|
|
« October 2007 |
Main
| December 2007 »
Maybe you've heard rumors about an explosive newspaper expose on a major political figure that would rock the political world just as the presidential voting is about to begin.
We haven't either.
But we do know that today is when this newspaper blows the top off of the Ron Paul Conspiracy, that vast unorganized protest movement that has silently become one of the more interesting political phenomena of the current election season.
A Times reporter -- we'll call him James Rainey to protect his identity -- has managed to penetrate the Paul presidium.
In his story he recounts for the very first time the shockingly ordinary details of a movement of thousands of disparate, dissatisfied people, some of whom want an end to the Iraq war, an end to gun controls and the IRS, an end to laws banning marijuana and a return to the gold standard, whatever that means.
These Paulites believe the government has been hijacked by a bevy of big interests that threaten the freedoms of ordinary Americans. They're not going to take it anymore. Locally, they're even organizing a re-enactment of a brazenly defiant act, the BostonTea Party, except it'll be in Santa Monica and won't involve tea or white people dressed as Indians. And the protestors promise not to leave anything foreign floating in the water.
These committed partisans, bonded by their suspicion of authority and venal influences like the mainstream media that ignored them until they did something, have united behind a 72-year-old...
Read more A shocking report: Inside the Ron Paul conspiracy »
Usually, a New York tabloid wins the contest, hands down. Sometimes, one of the more staid major dailies (like ours) claims the honor. But today, it goes to a magazine that, while influential within centrist and center-of-left circles, has a circulation well under 100,000: The New Republic.
The publication posted an article that thoughtfully examines a question that Democratic politicos have been mulling among themselves all year -- if Hillary Clinton snags the party's presidential nomination, to what degree would she harm other Democrats running for the Senate, the House, governorships or other offices next year?
The headline: "Drag Queen" (click here to check it out).
We can't help but wonder how the esteemed Walter Lippmann, who co-founded the New Republic 94 years ago, would have reacted.
The piece, by political science professor Thomas F. Schaller, goes on to make a persuasive case that a Clinton candidacy would NOT seriously jeopardize Democratic prospects in other races (the provocative head notwithstanding). Indeed, he states flatly: "... the fact is that neither she nor her main rivals will provide a significant drag or lift for Democratic office-seekers."
One quibble: Schaller impressively backs up his assertion, but it remains a thesis on his part, not a "fact."
-- Don Frederick
Bad news for the Barack Obama camp and his politics of hope clean-guy image.
The Washington Post reveals today that there was, indeed, close coordination between the Illinois senator's presidential campaign and his leadership PAC, Hopefund, in deciding which local, state and federal politicians around the country were to receive thousands of dollars in contributions from Obama's PAC.
Such coordination appears to be forbidden under Federal Election Commission rules because it, in effect, would give a candidate another, less regulated financial fund to influence the outcome of his own campaign. But Obama officials express confidence they violated no rules. The Post's John Solomon reported the other day that Obama's Hopefund had distributed money in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire to people like New Hampshire state Sen. Jacayln Cilley, who got $1,000 from Obama last summer. Six days later the Democrat in the nation's first primary state announced her endorsement of his candidacy because she said she believed in him.
Likewise, Obama's PAC gave $9,000 to U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, who was New Hampshire's first congressional member to endorse Obama. In the earlier story Obama spokesmen denied any connection between the PAC and Democratic presidential campaign.
But today's piece alters that account and says the PAC has distributed $180,000 to groups and candidates in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa and another $150,000 to similar destinations in states with primary balloting through mid-February.
Bob Bauer, private counsel for both Obama's campaign and PAC, named names of those from the campaign who'd help select the PAC's recipients and professed confidence the Obama entities had met all FEC regulations.
But Scott Thomas, a Democrat and former FEC chairman, says: "He is clearly pushing the envelope."
Obama spokesmen continue to deny any connection between their donations and the recipients' endorsements. But expect to hear more insinuations about this in charges from the Hillary Clinton camp.
--Andrew Malcolm
Hollywood writers and behind-the-scenes production staff may be suffering as the Writers Guild of America strike rounds out its fourth week, but there appears to be one beneficiary of the labor stoppage: New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.
With the late-night talk shows forced into hiatus, the Democratic presidential candidate has been spared fresh swipes from the likes of Jay Leno and David Letterman. (Although, with their programs in reruns, viewers are getting plenty of opportunities to sample their old material.)
Clinton has been the top target of the late-night comedians among the White House hopefuls, spawning nearly as many jokes so far this year as all her Democratic rivals combined, according to a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs.
Between Jan. 1 and Oct. 10, the New York senator was the butt of 186 jokes cracked by NBC’s Leno and Conan O’Brien, CBS’ Letterman and Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. (The study examined just the hosts’ monologues, not the entire show.) The rest of the Democratic contenders were joked about a combined total of 197 times, with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama drawing 56 cracks, the second-largest number.
Most of the jokes about Clinton centered on her gender and portrayed her as cold and....
Read more Nobody's laughing at Hillary anymore (or Rudy) »
Funny how so often in politics it comes down to money.
John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, sent out an almost plaintive post-debate e-mail to supporters a few hours ago. Eight men stood on that debate stage, he said, "but only one man was a president. On issue after issue, John McCain rose above the bickering and gave voters straight answers with a winning message, raising the level of discourse."
He rattled off how close the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary dates are. "The only thing that is holding us back right now is money. We have the best candidate, the best message and the best organization in the states. But we are competing with well-funded and self-funded candidates." And he asked for immediate donations. "The time is now," he said.
In another part of the political and financial spectrum, Hillary Clinton visited Bennettsville, S.C., the other day. She toured the 50-year-old middle school there, decried its dilapidated condition, and said improving education was an important part of her presidential platform.
Then, as cameras recorded the event for the evening news and newspaper, the Democratic presidential candidate presented a check for $100,000 to the new $6.4-million Marian Wright Edelman Public Library fund there. Edelman, of course, is the founder of the Children's Defense Fund, which once employed a much younger law school graduate named Hillary Rodham.
The $100,000 check came from the Clinton Foundation, which is run by Hillary and Bill Clinton. But we don't actually know where any of the foundation's money really comes from because the Clintons do not release the names of their donors, one of many things about their lives and doings they've decided not to release to the public.
That secret part, however, didn't make the Bennettsville evening news or the newspaper. But the money and the smiles in the photographs looked really good for the Clinton campaign.
-- Andrew Malcolm
Perhaps Bill Clinton himself will provide the coda to the flap he sparked this week when, during a speech for his wife in Iowa, he asserted that he opposed the Iraq war "from the beginning."
Perhaps he'll remind us it all depends on what the definition of "from the beginning" is.
As it is, Hillary Clinton's campaign has seen precious attention focused more on something her husband said instead of on her own campaign's message.
The former president made his comment Tuesday, and it quickly caused headaches for Camp Clinton. The initial Associated Press story said he was "showing inconsistency on an issue that has dogged his wife." The New York Times article termed the statement "more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003." The Washington Post wrote that Clinton was "glossing over the more nuanced views of the war he has expressed over time."
In case anyone missed the point, the Post today reported that, according to an ex-aide to Condoleezza Rice, Clinton "was privately briefed by top White House officials about war planning in 2003 and that he told them he supported the invasion."
The New York Post, in the best tradition of tabloids, cut to the chase with this headline on its story today: BILL'S BULL ON IRAQ TRIGGERS RIDICULE.
The best -- and broadest -- perspective came from the AP's Ron Fournier, who used the remark about the Iraq war to reflect upon the "Good Bill" and the "Bad Bill."
Wrote Fournier: "As only he can do, Bill Clinton packed campaign venues across eastern Iowa and awed Democratic voters with a compelling case for his wife's candidacy. He was unscripted, in-depth and generous.
"He also was long-winded, misleading and self-absorbed," the Associated Press reporter wrote.
When Bill was the family politician seeking votes, Hillary was a key part of the package. We've gotten an obvious reminder now of how true the reverse is.
-- Don Frederick
Gee, maybe Americans are beginning to pay attention. Maybe.
The television ratings for last night's Republican debate in Florida show that 4.9 million folks watched -- 4.4 million on CNN itself and another 500,000 on CNN Headline News.
That makes it the highest rated primary debate in cable news history, surpassing the previous record-holder of only two weeks ago, the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, which drew 4 million. Reviews of the debates differ as shown here and here as eight people per party argue over what they thought they heard their opponents claim and attempt to draw divisive partisan distinctions foreign to the everyday lives of normal people.
But what seems to be happening is that the audiences have more than doubled since the early debates a few months ago. Candidates have become more practiced and argumentative. Media coverage has increased. The end of college football's regular season has left many passions pent up. And the start of balloting approaches almost as quickly as the shopping days left until Christmas dwindle.
It would be comforting to think that as American and other troops struggle in Iraq to bring stability sufficient for an infant democracy to maybe survive there, the folks living blithely back home were informing themselves on the choices they can make when the voting they've taken for granted all their lives occurs peacefully as scheduled this winter -- and most of us don't bother to participate.
But then we checked the population clock on the Census Bureau website. At last check tonight we had an American population of 303,486,444 542 748. Which means that slightly more than 98.4% of the country was not watching.
--Andrew Malcolm
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose father was gunned down in Los Angeles while seeking the 1968 Democratic presidential nomination, today backed Hillary Clinton's bid for the party nod.
The endorsement should burnish Clinton's environmental credentials. Kennedy, 54, has a high-profile as an environmental activist; he serves as a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
He also earned plaudits within some Democratic circles for arguing the case, in a lengthy Rolling Stone article last year, that the 2004 presidential election was stolen from the Democrats. Its subhead: "Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House."
There's one more niche group (albeit, a minuscule one), in which Kennedy's support may carry some sway -- he's a master falconer.
Still, today's news from the Clinton camp served mainly as a reminder that, in the Democratic race, the prospective endorsers who are being closely watched are, as the National Journal's Hotline political briefing put it on Wednesday, the "Three Kings."
That trio would be ...
Read more Kennedy endorses Clinton!!! (But it's not the one who counts) »
Republican presidential candidates are trailing badly in the campaign fundraising race to win the White House.
But so far this year, and going largely unnoticed is the fact that Republican governors are far out-raising their Democratic counterparts in the money race to control the state houses.
As members of the Republican Governors Assn. gathered at the St. Regis Hotel in Dana Point for their post-election conference this week with public sessions open for today's sessions, they can feel a measure of comfort, having won two of three races this year.
Led by Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, the GOP group raised $12.3 million in the first half of 2007, compared with $5.4 million for the Democratic Governors Assn. The GOP likely will need it, given that there are 22 Republican governors and 28 Democrats.
In 2008, there will be 11 gubernatorial races. Democrats expect four incumbents to defend their positions, and hold two others where Democrats are departing.
“They’re up in the numbers, but we’re up in the races,” according to Brian Namey, a Democratic governors spokesman told The Times' Dan Morain. He added that Democrats intend to target two Republican incumbents in Missouri and Indiana. “We’re more efficient. We keep winning,” he added.
Republican spokesman Chris Schrimpf fired back simply: “We won two of three races. If you win two of three, you’ve had a better year. And if you out-raise the other side two to one, you’ve had a better year.”
Republican and Democratic governors organizations raise money from similar sources, according to their official reports filed twice a year with the Internal Revenue Service. Telecom giant Verizon, for example, gave $100,000 to each group; cigarette maker Altria gave each $75,000; drug maker Wyeth gave $50,000 to both.
Democrats instead tap into labor's money. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, for one, gave $300,000. Republicans tend to tap wealthy individuals. Texas homebuilder Bob Perry has given the Republicans $400,000 and A. Jerrold Perenchio, retired chairman of Univision, chipped in $100,000.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will discuss the future with the GOP governors at their meeting. On Friday, the Republicans will elect a new association chairman. None of the current crop of presidential candidates plans to appear before the group, whose membership has produced Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and the association's most recent past president, Mitt Romney. No doubt, a future Republican presidential candidate or two will be in attendance.
(UPDATE: The RGA's three-day meeting ended Friday with the election of Texas Gov. Rick Perry as the new chair and first-time re-election of a vice-chair, Missouri's Gov. Matt Blunt. For the first time also a governor, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, was elected finance chair and the state leaders created a new position of recruiting chair to help find and develop GOP candidates for future gubernatorial elections. Georgia's Gov. Sonny Perdue was given that assignment as part of a multi-year plan for Republicans to win back a majority of the 50 statehouses from their current 22 by 2010.)
--Andrew Malcolm
Was or was not New York a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants when Rudy Giuliani was its mayor? We're still not sure.
Does Mitt Romney bear responsibility for work done at his home by a company whose crew included illegal immigrants, thereby sanctioning what Giuliani sneered was a "sanctuary mansion"? We're stumped over that one, too.
The charges and counter-charges were flying fast and furious at Wednesday night's CNN/YouTube debate, often generating far more heat than light -- especially on the immigration issue, which dominated the proceeding's first 30 minutes or so. You can read more about the evening's give-and-take here.
But on at least two occasions -- on the key topics of tax hikes and abortion -- the forum produced some worthwhile moments.
In one instance, a YouTube question came from a major player in U.S. politics -- Grover Norquist, a conservative activist who heads Americans for Tax Reform. He posed the query for which he is most famous: would the candidates pledge that, as president, they would oppose and veto any tax increase Congress might send them?
Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee ...
Read more Amid an often confusing debate, a few instructive answers »
It was a minor muff, but former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney ought to brace for a round of criticism in his home state and its environs.
He made a small -- but, for some baseball aficionados -- possibly unforgivable mistake at the very end of tonight's CNN/YouTube debate among Republican presidential candidates, decrying the "87 years" Boston Red Sox fans had to wait between World Series victories.
As The Times Joe Mathews quickly pointed out to us, every New Englander with the power of speech can tell you the BoSox waited 86 long years -- from 1918 to 2004 -- for a World Series crown. They won again, of course, this year.
Romney, 61, was born in Michigan and grew up outside Detroit before beginning his business career in Boston as a young man. Perhaps that explains his stumble.
It came as he was given a chance to add his two cents after Rudy Giuliani, in the night's last query, was asked to explain how, as a lifelong and passionate New York Yankee fan, he could have publicly acknowledged he was rooting for Boston in the recent World Series. The admission had caused an intense -- but appropriately short-lived -- flap on the campaign trial.
We know that in selecting the final question, those in charge of the debate were trying to end the two-hour face off on a light note. Still, it struck us as soooo last month!
-- Don Frederick
Long before Mike Huckabee caught the political tailwind now propelling his presidential campaign, he had established himself as fast on his feet during debates. He proved it again during tonight's CNN/YouTube debate featuring the Republican presidential contenders.
Tyler Overman, from Memphis, posed "a quick question for those of you who would call yourselves Christian conservatives. The death penalty. What would Jesus do?"
Huckabee meets that criteria. And, as governor of Arkansas, he signed off on executions. So the question went to him and he began his answer, predictably, by saying carrying out death penalties represented one of the "toughest challenges" he confronted in office.
He continued: "I believe there is a place for a death penalty. Some crimes are so heinous, so horrible, that the only response that we as a civilized nation have for a most uncivil action is not only to try to deter that person from ever committing that crime again, but also as a warning to others that some crimes truly are beyond any other capacity for us to fix."
His words won applause. But moderator Anderson Cooper pressed him, noting, "The question from the viewer was, 'What would Jesus do?' Would Jesus support the death penalty?"
Huckabee didn't miss a beat: "Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office."
This time, the crowd laughed long and hard. And once again, Huckabee had demonstrated the rhetorical deftness that has distinguished him from the start.
-- Don Frederick
Rudy Giuliani tonight denied that he made any effort to hide security costs that might have resulted from visits he made, while mayor of New York, to the woman who became his third wife.
Asked during the CNN/YouTube debate about the Politico story that generated a flurry of attention shortly before the forum started, Giuliani said flatly it was "not true" that he directed any effort to bill obscure city agencies for security costs, such as police staying in nearby hotels.
Giuliani went on to note that as mayor, he had round-the-clock protection. And he said he needed it, referring to threats he faced (as have been recently written about).
He then clearly indicated how he, at least for now, would deflect continuing inquires about how mayoral security costs apparently showed up in the debit columns of offices that had nothing to do with those functions -- if it happened, someone else did it.
His security forces, he said, "took care of me, and they put it in their records, and they handled them (the accounting of the expenses) in the way they handled them. I had nothing to do with the handling of their records. And they were handled, as far as I know, perfectly appropriately." A debate transcript is available here.
Debate moderator Anderson Cooper let it go at that. But we doubt that will be the end of the matter.
-- Don Frederick
Did the early stages of Rudy Giuliani's relationship with third wife Judy Nathan -- which started when he was still married to his second wife -- cost New York City a hefty chunk of change? And was a concerted effort made to hide that spending from taxpayers?
Those are the key questions raised by a recently posted story by the Politico's Ben Smith. Here are its opening paragraphs:
"As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.
"The documents, obtained by Politico under New York's Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants."
You can read the rest of it here.
Smith reports that Giuliani's campaign "declined to discuss any aspect of this story."
Whether the candidate and his aides can continue that posture in parrying queries about the dubious bookkeeping is doubtful. They also will have their work cut out for them in trying to dim the renewed spotlight the story casts on Giuliani's tangled personal life.
[UPDATE: The Giuliani campaign has launched an "internal probe" of the billing issue, according to Time magazine's The Page blog. And, the blog asserts: "Proper media focus is on why the billing was done this way — NOT on the expenses themselves, since NYC mayor is entitled to 24/7 security detail, even when on personal time." Additionally, the billing question came up in tonight's CNN/YouTube debate as described here.)
True enough, in a technical sense. But in a poltical sense, the focus among voters is likely to be on Giuliani's affair and the public expenses it caused.
-- Don Frederick
The Democratic National Committee announced this afternoon cancellation of next month's candidate debate on CBS-TV in Los Angeles.
"Due to the uncertainty created by the ongoing labor dispute between CBS and the Writers Guild of America," the statement said, "the DNC has canceled the Dec. 10 debate in Los Angeles. There are no plans to re-schedule."
This is a different labor dispute than the Hollywood writer's strike. On Nov. 20 CBS news writers, graphic artists and other staffers who work for the network's TV and radio news operations voted for a work stoppage after more than two years without a contract. The walkout could come at any time.
CBS has maintained that "the offer we presented nearly a year ago was fair and reasonable and remains on the table." But the mere threat of pickets was sufficient for the DNC to punt.
No one has been heard to complain about a shortage of presidential debates during 2007, but this nationally-televised confrontation on C-SPAN and some CBS affiliates would have come less than a month before the opening Iowa caucuses for both parties. And we could have seen Katie Couric try to moderate one of these political circuses.
Of course, CBS isn't the only network out there.....
--Andrew Malcolm
Us grown adults tend to think of politics as, well, an adult game despite some of its participants' antics. Every once in a while we need a reminder that there's an entire demographic under the voting age of 18 that is watching this baffling election process very closely.
XM Satellite Radio's POTUS 08 channel 130 got that reminder earlier today. The new subscription channel is an ultimate fix for political junkies, all-politics all-the-time. Producer Joanna Welch was opening the mail this morning and came upon a unique letter that had some spiling errers but made a very valid point.
It was from Sophia McCrimmen, who turns out to be 8 years old and an avid politics and POTUS fan who lives in Mechanicsville, VA. "I love lisning to your shows!" she wrote. "I love politics so much! I just have one problem, you are underestimating the number of days until the election! You are forgeting that 2008 is a leap year!...Plese add one day too your total to acount for leap day. Keep up the good work.
"P.S. Can you mabie read this on the radio? That would be super cool!!!!
"P.P.S. If you have time. I don't want to mess you up."
You can imagine how little time it took for Welch to check the calendar. Guess what? Sophia was right. The pros had been counting the days to the '08 election incorrectly. It didn't take long to get Sophia on the phone. You can hear her three-minute on-air interview with POTUS's host of "1600" Rebecca Roberts by clicking here.
Sophia really knows her stuff. She favors Barack Obama because of his Iraq war stance and he also likes SpongeBob SquarePants. She thinks people ought to be able to vote at any age if they are well-informed about politics.
Given that so many so-called adult Americans don't even bother to vote, you know, she's got a real good point there. So make a note of that name: Sophia McCrimmen. And watch for it on a ballot near you in, oh, say, about 30 years or so.
--Andrew Malcolm
All praise is due the dynamic duo who pen the Washington Post's Reliable Source column, Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts. When an obvious follow-up was called for, they rose to the occasion.
Like many, we think, the pair was struck by a line that leapt out of a Post story Sunday on the dramatic hike in support for Republican Mike Huckabee in Iowa. The surge has been so surprising, the piece noted, that during the extended Thanksgiving weekend, his Iowa state director was "in Costa Rica hunting snakes."
The aide, Eric Woolson, was back on the job at the start of this week and, via the Reliable Source, he expounded on his unusual avocation here. He noted that as a political operative, some folks might consider his recent trip "a working vacation." But he charitably added: "I wouldn't be quite so kind."
The good tidings continue for Huckabee, meanwhile.
Today, he was endorsed by Jerry Falwell Jr., son of the well-known televangelist who passed away earlier this year. Also, for the first time, a poll shows Huckabee atop the GOP presidential field in Iowa (though his lead over Mitt Romney -- whose camp once though it owned the state -- in the new survey by Rasmussen Reports, is within its margin of error). For a look at the results from several recent Iowa polls, go here.
Here's another shocker...
Read more Snake hunting aside, the Huckabee surge continues »
Before he ostentatiously stopped taking money from political action committees to run for president, Sen. Barack Obama quietly took money from political action committees.
As a presidential candidate, Obama claims to be an outsider eager to shake up the Washington establishment by refusing to accept donations from political action committees and Washington lobbyists. This year, they're the bad guys.
But this wasn’t always the case.
Back in 2005 and 2006, Obama raised $123,283 from other political action committees and put them into a political action committee of his own. He called it Hopefund.
Hopefund is what is known as a “leadership PAC,” a frequent target of campaign watchdogs because it can raise money in much larger bundles than individual candidates. The Candidate of Hope from Illinois followed the example set by Senate and House members who establish such accounts to raise money and then spread it around to other politicians in the hopes of gaining new best friends. Legally, such PACs are supposed to operate independently and cannot coordinate with any campaigns of their owner.
Now that Obama is running for president, he's handing out the bulk of Hopefund money to politicians and groups who happen to be in early presidential voting states, as the Washington Post's John Solomon noted the other day. The pace of giving has increased in recent months and this has led to some remarkable coincidences.
New Hampshire state Sen. Jacalyn Cilley, for instance, received $1,000 from Obama's PAC last summer. Six days later she happened to endorse the same Obama for president. "I endorsed him because I believe in him and his policies," she said.
Likewise, Obama's PAC recently felt moved to donate $9,000 to Rep. Paul Hodes, who happens to have been the first member of Congress from New Hampshire to endorse Obama early this year.
With a straight face Obama spokesmen deny there's any connection between his...
Read more Turns out, some Obama PAC money came from PACs »
One of the perennial problems of being a perennial presidential campaigner with absolutely no chance of ever winning is that everyone -- even your own party's opponents -- perennially ignore you. Not to mention the media that could carry your message to voters for free instead of expensive paid advertising that you don't have the money for anyway.
How to get around this?
 You could propose impeaching the vice president or president. That's hopeless too, but it's worth a day's free publicity. The latest answer Dennis Kucinich has come up with is, complain about being ignored. You're right, it doesn't sound very presidential. Or even congressional.
But, hey, it got him this blog item, which is more than not complaining got him yesterday.
The flap -- if that's the right word, which it isn't, spat is probably better -- began over a clever new print and video ad by Sen. Joe Biden. The ad involves more than a dozen quick film clips from debates of Biden's Democratic opponents saying such things as, "I agree with Joe," "Joe is absolutely right", "I think Joe is exactly right" and "Amen to Joe Biden." The cumulative effect of the video is hilarious. Both are also available on Biden's own website.
But ex-mayor Kucinich wasn't laughing. It seems he was left out of the collection of film clips. You see John Edwards and Barack Obama and Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton talking about Biden. But Kucinich is nowhere to be seen. He's not even talking about UFOs. And that didn't go down very well with the Clevelander.
In an actual news release, Kucinich complained about being "the only candidate deliberately excluded from the ad blitz."
Exactly why any candidate is somehow required to acknowledge all of his/her opponents was not explained. But the Ohio representative tried to turn the exclusion to his advantage. "Dennis Kucinich doesn't walk their line," the news release proclaims.
"If voters are dissatisfied with the Biden tweedle-dums and tweedle-dees," it adds, "they should vote for someone who represents their beliefs and values." Presumably, that would be Kucinich. Or maybe Ron Paul?
--Andrew Malcolm
Photo: Dennis Kucinich at a Nov. 18 rally; Credit: Rob Carr/AP
Ron Paul opened a campaign office this afternoon in Charleston, S.C. -- his third in a state that traditionally has been crucial to deciding who Republicans nominate for president.
According to Brian Gentry, the South Carolina field coordinator for Paul, more than 150 people attended the event, where the candidate spoke for about 15 minutes, then answered questions for another 20.
The new digs join offices already operating in Greenville, S.C., and Columbia, S.C.
In Iowa, meanwhile, campaign aide John Zambenini reports that a couple of satellite operations soon will open, supplementing the work performed at the main headquarters in Des Moines.
In New Hampshire (a much smaller state, size-wise, than the other two), the one office in Concord probably will suffice. But state campaign coordinator Jared Chicoine says it's spacious -- 2,400 square feet -- and now includes telephone banks.
The point? Inexorably, Paul is establishing the type of infrastructure ...
Read more Coming soon: a Ron Paul office near you? »
It's no surprise that Hillary Clinton's ever-vigilant campaign would unveil a celebrity endorsement today -- an announcement that might distract attention from the latest developments in Oprah Winfrey's high-profile embrace of Barack Obama.
What is surprising, at least to readers of Carl Bernstein's recent biography of Clinton, is that the name rolled out by her presidential campaign would be Barbra Streisand.
Given Streisand's longtime interest in and commitment to feminist causes, her affinity for Clinton is obvious. Still, according to Bernstein's book, Streisand was at the center of a major marital spat between the former first lady and her husband.
The scene is spring 1993, shortly after Bill Clinton has assumed the presidency. Hillary Clinton has just returned to Washington after two weeks in Little Rock where her father, Hugh Rodham, was hospitalized with a stroke and near death. "Upon her return," Bernstein writes in "A Woman in Charge," she "found the White House in disarray.... She was frustrated, sad, and drained."
Bernstein continues: "To make matters worse, Hillary learned that while she had been tending to her father on his deathbed, Bill had taken Barbra Streisand ... and his mother to the annual Gridiron Club dinner (a Washington institution at which the Washington press corps salutes itself and the president). Streisand had boasted about sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom. Soon after, Hillary reportedly ordered Streisand banned from the White House (on the grounds that, being unmarried, it would be ...
Read more Streisand lends her voice to Clinton »
Whether the Senate seat opened up by Republican Trent Lott's surprise decision to resign before year's end adds to the burgeoning opportunities for Democrats to expand their slim majority in the chamber remains to be seen.
Former state Atty. Gen. Mike Moore, who gained national attention for helping pressure tobacco companies to cough up almost $250 billion for public coffers to pay for treatment of smoke-related illnesses, is a potentially strong Democratic contender. But Mississippi's definite Republican tilt likely means that the GOP will be favored to keep the seat.
Given another of the state's proclivities, whoever replaces Lott won't be looking for another job for decades. To say that Mississippians are inclined to return their senators to Washington is the very definition of understatement.
Lott was first elected to the Senate in 1988, replacing Democrat John Stennis, who had taken office in 1947. So over 60 years, that one seat has been held by all of two men. But turnover for the state's other slot in the Senate has been even less frequent.
Lott's Mississippi colleague, Republican Thad Cochran, was first elected in 1978. He replaced Democrat James Eastland, a legendary foe of civil rights legislation who had passed the torch after serving since 1943.
Cochran is seeking reelection next November. We doubt he's too worried about his prospects.
-- Don Frederick
Most politicians began as lawyers (or, at the least, obtain a law degree before trolling for votes). Few politicians, however, spotlight their legal background (well aware that lawyer jokes don't exist in a vacuum). John Edwards is an exception.
Speaking today at a town hall meeting in Bow, N.H., the Democratic presidential contender called attention to the many years he spent as a trial lawyer, often representing plaintiffs suing manufacturers or other corporate interests.
"What I did was, I gave them hope," he told his listeners. "And then I walked into that courtroom and I gave the company hell because they deserved it. That's the kind of fight we need."
As the Associated Press reported, he continued: "We need a president of the United States who will give you hope, who will stand up and fight for you to reclaim democracy. ... But we also need somebody who is ready for that fight, somebody who has been engaged in that fight. I've been in this fight my entire life. It didn't start last year. It didn't start in 2004."
Some Democrats, recalling his performance as John Kerry's running mate, might dispute that last sentence. As noted in this USA Today story late in the '04 campaign, "For months, Democrats worried that Edwards had all but disappeared, taken too low a profile and maintained the nice-guy image that had made him the last man standing other than Kerry in the primaries."
-- Don Frederick
Barack Obama began the day with a bang -- playing the long-awaited Oprah Winfrey card. And he ends it with a shot at Hillary Clinton -- taking dead aim tonight at the resume she touts in her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Early this morning, Obama's presidential campaign confirmed that, in a followup to the much-publicized fundraiser for him at her Santa Barbara-area estate in early September, Winfrey would join the Illinois senator on the stump in key early-voting states. She'll make two stops in Iowa on Dec. 8 (a Saturday), and one in New Hampshire and South Carolina (both on Dec. 9).
The campaign's release proclaims: "All events will be free and open to the public." But a blog item by the Chicago Tribune reports it's not quite that egalitarian. To get a good seat at the Iowa events, for instance, one must either "commit four hours to volunteering for Barack's campaign" or "attend a caucus training with your local organizer or precinct captain."
Winfrey's campaign swing will attract a crush of media. But how many votes she will win for Obama is problematic. More important to the outcome of the Iowa caucuses and the ensuing contests may be how persuasive he is in chipping away at Clinton's intensifying arguments that she possesses -- and that he lacks -- the experience Americans should expect in a president.
Late this evening, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," Obama confronts the experience question by deriding the way the New York senator draws on her years as first lady in pursuing the presidency.
"I think the fact of the matter is that Sen. Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the [Bill] Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn't work out, in which case she says she has nothing to do with it," he said. A transcript of the interview is available here.
Referring to his own wife, he continued: "There is no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in her and consulted with her on issues, in the same way that I would consult with Michelle, if there were issues. On the other had, I don't think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a United States senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I've done."
One caveat that strikes us: Obama may only discuss his vocation "on occasion" with his wife; we think it's safe to assume Bill and Hillary focus on politics a bit more frequently.
You can read more about Obama's Nightline interview here.
-- Don Frederick
On Sunday morning, it was open season on Baptist minister-turned-presidential contender Mike Huckabee, who has surged to second among Republican candidates in the Iowa polls. Leading the onslaught was former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, whose campaign released no fewer than six e-mail statements denouncing Huckabee before the first National Football League games started at 10 a.m. PST (an important deadline for campaigns seeking to make news on the Lord’s day -- Republicans like their football).
Thompson, whose candidacy has failed to consolidate the support of social conservatives who are now moving to Huckabee, attacked on multiple fronts: taxation (Huckabee raised taxes while governor of Arkansas), immigration (Huckabee supported keeping illegal immigrants and their children eligible for college scholarships) and abortion.
That last issue provided ...
Read more The Sunday shows: Open season on Huckabee »
Former assistants to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are finding themselves much in demand these days -- in Texas.
Walter von Huene, a onetime television director who worked with Schwarzenegger on some of his final films and then became a trusted aide when the actor transitioned into politics, has resurfaced as the speech coach for a likely contender for the Texas governorship in 2010.
Meanwhile, two other ex-Schwarzenegger associates have linked up with famed cyclist Lance Armstrong, who, it is speculated, may be laying the groundwork for a political run of some sort and at some point in the Lone Star State.
First, about Von Huene. ...
Read more The eyes of Texas are upon Sacramento »
"Muted Ad Messages in Vogue" read the headline for a Friday story on the presidential race by the Washington Post's chief media reporter, Howard Kurtz. But if muted marks the current battle on the airwaves, it doesn't necessarily apply to a more silent campaign tactic -- mail sent to prospective voters.
The candidates often convey their most pointed messages through these missives, and that certainly is the case with correspondence from Republican Mitt Romney that The Times' Michael Finnegan ran across during a swing through New Hampshire this week.
The mailings don't mention Rudy Giuliani, his main rival in the GOP contest, by name, but they clearly are aimed at undermining the former New York mayor.
"Cities like New York are rolling out the red carpet for illegal immigrants," a glossy Romney dispatch declares in a particularly unsubtle swipe. Its front features the Manhattan skyline, with a limousine and red carpet in the foreground.
Inside, next to a photo of the Brooklyn Bridge, the brochure laments "protections such as New York instructing its city workers not to provide information to the federal government that would allow them to enforce our immigration laws."
Several of Romney's television ads have spotlighted his family life. One of his mailers ...
Read more Snail mail thrives on the campaign trail »
Dreading a trip to the mall today?
We're here to offer relief, as well as give you a chance to promote a greater appreciation of the grand traditions of American democracy.
No doubt with the holiday season in mind, the New Hampshire Historical Society recently began offering for sale the Neil Tillotson bobblehead. And for a mere $15.95 apiece, you can make a huge dent in your gift list (simply click here).
The name doesn't ring a bell? Well, for 40 years, from 1960 to 2000, Tillotson filled out the first ballot in the small town where the first votes are cast in New Hampshire's presidential primaries -- Dixville Notch (the community opens its voting booth just past midnight).
Tillotson, we discovered, actually was a native of Vermont, but his adopted state decided not to hold that against him. And when the honor to him was unveiled earlier this year, his son told the Manchester Union Leader, "It certainly seemed a reasonable likeness, as much as a bobblehead can."
High praise, indeed.
Looking for a present with a slightly higher profile? Don't despair -- the Granite State historical group still might fill the bill. Today, to mark the 203rd birthday of Franklin Pierce, it unveils a bobblehead of the only New Hampshirite to become president (he served one pretty-much-disastrous term, 1853-57).
By the way, if you happen to be in or near Concord, you can drop by the society's library for a free slice of cake as part of the Pierce-related festivities.
-- Don Frederick
After a controversial career pulling political strings behind the scenes, Karl Rove increasingly is going public with his thoughts.
The most recent issue of Newsweek carried the first of several columns he'll be writing on the 2008 campaign. Not suprisingly, it focused on Hillary Clinton; after relating an anecdote concerning the White House office he inherited from the former first lady, Rove characterized her as one who is "tough, persistent and forgets nothing."
Wednesday night, he sat down for the better part of an hour with Charlie Rose on PBS. An especially interesting exchange occurred about 10 minutes into the interview, sparked by Rove mentioning the recent raft of Page One stories in major newspapers on positive developments in Iraq (such as this one and this one).
Rose noted the obvious irony of Rove bolstering his case on progress in Iraq by citing publications that he and other key members of the Bush administration routinely scorned, in the past, as biased and negative in their coverage of the war. Did not Rove's references to the newer stories speak to the credibility of the previous reporting, Rose asked.
Rove, of course, would have none of it. His take: "The reality on the ground in Iraq has been even impossible for serious critics like the New York Times to ignore."
The full interview can be seen here.
-- Don Frederick
For Chris Dodd's sake, one can only hope his home state constituents are broad-minded. Because if we lived in Connecticut, which first sent him to the Senate in 1980 and has overwhelmingly re-elected him ever since, we might be getting a wee bit jealous.
Dodd made a minor splash last month when he decided to temporarily relocate himself and his family to Des Moines (they're renting a three-bedroom house). It was, literally, a desperation move. His slim hope of capturing the Democratic presidential nomination almost assuredly depends on first shocking the world with a strong showing in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3. So to maximize the time he spends in the state, he drastically cut his commute.
Dodd's focus on Iowa, though, may be verging on the obsessive.
His press shop on Thursday ...
Read more Chris Dodd embraces Iowa with a passion »
The narrative of the Republican nomination battle has been a little disjointed. Would the social conservatives ever embrace Rudy Giuliani? Will John McCain board that Straight Talk Express one more time? Anyone want seconds on the potatoes and gravy? ... Oh, sorry, getting ahead of ourselves.
Actually, in a lot of ways the Republican campaign, even though it hasn't generated the kind of base excitement as the Democratic campaign, could in the end prove to be more interesting. For the Democrats, the choice seems to be coming down to old versus new with a few folks hopping up and down yelling, "Hey, we're running too!"
For the Republicans, depending on how the nomination plays out, we could see a significant shift in control within the party. The power that the social conservatives have wielded with such success over the last few election cycles could have run its course, and how the party votes will be the tea leaves for analysts to pore over.
The upshot: Giuliani would not likely have had much success running against George Bush in 2000. That he may be the candidate to beat now speaks volumes about the shift within the party -- and the changed political environment, post 9/11. It also underscores the failure, so far, of a socially conservative party to demonstrate | |
