The Daily Five: Giuliani Loses His National Finance Chair

1. It's not a good sign that Giuliani's senior staff have decided to work without paychecks, and there is no way to spin it otherwise. The amount of money that's involved is miniscule: about $50,000 per month.

So the campaign must really have a cash on hand problem. Breaking News: Giuliani's national finance chair, Roy Bailey, no longer has that position with the campaign. Bailey was not only Giuliani's finance chair, he was one of the founding partners of Giuliani's consulting firm.

2. Finally, for this supporters: Mike Huckabee adds Jim Pinkerton to his policy shop. But why the personal insult against Fred Thompson?

3. New York's Conservative Party will endorse Fred Thompson over Rudy Giuliani.

4. AZ Gov. Janet Napolitano endorses Sen. Barack Obama, saying on a conference call:

I thought deeply about this decision. In my view it wasn't about gender or race. It was between two eminently qualified individuals who bring a lot of talent, either one who would serve as a good president. This president fundamentally about choice, new vision to Washington, DC, bringing different parties, ages, etc. together. Sen. Obama is evidence of that change we need. It was a difficult decision but Sen. Obama is the right choice

5. Hillary Clinton has released a new ad in Nevada and South Carolina featuring her new catchphrase:

"Over the last week I listened to you and in the process I found my own voice. You helped remind everyone that politics isn’t a game. This campaign is about people. About making a difference in your lives. It’s time we had a president who stands up for all of you. “I’m Hillary Clinton and I approved this message.”

Comments

"I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this racial slur".

Posted by Hillary | January 11, 2008 4:26 PM

That Clinton ad is a piece of work. "You like me! You really like me!"

Posted by lampwick | January 11, 2008 4:28 PM

How is this a racial slur? The hate is really strong here. This ad and Obama's ad are both very weak. Neither addresses problems and both want to win your vote by appealing to there personalities. GWB was nice guy who always talked about bringing the parties together and working with members across the aisle to pass legislation as the governor of TX. He turned out to be a pretty bad president. Lets talk issues people.

Posted by buyproduct | January 11, 2008 4:49 PM

Wouldn't the world be a sweeter place if Hillary REALLY could find a new voice?

The voice she has been using the past 20 years is like a Dentist's drill.

Posted by Carolina | January 11, 2008 4:52 PM

My Father was a Dentist and it's truly amazing: every time I hear Hillary's shrill tone it brings back memories of Dad!

Posted by Jay | January 11, 2008 5:03 PM

"Over the last week I listened to you and in the process I found a gimmick that actually fooled you proles. You helped remind everyone that I pay my advisors too much. This campaign is about me. About making a difference in my life. It’s time we had a president who stands up to pee. “I’m Hillary Clinton and I approved this message.”

Posted by Hillary | January 11, 2008 5:07 PM

Marc, c'mon. You know that Huckabee's insult of Thompson was awesome. And on the money.

Posted by dry_fish | January 11, 2008 5:08 PM

After "35 years", after 3-4 previous rebrandings, after voting for Iraq, the original Patriot Act, the Iran resolution... now she finds her "voice"... when she starts losing the primary. GET REAL.

Posted by John M. | January 11, 2008 5:10 PM

Is it true that the Clintons put pressure on Ricahardson to quite before Nevada votes for the Latino votes.

Posted by Conservative | January 11, 2008 5:14 PM

Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon to endorse Obama, but has anyone noticed that he hasn't really said anything, he just says it beautifully? If you want to hear John Edwards' positions on the issues, just listen to Obama and Clinton. Edwards is the one who has been doing the real work when the cameras are off. Give him a look.

Posted by BenSil | January 11, 2008 5:28 PM

so yet again, HRC will co-opt BHO's message: this week it's that this election is about the people, not the candidate...2 weeks ago it was hijacking the mantle of change.

To know what HRC's "voice" is at any given moment, just look to what BHO said the week before.

I hope the Obama campaign calls this out. Soonish.

Posted by lord of them thangs | January 11, 2008 5:28 PM

Hello, Marc, commenters- (McCain-site publisher)

Per item #1 - Rudy's $$$

I would agree that there is no way to spin it as a positive. More puzzling is the why. Rudy didn't compete in Iowa at all. In New Hampshire, he tried very hard to win, with numerous TV ads and personal appearances, before conceding in mid-December. He's skipping Michigan and SC now, too.

He had raised, as Marc has pointed out, more $$$ than anyone else, if one excludes Mitt's personal wealth. What are they doing with all of that $$$? It could be argued that the damage of this single news item is worse than just paying the $50 K to the staff (which is, obviously, also bad for staff and volunteer and donor morale, as well.)

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com Publisher | January 11, 2008 5:30 PM

Hey, lord of them thangs, if HRC is lifing her lines from BHO, it's only because he has been lifting his lines from Edwards. He's the one who started the whole change topic. A thief can't holler cop. And remember, the president doesn't get to vote "present."

Posted by BenSil | January 11, 2008 5:33 PM

When Bush did speak issues, he said things like he didn't think we should go to war without a doable goal with a clear exit strategy and that it was not a strength of the U.S. to be peacekeepers between warring factions.

So why listen to their issues either?

I'm voting for Ron Paul for as long as Republicans let me, I feel he is not a liar and has a clear idea of why his issues are his principles.

I've been humming this song for a while now...

I've got Marx to the left of me,
Stalin to the right,
Here I am,
stuck in the middle with you!

Posted by ghostdance | January 11, 2008 6:13 PM

Hey, BenSil, no doubt that Edwards has helped shift the debate in the right direction this election. You could see that in both BHO and HRC after they beefed up their attack language on irresponsible corporations.

I like Edwards. But his message is simply for show. It's not sustainable and you know it. It's completely nuts to think that "big corporations" can be forcibly removed from Washington by brute force. "Big corporations" are so entwined in that town there's no telling where one ends and the other begins. I AGREE that the next president absolutely should put the middle and working class above irresponsible corporations; but Edwards' flame throwing will scare off independents and more than a few Dems. This country is employed by big corporations. The next Administration needs to give them less and re-prioritize Washington. But Edwards has no plan for how to actually do that. And when he does talk specifically, he and Obama say the same thing: no lobbyists in the White House.

Obama has specificity problems right now as well, something i've lamented on more than one occasion. But at least his approach to retooling Washington's priorities wont scare off a large voting bloc needed in the general.

Plus, truth be told, Edwards is NOT a life long advocate for social justice. He took the bulk of Bobby Kennedy's playbook and made it his own--and while i think that's a good playbook to draw from--when you boil it down, Edwards and BHO want to the same thing for America. the difference is, one's message might actually get us there (realize that big corporations are there, but unlike the status quo, they dont get whatever they want), whereas the other's doesn't have a chance in hell.

Go back and read BHO's presidential announcement speech from a year ago: it could be his stump speech today. 1) this election is about you, not me... 2) we need to take our government back for the people, from the special interests that have hijacked it... 3) do not believe the cynics who tell us what we cant do... (and so on...) that's called consistency. Edwards has been reasonably consistent (2 America's was too divisive so it became the people vs. the powerful, but its all in the same vein). I wont even address how fluid HRC's message is.

I like Edwards, i think his heart is in the right place. but voters dont seem to trust him. so he'll grab on to anything with populist heat, no matter how polarizing, just to keep himself above water.

Posted by lord of them thangs | January 11, 2008 6:18 PM

I'm fighting the good fight for that poor u in minuscule.

Posted by SteinL | January 11, 2008 6:34 PM

This ad and Obama's ad are both very weak. Neither addresses problems and both want to win your vote by appealing to there personalities.

I disagree. This is a powerful ad. It's not overly specific. But the message is clear: Hillary is standing up for ordinary, middle class people. She wants to make government work for, not against them. The implication is clear: vote for me because I'm running a traditionalist Democratic, meat and potatoes campaign focusing on economic deliverables. Her opponent, while possessing a number of well thought out policies he's posted to his site, continues to inexplicably eschew touting them in favor of a high concept campaign about ending political discord -- a gauzy, feel-good approach more appropriate for a president running for reelection in the middle of a business cycle (Reagan's 1984 "It's Morning in America" theme comes to mind) than for a neophyte attempting to wrest power during a nasty recession.

Posted by Jasper | January 11, 2008 7:14 PM

it took Hilary THAT LONG to find her voice?

Posted by AMN | January 11, 2008 7:14 PM

What's this discussion about Clinton's voice?!? Sounds pretty sexist. Anyone willing to consider McCain's or Ron Paul's voices? Not the most pleasant; kind of whinny and high. If we are going to elect someone based on their voice, I vote for Thompson. Low and mellifluous.

Why don't we have a voice preference survey? Followed by an "emotional emoting" survey.

Posted by c gilbert | January 11, 2008 9:05 PM

How is the adviser _voluteering_ to not get paid a bad sign? If anything, it shows the guy does not need external motivation like money to help Giuliani get elected.

Posted by justice | January 11, 2008 10:31 PM

c gilbert - I actually like the way McCain sounds. But Edwards' overdone twang, Guiliani's bluster and Romney's smirking arrogance all bother me as much as Clinton's self-righteous tones. GWB has them all beat.

Posted by Rachel Q | January 11, 2008 10:42 PM

It actually scares me to read some the posts on the political articles because of their pettiness and total lack of substance. Our country is about to implode because of our incompetent leadership that the people voted into office in an act of stupidity. People are losing their homes, we are facing a major financial crisis and recession, Iraq is costing us blood and billions of dollars, our constitution is being striped by an authoritarian administration and we have morons basing their vote on nothing but BS. We are electing a President with the hope that he/she will be able to salvage the mess Bush has made out of our country.. Another three trillion in debt and a reputation throughout the world as both arrogant and dangerously stupid. I can only assume that these people that use baseless claims, voice tone, personal demeanor or some other meaningless attribute to guide their vote are the same ones that put Bush in office and bare responsibility for our present plight. I only hope you feel some amount of guilt about the people that have lost their lives or arms and legs fighting Bush’s war.

Posted by bccity | January 11, 2008 10:55 PM

it took Hilary THAT LONG to find her voice?

Let's just hope this new voice uses fewer As.

Posted by db | January 11, 2008 11:06 PM

c gilbert | January 11, 2008 9:05 PM

Everyone sounds stupid to someone. Don't take it too seriously. Wait... do you sound like her?

Posted by db | January 11, 2008 11:16 PM

Obama's message/voice has been consistent at least since he wrote Dreams From My Father when he was just out of law school - well before the rest of the field hopped on the "change" bandwagon. I'm finally reading it and finding it more relevant to my decision than any current media analysis.

Posted by hp | January 11, 2008 11:26 PM

Funny how Huckabee has to get personal against Thompson while Thompson merely listed Huckabee's record and current endorsements. Sounds to me like Thompson hit Huckabee in a sore spot. Add to that Huckabee's lame attempt to connect Thompson to McCain in order to try and peel off conservatives by associating the two and it looks like Huckabee is flailing.

Posted by Woody Boyd | January 12, 2008 12:14 AM

"Everyone sounds stupid to someone."

You got that right gilbert.

NY Times 牋|牋Janny Scott 牋|牋 January 11, 2008 01:43 PM

There was something improbable about the new guy from Chicago via Honolulu and Jakarta, Indonesia, the one with the Harvard law degree and the job teaching constitutional law, turning up in Springfield, Ill., in January 1997 among the housewives, ex-mayors and occasional soybean farmer serving in the State Senate....
...Asked why he ran for the Senate in a state where rank-and-file lawmakers have been called "mushrooms" (because they are kept in the dark and fed, uh, manure), Mr. Obama said: "Part of it was that the seat opened up. I was living in the district, and the state legislature was a part-time position. It allowed me to get my feet wet in politics and test out whether I could get something done."

Posted by bccity | January 12, 2008 1:24 AM

'Like many of you out there in this great country, my husband was sucked off by another woman and there was nothing I could do about it. My name is Old Hag and I approve this message'

Posted by ryan | January 12, 2008 1:37 AM

my husband was sucked off by another woman and there was nothing I could do about it. - Posted by ryan

I'm sorry to hear that ryan. "Dear Margo" has a letter today (about dealing with homophobia) and yesterday (about cheating) that you may find helpful.

Posted by Harry R. Sohl | January 12, 2008 3:07 AM

I only hope you feel some amount of guilt about the people that have lost their lives or arms and legs fighting Bush’s war.

And you call others petty? I don't see anyone else using the imagery of dead and wounded soldiers as leverage on an internet forum.

Do you understand that by the end of your post, you had become the very thing you were complaining about at the start?

Llama.

Posted by db | January 12, 2008 3:15 AM

"I only hope you feel some amount of guilt about the people that have lost their lives or arms and legs fighting Bush’s war.

And you call others petty? I don't see anyone else using the imagery of dead and wounded soldiers as leverage on an internet forum.
Do you understand that by the end of your post, you had become the very thing you were complaining about at the start?"
--------------------------------------------------
There is nothing petty about using the image of dead and wounded soldiers in any type of forum when calling to task those that treat the election process as a popularity contest. Who we elect makes a difference to the well being of these soldiers lives as well as the rest of the world. I hate what Bush has done to our country and those that supported him need to share in the responsibility of his acts. We are not winning anything in Iraq with surge. Our casualties are down in certain areas because we are paying both the Sunni and Sheits to fight each other and four million Iraqi have fled Iraq.

You understand why I am taking people to task, it is because they do not realize the gravity of the present danger we face. They are treating it like a popularity contest when this is the most important election in my lifetime and I served in the war in Korea as a Marine grunt 56 years ago.

It can not be politics as usual anymore because we need a dedicated experienced person to lead the country out of the danger we are in, Someone that works 16 hours a day and cares about the results. Our country is deeply in debt, threatened by global warming, a possibly endless war in Iraq, and a world that becomes more estranged from us with every day that passes. Our financial institutions are borrowing billions of dollars from China, and many of the Arab countries attempting to plug the hole in the dam. CEO’s are dropping like flies, major institutions are close to bankruptcy and our present leaders are ill equipped to deal with it. The entire situation is extremely grim…

Posted by bccity | January 12, 2008 5:19 AM

bcCity - People have lost lives, arms and legs not for "Bush's War" but to protect our freedom so people like you can be STUPID and still have a voice.

Posted by Danbar | January 12, 2008 6:28 AM

None of the US troops stationed throughout the world are protecting anyone's freedom. It's an industry.

China has no bases or troops stationed throughout the world. Do you know of any country or terrorists that are threatening to attack China? Do you want to attack China? Are the Chinese huddled in fear from Al Qaida?

Posted by Rolex | January 12, 2008 6:44 AM

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Al Quaida, China along with you and the rest of the enemy's of freedom and democracy huddle together to plan the destruction of liberty and freedom. You Rolex are a coward and should just move in with the Chicoms or Jihadist's and see how much freedom that wins you. Be my guest!

Posted by Danbar | January 12, 2008 7:40 AM

New York's Conservative Party will endorse Fred Thompson over Rudy Giuliani.

Ooooh, SNAP!

I mean, it's one thing if the homie wingnuts went for Romney, or McCain, or -- what is less likely -- Huckabee. But the other Comatose Candidate?

That's gonna leave a mark, Rudy.
.

Posted by Gee | January 12, 2008 8:03 AM

It's minUscule.

Posted by Terence Elliott | January 12, 2008 8:06 AM

I have just used an online dictionary to ascertain that "minuscule" is the synonym for small and "miniscule" is a type or font. However, some dictionaries are showing "miniscule" as an alternate spelling for "minuscule".

Posted by nychris | January 12, 2008 10:19 AM

I can't believe that ANYONE, Democrat or Republican would use "found my own voice", "campaign about people", and "make a difference" all in one ad. Shouldn't there be a law against so many grating cliches all in one place at the same time?

Posted by nychris | January 12, 2008 10:24 AM

Ron Paul raised 20 million Q4 2007. You would think when 10 million+ dollars alone can be obtained in 2 days by individual American donors, this would be news. It would be if it were happening with the other candidates.

Ron Paul: A New Hope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA

Posted by RonPaul2008.com | January 12, 2008 11:48 AM

I'm a Republican -- most everyone I know is -- but I'd vote for Obama if it came down to it. So would my parents, sister, girlfriend, employees, and a lot of people I associate with.

The Democrats would be shooting themselves in the foot by nominating Hillary -- the hate for her is unfathomable, but there are a lot of Republicans who are on the fence that would vote for Obama.

My 2 cents.

Posted by Ryan | January 12, 2008 3:33 PM

I presume you're deleting comments that insinuate that the New Hampshire primary vote was stolen, right?

Okay, well, I'll keep this short:

THE VOTE WAS STOLEN!

Posted by Live Free or Diebold | January 12, 2008 4:21 PM

Tonight 7 card stud hands bust live odds poker betting gambling pat freezeout road hard meat america bank card credit cycle buy grande churn million!

Posted by best online poker | March 8, 2008 10:52 AM

Get started mobiles casino wiseguy main finger video regular bet cpayscom2 casino online juice jam catch pool tutorial www casino jeu fr spending round bust craps roulette.

Posted by casino 888 | April 7, 2008 8:28 AM

Get started mobiles casino wiseguy main finger video regular bet cpayscom2 casino online juice jam catch pool tutorial www casino jeu fr spending round bust craps roulette.

Posted by casino 888 | April 7, 2008 8:28 AM