|
|
« September 2007 |
Main
| November 2007 »
Pity the poor spin-meisters, especially when their job requires them to ignore reality (or, more precisely, reality as decreed by pundits aplenty).
A consensus quickly developed in the political world that Hillary Clinton exposed some vulnerabilities during Tuesday's candidate debate. Indeed, as The Times' Peter Nicholas and Michael Finnegan report in today's story here on our website and in Thursday's print editions, her chief rivals in the Democratic presidential race -- for the first time in recent months -- sense a crack in her seeming invincibility.
But lots of folks get paid to bathe her in a positive glow, regardless. So here's the lead from the memo that, playing off Barack Obama's slogan, provided Camp Clinton's view of Tuesday's proceedings: "What happens when the 'politics of pile-on' replaces the 'politics of hope?' Hillary comes out on top."
That, at least, is what was offered for public consumption. We would guess the chatter behind closed doors was less upbeat. You can read the rest of the memo here.
And you can contrast this missive with the memos that came from the Obama and John Edwards campaigns (here and here).
We imagine those two were easier to write.
-- Don Frederick
Well, it didn't take long after last night's debate for Hillary Clinton's waffling over keeping her first lady documents secret to ignite a firestorm.
The Barack Obama camp, which needs a long-running issue to gain some traction and poll points on the front-runner, smelled blood on the issue and widely distributed a memo today titled "Turning the Page on Secrecy, Calculation and Caution."
As we reported at length here the other day and our Peter Nicholas first chronicled for the nation last summer, three years after the Clinton presidential library opened in Little Rock, three years after Hillary Clinton told Larry King "everything's going to be available," 21 months after the library's documents became subject to the Freedom of Information Act, virtually nothing has been released about her role in those eight White House years. And it won't be before the 2008 election.
In fact, Newsweek uncovered a letter to the National Archives, the documents' keepers, from Bill Clinton specifically ruling out release of communications between himself and his wife.
Yet, those are the years and times that candidate Clinton now constantly cites as proof that she has the experience necessary to become president. So, trust her, she says, it's all there. You just can't see it.
Last night Tim Russert asked about that. It was painful to watch the squirming and disingenuousness. "Actually, Tim, the Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves," Clinton said. "There's about 20 million pieces of paper there and they are moving, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that."
If Clinton, who has harshly criticized the Bush administration for its secrecy, thought that was...
Read more Clinton Library Secrets II: Hillary trips over her sealed papers »
The quip fell flat anyway. But if Barack Obama and his brain trust had thoroughly thought through the subliminal message sent by the jest with which he opened Tuesday night's debate among the Democratic presidential candidates, we think they might have junked it.
Given that Obama had telegraphed that he planned to sharpen his criticism of Hillary Clinton, the entire political universe knew the debate would start with an invitation for him to take his best shot. Obama, however, decided to lower the temperature of the anticipated face-off. And, in light of the debate's Philadelphia setting, he sought to do that by referencing the film famously linked to the city.
"Well, first of all, I think some of this stuff gets overhyped," Obama said. "In fact, I think this has been the most hyped fight since Rocky fought Apollo Creed, although the amazing thing is I'm Rocky in this situation" (i.e. -- isn't it odd that I'm playing the white guy?).
He got a smattering of laughs. But here's what struck us -- Rocky lost his first fight with Apollo Creed. Indeed, as they clinched in the climatic scene, Creed growled in Rocky's ear, "Ain't gonna be no rematch." And the gallant, albeit defeated, challenger replied, "Don't want one."
Maybe Obama had in mind "Rocky II," in which Sylvester Stallone's character triumphs over Creed. Still, why confuse us (easy as it is to do)?
-- Don Frederick
Talk about good timing!
One of the nation's most influential unions -- the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees -- came through today with its expected endorsement of Hillary Clinton, easing the pain her camp may be feeling over the first seriously negative debate reviews she has encountered (conveniently aggregated by Time magazine's The Page blog here).
As this item in the New York Times' Caucus blog notes, the union's backing could prove particularly valuable in Iowa, where it has about 300,000 members (typo alert: make that 30,000) and where polls show that the Democratic presidential race remains competitive.
The union may be especially motivated to show its clout in Iowa, where it was embarrassed in the 2004 campaign after its chosen candidate, Howard Dean, went from front-runner to also-ran in a flash after finishing third in the state caucuses.
-- Don Frederick
A heavyweight bout that goes the distance isn't necessarily determined by the early rounds, as tonight's debate among the Democratic presidential aspirants vividly illustrated.
Hillary Clinton was unfazed by initial attempts to knock her off stride. But as the forum proceeded, some points actually may have been scored against her. Not enough to seriously jeopardize her front-runner's standing in her party's contest. But enough to keep this race interesting.
Clinton easily parried the opening efforts by Barack Obama and John Edwards to rattle her by pressing their arguments that, on the key issues of Iraq and Iran, she is not the candidate who can be counted on to dramatically redirect the Bush administration's policies. She was aided when Obama stumbled in responding to what obviously was going to be the gathering's first question: specifying, as part of his recent pledge to more aggressively challenge Clinton, the issues on which they differ.
"Well, first of all, I think some of this stuff gets over-hyped," he said -- hardly the punch the political world had awaited. And the rest of his answer lacked precision and focus.
Edwards did better out of the gate, offering solid examples to buttress his case that Clinton is an unlikely agent of change.
Clinton basically ignored the slings and arrows, coolly and calmly touting her record and promoting various plans she laid out. She also studiously avoided attacking Obama or Edwards, which would have given them ...
Read more Clinton stumbles a bit in Democratic debate »
Rep. Ron Paul had 10 of his 15 minutes of fame this afternoon during the taping in Burbank of "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," now a regular stop for political candidates. And he got several rounds of applause. They will echo out of television sets across the country's time zones all this evening as Americans climb into bed.
Jay was a gentle questioner, leading the 72-year-old libertarian through his resume -- 10 terms in Congress, Air Force veteran, ob-gyn who delivered 4,000 babies. "Just NBA players?" asked the host.
"How'd you get into the the sleazy business of politics?" asked Leno. Paul said he became fascinated by economics and realized, "We're on the wrong road and you can't print money out of thin air." (Applause.)
Paul said yes, he was in favor of abolishing the Internal Revenue Service because the country had gotten along fine until the income tax started in 1913 because "we didn't have an empire to worry about." (Applause)
He said: "It was a mistake to go into Iraq." (Applause) He said: "We should follow the Constitution."
He said American troops are unhappy, disenchanted and the country is not safer but is more vulnerable. He said he was not an isolationist, that he supported "the Founders' admonition of peace and commerce with all but entanglements and alliances with none." (Applause)
He said his support was growing "by leaps and bounds" because "the message of liberty is powerful." And that he was a lifelong Republican except for a break to run for president as a Libertarian in 1988.
Then, he added, "There probably is a risk I could win." (Laughter)
He said he probably would not accept an offer of the vice presidential slot, that none of the Republican candidates would support it. But "I'd certainly consider it."
"Good luck to you, sir." (Applause)
--Andrew Malcolm
Understandable perhaps that New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson should feel that governors, as the chief executives of states, are uniquely qualified to become chief executive of the United States. He's the lone governor running on the Democratic side full of candidates with legislative experience.
And during this evening's Democratic debate from Philadelphia he wanted to make the point that Americans favor chief executives, not legislators, as presidents. That's been true in recent history. Only two sitting senators have been elected president.
Richardson said, "The reality on the electability issue is, the last senator that was elected president was 40 years ago. His name was John F. Kennedy. We elect governors as president. Seven of the last eight have been either governors or ex-governors."
Well, actually not. Kennedy was elected 47 years ago and it's four of the last five presidents who have been governors -- George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, but not George H.W. Bush.
The three presidents before that were all legislators -- Rep. Gerald Ford, former Sen. Richard Nixon and former Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson. Dwight Eisenhower was a general, a kind of chief executive. And Harry Truman was a former senator who inherited the presidency when Franklin Roosevelt died and then won election on his own in 1948.
On the Republican side this time, there are two former governors running, a former mayor and five legislators or former lawmakers.
--Andrew Malcolm
Even if Joe Biden fails to overcome the long, long odds he faces in his bid for the presidency, his legacy may live on with the crack he delivered about Rudy Giuliani at tonight's debate among the Democratic White House contenders.
Asked about his experience compared to Hillary Clinton's, Biden short-circuited the effort by MSNBC's two questioners, Brian Williams and Tim Russert, to make the debate's first hour-plus all about her.
"I'm not running against Hillary Clinton," he began. "I'm running to lead the free world. I'm running to lead this country."
That, in itself, was a refreshing change of pace from what had been the relentless focus on Clinton. Then Biden turned his sights on Giuliani -- a shift probably welcomed by Democrats who had been watching the bickering among their candidates.
First, he termed Giuliani "probably the most under-qualified man since George Bush to seek the presidency." That garnered some laughter and applause, but Biden was merely setting up the sound bite of the night.
"Rudy Giuliani," he went on. "I mean, think about it. Rudy Giuliani. There's -- there's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11."
That sparked a huge response from an otherwise restrained audience. And if Giuliani emerges as the GOP nominee, it's likely to be a line Democrats reprise among themselves again and again.
-- Don Frederick
The Freddy-come-lately of the Republican presidential field went to Sacramento today to announce that he'd wrapped up the official endorsement of an important California Republican -- Tom McClintock.
Now, with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger riding high in the polls and less than a year after he romped to an easy election victory, some political observers might assume that his endorsement would be the valuable reason for Fred Thompson to fly cross-country to shake hands and pose together for pictures before a gathering of reporters including The Times' Dan Morain.
Did former Sen. Thompson ask the governor for his official nod? “No,” said Thompson before quickly moving on to the next question.
But Thompson beamed as he announced he had received the official blessing of a Republican who has lost four statewide races, most recently one for lieutenant governor in 2006. McClintock has not fared well when Democrats have a chance to vote on his fate.
On the other hand, the Thousand Oaks legislator has never lost a Republican primary. And that’s what the current GOP presidential race is about and why Thompson is trumpeting McClintock’s endorsement.
Yes, McClintock is obscure to a national audience. But don't forget, California’s trove of Republican convention delegates will be elected by congressional district. So, McClintock’s endorsement was eagerly sought.
Noting that McClintock is the second best-known Republican officeholder in California, Republican consultant Wayne C. Johnson said: “It is a great endorsement” because McClintock’s career has not been besmirched by “compromise.”
“A phone call from Tom McClintock is a good credentialer,” added Johnson, who used to do work for McClintock. “That is the chief role. He is a credible messenger.”
Thompson also announced that McClintock would be his state chairman. “Tom has always had courage,” he added. Three state senators including Jim Battin (R-La Quinta) and eight assemblymen also endorsed Thompson.
Likening Thompson to Ronald Reagan, McClintock said the former senator represents the “bold colors” of the Republican Party, not “pastels.” He added: “We can’t afford to get this election wrong.”
Of course, California Republicans being California Republicans, other party members disparaged McClintock's choice. "It is the most overrated endorsement in California," said a Schwarzenegger partisan, who is so sure of himself he sought anonymity.
--Andrew Malcolm
Nevermind their basic disagreement over gun control, Republican national front-runner Rudy Giuliani picked up a significant -- and very useful -- endorsement today from Joe Allbaugh.
Not everybody knows Joe, which is fine with that hulking 6-4 Oklahoman who looks like a pro defensive end. If you're smart, you won't mention his crew cut, which went out of style about four decades ago but if it doesn't matter to him, who are you to notice?
Allbaugh is a no-nonsense political veteran who was Gov. George W. Bush's chief staff in the Texas statehouse and then became part of the Iron Triangle -- Allbaugh as campaign manager, Karen Hughes as communications director and Karl Rove as political chief. They drove that 1999-2000 campaign through a stinging 19-point defeat in New Hampshire to John McCain on to the nomination, a tumultuous general election campaign, the Florida turmoil and ultimate victory and the White House.
Allbaugh was a demanding fellow, a stickler for saving campaign money (he required that fax cover sheets be printed on both sides to enable two uses and save paper) and a center of profound professional calm during the storms and crises that inevitably grip operations as long, as expensive and as large as a national presidential effort that depends so much on eager but inexperienced young people.
After the victory, Allbaugh was named head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, where he met Giuliani during the 9/11 crisis. He ran that agency until March 2003, exiting before the Katrina disaster and the successful assault on FEMA for not being an adequate first-responder.
Recently, Allbaugh has been running his own consulting company in Washington and serves on the board of directors of the National Rifle Assn., which, it is safe to say, gun-control advocate Giuliani does not. They both had the usual yada-yada good things to say about each other today.
Allbaugh, who will serve as a senior advisor, "has significant experience in emergency management and I will look to him for sound advice and expertise," said Giuliani, who sometimes doesn't listen too closely to advice from others. Chances are, Allbaugh will have his ear.
(UPDATE: Just as one-third of the Iron Triangle rejoins the federal political fray, the very next day another third--Karen Hughes--resigns as undersecretary of state to return to Texas, her job as an advocate for public and personal diplomacy largely unfulfilled.)
--Andrew Malcolm
Hillary Clinton's campaign has reveled in throwing Barack Obama's "politics of hope" line back in his face. For months, the slightest quibble raised by him about her has led to one of her army of aides to declare, in essence: See, he's just like those nasty politicians he decries.
Hours before tonight's face-off in Philadelphia among the Democratic presidential contenders on MSNBC, a key Clinton associate is at it again -- this time using the phrase to depict Obama and John Edwards as hypocrites.
Attention is focused on the upcoming debate largely because of Obama's pledge, via a Sunday New York Times story, that he would become more confrontational with Clinton (as one wag put it after the piece appeared, "Obambi no more"). The Times' Robin Abcarian examined Obama's current campaign style here the other day.
Also, Edwards -- who did not hesitate to spar with Clinton during a debate about a month ago in New Hampshire -- signaled in a speech Monday that he would again take her on.
In response, Mark Penn, Clinton's controversial chief strategist, earlier today sent an e-mail memo to "interested parties" (i.e., the media), that seeks to turn the tables on his candidate's two rivals.
Penn's memo begins: "There’s been a lot of chatter lately about the 'politics of hope.' But what does the term mean? What are the 'politics of hope?' "
His answer, none too surprisingly, is that ...
Read more Clinton campaign launches a preemptive attack »
Merrill Lynch is coming off a particularly bad fiscal quarter. In fact, it's writing down $8.4 billion, most of it related to mortgage-related investments that have gone sour. That's being described as the biggest loss on Wall Street in memory.
Now, according to The Times' campaign finance guru Dan Morain, Merrill's losses are trickling down to the presidential campaign in the form of smaller donations.
Merrill partners and employees have donated $947,500 to federal races this year. Of that, $679,000 has gone to presidential candidates, Federal Election Commission records show.
Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani has received the most -- $130,250 -- from Merrill-related donors. He's followed by his foes, former Gov. Mitt Romney at $127,800, and Sen. John McCain at $104,500.
On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton received $117,000, and Sen. Barack Obama has hauled in $79,700.
But Merrill's political generosity tailed off significantly in the third quarter this year. Presidential candidates received a mere 17% of their take between July 1 and Sept. 30.
McCain may fear that Merrill's view of his candidacy is about as shrewd as some of its recent investments. McCain's take fell the farthest; he received a mere $3,800 in the third quarter.
Obama's take remained the steadiest among the top-tier candidates. He received 27% of his Merrill money in the third quarter.
Obama is the one candidate who received an individual donation from Merrill CEO Stanley O'Neal, $2,300 back in April. Earlier this morning, as detailed on this site by The Times' Walter Hamilton, O'Neal stepped down as head of Merrill with the usual sweet departure deal, the first head of a major investment firm to fall victim to the subprime mortgage crunch.
The ex-Merrill executive gave $1,000 to Obama back when he was first running for the U.S. Senate in October 2003. And Federal Election Commission records show O'Neal gave $1,000 to Clinton in August 2005.
--Andrew Malcolm
Since sex sells, it's no surprise that much of the initial buzz over Tom DeFrank's new book, "Write It When I'm Gone: Remarkable Off-the-Record Conversations with Gerald R. Ford," has focused on the 38th president's diagnosis of the 42nd president as the Monica Lewinsky scandal exploded.
"He's sick," Jerry Ford said of Bill Clinton. "I'm convinced that Clinton has a sexual addiction. He needs to get help."
The New York Daily News (DeFrank's own newspaper; he's the longtime D.C. bureau chief) spotlighted the Clinton angle in a Sunday story. And it got lots of attention Monday on various cable news shows.
The book -- today is its official publication date -- is chock-full of other intriguing material, however, including a fascinating chapter on what DeFrank terms the "uncharacteristic bitterness" that Ford felt toward California's own Ronald Reagan.
To Ford's "dying day" (which was last Dec. 23), he "blamed Reagan for his 1976 loss to Jimmy Carter," DeFrank writes. It was bad enough that Reagan launched a bid to deny him the Republican presidential nomination -- an effort he pursued all the way to the national convention. But even worse, after Ford prevailed, Reagan (in Ford's view) barely went through the motions of helping the GOP ticket in the general election.
For Ford, the consummate party man, that was unpardonable. And he was thoroughly convinced that with help from Reagan, he would have edged out Carter in their close contest.
In general, Ford didn't think much of Reagan. He "neither liked nor respected the former Hollywood actor," according to the book. "He considered Reagan a superficial, disengaged, intellectually lazy showman who didn’t do his homework and clung to a naive, unrealistic and essentially dangerous world view."
DeFrank also reveals that Ford continued to harbor White House ambitions after that race. Indeed, DeFrank writes that during one of their conversations, the ex-president surprised him ...
Read more Ford and Reagan -- hardly bosom buddies »
Well, the tension is mounting today as the world waits to see what scripted joke Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul will drop tonight during his negotiated dialogue with Jay Leno.
Paul, whose political passion can come across as strident and pushy on the TV debates, is not known for his comebacks, one-liners, quips or even smiles, although he's got a big grin on his website.
As we've noted before here and here and here, NBC's "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" has become a required stop for candidates to show a more human side to potential American voters when the kids are tucked in and the adults are preparing for bed and have fewer distractions, though it's actually taped late afternoon California time.
Already this year Jay has hosted John Edwards twice (Jan. 10 and June 25 with Elizabeth), Tom Vilsack (Feb. 15), whose candidacy didn't last much longer than his program segment, Joe Biden (March 22), Mitt Romney (May 2), Bill Richardson (May 11), John McCain (June 28), Barack Obama (Oct. 17), Dennis Kucinich (Sept. 24) and Fred Thompson on June 12, when he announced he might announce, and Sept. 5, when he actually announced he would announce.
Paul, a former Libertarian Party candidate for president, has, as we've noted, a range of non-traditional ideas that have placed him on the flanks of the Republican Party debates. He's a strict Constitutionalist with outspoken views against the Iraq war and American interventionism. He's suggested that the U.S. caused the 9/11 attacks by its bombing of Iraq, which drew barbs from other Republicans, mainly national GOP front-runner Rudy Giuliani.
Paul did well in numerous minor straw polls and has attracted to his political niche a fervent band of thousands of followers who patrol the sidewalks and interstate bridges with "Ron Paul 08" signs and monitor the Internet for any mention of their underdog candidate and jump in to praise or defend him. The Times' Scott Martelle recently followed two Paulites seeking some GOP delegates in the Bay Area.
In their own chat rooms Paul supporters discuss writers they don't like and advise each other on...
Read more Ron Paul gets his late-night moment with Jay Leno »
Prepare yourselves. It's going to be very hard to avoid Mike Huckabee for a few days.
The former Arkansas governor, who may or may not be as conservative as he'd like you to think, according to some critics responding to his growing media profile, is going to be all over television for a while. One reason is it's a fresh media story. An underdog come from behind possibility, which the media loves after covering what's-her-name out front all this time.
Another reason is it's a necessity for Huckabee to get on TV because it's free exposure and he has very little money. In the third-quarter he raised barely $1 million, one-fifth as much as little-known libertarian Ron Paul. Another is Huckabee has as his chief communications hand Kirsten Fedewa, a longtime Republican Washington public relations specialist who deftly booked countless governors onto TV shows there for years for the Republican Governors Assn.
Huckabee starts Tuesday morning shortly after 7 on "Good Morning America." Later, he'll be on MSNBC with Nora O'Donnell and then CNN with that wispy-bearded guy and then a whole hour on C-SPAN radio and XM Satellite Radio's POTUS all-politics channel 130 and the same event will pop up on C-SPAN TV next Sunday.
On Wednesday, Huckabee might as well become an employee of Fox. He'll start off on the new Fox Business Channel, head later to "Your World with Neal Cavuto", back to the Fox Business Channel in the evening, do a guest stint on "The O'Reilly Factor" and wrap it up with...
Read more The Huckabee Channel: All Huckabee all the time »
Two important endorsements came through today in the ongoing struggle for the political loyalty of New Hampshire's independent-minded voters.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson snared the endorsement Monday afternoon of Mayor Steve Marchand of Portsmouth, who praised the candidate's emphasis on diplomacy in the resolving the current situation in Iraq and establishing some kind of long-term stability.
Richardson hailed the endorsement as a "clear sign of momentum" for a campaign that could use some, both in the Granite State and nationally.
But in a public relations sense the Marchand endorsement was overshadowed by the day's announced endorsement of former Gov. Mitt Romney by New Hampshire's conservative Sen. Judd Gregg. Gregg, previously endorsed the candidacies of both George Bushes and, in fact, served as a primary debate preparer for George W. Bush in the 1999-2000 campaign.
Gregg, like Romney, is a former governor and the son of a former governor. Gregg was also elected to the U.S. House and is now in his third Senate term. "Mitt Romney embodies New Hampshire's values," Gregg said in a prepared statement, "values that stress government living within its means, lower taxes, a stronger military, and stronger families."
The popular Gregg is a fiscal conservative who lends credibility to Romney's conservative credentials at a time when the GOP race is tightening there and is expected to do considerable surrogate campaigning around his state. As he did with George W. Bush, Gregg had already loaned several staff members to the Romney campaign.
On the other hand, Gregg has not backed a winner in his state's primary. Both Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. in 2000 were upset.
--Andrew Malcolm
A new poll out of Iowa underscores the disconnect between voter preferences in that state -- among members of both parties -- and nationwide trends.
Hillary Clinton may be the dominant choice of Democrats nationally, as shown by the recent L.A. Times/Bloomberg Poll, but the party's contest in Iowa remains very much up for grabs between her and Barack Obama, with John Edwards also in contention, the new survey found.
In the Republican race, although Mitt Romney barely got into double digits in The Times/Bloomberg Poll and ran significantly behind the leader, Rudy Giuliani, their standings are reversed in Iowa.
Here are the rounded-off results from the University of Iowa Hawkeye poll, conducted over seven days in mid-October of those who said they expected to attend the state caucuses that kick off the nominating races on Jan. 3:
Read more Iowa poll shows state marches to its own drummer »
So, now that we're up to our bellies in the presidential nomination battles, we've been wondering -- well, musing is probably more accurate -- about a key aspect of vital importance to the electorate: What do you call the candidates' supporters?
For Barack Obama's people, Obamans seems a natural fit. For Hillary Clinton, it's a toss up between Hillaryites which, frankly, doesn't exactly roll of the tongue or the keyboard, and Clintonites, with its echoes of the stuff that could bring down Superman. John Edwards? Well, with his poverty push it seems cruel to call them Edwardians, but then, there's the haircut and the house.
Bill Richardson? Too many syllables in the name to begin with, so adding -ites or-ists doesn't work. Richardsonian? Like Jeffersonian? Could work, given both men's predisposition to diplomacy. Chris Dodd doesn't have an easy fit, either. Dodderers? We doubt the image folks would approve. And speaking of image folks, what does one do with Dennis Kucinich's backers? Call them the Kucini?
On the other side of the aisle, the Republicans offer a similarly mixed bag of potential. Rudy Giuliani could be backed by the Rudees, Giulianians (though that sounds like a salad), or, perhaps most fitting for the ex-federal prosecutor, G-men (if you ignore the gender-specificity). Mitt Romney offers up both the Mittites, with its echo of ancient civilizations, and Romneyans, which sound like "Star Trek" figures.
The easiest fit: Fred Thompson's Fredheads. A tougher fit: John McCain. McCainiacs?
You get the idea. Got any suggestions, drop them in the comments section. But be warned -- suggesting an opposing candidate's supporters are "self-deluded backers of a self-deluded demagogue" probably won't get posted.
-- Scott Martelle
Political analyst Stuart Rothenberg posted a good breakdown of recent New Hampshire polling numbers earlier this week that in some ways affirms a general sense of the tone of the campaigns so far: The Democrats are more engaged than the Republicans -- at least in New Hampshire.
Rothenberg delves into a St. Anselm College survey that found 46% of those polled who were following the campaign "a lot" plan to vote in the Democratic primary, compared with 36% who said they plan to vote in the Republican primary. Among the undeclared voters, who can pick which primary to vote in, 41% said they will likely vote in the Democratic primary and 19% said they're likely to vote in the Republican primary.
As Rothenberg notes, that signals "Democrats are already invested in the Democratic race, while Republicans are less engaged. It’s uncertain, of course, whether Republican voters will become more interested in the GOP primary as the actual vote approaches, or whether they are generally less interested in the 2008 election, which could mean depressed Republican turnout in November."
We've been noting all along that there's still a lot of time left before the first nominating votes, but if you look at the calendar, time is narrowing. People in some states will be getting absentee ballots in a couple of months -- lots of time for candidate surges and collapses, but not so much time for quantum shifts in the mood of the electorate.
Of course, the Republican disengagement now just affects who their candidate will be. If Hillary Clinton survives the Democratic gantlet of primaries and caucuses, her presence at the top of the national Democratic ticket could be just the thing to jump-start the conservative base among the Republicans.
-- Scott Martelle
With friends like Rudy Giuliani has in California, his enemies don't need to go out of their way to cause him headaches with federal election officials.
We have noted before that one of the main bankrollers for Giuliani's presidential campaign, Paul Singer, heavily financed the initial push to get on the state's ballot an initiative that could help a Republican win the White House next year. Also, Anne Dunsmore, who until September was Giuliani’s deputy campaign manager in charge for fundraising, recently took over money chores for the ballot measure.
Friday, the Giuliani link to the initiative grew stronger. A key backer of the measure to alter California’s winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes sent an e-mail urging Giuliani backers to sign petitions to place it on the ballot.
The missive, obtained by The Times' Dan Morain, is addressed, "Hello Fellow Rudy Supporter!" Its author, Tony Andrade, is a Republican activist who helped draft the electoral college initiative. Previously, he was among those who helped place the ultimately successful recall of Gov. Gray Davis on the ballot in 2003.
Democrats battling the electoral college measure already have filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission and U.S. Justice Department alleging the Giuliani campaign is behind the initiative. If true, ...
Read more Giuliani allies keep pushing controversial state initiative »
The answer: John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Woodstock, Fox News and a "pharmaceutical event." The question: What five things would you never expect to see linked in a campaign article?
This is just plain fun. McCain, a Navy hero who spent the Woodstock peace-and-love years as a POW in Vietnam, has launched a new ad in New Hampshire, called "Tied Up," that scores Clinton for backing what he sees as a pork-barrel plan to spend $1 million in federal money for a museum at the site of the famous 1969 music festival.
The ad includes a clip from a Fox News debate in which McCain quips about Woodstock, "I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time." Then it cuts to a shot of Giuliani laughing uproariously.
So who's complaining about the ad? Not Clinton. Not Giuliani. Not even Max Yasgur, on whose farm Woodstock took place (of course, he's dead, and not likely to kick much anyway). The complainant? Fox News, which ordered the campaign to remove its footage.
The irony here is that McCain is using Fox video to flog Clinton, a favorite Fox target, rather than going after the people he has to beat first, such as Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and the other Republican contenders.
Yes, McCain's trying to paint himself to the Republican base as the true conservative dedicated to cutting wasteful government spending. But then, none of the Republicans he has to beat are in Congress, so it's hard to use the pork-barrel spending cudgel against them.
-- Scott Martelle
When is a 25-percentage-point deficit in a poll a small dose of good news?
When you're Barack Obama, and the last time the poll checked your standing in California, you were 30 points behind Hillary Clinton.
A Field Poll released today found Clinton backed by 45% of the state's Democrats, Obama by 20% and John Edwards by 11%. The numbers posted by the party's other presidential contenders aren't worth mentioning (though they can be perused here).
The last Field Poll, in August, showed Clinton with 49% and Obama with 19%. (Edwards had 10%.)
At best, to repeat, the new numbers represent minor glad tidings for Obama, in part because Clinton's lead in the Feb. 5 primary is so large, and ...
Read more Clinton still dominates in California »
It's beginning to look a lot less like Christmas. The Manchester Union-Leader reports that New Hampshire is now leaning toward an early January primary date, probably Jan. 8, due in part to changes in Iowa and a possible decision by Michigan Democrats to stick with their Jan. 15 primary (along with the Republicans) instead of an earlier caucus -- even though half the candidates aren't on the ballot.
So, for those of you marking your calendars at home -- and we do hope you're using pencil, lightly -- it looks like Jan. 3 for the Iowa caucuses, Jan. 8 for the New Hampshire primary, Jan. 19 for Nevada and South Carolina Republicans, with that state's Democrats possibly moving to the same date from Jan. 26. Then there are the interlopers: Wyoming Republicans on Jan. 5, Michigan on Jan. 15 and Florida on Jan. 29.
Amid all that flux, what seems more and more certain is that despite efforts by the national parties to make the early states more inclusive and broadly representative of the nation, the opening narrative of the nomination voting will still likely be set by Iowa and New Hampshire.
But Nevada's relevance could move up a notch or two if Iowa and New Hampshire have different winners, casting Nevada as something of an early tie-breaker.
What hangs in the balance is the analysts' consensus of who is waxing and waning going into Feb. 5, when the sheer number of states up for grabs -- California, Illinois and New York among them -- means the candidates will likely have their images and messages cast by the free media coverage, since few can afford to mount ad campaigns in all 20 or so states making decisions that day.
And you think predicting the winner of "Dancing With the Stars" is hard. Remember, four years ago at this time speculation was building that Howard Dean could be the next president of the United States.
And we all know how that turned out.
-- Scott Martelle
Bill Clinton noodled on the saxophone. But Mike Huckabee -- the latest "man from Hope" (Ark.) running for president -- is a serious musician. He has long played bass guitar, and performances by his classic-rock band Capitol Offense often enliven his political appearances.
Tonight, he will combine campaigning in Iowa with a pilgrimage to a sacred place in the annals of rock 'n' roll: As part of a fundraiser for his White House bid, his group will strut its stuff at the Surf Ballroom in the town of Clear Lake.
That's the place and venue where Buddy Holly, L.A.'s own Ritchie Valens and the Big Booper (J.P. Richardson) played their last concert on an early February night in 1959 before boarding a plane that crashed within minutes, killing them and others.
[UPDATE: The Times' Louise Roug was at the concert; you can read her story here.]
Discussing the engagement this week, Huckabee was appropriately respectful to the ghosts of the past. He said that "as a music lover," he viewed the Surf Ballroom "as a cultural icon as well as an important historical landmark."
The occasion epitomizes the appealing, down-home nature of the campaign he's running -- as well as its unlikely prospects.
Admission is $10 per person or $25 per family. A friendly aide at his offices in Little Rock explained today that Huckabee wanted to make sure the event was accessible to as many folks as possible (and every musician loves an audience, after all).
So perhaps his campaign clears a few grand. Compare that with the estimated $1.5 million Hillary Clinton took in at her birthday extravaganza Thursday night in New York (as if she needed the dough).
Given the choice, we'd opt ...
Read more Is Mike Huckabee's tune catching on? »
There's a story this morning in John Edwards' hometown paper, the Raleigh News & Observer, about his campaign's apparent attempt to squelch a University of North Carolina student journalist's video report on a student volunteer at Edwards' headquarters.
But the journalist, Carla Babb, instead focused on an apparent disconnect between Edwards' rhetoric of his "two Americas" drive to improve the lives of the poor and his decision to house the headquarters in an upscale shopping center. So the story shifted, but is far from a hit piece. It comes across as balanced and focuses on a persistent image problem for the former trial lawyer.
The campaign apparently did not react well, demanding the piece be withdrawn and threatening to limit UNC journalism students' access to the campaign, the newspaper reported.
The result of all this? First of all, you wouldn't have been reading about Babb's video here, or seeing the embedded video below, had it not been for the campaign's reaction to a pretty basic bit of reporting. And you wouldn't have had us reminding you about Edwards' expensive taste in haircuts, or his 28,000-square-foot bungalow.
There's nothing wrong in this go-get-'em culture of ours with getting rich -- some of our biggest heroes are rich. What does catch people up, though, are sniffs of hypocrisy and fair play.
Voters will decide whether Edwards' decisions are out of step with his policies, though as one of the folks in Babb's piece points out, poor people tend not to get far in presidential campaigns. And it's not like rich folks haven't done the poor a good turn before.
But from a strategic standpoint, one has to wonder where the image folks, and crisis management people, are in the Edwards campaign. Instead of focusing on poverty, the focus is now on wealth. Talk about not getting your message across.
-- Scott Martelle
The National Journal today has a concise overview of the different health plans the candidates are floating, and concludes that the major differences are in the details. Which is interesting, given the strong interest voters have shown in healthcare.
A recent Times/Bloomberg poll found that healthcare was the top domestic issue among voters, and that 62% supported requiring large employers to foot some of the bill (31% opposed that) and 51% favored requiring people to carry health insurance much as drivers must carry auto insurance (39% opposed that). Both of those concepts underlie Democratic proposals. Using tax breaks to make insurance more affordable, the heart of the Republican approach, was a virtual draw, with 44% in favor and 45% opposed.
But key is that independents and moderates generally sided with the Democratic plans, and we all know that middle block of voters decides general elections.
The Republican contenders haven't aired a lot of details yet on what they would do to address something that many Americans consider to be a crisis. Reports the Journal: "Traditionally, healthcare hasn't been a driving issue in GOP presidential primary seasons because the party's conservative base tends to care more about candidates' stands on taxes, foreign policy and social issues such as abortion. The party's 2008 nominee will likely focus somewhat more on healthcare during the general election campaign to appeal to swing voters."
The Democratic plans are just so many shades of the same tree. All are looking for universal coverage of some stripe, though only Dennis Kucinich is pushing for anything like the kind of single-payer model that drives conservatives up a tree -- and doomed "Hillarycare" more than a decade ago.
The upshot: For all the importance voters are placing on healthcare, it doesn't seem as though it will be a decisive issue in the Democratic nomination fight, since they're all so close on the issue. You can read that as further evidence that the lever-pushing issue for many Democrats will be electability.
-- Scott Martelle
The movable feast that has been the celebration of Hillary Clinton's 60th birthday (which is today) culminated Thursday night with a big bash at Manhattan's Beacon Theater.
To the delight of friends and supporters willing to fork over even more money to her well-heeled campaign, the Democratic presidential candidate, her husband (the ex-president) and their daughter, Chelsea, made a rare public appearance together.
Actor/director Rob Reiner gained a fair amount of attention Sunday when he sang "Happy Birthday, Mrs. President" to Hillary Clinton at a party/fundraiser he hosted in Los Angeles for her. At the New York fete, Brit musician Elvis Costello offered his rendition with the same lyric (here's the clip, courtesy of CNN).
Extensive coverage of Thursday's party by the Big Apple media included this New York Times story, which focused on the barb Clinton directed (without mentioning his name) at Republican Rudy Giuliani over the great Yankees-Red Sox flap. A Newsday story, meanwhile, noted that comic Billy Crystal "made repeated references to Giuliani's baseball flip-flop."
Pulling out all the stops on its website is the New York Daily News, which provides a photo album of Clinton through the years and a transcript of her (none-too-memorable) remarks.
-- Don Frederick
Well, if you're going to be against war, you may as well be for peace, right? Staffers for Democratic presidential contender Dennis Kucinich e-mailed this week to remind that of all the candidates out there -- both major parties could field a basketball team with a deep bench -- only Kucinich has proposed legislation to create a new Cabinet-level department dedicated to peace: the Department of Peace and Nonviolence.
Nothing new here. Kucinich introduced a similar measure in the last session of Congress, but it never got out of committee. That's Congress-speak for "What, are you kidding?" But it's good politics, helping bolster Kucinich's "let's just get along" theme -- which so far has placed him at the head of a very short parade, with 1% support in a recent Times/Bloomberg poll.
But if he does get elected, we have a nomination for the first secretary of Peace and Nonviolence: Elvis Costello.*
-- Scott Martelle
You say you're lonely. You check your e-mail several times a day and actually read the spam. Same for your voicemail, even the phone calls from robot computers about discount mortgages or construction firms that will be in your neighborhood next week and thought you might like to remodel your kitchen on the spur of the moment.
When the phone rings, especially during dinner, if your heart soars, then this news is not for you.
But it turns out there's a new online service now for people who don't want politicians or their surrogate human or mechanical canvassers calling their house. There was a similar government service established a couple of years ago for people who don't want telephone sales calls. You register your home and cell numbers. The government lists them and companies face fines if they call folks on the list.
However, why are we not surprised that politicians were exempted? Freedom of speech and all that. They have the freedom of speech, you get the obligation to listen.
But not anymore. The new service is a private, nonprofit outfit and, therefore, not legally binding on political campaigns. But they ignore the registrants at their own risk, it seems.
The National Political Do Not Contact Registry is the brainchild of Shaun Dakin, who believes civil discourse has declined in America and one way to combat the decay of discourse is to end unwanted political phone calls, especially the robo ones. He runs Citizens for Civil Discourse, a pending nonpartisan, nonprofit 5-1 (c) 3 that promises not to make commercial use of your registry info.
You sign up with the registry and it spreads the word that you don't want political calls.
"What campaigns understand," Dakin says, "is numbers. The more voters who register with the NPDNC, the louder the collective voice we will have to make sure they listen to us."
Good luck with that.
-- Andrew Malcolm
A new Field Poll out today finds that Rudy Giuliani has lost a sizable chunk of his lead over other Republicans in the race for California's primary voters, while so-called second-tier candidates like Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo show an increased combined strength.
In the poll of 1,201 registered voters, 432 of them registered Republicans, Giuliani reaps 25%, down from 35% in August. Mitt Romney is still second with 13%, down from 14%. John McCain has jumped from 9% two months ago to 12% today, tied with newcomer Fred Thompson, who had 13% in August.
Huckabee and Paul both got 4%, up from 1% each. Tancredo is holding at 3%, while Hunter went from 2% to 3%. Undecideds also went from 20% to 22%. Combined, the second-tier wannabes now collect 14%, twice their August support, showing how unsettled the GOP field remains as the winter primary season and California's Feb. 5 election date fast approaches.
Giuliani and McCain do noticeably better in Northern California. Women prefer Giuliani 27% compared to 23% for men. Voters 50 and over also seem to prefer Giuliani.
Interestingly, among self-identified strong conservatives, Giuliani leads Romney narrowly, 24% to 20%. Among moderates and liberals, the gap for Giuliani is 26% to 7% for Romney.
A new poll in New Hampshire, meanwhile, shows Romney up by 10 percentage points over Giuliani, 32% to 22%. That's an uptick for Romney, compared to other recent surveys in the state.
McCain runs third in the new poll, at 15%, followed by Paul (7%), Huckabee (6%) and Thompson (5%).
The outlook is better for Giuliani in a new poll in Florida -- the state his campaign views as a "firewall" protecting him from harsh political consequences if he should lose the opening contests in Iowa and/or New Hampshire.
The new survey shows Giuliani, at 30%, easily leading the GOP pack. McCain and Thompson are tied for second, with 14%, while Romney run fourth (12%).
-- Andrew Malcolm
| |
