Looks like Newt Gingrich is going to give it a go: he wants Americans to raise for him $30M by Oct. 21 and then he'll reward them by running for president!
Thanks! Rudy's too liberal for Republicans in California...according to former LA mayor Richard Riordan, who endorsed, uh, Rudy, today.
Dan Gilgoff suggests we might want to check out Beliefnet’s exclusive video of John McCain, in which he says the "Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation ," that he's in talks with his pastor about undergoing a full-immersion baptism to become a full-blown evangelical, and that the prospect a Muslim presidential candidate makes him uncomfortabl
Hillary Clinton endorses the stakeholder society concept: baby bonds, $5000 worth, to every new tiny American. That's $20B per year. And veteran Hillary watcher Pat Healy explains that laugh.
Provocative comments from John Edwards about the destiny of African American men.
[The] fate of his campaign hinges on his internal monologue. Can he accept running a campaign that doesn't match his high-minded ideals--one that may come down to attack ads and a gritty Iowa ground game? And will he understand that people are trying to get him "fired up" because they're worried he hasn't done it on his own?
The Atlantic's Boldest -- A Weekly Corrections Column
And by weekly, I mean -- we try.
Perhaps in honor of ENDA, I turned Erin Van Sickle, the Florida Republican Party's communications director, into EriC Van Sickle. She is most definitely an Erin.
I wrote that Mike Huckabee "surprised" the world with a third place finish in the Ames straw poll. In truth, he "stunned" the world with a second place finish.
For about an hour, this gibberish sat atop a post on Rudy Giuliani: "“Rudy Giuliani has spent in New Hampshire and has yet, but his campaign has found other ways to grab voters attention.”
I wrote that the RNC's Presidential Trust dinner is scheduled for 2008. It's actually scheduled for Oct. 16, 2007.
A Poll I Like: Americans Want Candidates To Ignore Cell Phones
When a presidential candidate is in the middle of giving a campaign speech, do you think he or she should interrupt the speech to take a cell phone call from their spouse, or should the call be ignored until after the speech?
Another internal memo, this one from David Bonior, campaign manager to the now publically financed John Edwards.
In question-and-answer style, Bonior assures campaign staff and supporters that the decision to accept public financing for the primaries was "the right one."
What does it all mean?
Understand this: This in no way handicaps us in the early primary states, and it does not put us at a disadvantage going into the general election. If anything, this decision will help us win the nomination in two ways: our strength with the grassroots means we will get a boost not available to candidates who depend on large contributions; and we will be running the campaign in a way that reinforces John’s central campaign message.
Under the public financing system for presidential primaries, once a candidate demonstrates broad-based public support by raising $5,000 of matchable contributions in each of at least 20 states, the government will match up to $250 of an individual’s contributions to that candidate. In return, the candidate agrees to limit campaign spending for all primary elections, limit campaign spending in each state and limit spending from personal funds to $50,000.
Bonior insists that the campaign will maintain a "reserve" to fight Republicans between the clinching of the nomination -- probably Feb. 5 or thereabouts -- and the convention.
Has a presidential campaign ever sent an e-mail from the candidate with the subject line: "Hey"? And signing off with his first name? (Update: Yes -- Chris Dodd has, using U-Stream technology ... so Obama is borrowing another Doddnovation.)
For Huckabee, Santa Claus Is A Secret Weapon
In South Carolina, when Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, drops by churches, bake sales and house parties, he plays the role of Elijah, the prophet. welcome at the dinner table wherever he arrives. "I'm not coming to the evangelical movement," he says, "I'm coming from the evangelical movement."
In South Carolina, 40 percent of the Republican primary voting base are evangelical Christians. Of those evangelicals, about 75% are members of the Southern Baptist Convention
.
Since his surprise second-place showing at the Ames straw poll in August, Huckabee's campaign directors believe he has established a foothold among conservative Christian voters in Iowa and South Carolina. They point to his first place showing at a statewide straw poll conducted by the Palmetto State Family Council -- a poll for which the campaign did little overt organizing.
Former Gov. David Beasley is Huckabee's chief surrogate in the state. He calls the Palmetto straw poll win "as much of a natural phenomenon as there is in politics." Conservative networks, he said, lit up with e-mail chains before the vote, and Huckabee, "who can speak their language, can fire them up, and at the same time, maintain the viability to appeal to the rest of them" outpolled the field.
Huckabee's volunteer foot soldiers generally fall into one of three affinity groups. They're parents of home-schooled children; the national home school coalition's president is a campaign organization. Or they're supporters of the Fair Tax movement; hundreds helped Huckabee in Iowa. Or they're pastors themselves: very quietly (and legally), pastors for Huckabee are evangelizing circuits in Iowa and South Carolina.
Huckabee's campaign pays about two dozen staff members. One star is Sarah Huckabee, his national field director, and his daughter.
To climb in the polls, Huckabee faces several ladders. He needs to shake off the perception that he's really running for vice president. Such a notion serves as an artificial ceiling to him. He needs to raise money. He needs to find a way to persaude politically savvy voters than he can win.
I asked Huckabee's campaign manager, Chip Saltzman, whether he worried about his rivals spending millions on television ads in November and December, moves that would essentially blot out the rest of the field.
"Well, we have one great ally that everybody has discounted," Saltzman told me. "And that's Santa Claus."
No -- this isn't a religious thing. Saltzman concedes that Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani will saturate the airwaves in December. "But they can't get louder than Apple, or Chevy or Ford. There's going to be so much static between Thanksgiving and Christmas, and even trying to sending mail during Christmas is something that you really can't do."
Huckabee's advisers believe that the field is stagnant until then. They insist that he'll have saved enough money to run a solid flight of television ads in Iowa and South Carolina and maybe New Hampshire in December and early January.
Sen. Sam Brownback hopes there are four tickets out of Iowa, but Huckabee knows he needs to finish in the top three. "First class, business class or coach, we'd like a ticket," Saltzman jokes.
New Hampshire is tougher. State Sen. Bob Cleg, Huckabee's New Hampshire chairman, has dealt with a surge of curiosity and event requests since the straw poll. Cleg wants to see a "steady climb" between now and primary day. "Since the Iowa straw poll, we've done nothing but go up." Key to Huckabee's appeal in New Hampshire -- a state not known for its cultural conservatism -- is his resume. As Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee dealt with a Supreme Court that ordered changes to education funding, just like New Hampshire. "He's great on infrastructure, too, and on S-CHIP... people come to see him and know that he's already resolved some of the issues they're dealing," Cleg says.
Two potential pitfalls: demographic changes in South Carolina, where the less conservative areas have grown, where snowbirds have flown in from New York, where non Carolina voters are becoming more common. Rudy Giuliani, in fact, is counting on these changes. But Beasley dismisses them, "The electorate hasn't changed to any real degree since the 2000 elections."
And Fred Thompson. Cleg dismisses him with a quip: "Mike Huckabee can communicate. Fred Thompson can't."
Thompson Will Stand Between Romney And Rudy
When Fred Thompson participates in his first debate in Detroit 10/9, he'll be visually bracketed by his two main competitors. To his right will stand Mitt Romney; Rudy Giuliani will stand to his left.
Newt Gingrich's American Solutions workshop kicks off here at 7:00 pm ET.
Subtlety, thy name is Obama. Distinctions ought to be distinct, as in, clear. His supporters are beginning to worry. Portfolio's Matthew Cooper has a slightly different, though no less interesting, take.
The Giuliani campaign responds, through Steve Forbes, to a worried Club for Growth.
Mark Blumenthal writes on two trends in the crosstabs of the latest New Hampshire polls. Hillary "can win" and McCain might resurge.
Why Did Edwards Do This? Pros and Cons
Advisers to Sen. John Edwards argued that the decision to opt in to the public finance system will boost the campaign's coffers before the primaries, but conceded that the campaign's fundraising to date had not met their expectations.
"Before we did this," one adviser said, "there were only two campaigns [Obama's and Clinton's] who thought they'd be around before the primaries with about $20M or $30M on hand. Now, we're going to be right there with them. We're going to have between $18M and $21M on hand now. That'll give us a huge boost."
"The bigger implication here is that there are now three campaigns with major wherewithall going into the primaries," the aide said.
But entering federal financing system has two major drawbacks. There's an overall spending limit for the primaries, so a campaign that blows through its money would be bankrupt until after its convention, allowing the opposing party's candidate to air television ads without rebuttal. (As Edwards adviser-then-Dean-manager Joe Trippi said in 2003: "This campaign believes that any Democratic campaign that opted into the matching-funds system has given up on the general election.”).
And the candidates are severely constrained in what they can spend in the states. There are fairly strict caps in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
An Edwards aide said that the campaign had run the numbers and concluded that they have yet to exceed spending limits. The arcane and fairly complicated allocation laws will help: if Edwards's campaign runs a television ad in Davenport, since 70% of the audience for that ad is in next-door Illinois, 70% of the cost of the ad will count towards Illinois's limit, and not Iowa's. And even for the Iowa portion, the campaign is require to allocate 50% to the limit.
Another loophole: some organizing expenses do not count towards the cap, and the Edwards campaign will claim that most of their Iowa staff expenses to date have been related to field organizing and fundraising.
"We will 100% abide by the rules and the spending limits that come with this," Trippi said today.
Trippi offered a preview of how Edwards will sell the decision in Iowa and other states.
"Iowa gets to choose between a Democrat who is taking the money of health care lobbyists and insurance lobbyists and corporate lobbyists and PACs who will almost certainly blow through the spending limits that they would have to abide by under public financing against a Democrat who has never taken a dime of PAC money and has never taken a dime of lobbyists money, and now, will stay within the public financing system in Iowa, which will give the people of Iowa the change to decide who will go to Washington and represent them on all these issues?"
John Who?
Ten mintues after John Edwards confronted Hillary Clinton with his most audacious challenge yet, this press release crosses the threshold of the server:
Official Edwards Statement: Challenges Clinton Campaign To Follow Him
EDWARDS TAKES NEXT STEP IN REJECTING MONEY FROM SPECIAL INTERESTS BY SEEKING PUBLIC FINANCING
Challenges Clinton, who said on Sunday she supports public financing, to join him now in ending the money game in Washington
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, Senator John Edwards announced he will be seeking public financing for the 2008 presidential primary campaign. Just as he challenged the Democratic Party to stop accepting contributions from lobbyists, today Edwards is again taking the lead in ending the money game in Washington.
“You can't buy your way to the Democratic nomination – you should have to earn the votes of the American people with bold vision and ideas,” said Edwards’ campaign manager Congressman David Bonior. “This is the most expensive presidential campaign in history, by far. And the simple fact is that the influence of money in politics – and the focus on raising money in this election – has gotten out of control. It’s time to get back to focusing on the issues that matter to the American people. That’s why John Edwards has decided to play by the rules that were designed to ensure fairness in the election process by capping his campaign spending and seeking public financing.”
Since the campaign began, Edwards has focused on issues that matter to the American people – universal health care, the war in Iraq, education, global warming and helping American workers. He’s promised to end the game in Washington and has challenged the Democratic Party to send a powerful signal to the American people about whose support really matters by refusing to accept donations from federal lobbyists. Senator Clinton has refused to stop taking contributions from federal lobbyists, saying that public financing is the solution to ending the influence of lobbyists.
“Senator Clinton said she believes public financing is the answer to ending the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington,” said Congressman Bonior. “If she really believes that, she should join Senator Edwards and seek public financing, or she should explain to the American people why she does not mean what she says.”
Under the public financing system for the presidential primaries, the government will match up to $250 of an individual’s contributions to an eligible candidate. To establish credibility, a candidate must show broad-based public support by proving to the FEC that he or she has raised in excess of $5,000 of matchable contributions in each of at least 20 states. This is done through a threshold submission to the FEC. In addition a candidate must also agree to: limit campaign spending for all primary elections; limit campaign spending in each state; and limit spending from personal funds to $50,000.
Currently the campaign is working on the first step in this process - to make its threshold submission to the FEC in order to establish Senator Edwards’ eligibility to receive matching funds.
“Edwards has raised more than any Democratic candidate in history before this race. We have more than enough money to compete,” said Congressman Bonior. “The truth is, this election is about ideas – not how much money you’ve raised. And no one has better ideas for how to bring real change to America than John Edwards. That’s why we’re confident he can not only compete in this election – but he will win.”
-30-
Edwards Opts Out: More
In deciding to accept public funds for his presidential campaign today, Edwards is changing course. He supports public financing, but he said that he would need more resources to "compete" in order to win the presidency and change the system.
An aide to Barack Obama reacted with one word: "Wow."
The Clinton campaign had no immediate comment.
Edwards Will Accept Public Financing For His Campaign
Surprising his rivals, Ex-Sen. John Edwards today said his presidential campaign will accept federal matching funds and the corresponding spending limitations that come with them.
Edwards had previously planned to opt out of the system, which would have allowed him to raise and spend freely after he secured the Democratic nomination ... if he secured the Democratic nomination.
The decision suggests that Edwards's fundraising did not meet the campaign's expectations, which provided for a $45M budget through the primary season.
More....
The Metaphysics Of The Democratic Primary
Mark Bubriski, the Florida Democratic Party's spokesman, doesn't like how I described the party's January 29 vote, which won't allocate any delegates to the Democratic convention.
Florida’s January 29th election is not a “beauty contest” or a “straw poll.” On January 29, 2008, there will be a fair and open primary election run by the State of Florida at the cost of $18 million, which will maximize voter participation. Labeling this event anything but an ELECTION is disrespectful, inaccurate and misleading. The nation will be watching, and the results of Florida's Democratic primary will likely impact the race. Florida Democrats will be allocating our delegates based on the Jan. 29 results, and we are confident that the eventual nominee will seat all 210 of these delegates.
Far be it from me to offend my home state, but by calling it a "beauty contest," I simply recognize reality, which is that the Democratic National Committee is the controlling legal authority over delegate selection.
Lest you think Florida Democrats will martyr themselves to get back at Howard Dean, there's a chance that the Democratic vote in Florida will effect perceptions of the race going into February 5, especially because the media will probably not be able to ignore the spectacle of millions of Democrats voting ... covering the mechanical story itself lend some legitimacy to the Democratic winner.
Of course the accumulation of delegates is material to the nomination, but in January and February, it somehow occupies -- or has occupied, historically, -- the back seat. Perception drives the story forward. The DNC bets that delegate counts will matter more this year than they have, especially if the candidates begin to split the vote. At some point, one candidate will cross a momentum threshold -- having won enough delegates -- and the nomination will be secure.
Florida Democrats, by hold a non-binding -- ok, there's a more neutral phrase -- primary, assume that their delegates will be restored before the convention (true), and that candidates and the media will mentally add Florida delegates to their score after Jan. 29, even though those delegates haven't been awarded yet.
Not be opaque, here, but we are literally dealing with a structuralist language problem.
Do delegates "exist" before they actually exist? Or do they come into being when the candidates summon them? And if they're taken away before they can be awarded, and later returned, where do they go in the meantime? If you can answer those questions, then you'll know whether Florida will matter or not.
Romney Internal Memo: We're Almost There...
These days, Mitt Romney's campaign is producing internal memos as fast as Chris Matthews produces boxing references.
The latest one to wend its way to the inbox is from senior strategist Alexander Gage. You can read the whole thing here, if you'd like, to avoid any filtering.)
Gage writes that the campaign is "entering the last leg of the final stretch of the race." And on that leg, there's a caution flag up. Mitt Romney, Gage writes, is not running a national campaign because there _is_ no national campaign.
[It] is important to remember that even then, we will not be measuring ourselves through the lens of national polls and we do not expect to be competitive in them.
More from Gage:
Looking at historical Gallup polls from previous election cycles, relatively-unknown candidates who succeed in the early states gain 16-40 points in national polls.
He also tries to set expectations for other candidates, pointing out that no Republican has won the nomination without winning either Iowa or New Hampshire. That's true, but the reference set is so small, it's hard to make any real argument from history.
Gov. Romney’s early state strategy has paid dividends thus far, but we should expect a tumultuous road ahead as the campaign accelerates.
The bottom line: Don't fret about Rudy's standing. Keep your focus on the early state polls. We'll get momentum when we win Iowa.
Direct Mail Fuels Rudy Rise In New Hampshire
Rudy Giuliani hasn't spent much time in New Hampshire and has yet to run television advertisements there, but his campaign has found other ways to grab voters attention.
According to New Hampshire Republicans, Giuliani has mailed at least seven glossy pamphlets to tens of thousands of Republicans and independents across the state. His campaign has also conducted several telephone surveys of voters there.
The Giuliani campaign declined to provide any information about their New Hampshire voter outreach strategy, and they would not say how much Giuliani has spent on direct mail. But filings with the Federal Election Commission show that the campaign's printing, postage and list rental expenses topped $3.5M for the first two quarters. Most of the money was directed to a well-regarded Texas mail mail vendor, Olsen and Shuvalov.
Giuliani's latest direct mail piece, received by one New Hampshire Republican on September 4, focuses entirely on illegal immigration. "I will end illegal immigration and secure our borders without amnesty," Giuliani is quoted as saying. Validators, like Florida attorney general Bill McCollum, are quoted in support.
In July, the campaign mailed a small poster featuring Giuliani's "12 Committments" on one side and quotes from political personalities on the other, myself included. In mid-August, it was a double-sided placard headlined "Strong Leader. Proven Results."
Bush Raises Money For The RNC; Presidential Trust Dinner Schedule
President George W. Bush writes the latest e-mail fundraising appeal on behalf of the Republican National Committee.
Here's an excerpt:
Winning the 2008 elections will be the toughest test our Party has faced since we won the White House and added to our numbers in both houses of Congress in 2004.
To accomplish our mission, Republicans must make clear how we will meet the challenges of defending America and extending our prosperity.
Republicans have a solid record when it comes to protecting the United States of America.
After the enemy attacked us, I vowed I would rally this nation and use our resources to protect you. And that is exactly what we have done. We have reformed our intelligence services to make sure we can find the enemy before they strike. We have fought to deny them safe haven in Afghanistan and Iraq so they cannot plan and plot again.
The fight for freedom in Iraq is the fight for the security of the United States of America and we must prevail. If we leave before the job is done, the enemy that attacked us would be emboldened. I believe if our candidates take the message of doing what is necessary to protect the American people, we will win in 2008.
Republicans also have a solid record when it comes to growing this economy.
Republicans cut taxes for everybody who pays taxes. We understand that if you have more money in your pocket to save, spend, or invest, the economy will grow.
If you look carefully at the budget the Democrats proposed, they want to return to the days of tax and spend. They will raise your taxes and figure out new ways to spend your money.
If our candidates remind the American voter that tax cuts have worked, that the economy is strong as a result of the tax cuts, and instead of raising taxes, we ought to make the tax cuts permanent, we will retake the U.S. House and Senate and hold the White House in 2008.
The RNC's Presidential Trust dinner is scheduled for Sept. 16 in Washington. All the candidates and President Bush will attend.
Romney Team Seeks To Calm Supporters About New Hampshire Drop
To tamp down any internal anxiety over the new CNN/WMUR poll showing Romney losing ground to rivals, Mitt Romney's campaign dived into the cross-tabs and distributed a memo to senior staff and some outside allies.
Here's a portion of that memo:
We are converting a higher proportion of our favorables into support than Giuliani. Gov. Romney’s ballot score is 35% of his favorable rating, while Giuliani’s ballot score is 31% of his favorable rating. Since April, Giuliani’s support as a percent of favorables has dropped from 41% to 31%, while Gov. Romney’s has grown from 29% to 35%.
Gov. Romney’s support is firmer than Giuliani’s. 68% of Giuliani voters say they are “still trying deciding” who to vote for, compared to 59% of Romney voters. Romney supporters are also more likely to be satisfied with the GOP field – 31% say they are “very satisfied” with the Republican candidates, compared to 23% of Giuliani voters.
Gov. Romney leads by 12 points among conservative voters. Gov. Romney leads Giuliani 28%-16% among self-described conservatives, who make up approximately 55% of the NH Republican primary electorate. No candidate has ever won the NH primary without winning conservatives—even in 2000, McCain edged Bush 37%-35% among conservatives.
Our support is based on our message—that Change Begins With Us. Giuliani’s support is based on electability75% of Romney voters say Romney is the candidate who will best “bring needed change to US,” compared to 57% of Giuliani voters who say Giuliani will be best to bring change. The attribute that unites the most Giuliani supporters is “most likely to win in November 2008” – 66% of Giuliani supporters say Giuliani best fits that description, the highest of any the attributes UNH tested.
"In New Hampshire, in overall polling Governor Romney has gone from 10 points down in January to ahead by four in September. Not a bad place to be," a Romney adviser said last night.
Romney has spent nearly $4.5M in New Hampshire so far. The recent polling "confirms what we always expected would emerge in New Hampshire: a close race," the adviser said.
I asked about the decision to use the unusually harrowing clip -- reportedly, McCain himself is uncomfortable with it -- and senior aide Mark Salter took an unusually direct swipe at Mitt Romney, "I don't know, I guess we could have gone with the first time he waterskiied past the sandbar but we thought this might say a little more about his character and love of country."
The God-o-Meter
Totally unscientific, provocative and slightly, deliciously offensive, Beliefnet's new God-o-Meter judges the candidates on a scale ranging form the theocratic to the secular.
This week, Mitt Romney scores an 8 out of 10, where "10" represents a theocrat of the Rousas John Rushdoony variety. and Bill Richardson, having decreed that God wants Iowa to go first, is right up there.
To get a zero, by the way, you'd have to channel Christopher Hitchens blasting Mother Theresa. The most secular Democrat: Chris Dodd. The most secular Republicans: Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson.
For example, I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that's a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq, and when I'm on a stage with the Republican nominee come the fall of 2008, I'm going to make it clear that I'm for ending the war.
Even though the presence of U.S. troops has served as an attractive target for terrorists, our eventual withdrawal will not remove the threat. As president, I will redeploy troops into Quick Reaction Forces outside of Iraq, to perform targeted missions against Al Qaeda cells and to prevent a genocide or regional spillover of a civil war.
That's exactly what Clinton proposes, unless Edwards means that his Quick Reaction Forces would NEVER set foot in Iraq again... which begs the question as to how they'd prevent a genocide if they were encamped in the mountains of Kurdistan or the sands of Saudi Arabia.
Update: Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz sends along this response:
"Senator Clinton keeps combat troops in Iraq. That means she continues the war. John Edwards will end the war. Being just a little bit better than the Republicans is not a good enough reason to be President of the United States
Obama Will Lose If He Doesn't Win Iowa. Or Will He?
In this, she's tweaking something Obama tells his donors at private fundraisers. If he wins Iowa, he wins it all.
And yet -- this isn't an accurate portrayal of Obama's strategy.
If he loses Iowa, he'll have $15 million dollars in the bank. New Hampshire voters are temperamentally opposed to ratifying Iowa's results, and many more independents will vote there. If Obama's New Hampshire team does its job right, they'll be fairly sticky. And then, a week later, comes South Carolina. And if Iowa was really the linchpin of the strategy, the campaign would not be spending millions to organize supporters in California.
True, Iowa is crucial, critical, even. But if Obama places a close second to Hillary Clinton, or a close second to John Edwards, he's not going to drop out.
Update: NBC's Carrie Dann e-mails:
For what it's worth, the Quad City times reporting on Michelle Obama's "it's over" quote is not entirely on point. Here's the verbate of what she said (I was at the event and quoted this in my morning dispatch today.)
Iowa will make the difference. If Barack doesn't win Iowa, it is just a dream. If we win Iowa, then we can move to the world as it should be. And we need your help in making that happen.
The Primary Calendar Begins To Fill Out, Finally
Though New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner hasn't set his date yet and flux seems to be the state of the primary calendar, there is, among the leading Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, remarkable unanimity about its most likely shape.
The Iowa Caucuses will move to Saturday, January 5.
Gardner will schedule New Hampshire's primary for Tuesday the 8th.
The Democratic National Committee will permit Nevada to move its caucuses to the 12th; the Republicans will probably follow suit.
Michigan Republicans will vote in a primary on Jan. 15; Democrats will vote in a non-delegate beauty contest. (Michigan will lose half its allotted GOP delegates).
South Carolina's Democrats will, with the DNC's permission, move their primary to Jan. 19 to coincide with the Republican primary that day.
And then Florida Republicans will vote on Jan. 29; the Democrats will participate in another non-delegate beauty contest. (Florida will lose half its allotted GOP delegates, triggering a rules change to winner-takes-all, which will benefit, obviously, the winner).
Tonight, Edwards and Clinton stood out against the mosaic.
Edwards was Edwards on Centrum Silver: straightforward, confident, clear, knowledgeable, thoroughly encased in his own frame. Ying to the yang of both Obama and Clinton; If you’re new to nomination politics, then you’d think Edwards – and not Obama – was Hillary Clinton’s main foil. The war. Social Security. Health care. Campaign ethics. Clinton didn't take the punch, but she did move to dodge them, which is a victory for JRE.
Clinton: She was arguably evasive on questions about Iran, Israel and nuclear weapons and on the options she’d consider to solve the Social Security short fall. She doesn’t want to give up her national security strategy or her presidential negotiating positions, but her opponents can exploit her refusal to be specific. These are presidential answers; they’re not campaign answers. Clinton was solid; she was not commanding, in part because she was forced on the defensive more tonight than in previous debates. She was thorough and careful, came off as intelligent and prudent, and really didn’t take a nick tonight. She did unleash the night’s best jab, and she displayed a genuine sense of humor, one that the audience seemed to appreciate and acknowledge.
Obama was Obama: collected, thoughtful, ready to make distinctions but unwilling to be ham-handed. Not so loquacious. A very serene presence tonight. At one point, Obama wielded a knife, chastising Clinton repeatedly for the secrecy which surrounded her 1993 health care effort, but the knife was blunt and its application was almost ninja-like.
Richardson was more animated than usual and seemed to have more time speaking.
Biden was talented, smart and amusing and blasted Rudy Giuliani, memorably.
Chris Dodd had no memorable moments.
The best answer of the night: one very prominent Republican said that Clinton gave it, when disagreeing with husband about a torture scenario – would she allow it if Al Q’s number three promised to reveal the location of a nuclear bomb.
Russert was sly, positing the scenario without identifying the author. Clinton took the bait. Russert revealed that the positor was William Jefferson Clinton. So “you disagree?” Russert asked. “Well he’s not standing here right now.”
Russert: “ So there is a disagreement?”
Clinton: “ Well, I’ll talk to him later.”
This Republican told me: “Best answer of the night. Smart and strong.”
Lightning Round
What does "time to turn the page" mean? Bushes, Clintons or both? "Ending the divisive politics..." i.e., HE WON'T ANSWER... "Turning the page means that we've got to get over the special interest driven policies that we've grown accustomed to." I'm loath to say that Obama missed an opportunity to be clear about what he means
Russert asks HRC the dynasty question. HRC, to applause: "I thought Bill was a pretty good president." But she's "running on my own."
Biden on MoveOn: "On some things, they've been positive... " But "It's not their party. They're part of the parties."
Dodd: Would he favor a temporary ban on all toys from China until we're convinced they're safe? "Yes."
Obama: Better to be in Washington trying to end the war than in Jena, but he has nothing to apologize for, he says.
Richardson: he'd rescind the Boy Scouts ban.
Ban Smoking Everywhere? Obama, HRC Say No; Everyone Else Yes
HRC: "We banned it in New York City..." and "business increased.." I "think that we should be moving toward a bill that I have supported to regulate tobacco.." . She's not in favor of a national law to ban smoking in all public places.
Obama: "Local communities are making enormous strides and they're making progress.." But if local laws don't work, "then I would" favor a national law.
Richardson, Gravel, Kucinich, Biden and Dodd would endorse a national law banning smoking.
Obama Campaign Sends Out Research Supporting Health Care Attack
Biden, Obama, Edwards Would Raise Social Security Taxes; HRC Won't Say
On Social Security:
Biden would raise taxes above the first $97,000. So would Edwards, although with a slight variation.
HRC won't say what she'd do -- she doesn't want to negotiate. What's on the table? Off the table? She'd establish a commission. A very cautious answer.
Obama: "I think that lifting the cap is probably going to be the best option." I.e, taxing more than the first $97,000.
Dodd and Richardson won't commit.
The Democrats Like Their Gays With Rights...
When HRC talked about tomorrow's ENDA vote, she said "I hope we'll all be there," which I think was a pointed reference to Obama's failure to attend votes today.
Here It Is: Obama Takes On HIllary BUT Actually Uses The Word "Process"
Obama: "I think Hillary Clinton deserves credit for having worked on health care... the issue is not going to be who has these particular plans, it has to do with who can inspire and mobilize America people."
Obama, on why HRC failed: "Part of the reason it was lonely people that you closed the door to a lot of potential allies in that process."
It's a sharp knife, but Obama is wielding it oh-so-carefully.
Russert Asks Obama The Experience Question.
Obama answers by citing his biography and resume.
When Biden Says "Old Stuff"
In, that, a new Clinton administration would bring back "Old Stuff," he's talking about "policy, policy."
So, not sex scandals.
Wow. Biden and Dodd Aren't Repeating Their Criticisms In Public
They can bash her behind her back, but they're too afraid to repeat their criticisms to her face.
HRC's Judgment
Misjudgments on the war and on health care... why shouldn't Democratic voters not trust her judgment?
Clinton's response is humble.
"I intend to be the health care president."
Bush's Endorsement of Clinton
Dodd: "If i were Hillary Clinton, I'd be very worried. This is the same guy who said "Way to go, Brownie."
Biden Boils Over, Blasts Giuliani
Biden: "Rudy Giuliani doesn't know what he's talking about. Rudy is the most uninformed person in American foreign policy now running for president."
Sanctuary Cities
Yay or nay?
Yay: Richardson answers first. He knows this issue pat. And no, not just because he's Hispanic.
Biden: (Yay) there's no federal enforcement. (Hey, that's Rudy's answer).
Biden: "Rudy Giuliani doesn't know what he's talking about. Rudy is the most uninformed person in American foreign policy now running for president."
Paging Tony Blair
Richardson: "There is no Middle East peace envoy."...
Huh?
Edwards Uses Lieberman-Kyl As Cudgel Against Clinton
Lieberman-Kyl gives Bush authority he should not have, Edwards says. Hint, hint, Hillary. How could you not learn your lesson?
How Long Before Giuliani Responds To The Iran Questions?
The clock is ticking, Maria Comella!
Israel and Syria
If Israel concluded that Iran's nuclear capability threatens Israel's security, would Israel be justified in bombing Iran?
HRC and Russert argue over hypotheticals... "What we think we know, is that, with North Korean help, both financial and technical...the Syrians were.. putting together a nuclear facility and the Israelis took it out. I strongly support that."
"I don't want to talk about what might or might not talk about what might happen with Iran."
Russert tries again.
"I'm not going to answer that."
Gravel and Kucinich wants to answer, but Clinton demonstrates her mastery of the issue.
Would HRC promise as a potential commander in chief that she would not allow Iran to be a nuclear power and would do everything to stop it?
She would do "everything in power to prevent" that eventuality. But she won't meet Russert's premise.
Russert asks the questions of Obama: "I think it's important to back up for a second and just understand. Iran is in a strong position now than before the Iraq war because the Congress authorized the president to go in."
So -- will he answer every question by reminding the audience of his opposition to the war?
Positioning, Hillary and Iran
Gravel's next to Clinton and is swinging his arms at her..making her the focus of his criticism of the Senate... "fantasy land..." Gravel is "ashamed of you, Hillary" for voting for Lieberman-Kyl, which would designate the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization.
Clinton responds by... laughing! It works! The crowd murmurs. She defends her vote. It's not about war, it's about sanctions.
But -- isn't that what she's said about her thoughts about the 2003 Iran vote?
Russert Has Lots Of Time On His Hands
To Mike Gravel: "I've listened to you very carefully in this campaign.."
Russert Must Have Scared The Hell Out Of The Audience
No one is cheering, clapping, booing.
A Great New Biden Talking Point
"The Biden plan, which got 75% of the vote in Congress..."
The Democratic Matryoska
Obama answers and draws contrasts with Clinton
Clinton answers
Edwards answers and draws contrasts with Obama and Clinton
Richardson answers and draws contrasts with Edwards, Clinton and Obama
Dodd answers and draws contrasts with Edwards, Clinton, Obama and Richardson. (He'd have all troops out by 2013).
Biden answers and draws contrasts with E,C,O,R. and D. Yes, there IS a political solution. Congress voted to endorse MY political solution today.
The problem with all these nested distinctions is that it's hard for any one distinction or distinguisher to break through.
Combat Missions
Edwards begins to draw a distinction with Sen. Clinton for endorsing new combat missions... with Clinton clarifies...she meant counterterrorism missions.... Edwards repeated his point...withdrawing all combat troops...
So -- genocide? Would Edwards put troops back in?
American and the world should act together, he said.
Hard to see the distinction Edwards is making here. It's not very clear.
The Limits Of Presidential Power
Even Edwards can't promise to withdraw completely at 2013.
The Democratic presidential candidates are severely constrained and will be constrained.
President Bush will be powerful long beyond his term.
Getting The Troops Out
Russert's first question sets the tone...the first task faced by the new president will be to redeploy troops...Obama's answer is the same answer that Hillary Clinton will give, which is that there ought to be a careful and well-managed withdrawal under the aegis of the joint chiefs.
Russert asks a classic trick question, seeking a "pledge" to have all troops out of Iraq by 2013 set date, and Obama, smartly, won't indulge him.
Clinton: "I agree with Barack. It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting."
A huge opening for an opponent to exploit...
The Debate Begins
The Democrats latest pinata party is hosted by Tim Russert, a narrator who ordinarily would appear in the grand finale, as opposed to the end of first act, but no matter.
Bill Clinton Addresses The Dynasty Question
On tonight's "World News" with Charles Gibson, President Clinton is asked about the politics of dynasty, as very deliberately raised by George W. Bush.
Gibson: President Bush recently, sort of mused about, about presidential succession. And said, huh, interesting, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. And used the word "dynasty." Is that good?
Clinton: In our case, I don't think dynasty is right, because, Hillary, will win -- have to win on her own merits. And I believe that, on the merits, I think she's the best qualified non-incumbent I've had a chance to vote for in 40 years as a voter…
The fact that we happen to have been married, I don't think should disqualify her…If you go out and you fight fair, and you win it on your own, that's not a dynasty. She gets elected this time, it's not going to be, you're not going out to vote for me for a third term. She's going to get elected, she'll be the President, she'll make the calls, the rest of us will have to do our best to help her succeed…No, dynasties are not good for America, but it wouldn't be good for America to eliminate someone in consideration, because of what their last name was.
It's her turn. Or is it?
Club For Growth Seeks Clarification From Giuliani On Social Security Tax
The Club for Growth wants to know whether Rudy Giuliani really intends to keep Social Security solvency tax hikes on the table. Responding to an AP interview where Giuliani "refused to rule out raising taxes to offset a Social Security short fall."
"Such an allegation, if true, together with your refusal to sign Americans for Tax Reform’s anti-tax pledge, casts doubt on your commitment to opposing a
