|
|
Here's something fresh -- a politician rendered speechless, at least momentarily. Of course, few campaign conversations that involve Viagra and birth control can go anywhere good for a candidate.
In this video below, the questioner is our own Maeve Reston. The questionee -- John McCain, whom Reston asked for a reaction to a comment by McCain supporter-advisor Carly Fiorina about insurance companies that cover Viagra but not birth control. (And, yes, the image of a deer in the headlights comes to mind.)
Who says the late-night comedians get to have all the fun?
-- Scott Martelle
New job numbers out today evidence more pain -- some of it to be felt around here -- with companies cutting 62,000 payroll slots in June, the sixth consecutive month the economy has shed jobs. The cuts were slightly more than the 60,000 economists had expected, and the unemployment rate held steady at 5.5 %.
The Labor Department announcement elicited dueling statements from John McCain and Barack Obama, pasted in full after the jump. But in a nutshell, McCain says the federal government must "enact policies to create jobs today. To get our economy back on track, we must enact a jobs-first economic plan that supports job creation, provide immediate tax relief for families, enact a plan to help those facing foreclosure, lower health care costs, invest in innovation, move toward strategic energy independence and open more foreign markets to our goods."
Obama cited the 438,000 jobs lost this year and similarly called for immediate action, but a different prescription: "I'm calling on Congress and the President to enact real, immediate relief with energy rebates for working families this summer, a fund to help families avoid foreclosure, extended benefits for the long-term jobless, and assistance to states that have been hard-hit by the economic downturn."
McCain is in Mexico today, and apparently will be unveiling a new "Jobs First" agenda in Denver on Monday, an ironic confluence the Democrats have been working hard to spotlight,including an email from the Democratic National Committee's Brad Woodhouse to reporters suggesting "maybe for his own sake [McCain] should stop going to places like Michigan and telling folks their jobs aren't coming back while going to Mexico and promoting Jobs First - just a thought."
-- Scott Martelle
Read more John McCain and Barack Obama agree: Act now on job losses »
Well, we'll admit it, we're suckers for polls, and a recent one that our cousins at The Swamp tipped us to is interesting -- showing that Barack Obama is tapping a potentially rich vein in trying to tie John McCain to George Bush.
The Gallup/USA Today poll found that 68% of voters said they were concerned when asked whether they thought McCain would pursue "policies that are too similar to what G eorge W. Bush has pursued." Of those polled, 49% said they were "very concerned."
As the poll analysis points out: "It is clearly a delicate balancing act for McCain, as Bush remains relatively popular with the Republican base. While only 28% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing as president, a majority of Republicans (60%) still do. Bush's approval rating among current McCain supporters is slightly lower, at 55%."
Dive deeper into the poll and something else interesting emerges -- people aren't all that keen on change, either. Some 49% said they were concerned when asked whether "Obama would go too far in changing the policies that George W. Bush pursued." Of those polled, 30% said they were "very concerned."
So the advantage for the moment goes to change -- in moderation. Which might help explain Obama's embrace Tuesday of the concept behind the Bush administration's faith-based initiative program.
-- Scott Martelle
On this, the first anniversary of our Top of the Ticket blog, we are reminded of the mercurial, unpredictable nature of U.S. politics -- part of what makes what we do so fascinating.
Our goal -- one of us on the East Coast and the other on the far more important or at least less humid West Coast -- was to write about Campaign '08 virtually around the clock.
Our second-ever posting, 12 months ago today, previewed an upcoming L.A. Times/Bloomberg Poll; later in the day, we detailed the results of the nationwide survey. The findings were in line with other polls of the time.
In the Republican presidential race, which then seemed the most likely to last deep into the primary season, Rudy Giuliani was perched in first place. His lead wasn't overwhelming, but it was strong enough that he appeared certain to remain a major contender.
His liberal record on social issues loomed as an obvious liability within his party, but his tough-on-terrorism message was attracting substantial support from moderates and GOP-leaning independents.
His major headache among rivals last June was an as-yet-undeclared candidate who was riding a wave as the great conservative hope -- Fred Thompson. He ran a strong second in the poll.
Lagging far behind were John McCain and Mitt Romney, each barely with double-digit support. In our preview posting, we were especially scornful of McCain, noting sarcastically (and foolishly, as it turned out) that in the poll, he found himself "in heated competition with the 'Don't Know' category."
Meriting no mention from us was Mike Huckabee, one of several back-of-the-pack candidates barely earning any support across the country.
The Democratic race, at that point, seemed so much more cut-and-dried.
Hillary Clinton was the clear front-runner; Barack Obama was just as clearly ...
Read more Top of the Ticket, the start of Year Two »
Early on in his speech last night claiming the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama offered praise for Hillary Clinton, which can be viewed as either a gracious or cynical overture to her angry supporters (many of whom have commented here).
But Obama also mentioned something that almost sounded like an offer. He said: "You can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal healthcare in this country, and we will win that fight, she will be central to that victory."
Of course, Clinton's history with healthcare reform has not exactly been successful. But Obama's careful wording -- and he is usually very careful in his wording in prepared speeches -- left the impression that he's considering asking Clinton to play a lead role in healthcare reform. Or maybe just be the anchor point in the Senate. Of course, that would be moot if John McCain wins in the fall, but given how much the issue means to Clinton, letting her steer the fight on that issue could be Obama's answer to a pressing question: What to do about Clinton?
And that's the kind of role Clinton could also play as a vice president, much like Bill Clinton assigned Al Gore to streamline the federal bureaucracy.
-- Scott Martelle
As the fevered North Carolina primary campaign kicked into its final gear this week, John Edwards accentuated his decision to remain neutral in the Democratic presidential race he once competed in by  going off on a family vacation to Walt Disney World.
But whatever recreation he and his wife, Elizabeth, were engaged in Friday night, their ears must have been burning -- in a good way. At a state party dinner in Raleigh, N.C., Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama sang the praises of the Tar Heel native son they vanquished earlier this year, as well his high-profile spouse.
Clinton spoke first at the gathering and, as Times reporter Noam Levey relates, she stressed her commitment to the causes Edwards and his wife hold dear. 
"Let me say what a great fighter North Carolina and working Americans everywhere had in John Edwards," Clinton said as the crowd cheered. "His courageous fight to end poverty is a fight I will see to the finish."
(Clinton has, in fact, pledged to create a Cabinet-level office devoted to focusing on poverty.)
"Let's take a minute to express our gratitude," she added.
But there was more. Clinton ...
Read more John and Elizabeth Edwards are stars of a show they aren't at »
Top advisors to Hillary Clinton, particularly the now-sullied Mark Penn, long have counted not only on a bedrock of support for her from women not only in the Democratic presidential primary -- which has held firm -- but from both parties in the general election.
Perhaps. But a new poll solely of women voters -- of all political stripes -- commissioned by Lifetime  Networks shows that as the campaign has slogged on, her image has suffered among her gender.
The survey was conducted by two respected pollsters -- Kellyanne Conway (a Republican) and Celinda Lake (a Democrat). We talked to the polling director for the L.A. Times, Susan Pinkus, and she was struck by this finding: 26% of women polled said that since January, their opinion of Clinton had declined, compared with 15% who said it had improved.
Pinkus noted that looking more deeply into the poll, much of the drop in Clinton's standing was attributable to negative attitudes expressed by Republican women.
Still, no comparable trend was found for either Barack Obama, Clinton's rival in the Democratic race, or John McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.
Among the women interviewed, 15% said they now had a more favorable view of McCain, and exactly the same number reported a less favorable view. The findings for Obama also ...
Read more What women voters think about McCain, Clinton and Obama »
Money is the root of all (political) evil. Please send more of it.
That's the gist of Hillary Clinton's latest fundraising appeal to supporters. "With 14 days to go until the people of Pennsylvania vote, the (Barack) Obama campaign has decided to go all-out," she warns in the e-mail sent this morning. "They're trying to end the race for the White House with an unyielding media blitz. Right now, we're being outspent 4-1 on Pennsylvania television.
"So now, here's what we have to ask ourselves: Have we come this far in our history-making contest for the Democratic nomination only to see the race decided not by the quality of our ideas but by the size of our opponent's media budget?"
In one sense, she's absolutely right: Obama is outspending her campaign in Pennsylvania, on the strength of a record-breaking, more-than-$200 million fundraising haul that includes $40 million gathered in March. Clinton, on the other hand, has raised nearly $200 million herself this campaign.
And although it appears she trails Obama in available cash, her campaign coffers are healthy enough that today her campaign let loose with five new ads in Pennsylvania (which holds its closely watched primary in exactly two weeks).
The spots are tailored for different constituencies in the large state. As spelled out in a release from her campaign, they "highlight Hillary's ability to get the job done as president -- her commitment to jump-starting our economy, standing up for the middle class, and bringing quality, universal healthcare to all Americans. 'Nuestra Amiga,' a Spanish language ad, highlights Hillary's understanding of the Latino community and the problems it faces."
One of them features Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter explaining, in a few sentences, why he supports Clinton -- something black politicians in her corner increasingly have been called on to do, in the face of Obama's successes.
For more about each of the ads, go here.
-- Jim Tankersley and Don Frederick
Jim Tankersley writes for the Swamp of the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau.
Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, who has made universal healthcare one of the centerpieces of her campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, was more than a quarter-million dollars behind in payments for her own campaign staff's healthcare premiums, according to financial records.
The unpaid health insurance bills had been accumulating for months, according to Politico.com, which examined her latest campaign financial filings with the Federal Election Commission. They ended 2007 with $213,000 owed to Aetna Healthcare for "employee benefits." During January and February of this year, the debt rose another $16,000.
A Clinton campaign spokesman, Jay Carson, said at no time did employee insurance coverage lapse for campaign staff, spouses, partners and children because of the unpaid bills. He said that during March the campaign paid all outstanding healthcare bills and the balance would be zero in upcoming reports covering March.
By comparison, neither Sen. John McCain nor Sen. Barack Obama's campaign reported any substantial healthcare debts. In terms of overall debts, Obama's effort reported only $625,000 in debts. McCain's reported $3 million owed on a bank loan and only $1.3 million owned to vendors.
Clinton's overall debt on Feb. 29 was reported as $8.7 million, including $3,161 owned to her old high school, as reported in a previous item today. After its publication, Carson said the check had been written to Maine South High School in Park Ridge, Ill.
-- Andrew Malcolm
The AFL-CIO is planning to spend $53 million on the 2008 presidential campaign, and it won't be for John McCain. In fact, the labor group launched a website today devoted to the "truth" about McCain, including a briefing book on its characterization of his stances on labor and working-class issues.
A kitty that big should be a formidable presence in a national political campaign. But unions' sway with their members isn't what it once was. And while union backing, almost always for Democratic candidates, gives access to phone banks, precinct walkers and other nuts-and-bolts aspects of campaigning, the AFL-CIO's help in the last couple of presidential cycles hasn't delivered a win.
Four years ago, the AFL-CIO ponied up $44 million to back John Kerry over George Bush, and in 2000 spent $41 million trying to get Al Gore elected. Already in this cycle, Barack Obama had the backing of the Culinary Arts Workers union, Nevada's largest, and still lost there to Hillary Clinton. And the Teamsters endorsement didn't help him much in Ohio, either.
Union folks can make the argument that labor spending on political campaigns is dwarfed by spending from business interests. But still, when you're spending the equivalent of a CEO's annual earnings on a presidential campaign, you really ought to be claiming more success.
So file this under the "couldn't hurt" column, but don't look for it to be make-or-break. And the big issue looming on the horizon is, if Obama wins the nomination, what does he do about the inevitable ad spending on his behalf by the kinds of "special interests" against which he rails so often?
-- Scott Martelle
Some people think the ongoing struggle between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton is about, well, Democratic presidential politics. Silly them!
The campaign is also a titanic battle among unions, as newly filed financial figures revealed today to the expert eyes of The Times' Dan Morain.
The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees spent $1 million on ads supporting Clinton in Texas and Ohio recently. The money went through American Leadership Project, a newly formed organization...
Read more As Clinton and Obama struggle, so do the unions behind each »
On national television Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton seemed to wonder if she's being picked on -- by debate questioners.
And, in an offbeat moment sure to be replayed, she went on to refer to a skit on "Saturday Night Live" that (no doubt to the show's supreme delight) her campaign aides have previously sought to spotlight.
Clinton squared off with Barack Obama in Ohio and the two Democratic presidential contenders quickly engaged in a lengthy debate on their healthcare plans (16 minutes, according to moderator Brian Williams). Neither gave an inch -- each insisting their respective plans were superior and that a panoply of experts agreed. Presumably, it now will be up to voters in Ohio and Texas to vet this dispute in their closely watched primaries next Tuesday.
Clinton was asked to comment first on the issue, given that she harshly accused Obama over the weekend of unfairly representing her healthcare plan.
Turning to their next major dispute of late -- the North American Free Trade Agreement -- Clinton again was asked to comment first, given that during the early 1990s she seemed to stand foursquare behind her husband, President Bill Clinton, as he pushed the controversial pact through Congress.
Before focusing on the topic, she said she found it "curious" ...
Read more Clinton wonders about the debate process »
Dig deep into the new L.A. Times/Bloomberg nationwide poll, and the sources of Hillary Clinton's frustration over Barack Obama eclipsing her -- at least at the moment -- in the Democratic presidential race become obvious.
But one key question -- about a basic voter impression of the two, as well as of Republican John McCain -- seems to offer part of the answer to what clearly puzzles Clinton and her aides.
Overall, the survey (which you can read about here) found Obama edging ahead of Clinton, 48% to 42%, when those who have voted in a Democratic nominating contest or plan to were asked who they support. As we noted earlier today, the results confirm a stunning reversal in position between the two -- not so long ago, Clinton was the runaway leader for the party's nod.
But Clinton, on some key subjects, still appears to be in a stronger position than Obama when all voters polled -- Democrats, Republicans and independents -- were asked a series of issue-related questions that put McCain into the mix.
For instance, Clinton had a nine-percentage point advantage, 43% to 34%, when voters were asked ...
Read more Favorability persists as a Hillary Clinton problem »
Hillary Clinton, after effectively hijacking tonight's Democratic presidential debate from its moderators for a few minutes, has to feel good about how she spotlighted differences between herself and Barack Obama on healthcare policy. It's an argument they've had for months but, by forcing a sustained discussion of it, she was able to drive home their core disagreement on the subject.
Obama, as befits his new front-runner status, sought to paper over their split on whether universal coverage should be mandatory. She would have none of it. "I think it's a substantive difference ... I just know that if we don't go and require everyone to have health insurance, the health insurance industry will still game the system ..."
For voters wanting to focus on the issue, Clinton made sure that they had something to chew over.
That said, Obama has to feel good about his response to inferences she's made that he's not up to the task of protecting the United States. He began with a to-the-point summation: "I wouldn't be running if I didn't think I was prepared to be commander in chief. And my ... No. 1 job as president will be to keep the American people safe. And I will do whatever is required to accomplish that, and I will not
hesitate to act against those that would do America harm."
He then discussed several foreign-policy particulars with an assurance that was lacking when he began his presidential quest.
The bottom line: the likelihood seems small that the faceoff swayed masses of voters in Texas or Ohio, the two big prizes on March 4.
Within the universe of political pundits, the big topic of conversation during the next news cycle or two might be over ...
Read more Clinton drives a healthcare wedge »
Maybe the Hillary Clinton campaign assumes folks in Wisconsin don't get cable?
After her drubbing at the hands of Barack Obama over the past few contests, the Clintonites are looking ahead to Wisconsin on Tuesday as a place to start the countertide. And they think a debate might help. But the Obamans say "Fuhgeddaboutit, done enough of 'em." (And, really, they do have a point).
But Obama's rejection of a debate in Cheeseland armed Clinton with a spitwad, delivered in the form of this ad:
Of course, an ad is never just an ad. And the strategy here is while Obama does well with the big rock-arena impassioned speech (preferably before young and energetic crowds), Clinton does better in the debate format. And before you start posting "BUT WHAT ABOUT? ..." we're talking generalities. She can move a big crowd, and he can deliver ...
Read more If they debate in Wisconsin, do they have to wear those cheeseheads? »
CNN, understandably, crowed about the ratings it garnered for the Thursday night faceoff between Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- more than 8.3 million viewers checked it out, the best showing during this campaign for a debate broadcast on a cable network.
But here's the number we're going to really want to know: Viewership for its rerun of the debate this evening, starting at 5 p.m. (PST). At that point, the Super Bowl game will have been underway for about 90 minutes.
Maybe CNN executives will catch a break -- like the undefeated New England Patriots quickly taking a big lead over the New York Giants, causing at least some folks to start twisting their TV dials for alternative programming.
At the least, the debate's early part should coincide with the Super Bowl halftime show. So those wanting to tune out the on-field extravaganza can tune in to the back-and-forth between Obama and Clinton over their healthcare plans!
For true political junkies with no interest in The Big Game, CNN also is rebroadcasting, starting at 3 p.m. (PST), the Republican debate it aired Wednesday night.
Of course, savvy non-football fans know that when the Super Bowl is on, it's not a time to stay home; it's a time to go see a hit movie and have a good shot at getting decent seats.
-- Don Frederick
Good vibes may have emanated from the two remaining Democratic presidential contenders during Thursday's debate in Hollywood, but my oh my, surrogates let loose Friday by each campaign sniped away -- and in each instance, apologies were the end result.
In one case, a top military advisor to Barack Obama ridiculed Hillary Clinton's now-famed misty-eyed moment in the buildup to the New Hampshire primary and her later claim to have found her voice in that state.
In the other case, a participant in a conference call set up by Team Clinton to rebuke an Obama mailer about healthcare policy used a Nazi reference in decrying it (always a bad idea).
The Times' Peter Wallsten has the details on the pointed remarks made by the Obama counselor, retired Air Force Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak. Indeed, the remarks were made to Wallsten during a telephone interview, much to the chagrin of the Obama aide listening in.
Commenting on the argument Clinton likes to make that she offers a "gravitas" ...
Read more Obama, Clinton backers get carried away »
It's usually harder to sustain heated arguments seated than while standing up. And that was rarely more evident than at Monday night's debate among the Democratic presidential aspirants.
The fur flew during the first part of the forum in South Carolina, when the three candidates -- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards -- were on their feet, behind a podium. Obama was in the middle, literally and figuratively.
He got a lecture from Clinton about not being willing to take responsibility for his legislative record (he disagreed, of course), and took grief from both her and Edwards for offering a health-care plan that is not as far-reaching as theirs (he argued it is more realistic).
But the combatants dialed it down considerably when they settled into chairs for the debate's second half.
Obama, for instance, had a chance to ignite ...
Read more The candidates take a seat, and tempers cool »
Manchester, N.H. -- In his bid to transform the Democratic presidential race into a mano a mano contest between himself and Barack Obama, John Edwards is relying on a tactic that may have helped propel his second-place finish in Iowa: a road trip.
Earlier today, Edwards and his crew embarked on a 36-hour tour of New Hampshire, just as he had done in Iowa (though presumably with more reliable wheels).
If you happen to be in the area, the candidate's itinerary includes Monday stops at 2 a.m. (EST) on Main Street in Berlin, N.H., and 4 a.m. at Miller's Cafe in Littleton, N.H.
Pivotal moments during Saturday night's Democratic candidate debate underscored that Edwards' strategy, for now, is to join Obama in ganging up on Hillary Clinton in hopes that she's the first of the trio officially driven from the nomination race. And then, he'll hope that Obama's message of hope somehow grows stale and the party will turn to him.
At the kickoff event today for his new tour, Edwards, as he frequently does, relied on a real-life story to illustrate his attacks on corporate interests -- in this case the health insurance industry. Joining him at a packed rally in Manchester, The Times' Seema Mehta reports, was a family from Los Angeles.
Leukemia patient Nataline Sarkisyan, 17, needed a liver transplant and was turned down ...
Read more John Edwards hits the road (again) »
DES MOINES -- John Edwards embarks on his last big push here Thursday before all the campaigns go dark for the Christmas holiday, and he's hoping living examples will help sell his populist message of standing up for the little guy against a system corrupted by corporate influence.
All of Edwards' traveling guests figure in some way in his basic stump speech. One, a man who lived most of his life unable to speak because of an unrepaired cleft palate, illustrates his position on healthcare. Another, a laid-off factory worker, represents the effects of trade policies. And a young girl horrifically injured in a swimming pool accident (who'll be on the trail with her parents) is meant to evidence Edwards' highly successful (and enriching) legal career as a trial lawyer waging product liability and other suits against corporations.
None of the guests has any obvious connection with the war in Iraq, part of a drastically shifting narrative in the Democratic campaign that our colleague, Peter Wallsten, writes about in today's paper.
For you serious Iowa junkies, the state Democratic Party tracks all the events by all the candidates in the coming days.
Then it's Christmastime. And when the campaigns resume -- most on Wednesday, the day after Christmas -- they'll have a week that includes the New Year's holiday to try to persuade those legions of undecided and still-wooable caucus-goers to climb on board.
And if the candidates think competing among themselves is tough, check this out.
-- Scott Martelle
John Edwards no doubt benefited in today's debate from being next to last among the six Democratic presidential candidates present in answering what, if elected, he would aim to accomplish in year one. Still, when he got his chance, the son of a mill worker used it to drive home the unvarnished populism that has defined his second White House run.
After noting with a wry grin that those preceding him had made "an awful lot of promises" -- and quickly listing a few of his own -- he homed in on his core message:
"None of those things are going to happen unless we have a president of the United States who calls on the American people to join together to take this democracy and take this country back. Because what's happening in America today is absolutely clear: We have a small group of entrenched interests, corporate powers, corporate greed, the most wealthy people in America who are controlling what's happening in the democracy, and we have to take it back."
Of late, he's been delivering that class manifesto with less anger than previously. But win or lose, Edwards cannot be accused of mincing his words. And somewhere, the ghost of William Jennings Bryan must be smiling.
MSNBC, focusing on Edwards' unswerving adherence to his theme, counted the number of times he mentioned the word "corporate" (as in, "corporate power" or "corporate greed"). The result: 13
The debate was notable for its lack of vitriol, as The Times' Janet Hook and Joe Mathews report. As with the similar forum Wednesday featuring the Republican candidates, it lacked memorable -- or meaningful -- exchanges.
Indeed, the question about first-year goals underscored the coalescence among these six on specifics: All would wind down the war in Iraq, all would strive for sweeping healthcare reforms, all would restore what they decry as infringements on constitutional rights by President Bush.
The absence of the two outliers in the Democratic race -- Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel -- made those similarities all the more evident.
-- Don Frederick
John F. Kennedy famously made physical fitness a national priority. And Barack Obama -- whom supporters have sought to cast as the contemporary version of the former president -- today suggested he would do the same.
During a brief discussion on controlling healthcare costs during the Democratic presidential debate in Iowa, Obama said that a return to the U.S. obesity rates that existed in the 1980s would reduce medically related expenses by $1 trillion.
Obama, of course, seems to be one of those lucky few for whom weight control is not a struggle. By the same token, he has battled a nicotine problem.
-- Don Frederick
CLEAR LAKE, Iowa -- While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were tussling elsewhere over Obama's PAC and whether a childhood essay signaled early -- and lied about -- ambitions (blame the polls), John Edwards was busy driving around north-central Iowa trying to win over the uncommitteds and make sure his supporters get out to the caucus sites on Jan. 3.
He declined to weigh in on the PAC "fracas," as he called it, but made light of the essay spat. ''It's fine to talk about our records and about issues,'' he said. ''But we probably ought to stop at age 14.''
But later in the same talk, Edwards offered a revealing choice of words that signaled he might perceive of himself as something a little different from the voters he's wooing with his populist themes of returning government to the people. It was somewhat jarring, too, coming from a candidate who is remarkably consistent on the stump.
Speaking to about 70 in the library of a Clear Lake high school on a night when the temperature outside hovered in the teens, Edwards talked about his family's encounter with health care insurance from his wife's battle with breast cancer. "I have first-class, real-life experience with this, with what people go through," Edwards said. He talked about going with Elizabeth for doctors' visits and chemotherapy treatments, then getting the insurance company statements in the mail.
"We had good insurance. And we get the statements from the insurance company -- I had no idea what those statements mean. And we're both lawyers. I ran for president and vice president of the United States. And one month they'd cover something and the next month, the same thing, they wouldn't cover. It was the most amazing thing I'd ever seen. And I just felt to myself, I can't imagine what these insurance companies are doing to regular people out there."
The "regular people" nodded as Edwards cited that as a reason the nation needs universal health care. But even wearing jeans and talking about the nation's growing class divide, the choice of words signaled that Edwards' self-perception has moved a long way from the blue-collar kid from the Carolina mill towns.
-- Scott Martelle
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger gets back in front of the camera (OK, as a politician he never really left, but still) as part of a new ad campaign geared toward pressuring recalcitrant members of Congress to move swiftly on legislation to lessen global warming.
The ad, to begin airing next week in 17 markets, was put together by Environmental Defense and features Schwarzenegger, Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana, a Democrat, and Jon Huntsman Jr., the Republican governor of Utah. All notably are governors of Western states with wide areas of stunning natural beauty -- and the tourism-based economy that goes with it.
Schwarzenegger has been pressing the federal government on global warming, but also has his own well-heeled baggage on the issue. Frustrated with what they view as a lack of federal leadership on the issue, Schweitzer and Huntsman also have struck out on their own.
The reason for the ad campaign now? Environmental Defense wants to make sure the issue gets its due during the current election cycle. And with Al Gore still not running for president, the political dialogue has revolved primarily around the war in Iraq and healthcare. Place your bets on how much attention the issue gets in tonight's Democratic debate in Las Vegas on CNN at 5 Pacific time.
-- Scott Martelle
The drive to make healthcare a top presidential campaign issue for the next year is going Hollywood.
Two leading nonprofit entertainment organizations -- the Entertainment Industry Foundation and the Motion Picture and Television Fund -- have joined a growing coalition of advocates for older Americans and business and labor groups to put pressure on presidential candidates of both parties to address the need for more affordable healthcare and retirement security.
The developing coalition known as Divided We Fail includes AARP, the Service Employees International Union, the Business Roundtable -- which represents chief executives of major companies -- and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. They intend to sponsor candidate forums, mount ads and otherwise try to spotlight health and retirement issues.
The entertainment groups this week joined the coalition of strange bedfellows and helped produce a public service announcement that features an all-star lineup of Ben Affleck, Garth Brooks, Dakota Fanning, Morgan Freeman, Eva Mendes, Joaquin Phoenix, Jeremy Piven and Reese Witherspoon.
You can see the group's first commercial by clicking here.
-- Andrew Malcolm
And it's not just the war.
The daily Poll Track column at the National Journal collates a few disparate surveys this morning and finds that, to quote another politician in another time, we're in something of a national malaise. As Poll Track points out: "A full two-thirds of respondents to a new Marist/WNBC poll said they believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, a 9-point increase from fall 2006. Harris' 'Alienation Index' has also risen slightly since last year, as more Americans told pollsters this month that they feel the nation's leaders don't care about them and are out of touch with the country at large.
"Considering such widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo, it's no wonder 58 percent of registered voters responding to a new Gallup/USA Today poll said the outcome of the 2008 presidential race matters more to them than previous elections. For many months the conventional wisdom had placed the blame for the public's angst squarely on President Bush and the Iraq war. But recent polls suggest that Americans are increasingly worried about traditional bread-and-butter issues, too."
And the butter has been melting. So it's a "pox on both their houses" mood out there, though other polls show that more people think the Democrats are better suited to straighten the mess out than the Republicans. Those sentiments won't mean much in the primaries and caucuses, but they will come next November. And of course anything can happen between now and then to change the current mood.
But you have to wonder what might have happened had the national elections been this week instead of next year, and how many babies would have gone out with the bathwater.
-- Scott Martelle
There's no "lust in my heart" moment, but Bill Richardson lays himself bare, so to speak, in the December issue of Playboy -- a bit of exposure that isn't likely to help him lure many female voters away from Hillary Clinton.
Since the site carries a fee to read the interview, conducted by Jeff Greenfield, we thought we'd give you a few highlights from the press release: “The first week I’m president I would take on three issues, and we would have to come up with solutions -- bipartisan solutions. One is Iraq. We’ve got to get out. The second is our $9 trillion deficit. Third is Social Security and Medicare.”
“I don’t try to imitate [Bill Clinton]. This has always been my style. But yes, there’s a little bit of Bill Clinton in me. One of the things that used to drive me nuts about him, though, was how he would try to convince his enemies he was a good guy. He’d sometimes spend more time talking to his enemies than to his friends. I don’t believe I’m like that, but I do believe you try to seek common ground in order to convince somebody."
“I like sports. I’m a regular person. I don’t make any pretenses. I like the arts -- I like modern art -- but I’d rather spend time watching a football game or a baseball game. I go to the opera and leave at intermission. I like to smoke a cigar.”
There's more but you get the idea. In the interview Richardson comes across much as he does in one-on-one encounters, sounding a little brash at times, but engaging.
For those of you who like to see candidates' words with fewer pictures, Richardson also has joined the parade of published political authors with the release of "Leading by Example" -- his take on how to fix the nation's problems.
The debates, a book and now a Playboy interview -- fortunately, politicians never fear over-exposure.
-- Scott Martelle
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 »
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
It gladdens the hearts of Republicans -- understandably so -- that even as President Bush's approval/disapproval ratings continue to flag, attitudes toward the Democratic-led Congress are even worse.
The new L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll, which can be examined here, is the latest national survey to detail this phenomenon. The survey found that 35% of registered voters have a favorable view of Bush's job performance, 60% an unfavorable one.
For Congress, meanwhile, the numbers are truly in the tank: only 22% approve of its job performance, 69% do not.
Another poll question, however, underscores the dilemma for lawmakers who would like to see those results improve. When voters were asked whether Congress should get tougher in dealing with Bush or more cooperative, the results offer nothing but confusion -- 33% said the folks on Capitol Hill support his political agenda too much, 37% said too little, 19% said the current approach was about right and 10% weren't sure (1% simply refused to answer).
Talk about a split verdict!
Poll results released Wednesday focused on the Democratic and Republican presidential races; our analysis can be viewed here and here. The results released today concern opinions on the political debate over healthcare, and our story by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Janet Hook on that is available here.
-- Don Frederick
If voter attitudes toward the starkly different approaches staked out by the two parties on healthcare translate into actual support for a presidential candidate next year, Democrats will be heartened by the findings of a new L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll.
The detailed results will be available shortly elsewhere on our website and in Thursday's print edition. We can tell you this much -- overall, the public views the Democrats as offering the better ideas for grappling with the nation's healthcare problems.
Also, proposals pushed by various Democratic White House contenders that envision aggressive, government-led efforts to expand health insurance coverage enjoy more support than the more hands-off Republican philosophy of relying on tax credits.
In a surprising finding, especially for those who watched the sweeping healthcare plan spearheaded by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton implode in the mid-1990s, the poll found solid backing for a government-run, government-financed health insurance program.
Clinton's presidential campaign -- and Democrats in general -- have been betting that what happened almost 15 years ago is ancient history. The survey results should buttress that hope.
-- Don Frederick
A caustic -- some might say classic -- outburst by Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont), during yesterday's House debate over President Bush's veto of a health insurance program for children is ricocheting wildly around the Internet.
The outburst was part of the ongoing Washington political stalemate over funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, for short. Times expert Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar covered the main story here.
And he also witnessed Stark responding to a GOP lawmaker who tagged the program as "socialized medicine." Waving his arms, Stark first launched into a rhetorical riff about the Iraq war and its costs.
"You don't have money to fund the war or children," he thundered, aiming his fire toward the Republican side of the aisle. "But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
A video clip of Stark's flipout was all over the evening's TV news broadcasts yesterday, and you can see it for yourself here on YouTube.
The presiding House officer, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Walnut Creek), cautioned Stark to refrain from such remarks. But she ruled against a Republican motion that would have barred him from the floor for the rest of the day's debate.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino declined to respond to Stark's bitter broadside, but the National Republican Congressional Committee called it "an outrageous and delusional tantrum on the House floor," and demanded an apology to the American people, the troops and their families.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio demanded a similar apology and added, "Congressman Stark’s statement dishonors not only the commander-in-chief, but the thousands of courageous men and women of America’s armed forces who believe in their mission and are putting their lives on the line for our freedom and security."
Today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued her own apology. Admitting that emotions were running high on both sides of the House aisle, she said, "While Members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand."
Stark adamantly remained unapolegtic. "I have nothing but respect for our brave men and women in uniform and wish them the very best," he said in a later, cooler press release. "But I respect neither the commander-in-chief who keeps them in harm's way nor the chickenhawks in Congress who vote to deny children healthcare."
See, that's the problem with today's politicians. You never know where they stand.
(UPDATE: On Oct. 23, Stark issued a formal apology.)
--Andrew Malcolm
In slow motion Wednesday, Fred Thompson bellied up to a politically perilous subject: requiring some senior citizens to pay more for Medicare. No other leading candidate in either party has raised it.
And there may be a good political reason for that. It's explosive.
The idea dribbled out during the day, with only a few details; campaign officials said the policy was still being developed and would be debuted at some future date.
In his speech today to the Club for Growth in Washington, Thompson made only a cryptic comment: "Can we stick with the same premiums and deductions for higher-income recipients on Medicare?"
He called entitlement spending unsustainable, and repeated an earlier proposal that...
Read more Thompson tiptoes toward entitlement debate »
For an East Coast guy, Joe Biden last week showed a laudable awareness of a different part of the country. But a barb he directed at Bill Richardson left us wondering whether he's lost touch with his own roots.
Biden joined Richardson and several other Democratic presidential contenders at a forum in Davenport, Iowa, sponsored by AARP (formerly the American Assn. of Retired Persons). Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, touted his experience in the executive branch of government, as is his wont (it distinguishes him from the plethora of senators -- including Biden -- he's running against). In particular, Richardson extolled his efforts to expand health insurance coverage within his state.
Biden, perhaps tired of hearing Richardson's rap for the umpteenth time, decided to offer his own contrast, this one on governing New Mexico versus the entire country.
"My good friend from New Mexico, God love him," Biden began, using a trademark phrase. "His state's a couple million people. Give me a break. He can pull that together. Pull together 300 million people. That's like saying, you know, 'I played halfback when I was in high school; I can play in the pros' -- a different deal."
Point well taken. But it also sent us to the U.S. Census Bureau for its latest population estimates. New Mexico: 1,954,599 (Biden was on the money). Delaware (his home state): 853,476.
So, using his analogy, it appears Biden's been playing politics in the ankle-biter league.
-- Don Frederick
If guessing three winners in three races at the horse track is called a trifecta, what do you call Hillary Clinton's scheduled near-sweep of the Sunday news shows? We count five separate appearances. Would that be a quinfecta, then?
So far, Clinton's set to appear on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on ABC, "Meet the Press with Tim Russert" on NBC, "Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer" on CBS, "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" on CNN and "Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace. It's the last show that has the most potential, frankly. It comes almost a year to the day after Wallace had a not-so-warm-and-fuzzy moment with Bill Clinton when asking about the former president's efforts to neutralize Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Hillary Clinton's appearances are all playing off her healthcare plan announcement this week, which gives it a news peg. Still, it's quite a scheduling coup.
-- Scott Martelle
If you tuned into PBS last night to see the Democratic debate on healthcare and financial security from Davenport, Iowa, you might have noticed the field of candidates was a little narrower than in the other zillion of debates that have been held so far.
Barack Obama was missing, otherwise engaged trying to raise even more money, though the campaign also has sworn off attending forums not endorsed by the Democratic National Committee. But Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were missing too. That's because they weren't invited. The reason? Neither low-financed campaign has a paid staffer in Iowa, a rule that sponsor AARP insisted on. And both candidates had something to say about it.
The next debate, for Republican candidates, takes place Oct. 25 in Sioux City. It's unclear how many candidates will miss the cut there, but John McCain and Mike Huckabee have both committed, the AARP says. The AARP website says all of the GOP candidates have been invited; but AARP Iowa spokeswoman Ann Black said if they didn't have a paid staffer in the state, the invitation wouldn't be honored. She also said she couldn't confirm late Friday whether any of the Republican candidates would be excluded.
- Scott Martelle
As our friends at the The Swamp point out, in recent speeches Barack Obama has been using his mother's 1995 death from ovarian cancer as a lead-in to argue that he's best suited to fix healthcare. Iowans tomorrow will see a new ad that takes the appeal one step further -- opening with a brief still image of his dead mother with a toddler-age Obama at her side. The ad is aimed at affirming Obama's theme that, despite his experience as an Illinois state legislator and his three years in the U.S. Senate, he's a Washington outsider. And of course, a certain Democratic front-runner with her own healthcare policy baggage would, by contrast, be a Washington insider.
- Scott Martelle
Who is Hillary Clinton?
She's been in the public spotlight--unrelentingly so, at times--since 1992. She's been the subject of numerous profiles and books, including two recent, well-publicized biographies. Yet, more so than with most major political figures, there lingers an enigmatic, removed quality about her. Early this year, Mark Penn, her chief strategist, wrote a public memo in which he asserted that to many voters, Clinton was "famous but really unknown."
Today, an intriguing juxtaposition of columns in the Washington Post by two national syndicated writers only adds to confusion about her.
E.J. Dionne Jr., in musing about the rollout this week of her healthcare plan, sees much to admire in Clinton's rueful recollections of the more ambitious--and politically disastrous--proposal she pushed as first lady. He concludes that in her battle for the White House, "It could turn out that Clinton's strongest argument is that someone who is aware of her own shortcomings, laughs about them and works at them has the character to be president."
In a piece laid out directly below Dionne's, Richard Cohen reflects on Clinton's response--or lack thereof--to MoveOn.org's now-notorious "General Betray Us" ad and finds her sorely lacking. He writes: "The issue with Hillary Clinton is not whether she's smart or experienced but whether she has ... the character to be president." Clearly, he's a skeptic on that count.
So which depiction is on the money? More to the point, which one will the majority of Americans accept? On that, the ultimate outcome of the 2008 campaign may well pivot.
-- Don Frederick
A friend sent along this link that's been so much fun to toy with that productivity has lagged a bit (unless, of course, you're a supervising editor reading this, in which case we spent only two minutes and 11 seconds on the site. During lunch. While writing another blog item with the left hand).
The premise is you answer "yes," "no" or "unsure" on 23 questions, rank the individual question's importance to you -- low, medium or high -- and the tabulator tells you which presidential candidate is the best match. Kind of like eHarmony for uncertain voters.
If you leave the intensity setting at "medium" and click "yes" for all the issues -- from supporting gay marriage to supporting the Iraq war and school vouchers -- your candidate is Rudy Giuliani. If you click "no" for all the issues, you get Ron Paul. If you click "unsure," Joe Biden's your best bet.
This is where it gets fun. Just start clicking willy-nilly. We alternated "yes" and "no" down the list and got businessman John Cox. Who, you say? Then we reversed, "no" and "yes" down the list and got Mike Gravel. If the only issue you're sure of -- and you rate it high -- is drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, then Sam Brownback's your man.
Go ahead. Play with it. We'll watch for the hall monitor.
-- Scott Martelle
The folks over at The Trail have a fun post about Mitt Romney's dash to criticize Hillary Clinton's new healthcare plan. It seems the former Massachusetts governor summoned the media to a sidewalk outside St. Vincent's Hospital to dismiss the proposal as "bad medicine.&quo | |
