The Daily Five: Healing In HD

1. Last night on Fox News, Karl Rove floated his own balloon containing a novel way Barack Obama could end up being the nominee. In June, after all the states have finished voting and assuming he has an earned delegate lead of about 100, he could,say, you know what, let's go ahead and seat those delegations from Florida and Michigan based on their January primaries. Why the hell would he consider this, given that Clinton would close the delegate gap by more than 50 and would pull to near-even -- or even ahead of -- Obama in the popular vote? It would give the undecided superdelegates a reason to vote for Obama. It would show them that he's willing to put the party's interests above his own; it would be a gesture of mangnamity that Hillary Clinton could not match; it would display, at once, confidence and humility; it would give him a way to dominate the post-early-June news cycle.

The Obama campaign declined to comment.

2. Matt Bai:

Here’s a political postulate for you: whether or not a bad moment sticks to the candidate depends on how closely related it is to the core rationale of that candidate or his opponent. In other words, if your gaffe goes directly to the main argument you are trying to make about yourself with the electorate, or if it substantiates the most relevant thing that your rival would have us believe about you, then it has the potential to become a serious problem. If, on the other hand, you do something completely idiotic that is tangential to what voters most hope or fear about you, then you tend to get a pass. So Mr. Kerry’s choice of wording hurt because it played into the main theme that the Republicans had chosen to discredit him—the notion that he wanted to have everything both ways. By contrast, Mr. Bush’s brush with the law had nothing to do with the story he was telling about himself as a competent manager, nor did it underscore the central argument that Democrats were advancing about him (because, really, there wasn’t one).

3. Joe Klein's Gore scenario is just plausible enough to consider. Would Gore want it? His friends and advisers say he's moved beyond politics, but the chance to run for president without (a) weathering a primary campaign, which he did not enjoy and (b) the chance to run with a good possibility of victory might cause him to change his mind. Gore has never said "no" to the idea of running for president in part because he envisioned a scenario where he might want to run. Would Obama backers really be happy if Gore took the top spot? Because Klein raised the question, does Gore now need to say no, never?

4. Barack Obama will air his first ad in Indiana tomorrow. (Check out the leather jacket!)

5. The 700 Club is going high-def! On Monday!
For some reason, that's just cool.

Comments

(Check out the leather jacket!)

Shades of John Kerry's Harley?

Posted by Robert Paulson | March 27, 2008 5:30 PM

As to 1), I have always assumed that something like that is under serious consideration. Those delegations will likely be seated under some kind of arrangement in any event, and why not reap the benefit of appearing magnanimous?

Posted by alkali | March 27, 2008 5:31 PM

I can't make out the beginning of the new Obama ad.

Is this a bad copy, or, God forbid, is his campaign going to send it out this way. It's garbled at the very beginning.

Posted by rolaids spells relief | March 27, 2008 5:48 PM

"I moved to Chicago..." are you deaf or just a tone deaf HRC supporter? lol

Posted by Coltrane | March 27, 2008 5:55 PM

Coltrane, it's coming out fuzzy in the beginning.
I'm not deaf, nor am I a Hillary supporter (supporting Obama), but when I heard the beginning, I freaked, because I thought, they can't send stuff out that sounds like: "lkjdsfosidk slfjiowe sdlkji"

Hopefully the one that goes to the TV stations will have better audio? If they can't hear you correctly in the first few seconds, it's lost, given peoples' attention spans.

Posted by rolaids spells relief | March 27, 2008 6:20 PM

Okay, Coltrane, now that I know what it's supposed to say, I can hear the beginning.
It's a decent ad, but he could do better.
Maybe I'm too "coastal" and "ethnic" but aren't we supposed to use our hands LESS when we try to communicate with people in the midwest? (Indiana isn't a hotbed or Italianate gesticulation, last I checked.)
The hands look awkward, especially since he presents well enough in the video that he shouldn't need to emphasize his point with the hand gestures.
Then again, I'm a lousy judge of political ads. What appeals to me about Obama isn't the empty advertisy-soundbite, but the more complicated situations he describes and addresses.
But... you gotta do what you gotta do in an ad, and maybe this is perfect for Indiana.
Anyway, beats the hysterically funny series of 3 am phone call ads and references from the Clinton campaign.

Posted by rolaids spells relief | March 27, 2008 6:27 PM

I've noticed some candidates have tried to integrate "I approved this message" into their ads in something resembling a "real" manner. But it still seems funny to me that they say it themselves when they were the only person in the ad.

Posted by socctty | March 27, 2008 6:28 PM

From my post on swimming freestyle:

That said, one of the Democrats biggest problems is their hell bent tendency to look backward for solutions. The Clintons counted on exactly this tendency when Hillary Clinton began her campaign: she was absolutely convinced she was a lock for the nomination because she knew dutiful Democrats would fondly recall the 1990's and just assume all we needed to do was elect another Clinton and voila - it's the 90's again (well...maybe not everything about the 90's - just the good stuff).

I love nostalgia as much as the next person, but what evidence is there that Gore could do better if given another shot?

On the other hand, an Obama/Gore ticket has always interested me. Gore brings executive experience, foreign policy chops and is the world's leader on climate change issues. Obama/Gore.....now that is interesting.
(http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com

Posted by Jay McDonough | March 27, 2008 7:08 PM

If we could get the same type of 24/7 coverage for McCain - or even any Republican - lies or gaffes, or even talk about their pastors - it would represent an advance in fairness between covering politics.

We've gotten two weeks of 24/7 Wright. Now we are getting a week of 24/7 Clinton "story" on Bosnia.

But how about a week on McCain flipflops? How about a week on McCain not knowing about Iran NOT supporting Al-Queda? With the gaffe played over and over again?

Marc, I think you pointed out, that if Clinton or Obama had made the same gaffe, it would be playing over and over, 24/7, on the news.

How about, even, 24/7 coverage on how the Bush admin lies and lies, most recently with the "putting the country in danger" by not passing the bill he wanted on FISA? Obviously not true, as proved now. But do we GET this 24/7 coverage on Bush's lies and dissembling and mis-statements?

No.

We don't.

Why? Why Why Why?

Why do Democrat's faux-pas (and I really don't accept Wright as a faux-pas, unless the same standard is applied to McCain/Romney/Huckabee/etc), get played on 24/7 loops, while the Republican candidates faux-paus's get one news cycle?

and this has been true, since Dukakis, at least. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, all have gotten the 24/7 soundbite coverage, in the cable news world. But hardly ever does this happen to the Republican candidates/leaders. Why?

Posted by JC | March 27, 2008 7:16 PM

Jay, I could go with Obama-Gore or Gore-Obama.

I could also go with Obama-Bloomberg, Bloomberg-Obama, Obama-Webb, Obama-almost anyone.

The one thing I can't envision is another four to eight years of Clintonian mendacity.

Enough with the empress-dowager non-incumbent, the dynastic element is too last-days-of-Rome for most of us to stomach.

Posted by rolaids spells relief | March 27, 2008 7:17 PM

Of course Gore would take it. He has never stopped wanting to be President (if you don't believe me, just read The Assault on Reason); he's just risk-averse and wants to remain in an "above -the-fray" position. Being drafted to save the party in a Big Dem year is the 1 in a million chance that stopped Gore from making a Sherman statement in the first place.

It seems unlikely that the party--to the extent that it's an "it" with the ability to act--will permit the race to go all the way to Denver; but if it does, the Gore scenario is more likely than not. We only make it to Denver if Obama's too bloodied up to close and Clinton's responsible for the bloodying.

Posted by JB | March 27, 2008 7:27 PM

JC, in answer to your question, the reason they are focusing on the Dem candidates' faux-pas (what's the plural of faux-pas? just faux-pas, I believe) is because there is still a race between two candidates (remember the last days of Romney v. McCain?)

Let Hillary drop out, and the focus will be on McCain on much as it is on the demo front-runner. There's not much focus on Bush as most of the country has decided he's rear-view mirror material.

Posted by rolaids again? | March 27, 2008 7:32 PM

Rolaids again:

Vous avez raison - the plural of "faux pas" is indeed "faux pas" (but there is no hyphen between the two words).

Posted by Estrien | March 27, 2008 7:45 PM

Estrien, merci, and didn't they just yank all the hyphens out of one of the major dictionaries in the last year? I'm showing my age (and the lingering power of a certain 7th-grade teacher's ruler on my knuckles....) And I still can't figure the relationship between parentheses and periods.

Posted by chanson de rolaids | March 27, 2008 8:05 PM

"Chanson de rolaids" - LOL

I hadn't heard of a project to purge the trait d'union from the language. If so, this would be the first occasion in since ca. 1789 that the French actually reformed something. Break out the champagne!

Posted by Estrien | March 27, 2008 8:40 PM

Regarding the Gore idea: so the scenario is the Democratic party decides to replace the African-American frontrunner, who has generated tremendous grassroots support and enthusiasm, raised unprecedented donations from individual voters, and has a put together a highly-effective and organized campaign organization? And the replacement is a white guy who's already tried and lost?

This is almost as plausible as the idea that Obama *must* choose Clinton as his running mate, and therefore subject himself to having both Clintons in the White House with their own agenda during his presidency.

Neither Clinton nor Gore will be on the ticket. If anyone believes otherwise, I am open to friendly, and sizable, wagers.

Posted by tractor | March 27, 2008 8:42 PM

Tractor = reality check.

Posted by Estrien | March 27, 2008 9:05 PM

Estrien, I don't want to get your hopes up, it was an English-language dictionary that had purged all the hyphens. Or so I heard.
Anyway, you can't blame the French for not instituting more reforms. They may have achieved premature perfection with the publication of Madame Bovary back 1856? I just read it (second time, as the first time in high school I used Cliff Notes), and am now inclined to see Emma's outrageous spending so many years past the height of empire as a stand-in for our own credit crisis. That's all you need is the French to illuminate you when you're at your lowest. But as they still do a brisk business in Napoleon trinkets, maybe there's hope for us.

Tractor, I doubt anyone would stand for Clinton joining the Obama ticket, least of all Obama. But I would welcome Gore on the ticket, either upstairs or down. As for the bet, I'll wager my siamese cat, mostly litter-trained, and fiercer than Hillary.

Posted by chanson de pepto | March 27, 2008 9:07 PM

I'm with Tractor, with the caveat that running someone who already failed once, with just enough time for disappointed Obama voters and Clinton voters and anyone-but-Obama/Clinton voters to be reminded of what it is they didn't like about him last century, is the sort of wacky shennanigans one would expect this year.

I like Gore. But he's much better as above it all elder. Call him in for some special troubleshooting.

Posted by Deborah | March 27, 2008 9:51 PM

Gee, don't you think it's just possible that Karl Rove is hoping the Democrats nominate Clinton, who'd be easier to beat? Give me a break.

On the Gore thing, this sounds like another plant by the Clintons or by Republicans who want Hillary as the nominee. Hasn't Carville claimed throughout the race that Gore might be a candidate to try to prevent anti-Hillary Dems from coalescing around Obama?

This is pretty sad, desperate, transparent stuff.

As Chris Dodd said today, Obama's almost certainly going to be the nominee. The only question is whether he can sew up it up sooner rather than later.

Posted by John Z. | March 27, 2008 10:54 PM

Klein is dumb as usual. Gore has high negative ratings, higher than Hillary, that would prevent him from beating McCain. He knows that, as do most people with more sense than Jokeline.

That being said, Gore would have been a great president. Election 2000 was a tragedy.

Posted by joe | March 27, 2008 11:34 PM

Re Karl Rove's secret wish, and Hillary's unelectability:

In August, 2002, almost two years after Hillary assumed the senate seat, the police and firemen in NYC went on strike for higher wages. They had occupied what looked to be four full blocks at 42nd and Broadway. Four full blocks of the most roilingly angry (and no doubt justifiably so), macho white guys I have ever seen.

I have pictures of it, as I got stuck in the crowd on my way to the library. This was eleven months after 9/11, and these guys were upset to begin with. Then Hillary showed up.

Hillary, our somewhat newish-at-the-time senator, had come to support the police and firemen, and she probably had the political pull to get them their meager raises. She had appeared at a lectern a block or two away from the block I was stuck at, and as soon as her strident voice came over the loudspeaker, there rose up from the men a terrifying chorus of hissing and booing. I feared that the men were just as likely to take the next available female and rip her limb from limb. It was uncomfortable and scary. I slipped my camera back into my bag at that point.

I will refrain from sharing what the men said about Hillary at that moment, but since that experience, I have had a very strong aversion to the idea of Hillary running for anything. Anywhere. She is a male-voter-repellent, in a way that Pelosi and Feinstein and Boxer could never be. We could sooner elect Samantha Power for president, and Sam wasn't even born in this country.

So, yes, Karl should be very glad if she becomes the nominee.

Posted by rolaids | March 27, 2008 11:40 PM

sorry, I said "went on strike" I meant "demonstrated/protested in the street" for higher wages

Posted by rolaids | March 27, 2008 11:44 PM

As a fired-up 30-something Obama supporter not previously engaged in politics, I'm surprised and disappointed by the continued support for Clinton. I don't get it. I think she'd be a terrible President. But the support is there, and I have to acknowledge that it's holding steady, and that Obama has not been able to win over a large chunk of Democratic voters.

tractor writes, "so the scenario is the Democratic party decides to replace the African-American frontrunner, who has generated tremendous grassroots support and enthusiasm, raised unprecedented donations from individual voters, and has a put together a highly-effective and organized campaign organization? And the replacement is a white guy who's already tried and lost?"

Touche.

And yet, the fact that we're discussing Gore shows that lingering doubt in Obama's ability to unite the Democratic Party on his own. Ironically, after the Clintons have claimed for months that their supporters are the loyal Democrats, more Clinton supporters than Obama supporters claim they'll vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't win the nomination.

These people, who are about to be disappointed, are the ones Obama needs to unite around his ticket. Gore can help do that, whether or not he's running, and I'd like to see him facilitate this process.

Posted by Rachel Q | March 28, 2008 12:16 AM

"Joe Klein's Gore scenario is just plausible enough to consider."

Ummm ... no ... it's not. It's about as plausible as frogs raining from the sky.

Posted by Joseph | March 28, 2008 12:29 AM

The only Gore scenario that could be in play is the one with Obama at the top of the ticket. And that is very unlikely.

More likely, Gore endorses Obama.

Rove's comment is interesting. And not terrible advice.

Posted by Eric Blair | March 28, 2008 1:08 AM

6. Casey just jumped on the bus:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20080328_Bob_Casey_to_endorse_Obama__join_bus_tour.html

Posted by KathyF | March 28, 2008 4:34 AM

1. Obama is the nominee, period. Gore will NOT be his running mate.

2. Democrats should not even consider taking advice from Karl Rove. I mean, really.

3. The party does not need "healing". It needs to purge itself of the Clintons and their crooked hangers-on, once and for all.

4. Mark has really jumped the shark with this post.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 28, 2008 8:37 AM

Item #1 - Karl Rove is advising McCain. If I were Hillary, I would feel safe relying on Rove's advice, but Obama should completely ignore it. Under no circumstances should he let Hillary lay claim to the popular vote in Michigan.

Item #2 - The reason bad moments of Democrats get stuck in the 24/7 news cycle is well documented. They use unabashedly conservative media outlets (Fox News, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.) as an echo chamber that cannot be ignored by the mainstream media. Conversely, there is no unapologetically liberal media outlet to generate the narrative about Republicans. The networks (other than Fox) are too busy trying to protect their "unbiased" pedigree. George "Macaca" Allen was taken down by the internet and Keith Olberman.

Posted by cadmus | March 28, 2008 2:33 PM

cadmus, the problem with your insistence that "there is no unapolgetically liberal media outlet to generate the narrative about Republicans" is that it proves the existence, in fact, of a liberal echo chamber per se.

Which exists in venues just like this one...

Which gets all of us liberals all "riled up" and convinced we're right, instead of looking at the larger picture, which is that certain issues tend to get us totally hammered by the right.

The echo chambers, which exist on both sides, make it difficult for either group to create sensible strategies. Instead, like the pro-lifers, members of the echo chambers prefer to go running out in front of planned parenthood clinics shouting how right they are, without any realization that most of the American public is going to do what they're going to do, regardless of all the yellin' and screamin'.

Posted by rolaids | March 28, 2008 5:07 PM