rep. Jeff Flake (R), said he was planning to “lean against the measure.” The National Taxpayers Union, another traditional McCain ally, questioned why the senator was making federal taxpayers foot the bill for the center.
In 2003, McCain also slipped $14.3 million into a defense appropriations bill tocreate a buffer zone around Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. As Roll Call reported in 2003, this project violated McCain’s own anti-pork rhetoric:
The only problem is the project to acquire more land near the base was not requested by President Bush or fully authorized by the Senate Armed Services Committee - two of McCain’s criteria for identifying so-called ‘pork.
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), a notorious porker, was overjoyed that McCain had joined his side. “One man’s pork is another man’s alternate white meat,” said Stevens. “If he asked for it, we put it in.”
Honorable ... But Still An Idiot, Pt 2
McCain Suggests Lieberman As Possible Secretary Of Defense
In his semi-weekly blogger conference call today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) heaped praise upon Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who has endorsed McCain’s GOP presidential bid. McCain told the bloggers that he would like Lieberman to serve in his administration:
I would definitely want Joe Lieberman to play a part — particularly in national security issues — in my administration.
A Perfect (Goes To?) Twelve
Diagnostic
HRC Campaign Director, Pollster and Blackwater Consultant Mark Penn
Salon gives us a little story that just explains all the problems with HRC - entitled, tonedeaf and based in Hubris:
Be careful what you ask for
In an e-mail message sent to reporters Saturday, the Clinton campaign asked, "Where Is the Bounce"? The answer: Right here.
Team Clinton based its message, in large part, on a CNN/WMUR/University of New Hampshire poll, taken immediately after the Iowa caucuses, that showed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tied at 33 percent. While that tie represented four points of improvement for Obama, the Clinton team noted that the poll's margin of error meant that there had been "no statistically significant change" in the candidates' numbers "before and after the Iowa caucuses."
"Contrast that with the 17 points John Kerry gained in 2004 in the Boston Globe poll ... in New Hampshire after the Iowa caucuses. Or with the 7 points Al Gore gained in 2000 in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, increasing his lead in New Hampshire from 5 points to 18 points," the Clinton campaign said. "New Hampshire voters are fiercely independent. They will make their own decisions about who to support."
Maybe so. But a second CNN/WMUR/University of New Hampshire poll was released Sunday, and that one shows Obama leading Clinton 39 percent to 29 percent. Add the 10 points by which Obama leads now to the four points by which he trailed before Iowa, and you get a 14-point swing -- exactly the sort of Kerry/Gore bounce the Clinton campaign said Obama wasn't getting before.
A Place to Go for Hope-Mongers
Nothing Going For Her
Marist Poll: NH Voters See Obama as More Electable
A new Marist Poll in New Hampshire finds Sen. Barack Obama leading among Democratic primary voters with 36% support, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton at 28% and John Edwards at 22%.
Key finding: For the first time, more likely primary voters think Obama not Clinton has the best chance of beating the Republican candidate for president in November. 42% think Obama is most the most electable Democratic presidential candidate compared with 34% who believe Clinton is.
In the GOP race, Sen. John McCain receives the support of 35% of likely voters, followed by Mitt Romney at 31% and Mike Huckabee at 13%.
Honorable ... But Still An Idiot
According to presidential candidate John McCain, only the handling of the Iraq war was a mistake -- not the war itself.
"It's not American presence that bothers the American people, it's American causalities," said McCain in an interview with Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet The Press" on Sunday.
The validity of this conjecture is questionable, as fifty-nine percent of Americans say the U.S. should “stick to a withdrawal timetable." But McCain said in a recent New Hampshire debate -- and reasserted as much on Sunday -- that as long as Americans aren't dying, he sees nothing wrong with US troops staying as many as 100 years in Iraq.... When Russert asked him if, like Bush, McCain would have supported the Iraq war even if no weapons of mass destruction were believed present in Iraq, McCain seemed to dismiss the question as irrelevant.
"If frogs had wings ... we can talk about lots of hypotheticals," he said. "The point is if we had done it right, you and I wouldn't even be discussing it now."
Sunday, January 06, 2008
The Iowa Bounce
Here's a quick snapshot of the latest New Hampshire primary polls:
CNN/WMUR: Obama +10, McCain +6
USA Today/Gallup: Obama +13, McCain +4
Strategic Vision: Obama +9, McCain +8
Rasmussen: Obama +12, McCain +2
7NEWS/Suffolk: Obama +2, Romney +3
McClatchy/MSNBC: Obama +2, McCain +8
Reuters/Zogby: Obama +1, Romney +1
Concord Monitor/Research 2000: Obama +1, McCain +6
American Research Group: Obama +12, McCain +14
She Who Must Be Stopped is about to become She Who Has Stopped.
Happy '08
Friday, January 04, 2008
Bring It On
Furiously working their BlackBerries and cellphones, [Obama Staffers] were trying to figure out just when the expected bare-knuckles street brawl might begin.
To be sure, Hillary Clinton's camp isn't planning to sit easy with their loss to Obama in the Iowa caucuses yesterday, sending signals that they will be pointing out contrasts between the two candidates in the four days leading up to the New Hampshire primary.
That's arguably the logical course of action for a candidate who needs to contain the damage of an Iowa loss with a solid win in New Hampshire.
Obama operatives were trying to get out ahead of the news by spinning it in advance.
"I think the attacks will define their candidacy," Obama strategist David Axelrod said this morning. "When you have to resort to those tactics, that begins to define your campaign. It's one more way in which you have a very hard time standing up and saying you're the candidate of change."
Obama, of course, lays claim to that sunny point of view. And he suggested in an interview this week that he can handle the heat.
"I come from Chicago, man," he told the Tribune's John McCormick
The Scum Also Rises
Passing The Torch
Indeed, young voters in particular might be the story of the Iowa caucuses: notoriously hesitant to participate, they composed over 50 percent of Obama's support. News reports even indicated that Obama had beaten Clinton among women.
Holiday Memories
Substance Too
Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused.
Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.
This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.
... Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.
Obama didn't stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state's first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois "one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure"). Obama's commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who "bundle" contributions for them.
Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a "unique" ability "to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people." In other words, Obama's campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric.
Straight Shooting
Should be fun to run against
Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)
McCAIN: Make it a hundred.
Q: Is that … (cut off)
McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …
Q: [tries to say something]
McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.
Yep
A Great Birthday Present For Me
"Years from now, you'll look back and you'll say that this was the moment, this was the place where America remembered what it means to hope. For many months, we've been teased, even derided for talking about hope. But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It's not ignoring the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path.
"Hope is what I saw in the eyes of the young woman in Cedar Rapids who works the night shift after a full day of college and still can't afford health care for a sister who's ill. A young woman who still believes that this country will give her the chance to live out her dreams.
"Hope -- hope is what led me here today. With a father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas and a story that could only happen in the United States of America.
"Hope is the bedrock of this nation. The belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us, by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is, who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.
"The same message we had when we were up and when we were down; the one that can save this country, brick by brick, block by block, (inaudible) that together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Hope?
A Sullivan reader writes:
In case you were looking for the mood of any actual Iowans today...
I am a 31 year old single, professional female, and Iowa native living in Iowa City. I will be a first-time caucus goer tonight. I switched my affiliation from Republican to Democrat only a couple months ago. After many months of being drowned in candidates here in Iowa (I think we ceased having real commercials on TV about a week ago, its been nothing but back-to-back political ads for days), I fully expected to feel relief that this day was finally here. More because I knew tomorrow all the incessant phone calls would stop (Mitt Romney's campaign called once while I was listening to Obama speak) and life could get back to normal.
I was really surprised to find that when I woke up this morning and saw "Caucus" written on my calendar for today, I was actually excited. Excited to get to participate tonight. Excited when I came to work and found a decorated "O" cookie on my desk from a co-worker. Very excited to be among the very first in the nation to cast a vote for Barack Obama. The only other time I've ever been excited or optimistic about a candidate was for John McCain back in 1996, during his plaid shirt days, but even then I wasn't motivated enough to caucus.
She Who Has No Ideas
"We are fired up and we are ready to go because we know America is ready for change and the process starts right here in Iowa."
In Davenport, Iowa, those words escaped the barriers of a tired Hillary Clinton's teeth.
Without irony.
That phrase is associated with Barack Obama. Obama borrows it from a woman in South Carolina who helped remind him what was important in life.It's the signature, in fact, of Obama's close.
Clinton's spokesperson (and former DNC Chair Terry McCaulliffe) stole Obama's phrase "kick the tires and look under the hood." Matthews was sharp and called him out on it.
Backing Barack ... Dennis, Bill And Joe
Dennis Kucinich started what may add up to the critical mass Obama needs for a win or strong second-place showing in the Iowa caucuses, when Kucinich encouraged his supporters - few though there are in this frozen state - to join the Obama forces on caucus night, if Kucinich doesn't have enough voters to be viable.
The Kucinich endorsement flooded the blogoshpere and the main-street-media and handed Obama a mini-bounce at a critical time in this campaign for the most privileged voters in America - Iowa's caucus attendees.... Offthebus chatted with one of the Biden's national consultants who wanted to remain anonymous:
"A decision will be made tomorrow about who we'll encourage our supporters to stand behind if we aren't viable in a precinct. Right now, I'd guess Obama gets our support because we're more inline with his vision of foreign policy than any of the other candidates, and besides, we like him and how he's run his campaign."
"Is Biden angling for a Secretary of State position in an Obama Administration?"
The Biden consultant told Offthebus, "Well, Joe would make a great Secretary of State, wouldn't he?"...Off-the-bus spoke with a national Obama staffer who confirmed, "We've heard that Richardson may also be telling his supporters to caucus for Barack if they aren't viable. Nothing definitive but there's a trend going on," she added with a smile. Ah, that's an understatement.
All of this off-the-record conversation and backroom pol talk could be nothing or something.
But the fact that the rumors are flying and top aides are willing to discuss their thinking with Offthebus, albeit without disclosing their names, is still enough smoke to detect yet another spark that could ignite a fire under the Obama campaign's fortunes in the Iowa caucuses.
... None of the campaigns I spoke with - on or off the record - are prone to hand their support over to John Edwards, who is busy today flying around the state for his final push to win - and therefore, survive until New Hampshire, where his poll numbers continue to fall far behind either Clinton or Obama.
UPDATE (FROM IOWA INDEPENDENT):
[Exclusive] Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign is expected to direct their supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday's caucuses in precincts where he is not viable. Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico Governor's organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they fail to reach the 15% threshold for viability.
Richardson, whose poll numbers in Iowa have hovered near 10% since June, may need a solid fourth-place finish in the caucuses to continue his campaign. And he is best served by directing support away from former Sen. John Edwards, who consistently polls between him and the two national front-runners, Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, in national and early state polls
What Happened ... Before It Happens
Let's start with the Democrats.
John Edwards
No one HAS to win more than Edwards. The good news for him is that a win over two celebrity candidates will mean something. The three spins:
A solid win: Credit will be given to the fact that of the three candidates, no one's been more focused on domestic issues than Edwards. He's done a more credible job of "feeling the pain" of economically distressed Iowans than any other candidate, and as the economy becomes a bigger issue with local voters, Edwards' populist stance has looked prescient. The possibility of riding this wave to momentum in the very economically sensitive New Hampshire is very real.A three-way tie: Edwards' populist appeal was effective in getting the voters he wooed for the last four years, but that appeal failed to bring in new voters and an influx of women, independents and Republicans looking for less polarizing candidates. This made Edwards' ability for a solid victory among Democratic activists very difficult.
A loss: As noted above, no one has more at stake in Iowa than Edwards. While a three-way tie might convince the Edwards campaign they can go on and compete, a loss will be extremely difficult to spin. That said, the Edwards camp wants the presidency badly. So, don't expect them to be forced out of this race easily even if the media ignores them after a less-than-impressive Iowa showing.
Hillary Clinton
A win: Strike up the inevitability pose. If Clinton squeaks out even a one-point win, it will have the effect of a landslide victory, particularly if she succeeds in a high-turnout scenario. She'll need to follow up a win in Iowa with a win in New Hampshire, of course, but success here could motivate both rank-and-file establishment Democrats (who had been on the fence) to climb aboard. And that will send a message, in particular to women voters, that there is a movement happening, one that the media has ignored until now.
A three-way tie: The Clinton camp will have two challenges in this scenario. One is to make sure the media doesn't somehow turn the tie into a "60-plus percent of Democrats rejected her" spin. While the Clinton campaign believes that they've gotten bad media coverage, they do have to worry about a certain segment of the press interpreting Clinton as the incumbent being rejected by majority margins. The second challenge is to make sure they declare victory in this case. With the polls indicating that Edwards and Obama had the juice to win, and Clinton seeming destined for no better than second, a tie may equal a win if her camp plays their cards right.
A loss: Obviously, the Clinton team would rather lose to Edwards than to Obama. Third place would be a near-disaster scenario; second is recoverable. There will be a lot of Friday morning quarterbacking about whether Clinton should have even played in Iowa. It was never a natural fit and because many in the national media know this, there's every chance she'll get a few more primaries to prove herself.
No chance anyone believes she's one or two and done. There's too much history with the Clintons and their ability to come back. Despite what they think of the media, they'll be looking for comeback hints at some point; maybe it's Nevada, maybe it's Feb. 5.
Here's another post-spin to expect from Clinton if Obama wins on the backs of independent and GOP support: Look for Clinton surrogates to feed the notion that the voice of rank-and-file Democrats is being drowned out by outside influences. The blogs have picked up on this, and despite not being big Clinton fans, one could envision how the campaign could pivot with "We've been in these fights with Democrats in the trenches; it's important for Democrats to have a greater voice" etc.
Something to watch for ...
Barack Obama
A win: I can't imagine a scenario where Obama wins the Democratic nomination and loses Iowa. If he's the nominee, it'll mean he won Iowa by a margin similar to what the Des Moines Register projected this week, allowing his "movement" candidacy to take off. Movements need victories, and no one may be better equipped to feed off a victory than Obama. That's why the Clinton campaign knows stopping Obama is essential. No campaign will have a greater bandwagon opportunity with a victory in Iowa than Obama, because a victory here will mean folks will start buying the idea that there is something going on out there. It would suggest that more folks are getting involved in the Democratic Party process (more indies, more GOPers, more youth, etc.). And that's a contagious thing with voters. But movement candidacies NEED victories; they die quick deaths if they lose — just ask Howard Dean.
A tie (either two-way or three-way): Obviously, Obama doesn't mind not winning as long as the person who is ahead of him is Edwards and not Clinton. The Obama folks are confident that they can marginalize Edwards post-Iowa if Clinton is the candidate in third, instead of Obama. A tie with Clinton puts more pressure on Obama to try to win New Hampshire and prove he can actually beat her. As I noted above, movements need victories, and a tie might hurt Obama more than people realize.
A loss: See above explanations about movement candidates. Obama has the money to run a national campaign, but the burden of expectations is with him right now, and negative "we told you so" narratives could take hold if Obama's plan to get indies, GOPers and young voters to the polls fails.For the rest of the story, go here (it's good)
Our Man's Message Today
"Tomorrow, we'll come to the end of a ten-month journey. You've heard from all of us, and read our plans; you've been bombarded with mailings and phone calls, and you'll be glad to know this is one of the last times you'll hear me say, 'I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message.'
"But the question you have to ask yourself when you walk into that caucus tomorrow is this – who can take us in a fundamentally new direction? I'm running to finally solve problems we talk about year after year after year. To end the division, the obscene influence of lobbyists, and the politics that values scoring points over making progress. We can't afford more of that, not this year, not now."I've spent my life working for change that's made a real difference in the lives of real people.
"That's why I passed up a job on Wall Street to fight joblessness and poverty on the streets of Chicago when the local steel plant closed.
"That's why I turned down the corporate law firms to work as a civil rights lawyer; to fight for those who had been denied opportunity.
"That's why I fought for tough new ethics laws in Illinois and Washington to cut the power of lobbyists. And I won.
"That's why I brought Democrats and Republicans together to provide health care and tax relief to working families.
"And that's why I opposed this war in Iraq from the start. It wasn't popular, but it was right.
"This country's ready for a leader who will bring us together: that's the only way we're gonna win this election and that's actually how we'll actually fix health care and make college affordable, become energy independent and end this war.
"I'm reminded every day that I am not a perfect man. And I won't be a perfect President. But I can promise you this – I will always tell you where I stand and what I think. I will listen to you when we disagree. I will carry your voices to the White House and I will fight for you everyday I'm there. So I ask you to caucus tomorrow, not just for me, but for your hopes; for your dreams; for the America you believe is possible."
Finally!
