The New Hampshire SEIU Confusion: Blame Mike Huckabee
(updated and clarifies throughout)
Per several sources close the process, here is what transpired in New Hampshire:
On October 8th, the SEIU's international executive board voted to allow each state to endorse on its own.
Endorsemet procedures vary by state. With the New Hampshire SEA, a political education committee (PE) was set to recommend an endorsement. It was composed of nearly two dozen members, Republicans, Democrats and Independents.
The PE committee held one-on-one interviews with the candidates, reviewed their health care plans and accounts of their SEIU walk-a-days.
On October 14, the PE committee met with Obama for an hour. He returned right before their vote to make a final pitch. Bill Clinton and John Edwards called in.
Edwards won the recommendation by a vote of 10 to 5 for Obama to 1 for Clinton. The process having run its course, the committee made the recommendation unanimous. They'd recommend Edwards to full state SEIU board.
The state board met on October 23. They reject the PE's recommendation of Edwards. Many of the Republicans on the committee were upset that Mike Huckabee had never been given the opportunity to solicit the endorsement. The reasoning behind his exclusion was that he had not met the SEIU's basic criteria: he had not yet proposed a universal health care plan and had not walked a day in the shoes of an SEIU member.
In protest, Huckabee supporters banded together and convinced some Obama supporters to join them. Because Edwards's supporters assumed that the PE recommendation would hold, many weren't at the meeting. By 7 to 5, Obama won an informal vote.
This news was communicated to the Obama campaign.
But "When word got out," a Democratic official says, "the place blew up."
How dare board ignore the recommendation of the PE committee?
Aware of the criticism, the full board met on Friday, October 26 and agreed to re-open the process.
On Saturday, October, 27, The NH SEA held a straw poll at a state convention in Concord. Without hearing the report of the political committee and without hearing that the endorsement had been unanimous, Edwards won.
The PE committee reconvened on Monday and re-recommended Edwards. Obama’s campaign began to re-lobby board members, as did Elizabeth Edwards.
On Tuesday, by a vote of 9 to 8, the state board voted to uphold the PE committee's recommendation, and Edwards had his endorsement.
The vote was not held in secret; critics of the process were allowed in and given the opportunity to speak
Though the outcome was never really in doubt, Clinton's AFSCME endorsement is helpful to her Iowa campaign, where AFSCME claims 30,000 active members, most of them in cities, and its budget is large.
Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, issued a statement in response:
It is a bit surprising that the union probably most concerned with state and local election results would support the candidate with the likeliest least appeal in red states
An internal row between SEIU members in New Hampshire marred what was supposed to be a valedictory press conference for John Edwards in Concord today.
Edwards won the endorsement of the executive board by a single vote. But last week, a senior SEIU official in the state, Gary Smith, called Obama to tell him that he had won a straw vote. Obama, according to a campaign official, came away convinced that he, and not Edwards, had won the endorsement.
Officials confirm that on October 23, the executive committee of the New Hampshire State Employees Association (that's the NH SEIU) held an informal straw vote -- akin to a jury foreperson sampling members before deliberations -- and Barack Obama won 7 to 5.
During that meeting, the committee decided to hold a straw poll at the NH SEA convention in Nashua set for last weekend.
By a slim margin and with many http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/union_split_mars_edwards_endor.php, Edwards won the straw poll. He also won the vote of the political education committee, which is the internal SEA body dedicated to political action.
National Journal/NBC's reporter on the ground in New Hampshire, Mike Memoli reports that the head of a New Hampshire local union partial to Obama is strenuously objecting to the Edwards endorsement and contends that the state SEA buckled under pressure from union leaders in Washington.
Exclusive: a new video produced by the Clinton campaign to propell the "Politics Of Pile On" theme that's being to rebut charges that Clinton had an off-night.
.
Using reptition, the Clinton campaign wants to keep the focus on the big picture. And most newspaper headlines this morning seemed to agree, painting Clinton as a recipient of attacks or charges, and not actively, as a flubber or a calculator.
Memo Wars: Obama's Campaign On Clinton "Calculation"
TO: Interested Parties
FR: The Obama Campaign
RE: Turning the Page on Secrecy, Calculation, and Caution
DA: Wednesday, October 31, 2007
At last night’s debate, Barack Obama demonstrated the real choice in this race. On issues from Social Security to Iran to being open with the America people about her record, Senator Clinton offered more of the same Washington political calculation and evasion that won’t bring the change America needs.
The “politics of hope” doesn’t mean hoping you don’t have to answer tough questions.
Her performance raised more questions than it answered:
* Twelve hours after the debate ended, the American people are still waiting for an answer on Senator Clinton’s position on providing illegal immigrants with drivers licenses. She didn’t answer the question in the debate and her campaign couldn’t answer it afterwards. [http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/video_special_clintons_strateg.php]
* Clinton Demurred When Asked to Approve the Release of Her Records From the National Archives. When asked whether she would request that the National Archives allow the public to access emails, memorandum, and other communication between her and her husband before 2012, Clinton said, “Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has. But, certainly, we're moving as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.” [Debate, 10/30/07]
* Clinton also claimed that all of the records from her health care task force had been released. However, according to Newsweek, “Some key papers from her health-care task force… remain locked away.” [Newsweek, 10/29/07]
· Clinton Refused to Answer Questions About the Circumstances Under Which She Would Attack Iran, Despite Being Asked Repeatedly; Focused on Diplomacy. When asked about her plan to deal with the threat posed by Iran, Clinton said, “I am not in favor of this rush for war, but I'm also not in favor of doing nothing...I prefer vigorous diplomacy.” Williams then asked her under what circumstances she would consider an attack on Iran justified. Clinton replied, “Well, first of all, we have to try diplomacy...I believe we should be engaged in diplomacy right now with the Iranians.” After Williams pointed out that she did not answer the question, Clinton said only, “I want to start diplomacy... [we need] a full court press on the diplomatic front.” [Debate, 10/30/07]
· Despite being repeatedly pressed by the moderators, Clinton never cleared up the discrepancy between her public refusal to discuss Social Security and her private discussion with Tod Bowman of Iowa. You can see Bowman’s endorsement of Obama by clicking HERE
Senator Clinton has clearly decided based on political calculation that her campaign strategy is to tell the American people as little as possible, avoid the difficult issues, and try to blur as many differences as possible. After last night’s debate, the choice is clear: Barack Obama is the kind of leader that will bring change we can believe in, stand up to the special interests, unite the country, and tell the American people not just what they want to hear, but what they need to know about the challenges we face. This is what the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and the other early states are seeing every day. It is why Iowa is now a dead heat between Senators Obama and Clinton and why Obama is strengthening his position in New Hampshire.
What happens when the “politics of pile-on” replaces the “politics of hope?”
Hillary comes out on top.
Despite the best efforts of her six fellow candidates to trip her up, Senator Clinton stood strong and made her case on critical issues like Iran, Iraq and Social Security. She kept her focus on the real target in this election: Republicans and the Bush Administration. Instead of going after the other Democrats, Hillary made the argument for why change is needed and why she has the strength and experience to lead the Democratic Party in its efforts to make that change happen.
Sadly, Senator Obama caved to the pressure of the pundits and fundraisers who demanded that he go negative and abandoned the "politics of hope" message that sparked so much interest in him early in the campaign. Meanwhile, Senator Edwards doubled down in his effort to become the guy best known for attacking other Democrats. Not to be outdone, the rest of the pack followed suit and piled on in the hope that they’d get some media attention.
But with each attack, Senators Obama and Edwards undermined the central premises of their own candidacies. The sunny speeches and rosy rhetoric that once characterized their remarks has now been replaced by the kinds of jabs one typically sees from candidates desperate to gain traction in the polls.
The American people are looking for a President who can stand strong and come out ahead under any circumstances.
Last night, once again, that person was Hillary Clinton.
RNC, Republicans See License In Immi-Driver Moment
Within moments of the end of last night's debate, Republicans knew instinctively which moment they would try to own.
“Whether the issue was driver’s licenses, Social Security, access to information concerning the Clinton presidency, Iraq, the AMT, or a host of other issues, Hillary Clinton only offered contradicting, conflicted, and confusing answers to serious questions," Danny Diaz, the RNC's communications director, told me.
"She will certainly see and hear this over and over again if she becomes the Democrat nominee.”
Within moments of the debate, Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mitt Romney, e-mailed a statement to reporters:
"Senator Clinton's troubling answer on providing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants was emblematic of someone who is both dismissive of efforts to enforce our nation's immigration laws and entirely unwilling to offer a straight answer to a very direct question.”
Rudy Giuliani used the venue of the Glenn Beck show:
GLENN BECK: “Did you watch with your mouth opening thinking, ‘I don’t even know what that answer about driver’s licenses even means from Hillary Clinton?’”
MAYOR GIULIANI: “You know, she was being attacked all night for taking different positions in front of different audiences and then by the end of the night, she took different positions in front of the same audience. It was pretty amazing. I mean, in politics I’ve never quite seen that before. I know there are some politicians like Hillary. They say different things to different people. They use different accents in different parts of the country. I’m used to that about her now. I had never seen it happen all in one place, in one minute. And Glenn, this is not a tough issue.”
The RNC sent out a research memo entitled "HILLARY'S DEBATE DODGEBALL: At Last Night's Debate, Hillary Continued "Strategy Of Avoiding Direct Answers To Questions"
And the chairman of the Michigan Republican Party began his daily activist e-mail by writing:
The Democrat’s presidential debate just made it crystal clear why America cannot afford any of them as our next president. Can you imagine Hillary leading our country…the pandering would make Granholm look modest!?! Driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants??? Universal healthcare? Only Democrats see UFO’s!
Video Special: Clinton's Strategist On Illegal Immigration
Last night, the Chicago Sun-Times Lynn Sweet had questions about illegal immigration and driver's licenses and Hillary Clinton's position therein. Chief strategist Mark Penn was on hand to answer them. A raw moment from the spin room.
A Police Officer Is Shot Blocks From The Democratic Debate
Halfway through last night's Democratic debate, reporters in the spin room were momentarily distracted by the sounds of a dozen police cars whizzing down an adjacent road with lights flashing and sirens going full blast. Then we heard the churning of a helicopter.
The police, in turns out, were speeding to the scene of a shooting about eight blocks from the debate hall. A police officer named Mariano Santiago was wounded in the shoulder. He'll be ok. The shooter disappeared into a nearby mass of bridges and tunnels.
Crime in Philly is at its highest levels since the mid 1990s. The same in Dallas, Oakland, Phoenix, Orlando, Baltimore and elsewhere. Philly recorded 406 murders last year. Nationwide, the crime rate rose nearly two percent.
The presidential candidates haven't talked about the crime rate all that much. One candidate, Joe Biden, has new legislation in Congress to fund more police officers. (The Republicans have talked about it a little more, but only when prompted.).
Maybe violent crime isn't a problem in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina, although residents of Manchester can certainly disagree. Biden, in point of fact, would seem to the guy the turn to: his 1994 crime bill turned into the Clinton crime bill and he takes partial credit for the some of crime reduction that so famously is attributed to Rudy Giuliani.
If you believe that Barack Obama somehow missed the chance last night to do whatever it is you think he needed to do...
Remember: he has millions to spend and a ground program that is the envy of his opponents.
Not counting last night, there are two and a half debates between now and Iowa. (I'm counting an NPR debate debate in December as one half -- it's on radio, so we can't see it.)
There are three full weeks between now and Thanksgiving.
And then three weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas.
So Obama has a month and a half to make his move, charge the line, draw the contrast, complete the argument.
That's enough time. In this lightning fast cycle, six weeks is an...well, not an eternity, but an epoch.
Before The Scramble To The Spin Room, Some Thoughts
For a solid hour, the Democratic presidential candidates ganged up on Clinton, and her vote in favor of the Lieberman-Kyl resolution severed as their cri de coeur. At least six questions pivoted back to Clinton’s vote, which her opponents, especially Edwards and Dodd and later Obama, claimed was a permission slip for the Bush Administration to bomb in Iran.
Moderators Tim Russert and Brian Williams gave Clinton’s rivals a wide berth to hone in. Subjects included: her non-public records in the National Archives, on Social Security, on her experience and on her electability. By the midpoint of the debate, the attacks against Clinton had been so fierce that both Dodd and Richardson chastised the rest of the field for being meanies.
Democrats watching tonight heard the entire dossier against Clinton. Maybe too much. There were so many charges strung one after the other that voters could be forgiven if they suffered from motion blindness. Who said what, exactly? Did any one candidate distinguish themselves above the din?
And if the Iran vote turns out to be the force that finally convinces Democrats to doubt her capacity to be president and their nominee, then tonight’s debate will be seen, in retrospect, as the turning point in the race. Tonight, Clinton played defense more than she has in any of the other debates, but she did not seem overly defensive.
From a policy standpoint, her arguments about foreign policy were generally credible and substantive, but her strategic ambiguity on Social Security still sounds puzzling and her defense of Eliot Spitzer's proposal to provide illegal immigrants with driver's licenses -- oh wait, was she defending the approach or the idea of dealing with the issue? The debate was not supposed to end this way!
Strategic ambiguity in this case may have provided the media with the anti-Clinton sound-bite it has long been craving. In real time, the way Clinton answered this question provided her opponents with a point of evidence to attack her credibility and character.
In the long run -- or in aggregate -- is this enough? As in -- enough to generate an anti-Clinton movement among Democrats? Probably not.
Clinton did a fair job early on by trying to inoculating herself against all the complaints by pointing out – or reminding Democrats – that she is a Clinton and the current president is a Bush.
Edwards seemed to channel Joe Trippi’s surgical sound bite repository. Too glib? Spot on? Some of his answers were memorable.
Obama’s criticisms were about philosophy and process; about another eight years of polarizing politics; about the approach to the issue, rather than the issue itself. Twice at the end he showed his sense of of humor -- very effectively.
It is too soon to tell whether Obama sufficiently abandoned his inner McClellan to satisfy some
of his allies and pacify his donors. He may not have met the expectations of the press, but those expectations are fairly ethereal. Obama will argue against Clinton on his own terms; he will not throw sound bites at her. He does not lack the fortitude to craft a zinger, he just doesn’t, as a matter of course, like to traffic in them – they are too base, too customary, too politics-as-usual for him. There is a reason why Obama only compared Clinton’s foreign policy to Bush-Cheney Lite once – he felt he had gone to too far.
So – on his own terms, yes, Obama did not temporize and drew strong contrasts with Clinton.
But:
(a) Do voters have the same standards that Obama does? Do they see the world the same way he does?
(b) The groundwork for Democrats to mistrust Clinton isn’t yet fertile. Maybe this debate
plows it a bit.
(c) Does John Edwards do a better job of talking to Democratic voters on their level, wherever that level is?
Other thoughts:
--Bill Richardson gave two substantive answers on education policy and energy policy. His domestic policy bona fides shined tonight.
--Through no fault of their own, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden seemed like Statler & Waldorf. Except for Dodd’s remarks on Iran at the beginning of the debate and Biden’s challenge to Rudy Giuliani, the format and moderators deliberately sent them to the back of the stage.
Obama confronted Clinton in his way, Edwards confronted Clinton in his way, and none of us writing about the debate can say with accuracy which approach voters prefer.
In this discordant symphony – ‘A Clintonian Lament’ -- John Edwards’s instruments of persuasion were sharper and louder; Barack Obama’s were more resonant and more subtle.
In music terms, Edwards played the French horn; Obama played the violin. Or, as the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza told me during a commercial break, “It’s the difference between someone who goes to law school and becomes a prosecutor and someone who goes to law school and becomes a law professor.”
Rudy Giuliani's Communications Director Katie Levinson had fun writing this statement:
“As the pundits work to figure out who won the debate tonight, it’s pretty clear Rudy Giuliani was the real winner. It is increasingly apparent Rudy is the one the Democrats are most worried about running against in the general election.
“Senator Biden’s comments were of particular interest. The good Senator is quite correct that there are many differences between Rudy and him. For starters, Rudy rarely reads prepared speeches and when he does he isn’t prone to ripping off the text from others. And, Senator Biden certainly falls in to the bucket of those on the stage tonight who have never had executive experience and have never run anything. Wait, I take that back, Senator Biden has never run anything but his mouth.
“Such a desperate attack from Senator Biden is to be expected considering I – Katie Levinson – have a better chance of becoming President than he does.”
Well, We're Ending The Debate With A Discussion About UFOs, But Obama has a nice line
"All I know is that there's life here on earth, and we're not taking care of kids who are alive and aren't getting health care.... and so as president, those are the people I will be attending to first."
Is Edwards Trying To Have It Both Ways On Combat Troops?
Tonight: "And I will do it in my first year in office. Combat missions ended. Combat troops out of Iraq, period.' Edwards: "We need to get combat troops out of Iraq. As president of the United States, I will do that. I think it's a requirement of leadership as president. And I will do it in my first year in office. Combat missions ended. Combat troops out of Iraq."
That's interesting.
Here's what Edwards said on September 7 – "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."
The question: what if Al Qaeda cells are in Iraq? Would be not deploy them there?
Clinton Won't Budge On Social Security; Russert Confronts HRC With Her Husband's Words
Russert asks: Is Clinton being inconsistent on Social Security?
"No -- In the context of that, all of these would be considered. Personally, I do not want to balance Social Security on the backs of seniors and Middle Class families. I am not going to be advocating any specific fix until I'm approaching fiscal responsibilities."
"I think to act like Social Security is in crisis is a Republican talking point."
Again, Russert confronts her with the words of her husband: he called Soc. Sec a "looming crisis" in '98... although the fiscal condition was much different.
Richardson expresses his discomfort at his rivals with a “holier than thou attitude towards Sen. Do we trust her… We need to be positive in this campaign….”
Dodd agrees....castigates Edwards for taking trial lawyer money.....
"Absolutely. But I do not, and I don't think any of us do, oppose the men and women who have fought this war with distinction."
(Question was in re: a surrogate's contention in NH that she did not).
Clinton pivots to bringing the troops home.
Obama pivots back to Iran.
Edwards again unloads a series of very hard lines, including this one, referring to a NYT reporting ascribing HRC's Iran vote to her being in "general election mode":
“I think our responsibility is to be in tell the truth mode.”
Edwards just connected the dots that some thought Obama would connect re: the Iran issue. Early on, he's doing a better job of drawing distinctions with Clinton than Obama. Dropping "neo-con" a few times in his response on Iran was a smart way to alert Democrats of his opposition. For the true activists, "neo con" is a four-letter, um, phrase.
Russert: Will You Pledge Not To Allow Iran To Get Nuc Weap?
Clinton: "I will do everything I can do to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb." [Repeats this thrice to Russert's follow ups.]
Edwards: What I will do is take all the responsible steps that can be taken to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Obama: "I think there is a larger point at stake. We have been governed by fear for the last six years and this president has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that should have never been authorized... We have seen the Republican nominees do the same thing... It's important for us to draw a clear line and saw we will not be governed by fear."
Biden: "I would pledge to keep us safe... This is complicated stuff... the greatest threat ... an out of control Pakistan..."
Dodd: "There's a deeper question here... I think the more immediate problem is Pakistan."
Richardson: "I would make the pledge. And it would be, through diplomacy."
"So.. to put pressure on the Bush Administration is ... to vote yes on a resolution that [looked as if it] was written by the neocons? Has anyone read this thing?"
"This kind of resolution does not send the right signal to the region.... it weakens our capacity to influence Iran."
Now, "there may come a point where those measures have been exhausted where Iran is on the verge of taking nuclear weapons...." but we're not at there.
Clinton:
"I see economic sanctions as part of diplomacy....I think that what we're trying to do here is put pressure on the Bush Administration.... Joe is right... GB can do all of this without anybody.... I invite all of our colleagues to pass something immediately that makes it very clear.....what we're trying to do is push forward on vigorous diplomacy...I believe we should engage in diplomacy right now.... I also thing that when you go to the stage to negotiate with a rouge regime, you need both carrots and sticks."
Russert Questions Clinton On Lieberman-Kyl; Clinton Stoutly Justifies Her Vote
Russert: "Why did you vote for that amendment?"
HRC: "I am against a rush to war. I was the first person on this stage... to go to the floor of the Senate back in February and say GB had no authority ... I am also not in favor of doing nothing. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and the Iran Rev. Guards are at the forefront of that..."
HRC calls it "A false choice... between what the GOP wants to do and what the Dems say.. between total war and total diplomacy.... HRC believes in "vigorous diplomacy" and "that includes economic sanctions."
"We can argue about what is a non-binding sense of the Senate... I think we are missing the point...which is that we need to prevent the administration from doing something on their own..."
Dodd blasts Clinton: "What you didn't learn in '02, you should have learned by now."
Biden: "I think it can be used as a declaration of war."
I have a long record and standing up and fighting. I take on the special interests. I've been taking them on for many years... on specific issues, I've come up with very specific plans. On Soc. Sec, it's "start with fiscal responsibility."" ... cites 90s... she repeats bipartisan commission idea... "I am not going to balance of Social Security on the backs of seniors and working class Americans."
To Obama, the first question out of the box is re: the NYT interview where Obama hinted he'd be tougher.
It's a slow pitch over the plate......
"First of all, some of this stuff gets overhyped. I think this has been the most hyped fight since Rocky fought Apollo Creed. Although the amazing thing is that I'm Rocky in this situation."
"We're at war...major global challenges...that's going to require big meaningul change...the way to bring that change is to offer sharp contrast with that party..."
"It requires us to be honest about the challenges that we face. It does not mean that we changing our positions when it's convenient."
He gives a litany of HRC's positions: torture, NAFTA, the war...
"I don't think, now that may be politically savvy, but I don't think it offers the contrast that we need."
Clinton in rebuttal: "I don't think the Republicans got the message that I'm voting and sounding like them."
Refers to GOP debate.
"I have stood against GWB and his failed policies."
GOPers "waiving their sabers and talking about going after Iran, I want to prevent a rush to war..."
Gives a litany... "I have been standing against Republicans ... and I think Democrats know that."
Edwards says Clinton "defends a broken system that corrupt in Washington, D.C."
A fascinating university. Students here spent eight weeks in the real world for every eight weeks in the classroom. There are heavy contingents of Clinton and Obama sign-waivers, although they are outnumbered by the slightly overzealous Philadelphia Police Department.
With a 1992 twist: "REAL CHANGE OR MORE OF THE SAME"
(More of the same might describe the language of the Edwards memo -- we've been hearing this theme for a while.)
But here's a question: what if this language begins to escape the teeth of Barack Obama? Does that change its effect? Are Democrats ready to believe Hillary Clinton is corrupt and/or untrustworthy?
In this critical election, our nation faces a crossroads. There are two paths ahead, but only one will lead us to the America we believe in and the government we deserve. As John Edwards said yesterday in New Hampshire, the road we choose will determine what kind of country we leave to our children, and whether we restore the promise of this great nation:
“Down one path, we trade corporate Democrats for corporate Republicans; our cronies for their cronies; one political dynasty for another dynasty; and all we are left with is a Democratic version of the Republican corruption machine.
“It is the easier path. It is the path of the status quo. But, it is a path that perpetuates a corrupt system that has not only failed to deliver the change the American people demand, but has divided America into two – one America for the very greedy, and one America for everybody else….Or we can choose a different path. The path that generations of Americans command us to take. We can get up and take our country back. And be the guardians that kept the faith.”
Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign has made it clear -- through its choices, its words and its silence -- that it intends to defend the broken system in Washington, where the interests of the American people are bought and sold every day by an army of lobbyists, instead of taking the path that the American people want – a path that leads to ending the corruption in Washington and bringing the big, bold change we need to America.
The real question as we enter tonight’s presidential debate on MSNBC is why, in the face of the great challenges we face as a nation, Senator Clinton chooses to so passionately defend this broken system and the damage that Washington lobbyists are doing to our nation every single day. It is these lobbyists, the corporate interests they serve, and the policies that they pervert, that are destroying the promise of America. Let us be clear - no candidate for president should be standing with lobbyists, instead of standing with the American people, and believe they are “ready to lead.”
If the American people want to take their country back, they need a leader with the strength to reject the corrupt system, say “no” to Washington lobbyists and finally make our government work for the American people once again. This election is about our hope for a better future for our children – but we will never build that future until we elect a leader who will end the broken system in Washington.
At the end of the day, the Clinton campaign may attack, but it is only Senator Edwards who has the real strength and right experience to lead this nation, while others seem determined to continue to play the Washington game.
2008 Race Rankings: The Clinton Scrutiny Continues
Another two weeks, another impressive navigation through ever-trickier waters. Hillary Rodham Clinton now has nine serious opponents -- four on the Democratic side (only Bill Richardson isn't making a compelling case against her right now) and five on the Republican side (counting Mike Huckabee).
These rankings are ordered by likelihood of winning the Democratic Party primary and are based on a number of factors, including organization, money, buzz and polling
1. Hillary Clinton -- Iowa's a problem and the campaign knows it; reinforcements are coming in whether the Clinton folks already in Iowa like it or not (parsethis sentence out and start chasing the internal-strife story). By the way, ponder this: If Clinton knew then what she knows now regarding that silly Iran vote, how would she have voted? The campaign may hate us for tossing that line of thinking out here, but come on -- they've been SO careful regarding the war to date; they would NEVER have intentionally caused themselves this problem. This wasn't a "shift" from the primary to the general; this was simply a vote Clinton didn't think was going to be a big deal and she voted her gut. Almanac Profile
2. Barack Obama -- Even the candidate senses the urgency. He's got two things on his side: Iowa and the media. Clinton is nowhere near closing the sale in Iowa. If anything, there's some evidence that she's stagnating or even dropping a tad (if one believes a couple of internal polls). And the media still wants a race. The good news for Obama is that he's slipping so much in the "perception primary" that maybe he doesn't have to be the second coming of JFK on the stump these days -- just something a little north of Gary Hart will get him decent press. Almanac Profile
3. John Edwards -- No campaign is more frustrated with the press than this one. No matter what the campaign does, when they do it or how they do it, the mainstream media want to frame this race as Clinton vs. Obama. For now, the Edwards folks believe if they scream loud enough, eventually the MSM will change that dynamic; we'll see. There's another option: Go after Obama while he's weak and remove the obstacle. That apparently isn'ton the table because they don't think it gets them anything. But what ought to scare both Clinton and Obama is that Edwards isn't getting the scrutiny they are, and if he eventually pops after Iowa, he's going to be harder to stop.
Rudy Giuliani has been married three times, in case you didn't know, and the subject is generally taboo among his Republican opponents and even among Democrats. But the DNC, in a daily e-mail sent to supporters and reporters by their research shop, isn't afraid to go there. (A spokesperson says the researchers were just being tongue-in-cheek.)
Talking to a friend the other day, Obama stated the obvious about Tuesday night’s debate (9-11 p.m. ET, airing on MSNBC and streaming live on msnbc.com). “I’ve got to do something in Philly,” he said.
Obama chief strategist David Axelrod on NBC's "Today":
first of all, let me dispute one of the premises of andrea's piece. we've always -- i know there's a fascination about national polls, particularly in the national political community, but we've always known this race goes through iowa and we've spent most of our time there in the last eight months. and as of yesterday, the university of iowa poll shows we're in a dead even race with Senator Clinton. so i don't feel the same sense of urgency that was expressed in that piece to step out of character.
To make sure Mitt Romney's slim but steady lead in New Hampshire holds up, his campaign will take steps to "tighten" his message there and "close the deal" with conservative voters, advisers said today.
Romney's television traffic will begin to emphasize his experience as a businessman above all else -- his tenure at Bain Capital and his stewardship of the 2002 Olympic Games. Those biographical ads, which will be reinforced on the radio and through the mail, will be interspersed with traditional issues ads on subjects like immigration and spending.
To date, Romney's campaign in New Hampshire has been aggressive and loosely focused. It has succeeded, according to public and internal polls, in attracting hard core conservatives. But his advisers acknowledge that he has not sealed the deal.
There might be too many Romney messages out there. He speaks often of the three-legged stool and the need for a Republican presidential nominee to be seen as favoring strong families, a strong economy and a strong national defense. There is no single attribute that defines Romney -- no hook on which voters can hang their support. By contrast, Rudy Giuliani is identified with September 11th and his stewardship in New York City, and John McCain's status as a hero (or as a 2000-era reformer) is often the first thing that comes to the mind of New Hampshire voters.
For Romney, that hook will be his career as a business executive and record as manager.
Romney's tightening focus comes as Rudy Giuliani begins a push to usurp Romney's first-place position there. The Giuliani campaign has about as many staffers in New Hampshire as it does in Iowa and Florida. Strategists see the state as their prime opportunity to steal a victory from the early-state frontrunner -- Romney. Indeed, Giuliani's positions on moral issues are unobjectionable to most Republicans. And his tenure as mayor of New York City poses no ontological problems for Northeastern Republicans.
To date, Giuliani has confused his rivals by his absence from the television airwaves. His campaign makes tens of thousands of voter contacts a week by mail and telephone, and his radio ads are ubiquitous.
When Barack Obama confronted Hillary Clinton's vote on Lieberman-Kyl, the Clinton campaign quickly mailed a detailed explanation of her vote to Iowans.
When Barack Obama told the New York Times that he would start to challenge Clinton more aggressively and picked her refusal to detail her Social Security fix as his first target, within 10 hours the Clinton campaign was on the air in New Hampshire with an ad attempting to inoculate any perceived vulnerabilities on Social Security.
Depending on the size of the buy, more New Hampshire residents probably saw the Clinton ad before they heard too much about Obama's charge on Social Security. And notice how Clinton frames her opposition: by using George W. Bush as a foil.
The tag line is an encapsulation of Clinton's appeal to Democrats:
"These days, it seems like every candidate on earth is coming here for You.
But which candidate has been there for you all along?"
It's also the first time a Clinton ad has even acknowledged the presence of other candidates.
"This is the world we live in. It's not this happy, romantic-like world where we'll negotiate with this one, or we'll negotiate with that one and there will be no preconditions, and we'll invite (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad to the White House, we'll invite Osama (bin Laden) to the White House. Hillary and Obama are kind of debating whether to invite them to the inauguration or the inaugural ball."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton:
"Mayor Giuliani has stooped to a disgraceful new low that embraces the very worst legacy of George Bush and Dick Cheney's cynicism and divisiveness. We must be united in our determination to hunt down Osama bin Laden, something that George Bush and Rudy Giuliani’s disastrous Iraq War has prevented. Mayor Giuliani's cheap applause lines, unfounded political smears, and shoot-first-think-later politics are irresponsible in a campaign, and would be catastrophic in a presidency,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
This column is not ignoring Sen. Barack Obama's contention that Hillary Clinton refuses to say how she'd fix Social Security ... it's just the old brain has no original thoughts to add to the scrum.
Also, tomorrow night's debate is certainly going to advance this charge one way or the other.
The challenge is not whether Obama can or will say Hillary Clinton's name or whether he will find something to pick at her about. It's whether he can connect his charge to the larger argument he is making. And so far, that larger argument is largely devoid of direct references to Hillary Clinton. There is a thin backbone of a litany; there is no repitition of charges; no sustained chain of logic to persuade Democrats to reject Hillary Clinton and replace her with Barack Obama.
John Edwards makes just such an argument. Privately, it's electability. Publicly, it's that she represents corruption and compromise. So far, it doesn't seem to be working. Or maybe the press won't cover it. Or maybe the argument isn't precisely the right argument.
Polling shows that Democrats have yet to be persuaded that Clinton represents the dark side of the party. Even in the states where she polls below 30%, she is the first and second choice of a majority. (So is Obama). Electability seems to be the only question that Democrats do voice. Perhaps as the caucus and primaries draw nearer, those doubts will increase. Or, perhaps by that time, they won't exist.
Florida-- Lawyers for Florida Democrats filed a new motion today in federal court seeking a quick decision on whether DNC chairman Howard Dean "and other political party bosses" violated the rights of millions of Florida Dems by refusing to recognize the state's Jan. 29 delegate selection process, a process that violated DNC rules. The DNC's filing in the case was due today. If the judge, Robert Hinkle, decides to require the DNC to recognize Florida's delegates, the DNC will almost certainly appeal.
Michigan -- Democrats and Republicans are still planning to hold their primary on Jan. 15. The GOP primary counts, but remember -- the RNC will reduce the total delegate haul by half. The DNC primary is -- well, a mystery at this point. There will be a ballot, a few names will be on it, and the press needs to figure out how they're covering to cover it.
Watch to see what the state Democratic Party does on November 7 -- at its executive committee meeting, the state Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer will make one final pitch for a post-Feb. 5 caucus. Over the long term, Dems and GOPers in the state are looking to work together to propose some sort of national joint fix to the primary calendar. There may well be a floor fight at the Republican convention in Minneapolis, and the fractious calendar fights of this year may boil over.
Jerry Zandstra, a pro-life leader in Michigan, endorses Sen. John McCain. Not a big surprise -- Zandstra was partial to McCain and Sam Brownback. And wife Cindy McCain says she won't use her personal forture to help her husband.
Portsmouth, NH mayor Steve Marchand, at one point a candidate for the Senate, has endorsed Gov. Bill RIchardson.
It may be true -- as my NBC colleague Chuck Todd reports -- that the findings of the University of Iowa poll are similar to what private candidate polls show. (And Chuck likes the open-ended question.)
But the sample size is enormous and it comports more with a sample of adult Iowans than it does with hard-core Iowa Democrats. Two different samples, two different sets of results.
A caveat here might well be that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is predicated on turning out more less frequent Democratic voters and that a broader sample captures his support more accurately than a narrower sample.
The political scientist who conducts the poll is David Redlawsk.
"Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay, when I have been touched by the same feelings," McClurkin went on. "When I have suffered with the same feelings. Don't call me a homophobe, when I love everybody … Don't tell me that I stand up and I say vile words against the gay community because I don't. I don't speak against the homosexual. I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality."
McClurkin's words drew raucous applause from the crowd, who had lined up around the block to get into the Township Auditorium in Columbia.
In politics, money usually chases the surging candidates. Mike Huckabee, it seems, scared it away -- until this month.
With your efforts, we have raised a total of $703,879 online during the month of October, including $331,420 over the last five days.
From October 1 through 24, Huckabee took in nearly $30,000 per day.
That's way above average.
In the first quarter, Huckabee averaged about $6,054 per day. (That's $544,880 divided by 90 days)
In the second quarter, Huckabee averaged about $8,391 per day.
In the third quarter, Huckabee averaged about $25,437 per day.
The campaign set a goal of $1,034,487 by midnigh ton October 31 -- a Million for Mike. Even one dollar -- "A Buck for Huck" -- is welcomed by the campaign.
The fundraising email states a goal of having $1.7M in the bank by end of November.
But some enterprising Obama ally made sure to send this morning's results to Matt Drudge, who, through no fault of his own, probably doesn't read too much into methodology.
Each television network has a polling unit. Presumably, producers will consult their in-house experts before broadcasting this poll without caveats.
If the U of Iowa poll becomes a talking point for a cable TV host to say "the race is tightening in Iowa," then score one for Obama's communications nexus. The fact is, the race is already pretty tight there, as all three leading campaigns will acknowledge. Tighter than a tick, an old CBS News anchor might have said.
Edwards Implies That Clinton Is Part Of "Corrupt" DC System
On the heels of Sen. Barack Obama's latest throat-clearing interview with the New York Times, Ex-Sen. John Edwards is screaming himself hoarse.
In a speech he'll give in New Hampshire, today, Edwards implies that Hillary Clinton is part of a "corrupt" Washington system "rigged by powerful special interests."
"It is not an accident that the Government of the United States cannot function on behalf of its people - because it is no longer our people's government and we the people know it. This corruption did not begin yesterday -- and it did not even begin with George Bush - it has been building for decades - until it now threatens literally the life of our democracy."
"The long slow slide of our democracy into the corporate abyss continues unabated regardless of party, regardless of the best interests of America. We have a duty - a duty to end this. I believe you cannot be for change and take money from the lobbyists who prevent change. You cannot take on the entrenched interests in Washington if you choose to defend the broken system. It will not work. And I believe that, if Americans have a choice, any candidate who takes their money - Democrat or Republican - will lose this election."
In Concord today, Sen. Judd Gregg will endorse ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, Republican sources with knowledge of the endorsement said.
Gregg is the ranking Republican on the Senate budget committee, a former Governor of New Hampshire and one of its Senators since 1992, endorsed George W. Bush in 2000.
Gregg has been a quiet fan of Romney's since the former governor began to seriously think about running for president, but he's remained publicly neutral. Many of his senior aides and advisers have joined Romney's campaign.
It's tough to say that any endorsement carries votes these days, but Gregg's ability to validate Romney's competence and economic message, as well as his freedom to act as a surrogate for Romney at events should not be underrated.
Romney will officially file his paperwork to enter the New Hampshire primary at noon:30 ET. That's when Gregg will endorse him.
The news overshadows a major push by Rudy Giuliani in the state. The former mayor is spending four days there this week, his longest stretch of campaign time to date.
New Hampshire's other Senator, John Sununu, has said he'll remain neutral for the primaries.
1. Will the average level of caucus-goer interest be greater because more folks are at home and not working? Or lower, because they're at home and watching college football, hanging out with their family, not working, etc.
2. Will this help or hurt the Obama campaign's registration efforts targeted at 17-year-olds? Where will their college student supporters be? At home? Nearby their college? Elsewhere? How does that help or hurt caucus math?
3. Will the race be frozen, in essence, by Christmas? Can any candidate on either side generate momentum from a standing start between December 24 and January 3?
4. Will there be enough television inventory for all the campaigns to advertise in December? Won't there be a heck of a lot of competition from consumer products advertising?
5. When will the major Iowa newspaper endorsements be released?
6. And finally: who will watch the Orange Bowl instead of caucusing? Which smart campaigns will rent TVs and station them at caucus sites? Is that even legal?
I've made this mistake before, so watch out: the new poll from the University of Iowa (released later this a.m) is not necessarily without merit, but given the weirdness of its likely voter screen, questionnaire and sample source, it's not really comparable to other polls and therefore shouldn't be used to see or describe a trend.
CONCORD -- When I visited Ron Paul's New Hampshire campaign headquarters this morning, only one member of his staff, Kate Rick, was there. The other six were out building a contraption to capture the unique energies of the Paul movement here. Excitement -- Paul is moving up (slowly) in the polls and has only, to this point, run a single radio ad.
A check of the parking lots at Paul events in New Hampshire finds many Vermont and Massachusetts license plates. An evolved campaign fills its crowds with voters, not just fans. Rick, the founder of the unofficial RonPaulHq.com, spent hundreds of her own dollars to print large yard signs. A campaign with millions in the bank can probably afford to pay her back.
For the longest time, many journalists, myself included, did not take Ron Paul seriously. It wasn't that his politics -- a combination of libertarian constitutionalism and social conservatism -- were unusual. It was, principally, that he was anti-war in a party where that view dare not express itself.
Paul is now emerging as a serious threat in New Hampshire, perhaps not to win it -- although the winner may need only 25% or so -- , but to influence the outcome in a way that reflects his worldview. He will spend most of the $5.3M in his campaign budget on television, mailings and field organizing in the Granite State. There are 450 people in largest Ron Paul Meetup group, and they're canvassing in Claremont and dropping lit in Manchester this weekend.
Who likes Paul? His aides say there is no single demographic. Many are former members of the Buchanan Brigade, suddenly re-energized by Paul's anti-interventionism and strong border stances. Others seem to be casual libertarians who never really found a sympathetic voice in any of the other presidential candidates. Yet others are self-described constitutionalists. They blame the monetary system for the credit crunch and for economic dislocation. Monetary policy has been Paul's other big bugbear.
Today, thousands of New Hampshire Republicans began receiving a glossy, 12-mail mailer -- the campaign's first major lit drop. The first Paul television ad should hit the airwaves soon. Paul will increase his campaign appearances here. He's hesitated to spend too much time on the campaign trail because he's a freak about serving his Texas constituents and never likes to miss a vote.
Thompson, Romney And Giuliani In New Hampshire On Monday
CONCORD -- It's a tease of early January. On Monday, all three leading Republican presidential candidates -- Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, will spend the day campaigning in New Hampshire.
Thompson will formally file his paperwork with Secretary of State William Gardner. They may even intersect: Romney holds a major rally with supporters at 11:45 a.m. in Concord. He has anl AMA -- that's the internal lingo for an "Ask Mitt Anything" event and files with Gardner at 1:45 p.m. And Giuliani,
There's even a new McCain television ad on the air, one that is more purely devoted to drawing a contrast with Hillary Clinton than it is with McCain's service to his nation as a POW.
In the minds of campaigns here, New Hampshire has taken a back seat to Iowa this cycle and candidates rarely spent more than a single day in the state at a time. The press is grumbling, too. So Monday's show of love from the Republicans may sate some appetites for a while.
A corporation cannot fund the express advocacy of a candidate for federal office out of its treasury funds. So General Motors could not run a newspaper ad saying "Vote for Colbert for President." The same rule applies to labor unions. The funding has to come from its political action committee.
But there's an exemption in the law for "any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate."
Allison's main point is that Colbert does not control Viacom, Comedy Central, or even The Colbert Report. (I think we'd need to know a lot more about the Colbert Report's power structure before venturing a guess on the last point.) But I think she's elided over a prior question. The exemption only applies to a "news story, commentary, or editorial." It does not apply to everything Viacom does. So if Viacom took out a full page ad in the New York Post paid for with treasury funds saying "Vote for Colbert," that would be an illegal corporate expenditure regardless of the fact that Viacom could put on an express editorial saying the same thing on one of its television stations.
So the question could well turn on whether the shameless (and hilarious) promotion of the Colbert candidacy on the Colbert Report actually constitutes a bona fide news story (no way) or commentary or editorial (harder question). The fact that the show is a satire makes the interpretation question all the more difficult: does schtick count as commentary? I'm not so sure. But consider a case where Jay Leno does his comedy routine wearing a "Vote for Colbert" button. I don't think that would get the media exemption, and NBC could be in trouble. It is quite a fine line to draw.
One of the more fascinating manifestations of the split between the elite press and the newer media is in how they treat the robotic (or automated) polls of Scott Rasmussen . Mr. Rasmussen uses a variety of screens and can poll so often and so cheaply because he does not use humans to ask the questions. A computer-generated questioner interacts with the voter, who presses the corresponding button a touch-tone phone.
The press -- and the pollsters who consult for them and most campaign pollsters -- dismiss Rasmussen out of hand. For the latter group, there may be an element of competitive jealousy in the mix, but there are also valid reasons to be skeptical about screening and sample bias in automated surveys and contact and cooperation
