One of the less publicized, most salient change in politics since the 1980s has been the political coalition built by conservative Catholics and evangelicals even as the doctrinally-sensitive Southern Baptist Convention became the dominant force in evangelical politics. The '04 re-election of George W. Bush showed how powerful that coalition can be.
Will it endure? Sam Brownback is a Catholic convert, Mike Huckabee is a Southern Baptist, and Mitt Romney is a member of the LDS Church. There have been skirmishes so far between supporters of Brownback and Huckabee on one side and Romney on the other. But until this week, the fact that Brownback is a Catholic (convert) and Huckabee is a Protestant hasn't been deemed relevant by anyone.
The following e-mail was sent to a number of Iowa evangelicals. The author is Rev. Tim Rude, a pastor at the Walnut Creek Community Church in Windsor Heights, Iowa.
Here's the full text of his e-mail:
Dear XXX and XXX,
>
> Pastors XXX and XXX relayed to me that you are both supporting Sam
> Brownback for President. It sounds like there is, in fact, regular
> contact with Senator Brownback and yourselves. I applaud your
> participation in the selection of the next president of the United
> States. It is our duty as Christians to take our stewardship of
> this country extremely serious. And I am sure that you are aware
> that our entire Walnut Creek leadership staff, to my knowledge, is
> supporting Mike Huckabee.
>
> On July 20, we drove up to Ames and spoke with pastors XXX and XXX
> about our position and were well received. However, it sounds like
> you are the men we need to communicate with about our advocacy.
>
> I am interested in your decision to support this candidate. As you
> know, both candidates are down in the polls. Nation-wide polls
> show Brownback at 1% and Huckabee at 3% amongst Republican candidates.
>
> About 3 weeks ago, I met the Governor personally. I learned that
> he was a Southern Baptist pastor for 12 years. The Governor told
> us that he concluded that people needed to gain positions in the
> government in order to safeguard our Christian values. People need
> to make that sacrifice. He served as LT. Governor prior to serving
> as governor for 10 and a half years.
>
> The second time he ran for Gov. he gained over 48% of the black
> vote. That is remarkable and it conveys he can really broaden his
> base. I think he is electable. He is a remarkable communicator.
> I believe as people listen to him, just like in Arkansas, they will
> like what he says and like him personally. I have listened to him
> in private and over the radio. He is the best communicator I have
> ever heard run for office. President Reagan was a great
> communicator but he did not as closely represent a Christian
> perspective as does Huckabee, although Reagan did a very good job.
>
> Huckabee is an evangelical. He has not learned how to speak to
> evangelicals; i.e. Bush 41 & 43. He is one of us. I know
> Senator Brownback converted to Roman Catholicism in 2002. Frankly,
> as a recovering Catholic myself, that is all I need to know about
> his discernment when compared to the Governor's. I don't if this
> fact is widely known among evangelicals who are supporting Brownback.
>
> The one criticism of Huckabee is that he raised taxes in Arkansas.
> First of all, is that he had to raise money to meet some Federally
> imposed funding initiatives. When he took office, Arkansas was
> 47th ranked state in education. When he left office, they were
> 23rd rank. The roads were in horrible shape in the aftermath of
> the Clintons. He raised money for them. This is a
> constitutionally sanctioned responsibility of government. He cut
> taxes 86 times in Arkansas. He left with a budget surplus that was
> significant. He also left office with an 86% approval rating. He
> can build consensus even in a primarily Democratic state.
>
> Michael Ferris of the Home School Legal Defense Association
> enthusiastically endorses him as does the former Promise Keeper
> magazine New Man.
>
> There is much more to say. Like you, we are trying to make a 1st
> or 2nd place showing in the Iowa Straw Poll to give our candidates
> a boost and viability. Money and media attention would be gained to
> the winners. All Huckabee needs is exposure in my opinion. The
> money will come and will the volunteers. I would ask you to
> reconsider your support of Senator Brownback; and lead your people
> in not splitting the Christian vote among the two candidates. I
> have been impressed with the pastors across the Greater Des Moines
> area switching their support or giving their support for the
> Governor. We are in Iowa for 'such a time as this'.
>
> XXX church is trying to gain 1000 votes of people who were not
> planning on going to the Iowa Straw Poll from our efforts alone.
> Would you join us in accomplishing this goal?
>
> Brownback is a good man but there is a better candidate in my
> opinion. One that will gain momentum as he is heard. The Gov. is
> of true presidential character.
>
> Well, I thought I would give this a shot. I know it is hard to
> change horses in the middle of the stream but I know you will
> prayerfully consider what I have to say.
>
> Your brother and friend,
>
> XXX
$3.4m is more than enough to start up a campaign -- and a not un-impressive sum for a non-candidate to raise. Too bad that unnamed Thompson aides had set expectations for $5M. Heading into July, when he expanded his staff significantly, Thompson had about $2.7M on hand.
Some details, courtesy of the campaign (er, the committee)
The biggest single expense: web hardware, at $66,750. 7,500 or so donors contributed a total of $771,783 through the web. Payroll accounted for $106K. The average donation was $469.8. 148 donors were from Florida, 111 from Georgia, and 780 were from Tennessee -- about 30% of his itemized total. About $282,000 came from lawyers and lobbyists, though only three donors listed their occupation as "lobbyist."
Thompson reimbursed himself $2800 for travel. Departed campaign manager Tom Collamore was paid more than $14,000. The firm employing Michael Toner, Thompson's legal counsel received about $25,000. Jeri Thompson did her work for free.
1. A good observation: "Mindful of the power they wield, Iowa social conservatives straddle the line between purity and pragmatism." This, from Ben Weyl of the Iowa Independent.
2. Will Mitt Romney win the general election? Ask his New Hampshire co-chair.
3. Romney has a 30-second ad spot about immigration.
Lots to say about this third television ad of Barack Obama's, but for now, just know that it's remarkable how confidently Obama's wields his consensus-bipartisan message in front of partisan Democratic audiences. The ad begins tomorrow. The size and duration of the buy are unknown at this point.
OBAMA SYNC: I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But, I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.
ANNCR V/O: In the Senate, Barack Obama challenged both parties to pass tough new ethics rules and rein in the power of lobbyists.
And he’s leading by example, refusing contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists who have too much power today.
OBAMA SYNC: They think they own this government. But we're here today to take it back.
Southern Baptist poobah RIchard Land says abortion is more important than Mormonism to pro-life voters but cautions that a Romney speech equating Mormonism with evangelical Christianity could hurt.
Apparently, the picture of Barack Obama on the cover of Vibe was taken by a photographer who likes things raunchy.
Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) probably won't endorse, he says. This is kind of a win for... well, it's hard to say.
I hear... the Republican National Committee smartly sent a tracker to the College Demcorats convention in South Carolina last week. How did she get in? She flirted her way past the credentialing desk.
Each week, NBC News political director Chuck Todd and I present our rankings on the likely order of finish for the presidential candidates.
In our opinion, Rudy Giuliani had the best July, followed closely by Mitt Romney.
(These will be our last rankings for a month, not because we don't like to write them, but because we want to pause for a month and revisit the race after Labor Day, when a restart is inevitable.)
These rankings are ordered by likelihood of winning the Republican primary and are based on a number of factors, including organization, money, buzz and polling. Click here for Democraticrankings.
1. Rudy Giuliani -- John McCain's campaign collapsed and is slowly rebuilding; Fred Thompson froze in place. These events bought Rudy time to get his organization going. As McCain was floundering, Giuliani was rolling out dozens of Iowa endorsements: legislators, entrepreneurs, county chairs. He's beginning to campaign like a real presidential candidate, spending two full days on small events in Iowa. Without much attention, he's busily rolling out a detailed policy agenda. For the first time, Rudy's campaign feels as if it is on the right track. Plus, he never lost his national front-runner status and still polls best against Clinton/Obama, which will matter more to GOP primary voters than some believe.
2. Mitt Romney -- He's still number two, but a day doesn't go by without us noticing something innovative and savvy about his campaign. Because he can write his own check, he'll face less of a time crunch over the next few months than his rivals. The campaign has an ambitious budget and Romney is willing to spend his own money to meet projections, even if his fundraising begins to dry up. He's worked aggressively to sew up endorsements in the McCain-Thompson gap, and we'll know by Labor Day whether it has paid off. That said, the lack of progress in South Carolina compared to Iowa and New Hampshire has to scare the campaign a bit.
3. Fred Thompson -- His campaign is not in chaos. Jeri Thompson is in control. But his margin for error is less than it once was. Thompson needs to find a way to resolve his optics problem. He is on the verge of failing to meet the prodigious (and unfair) expectations placed upon him. Announcing in prime time (i.e. after Labor Day) means he will get a lot of attention, so everything will be magnified -- the good and the bad. Thompson folks hate the Wesley Clark comparisons, but if we were Thompson, we'd make a call to Clark and just, well, chat.
Here's an update about the malestrom that is the Michigan primary. There are almost too many factions to keep track of.
A bill scheduling a joint primary for Jan. 29 was supposed to clear the state senate last week. It did not. Backers still expect the bill to pass. But what happens when it goes to the House is anyone's guess. And even if it passes, there's no guarantee that Gov. Jennifer Granholm, facing lots of internal Democratic opposition, will sign it.
Today, Sen. Sam Brownback's campaign announced its opposition to an internal Michigan Republican Party rules change that would institute a nominating convention, rather than a caucus or primary, if the bill fails to pass.
Rob Wasinger, Brownback's campaign manager, said the "proposed rule changes as posted on www.migop.org would take authority away from District Chairs and party activists and put it in the hands of paid staff members and other appointees of the chair who may be biased in the Presidential contest and who do not have the experience of running district caucuses. The authority should remain where it has been for years: in the hands of grassroots Republican activists elected by Republicans across the state."
Though ex-Medicaid/Medicare dir. Mark McClellan participated in this morning's call with Giuliani health care advisers, he hasn't endorsed Giuliani.
"He's talking to lots of candidates and their staffs," said Gary Karr, a former McClellan aide who keeps in touch with his ex-boss. "This is not an endorsement."
McClellan has consulted with several other Republican campaigns, including Mike Huckabee's, Karr said.
In fairness, the Giuliani campaign did not call McClellan an adviser; he's not mentioned in a press release announcing the Giuliani health care group and was described in an earlier press release as being among those "health care leaders advising Mayor Giuliani."
It's not clear whether McClellan will endorse any candidate. He's just been appointed the founding director of the Brookings Institution's Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform.
What is Giuliani's health care plan, and how does it differ from what other Republicans will propose? It's hard to say. Giuliani has previously called for a $15K-per-family health deduction and an expansion of health savings accounts, but his speech tomorrow will be less of a detailed plan and more of a statement of principles. In fact, Giuliani doesn't seem to like the word "plan" because it suggests a one-size-fits all approach.
His health care advisers broadly sketched the outlines on a conference call closely monitored by Giuliani's campaign manager, Mike DuHaime.
Giuliani wants to control health care costs by reducing the distance between health care decisions and those who pay for them -- what one of his advisers called "value based purchasing decisions." The federal government's role would be to provide incentives to states to, well, it's not clear. Giuliani opposes state insurance mandates like the one Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. The overall goal -- the way to make sure people can pay their medical bills -- is a process for "a better set of insurnace products that would match the needs" of the market, Goldsmith said. No individual mandates, then, and moving away from employer mandates.
ABC's Jake Tapper wondered whether there was anything in the proposal that big Insurance or big PhRMA would find objectionable.
Goldsmith started to answer, but DuHaime cut him off saying that Giuliani might want to answer that one.
"Ok, I can take that hint," Goldsmith said. We'll put that off."
Not asked or answered was why Giuliani believes that a less fettered free market approach to health care would reduce costs, or what degree of market freedom would be required to achieve the savings, or how the market should be contoured or incentivized to handle that type of medical care that is inherently profitless. Also unclear is why Giuliani views health care as a commodity: People get older and want the latest test or the best treatment. Perhaps they might demand less if they knew they're responsible for more of the cost...sort of a health care Pigout movement... but social and economic engineering on this scale is daunting.
As he rolls out his health insurance plan today, the Giuliani campaign is uneviling a roster of health care advisers. One of them is a heavyweigh: Dr. Mark McClellan. McClellan the former head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), is an economist and medical doctor, was a former FDA commissioner, and is considered one of the leading lights in the Republican health care policy world. Pres. Bush nearly made him a cabinet secretary. McClellan was the FDA commish when Plan B was rejected for over-the-counter sales.
Also: Donald W. Moran, a former Reagan administration official, and Sally Pipes, a conservative activist who has criticized the Massachusetts insurance mandate sheparded by Mitt Romney.
And then some younger advisers: Daniel P. Kessler, a young Hoover Institute fellow who studies health care economics, Dr. David Gratzer, a Manhattan Institute fellow and a practicting doctor in Canada.
Giuliani's top domestic policy advisor is former Indianapolis Mayor/Bush adviser Stephen Goldsmith.
Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, fresh from a trip to Iraq, are suddenly a bit bullish on the surge and were given prime New York Times real estate to make their case. Watch for this one to stir a blogosphere debate today. Meanwhile: could the drawdown begin next April?
Barack Obamae-mails CBN's David Brody to chat about religion. Meanwhile, Slate's popular Achilles Heel series continues today with the question for Obama: what the heck has he done? Over the weekend, the New York Times' latest bio essay about Obama concluded that his tenure in the IL state legislature matched his rhetoric.
Rivals of Hillary Clinton are pushing around this clip today. The Los Angeles Times looks at her courtship of Indian American businesses and their penchant for outsourcing. The AP's Pickler wrote about Hillary Clinton's strengths in South Carolina.
It sure sounds like it. Bob Novak writes of a secret briefing by Defense official Eric Edelman (he's the one who came close to accusing Hillary Clinton of disloyalty) to inform members of Congress about a covert miltary operation to help the Turkish government "supress Kurdish guerrillas" to "forstall" Turkey from invading Kurdish Northern Iraq.
Edelman's listeners were stunned. Wasn't this risky? He responded he was sure of success, adding that the U.S. role could be concealed and always would be denied. Even if all this is true, some of the briefed lawmakers left wondering whether this was a wise policy for handling the beleaguered Kurds who had been betrayed so often by U.S. governments in years past.
A week later, the details were leaked to Novak, ostensibly by someone from the legislative branch.
In Iowa this morning, Sen. Obama admonished the Beltway press corps for using horse race criteria to judge his debate with Sen. Hillary Clinton instead of focusing on the differences between the two of them.
Fair enough.
Obama would meet with the Evil Five "without preconditions" but under "certain conditions." By plain reading, his position contradicts itself. Based on how Obama has subsequently explained his answer, it seems that he meants to say that he would not require the other countries to agree to diplomatic preconditions but that he would not simply meet Hugo Chavez as the Venezuelan Camp David unless he were reasonably certain that Chavez didn't intend to spit in his face. The United States may or may not come to the table with demands.
Clinton would initiative diplomatic overtures immediately but would be skeptical if, say, Holocaust-denying president of Iran decided to invite her to Tehran or to, say, speak at a conference on Zionism. The U.S. has moral leverage in this situation and Clinton would not easily abdicate it.
Both Clinton and Obama say they would be "tough" with these leaders and relentlessly press the United States's interests. Both have said, repeatedly, that they would practice diplomacy to Bush-Cheney cowboy approach.
Charitably, these positions are different by about four cents on the dollar.
Obama goes further. He may even stipulate that Clinton says the right things, but he is making a broader argument: Obama represents a break with the old order and Hillary exemplifies it. Clinton has baggage, history, and promotes a Washington-centric, consensus national security liberalism. Obama would engage these leaders from a different vantage point. And Clinton might agree about that last point: it's not that the issue is whether the Bush-Cheney diplomatic track is reversed, but how.
Calling Clinton "Bush-Cheney lite" is a political charge though, so we go back to politics.
If we string back to the matrix of policy positions, Obama is either trying to manufacture differences where aren't any, or he is suggesting that Clinton is too much of an establishment, dynastic figure to break away from the Bush-Cheney approach which somehow, in Obama's mind, represents a continuation, rather than a break with, the establishment thinking on foreign policy.
In other words, Obama wants to focus on how Clinton originally positioned herself (rather than what she meant) because Obama clearly believes he and Clinton approach foreign policy from a fundamentally different place even if, in this particular situation, they agree on the remedy. The onus on Obama is to show, clearly, how both his approach and his operationalization would be different.
Gov. Tom Vilsack, acting as a surrogate for Sen. Hillary Clinton, blasted Sen. Barack Obama this morning for deliberately attempting to "mask" the similarities between his position on meetings with foreign leaders and hers,
Earlier in the day, Obama told Democrats in Des Moines that it was "time to turn the page on the Bush-Cheney diplomatic strategy that has isolated America from our allies and reduced our moral standing in the international community." On Thursday, he called Sen. Clinton's position "Bush-Cheney Lite."
Vilsack, on a conference call with national political reporters, called Obama's comments "certainly audacious but not particularly hopeful." "It's not the Iowa way," he said, and it "flies in the face of the promise Sen. Obama gave to all of us at the beginning of this campaign to avoid negative politics."
Vilsack, citing Obama's pre-debate interview with Miami Herald where he suggested he'd meet with Hugo Chavez "under certain conditions," said that Obama "agrees" with Clinton's. view but is trying to "confuse" the issue by stepping up his rhetoric.
Also Saturday, Obama's campaign mailed a letter from ex-Iowa Min. Leader Richard Myers, a Korean War veteran, who wrote that “Senator Obama offers a dramatic change from the Bush administration’s seven-year refusal to protect our security interests by using every tool of American power available – including diplomacy. In short, his view of American diplomacy reflects our values.”
The letter was mailed to "thousands of undecided Iowans" who have told the Obama campaign that foreign policy was their top voting issue.
Update: Bill Burton, Obama's spokesman, e-mails a response to Vilsack:
The politics of hope requires us to shake up the establishment status quo that has to change. Obama has been crystal clear in saying that he be the most aggressive in fundamentally changing our nation’s foreign policy.
This is a substantive debate during which she called Obama irresponsible and naive. Obama has been entirely consistent -- he never said he would invite dictators over for a cup of coffee and he said he wouldn’t let these dictators use him as a propaganda tool. What he did say was that he would be willing to meet with them.
It must be confusing to be a rogue leader right now. Witness:
Right before the Democratic debate, Sen. Barack Obama told the Miami Herald that under "certain conditions" he would meet with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
"Under certain conditions, I always believe in talking," Obama told the Miami Herald’s Andres Oppenheimer. "Sometimes it’s more important to talk to your enemies than to your friends."
At the debate, Obama answered "yes" when asked if he would meet with rogue leaders "without preconditions." Strategist David Axelrod later clarified that Obama simply meant that he would be willing to meet with them face-to-face without any pre-arranged concessions from those leaders.
It's not clear the circumstances Obama was thinking about when he was being interviewed by the Herald writer are akin to diplomatic "preconditions" -- perhaps he simply meant he would not immediately invite Chavez to the White House... but use of the word "conditions" does sound like Hillary Clinton's. Mr. Obama has tried to force some daylight into the two approaches: hers is allegedly "Bush-Lite" -- but he will now be challenged to describe how his conditions differ from hers. (One clue as to how he might respond: Obama said on a Thursday conference call with reporters that Clinton is "somehow maintaining is my statement could be construed as not having asked what the meeting was about. I didn't say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon. From what I heard the point was… well, I wouldn't do that because it might allow leaders like Hugo Chavez to score propaganda points. I think that is absolutely wrong.")
And a further apparent complication, particularly if you're getting your news from soundbites. Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton was asked by MSNBC's Keith Olbermnann whether she'd "reach out immediately to the Syrians and the Iranians." Yes, she said, and "I don't see that as a sign of weakness, I see it as a sign of strength. ... I would immediately open a Democratic track."
Conclusion: Clinton will open a diplomatic track immediately; Obama would meet, quickly, directly with the principals themselves, provided he was satisfied he was not a propaganda tool.
BIll O'Reilly did the Clinton campaign an enormous favor by deeming YearlyKos unacceptable for sober presidential candidates to attend. Clinton aide Howard Wolfson did his boss good by showing up and defending the Kossacks.
Ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani is wrapping up a great month for the campaign, one where the Thompson Freeze and the McCain collapse have allowed him to fill some organizational gaps and concentrate on making his economic policy case in New Hampshire. On the other hand, the Michigan Republican Party might throw a wrench in his campaign's Feb. 5 strategy. We'll know more next week.
Bill Richardson is touting another poll showing momentum in Iowa. His debate performance was middling. It's just not his format.
Mitt Romney continued to draw contrasts with Democrats.
Monday's YouTube debate launched the Turning Point of the race so far, as Obama and Hillary engaged in a substantive debate (played out over three days and ending in some nanny-nanny boo-boo) about foreign policy. Obama showed he is capable of being ballsy. Clinton demonstrated that M. Albright and R. Holbrooke still won't get on a conference call together. Both sides proclaimed victory; the press deemed HRC the victor early and then changed its mind.
Jeri Thompson is guiding her husband's presidential quest. Deal with it.
John Edwards set the bar for Democratic economic plans; he's raise taxes on the rich and cut them for the middle class. Despite the hullabaloo over Obama-Clinton, Edwards managed some pretty good press from the MSM and Dems, and some pretty critical jabs from Republicans, which is exactly the right mix for him right now.
What's Next
August begins! Next weekend, the Dems do YearlyKos in Chicago -- it's a mile away from Obama's campaign headquarters. Republicans stump in Iowa ahead of the straw poll. They debate on "This Week" With George Stephanopoulos next Sunday. Fred Thompson hosts a fund raiser in DC.
The Atlantic's Boldest
(our corrections)
1. The name of the DNC's research chief is Mike G-E-H-R-K-E, not Gerkhe.
2. Sam LeBlond was not "the" lead political advance guy for Fred Thompson. He was "a" lead advance guy for Fred Thompson.
The day he resigned as Howard Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi packed his truck and drove down I-95 from Burlington, Vermont to his Maryland retreat, swearing to everyone who reached him on the telephone that he was done, forever, with presidential politics.
The Dean campaign, once the life of the primaries, was bradycardic. Trippi, who tends to ruminate, was convinced that his reputation was ruined. He expected to be blamed for collapse of the Dean campaign after he put body and soul building it. Indeed, his critics thought his mismanagement contributed to Dean's woes. Trippi allies point out that he never had full control over the campaign's finances.
Trippi was also sick. Years of unchecked diabetes and a diet consisting principally of snack food and Diet Pepsis enervated his ambition. He suffers today from diabetic neuropathy, and will, in mid-conversation, double over in silent pain.
After the falling out, Dean was angered by, then bemused by Trippi. Many consultants poked fun at his foibles. He has an outsize personality, is at turns loyal and generous and critical and demanding, thinks laterally and narratively, and tends to fill a room. He would be the first to admit that he is not easy to get along with. Having covered the Dean campaign, I've been yelled at by Trippi many times, often for writing stories he did not like, occasionally for asking silly questions, and inexplicably, for simply writing about him.
He dissolved his longstanding business partnership with Steve McMahon, noodled around at home, tried to bring the old band together after the Dean collapse (remember the Cummings Creek Compact?), and helped a few down-ballot campaigns on the side. He was an MSNBC commentator for a while, wrote a successful book, and was a fairly well-recieved speaker on the circuit.
All the while, the Democratic Party adopted Howard Dean as party chairman, employed the tactics, and puzzled through the ideas that Trippi was among the first to articulate. As chronicled in Matt Bai's new book about the "billionaires and bloggers" who remade the Democratic Policy, liberals began to build an infastructure to harness the energy that propelled Howard Dean's candidacy. If Howard Dean's ideas elected Democrats in 2006, so did Trippi's brand of politics.
This cycle, three presidential candidates courted him. He signed on with ex-Sen. John Edwards after bonding with Elizabeth Edwards -- there's a whole separate story here about how he's fitting in. But he's in. That "Hair" video -- vintage Trippi. Edwards hired Trippi in part because Iowa is Trippi's specialty -- he helped Walter Mondale and Dick Gephardt win the caucuses -- and Edwards needs to win the caucuses.
The small-dollar Internet donor base attracted by the Dean and flogged relentless by Trippi has transformed the party's fundraising. Democrats actually counterpunch these days. Every single campaign uses Trippi-patented tactics to raise money. The men and women Joe Trippi cultivated on Dean's staff have stormed the gates and occupy positions of power in major party and campaign offices.
This isn't Hagiography Friday. It's just a rare story of redemption in politics.
John Edwards took a shot at Clinton and Obama's dispute -- telling the National Urban League convention in St Louis:
"If you’re looking, if you're looking for what’s wrong in Washington, why the system is broken, why the system doesn’t work, one perfect example is what's been happening over the last four days. We’ve had two good people, Democratic candidates for president, who’ve spent their time attacking each other, instead of attacking the problems that this country’s faced.
The Politico's Jonathan Martin scoops that Tom Frechette, the would-be deputy campaign manager, has resigned. Like his former boss-to-be Tom Collamore, Mr. Frenchette was given a "senior adviser" title.
Martin also notices that Sean Hannity didn't ask Mr. Thompson a single question about his campaign on his appearance last night.
Chris Cillizza wrote about, and now you can see it -- after the jump, the full list of Fred Thompson staffers and ... recent staffers as compiled by a rival campaign.
Nothing original to say about John Edwards's tax overhaul proposals, but they deserve some attention. Edwards would raise the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 28% -- the Dow's slide today is an interesting frame -- he'd greatly expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and would create some tax breaks for the middle class.
The news is bleak for those in the higher income brackets: Not only would private equity and hedge fund execs have higher rates on “carried interest,” but executives will also see a $1-million cap on how much they can defer into their pensions.
Mr. Edwards also said he would “declare war on tax havens” by giving the IRS the authority to investigate offshore tax breaks.
The politics is interwoven with the policy: both the establishment and insurgent wings of the Democratic Party worry about the politics of taxes, and Edwards is the first Democrat of national stature to confront this sacred cow. Most Democrats are willing to scrap the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy; few are willing to acknowledge that they can't fund their "investments" without sacrifice, and unless they embrace supply side economics, they're going to have to deficit spend or raise taxes. Edwards has once again pledged to raise taxes on the wealthy and cut taxes for the middle class. His rivals will be challenged to follow his lead. It could be political suicide, or it could be audacious enough to draw a real contrast between Edwards and the field. Populists have been aching for a clash of ideas about taxes for a long time. They have one now.
"[Y]ou ought to be able to save your money and you ought to have a special tax rate [on your savings]… the tax rate ought to be absolutely zero. … [Edwards is] going to announce today that he's in favor of a plan that let's you save $250 tax free. That's not going to pay for college, or retirement, or a car – maybe a bike…"
A Giuliani campaign source says that the ex-NYC mayor will most likely opt out of the 9/17 CNN/YouTube Debate in Florida. The reason: unspecified scheduling conflicts.
The Republicans take their turn answering unpredictable YouTube questions on September 17 in St. Petersburg, FL. When the the debate was announced by the state party, CNN and YouTube last Friday, Sen. John McCain immediately RSVP'd. Since then, silence from the other campaigns.
Mitt Romney didn't like some of the more frivolous trappings and told the New Hampshire Union Leader that "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."
Several campaigns report receiving a formal invitation today.
The D.C. Examiner's Bill Sammon was kind of enough to e-mail the transcript of his question and Newt Gingrich's answer.
Here's the context, which speaks for itself:
Q: “A lot of people say, you know, he’s the most brilliant guy that could be considered for this, and yet he has baggage that might make him unelectable. How to you address that fundamental objection?”
A: “I don’t. That’s not my problem. I’ll take the first half of his sentence and suggest you watch the six-hour briefing. It’s not my problem. This is like going to De Gaulle when he was at Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises during the Fourth Republic and saying, 'Don't you want to rush in and join the pygmies?' I have no interest in the current political process. I have no interest in trying to figure out how I can go out and raise money under John McCain’s insane censorship rules.”
Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson just sent out this calming e-mail to his list:
In the past few months, I've traveled the country talking and listening to folks. I've been discussing where I see America going, about what we need to do to keep our nation secure, what we must do to keep this remarkable economy growing, and the challenges we must address together for the next generation of Americans.
I believe the United States is at a crossroads, and what I'm hearing on the road is that a lot of people agree with me. They're ready to move forward together to meet our challenges here at home and abroad. They aren't buying into the defeatist talk about our security, our economy, and our future.
During this "testing the waters" effort we've undertaken, I've been saying the political waters feel pretty warm. It's allowed us to start laying the foundation of a good team across the country and to keep up this national conversation we've been having. Now we're going to take that conversation to a different level.
On Tuesday, August 7th, we're inaugurating a new weekly "I'm With Fred" email, complete with news, updates, and photos from the road. We're also working on the ImWithFred website 2.0, in order to keep in touch on a daily basis and to give you more opportunities to join us at events, help us organize, and spread the word about our efforts.
I'm excited about what I'm seeing out on the road. I appreciate everything you're doing for our effort.
Sen. Hillary Clinton responds to Sen. Barack Obama in an interview to be aired later on CNN.
SEN. CLINTON: “Well, this is getting kind of silly. I’ve been called a lot of things in my life but I’ve never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney certainly. We have to ask what’s ever happened to the politics of hope?
“I have been saying consistently for a number of years now, we have to end the Bush era of ignoring problems, ignoring enemies and adversaries. And I have been absolutely clear that we’ve got to return to robust and effective diplomacy. But I don’t want to see the power and prestige of the United States President put at risk by rushing into meetings with the likes of Chavez, and Castro, and Ahmadinejad.”
Exodus Continues: More Staff To Leave Team Thompson
Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson's lead political advance operative*, Sam LeBlond, resigned this morning, associates of Thompson said, and several other advisers were expected to quit before the end of the week.
Mr. LeBlond is nephew to President George W. Bush.
He joined the Thomspon committee less than two weeks ago.
Update: Chris Cillizza reports that Mary Matalin, a longtime friend of Jeri Thompson's, will not be departing.
** = perhaps I should have written "one of" here. The Thompson campaign is disputing the word "lead." Part of the problem is that several folks there were promised jobs with the same title. Mr. LeBlond was part of the advance staff. He was not an intern. He anticipated taking a lead role. And now he's resigned.
Newt Gingrich insists that he didn't call the lot of Republican presidential candidates a "pathetic" bunch of "pygmies" and instead was the victim of a reporter who did not understand his historical reference.
On Tuesday, the D.C. Examiner's Bill Sammon wrote that he pressed Gingrich to address "
whether his political baggage renders him unelectable, Gingrich compared himself to a famous French statesman. "This is like going to De Gaulle when he was at Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises during the Fourth Republic and saying, 'Don't you want to rush in and join the pygmies?'" he said."
Professor Gingrich strikes back, courtesy of his press secretary, Rick Tyler.
It was clear to anyone in the room that when Gingrich said, “This is like going to De Gaulle when he was at Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises during the Fourth Republic and saying, 'Don't you want to rush in and join the pygmies?” that he was referring to the French analogy of a broken political system and not any of the candidates running for President.
More from Tyler:
Gingrich as a young man lived in France under de Gaulle and earned a Ph.D. in modern European history. His comparison, which Sammon ignored, was significant and relevant to today’s dysfunctional political process and government bureaucracies.
This line is especially brutal:
Sammon either did not understand the reference or he chose to quote Gingrich out of context. I am inclined to believe the latter because Bill is a smart person.
You can read the whole letter to the Examiner after the jump.
Clinton Wins A Round: The DoD Is Planning For Drawndown
Defense Sec. Robert Gates, in a letter to Sen. Hillary Clinton, said that senior military commanders are drawing up contingency plans to withdraw troops from Iraq, calling the work a "priority" for the Department of Defense.
Gates said he won't share specifics with Congress but is willing to loop Congress in on the "conceptual thinking, factors, considerations and objectives associated with drawdown planning."
Responding to Clinton's complaint that Under Secretary for Policy Eric Edelman denigrated the value of congressional oversight, Gates called it "fundamental" to the American political system, said the congressional debate on Iraq is "constructive, appropriate and necessary," and is explicit in saying that he does not believe that the debate about oversight "does not embolden our enemies."
Gates ends the letter by expressing his support for Amb. Edelman. Then he apologizes. "I truly regret that this important discussion went astray and I also regret any misunderstanding of intentions," Gates writes.
A Clinton aide responds:
While Senator Clinton is disappointed that Secretary Gates does not repudiate Under Secretary Edelman’s unacceptable political attack, Senator Clinton nevertheless welcomes Secretary Gates's acknowledgment that congressional oversight of the war in Iraq is essential to our national debate. She continues to believe strongly that there is absolutely no room for impugning the patriotism of those who rightfully engage in Congressional oversight
Senator Clinton also welcomes the disclosure that the Department of Defense, according to the Secretary, is indeed planning for the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, and looks forward to receiving the department's briefings. To ensure that Secretary Gates’ sentiments are fulfilled, she will continue to pursue with Senator Kerry their legislation mandating that the Pentagon brief Congress on contingency planning to ensure the safe and secure redeployment of our troops from Iraq.
Two days of high profile resignations, an NBC News report that fundraising has slowed down considerably, open anxiety from Thompson supporters -- it seems like a hex has been cast on his presidential bid.
What's going on?
To a certain extent, these growing pains are normal. It's extraordinarily difficult to quickly build a presidential campaign from scratch. Back-end tasks include creating a budget, renting headquarters, hiring lawyers and compliance experts, dealing with the press, dealing with allies, dealing with potential fundraisers, recruiting political operatives, recruiting supporters, managing expectations -- and lots more. As new employees come aboard, the number of voices, the levels of vetting, the procedural hurdles all multiply. Campaigns at this stage often require a single puppet master. Good Ole' Fred has one: wife Jeri Kehn Thompson.
Thompson unwisely allowed tension to develop between his wife and the rest of the campaign staff. Ex-campaign-manager designate Tom Collamore did not mesh with Jeri Thompson and the friction between the two was evident to the rest of the staff. At times, Kehn Thompson would simply countermand Collamore's instructions. She has final hiring authority -- something that every campaign manager needs and Collamore never had. The Thompson presidential staff will be her staff more than Fred's.
J.T. Mastranadi is one of the Republican Party's best opposition researchers. His "ground" skill -- his ability to unearth new information -- is the envy of many competitors. He was hired two weeks ago, and when he began to plan for the campaign, he found it difficult to get his questions answered. He quickly concluded that Thompson had yet to get his affairs in order, friends say.
Now -- the strong hand of Jeri Thompson is not necessarily a force for evil. Spouses can be good campaign managers: Jenny Sanford managed her husband Mark's first four successful congressional and gubernatorial campaigns in South Carolina. But Thompson's press has been brutal and borderline sexist, a consequence of her many detractors speaking on background to reporters. Thompson has worked as a professional political consultant and knows the basics of putting a campaign together. And Fred Thompson trusts her to make decisions. Incoming staffers need to accept that Jeri is first among equals. It is unclear whether any adviser will rise as a counterweight to the spouse. Probably not: Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Edwards, Bill Clinton and Ann Romney are probably the most powerful quartet of spouses to exert influence in a presidential race ever. No one on their respective campaigns comes close, although John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have been known to weigh the advice of others against the influence of wife and husband.
It took about eight months for John McCain to discover that lines of authority matter. Presidents ought to be competent managers. If a candidate can't get his campaign right, then it's fair to wonder how he'd structure the White House staff, what power he'd delegate to the cabinet, who would make decisions in his absence and more. The presence of a single decider, in and of itself, should not count against the Thompson campaign and is probably essential at this point. The resignations and backbiting suggest that the campaign cannot control its own image, and the responsibility lies solely with the candidate. Ole Fred has to fix the problems. His supporters will lose faith in him if he dawdles and his fundraising will dry up even more.
As Chuck Todd points out, one reason why two resignations matter is that there is nothing else that matters -- Thompson isn't making news or campaigning.
The role of ex-Sen. Spencer Abraham is unclear, but integrating him into the campaign will help. He is one of the party's best practitioner-strategists and has experience running campaigns nationwide. He's less of a grassroots guy, but he can raise money from the grasstops. One Republican on the outer circle of the campaign said that Abraham will be the campaign's chief liaison to politicians and fundraisers and will be one of its public faces. Randy Enwright, as has been widely reported, is one of the main reasons why Florida is only barely competitive for Democrats anymore. He is that good.
"We're on track," communications director Linda Rozett said yesterday. The message from the survivors on the campaign staff seems to be: a few scuff marks only matter to the press. Maybe. But Thompson is losing fair-weather fans. The opinion elite at National Review Online often pull base opinion behind them, and they're starting to get mighty anxious.
Thompson expects to open a presidential committee (and call it an exploratory committee) in August -- although probably after the ABC News debate on August 5. Thompson is slated on the Ames straw poll ballot, so he might well establish the committee in the week between the debate and the straw poll. Thompson's formal announcement tour is planned for the first week after Labor Day.
Hillary Clinton is nothing if she's not the candidate of strength and experience, and Barack Obama will not concede the points. Nicked by the press after Monday night's debate, Obama's campaign has ferociously counterpunched the last two days, giving an on-camera interview to NBC News and repeating his comments this morning with a gentle taunt: prove you're different than Bush-Cheney.
"I think we've got her on her heels," one adviser bragged to me last night.
Speaking of bragging:
One thing I'm very confident about is my judgment in foreign policy is, I believe, better than any other candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat," Obama said
This bravado, according to the dogged Jake Tapper of ABC News, was Obama's at an "off-the-record" event hosted by Time Magazine in New York two nights ago. Tapper was tipped off by attendees.
Such superlatives are uncommon for presidential candidates and uncommon all the more for Barack Obama. The audacity! Well -- Obama believes it!
Obama and Clinton talk about experience in different ways. Clinton has the more conventional definition. Experience is resume; the requisites for the job. Obama's definition hinges on lived experience; varities of experience. In Obama's mind (and I am getting this from his friends, not from the ether), true experience produces wisdom; and wisdom leads to judgment, and judgment leads to, well, the ability to see around the corner on Iraq.
He told Lynn Sweet this morning:
The debate is not just about life experience, although obviously that informs my perspective. It also has to do with perspective with how the United States should project its interests and ideals around the world. it's a debate over the same conventional thinking that led people to authorize the war in Iraq without asking question versus and approach to foreign policy that allows people to ask questions and is informed by a knowledge and perspective of cultures like those in Iraq and is not trapped by a lot of received wisdom.
A Change
Tuesday, Clinton was charging at Obama; Wednesday, Obama charged back, and the Clinton campaign sent out a defensive statement from Richard Holbrooke.
The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous," he said in an interview outside his Senate office. "But the general principle is one that I think Senator Clinton is wrong on, and that is if we are laying out preconditions that prevent us from speaking frankly to these folks, then we are continuing with Bush-Cheney policies."
Then:
Later Wednesday, the Clinton campaign issued a statement by former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who is supporting her candidacy, taking issue with Obama's comments and saying she would bring an end to "the cowboy approach of the Bush years."
Day Three: Obama To Clinton: Prove You're Different Than Bush-Cheney?
Barack Obama just completed a conference call with reporters -- ostensibly, he was there to brag about his endorsement by Rep. Paul Hodes. "Paul overcame a lot of the predictions that he couldn’t beat an incumbent because he was a fresh new voice and spoke the truth and people appreciated that he could be an agent of change."
And then he took questions, and national reporters really only wanted to hear Obama talk about one subject. Mike McAuliffe with the New York Daily News noticed how Obama had compared Hillary Clinton's debate answer about diplomacy to the Bush-Cheney approach. Does he really believe that?
A beat.
Obama: “I don’t just believe it, I think that’s the record. The Bush administration’s policy is to say that we will not talk to these countries unless we meet explicit preconditions. And that is the question that was asked at the debate.” He continued: “You’ll have to ask Sen. Clinton: what differentiates her position from theirs?”
Obama elaborated. “If I sit down with a leader of Iran I will send them a strong message that Israel is our friend and that we will assist in their security and that we don’t find nuclear weapons acceptable… that’s not going to be a propaganda coup for Iran, but what it does do is allow us to send a message to the rest of the world that we are willing to sit down and talk. [What she said] during the debate and subsequently was that she would not meet with various leaders unless certain preconditions were met. Now, if that’s not what she means, she should say so. But that was the question that was posed at the debate. You need to get clarification from her if they are walking back from the position that we stated."
A new fundraising plea by RNC chairman Mike Duncan features all the Clinton-bashing innudeno the RNC's e-mail crafters could conjure up. It reads like a blast from the past, but the real turn is in the text itself: the RNC is afraid that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee and that she will overwhelm the Republican Party's fundraising capability.
Duncan points out that the RNC is the only authorized federal committee allowed to "directly support" the GOP nominee; the implicit mesasge is that there will be plenty of outside groups seeking anti-Hillary donations, but only the RNC can exploit the full panoply of speech options afforded by federal law.
Scary thought: the "Hillary Clinton fundraising juggernaut" referenced in the letter isn't the biggest fundraising juggernaut there is, of course.
The legacy of Joe Trippi and Howard Dean lives on: an energized Democratic Party with a broad new fundraising base is forcing the Republicans to beg for general election money more than a year before the party convention.
Dear XXX,
The Hillary Clinton fundraising juggernaut keeps on rolling.
Through the first six months of the year, Hillary has raised a whopping $63 million. Unfortunately, that's just the start. She is expected to raise more than $100 million before the end of 2007.
Hillary and her campaign manager, former Democrat Party chief Terry McAuliffe, are hoping her massive haul of campaign cash will pave the way to her coronation as the Democrat presidential nominee and provide her with early money to attack our GOP presidential candidates.
XXX, if we are to stop Bill and Hillary from returning to the White House, we must act now. As the only GOP organization allowed by federal law to directly support our presidential nominee, the Republican National Committee is leading the drive to keep the Clintons from another extended stay at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Please help the RNC counter Hillary's growing war chest by making a secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 today to support our eventual Republican presidential nominee.
We must prepare for the 2008 presidential election now. Back in 1995 -- 16 months before he was re-elected -- Bill Clinton began spending $85 million on negative ads aimed at the GOP and our eventual presidential nominee, Bob Dole. Hillary wants to follow the same playbook.
Hillary is criss-crossing the country raising tens of millions of dollars from Hollywood elites, Big Labor, and trial lawyers. She's dispatched her husband, the Fundraiser-in-Chief, to headline events and remind liberals of the "Two-for-One" package you get if the Clintons are in the White House.
And you know what that would mean:
The return of Hillary-Care -- the one-size-fits-all health care system Hillary tried to force through in 1993 that would put bureaucrats in Washington in charge of your health care choices instead of your doctor.
Higher taxes for all Americans to pay for her big government plans. As Hillary said earlier this year on the campaign trail, "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."
The appointment of more liberal judges and the further expansion of the federal government into your daily life.
XXX, we cannot allow a return of the big government, high taxes, anything goes style of governing that Hillary Clinton embodies.
The RNC must raise the funds now to support our eventual nominee if we are to compete with the Clinton/liberal special interest money machine. That's why today I'm turning to our Party's top supporters -- Sustaining Members like you -- once again. Please click here to help stop Hillary.
Electing a new Republican president and keeping Bill and Hillary from a return stay at the White House begins with you, XXX. Please make a secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to support the RNC's efforts today.
The $63 million Hillary now has for her presidential campaign is just the tip of the iceberg. Your immediate support is crucial to countering the Clinton money machine. Thank you.
Best Wishes,
Robert M. "Mike" Duncan
Chairman, Republican National Committee
P.S. XXX, you can be certain Bill and Hillary will be hitting up their liberal special interest allies for tens of millions more as the primaries near. The RNC is counting on your continuing generous support to help us lay the foundation for electing a new Republican president in 2008. Your donation of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 is vital to our cause. Thank you.
Michigan Republicans Fighting Over Primary, and Giuliani and McCain Are In Bed Together
In Michigan, proxies for three leading Republican candidates are fighting a back room battle over the state's 2008 Republican primary. Trying to mediate is the state party chair, Saul Anuzis, who must negotiate between his constituents -- the Republicans in Michigan -- and the presidential campaigns.
Yesterday, Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI), a supporter of ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, wrote to members of the Republican state committee to protest rules changes that she claims will help a small cadre of conservative activists at the expense of other Republicans.
Here's the background: the state party and the presidential candidates have publicly endorsed a jointly-held presidential primary run by the state on Feb. 5 or earlier. This will happen only if the legislature passes and Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) signs a bill setting the date. The state senate is expected to send its version of the bill to the state house as early as Thursday. If the bill gets to Granholm's desk, she'll sign it.
Both parties have fall-back options in case the bill fails. The Democrats might hold a caucus; that benefits labor and potentially a labor-allied John Edwards. Or they could hold a regular primary, presumably to the advantage of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. DNC rules require a "closed" primary -- only registered Democrats can participate.
Miller's complaint is threefold. First, she worries about the "or earlier" part of the bill. That's because the RNC has promised to penalize any state that holds a delegate selection contest before Feb. 5.
And she's particularly worried about the preference of the GOP state party's presidential committee to prepare a delegate selection convention on Jan. 25-26, just in case.
"I cannot understand why we as a party would want to suffer the consequences that holding a convention...would bring," Miller writes in the letter, a copy of which was sent to this column by a sympathizer. "I believe this process does nothing to broaden the electorate, garner our party any valuable information, or improve our appeal as a party."
Anuzis, in an e-mail, said he is aware of Miller's objections.
"I have made Giuliani's, McCain's and Romneys' preferences and strategy known to our entire State Committee and county chairs," Anuzis said in an e-mail. "I fully understand the Congresswomen's concerns about our fallback position of holding an early state convention to chose our national delegates."
In her letter, Miller insists she is not writing on the Giuliani campaign's behalf. But her concerns mirror those expressed by Giuliani's political advisers. For them, it's most convenient, strategy-wise, for Michigan to choose delegates on Feb. 5 or later. Going earlier breaks with their master plan, which is to use momentum from a Florida victory on Jan. 29 to collect hundreds of delegates on Feb. 5. If Michigan holds a primary on Jan. 29, it will dilute the momentum effect provided by Florida. Giuliani could still do well, but he'd have to work for it from the same starting position as the other candidates.
If Michigan Republicans held a convention -- that most narrow of delegate selection processes that favors party activists -- on Jan .25, Giuliani would not, needless to say, be the frontrunner. Florida would not have that week to itself. McCain doesn't want a convention either, but his team -- including the RNC committeeman Chuck Yob -- has won them before.
Other rule changes rankle the McCain and Giuliani campaigns and have the potential to deprive incumbent Republicans in Michigan of some of their institutional advantages All contested voting will be done by paper and by secret ballot. Campaigns will therefore be deprived of leverage. Real voting machines will tabulate the ballots. And alternate delegates would be given the freedom to support whichever candidate they wanted.
McCain's backers in the state object to a provision granting precinct delegates a leg up in becoming state convention delegates. In their mind, that violates the principle of majority rule. The change would effectively make it more difficult for a majority of, say, 51% to own the delegate selection process or for a precinct or district chair to award delegates en masse to their preferred candidates.
Miller and some of the presidential campaigns argue that Michigan is a diverse state and the delegate selection process ought to reflect it. Anuzis considers it his duty to give Republicans in the state a say in the '08 nomination process.
Needless to say, if the primary is held on Feb. 5, none of this matters. If it's held after Feb. 5, it matters less -- no one's Feb. 5 strategy is upended.
The Obama campaign is bragging about a "major" addition to the "national" campaign tomorrow -- an endorsement, in other words, that merits more than a press release. Obama will be joined by the mystery addition in Concord, NH.
Who is it? The adjective "national" may throw some people off. But I'd bet that the endorsee is tied to New Hampshire, and the buzz around the state today is that it will be none other than Rep. Paul Hodes who represents New Hampshire's 2nd congressional district. Hodes upset GOP Rep. Charlie Bass in last year's election. Hodes's colleague, Rep. Carol Shea Porter, has yet to endorse.
Obama's campaign declined to comment; I couldn't get in touch with Hodes's operatives.
Each week, NBC News political director Chuck Todd and I present our rankings on the likely order of finish for the presidential candidates.
We're headed into an August stasis, so don't look for these numbers to change much over the next 30 days.
These rankings are ordered by likelihood of winning the Democratic primary and are based on a number of factors, including organization, money, buzz and polling. Click here for Republican rankings.
1. Hillary Clinton -- Tactics matter at this stage, and Clinton is running a better tactical campaign. There's just no other way to put it. The straw man spat with the Pentagon was proof of just how good their communications operation is. Very impressive.
2. Barack Obama -- Probably the best way to describe this campaign right now is that Clinton is going 75 mph; Obama is going 50 and has plenty of gas to spare. Obama looks like he can eventually go faster in his campaign car, but he's not doing it yet.
3. John Edwards -- At what point is Elizabeth Edwards becoming too involved? Or, because of Bill Clinton's shadow, will nobody ever dare to hold her against her husband?
4. Bill Richardson -- Richardson, once again, is making progress (in Iowa polls, in national polls) when the spotlight is shining elsewhere. Can he handle media attention? Our guess: not yet
5. Christopher Dodd -- Dodd's got money for Iowa and seems more determined than ever to stick it out. Hey, you never know, right?
6. Joseph Biden -- Biden has serious money problems. Can he really run an "I'll just show up for the debates" campaign? It worked Monday night, but come Tuesday...
The day after his would-be campaign manager was replaced, Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson has another senior staff position to refill.
J.T. Mastranadi was hired just a week and a half ago to be the campaign's director of research. He resigned this morning, a friend of his said. The friend said that Mastranadi was "fed up" with the "lack of structure" and was unclear about his role in the coming campaign.
Thompson's spokesperson, Linda Rozett, confirmed that Mastranadi submitted his resignation this morning. "He did it for personal reasons," she said.
Mastranadi was a former NRSC research director and is considered one of the best investigators in the business. Most recently, he worked with Thompson friend David Bossie on an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary.
Rozett dismissed the significance of the second resignation in two days.
"Everything is on track," Rozett said. "Friends of Fred Thompson continues to add people."
Ok, unfair question to ask. But there IS a metric. The DNC's research and press shops have sent dozens of research documents to reporters over the past year. The memos are an attempt to make the target softer for the Democratic nominee. (The Dem candidate researchers don't coordinate with DNC research czar Mike Gehrke, but they are uniformly grateful for the DNC's assistance). When a nominee is chosen, Gehrke will hand over a huge, ready-made research book, just like the one the Republicans' research director, Shawn Reinschmiedt, is preparing for the Republicans.
As of last Friday, Mitt Romney was featured in 59 seperate DNC releases, according to an entity that keeps track, followed by John McCain at 48 and Rudy Giuliani at 45. Fred Thompson is next at five, but obvious caveats apply.
What this means, simply, is that the DNC is paying more attention to Mitt Romney right now. Or maybe it means that the DNC has so much material on Romney that they can't help but release it in spurts. Or maybe it means nothing. Under the direction of DNC communications director Karen Finney, Gehrke has set up an integrated research shop that draws from resources in the Democratic state parties; Iowa's Democratic Party is especially aggressive. The DNC urges caution before we read too much into the numbers of releases.
Gerhke's team acknowledges the lesser-known candidates, too: Mike Huckabee's had four releases, Duncan Hunter has had two. Sam Brownback is the least of Gehrke's concern: he's been named in one release.
When joint attacks are included (yes, someone actually keeps tabs), Romney's tally jumps to 78.
Here are some of the titles:
Nothing Peachy About Romney’s Debate Reviews, Poll Numbers
Temper, Temper: Immigration Outburst Shows Pressure Getting to McCain
McCain’s Principles Can’t Keep Him Off the Campaign Trail
Rudy Giuliani's Crumbling Credibility Takes Toll on Candidacy
Giuliani's Credibility Crumbles as He Continues to Overstate Mayoral Record and Adoption Numbers
Which McCain Will be the "Last Man Standing"?
What We Didn’t Hear at Last Night’s GOP Debate
Fred Thompson Wanted to Cut Funding for AIDS Research
McCain’s Crumbling Campaign Comes to Michigan
Must Read: Giuliani Firms Had Potential Conflict of Interest
GOP Displays More Failed Leadership At Debate
More of the Same Failed Energy Policy from Rudy Giuliani
Obama Compared To Dukakis; Willie Horton Makes An Appearance
With the headline "Democrats Play Dirty In Charleston," the Palmetto Scoop blog published what it said was a flier found affixed to fence posts near the Citadel, the location of Monday night's Democratic debate.
The pamphlet, suggestive of an appeal to racial prejudice, visually links Barack Obama to Michael Dukakis and to Willie Horton, the convicted rapist whose furlough in Massachusetts became a controversial television ad during the 1988 presidential race, and it goes on to accuse Obama of favoring early release for sex offenders.
The charge leveled at Obama lacks evidence and the citation appears to distort a 1999 state senate vote on prisoner sentencing. The legislation expanded "good times credits" for convicts.)
When it first aired in the fall of 1988, the Horton ad was immediately criticized for exploiting latent racial prejudice. (It was created by ad maker Larry McCarthy on behalf of the Virginia-based National Security PAC; McCarthy and the PAC denied any racial intent.)
Of the Obama-Horton flier, a witness, Felton Barns, e-mails to say that
"It was all over the area surrounding the debate. ... [T]he road leading up to the citadel gates with all the candidate yard signs was lined with these flyers. The high school band group chanting Obama's name was tearing these flyers down and leaving them."
So who's behind the flier and what's the intent?
The Palmetto Blog post says that Obama's team blames Hillary Clinton's campaign.
That's not true. Obama's South Carolina campaign doesn't know where it came from and therefore has no one to blame. Clinton's campaign disclaims any knowledge.
Shenanigans are common in South Carolina politics. But this is a few steps beyond the norm. Is the culprit a misguided, Machiavellian supporter of a rival candidate who thinks he or she knows how to move a message but winds up embarrassing their candidate of choice? Maybe it's a member of the opposite party trying to start a fight? This being South Carolina, it might be something else entirely.
A side note: coincidentally, Obama's campaign launched its first radio ad in the state yesterday. The 60-second spot describes Obama as a Christian and civil rights leader.
This is interesting. One way of looking at the little Clinton-Obama exchange over talking to "enemy" foreign leaders was that Clinton was simply trying to underscore her experience level by adding a little nuance to the picture. That seems not to be the case, as she and surrogate Madeleine Albright are using the issue to hit pretty hard at Obama.
And, of course, if you construe what Obama said to mean that he intends to jet off to Pyongyang without any advance work having been done, I suppose that really would be "irresponsible and frankly naive," but that hardly seems like a fair assessment. It's strange for the front-runner to go on the attack like that, and especially odd given the political climate for her to be going out of the way to emphasize the idea that she's substantially more hawkish than Obama.
That depends on the composition of the political climate. If Democratic primary voters choose their favorite on the basis of who was right in 2003, then Clinton will lose. If they choose like they generally use -- on a mix of attributes, attitudes and issues and electability, then the argument supporting the track of the primary race is three dimensional.
Obama and Clinton are running two very different campaigns. Clinton does not need to prove her mettle to the Democratic base, and the base has, so far, given her a pass on Iraq. Her assumption is that she's crossed the change threshold and can focus on her core competency, which is "experience and strength." It's politically brave to be making the electability argument now, as she is doing, or it is dumb if it alienates her base. So far, it hasn't alienated her base -- maybe because the base buys the Clinton worldview of what's presidential.
Obama's strategy is more risky: his idealism rings resonant with liberals, his anti-Iraq-war proclivity clearly helps him get second looks, but his contant critiques of both parties are probably not warmly recieved by the partisan Democrats who vote in primaries (except New Hampshire). Obama's other problem is that the anti-Iraq war vacuum in Iowa has been filled by John Edwards.
Hence, Obama's declaration today that what was really "naive" and "irresponsible" was voting for the war in the first place is, one, a critique of Clinton's judgment and Edwards's judgment, and two, an attempt to change the subject back to Iraq.
Fred Thompson: Testing The Waters And Shaking Them Up
The Associated Press reports this afternoon that Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson has replaced his would-be campaign manager, Thomas J. Collamore, with former Sen. Spence Abraham and political adviser Randy Enwright's . No explanation was provided; Collamore will remain an adviser.
I cannot as of yet advance the story, and I do not know the circumstances behind the change. When Collamore was brought aboard, he was described to me as the "campaign manager in waiting." That suggests that either his desire to slog through a campaign changed or his relationship with the candidate did.
The star in Thompson's orbit is his wife Jeri, a former RNC official who has given no interviews since Thompson began to speculate about a run. Jeri Thompson is his most ardent supporter and Thompson associates credit her with encouraging him to run. Thompson is said to trust her judgment explicitly. Others, particularly some of the newer advisers and allies, are wary. Still, this election cycle features several powerful spouses -- Elizabeth Edwards, Bill Clinton, Michelle Obama, Ann Romney -- so some of the criticism can be chalked up to sexism mixed with envy.
Some of Thompson's supporters-in-waiting worry that his delay in entering the race cuts off avenues of support and fuels speculation that reinforces the negative parts of Thompson's reputation. He recently lost a key potential social conservative endorsement to Mitt Romney -- the Judicial Confirmation Network's Wendy Long.
The news today will reinforce doubts about whether Thompson is ready to run a real campaign.
That said, Enwright's is a top notch strategist and campaign hand. So if Thompson is going to proceed with the campaign, having Enwright's at the helm (rather than a tobacco lobbyist -- no offense to Mr. Collamore) is a good thing.
There was an important moment in last night’s debate where Hillary Clinton distinguished herself and showed that she has the strength and experience to be the next President of the United States.
The two buzzwords: strength and experience. Again, note the forward lean /
in the direction
of the general
election.
Last night, a YouTube questioner asked: “In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?”
In response Barack Obama said: “I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration – is ridiculous.” [CNN Debate, 7/24/07]
Immediately following the debate, Obama’s top advisers sought to clarify their candidate’s comments. David Axelrod claimed Obama didn’t mean any such meetings would actually take place. “He said that he would be willing to talk,” Axelrod explained. “And what he meant was, as a government, he’d be willing and eager to initiate those kinds of talks, just as during the Cold War there were low-level discussions and mid-level discussions between us and the Soviet Union and so on. So he was not promising summits with all of those leaders.” [National Review, 7/24/07 ]
Never good to have an adviser say "what he meant was."
In response to the same question, Hillary Clinton said: “Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration. And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.
“And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be. [CNN Debate, 7/24/07]
There is a clear difference between the two approaches these candidates ar
