-
sponsorship
An Iowa State ROTC student named Jessica explained to me how most of her friends, conservatives all, were swayed to the Huck side.
Initially, most of them supported Thompson because of his traditional conservative stances on abortion and taxation. But a couple months ago, they almost all switched to Huckabee. Was it because of his even more conservative pro-life positions? Was it his loony but still arguable FairTax ideas? Or maybe his views on immigration, compassionate in some cases but also strong when it comes to border security?
None of the above. They switched to Huckabee, according to Jessica, when they saw his Chuck Norris ads.
It's stories like these that make you question the campaigns' claims that they have Iowa's student population bent to their will. Sometimes I wonder if you couldn't sabotage the entire "youth vote" by organizing a Phish reunion concert for Jan. 3 in Des Moines.
-
sponsorship
In case you haven't heard, the Democratic caucuses in Iowa aren't exactly a microcosm of American democracy. Secret ballots are unheard of, candidates bribe voters with sandwiches, and second choices aren't just allowed, they're sometimes requested.
On Thursday night many supporters of Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Joe Biden won't be allowed to vote for their candidate. Democratic caucus rules say that any candidate who doesn't pull in 15 percent of the vote at the local caucus meeting isn't "viable," so their supporters must pick another candidate if they want their vote to count. Let's hear it for the democratic process!
Given that, we thought we'd put together a helpful guide for second-tier supporters when they have to shift allegiances. (Richardson supporters can find advice here.) Here’s a rundown on which candidates most closely share Biden's positions (just in case supporters lose their Mo-Joe):
Pakistan: Somehow, John Edwards has been getting rave reviews for his handling of post-Bhutto Pakistan, but picking up the phone when Pervez Musharraf calls doesn't make you an expert. Hillary Clinton seems like she could be a nice fit, with her competency and experience, but Barack Obama is the winner. Even though Biden was annoyed when Obama aped Biden's stance on attacking al-Qaida in Pakistan, the plans still resemble each other.
Iraq: Biden's three-part soft-partition plan is considered the gold-standard among Democrats, which means any of the Big Three are a step backward. This one's a wash.
Health care: Biden's plan doesn’t call for mandatory universal care, but it does make health care accessible to all children. It's far from all of the top Democrats, but it's closest to Obama's since there isn't a mandate for adults.
Resume: If Bill Richardson were polling higher, we'd give him the nod. But since he's unlikely to top the 15 percent threshold in most precincts, Clinton gets the edge. Not because of her White House experience, but because she's the only two-term senator among the top Dems.
There isn't an easy second-choice candidate for Biden supporters. His appeal comes from his foreign affairs expertise and his no-nonsense attitude. In many ways, Biden supporters would probably find a home with John McCain more than any other candidate. That says more about the Democratic front-runners than it does about McCain.
-
sponsorship
DES MOINES, Iowa -- It's been a risky day for Mike Huckabee. First he pulled his surprise peace-declaration press conference -- a surprise to even his closest aides. Then he staged a political aide's nightmare: a shave and a haircut open to the press.
Reclining in a barber's chair above Huckabee HQ, the governor was stuck for upwards of 45 minutes as reporters peppered him with questions about his decision to pull the ad. Had anyone been fired over it? No. Does he regret it? "I don't know if it was the right political decision," he said as barber Scott Sales trimmed his locks. "I do know it was the right personal decision." When a reporter pointed out that they didn't get all the audio from the ad, Huckabee made the point I voiced earlier: "Now you can't say we fed you the spot so you could put it on the news." Which is comforting, I guess. Unless, of course, he was planning it the whole time, in which case he's an evil genius who deserves to win anyway.
Eventually the ad questions ran dry, and attention turned elsewhere. What kind of tip did Scott expect? "A good joke," he said. "Some people say my tips are jokes," Huckabee replied. Had he seen Sweeney Todd? No. What are his expectations for Thursday? "A close shave," he said.
The questioning didn't turn ugly. But if it had, there he was, forced to respond to each and every one with nowhere to run. At one point, an aide declared, "No more questions." No one paid attention. Close shave, indeed.
Oh, and to answer your question: The haircut cost $18, the shave was $14.
-
sponsorship
DES MOINES, Iowa -- Today, Mike Huckabee essentially declared a war on cynicism. But depending on where you stand, it might be the most cynical campaign move so far.
In a packed press room at the Des Moines Marriott, Huckabee announced that he had decided at the last minute not to air an attack ad on Mitt Romney. See, over the past few days, he's become "very concerned" about the tone of the debate in Iowa. "My ten-and-a-half-year record can't be summed up in a 30-second commercial," he said, referring to ads Romney has been airing attacking Huckabee's record as governor of Arkansas. His campaign had been planning to air a response ad today, but within the last hour decided to pull it.
He then proceeded to play the ad for the roomful of reporters and dozens of cameras.
How now? The reason he had to show it now, he claimed, was that otherwise the press folk wouldn't believe the ad existed.
Why, then, was he standing there surrounded by placards criticizing Romney and McCain? Because the plan had been to hold a press conference attacking his rivals. But his conscience got the better of him. Should he withdraw his comments about Romney being dishonest? "I said what I said, and I spoke the truth." But doesn't this just mean the ad will be shown on every cable station in the country, now that he's shown it to the entire American press corps? Huckabee insisted that was not his intention.
"There's going to be cynicism," he said, maybe in response to the smirks, raised eyebrows, and incredulous laughs circulating the room. But from now on, he claims he is renouncing negative campaigning. It's a "huge gamble on my part," he said, adding that "if it turns out [Romney] pulls away, I'll be the last guy to do this."
By now the needle on your BS meter has probably broken. But here's one reason to believe him -- or at least to hear him out. When they started playing the ad on a big screen, there wasn't any audio at first. "Maybe that's why they're not airing it," someone quipped. They tried rewinding it and playing it again, but no dice. After that, Huckabee just let it run. The sound kicked in toward the end -- he was going after Romney on the usual issues of abortion, guns, and taxes -- but no one in the room could say they had seen the whole ad.
If the point was to get the ad out without actually airing it -- to attack without actually attacking -- then Huckabee or one of his people would have made sure the cameras got the whole thing. But afterwards, reporters were complaining to one of his aides, Charmaine Yoest, that they didn't get any audio. Yoest made it clear they wouldn't be showing it again. Judging from that, it sounds like Huckabee might -- might -- have been sincere.
What this means for the campaign is anyone's guess. Just when he had appeared to reinvent himself as "the New Huck," prickly and hyper-responsive, he's receded back into nice guy territory. Now, if he loses, he can call himself a martyr for the cause of positive campaigning. If he wins, he will go into the general election less bruised than otherwise. Worst case scenario, he goes back into attack mode and undermines his own crusade. Until then, whether or not you believe him is, according to Huckabee, a litmus test for your own cynicism.
-
sponsorship
Electability isn't even a word that's recognized by my Microsoft Word dictionary. But in the Democratic race, it's all anybody can talk about.
The rush to the caucus lets candidates shove policy distinctions into the shadows. Now it's about appealing to a more primal belief—that Americans don't want to waste their vote.
All of the candidates have been saying that they are the most electable for some time. And in the past few days, the Big Three have been outspoken about the unelectable pieces of their opponents' messages. But on a conference call today, Barack Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said something a bit different: Edwards is unelectable not because of his platform, but because he doesn't have enough money.
Edwards' decision to take public financing gave him a burst of money, but it capped his ability to spend in the long run. Essentially, it means Edwards is hamstrung if he wins the nomination in February and has to compete with the Republican nominee through the conventions. Obama's campaign estimates that Edwards will have only about $17 million to play with after Iowa. That $17 million will wilt under the GOP's fiscal sun.
Trying to convince Iowans not to vote for Edwards can easily backfire. Edwards' platform revolves around helping the middle class rise up, and in this wacky race Edwards' campaign's coffer is relatively middle-class. If Obama's camp isn't careful, Iowans will vote for Edwards so they can prove that the middle class can "fight" the rich in Washington. (Cue the Rocky theme.)
Indirectly, though, bringing up Edwards' wallet does allow Obama's campaign to get in another dig at the 527 groups doing Edwards' bidding. As Politico's Ben Smith notes, third-party groups can lobby for Edwards on his behalf. On today's conference call, Plouffe said that Edwards had "obviously showed special skill for benefiting from 527s and outside spending." 527 groups haven't spent money for Obama—yet.
The Obama-Edwards duel proves fights about electability quickly morph into fights about something else: money, flip-flopping, skeletons in the closet, you name it. Electability is a high-stakes "in" to denigrate your opponents while still sounding like America's future is what's most important. That's why campaigns love riffing on it-even if it's not a real word.
-
sponsorship
Welcome to caucus week, when campaign staffers and reporters freebase NoDoz, rumors of back room deals circulate, and Iowans are told they're God's gift to the political system.
The corollary to that last part is that any suggestion that Iowans are not the Second Coming times 3 million—or that their antiquated caucus system is somehow inferior or in need of reform—earns a candidate swift rebukes from his or her rivals. A late-night e-mail from Obama spokesman Bill Burton catches this lede from the Columbus Dispatch:
Beginning the presidential nominating process in Iowa, as will occur this week, "makes no sense," says Gov. Ted Strickland, who recently campaigned there for Sen. Hillary Clinton. "I'd like to see both parties say, 'We're going to bring this to an end,' " he said.
Strickland thus violated the first commandment of Iowa politics: He desecrated the caucus.
Time's Mark Halperin assures us all that "Clinton campaign disavows remarks." But that doesn't mean Obama and Edwards won't take this puppy for a ride. It probably won't spark blowback of Shaheen-like proportions, but I wouldn't be surprised if an apology also completely unrelated to the Clinton campaign is in the works. Or maybe they'll let Strickland off with 100 Hail Hawkeyes.
UPDATE 12:19 p.m.: Apparently Strickland isn't alone.
-
sponsorship
Sorry to keep returning to John McCain (have those words been uttered this year? Ever?), but I wanted to mention his family.
In a race largely defined by families—Romney’s sprawling brood, Giuliani’s mutinous children and torrid affairs, Obama’s diverse heritage, Edwards’ wife and her battle with cancer—McCain has kept his out of the limelight. Aside from his daughter Meghan, who assiduously documents the campaign (and, among other things, the fashion habits of Henry Kissinger) on her blog, McCain’s seven children have avoided the public eye. Nor does their father mention them, even in moments when it would serve his political interest. (His son, Jimmy, is currently serving in Iraq.) Here’s what McCain recently told the New York Times:
“It’s intentional,” he said. “I just feel it’s inappropriate for us to mention our children. I don’t want people to feel that, it’s just, I’d like them to have their own lives. I wouldn’t want to seem like I’m trying to gain some kind of advantage. I just feel that it’s a private thing.”
Compare that to Mitt Romney, McCain’s most recent antagonist. (It's mutual.) Romney’s five sons have trailed him for the entire campaign, sometimes even holding their own events on his behalf. He constantly mentions “strong families” as one leg of the American “stool.” His emphasis on family serves two purposes: It woos the so-called “values voters” who might be squeamish about his Mormonism, and it gently tweaks Giuliani, whose children won’t come within 10 feet of him in public.
I’m not suggesting that McCain rejects the family man shtick as a slight against Romney. But the contrast is important. To drag your family onstage for a big happy photo is to play the game. (Even if, as this video suggests, they all agreed to it.) To decline to mention that your son is fighting in Iraq, even when mentioning it would be perfectly appropriate, is to reject the game and, presumably, those who play it.
McCain’s “authenticity” cred took a hit when he backpedaled on his comment in 2000 that Jerry Falwell was an “agent of intolerance.” But his refusal to drag his family into his campaign should count as one step, however small, toward restoring it. For all of Romney’s talk about respecting family, the ultimate sign of respect would be to leave them out of it.
-
sponsorship
Even if Barack Obama loses Iowa, he could still win the nomination. Seriously.
The conventional wisdom is that if Clinton wins Iowa, Obama's shot at the presidency is shot. While that's certainly possible—and probably probable—pundits seem to be forgetting that momentum isn't everything.
There's a very real chance Obama could win New Hampshire even if he loses Iowa by a reasonable amount (e.g., less than five percentage points). Obama is essentially tied with Clinton in New Hampshire in polling averages, and John Edwards is less of a factor in the competition for the change vote. More telling, perhaps, is that only 6 percent of New Hampshire Democrats say their own vote will be swayed by the Iowa outcome. (Of course, who would cop to that?) Plus, New Hampshire has picked a different winner than Iowa in the Democratic primary three of the past five contested cycles (although not in the past two).
So, what if New Hampshire asserts itself and plays contrarian to Iowa's conventional wisdom? In a year when it was en vogue to hate on New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary, it's reasonable to think that residents will give the finger to the media, Iowa, and the rest of the country. Live-free-or-die pride is on the line.
One question has percolated in the background all cycle: Are voters waiting for somebody else to tell them it's OK to vote for the black guy with little experience but a big idea? An Obama win in the Granite State would start revealing the answer.
If Obama defeated Clinton in her former firewall state, all of the Clinton inevitability stories will be washed away by pro-Obama headlines. Clinton would probably win Nevada regardless (unless the culinary union backs Obama), which brings us to Jan. 26 in South Carolina. There, Obama's campaign thinks the black population will come out to vote as long as one of the first two states confirms Obama as a viable candidate.
Now, it's still more likely for Clinton to emerge the victor from most of the four meaningful early primaries. But if she and Obama split them, momentum won't be as large a factor. Momentum, after all, is only useful for convincing voters that votes won't be wasted. Anyone who wins two out of the first four states has proven viability, if not electability.
-
sponsorship
John Edwards' campaign unveiled its latest gimmick today: The chance to have Edwards, his wife, or even Joe Trippi (swoon!) call you on the phone. It's part of "Ask John," a new campaign meant to inform inquisitive Iowans about Edwards' policies.
Any question that an Iowan asks Edwards' camp between now and the caucus is guaranteed an answer by Jan. 3. Topics can range from Iraq policy to the name of Edwards' $400 barber. It doesn't matter how frivolous; if you're an Iowan, you'll get an answer. If you're lucky, you'll hear from one of the bigwigs or the candidate himself.
An Edwards spokeswoman told me the campaign already gets hundreds of questions a day at their Iowa offices. This stunt is just a way to make voters aware that the campaign is actively answering questions statewide. It also dovetails nicely with reports that Hillary Clinton is refusing to answer questions from the audience on the stump, although the spokeswoman said "Ask John" had nothing to do with that.
But here's the strange part: Edwards has a Web site where "Iowans" can ask him questions about his platform. Last time we checked, Web sites were accessible outside of Iowa, too. The spokeswoman told me she wasn't worried about rival supporters deluging the Web site with fake queries. They clearly weren't paying attention to what Bruce Reed did to Mitt Romney earlier this year.
It may be a transparent maneuver, but it's still a cool gimmick. Who wouldn't want to talk to a presidential candidate by phone? That's even better than Carl Kasell recording the greeting on your home answering machine.
-
sponsorship
Two new ads for Fred Thompson and John McCain prove that while voters' energy might be waning, theirs isn't.
In Thompson's spot, we see the candidate swaying back and forth and waving his arms, proving that he has more than enough energy to be president—maybe even too much. The film editor is clearly excited about split screens, but that's OK, because more screens means more Fred.
In McCain's ad, the candidate is bouncing around in fast motion, then slow motion, then fast again. Positive descriptors zoom across the screen, like the title sequence in Spider-Man. The upbeat music tells us that McCain is a man on the go. (Compare to his ghastly spot from last spring.) More than anything, though, the ad looks high-budget. What it should really say at the end is, I'm John McCain, and I could afford this message.
It's obvious why both candidates are trying to look energetic. Thompson still hasn't shed his rocking-chair rep, while McCain is trying to avoid more questions about dying in office. In McCain's case, the adrenaline injection is slightly more believable. He's riding a slew of newspaper endorsements to become once again competitive in New Hampshire; a strong showing there and he's back on the national map. Thompson, on the other hand, is still sagging, and in more ways than one. He's not a shoo-in anywhere—even in his best state, South Carolina, he's polling third.
Apparently that old saw about writing—"Everyone needs a good editor"—also applies to politics. But sometimes even that's not enough.
-
sponsorship
John McCain might not keep pace with Mike Huckabee for quantity of one-liners, but it’s a tight race for quality. McCain practically revived his candidacy with his quip during the October debate that he couldn’t attend Woodstock since he was “tied up.”
Now he’s back with another witticism, this time targeting Mitt Romney. Responding to Romney’s new “contrast” ad on McCain’s tax record, McCain said: "If there's any doubt that we're doing well, it's when Mitt Romney starts attacking. He's attacking Huckabee out here in Iowa. I'm familiar with tailspins and I think he's in one.”
This could be referring to one of two things. Either McCain is saying that he himself has helmed a stagnant campaign (first in 2000, then again earlier this year), and it takes one to know one. Or—or—he’s referring to having his plane shot down over North Vietnam.
Either way, the line is genius. If he’s talking about his own campaign problems, he gets points for self-deprecation. At the same time, he reminds voters that he’s now back in the saddle. (You only joke about your failing candidacy once it’s stopped failing.)
If he’s actually talking about his plane going into a tailspin, after which he was captured and held in Hanoi for five years, then, well, that’s just awesome. McCain has never hidden his disdain for Romney—remember him scowling while Romney talked during the October debate? The subtext here is, I was fighting for my country while you were gallivanting around Paris in a suit and tie. So, to recap: Remind voters of his POW experience: check. Tweak Romney for starting so many fights: check. Be funny: check plus.
Which one was it? McCain response pending ...
-
sponsorship
The latest from the Joe Biden press shop:
"Over the next week, Mo-Joe ’08 will sweep across Iowa, with Sen. Biden set to
attend over 30 rallies in 28 counties statewide."
Bad puns: the last refuge of a candidate with nothing left to lose.
-
sponsorship
If there's a lesson to be learned from international crises and the campaign trail, it's that candidates should do their homework before speaking.
Mike Huckabee got burned earlier this month when it became clear he didn't know about a new National Intelligence Estimate assessing Iran's nuclear capabilities. This time, commenting on the assassination of former Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto, he said the U.S. must consider “what impact does it have on whether or not there’s going to be martial law continuing in Pakistan.” Martial law was lifted two weeks ago.
Bill Richardson also botched the test, and he doesn't have a lack of international experience to blame. Richardson issued a statement calling for President Musharraf to resign. "Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani
government," he said. Richardson has sounded increasingly shrill in recent months, from his blanket insistence on "no residual troops" in Iraq to his transparent attempts at peacemaking during the debates. His Pakistan comments just sound desperate. Naturally, Joe Biden pounced, with a spokesperson calling Richardson's statement "so wildly irresponsible that it can't go unchallenged."
Leave it to Mitt Romney to step in as the voice of reason. Responding to reporters' questions about whether he has enough foreign policy experience to be president, he said: “The
president is not an expert. The president is a leader who guides
America in making the important decisions which must be made to keep us
safe.” True words, although it's odd to hear such a salient defense of Huckabee's ignorance come from Romney's mouth. Even if the two men have their differences, at least they can agree that a president doesn't have to know all that much.
-
sponsorship
If you've been under a rock for the past year, reading the candidates' pre-caucus speeches is a good way to catch up. Barack Obama’s “Stand for Change” address summarizes the argument on which his candidacy rests. It’s also chock full of the sly references, opaque allusions, and underhanded sleights we’ve come to expect in the 11th hour. But it might require a little clarification. Here are some excerpts:
I did not run for the presidency to fulfill some long-held ambition or because I believed it was somehow owed to me. Certainly not as far back as, say, kindergarten.
I believed that Americans of every political stripe were hungry for a new kind of politics, a politics that focused not just on how to win but why we should … Here he targets not just Hillary but the Democratic party itself. Many Democrats criticize the party’s obsession with tactics in place of a driving ideology.
Ten months later, Iowa … You've come out in the blistering heat and the bitter cold not just to cheer, but to challenge—to ask the tough questions; to lift the hood and kick the tires … Reminiscent of Christian leader Richard Perry’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, in which he likened electing a president to buying a pickup truck.
You've earned the role you play in our democracy because no one takes it more seriously. “Earned,” indeed. After 11 months on the trail, pandering comes as easy as breathing.
[W]e must never negotiate out of fear, but that we must never fear to negotiate with our enemies as well as our friends. Here Obama doubles down on the gamble he took in July, when he said he would sit down with Iran, Syria, and Venezuela without preconditions.
We can't afford the same politics of fear that … invokes 9/11 as a way to scare up votes … Look out, unnamed hypothetical future GOP nominee/opponent!
The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result. And that's a risk we can't take. Not this year. Not when the stakes are this high. The title of Hillary Clinton’s latest ad: “Stakes.”
The truth is, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change. I believe deeply in those words. But they are not mine. They were Bill Clinton's in 1992, when Washington insiders questioned his readiness to lead. Both Clintons have tried to diffuse the Bill-Barack parallel, but Obama is sticking with it. That way he gets to be the candidate of change and the heir to Clinton’s legacy.
I walked away from a job on Wall Street to bring job training to the jobless and after school programs to kids on the streets of Chicago. Jives nicely with Obama’s self-burnished rep for telling people—i.e., Wall Street execs—things they don’t want to hear.
It's change that won't just come from more anger at Washington or turning up the heat on Republicans. There's no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there. We don't need more heat. We need more light. A direct reference to Hillary’s “Turn Up the Heat” slogan.
We can change the electoral math that's been all about division and make it about addition—about building a coalition for change and progress that stretches through Blue States and Red States. Echoes the best line from Obama’s career-launching 2004 DNC speech: “We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states.”
-
sponsorship
Slate's John Dickerson has a new item up about how the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is impacting the presidential race. A quick excerpt:
To the extent that unpredictable news about the dangerous state of the
world helps anyone, it helps the "safe candidates" (Clinton, McCain,
and Rudy) rather than the untested, roll-of-the-dice candidates (Obama
and Huckabee).
Pakistan has already been an issue in the Democratic primary because,
remember, Obama took a controversial stand on taking military action in
Pakistan whether the leaders of the country liked it or not. Hillary
Clinton has been making the explicit pitch on the stump that voters can
never know what a president will face, and therefore, they should elect
a person who will be ready on Day One. ...
On the Republican side, Rudy was the first out with a statement (the terrorist attack meshed perfectly with his new ad).
McCain's response was to go a-boasting: "In my numerous visits to
Pakistan—to Islamabad, to Peshawar, even to tribal areas of
Waziristan—I have seen first hand the many challenges that face the
political leadership there." If he had more money, he'd probably run an
ad showing his passport stamps.
Read the rest here.
-
sponsorship
Shortly after Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, nearly all the candidates released statements condemning the murder. Most of their language was strikingly similar, so we mashed up their quotes to provide the ultimate statement from the next American president to the people of Pakistan. The quotes belong to the names that follow them.
Like her father before her, Benazir Bhutto worked her whole life—and gave her life—to help Pakistan become a democratic, secular and modern Muslim country (Biden). Mrs. Bhutto's concern for her country, and her family, propelled her to risk her life on behalf of the Pakistani people (Clinton).
There are, in Pakistan, brave individuals who seek to lead their country away from extremism and instability and into the light of a better day. America, I believe, must do all we can to support them (McCain). We join with them in mourning her loss, and stand with them in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world (Obama).
Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere—whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpndi—is an enemy of freedom (Giuliani). America must show its commitment to stand with all moderate forces across the Islamic world and together face the defining challenge of our generation—the struggle against violent, radical jihadists (Romney).
At this critical time we must do everything in our power to help Pakistan continue the path toward democracy and full elections. Our first priority must be to ensure stability in this critical nuclear state (Dodd). The United States must change its policy direction in the region. It must stop adding fuel to the fire (Kucinich).
At this critical moment, America must convey both strength and principle (Edwards). President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately. Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government (Richardson).
The terrible violence surrounding Pakistan's upcoming election stands in stark contrast to the peaceful transition of power that we embrace in our country through our Constitution (Huckabee).
-
sponsorship
Hillary Clinton kicks off a series of guest blogs by presidential candidates at Glamour.com with some boilerplate about her historic candidacy. But this was interesting:
At a recent campaign stop in Iowa, a little girl gave me a sign she had made that said “Hillary for President—Olivia for President in the future.”
How naive. Doesn't little Olivia know that could be used against her?
-
sponsorship
As the candidates enter the “closing arguments” phase—as if they did something terrible and are now standing trial for it—we’re seeing many of them circle back to where they started. In fact, the closing arguments look a lot like the opening arguments.
Rudy Giuliani has a new minutelong ad harping on 9/11. Barack Obama delivered a speech today called “Stand for Change,” which sounds a lot like his original campaign announcement. Mitt Romney is returning to the managerial-competence argument that fueled initial interest in his candidacy. John Edwards is still blasting lobbies and special interest groups (while navigating some conflict of interest problems of his own). Mike Huckabee is once again showing off his favorite gun (the Weatherby .300 Magnum, you surely recall). John McCain once again seems to have a fighting chance. And Hillary Clinton even calls her recent ad “New Beginning,” giving the whole primary calendar a warm, circle-of-life symmetry.
Even more telling: Both the Republican and Democratic races are just as much of a tossup now as they were in January 2007. For a race whose dominant theme has been “change,” it's bizarre to find ourselves back where we were. We're a year older, but are we any wiser? Arguably, at best.
-
sponsorship
Any time Mike Huckabee has a gun in his hand, it's a good bet he'll say something quote-worthy. The Huckster has a penchant for semi-morbid quips (he's even said he speaks in "Huckabese"), and yesterday's pheasant-hunt photo-op was the perfect opportunity to unleash a new one. But journalists are beginning to trip over themselves in their search for the money quote.
Ever since the press has gotten used to Huckabee's half-quip, half-stump speaking style, they've been trying to coax campaign-damaging jokes out of Huckabee. The strategy has yielded mixed results.
As CBS news reports, when Huckabee was asked how shooting birds is a metaphor for the campaign, he said, "Don't get in my way." Threatening, vaguely morbid, alludes to Republican opponents: 7 out of 10 on the Huckabese scale.
Then, desperation started to set in. Somebody said, “Governor, you haven’t made one Dick Cheney joke.” Huckabee threw her a bone, “I really do want to survive all the way through to the deal here.” Stokes the "Huckabee hates Bush narrative," reminds us he’s quick on his feet, but is child’s play compared with The Daily Show: 4 out of 10.
At some point Huckabee tired of the journalists' pleas. As he stood over the dead birds, one woman asked, "Do they have names? Like Romney, Thompson ... ?" Huck said, “I'll let you guys decide that. I would never be so coarse and crude as to do something that would be insensitive. I'm a sensitive guy.” Party pooper: 0 out of 10.
-
sponsorship
New Hampshire newspapers are not being kind to their friendly neighbor to the south. First, the liberal editorial board of the Concord Monitor put out a scathing un-endorsement titled “Romney should not be the next president.” Then, this morning, the conservative (and pro-McCain) New Hampshire Union Leader ran its own editorial with this money line: “But (Romney) lacks something John McCain has in spades: conviction.”
All of this is somewhat predictable from two of the three top New Hampshire papers. Romney wasn’t expecting any gifts from the Monitor, and the Union Leader has outspokenly supported McCain.
Most telling, then, is the partisanship Romney showed in his responses to the two papers. Today, Romney sent a release to journalists blasting the Monitor’s liberal editorial page. The release then lists all of the prominent conservatives backing Romney, which is tantamount to Mitt showing off his chest of endorsements to assert his conservative bona fides. Who needs liberals when you’ve got Tom Tancredo?
When I asked the campaign to respond to the Union Leader editorial, I received another GOP-centric response, one laced with a mix of caution and aggression. The following bit was especially illuminating:
We, of course, respect the Union-Leader's right to voice their opinion, but the differences between Governor Romney and Senator McCain are clear. We disagree with Senator McCain's joining Democrats to vote against Republican plans for tax relief, his pro-amnesty immigration proposal with Senator Kennedy and his McCain-Feingold legislation which hurt conservative advocacy efforts.
Interestingly, every negative point the statement raises about McCain’s record has to do with his bipartisan efforts in the Senate. Mixed with Romney’s harsh release against the liberal Monitor editorial board, it seems Romney thinks he has to be as pure of a conservative as possible to win in New Hampshire. Considering New Hampshire lets independents vote in its primaries (many of whom favor McCain), that’s a risky strategy.
Read the campaign's full response here.
-
sponsorship
For weeks Mike Huckabee has avoided Tim Russert while touring the Sunday-morning talk-show circuit. NBC’s Washington bureau chief has lobbied hard to get Huckabee on Meet the Press, but Huckabee has shied away from Russert’s withering Q&A.
Until now. Huckabee is going live on the show this Sunday (as is Barack Obama), four days before the Iowa caucuses. His comments with Russert will likely be his final narrative before Iowans vote, so his appearance is a major gamble. If Russert lands a few blows—which, with Huckabee’s record, is likely—the always-fluid Republican race will be shaken and stirred once again. A preemptive look at who has the most at stake.
WINNERS
Mitt Romney: Romney’s Iowa staffers must be salivating in anticipation. Romney survived Russert’s barrage relatively well (only his Martin Luther King comments have come back to bite him), and it’s likely that Russert will push Huckabee on many of the attack points Romney uses against the Huckster. Russert then becomes the attack dog, which legitimizes Romney's criticism and makes him less of a meanie.
Russert’s research staff: Talk about rich source material. Just some of the juicy topics from Huckabee’s past: the Wayne Dumond case, in-state tuition, questionable promotions, the Club for Growth’s scorn, a pro-Huckabee group's dirty tricks, borderline-morbid Huckabeeisms, and a quarantine for people with AIDS.
Huckabee’s ego: How many televangelists-in-the-making don’t love a national audience?
LOSERS
Huckabee’s political chances: In the media world, Huckabee has reached the point of diminishing returns. The potential negatives of Sunday’s interview far outweigh the positives. Media sharks are going to be circling their TVs, waiting for the slightest hint of weakness from Huckabee. Once Russert draws blood, every Huckabee story for four days is going to mention his MTP appearance. Will those stories enter the caucus-goer zeitgeist? Romney and Fred Thompson will make sure they do.
Even if Huckabee breezes through the interview, what does that prove? We already know he can hang with the big boys, so he no longer needs street cred among Beltway elites. He needs an organization on the ground, something Russert can’t provide.
John McCain and Rudy Giuliani: Both of them need a weakened Romney to stumble out of Iowa, which means they need Huckabee to hold strong. If Romney wins Iowa, he’ll likely win New Hampshire, therefore dooming McCain. With a win in New Hampshire, he’ll stay strong through Feb. 5, hurting Giuliani.
-
sponsorship
Are Bill and Hillary in a lover’s spat? A visit to presidentbillclinton.com or williamclinton.com redirects right to Barack Obama’s homepage. This is the same Obama that Bill Clinton hasn’t been too fond of recently. We’ve heard rumors of dissention within the Clinton ranks, but has it really gotten this bad?
No. Those Clinton domains were registered in 1998 by Joseph Culligan, a private investigator and part-time domain squatter based in Miami. Last week, after ABC News discovered Clinton was readying an Obama attack site, Culligan was inspired to drum up publicity for his own private investigation Web site, webofdeception.com. He redirected the Clinton domains, which had lay dormant for years, to Obama’s site, hoping that somebody would take the bait.
Well, it worked. Wonkette published a post on the redirects today, which piqued our interest on an unsurprisingly slow news day. I tracked the domains back to Culligan, who also owns domains based on the names of Barack Obama and Patti Solis Doyle, Hillary’s campaign manager.
Domain-name trickery is nothing new on the Internet. Just last week somebody tried to convince journalists that Hillary Clinton registered BarackOsama2008.org. But Culligan’s antics are an avoidable headache for the Clinton camp. Culligan says he doesn't hold any animosity toward the Clintons and that 42 “was a great president.” (He wouldn't say which candidate, Democrat or Republican, he supports.) He has offered to give Clinton the domains every year since '98, free of charge, but he’s never heard a response. “When Clinton is ready for his name, I’m ready to give it back."
-
sponsorship
John Edwards found himself ensnared in a catch-22 this weekend. Barack Obama, who has repeatedly targeted Edwards over the past week, began suggesting Edwards was a hypocrite for not controlling a 527 group that was readying a pro-Edwards TV ad in Iowa.
527 groups create a sticky situation for Edwards. The independent advocacy organizations are not officially allied with a campaign, but they bring to mind the shadowy world of special interest groups. Edwards, meanwhile, has wagered much of his candidacy on the assumption that America wants to rid Washington of lobbyists’ influence. When Obama starts using such strong rhetoric, nuances between 527s and special interest groups begin to disappear in voters’ eyes. In the caucus crunch, nobody has time to call a spade a spade. A shovel will do just fine.
By going after Edwards, Obama’s campaign manages to twist a negative into a positive. There haven’t been any 527 groups that have come out in support of Obama, which would usually mean that his official campaign would have to do more legwork on the ground and over the air. But—mainly thanks to Edwards—ethics have long been an issue in the Democratic race, which means there is room for Obama to take the high ground on the 527 issue. In the new battle for second-choice votes, Obama has discovered an opportunity to compete with Edwards for ethics-minded Iowans. He’s a victor of circumstance.
After Obama fired his salvo, Edwards released a statement asking the 527 group not to air the ad. Legally, candidates aren’t allowed to communicate with 527s, so Edwards’ request is tantamount to him asking for a favor. But the 527 in question is led by Edwards’ former campaign manager. So now, based on the twisted logic of 527s, it may look even more suspicious if the group doesn’t air the ad. Edwards may stand to benefit from politics-as-usual even as he continues to promise their demise.
-
sponsorship
We intended to let our Fringe series lay dormant as the primaries and caucuses neared, but then a slim little book arrived in the mail, courtesy of a Fringer. We couldn't resist. So, welcome back to the presidential Twilight Zone.
Benjamin Richards is a self-proclaimed "guy from Iowa" who's running for president as an independent. His book, Ben '08 is probably the glossiest policy briefing a no-shot presidential candidate has ever produced. The book outlines Richards' "A to Z platform," which is a cute way of saying it's organized alphabetically. He runs through the usual policy pieces, including budget (balance it), climate change (fix it), and terrorism (stop it). The paragraph-long briefings are accompanied by quotes from Aristotle, Proust, and Agatha Christie.
Richards toes a fine line between being a serious, policy-based candidate and a jokester. His signature image is his goofy smirk behind a big thumps-up. He even Photoshopped himself into the Oval Office for the book's back cover. But when I spoke to him on the phone, he was, well, relatively normal.
Richards told me he commutes between Las Vegas (where his wife lives) and Iowa while working for a company that packages show tours across Asia. He's trying to attract support through the art of the rant. The long-winded video up on his Web site proves that he knows geography, but not much else.
Richards' problem—and a problem with Fringers in general—is that his policies are a collection of ideas without much detail. He's a mashup of the other candidates' positions, but there isn't much that separates his campaign from any other mainstream candidate's—besides the Benjamins (the dollar kind). It's a hump all fringe candidates (including, for example, Huckabee, Tancredo, and Gravel) have to overcome if they want to be viable.
Richards seems to recognize this. I asked him how his platform is different than the bigwigs. "I don't think it does diverge from them," he said, "I think more people with more ideas joining the discourse is a positive thing."
UPDATE Dec. 26 1:45 p.m.: Image scanned from Richards' book, Ben '08.
-
sponsorship
After we posted a series of anagrams for each of the
presidential candidates yesterday, several reader wrote in with their own
submissions – most of them far superior to what Wordsmith.org’s Anagram Server
could produce. (Score one for humanity.)
James Kushner (“Jerk Has Menus”) points out that, before H.
Ross Perot, we had a real gem in Ronald Wilson Reagan ("Insane Anglo
Warlord"), and after him George Walker Bush ("We Go Berserk.
Laugh!").
Benjamin Holt (“Lent Him Banjo”) suggests for Rudy Giuliani:
“I, urinal id guy.”
Tariq Alvi, whose lack of a 'u' to accompany his 'q' has defeated Wordsmith, suggests the following:
- Hillary Rodham Clinton = Non-Chill, Harm Adroitly
- Barack Hussein Obama = Beam, aka Brash Cousin
- Willard Mitt Romney = Weird Man To Try Mill
Zach Sherwin (“Hazers Winch”), a Boston based comic, posted this
anagram-themed rap on YouTube a few weeks ago.
The winner of the official user submitted Candagram contest
(prize: a new hobby), is Benjamin T. Kallen (“Belt 'em, lank ninja!”), who
produced these.
- Hillary Rodham Clinton = Hi, darn ol' chilly matron!
- Barack Hussein Obama = Run amok, ace! Bash bias!
- Willard Mitt Romney = Wry lad, no term limit
- John Sidney McCain = Join in, chancy Dems!
- Fred Dalton
Thompson = Heft! Drop tons, old man!
We are, as always, humbled. Think you can top it? Email us.
-
sponsorship
THE SKY, Dec. 20—We’re hovering 1,500 feet above Baltimore in a 200-foot blimp with Ron Paul’s name on it, and I’ve lost feeling in my hands. Elijah Lynn, vice president of the Ron Paul Blimp, passes around heat packets, the kind made for skiers. “Shake it,” he says. Over the past week, temperatures in the blimp have dropped to as low as 28 degrees. As the crew has learned, it’s hard out here for a blimp.
The Ron Paul Blimp launched last week in Elizabeth City, N.C,. and has since moved through Columbia, S.C., Richmond, Va., and now Baltimore, taking days off for bad weather. (You can track the blimp’s path via GPS here.) Anyone craning their neck blimpward sees one of two messages: “Who Is Ron Paul?” (an homage to Ayn Rand’s “Who is John Galt?”) or “Ron Paul Revolution,” with the “evol” highlighted as a backwards “love.” The guys behind the blimp now spend every day inside it, giving interviews by phone, taking turns flying (“It’s like driving a boat”), blogging the voyage using the blimp’s wireless connection, and planning the blimp’s schedule.
Of course, the “schedule” is a joke. They had originally planned to head to Iowa for the Jan. 3 caucuses. Now, they’re going south after circling New York City instead. Likewise, our flight was at first supposed to take off at 8 a.m. That time was changed last minute to 12:30 p.m. But when we arrived at the Harford Airport at noon, the airship had already left. We ended up taking the next flight. “You can’t keep to a tight schedule,” said one of the organizers. Daniel Hornal, the official “blimpographer,” agreed: “You’re on blimp time now.”
The blimp springs from the same imaginative well as the Ron Paul “money bombs,” which have raised more than $10 million and put Paul among the Republicans' top likely fourth-quarter fund-raisers. The project is being paid for through online donations. They’re currently just shy of $280,000, which should keep the blimp aloft through Christmas. (All told, the blimp operation costs about $350,000 a month.) Trevor Lyman, the public face of the Nov. 5 and Dec. 12 money bombs (“That wasn’t my idea,” he says) and the Ron Paul Blimp (“That was”), says he thinks they’ll raise enough money to fly through Super Tuesday.
There’s something perfectly Paulian about the blimp. It’s a stunt, in the best sense of the term—big, memorable, and utterly silly—a lot like Ron Paul’s candidacy itself, at least in the eyes of outsiders. The project isn’t affiliated with the Paul campaign—FEC regulations forbid collaboration—but it does try to preserve the spirit. “We see what they’re doing, and we try to fit their image,” Hornal says.
Some of the guys behind the blimp are relatively recent Paul converts. Hornal says he wasn’t a big Ron Paul fan before getting involved. If anything, he’s for Kucinich.* He figures that libertarianism should apply to some areas—trimming the Education Department, say, or fiscal policy—but not to others, like health care. Lynn is also new to the party: eight weeks ago, he hadn’t even heard of Ron Paul. He calls himself a “political virgin” and says he doesn’t give speeches about Paul: “I just tell people, go watch the videos.”
Some acolytes see Ron Paul as the heir to Howard Dean, tactically if not ideologically. Like Deaniacs, Paulites (or, if you prefer, -tards) organize “meetups,” where they can hang out and chat with like-minded politicos. Dean fans also pledged online. But Paul’s clan has advanced the ball. Ideas like the money bomb and the blimp get floated on various Ron Paul forums, where they’re alternately nurtured, rejected, developed, and finally acted upon. That’s why it’s hard for one person to take all the credit. The clown car is bigger than ever, but no one person is steering.
Another aspect of the movement’s Web-based strategy is documentation. Let me rephrase that: overdocumentation. Today, every moment—every conversation, every quip, every striking vista—is being recorded. Everyone has a camera pointed at everyone else. It’s like the last scene from Reservoir Dogs, but with photographers. After three minutes chatting with the blimpographer about his political views, I realize he’s had his camera pointed at me from his lap the entire time.
After Baltimore, we head back to the airfield in Harford. Washington, D.C. is out of the question. Post-9/11, FAA regulations restrict unauthorized aircraft from flying within 15 miles from the White House. They might try to get special permission for the blimp, but so far no luck. I ask Hornal if Ron Paul would abolish airspace restrictions. “Probably in his second year,” he says.
Check back next week for a blimp video on Slate V.
* Clarification: This article overstated Hornal's support for Dennis Kucinich. Hornal wrote in to clear this up: "I have not decided to support Kucinich's run for president. ... I am, however, philosophically close to Kucinich on some issues, like the war and health care."
UPDATE 2:00 p.m., Dec. 26: Photo by Christopher Beam.
-
sponsorship
Tom Tancredo didn't only end his own candidacy today. He killed Fred Thompson's as well.
Thompson had picked up a very, very slight comeback narrative in the past week, thanks to a strong showing at the Des Moines Register debate and a two-week bus tour through Iowa. But, predictably, just as Fred got going, he started stumbling. First came a schadenfreude-rich column from Roger Simon, and then came news that he doesn't have any money.
So, today's Tancredo withdrawal was a last chance that turned into a last gasp for Fred. It was expected that Tancredo would endorse another candidate—most likely Romney or Thompson. And after a close friend of Tancredo's, Iowa Rep. Steve King, endorsed Thompson, Thompson seemed to be in line to get the nod from Tommy the Tank. But that was not to be.
Tancredo endorsed Mr. Illegal-Immigrant-Groundskeepers instead. The endorsement will help Romney show undecideds that he's Tancredo-tough on immigrants, compared with the recently Tancredo-ized Huckabee.
But an endorsement for Thompson would have helped Fred more than the support helps Romney. Fred would have picked up a signature policy platform—something he currently lacks. Plus, Thompson has more to gain than Giuliani or McCain by finishing in third in Iowa. Tancredo would have helped him get there.
Now Thompson is once again left without any purpose. Tancredo had become the poster boy for immigration hawks everywhere. Thompson is still stuck on Law & Order pin-ups.
As we have a habit of paying tribute to fallen candidates, we thank Tancredo for his service. I know I wrote a post back in October that called on Tancredo to withdraw, but I had sort of warmed to his wily grin. Here's hoping that Tancredo's political death wishes are followed and his candidacy is buried under the border fence. On the U.S. side, of course.
-
sponsorship
The medal for best political anagram of the 2008 election is ripe for the picking. (That throne has has been empty since the abdication of H. Ross Perot -- aka "Short Poser" -- and, before him, Spiro Agnew -- or, "Grow A Penis.")
In keeping with the tradition begun by our colleague Timothy Noah (aka "Ho, a Tiny Moth!"), we ran the candidates' names through Wordsmith.org's Anagram Server and came up with these gems for each presidential hopeful (aka "Spiteful Headline Pro.") Where there were slim pickings, we cheated and added a middle initial.
Got a better anagram for one of the candidates? Email us.
-
sponsorship
If Mike Huckabee wins the Republican nomination, he may have 19-year-old twins from Oregon to thank. First, Brett and Alex Harris led Chuck Norris to endorse Mike Huckabee. Now, they're trying to raise him a million dollars.
The Harris brothers started hucksarmy.com in October after realizing Huckabee supporters didn't have a digital water cooler to congregate around. (Unclear if Jesus juice is the drink of choice.) In many ways, it was an attempt to build a community for Huckabee similar to Ron Paul's.
Taking another page out of Ron Paul's shadow campaign, the Harris brothers are now organizing a moneybomb for Dec. 27. The fund-raising goal is relatively modest: $1 million from 10,000 donors. That pales in comparison to the $10-plus million Paul brought in during his two moneybombs this quarter. Some Paul fans weren't pleased, even though Huck's effort wouldn't threaten Paul's record total.
So, as has happened before, some in the Ron Paul community dug through their digi-saboteur tool kit to unleash the deadliest weapon of all: spam. Brett Harris told me that in the first hour the site was live, people pledged $200,000--except they didn't. Ron Paul spammers did. Harris said the e-mail addresses attached to the pledges denigrated Huckabee, exalted Paul, and had plenty of naughty words. (UPDATE 5:19 p.m.: Yes, in the past it wasn't Ron Paul supporters who spammed. Harris thinks it was this time.)
The twins, in response, took action. They weeded out the fake pledges and posted two harshly worded letters on the moneybomb Web site that took aim at the "rotten apples" in Paul's base. In one letter Brett writes, "You [speaking to the spammers] may liken yourselves to American revolutionaries, but your behavior is more reminiscent of Nazi tactics -- sending in hooligans to break into and disrupt political rallies for their opposition." This, needless to say, did not make many Paul supporters happy.
Animosity for Huckabee has been brewing for quite some time amongst Paulies. In the Tale of Two Dark Horses, Huckabee has far surpassed Paul nationally. Moneywise, though, Paul's ad-hoc organization has drubbed Huckabee time and again. Now the two big story lines of this campaign cycle are at war with one another. In the battle of Huck's army versus the Paul technocrats, what does victory look like? Last time we checked it's judged by votes, not dollar bills.
As is our occasional custom with Ron Paul stories, here are some handy links: Talk back in our discussion board, The Fray, or drop by my inbox.
-
sponsorship
Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska senator who recently referred to Barack Obama's middle name and Muslim background as potential advantages for a leader, has apologized for his comments. "I answered a question about your qualifications to be president in a way that has been interpreted as a backhanded insult of you," Kerrey wrote in a letter to Obama Wednesday. "I assure you I meant to do just the opposite."
His apology was so earnest, in fact, that he practically sounded like he was switching endorsements. From the AP's report:
He went on to say he considers Obama one of the most talented people he's met in politics and "exceptionally qualified by experience and judgment to be president of the United States."
Obama should use that in his next ad.
-
sponsorship
Here’s an interesting bit from Matt Bai’s upcoming New York Times Magazine article (not online just yet) on how Bill Clinton’s legacy has shaped Democratic politics and the current presidential race. Over the past few weeks, Bill has been a bit more aggressive
than usual, most recently telling
Charlie Rose that electing Barack Obama would be like “rolling the dice” on America’s
future. Here’s one reason why:
As he doused his fries in ketchup, Clinton told me that he
was generally more inclined to want to ‘‘pop back’’ at Edwards or Obama than
his wife was, but he had to remind himself that Hillary was plenty capable of defending
herself. There have been reports in the last few weeks about Clinton’s lashing
out at strategists and meddling in his wife’s campaign; insiders say this has
been exaggerated, but some of Clinton’s friends and former advisers told me
that the attacks from rivals irritate Clinton a lot more now, when they are directed
at his wife, than they did when he was running. (‘‘As a candidate, he was
absolutely bulletproof — it never bothered him,’’ says Paul Begala, one of Clinton’s 1992 advisers.)
What he takes even more personally — and should, really — is the unmistakable
premise that underlies the sniping, that somehow his own presidency was bad for
the country and the party.
It's true: Every time Obama talks about a new generation of leaders or "moving on" or overturning "textbook" Democratic politics, Bill must feel it. That's why Clinton's best defense so far has been to say that he was a young upstart once, too: “I was, in terms of experience, was closer to Senator Obama, I
suppose, in 1988 when I came within a day of announcing,” he said in an interview in September. He said he chose not to run that year because “I really
didn’t think I knew enough, and had served enough and done enough to
run.”
In other words, Clinton was the party's great new hope, too -- but he was smart enough to wait. It sounds like he's defending Hillary. But really, he's defending himself.
-
sponsorship
It's poll-a-palooza out there today. Some highlights from the CNN/WMUR (Dems' PDF; GOP's PDF) poll in New Hampshire.
- Rudy Giuliani has stalled in New Hampshire and hasn't broken the 20-point barrier since early November. McCain, meanwhile, is gently on the rise in second place.
- In June 2007 the war in Iraq was the most important issue for 36 percent of voters. Now it's the most important issue for 13 percent. 31 percent of Democrats say Iraq is most important, tied with health care. Illegal immigration and homeland security are both more important than Iraq for Republicans.
- Granite State residents trust Giuliani and McCain to do the best job when dealing with terrorism, but Romney to best handle illegal immigration, taxes, and the economy. Romney is also most trusted on abortion.
- Romney's support is skewed towards college-educated, richer residents. McCain's towards high-school educated, poorer New Hampshire citizens.
- 22 percent of New Hampshire Republicans have definitely decided who to vote for. 31 percent of Democrats have decided.
- 60 percent of undeclared voters say they'll vote in the Democratic primary
If you're a poll junkie, visit Slate's Election Scorecard for your daily fix.
-
sponsorship
Forget Barack Obama's kindergarten ambitions. This is damning. From Newsweek's cover story on John Edwards:
Edwards has said that, even as a kid, he dreamed of being a lawyer. He
watched every episode of "Perry Mason" and "The Fugitive." When he was
11, he penned an essay titled "Why I Want to Be a Lawyer" ...
-
sponsorship
America has a tradition of waging wars on two fronts. First there were the European and Pacific fronts during WWII. In the '60s and '70s, the United States attacked communism overtly in Vietnam and covertly in Latin America. And these days, we're fighting the war on terrorism in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now the candidates are following suit. Democrats and Republicans have opened several two-front wars during the campaign. A breakdown of the most recent tactical gambles, and what they're risking:
Obama attacks Clinton and Edwards: A few days ago, Barack Obama started critiquing John Edwards' anti-lobby stance to compete for second-choice votes. Additionally, Obama and Clinton continue to butt heads over health care, electability, and experience.
Going after Clinton and Edwards at the same time may leave Obama open to claims that he is overly aggressive. He is essentially a front-runner in Iowa, and attacking Edwards could only embolden Biden, Richardson, and Dodd voters to flock toward the besieged underdog.
Clintonites attack Obama: Bill Clinton blasted Obama in an appearance on The Charlie Rose Show, Bill Shaheen rehashed Obama's drug use, and Bob Kerrey blew on the embers of those pesky Muslim rumors.
Hillary? She stays silent. On paper, this strategy seems to insulate her from any criticism, since her proxies are doing the work for her. But the Shaheen imbroglio showed how quickly scandals can jump the barrier and start affecting Hillary's image, as well.
Romney attacks Huckabee and Giuliani: Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have been trading barbs since the early days of the campaign, at no cost to Romney in the early primary states. But since Mike Huckabee's ascendance, Romney has had to fight Huckabee in Iowa and Giuliani elsewhere, which has driven down his poll numbers in Iowa and kept him stagnant nationwide.
Romney's troubles are the most foreboding for Obama and Clinton. Romney has been forced to peddle two different messages to two different audiences—Iowans and Americans—while watching his Iowa numbers drop. Attacking a nice guy like Huckabee is very different than attacking a liberally conservative hawk like Giuliani. The more messages a campaign has to churn out, the more strained its resources are. Sometimes scattering your attention can leave an opening for another challenger. Just ask John Edwards, circa 2004, or John McCain, circa 2008.
-
sponsorship
Attention Washington, D.C., residents! The Ron Paul Blimp will be passing by the district between 3:30 and 4 p.m. today. It's hard to say where you'll be able to see it, though, since the blimp can't legally fly within 15 miles of the White House. From the blimpsters' press release:
We would like to assure the public that the blimp is not a threat to national security, only to other republican presidential candidates.
The blimp will be spending tonight in Harford, MD, just north of Baltimore, after which it will probably be heading up toward New York City, according to blimp spokesman Bryce Henderson. Donations to the blimp are currently around $260,000, which should be enough to keep the zeppelin aloft through Christmas. They've scuttled plans to visit the Iowa caucus—the blimp is "very sensitive to weather," Henderson says—so it will likely be heading south to Florida and Atlanta in the coming weeks.
You can track the blimp's whereabouts via GPS here.
-
sponsorship
Now that Mike Huckabee set
the tone with his Jesus-invoking, subliminal
cross-including Christmas ad, everyone else is climbing aboard.
Barack Obama’s holiday spot plants him and his family in
front of a roaring hearth and a giant Christmas tree. No Muslim prayer mats here! After a
few platitudes about family and friendship, Obama gives his daughters, Malia
and Sasha, a chance to say “Merry Christmas” and “Happy Holidays.” Like
Huckabee, Obama goes easy on the policy.
Rudy Giuliani, meanwhile, isn’t afraid of talking shop. In one
new spot, he sports a bright red
sweater vest and promises to give all Americans the “same gift: A safe America. Lower
taxes. Secure borders. Job growth. Fiscal discipline. Strict constructionist
judges.” Something tells me Giuliani really would enjoy coming downstairs to
find Antonin Scalia curled up under his tree.
A second ad has Giuliani wishing for all
those same things, and hoping that all the candidates could just get along. At which
point Santa, who was sitting there the whole time, interjects: “Ho, ho, ho, ho. I was with you right up until
that last one. Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho.” Santa endorsing the politics of personal destruction: this really is a special election.
UPDATE 11:28 a.m.: Now Huckabee is claiming the "floating cross," which looks like a window pane, was actually "a bookshelf." Or at least that's what he told Joe Scarborough. He added that "if you play the spot backwards, it says 'Paul is dead, Paul is dead.' "
UPDATE 1:46 p.m.: A reader points out, what's with the "Merry Christmas" AND "Happy Holidays"? Come on, Rudy. That's the kind of fence-sitting you'd expect from a Clinton holiday ad.
UPDATE 3:11 p.m.: John Edwards arrives fashionably late.
UPDATE 5:04 p.m.: Hillary's video: Like Rudy's, but classier.
-
sponsorship
Chris Dodd made news for perhaps the last time in his campaign yesterday by filibustering the FISA bill that would have granted immunity to telecom companies that cooperated with government wiretapping programs.
It was a triumphant moment for Dodd. For the past few months, he’s been demanding that Senate Democrats not capitulate to the administration on wiretapping. Now Harry Reid has withdrawn the bill, with plans to revisit it in January.
But it’s hard to see this translating to campaign success in any meaningful way. Back in October, Dodd won praise by shouting his opposition to the FISA bill. He also made headlines by becoming the first candidate to oppose Michael Mukasey for attorney general. Following his lead, the three Democratic front-runners all jumped on board.
But since then, Dodd has all but vanished. Sure, he moved his family to Iowa and continues to campaign diligently, launching his current “12 Days of Results” tour across Iowa. But what was once an uphill climb is starting to look like a wall. National polls barely acknowledge his existence: As Time's Joel Stein put it, Dodd "pulls in 1 more percentage point in national polling numbers than you do." Campaign political futures, usually more accurate than polls, put him at rock bottom with back-runner Dennis Kucinich, dropout Evan Bayh, and some guy named Brian Schweitzer.
The main reason Dodd hasn't been able to convert his FISA crusade into campaign momentum -- aside from the likelihood that voters don't care -- is the discord between the campaign frenzy and the plodding legislative process. Had he been able to filibuster the FISA bill back in October, it might have done him some good. But now, people have moved on. Whereas campaign narratives are measured in weeks, congressional stories last months, years, and decades. Chris Dodd's picked a lawmaker's battle, not a candidate's. That's why his victory, while significant, isn't likely to bring him any closer to the nomination.
Read/watch his floor speech here.
-
sponsorship
Hillary Clinton released a new Web video today that is full of testimonials from voters about making the switch from Barack Obama and John Edwards to Clinton. The video is a response to an Obama clip showing a neighbor of Tom Vilsack, former Iowa governor and co-chair of Clinton's campaign, switching allegiances from Hillary to Barack.
In Clinton's video, a former Obama supporter named Todd Eaton looks uncomfortable as he explains why he once supported the Illinois senator:
I guess my initial attraction to Barack Obama was, um, his differences as far as who's run for president in the past. Uh, and, uh, he's a very dynamic speaker if you've ever heard him speak.
While he's saying this, his eyebrow goes crazy, his speech gets more halted, and he assumes a coy grin. I may be reading into this too closely, but it looks like he's afraid of saying something terribly un-PC—that he initially supported Barack Obama because he's black. That's the implication, at least. (Mind you, Hillary Clinton also has "differences as far as who's run for president in the past.")
Eaton then seems to catch himself by saying he was wooed by Obama because he is a "dynamic speaker." Is dynamic the new articulate?
Obviously, the racial subtext is nothing new. There have been numerous stories questioning whether Obama appeals more to white or black voters since he began his presidential campaign. (People have speculated about this as far back as his Senate run). Some thought Obama's biracial background would help court both demographics, while others said Obama wasn't black enough. But this debate usually stayed in the chattering class and off the campaign trail.
Clinton's press office could not be reached for comment. But I think I already know what they'll say—that it's a straightforward ad without a hint of racial subtext. In the past week, though, Clinton's camp has taken a troubling turn towards racially motivated politics. First, a former campaign chair stepped down because he questioned whether Obama sold drugs in his youth. Then yesterday former Sen. Bob Kerrey questioned whether Obama went to a "secular madrasa." After those incidents, they should have expected this video to be interpreted through a racial lens.
-
sponsorship
Barack Obama has a new donations page that breaks down what various contributions can buy. It provides a glimpse of how the costs of caucus organization really start to add up:
The campaign adds this in an e-mail to supporters: "For about $24, you can buy 50 clipboards for canvassers. About $26 will pay for
pizza for phonebank volunteers."
What are they topping the pizza with, caviar?
Screenshot from BarackObama.com
-
sponsorship
Apparently, Hillary Clinton isn't the only one trying to persuade America she's human. Jonathan Martin points out that just yesterday Mitt Romney "teared up for the third time in recent weeks." First during his Mormonism speech, then Sunday on Meet the Press as he discussed his church's history with race (clip here; he actually looks pretty in control), and then Monday as he described seeing the casket of a soldier killed in Iraq and imagining that it was one of his sons.
Whether or not the sudden emotion is a conscious shift for Romney, it's hard not to see these moments as deliberate. The man labeled "robot," "automaton," and, slightly more charitably, "cyborg" (at least that's half human) is slipping in the Iowa polls against a flesh-and-blood opponent, Mike Huckabee. Strong social conservatism and his religious background partly explain Huckabee's rise—his friendly manner and emotional appeal explain the rest of it. If there was ever a time for Romney to emote, it's now.
Time was, crying on the campaign trail amounted to suicide. Democratic candidate Ed Muskie famously wept outside the offices of the New Hampshire Union Leader in 1972—although he said he was just wiping the melted snowflakes from his cheeks. But Bill Clinton made the presidency safe for softies with his perpetually moistened eyes. You might say that showing emotion is now a prerequisite for any candidate. (Maybe that's why John Edwards is always blinking.) And the phenomenon extends across the aisle—"Bush men always cry," Jeb Bush once said, explaining his family's regular public weeping.
It's just amusing to read reports that Hillary Clinton became "visibly emotional" at a campaign event, only to learn that the event was "designed to showcase a softer side of the New York senator." Go go gadget, tears!
-
sponsorship
Because the Democratic Iowa caucuses are as outdated as Alan Keyes, they're governed by rules that don't jive with the rest of American democracy. Most offensive is the stipulation that voters can support a second choice candidate if their first choice doesn't get 15 percent at their local caucus. It's like an elementary-school recess nightmare, where you're forced to hang out with the popular kids you hate.
This means that in many caucuses, supporters of Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich are going to throw their weight behind one of the Big Three. It's these votes that may make the difference in the final tally.
With that in mind, here's a closer look at who Richardson supporters should pick as their second choice, based on Richardson's major policies.
Iraq: Richardson supports an immediate withdrawal, even if it means no residual forces. Ron Paul fits this description better than any of the Big Three, but John Edwards wants to pull the most troops out the quickest, so he gets the nod.
Immigration: The candidates largely share the same vision on immigration, but a flashback to Hillary Clinton's driver's license flap is instructive. Richardson and Barack Obama both supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to offer driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Clinton infamously couldn't decide (and then did), and Edwards hedged his answer. Obama, despite a confusing response during a debate, is closest to Richardson here.
Health care: Nobody really seems all that impressed with Bill Richardson's health-care plan, including himself. So, this one's a wash.
Résumé: There isn't a candidate in the Big Three who can match Richardson's devotion to public service. Clinton narrowly edges Obama because Richardson's experience lies in hard power diplomacy, not the soft power Obama markets.
Tone: Richardson has rushed to Clinton's aid throughout the campaign, fueling rumors of a vice presidential nod.
Richardson is running a more national campaign than any of his second-tier colleagues, so he tends to be a forgotten cog in the caucus wheel. But he's polling at an average of eight percent in the Hawkeye State. Those votes have to go towards somebody on caucus night, and they probably won't be allowed to go towards Richardson. Clinton-Richardson '08?
-
sponsorship
A few weeks ago, we pointed out how one Obama ad looked more like a theatrical trailer than a political spot. Well, John Edwards has upped the ante. Today, he released an actual trailer, complete with soaring strings, cymbal crashes, and a narrator who voices movie trailers for a living. You'll recognize him instantly:
"In a world where corn grows tall and hope grows taller ... where people have a special power to decided the fate of a nation ... one man can clean up George Bush's mess."
That man is George DelHoyo, who you may know from Fox ads, car commercials, and the trailers for Shark Tale, The Polar Express, and Happy Feet. He also does commercials in Spanish (listen here)—something Edwards might consider using in Florida (if that were allowed) or California. Apparently, DelHoyo is himself an Edwards supporter and has been doing campaign events in Iowa. Between him and Kevin Bacon, the Edwards campaign might as well shoot a biopic.
The trailer gimmick is smart, in that it gets to be cheesy and overdramatic—everything a political ad needs—while still making fun of itself: "On Jan. 3 ... a candidate will rise ... a party will unite ... and a nation will be redeemed." It's like, they're joking—but also not. By the end of the trailer, once DelHoyo and the orchestra have worked the Edwards worship into a lather, a dinky voice comes out of the void: "I'm John Edwards and I approve this message."
The question now is, which campaign will snap up Don LaFontaine?
-
sponsorship
Armed with charts, big ears, and a voodoo stick, Ross Perot found a way to persuade 16.5 million people in 1992 to watch his 30-minute infomercials that warned the economy was in danger of collapsing.
Armed with a giant name plate, bushy eyebrows, and 18 million fourth-quarter dollars, Ron Paul is trying to persuade a few thousand extra Iowans to watch his own 30-minute infomercials over the Christmas break.
The symmetry is too ripe to ignore. Perot's infomercials helped build his brand while also generating buzz around his campaign. Paul already found a way to do that without the help of must-see TV, and now he's trying to make progress among early state voters.
None of Paul's half-hour spots (see Part 1; Part 2) is new to ardent Paul supporters. It covers the normal Paul points: The dollar is falling, immigration is ruining the economy, and the government is an obese bureaucracy that needs some liposuction. But it may make Paul seem more approachable for the uninitiated—a base that the Paul campaign desperately needs if it wants to start generating traction in the polls again.
But what if Paul can't convince voters by Feb. 6? By then the majority of states will have voted, but there will still be nine months until the general election. After Paul's record-setting fund-raising haul yesterday, even the political elite can't help but admit that he's tapped into a rich vein of the Republican Party. And there's more money where those donations came from—the 63,000 people who have given to Paul this week donated an average of about $100 each. So why not run as a third-party candidate to keep mining those resources past the primary?
Paul has all of the ingredients of a tasty third-party run: pounds of money, a dash of organization, and a well-stocked cabinet of supporters. Now the main issue is finding enough time to let those ingredients bake in the political oven.
Nine months is a lot of extra time for Paul to talk with voters and convince them that his platform is demonstrably different than the mainstream parties'. If the economy tanks, Iraq gets worse, and the Republican nominee isn't a hawk on immigration (e.g. Huckabee or McCain), then Paul's platform could resonate with voters nationwide. Plus, a general election helps Paul circumvent stalled momentum in the early primary states.
Paul has said he won't run as a third-party candidate. But Perot already made some of the inroads for him back in 1992. And not just on TV.
-
sponsorship
Ron Paul supporters, sometimes referred to as Paulites or,
less endearingly, Paultards, are known for their prolific blog comments. (Conservative
blog RedState practically ignited the aPaulcalypse by banning them from its
boards.) Here’s one comment about the Ron Paul blimp spotted on the Daily Paul:
I pledged... we are SO close.... WE (grassroots) make
IMPOSSIBLE things happen.... talk about bypassing the media blackout!!!!!
I'm in for the Teaparty as well.
I explained to my family..... that THIS Christmas is NOT
about presents under the tree (well maybe a few!).
This Christmas ............is about taking back our Country
and watching/laughing at the media trying to ignore the elephant in the room! [Emphasis added]
So this person gave to the Ron Paul blimp instead of his own children. First they want to abolish the postal service ... now Christmas???
-
sponsorship
According to Mike Huckabee's new ad, Christmas is a time to set aside all the political rhetoric and focus on "what really matters," i.e., "the celebration of the birth of Christ." You'd be hard-pressed to come up with a more potent piece of political rhetoric.
Huckabee, clad in a Rudolph-red sweater and standing in front of a lit Christmas tree, says he knows you're "worn out of all the television commercials you've been seeing," and that it's time to "pull aside from all that." It's a simple, nonpartisan message that will resonate with all Americans, or at least all Americans who matter to Mike Huckabee in Iowa: Merry Christmas. Because on Jan. 3, he's hoping for a lot more than 10 lords a-leaping.
The best part is he's looking into the camera for the full 30 seconds, giving you plenty of time to decide whether his right eye is wandering or just slightly larger than the other.
This seems like a good time to credit Mitt Romney for his diligent observance of the Jewish holidays. We've seen press releases on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. But why no menorah-lighting ceremony?
UPDATE 6:12 p.m.: A reader/friend (really, what's the difference?) sent this along under the subject line, "You are a gentile.":
1) Every observant Jew knows that Hannukah is totally a minor holiday.
Plus, the Jewish communities in the early states aren't big enough to
matter.
2) Tu'Bshvat--
the festival of trees--is
January 22, a couple weeks before the mega-Jew communities of New
Jersey, Illinois, New York, Florida, and California vote. If Romney
celebrates that he'll get major street cred.
3) You light a Hannukiah, not a
Menorah.Menorahs can last only 7 nights--you need a special candelabra to celebrate the miracle.
I hereby cede all future Romney/Judaism items to our mensch-in-residence, Chad Matlin.
-
sponsorship
The recommendations are coming so fast, it’s getting a little hard to keep track. Here’s the latest batch from over the weekend.
Des Moines Register: Hillary Clinton and John McCain
Much-coveted endorsement. Boosts Hillary’s inevitability argument in Iowa, just as Obama was starting to crack it. Obama camp claims it will swing Edwards supporters over to him; Edwards’ people think it will do just the opposite. For McCain, unlikely to change much; New Hampshire is still his firewall, albeit a small one. See freakishly close analysis here.
Boston Globe: Barack Obama and John McCain
Could help both in New Hampshire. (That is, if anyone reads it.) Dems trust the Globe, while independents will see that McCain appeals to more than just the Union Leader.
Sen. Joe Lieberman: John McCain
Support could be a major symbol for New Hampshire independents, who make up 40 percent of the state’s voters. Of course, Lieberman netted only about 9 percent of the vote in 2004. Not exactly a kingmaker. On the plus side, McCain already nabbed conservative Union Leader-Globe, plus Lieberman means McCain has right, left, and center covered.
Iowa Rep. Steve King: Fred Thompson
Thompson needs this. King endorsement was coveted by Republicans. Huckabee got Jim Gilchrist last week—another prominent conservative and the bell would be tolling for Fred. He still polls fourth in Iowa.
It's a good day to be John McCain—assuming voters care what the Register, the Globe, and Lieberman think. The problem, though, is that these recs aren't really based on the candidates' electability. When a congressman endorses a candidate, it's not just because he likes him—it's because he likes him and thinks he can get elected. (Joe Lieberman, mind you, is a special case. He's too far right to side with Hillary but not far enough to support a Republican like Romney.) But newspapers usually endorse based on ideals and policies alone. They don't care how slim McCain's chances are. Maybe that's why the Register hasn't endorsed a winner since 1980. So in that sense, you have to take these recs with a grain of salt.
UPDATE 3:52 p.m.: That was fast. A new Hillary ad features the Register endorsement.
-
sponsorship
At his anticipated "Tested. Ready. Now" speech in Tampa on Saturday, Rudy Giuliani offered a
refrain practically lifted from Larry
the Cable Guy:
We’re at war. The American people want to see victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, not humiliation and
defeat. They want their children to live free from the fear of Islamic
terrorism. They’re telling us: Get it
done. And we will.
He repeats that phrase three more times. A last minute pander
to the NASCAR vote?
-
sponsorship
Alongside the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton president, there's been a sub-campaign to convince America that Hillary Clinton feels feelings. On the whole, it seems to be working: One of the tropes of the race so far has been voters’ surprise when they discover she’s not a pant-suited ice robot.
The latest effort in the emotion primary is a new video site, TheHillaryIKnow.com, launched today. The site collects testimonials from friends and colleagues who have seen the real Hillary and can testify to its existence. It includes bigwigs like Wesley Clark and Tom Vilsack, alongside old friends, plus a few everyday people Hillary has helped along the way.
Personal testimonies are nothing new for campaigns. It's only when you look at what they say over and over that you start to get the Message:
Geraldine Ferraro: “… very articulate, wonderful, warm mother …”
Patty Criner: “ … exceptional … bright … capable … makes you laugh … so engaging and enthusiastic to be with … very sentimental … very old fashioned.”
HT Moore: “Very, very active in the church … Grew up in strong faith.”
Kaki Hockersmith: “Very thoughtful ... it’s not about Hillary; it’s about you … good sense of humor … loves to cut up and clown around.”
Betsy Ebeling: “She hears people. … understands the importance of friendship … we can finish each other’s sentences.”
Maria Echaveste: “funny, warm, genuinely caring person … enjoys a good joke … enjoys hanging out and just kicking back and talking about what's going on in the world … a really fun person.”
Together, they present a compelling case for Hillary’s humanity. Still, it’s hard not to think that they all protest too much. Can you imagine a similar set of testimonials for Rudy Giuliani? For Mike Huckabee? Everyone already knows they’re real people. The fact that Hillary needs to have a few dozen friends bear witness to her normality only circles the problem in big green highlighter.
-
sponsorship
Rudy Giuliani has a new tagline: “Tested. Ready. Now.” It’s hard to hear that and not think of, you know, every single other tagline to come out of this race so far. Let’s take a look at some of the other 2008 campaign slogans and themes. Can you spot the similarities?
Mitt Romney:
“Strong. New. Leadership.”
“Change Begins With Us.”
Mike Huckabee:
"Faith. Family. Freedom.”
Fred Thompson:
“Security, United, and Prosperity.”
“United In Our Core Beliefs.”
Ron Paul:
“Freedom, Prosperity, and Peace.”
John McCain:
"Straight Talk Express."
"No Surrender."
Barack Obama:
“Hope and Change”
"Judgment and Experience."
“Change we can believe in.”
“Fire it up! Ready to go!”
Bill Richardson:
"Change and Experience."
Hillary Clinton:
“Let the conversation begin.”
“Ready for Change, Ready to Lead.”
“Turn up the heat!”
John Edwards:
“Two Americas.”
“Building One America.”
Still available: "Change, Judgment, Experience, Tested, Ready, Now, to Lead, America, Peace."
-
sponsorship
Never accuse Rudy Giuliani of failing to keep it real. They should do a two-for-one with temporary tattoos of Rudy's face. Get yours here.
This actually reminds me of one of my favorite Giuliani-themed rap lyrics, from the song "Rise of the Machines" by Jedi Mind Tricks: "They call me Kublain Khan, ready for war with a Ruger 9 / I'm ready with a machete for Rudy Giulian."
Romney campaign theme song?
Image from Rudy 2008 Store.
-
sponsorship
Ron Paul Blimp, meet the Hill-a-copter.
Hillary Clinton announced she'll be stumping through Iowa via helicopter for five days next week. Is it just us or do Democratic frontrunners usually not mimic Republican dark horses?
Photo Illustration by Andy Bouve.
-
sponsorship
Over at National Review, Rich Lowry argues a point I’ve been mulling for a while now: that Mike Huckabee is enjoying a Howard Dean-like boom, which will fizzle once Republican voters realize what a general election disaster his candidacy would be. His appeal is too limited to a small niche of the GOP, his record is too liberal for fiscal conservatives, and his charm doesn't outweigh the depth of his ignorance. In other words, he's a fad.
I think he's right about Huckabee's ultimate nonviability, but the Dean analogy breaks down in a couple of places. For example, Joe Trippi says that at this point last year, the Dean campaign was already “eroding,” whereas Huckabee’s momentum doesn’t show signs of slipping. (Of course, a lot can happen in three weeks.) Also, Dean drew supporters largely because of his policies—particularly his anti-war stance—whereas Huckabee’s appeal seems more like a personality cult. Even as people learn about his big-government policies as Arkansas governor and his shallow understanding of foreign affairs, he doesn’t seem to pay the price.
But more to the point: If Huckabee is Dean, who is Kerry? Even if Huck flames out, there’s no clear establishment candidate to take his place. The National Review might see Romney as that man. But it’s hard to say whether the rest of America would. The Kerry surge in 2004 benefited from the perception that the senator from Massachusetts, while dull, was a safe choice. Neither Romney nor Giuliani can make that claim. Kerry had both a war record and an anti-war record, a strong reputation in the Senate, plus enough money to take on the Bush juggernaut. Romney has already taken damage on flip-flopping. Giuliani’s personal and ethical judgment still raises questions. Both issues would be devastating in a general election, and more so than they have been thus far.
What ultimately sank Kerry were factors that most Democrats didn’t see coming: the Swift Boat ads, Kerry’s “flip-flopping,” and his own lackluster campaign. But in the cases of Romney and Giuliani, you can see the vulnerabilities from miles away. One could argue that such foresight helps their chances. But in reality, they’re two candidates whose flaws run deep. Huckabee may be Dean, but Republicans are unlikely to find their Kerry.
Unless—and I realize this sounds nutty—that man is Fred Thompson. He's got a lot of Kerry in him, if Kerry were a Republican: a solid conservative record, strong electability prospects, a dull campaign. He trails in Iowa and nationally, just like Kerry. He's great on paper, just like Kerry. But in practice he would probably fail to inspire people to show up to the polls—just like Kerry. So, I take it back: If Republicans want a safe, ultimately uninspiring nominee, they need look no further than Thompson.
-
sponsorship
After wondering aloud to the Washington Post about Barack Obama’s past drug use, Bill Shaheen, Hillary Clinton’s national co-chair, stepped down today. Shaheen, who is the husband of former New Hampshire Gov. and Senate candidate Jean Shaheen, said Obama’s prior cocaine use would hurt his electability if he won the nomination.
Shaheen’s original comments to the Washington Post caused a minor brushfire, but it was largely contained inside the Beltway. Shaheen isn’t a national figure (nor is his wife), and the issue probably would have burned out after a few days if the Clinton campaign apologized—which it did—and moved on.
Instead, Shaheen’s resignation provides another news peg, and thus another chance for the story to permeate into the general consciousness. The story was initially about a Clinton rep critiquing Obama’s drug use. Now it’s about a shakeup in the campaign’s leadership. Not a good meme for a once-front-runner.
So, why fan the flames? Even if Shaheen thought it was morally right to step down, it’s better politically to keep him on board and quiet. Obama can’t bring up Shaheen’s comments too often, since it also reminds them that he did lines of cocaine. (That said, Obama did rally a fund-raising drive around the affair called “The cost of negativity.” Also, Obama strategist David Axelrod called the resignation the right thing to do.)
This may play worst in New Hampshire, where the Shaheens are popular figures among Democrats. Clinton has long thought New Hampshire to be her firewall if she loses Iowa, but this may shake that foundation if the Granite State press latches on to this story as expected.
-
sponsorship
We've written a lot about Ron Paul publicity stunts. First the money bomb, then the blimp. The Ron Paul pinup calendar was only inevitable.
(h/t Hit & Run)
-
sponsorship
Each Democratic candidate is already declaring victory in today’s debate. Except, of course, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, who didn’t participate. Their campaigns are, to say the least, displeased.
Team Kucinich sent out a furious e-mail after the debate demanding an explanation for his exclusion, “especially after the newspaper's inclusion of non-candidate Alan Keyes in yesterday's Republican debate.” Gravel spokesman Alex Colvin said that his candidate chose not to stage a parallel event as he has done before, but that it was a “very poor move” for the debate organizers to “censor” Gravel and Kucinich.
So, in case you’re craving your Gravel fix, here’s his latest trippy video. It’s two minutes of Gravel talking to himself. Not quite Adaptation, but still worth a glance ...
-
sponsorship
Here was Charles Krauthammer weighing in yesterday on moderator Carolyn Washburn's performance:
"That was not just the worst debate of 2007, that was the worst debate
in western history, and that includes the ancient Greeks. There was no
record in any major European record of a debate this transcendently and
crushingly dull. It was an astonishment. The best line of the day was
Fred [Barnes] in commenting after the debate where he said the
moderator was Nurse Ratched. This moderator had the candidates
shackled, handcuffed, and gagged with these absurd 15-second responses,
30 second responses. … [S]he had taken the major issues of any
interest—Iraq and immigration—off the table at the beginning and never
asked about the NIE or Iran or proliferation or interrogation— anything
on our minds today."
He should have seen today's ...
[Via Politico]
-
sponsorship
There's a weird egalitarianism to this debate. Dodd and Biden and Richardson are getting as much time to talk as the front-runners. Washburn is also challenging them on long-lost gaffes—stuff that doesn't normally come up for anyone who's not ahead in the polls. She asks Biden about his awkward remarks about race, to which he responds that he "got into politics because of the civil rights movement." She asks whether Dodd is running for president to restore his family name. He says he's "motivated by my family because of their public service." If the questions were meant as gotchas, the candidates dodged the bullets by wide margins.
-
sponsorship
This debate makes yesterday's look like a royal rumble. I'm not sure they've said a single sentence that hasn't been uttered before. The moderator isn't following up, the candidates aren't challenging each other's points, and their blood pressure seems almost dangerously low. Where's Gravel when you need him ...
So, what's the latest on the Mitchell report?
-
sponsorship
Each candidate gets 30 seconds for a "free statement." It's like six sound-bite-filled stump speeches mixed throughout the debate. You might as well be flushing time down the toilet. Richardson even manages to stick his foot in his mouth:
"I’m going to use my 30 seconds to thank people of Iowa for putting us through this good process."
"Putting us through"? "Good" catch there, Bill.
UPDATE 2:47 p.m.: Hillary manages to work a mini-dis into her statement: "Some people believe you can get change by demanding it. Some believe you can get change by hoping for it."
In a hands-off debate like this, that's a body slam.
-
sponsorship
He looks like a ghost. Could be PBS's fault ... or an overzealous beautician.
-
sponsorship
Carolyn "al-Qaida" Washburn is back, promising to keep people to time limits but saying, "I’ll try not to be a scrooge about it." Yesterday, the candidates seemed to bristle at the format, which didn't produce many fireworks. So far, today doesn't look much different. The audience is silent, Washburn looks sour, and there hasn't been any back-and-forth. Gotta love the PBS aesthetics—padded sound, black background, fixed camera angles. It's like a group Charlie Rose interview.
-
sponsorship
It’s nothing new for candidates to exploit their families. Mitt
Romney makes regular appearances with his entourage of chiseled, heterosexual,
all-American sons and their wives. But with the caucuses approaching,
candidates are pulling out the nuclear option of familial endorsements: their mothers.
Hillary has a new campaign ad
featuring her mother, Dorothy. Dorothy wants voters to know “what a good person
she is. She never was envious of anybody. She was helpful.” Earlier this week,
the Edwards campaign announced
the shocking news that both of John Edwards’ parents, Wallace and Bobbie, have
endorsed their son. (Watch them phonebank for him here.) John McCain trotted
out his 95-year-old mom this week, too. “If there’s any questions we might
have about any age problem in this campaign, there’s my genes,” he says,
pointing out his mother.
Mothers are the perfect campaign weapon. First of all, they
prove that someone loves the
candidate—even if he’s a candidate only a mother could love. Showing your
softer side isn’t always a smart move, but when it’s your mother, no worries.
Secondly, they’re non-controversial. No one is going to question a mother’s
motivation or doubt their sincerity. And lastly, mothers are irrefutable: What
they say, goes. Rival campaigns don’t dare accuse someone’s mother of lying or
cheap shots. (Wives, by contrast, are not immune to this.)
Of course, dotty parents can also be a liability. McCain’s
mother embarrassed
the campaign in November by vaguely suggesting that Mitt Romney’s work at the
Olympics was tainted by his Mormonism.
But in general, introducing your mom can only help. Barack Obama, whose family life has been more complicated that most other candidates', has yet to bring his mother out on the trail. If he makes it to the general, the people will no doubt want to meet the parent.
UPDATE 1:59 p.m.: Scratch that last part. Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, died of cancer in 1995.
-
sponsorship
Before the debate, I cobbled together a list of things to expect, all of which predicted that the candidates would be looking to draw contrasts three weeks before the caucus. Boy was I was wrong. The only fireworks were between Fred Thompson and the debate's moderator, Carolyn Washburn.
That's what happens when you suck immigration and terrorism from the agenda. Right off the top, Washburn declared that she would avoid those topics because Iowans wanted to hear about issues that hadn't been widely discussed. But in a state where 63 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers think immigration is very important and 66 percent say the same about Iraq—according to the latest Newsweek poll (PDF)—it seemed odd to prevent the Republicans from talking about what the people want to hear about.
Instead we got a moribund discussion of economic policy. Granted, 64 percent of likely caucus-goers care about the economy, but today's discussion didn't go into details. Candidates talked about fixing the deficit, repairing American industries, and making President Bush's tax cuts permanent, but we didn't hear how they would do these things. In the past, Giuliani and Romney have had fun drawing minute distinctions between their tax plans, but this is no longer a Romniani race. In Iowa, Mike Huckabee is the big fish, yet nobody scuffed up his fair tax plan.
On climate change, McCain—who is the most visionary on green energy among the Republicans—was one of the first to respond, so the rest just aped his plan. Not exactly illuminating.
The Republicans are most comfortable speaking about their platforms and drawing distinctions when they're talking about issues they can rally their base behind. That means national security, the war on terrorism, and securing the border. Without those issues on the table, we weren't left with much to get worked up about. Neither were the candidates.
-
sponsorship
From a post-debate e-mail sent out by Fred Thompson's
campaign:
"I am not sure how these other candidates plan to
defeat al-Qaeda when they can't even take on Carolyn Washburn. The format of
this debate was more of a joke than a Mike Huckabee foreign policy answer."
We should have known Thompson was going to turn his no-nonsense attitude into a talking point. Because one moment you're raising your hand for a moderator, next thing you know Osama's in the Oval Office.
-
sponsorship
Like inappropriate comments from your grandparents at Thanksgiving, you just know Mike Huckabee is going to bust out Hucakbeeisms at a debate. Some of our favorites from today's relatively mild discussion:
- On why preventative health care is best: "Kill the snake rather than treat the snake bites."
- Referring to government bureaucracy on how he plans to keep jobs in America: "I can't part the red sea, but I can part the red tape."
- On students' lack of motivation: "They don't drop out because they're dumb, they drop out because they're bored to death."
- On ensuring music and the arts are taught in schools: "Unleash weapons of mass instruction" in schools.
- On education: "Second to being the commander in chief is being the communicator in chief."
-
sponsorship
Alan Keyes is all kinds of crazy. But his total lack of subtlety forces the other candidates to respond. “It’s important to be honest about who you are, not change your positions, like sadly Gov. Romney has done,” he said in response to a question on leadership. He made a similar remark about Giuliani’s position on abortion, calling him out by name.
“Gov. Romney, would you like to respond?” the moderator asks. “I’m not sure I do,” he says, but then he does. Same with Giuliani. What Keyes lacks in form, he makes up for in function.
-
sponsorship
Quick response round-up. Question: Realistically, what can you accomplish in your first year as president? You have thirty seconds ...
Giuliani: Make sure the country is secure against terrorists. End illegal immigration. Major tax reduction. Reduce size of federal government. Move toward energy independence.
Duncan Hunter: Strengthen U.S. military. Also strengthen the border (build fence). Bring back our industrial base from Communist China.
Ron Paul: End the war. No more preemptive war.
Tom Tancredo: Free Ronaldson Compienne. (Who? [UPDATE: Border patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, a reader informs me. Gracias!]) Secure the border.
Thompson: Tell the truth. (Wouldn't take a year.) Tell them we're bankrupting next generation.
Romney: I'd do more than talk. Strategy to overwhelm global jihad. End growth in entitlements and federal spending. Get on track to energy independence. Health insurance for every American.
Huckabee: Bring country together. End partisan warfare. We need a president of all the United States.
McCain: Make America safe: "This is a military, diplomatic, and cyberspace challenge." Restore trust in government.
Keyes: Restore sovereignty of American people. Sign pro-life executive order. Abolish income tax. Establish national border guard.
-
sponsorship
The moderator, Des Moines Register editor Carolyn Washburn, promised at the beginning not to be "a Grinch." But now everyone's talking over each other. They're refusing to answer yes or no to a question on climate change.
"Can I have a minute to answer it?" Fred Thompson asks. She says no. "Then I won't answer it." Ouch! The other candidates agree. They’re unionizing against the moderator! She finally gives in, which lets Alan Keyes spew nonsense for thirty seconds. In the moment of silence that follows, Thompson's back with the brutal zinger: "I agree with Alan Keyes' position on global warming."
-
sponsorship
In response to a question about who spends more than they owe on taxes, Mitt Romney says: "I don’t stay awake at night worrying about the taxes rich people are paying. It's the middle class worries me."
Fred Thompson follow up with The Right Response: "I want to be in the mitt Romney sitation so I don’t have to worry" about taxes.
UPDATE 2:28 p.m.: Actually, scratch that. Here's Thompson on NAFTA: “It's a long, complex document—I have nothing in particular to point out.”
-
sponsorship
First question: Are we facing a "tsunami of debt" that threatens our national security?
Ambassador
and Barack Obama roadkill Alan Keyes answers that we "require security"
in order to keep "the blessings of liberty." We must "cut off the
spigot that feeds" the Washington fatcats and other political
"cliques." But most importantly, we must replace our current tax with
the Fair Tax, which will "put the American people in charge" of their
own money.
Did Huckabee bring Keyes in to make his own ideas look sane?
-
sponsorship
2 p.m. Des Moines Register debate. Johnston, Iowa. 22 days to the caucus. Giuliani, Huckabee, Hunter, McCain, Paul, Romney, Tancredo, and Thompson.
Are you ready for some politics? Some Wednesday afternoon politics?
Things to look for:
- Mike Huckabee attacked from all sides: Immigration, AIDS, anti-Mormon comments, tax record, letting rapists go on parole.
- Mitt Romney on the attack, especially against Huckabee. If he's willing to run a negative ad, you can be sure he's willing to do a little mud wrestling at the debate.
- This is Fred Thompson's last chance to be relevant in this campaign. Desperate politicians are dangerous at last-chance debates. If it weren't Fred Thompson, we'd warn the other candidates to watch out. But, well, it's just Fred.
- Giuliani and McCain may pander for 3rd place, even if that means propping up Huckabee so Romney gets crippled.
- Proof that Alan Keyes exists.
-
sponsorship
Some presidential candidates make stickers. Those are fun. Some make posters. I guess those work, too. But some—or rather, one—have giant freaking blimps flying around with their names on them.
If you haven’t seen the Ron Paul blimp passing overhead lately, that’s because the launch was delayed. The blimp was supposed to take off today, but the banners that get stuck to the side of the blimp haven’t arrived yet, according to blimp coordinator Bryce Henderson. “[A] blimp with no message on it simply does not have the same effect,” Henderson wrote in an e-mail.
The blimp tour is organized by an ad-hoc group calling itself, well, Ron Paul Blimp, and it’s financed by contributions on its Web site. The more money donated, the longer the blimp stays aloft. They’re up to about $234,000 as of Wednesday, which should keep the blimp airborne through Dec. 24, according to Henderson. But there’s no definite end date—if people keep giving, the blimp keeps going. Henderson says the blimp will probably fly over Iowa during the Jan. 3 caucuses, and there’s a tentative schedule to keep it floating through the Feb. 5 primaries, cash willing.
The blimp project is a lot like Ron Paul’s October “money bomb” in that it’s organized entirely by supporters. But as a fund-raising gimmick, it’s fairly useless. Campaign finance laws prevent Ron Paul Blimp from coordinating with the campaign, so the money they collect can’t go toward ground organization. Instead, donors are paying for pure, unalloyed publicity: The value a thousand heads turning upward and saying, “Holy crap, it’s a Ron Paul blimp.” And unlike the October “money bomb,” there’s something in it for donors. Anyone who gives $5,000 to the blimp gets to ride in it. (About a dozen people have so far.)
The genius of the stunt—other than the potential for exposure—is its utter silliness. “A blimp?” you say. “Who does that?” But it works because no one takes Ron Paul all that seriously in the first place. Somehow a Hillary Blimp or a John Edwards Blimp wouldn’t quite work. But a Ron Paul Blimp—now that just makes sense.
-
sponsorship
In November, John Edwards began airing a series of ads called “Heroes” that called average Americans the heroes of the country. He first ran the ad in Iowa and then adapted the spot for the New Hampshire market by swapping in less rural, more New England-ish scenes.
Today he released the South Carolina version, which explicitly caters toward a larger African-American audience. Nearly 30 percent of the Palmetto State’s population is African-American, according to 2005 statistics from the U.S. census. That’s compared with 1 percent of New Hampshire and 2.3 percent of Iowa.
You can see a side-by-side-by-side comparison on Slate V. We wrote about this when Edwards swapped some characters for the New Hampshire version. Selections from that post are republished below.
Gone are the tractors, suspenders, and trucker hats. Instead, the new characters have nondescript profile shots. The ad replaces an image of an older white couple with two younger adults, one of whom appears to be a person of color. Plus, instead of a white woman near the end of the ad, the ad shows a black woman.
The changes come after the Iowa ad caught flak from bloggers for being almost exclusively white. The Edwards campaign countered that the waitress in the diner is Hispanic, but ABC News' Jake Tapper insisted that the "optics" of the ad didn't convey any diversity.
Edwards' national spokesman, Eric Schultz, told me that the "Heroes" series of ads "highlights the hard-working men and women from across the country." The new version, he says, is specific to New Hampshire, and the new faces in it are all New Hampshire residents. Many of the characters in the Iowa ad, however, are also in the New Hampshire ad (including the Latina waitress).
What we're seeing may be yet another example of the YouTube Effect. Advertisements can no longer be contained to a specific audience in the age of YouTube. The campaign got burned on its Iowa ad because the world had access to it, not just 3 million Iowa residents. Now we have a different set of characters in the New Hampshire ad.
-
sponsorship
Have you heard the watchword of the day? It’s electability. Both Hillary and Obama hosted conference calls on the subject. Meanwhile, the latest CBS/New York Times poll found that none of the GOP candidates are “viewed favorably by even half the Republican electorate.”
The question of electability—a candidate’s chances of success in the general election—has been raised about every candidate in the race. So, is anyone electable? The answer is no. Here’s why:
Mike Huckabee: No foreign policy experience. Depth of his ignorance will emerge. (Already botched questions about Iran, gays, and AIDS.) Fair tax plan is a fat target. Top Democrats see Huckabee as an “easy kill.” And that name! As Dan Bartlett said: “Huckabee? You've got to be kidding me.”
Rudy Giuliani: Post-convention, the scandal dragon awakens. You thought accounting-gate was bad. Wait for his other mayoral records to emerge. Nor will Kerik’s indictment go away. Personal life will start to matter. Against a family man, he’s dead meat. Watch his daughter endorse Obama, again.
Mitt Romney: Flip-flops will haunt him. Former pro-choice stance might have helped—but not now that he’s changed it. Same with support for gay rights. Even if he sneaks his Mormonism past the primaries, it could still hurt him in the general.
Fred Thompson: Zzzz zz zzzzz z zzzz zz zzz zzzzzzzzzzz. Zzz? Z zzz zzzz z zzzzz! *Cough* Zzzzz …
John McCain: Doesn’t have the stamina. Can’t hold his own against a younger opponent. Maverick streak of 2000 is gone. And if the Iraq war goes south again, he’ll go south with it.
Hillary Clinton: Bill Clinton: an oppo researcher’s wet dream. Plus, she’s got high negative ratings nationwide.
Barack Obama: Republicans will chew him up on experience. Debates will be puppy vs. pit bull. Closet racists will screw him in the voting booth. Oh, and the cocaine.
John Edwards: Did he get elected in 2004? Exactly.
Joe Biden: With a words spoken/foot-in-mouth ratio of about 20/1, Biden would sink himself and the entire Democratic party. Not gonna happen.
Bill Richardson: His Iraq withdrawal plan is foolhardy. He’s overly touchy. And say what you will, he looks like he stopped losing weight a while ago.
Ron Paul: If the country embraces the gold standard, Congress abolishes the IRS, and we decide we don't need an education department, then yes, Ron Paul is electable.
-
sponsorship
Chris Dodd kicks off his new ad with this line: “As you might have guessed, I’m not a former first lady, or a celebrity. …” In a conference call with reporters last week, South Carolina state Rep. Leon Howard, who has endorsed John Edwards, referred derisively to other unnamed candidates’ “celebrity status.” As if, in a race where name recognition is half the battle, being famous is suddenly a bad thing.
The attack capitalizes on the notion that Barack Obama is an empty vessel, all glitz and no substance. That just because he has David Geffen and Oprah Winfrey, it means he doesn’t understand the everyday problems of voters. It’s a bizarre angle for someone who has been in Congress for 30 years, but even more so for Edwards. He appeared on the cover of Men’s Vogue. He shared a stage with John Mellencamp. And then there was that whole vice-presidential nominee thing. Plus, keep in mind that Edwards is boarding the celebrity endorsement bandwagon with glee. This week both Tim Robbins and Kevin Bacon will campaign for Edwards. Dodd, meanwhile, has West Wing star Bradley Whitford shilling for him on YouTube. For either candidate to imply that Oprah's support somehow makes Obama a sellout is silliness.
True, all that glitters may not be gold. But that doesn’t mean all that’s dull—or crabby and self-righteous—is. Attacking the very fact of your opponent’s popularity seems to be the last refuge of a loser.
-
sponsorship
John McCain’s camp plays Nostradamus in a campaign strategy PowerPoint that they released on their Web site yesterday, and it’s an insightful peek into the psyche of the once-beleaguered campaign.
Essentially, McCain thinks he’ll win New Hampshire and momentum will carry him from there. Some highlights of the strategy—with some caveats attached:
- McCain is a modern-day Reagan: His campaign thinks he is the only conservative Republican who can keep the Reagan coalition together. Giuliani is too far left and Romnabee hangs too close to the religious right. Problem: That may be true, but poll numbers suggest the religious right is the cool kid in Iowa and South Carolina.
- McCain = Electability: Poll numbers suggest he is the strongest Republican to face off against Hillary Clinton. Problem: What about Giuliani? He has polled well nationally for a reason, and attracts more moderate and independent voters than McCain. Plus, what if the Democrats don’t nominate Hillary?
- New Hampshire, New Hampshire: After Romney loses Iowa, McCain thinks New Hampshire residents will vote for him like they did in 2000. This time, he has Curt Schilling to get him over the top. Problem: With or without an Iowa win, Romney is still from neighboring Massachusetts. That may buy him some percentage points.
- Florida is key: Who cares that more than 20 states are voting on Feb. 5? McCain thinks that Florida will vote for whomever has the most momentum on Jan. 29, which will only help boost his momentum going into Feb. 5. Problem: What if a bunch of different candidates take the first three or four states leading up to Florida? Huckabee wins Iowa, Romney wins New Hampshire, Giuliani wins South Carolina, and McCain wins Michigan. In that case, no candidate is likely to bust through Giuliani’s firewall in Florida.
McCain can certainly win the nomination, but his campaign is banking on a complicated chain reaction to produce a victory. If a McCain win in New Hampshire doesn't materialize, then he doesn't have a catalyst. Without a catalyst, McCain's political equation won't produce a nomination.
-
sponsorship
The Romney campaign breaks the ice with the first intra-party attack ad of
the GOP race, “The Choice.” The spot pits Romney against newly crowned Iowa front-runner Mike Huckabee—the latest Iowa
poll puts him at 32 percent to Romney’s 20—on what many people consider
Huckabee’s soft spot: immigration.
It starts off with their similarities: “Two former governors.
Two good family men. Both pro-life. Both support a federal marriage amendment
banning gay marriage.” (Notice how it puts Romney's pro-life bona fides on par with Huckabee's.)
Then the ad sets up what you expect to be a direct contrast:
“Mitt Romney stood up and vetoed in-state tuition for illegal aliens; opposed
drivers’ licenses for illegals. Mike Huckabee supported in-state tuition benefits
for illegal immigrants. Huckabee even supported taxpayer-funded scholarships
for illegal aliens.”
Wait, what about that driver’s license thing? This is
supposed to be a contrast ad—you expect it to say, “Huckabee even supported
licenses for illegals,” or something like that. Why pull that punch?
Probably because it’s a weak claim. A few blogs out there link to a 2001 piece from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
reporting that Huckabee supported a bill that would have allowed licenses for
illegal immigrants. But the issue hasn’t come up in debates, nor have the opposing
campaigns run with it.
So if Romney doesn’t have a good case against Huckabee on
the licenses issue, why bring it up at all? Well, that much is obvious: It's easier to say it without saying it than to actually say it.
The Huckabee campaign responds here.
-
sponsorship
Chuck Norris, speaking to Mike Huckabee in a recent Web video:
“They all have good points. But I think you’ve got the big package—I think you’ve got the
whole package here, Mike, and I really want to encourage the people to really check you out.”
Reminds us of that time Duncan Hunter told
the gay brigadier general at the YouTube debate that American soldiers shouldn’t
be forced to “work in a small tight unit” with homosexuals.
See here for
the full video. The magic happens right around the 1:00 mark.
-
sponsorship
Last night’s long-awaited Univision debate was more peaceful than most, as the GOP candidates seemed careful not to alienate an already skeptical audience. Lines about reaching out to Hispanics drew the most applause. The only booing came when Rep. Ron Paul argued that “we create the Chavezes of the world, we create the Castros of the world.”
Univision was originally forced to postpone the debate after only Sen. John McCain accepted the network’s invitation. The other campaigns cited scheduling conflicts. The top GOP candidates also avoided a minority-sponsored forum hosted by Tavis Smiley in September, sparking concern among party leaders that the candidates are hurting the party's reputation among blacks and Hispanics.
Whatever damage was done, the candidates did their best to repair it last night by soft-pedaling their hardline policies and emphasizing shared beliefs over rifts. Here's a quick roundup of peace offerings:
Rudy Giuliani: I approach the Hispanic community the same way I do all communities.
Mitt Romney: And so, Hispanics, along with other people in this country, want to see change.
Mike Huckabee: I think Hispanics want the same thing everybody wants.
Fred Thompson: Well, I think that we do share a lot in this country, whether we're Hispanic or whether we are not Hispanic.
Ron Paul: Hispanics, like everybody else, want change in our foreign policy.
Full transcript here.
-
sponsorship
Joining Edwards' Iowa campaign next weekend will be Kevin Bacon, possibly the best-connected actor on the planet.
Edwards is calling its organizing drive "Six Degrees of John Edwards." The deal: Any volunteer who performs six hours of work for the campaign, brings six signed supporter cards to an event, brings six undecided caucus-goers to an event, writes six letters to an editor, or tells six friends about Edwards and his policy book gets a voucher for free Kevin Bacon memorabilia.
But an analysis conducted using the University of Virginia's "Oracle of Bacon" has found that Bacon may also be connected with rival campaigns. The endorsement comes on the heels of Barack Obama's much-publicized tour with Oprah Winfrey, who was in Native Son (1986) with Matt Dillon, who was in Loverboy (2005) with Kevin Bacon.
Also unreported are Bacon's connections to prominent Republican candidates, including fellow actor Fred Thompson, who had an uncredited role in White Sands (1992) as an arms dealer alongside John Lafayette, who was also in Loverboy with Bacon. Bacon's GOP connections don't end there. Robert Duvall, who has endorsed Rudy Giuliani, starred in the 2002 film John Q with Simon Sinn, who was in Where the Truth Lies (2005) with Bacon. Even Giuliani himself is a mere two degrees from Bacon, having appeared alongside Marisa Tomei in Anger Management (2005); Tomei was also in Loverboy with Bacon.
A response from the Edwards campaign is still pending.
-
sponsorship
So Rudy Giuliani survived his Meet the Press interrogation Sunday. Moderator Tim Russert needled all the mayor’s tender spots: Giuliani’s hiring of Bernie Kerik as police commissioner, ties between Giuliani’s firm and Qatar, his decision to assign a security detail to protect Judith Nathan when they started dating in 2000. But Rudy weathered the barrage with a defense mechanism reminiscent of Hillary’s Sunday media blitz a few months ago: laughing.
At one point during the hourlong interview, Russert pointed out that Giuliani’s firm has represented Venezuelan-owned oil company Citgo and asked why he would work for a company tied to Hugo Chavez. Giuliani practically broke down giggling. “That’s a stretch,” he said, before clapping his hands and chuckling some more. Russert continued, “These are all accusations being made in a very serious way …” “They’re not serious,” Giuliani said, grinning. (Watch the exchange here, around the five-minute mark. Transcript here.)
Rudy’s laughter doesn’t quite match the enthusiasm of Hillary’s notorious “cackle,” but it’s still telling. TNR’s Michael Crowley has a piece on Giuliani’s comedian persona, in which he notes a determination to replace the “nasty man” image with the “sunnier side of Rudy.” But somehow the cheeriness manages to appear during uncomfortable moments, making them even more so. Russert pushed Rudy hard on his firm’s oil ties, as if to stoke the mayor’s legendary temper. It’s not a funny question. But laughter was his only option. It didn’t diffuse the question entirely, a la Huckabee on Jesus. But you’re a lot better off with YouTube videos that show you laughing than screaming.
-
sponsorship
John
McCain's campaign added a slew of videos to his YouTube
page a couple of days ago,
including a 16-second
clip from an interview Barbara Walters did with Bill Clinton about who he thought
would be the Democrats' toughest competition in 2008. After Walters asks her question, the YouTube
clip inserts a fade-to-black that clearly shows McCain's camp edited the clip.
Here's the
transcript of the answer that aired on ABC. The parts that survived McCain's
editing are bolded.
CLINTON: I can't
tell, but I think that McCain has a lot of
appeal, and I think that he seems to be making a little bit of a comeback. And
we disagree on many things, but I think he's, uh, a big figure. So he might be
the most electable. I don't know if he can be
nominated.
It's not
surprising that McCain removed all doubt from Clinton's response, but Clinton actually reiterated a message McCain's
campaign has been pushing recently: Once nominated, McCain is the only
Republican who can beat the Democratic nominee. Of course, Clinton also touched on
the caveat that McCain's camp has tried to play down: He can only beat a
Democrat if he can beat
his fellow Republicans.
-
sponsorship
When I heard Fred Thompson had been endorsed by right-to-life groups in Wisconsin and South Carolina, it was like hearing about an old high-school classmate. Oh yeah, Fred—how the hell is that guy?
Not so good, apparently. When he has appeared in headlines over the past week or two, it’s mostly been to attack Mike Huckabee. He issued a sourpuss statement dinging Huckabee for making jokes, calling him a “court jester.” (Something of which Thompson is far from innocent.) He slammed Huck for not knowing about the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. But Thompson’s fusillade hasn’t slowed the Arkansas governor’s ascent. If anything, Thompson has been a victim of the Huckabee surge. Fred has slipped to fourth place in national polls; in his best state, South Carolina, he's tied for second.
Meanwhile, his campaign schedule remains a few lunges short of a workout. (As his spokeswoman Karen Hanretty brilliantly put it last month, “Fred will never rush to war because Fred doesn’t rush to anything.”)
But the main problem seems to be that Thompson isn't a high-concept candidate. In other words, you can’t sum up in a few words what he represents. Or you can, but it’s not as catchy a sell as the other candidates. Just look:
Mitt Romney: Mormonism; morals; business acumen
Rudy Giuliani: Fixed New York; tough on terror
Mike Huckabee: Baptist minister; funny; social conservative
John McCain: Former POW; straight talk; Iraq war
Thompson, on the other hand, isn't so easily reduced. He doesn’t have a set of foundational characteristics to fall back on when he needs to remind the press he exists. It could have been his acting career, but he chooses not to emphasize that. He opposes abortion, but he doesn't support a "human life" amendment. He opposes gay marriage, but doesn't support a federal marriage amendment. He's a true fiscal conservative, but somehow the Club For Growth hasn't rocketed his candidacy to the front. The one descriptor that seems to stick—lazy—doesn't do him any favors. In this frenetic, sound-bite-friendly race, traditional conservatism isn’t enough. It's December already, and Fred Thompson still needs a hook.
With Chadwick Matlin. Photo illustration by Andy Bouve.
-
sponsorship
Last time we checked, Ron Paul was a Republican dark horse
who let his grassroots supporters run his campaign for him. But now Paul is
starting to act more and more like a traditional candidate. A timeline of the
past week:
- Tuesday, December 4 - Word gets
out that Ron Paul blitzed South
Carolina with a
direct mailing that doesn't mention his anti-Iraq stance.
- Wednesday, December 5 - Paul's
campaign sends a news release that says religion
shouldn't be an issue that dogs Mitt Romney's candidacy. "Gov. Romney should be judged
fairly, on his record and his character, not on the church he attends."
- Friday, December 7 - Another
release goes around, this time taking gentle aim at Hillary Clinton for
her stance at ending the foreclosure crisis. "Only Dr. Paul has the
expertise to explain why we must reject further political intervention
into the housing market, such as that advocated by Hillary Clinton."
What does next week hold in store? An attack ad on Mike
Huckabee? Pandering to the religious right?
Ah, who am I kidding? The existence of a Ron Paul blimp
totally disproves my thesis.
-
sponsorship
The one useful contribution Tom Tancredo has made to the
2008 presidential race was when he accused the other GOP candidates of “trying
to out-Tancredo Tancredo.” He was right. So far, his opponents have failed to
match the alarmist, borderline socially unacceptable anti-immigrant rhetoric
the Colorado
congressman has spouted. But they come close.
Mike Huckabee’s new immigration
plan, unveiled today, is a case in point. Titled the “Secure America Plan,”
its bullet points include “Build the fence,” “Increase border patrol,” and
“Prevent amnesty,” with this little sub-bullet:
“Propose to provide all illegal immigrants a 120-day window
to register with the Citizenship and Immigration Services and leave the
country. Those who register and return to their home country will face no
penalty if they later apply to immigrate or visit; those who do not return home
will be, when caught, barred from future reentry for a period of 10 years.”
What happened to the Huckabee-approved “pathway to
citizenship”? Here’s what he said in an inteview
last year: “To think that we're going to go lock up 12 million people or even
round them up and drive them to the border and let them go might make a great
political speech but it's not going to happen."
Why the switch from “pathway to citizenship” to
deport-and-blockade? Chalk it up to the tuition breaks flap. In the past few
weeks, Huckabee has defended an Arkansas
program that would have reduced tuition for the children of illegal immigrants.
He claims he doesn’t want to punish children for their parents’ crimes—or, as
he says, “sins.”
But his opponents, and Romney in particular, have no
trouble grilling his cakes over it.
So here comes Huckabee the hawk. Look forward to seeing a
little less compassion and a little more conservatism on this issue in the
coming weeks.
Still waiting for comment from Huck's campaign, will post an update when it
comes in.
-
sponsorship
Some of John Edwards’ best friends are black. Unfortunately, Oprah is not one of them.
The Edwards campaign held a conference call today with a group of African-American leaders from South Carolina, who praised the former senator’s commitment to issues that matter to black voters. Unlike his Democratic opponents, Edwards “has committed himself to infrastructure and rural communities, rather than having celebrities come in and sign autographs,” said South Carolina State Rep. Leon Howard.
Whatever could that mean? Could the call possibly be timed to coincide with Oprah’s tour on behalf of Barack Obama? “No, no,” said Howard. “We’re certainly not intimidated by Oprah being here.” “This is not a call about Oprah,” said South Carolina state director John Moylan. It’s about Edwards’ commitment to health care, education, and other issues that matter to African-American voters. In other words, yes, obviously.
Edwards faces an uphill battle in South Carolina, his home state. And this is not a gentle incline: He still polls around 10 percent statewide. His numbers among blacks are even worse: A Winthrop University poll of black voters this fall found that Obama drew 35 percent and Hillary drew 31 percent. Edwards came in around 3 percent.
But according to the leaders on the call, the polls are wrong. “I don’t think he’s trailing, he’s not behind,” said Spartanburg City Councilwoman Linda Dogan. “There’s no doubt in my mind that Sen. Edwards is leading,” said Tyrone Freeman of the Service Employees International Union. He added that he thinks the polls “reflect excitement” about the first viable black presidential candidate, but that “people will make decisions on the issues that affect their lives.” Dr. James Blassingame of the National Baptist Convention said he thinks Edwards’ understanding of these issues will “pull him through” in the final weeks.
The fact is, if Edwards ends up being competitive in South Carolina, it’s not going to be because locals decided to pore over his policy briefs the week before the election. It’s going to be because he performed well in Iowa. Yes, he won South Carolina in 2004. But John Kerry wasn't exactly a commanding presence among African-Americans, at least not on the scale of Clinton or Obama. And that’s just it: Edwards’ problem in winning over black voters isn’t Oprah. It’s his opponents.
-
sponsorship
Mike Huckabee's YouTube page lay fallow for most of his campaign, but in the past few weeks it's added some new offerings. First came brief clips of Huckabee and Chuck Norris talking policy. Then today Huckabee's camp unveiled a new Web-advertising campaign that aims to ensnare supporters of other candidates.
The "Switch to Huckabee" campaign has a bare-bones premise. A person stands in front of a beige screen, talks about why they like quirky Mike better than the other candidates, and suggests you might like Mike, too, if you just gave him a shot.
Sound familiar? Compare that with Apple's "switch" ads a few years back: A person stands in front of a white screen, talks about why they think Macs are better than PCs, and proudly declares that they've made "the switch." The two ad campaigns even have the same music.
It's a fun analogy, but it's also flawed. While the Apple ads were catchy, they weren't that successful. Macs still had a low market share because Apple hadn't had its "iPod moment" quite yet. Plus, Mac's operating system was still too weird-looking for Windows-trained office drones. Apple was asking people to make a switch to the Mac before there was any glowing media coverage to grease the wheels.
Huckabee, in contrast, has momentum on his side, and voters are already taking a second look. He has boosted his poll numbers (market share) on his own, thanks to a series of strong debate performances ("iPod moments") and positive media coverage
At this stage, it would make more sense for Huckabee to adapt a different Apple campaign: The popular "I'm a Mac" spots. He is¾for now¾still the quirky upstart. But he's also got the poll numbers to prove he's a major player. And his media glow hasn't yet worn off. All of that sounds similar to Mac's status these days.
Spoofing the ads would be easy. Just set Chuck Norris and a stuffy, well-coifed guy (Whom are Justin Long and John Hodgman supporting, anyway?) against a white backdrop. Norris would say, "I'm Mike Huckabee" as he give a menacing look to the other guy. The Romney stand-in would then respond, "And I'm Mitt Romney." Run through some policy points, make Romney sound like a flip-flopper who is trying to buy the nomination, and voila! You've got yourself a sales pitch; maybe even one that will be as popular as the other Mac ad spoof.
-
sponsorship
Barack Obama's new spot "Moment" looks more like a theatrical trailer than a political ad. The footage comes from Obama's widely praised speech at last month's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Des Moines, Iowa. As we hear him make promises about bridging the gap between red and blue, raves flash on screen, a little too dramatically:
“Scrupulous honesty.”
Joe Klein, Time Magazine, 11/12/07
“Vision” to lead the nation
Concord Monitor, 10/11/07
“Across the Divide.”
Newsweek, 7/16/07
That last one barely makes sense. Likewise, the words coming out of his mouth are pure boilerplate, riffing on "the same old Washington textbook campaigns" and "re-fighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s." It might be the sappiest Obama ad yet. But it works. The soaring orchestra fits the soaring rhetoric, the teary eyes are real, and anyone who has seen Obama speak will recognize the crowd's roar. I practically expected it to climax into a slow clap. I feel the same way I did after watching the trailer for I Am Legend: That was really cheesy and really manipulative, but nothing can stop me from seeing that movie. Two thumbs up.
-
sponsorship
The Huckabee backlash has begun, fueled in no small part by a recent report by Murray Waas on Huckabee’s role in releasing convicted murderer Wayne Dumond in 1999. Briefly: The article claims that Huckabee “aggressively pushed” to have Dumond paroled, even though victims had written to Huckabee arguing that Dumond would kill again. They turned out to be right—Dumond went on to rape and kill two more women before he was arrested in 2001. Huckabee says he played a minimal role in Dumond's release, and that the state’s seven-person parole board ultimately made the call. “All of us failed,” he says. He also accuses anyone who questions his behavior of “politicizing” the victims’ deaths.*
But right now, the question is: How much will this hurt Huckabee? If you take as precedent the Willie Horton scandal, which partly sank Michael Dukakis’ campaign in 1988, it could do a lot of damage. That said, the death penalty doesn't play as large a role in this election as it did in that one. Also, it gives his opponents an opportunity to turn a Huckabee asset—his image as benevolent minister—into a liability. “Critics, and some friends, too, have said Huckabee’s position was deeply influenced by his Christian faith,” writes Byron York in the National Review. With the right spin, what Huckabee might call "mercy" could start to look like weakness—or, if you prefer, “amnesty.”
But who is going to confront Huckabee with this? Mitt Romney isn’t likely to bring up the topic, given that he just survived his own Willie Horton moment. (Romney appointed a judge who released a convicted murderer who went on to kill again.) Rudy Giuliani could raise the issue, but right now Giuliani is counting on Huckabee to keep Romney’s Iowa numbers in check. The last thing he wants to do is derail Huck. I suppose he could save the attack for later, before the South Carolina primary. But by then Huckabee will already be either riding his ethanol-fueled momentum or be facedown in the dust.
If this issue is going to dog Huckabee, it’s going to be because the media pushes it. But it probably won’t be the only ugly story to come up. Chances are, we’ll learn a whole lot more over the coming weeks about why Huckabee isn’t all that beloved in Arkansas.
*(Other complicating factors:
--Dumond’s rehabilitation was considered a darling cause of Arkansas conservatives (including some of Huckabee’s close friends), since one of his victims, Ashley Stevens, was a distant relative of Bill Clinton.
--The first person to reduce Dumond’s sentence down to a total of 39.5 years was Democratic Acting Gov. Jim Guy Tucker.
--Dumond was castrated while awaiting his court date, which some say elicited sympathy from Huckabee.
--Four members of the state parole board said Huckabee secretly pressured them to release Dumond.)
-
sponsorship
Mitt Romney’s ANTICIPATED, MOMENTOUS, HISTORY-MAKING speech on faith seems to have gone over well. His main point: America should embrace religious diversity and let his religion’s quirks be treated as “not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance.” Nothing too controversial there—but unlikely to persuade people viscerally averse to Mormonism itself.
Anyway, a few lines are worth parsing:
- “I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it.” Yes, I’m going to use the word Mormon. But just once. See? I’m not embarrassed to say it. Once.
- “Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.” Irony alert! Hard to say why he included this line, given that in the case of abortion and gay rights, this is the exact crime of which he stands accused. (More on this here.)
- “When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God.” Hear that? The Bible, not the Book of Mormon.
- “No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith.” And yet: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths.” Step 1: Have cake. Step 2: Eat cake.
- "I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims." The implication: That's how new religions get founded. Not so threatening, right?
- "But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. … It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.” So there are religions he doesn’t respect!
- “I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.” African-Americans weren’t allowed to serve as Mormon Bishops until 1978. The issue hasn't really come up yet on the trail, but it might in the general election. Better to diffuse now.
- “I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired ... so grand ... so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer.” The sarcasm of the word enlightened didn’t quite come through in the speech, as if he were saying Europeans actually are enlightened. Next time, consider air quotes.
- “We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way.” Seamus would agree.
Good roundups of the Romney speech here and here. Audience reactions here. Read the full speech here.
-
sponsorship
In today's speech on faith in America, Mitt Romney delivered this remark: "Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."
He had us confused for a moment. Was Romney admitting he was unelectable? That the American people wouldn't accommodate his change of heart on abortion?
Nah. He was talking about religious beliefs, not social-policy stances. But, in many ways, that statement is the crux of Romney's Mormon dilemma. People don't question his belief in Mormonism; they're skittish about his Mormon beliefs.
Romney didn't calm anybody's nerves during his speech—he said the word Mormon only once. ("I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it.") He didn't want to make the address a comparative religion lecture, and for good reason. But hesitant members of the religious right heard that Romney was a religious man, not necessarily that he was a traditionally Christian man. It's unclear whether that will be enough.
Romney was wise to emphasize his unyielding belief in his religion, Jesus, and God.
His resolute Mormonism allows him to say he has drawn from the same moral reservoir throughout his life. During the speech, Romney said, "These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor." That's an important counterattack for when his opponents chide him for flip-flopping on morality-laced social issues.
The goal of Romney's campaign is to prove to voters that he has constants in his life—that he is not just a "believer of convenience." The speech's goal was to prove that he has never "jettisoned his beliefs," that his morals have always come from God. Now that the speech is over, the question becomes: Will Romney gain the presidency?
-
sponsorship
Our favorite part of this image has to be the "JosephLied.com" poster.
Of course, everyone knows most grunts in Ron Paul's army have nothing to do with the campaign—they're freelance crazies. In fact, Paul himself issued a statement early this morning supporting Romney: "The recent attacks and insinuations, both direct and subtle, that Gov. Romney may be less fit to serve as president of our United States because of his faith fly in the face of everything America stands for. Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his record and his character, not on the church he attends.”
Likewise, let Paul be judged for his policies, not the conduct of his fans.
UPDATE 2:00 p.m., Dec. 26: Photo by Christopher Beam.
-
sponsorship
Quick follow-up to our earlier item about Giuliani's new ad, in which he discusses the Iranian hostage crisis. He omits his usual line about the mullahs looking into Ronald Reagan's eyes in 1981 and releasing the American hostages they had held for 444 days. But he still implies that the Iranians released them out of fear or respect for Reagan.
Giuliani is right when he says that "[t]he one hour in which they released them was the one hour in which
Ronald Reagan was taking the Oath of Office as President of the United
States.” The events were happening simultaneously. But he has been wrong to suggest that this had anything to do with Reagan. If anything, the Iranians were just waiting for Carter to leave.
Politico's Jonathan Martin pointed this out earlier this year, quoting Mark Bowden's 2006 book "Guests of the Ayatollah": All of the hostage takers I
interviewed said that the decision to wait until Carter officially left
office was deliberate, a final insult to the man they had propped up as
the representative of the devil on earth.
The implication that the Gipper somehow struck fear into their hearts and thus provoked the hostages' release is borderline preposterous. Amazon.com yields another interesting tidbit from the same book: The Iranians guarding the hostages weren't scared of Reagan -- they wanted him to win: They were convinced that anyone other than Carter would understand their reasons for seizing the embassy and would admit the great wrongs America had committed in Iran. (p. 554)
Not to mention that hostage negotiations had begun under Carter, that Iraq's invasion of Iran forced their hand, and that Iran-affiliated Islamists continued to kidnap Americans left and right throughout the 1980s. Surely they had looked into Reagan's eyes too, right?
To his credit, Giuliani was careful to back up his facts this time around. In previous ads, such as this one about health care, he played more than a little fast and loose with statistics. Maybe he omitted the "eyes" line because he knew he would get this sort of response. But the causal implication is still there. He takes the fact of the simultaneous inauguration/hostage release and uses it to bolster a myth. Unfortunately, it's not one that any of his opponents are about to call him out on.
-
sponsorship
Slate editorial assistant Chris Wilson sends the latest on the mysterious Ron Paul spamming saga:
Ron Paul’s online fan club has made an art out of flooding sites with praise for the Texas libertarian, so much that they’ve been accused of spamming. So when e-mails with subject lines like “IRS Fears Ron Paul?” or “Ron Paul Wins GOP Debate!” started cropping up in inboxes in late October, some people wondered whether it was part of some vast libertarian conspiracy. Well, was it?
Probably not, says computer sleuth (and Ron Paul fan) Joe Stewart. Stewart tracked the messages back to one spammer named "nenastnyj," whom Stewart calls "Nina." In other words, this wasn't the work of tech-savvy Paul supporters coordinating a spamming campaign on behalf of their man. Instead, it appears to ratify the "lone spammer" theory that one individual paid Nina to send out millions of messages.
Stewart, a senior analyst at the Atlanta-based SecureWorks firm, discovered that, like most spam these days, the Ron Paul messages were coming from computers infected with a malicious program. He traced the infected machines back to a command-and-control server in the United States, where he got a copy of the program being used to send spam. Nina turned out just to be a middleman who ran spam projects through a much larger operation.
Whoever paid Nina to send out the e-mails probably knew him already, Stewart says. While it’s easy to hire a spammer on various hacker forums, Nina doesn’t advertise his services anywhere public and would be hard for a first-timer to locate. Is it possible Nina is just another Ron Paul fan? Unlikely, Joe says, given comments Nina has made on hacker forums.
Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton describes the findings as “vindicating” for anyone who suspected foul play from the campaign.
For more details, check out Stewart’s report here.
-
sponsorship
Mitt Romney's campaign sent out a batch of photos today showing Romney penning his HISTORIC, MONUMENTAL, NARRATIVE- CHANGING speech on Mormonism, which he delivers tomorrow morning. We thought this might just be a subtle way of leaking the speech itself, but Photoshop wasn't up to the task ...
Anyone have one of those nifty CSI-style photo enhancing machines?
See the rest of the collector's item photos here, here, here, and here.
-
sponsorship
Earlier this week, we examined signs that Hillary Clinton’s karmic tank appears to be running low. Now we know where all that good fortune went: right into Dennis Kucinich's life.
According to today’s marvelous Washington Post profile of Kucinich and his wife, Elizabeth, the couple's relationship has been blessed from the start. A few choice pieces of evidence:
- [A lovelorn Dennis Kucinich asks Indian guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar how to find love.] "And his response was, 'Stop looking and then she will appear,' " Dennis says. "And I said, OK, I'm going to stop looking.' I said that. And that afternoon—"
"I walked through the office door," Elizabeth finishes.
- "It was about 7:30 at night and I was just sending a message out to the universe saying, 'Where is this woman? If there's anything to be done here, I need a sign.' "
"And at that moment—"
"At that exact moment, I get an e-mail."
- Elizabeth looked down at her ring and realized that the silver design inscribed on her blue opal, which had previously looked like just an abstract pattern of triangles, was in fact—if one looked hard enough—two K's, back to back.
"Kucinich and Kucinich," she says. "I thought, 'OK! So I bought myself my own engagement ring!' "
- Their days are filled with these sorts of moments, as when they go out for Chinese food and the fortune in Dennis' cookie tells him he has "integrity and consistency." ("Isn't that amazing?" Elizabeth says.) And then they turn the fortune over, and Dennis' Chinese word is hat, and amazingly, Elizabeth just bought a hat before lunch.
It's like all the luck that could have gone into his presidential run has instead been transferred to his romantic life. The opposite of Rudy Giuliani!
-
sponsorship
Giuliani has a new ad running in New Hampshire in which he tells one of his favorite anecdotes. When Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president, Iranian mullahs had been holding American hostages for 444 days. “The one hour in which they released them was the one hour in which Ronald Reagan was taking the oath of office as president of the United States,” Giuliani says in the spot. The story makes regular appearances in Rudy’s stump speeches. But there’s one line that didn’t make it into the ad.
"They looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes and in two minutes they released the hostages," Rudy said at a GOP debate in May. "They obviously saw something different in the eyes of Ronald Reagan than in the eyes of Jimmy Carter," he told a New Hampshire audience in October.
It always struck me as one of Rudy’s cheesier lines, but it’s also a big part of his pitch: The difference between a leader and a slacker is ineffable. Either you are one or you aren’t. It wasn’t the death of the Shah in July 1980 that led to the hostages’ release. It wasn’t the invasion of Iran by Iraq that fall, which made the prospect of ticking off the United States less appealing. Nor was it the Algerian-brokered hostage negotiations, arranged before Reagan took office, that solved the crisis. It was the look in Reagan’s eyes.
Because it's not about diplomatic skills or military prowess. It's about who can beat Bin-Laden in a stare-down.
-
sponsorship
Mike Huckabee is in for an icy day in Iowa, but not because of the weather.
First comes word that Huckabee had no idea that the new National Intelligence Estimate was released on Monday. For Huckabee, this reaffirms one of his chief weaknesses: That he doesn't know what he's doing in foreign affairs. I've heard of the fog of the campaign trail, but did a staffer not think to give Huck a heads up? Because this fundamentally alters the way candidates approach their Iran policy, this is a more grievous gaffe than John Edwards not knowing about the "General Betray Us" ad.
Even worse for Huck, the Huffington Post fronts an exclusive report on his role in securing the release of a convicted rapist, Wayne Dumond, while governor of Arkansas. Huckabee has always claimed he had no reason to believe Dumond would rape again. But Huffington's report includes letters sent by Dumond's rape victims warning Huckabee that they thought Dumond would rape again. Once released, Dumond allegedly went on to rape and murder two more women. This has been a simmering issue on the campaign trail, and his opponents would be wise to lead any attacks with this news.
Let's not forget that these allegations swirl as Mitt Romney asks the Iowa attorney general to look into pro-Huckabee push polls in Iowa. This amounts to one hell of a buzzkill for Huckabee as his poll numbers continue to take off. Look for the media, who may have become self-conscious for falling in love with Huckabee, to turn on him as quickly as they propped him up.
Mike, that guy who sings "Bad Day" is standing by. Let us know if you need him to fly to Iowa.
-
sponsorship
After listening to a two-hour Democratic debate on NPR, I'm left wondering why they all can't be this good. You probably won't hear much news come out of this debate—there were few accusations, no gotcha questions, and hardly any petty attacks. But that doesn't mean the debate wasn't worthwhile. It was probably the most insightful one yet.
The debate felt like a flashback to more innocent times—an age free of counterattack Websites, split-screen Web videos, and kindergarten essays. That's because NPR decided to talk about three nuanced issues rather than a broad hodgepodge: Iran, China, and immigration. I had nearly forgotten, but the Democrats actually have similar positions on these and most other issues. The candidates' cooperative tone was in stark contrast with the accusations that have dominated the campaign trail in the last few weeks.
NPR's debate was structured to delve deeper into the issues than any other debate. The three moderators—Robert Siegel, Michele Norris, and Steve Inskeep—pressured the Democrats to reveal the nuances of their philosophy on the three issues. There were no lightning rounds, no grandiose introductions, and no questionable questioners. Instead, the candidates sounded like politicians who were truly grappling with the issues at hand. Would they extend a diplomatic hand to Iran at the risk of being used for propaganda? Limit trade with China even if it meant higher prices? Should the average citizen report illegal-immigrant neighbors to authorities, or is that the role of the immigrants' employers?
This three-issue approach can be applied to the other debates, seeing as there are so many of them. The Democrats have already staged five televised debates, all of which were partly organized by the DNC. So, why doesn't the DNC (and the RNC across the aisle) help organize the debates to emphasize policy discussions rather than snipe fests? The general election debates already work this way: Each debate covers a broad topic (e.g., foreign policy and domestic policy) assigned by a bipartisan commission. It seems this would help voters better understand who to vote for and help the candidates better understand their opponents' messages.
I could tell you who I thought performed best out of the seven candidates at the NPR debate, but it just doesn't seem appropriate. This was about the issues, not about who made the strongest sound bites. Don't worry, though, there are more debates to come. Let's talk about theatrics then.
-
sponsorship
As the candidates were talking about China's stranglehold on trade, the conversation eventually landed in Mike Gravel's lap. Directing his comments at moderator Michele Norris, Gravel said, "I want to take you to task for your first rhetoric."
Norris snapped back, "I believe it was a question."
Good to have you back at the debates, Mike.
-
sponsorship
NPR, following CNN and YouTube's lead, is posing listener questions to the candidates during today's debate. But they've also learned from CNN's mistakes. They just asked a listener's question, but not before also clarifying that he had given money to John Edwards' and Joe Biden's campaigns.
-
sponsorship
Another Democratic debate is taking place in Iowa right now, but this one is camera-free. National Public Radio is broadcasting the debate, moderated by Michele Norris, Steve Inskeep, and Robert Siegel.
Politicos expected the debate to be relatively low-key, thanks to the predominantly liberal NPR audience, but the candidates are already making distinctions. NPR was wise to make Iran one of the three debate topics, given yesterday's release of the National Intelligence Estimate.
Clinton's Revolutionary Guard vote sank into the background after the media got caught up with horse-race politics, but the NIE has pushed it into the spotlight once again. As Clinton notes, the vote wasn't about what Iran was doing inside its own borders, but rather how it helped Hamas, Hezbollah, and terrorist forces in Iraq. But no matter how much justification she gives, the candidates can always use a variation of John Edwards' counter: "Among the Democratic candidates there's only one who voted for the resolution; and that's exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted."
Earlier, Clinton said critique of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment has gone "too far."
Listen to the debate here.
-
sponsorship
If you want to know all the details of John McCain’s clash-of-generations MTV/MySpace appearance yesterday, both Salon and National Review have good write-ups. But a few key moments slipped through the cracks:
- McCain compares the war in Iraq to the Korean War. “We didn’t win,” he says, “but we did succeed.” It’s a fascinating twist on the more facile comparisons you hear to World War II and Saddam to Hitler. McCain ratchets the goals back a notch—the war isn’t likely to end in a satisfying “victory,” but there’s still a lot of progress to be made.
- McCain says he would have done a better job with Darfur than Bush did. “I would shame the Chinese for their failure to help us,” he said. “I would shame some of these other countries” as well. The implication is that McCain would have the will and the moral authority to do so, both of which Bush lack.
- McCain says global warming is real and that “we need to have a plan for cap and trade.” It’s a more progressive plan than his GOP rivals’—most of them support energy independence but not extra regulation—and it stops short of a carbon tax. And he's not just telling it to the MTV crowd.
- McCain quips that one job of the vice president is to "inquire daily as to the health of the president." Is that a joke? Maybe he's just trying to preempt questions about dying in office.
- McCain continues his proud tradition of messing with interviewers. “I want to compliment you on your questions,” he tells the audience. “Except from you,” he says, eyeing moderator (and Post blogger) Chris Cillizza. (He laid a similar dis on MTV's Sway Calloway yesterday.)
So far, Sen. McCain is the only Republican to accept MTV’s invitation. Judging from his performance—and the audience’s surprisingly positive insta-response—he might not be the last.
-
sponsorship
The National Intelligence Estimate reported yesterday that Iran isn't pursuing the nukes the Bush administration once thought they were. Predictably, the candidates quickly blasted out statements celebrating the news. But politically, not all of the candidates should be ecstatic.
LOSERS
Rudy Giuliani: Rudy's foreign-policy platform is based on "staying on offense" against terrorists, a category into which he often lumps Iran's government and military. Giuliani has a stable of neocon foreign-policy advisers, including Norman Podhoretz, who tried to convince President Bush to bomb Iran. As Fred Kaplan noted yesterday, staying on offense against Iran might not be such a great idea if they don't have any bombs.
John McCain: "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" isn't going to shoot up the Billboard charts anytime soon.
Hillary Clinton: That vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group isn't looking too good anymore. Having a nuclear bomb has little to do with whether they're terrorists (Iran's assistance to anti-American forces in Iraq is the United States' main grievance), but now Clinton's opponents can say that she was being overly hawkish on Iran despite a lack of evidence. (Cough—Iraq authorization vote—cough.)
Doomsday paranoiacs: Are we still on the precipice of World War III? Not so much.
WINNERS
CNN: Suddenly, the network doesn't look so bad for not taking a single question on Iran in the CNN/YouTube debate last week. Oh, right, they didn't take any questions on global warming, health care, or Iraq, either.
Joe Biden: Before the NIE came out, he had been calling for Bush's impeachment if America bombed Iran. Now that stance seems even sounder.
All of us: Let's take a moment to realize that Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons. This means we can all sleep a little easier at night, breathe a little more freely during the day, and only freak out about the half-dozen other states that have a nuclear bomb.
-
sponsorship
Introducing "Karma Watch," an occasional series examining the karmic ups and downs of the presidential candidates. Journalists aren't in the business of reading tea leaves, but sometimes it's hard not to notice patterns ...
On Friday, a man claiming to have a bomb strapped to his chest took several Clinton campaign workers hostage in Rochester, N.H.
On Saturday, ice storms ripped through the Northern U.S., forcing Hillary to phone in to an event in Iowa where she was supposed to appear.
On Sunday, a Des Moines Register poll showed Clinton trailing Obama in Iowa by three points--the first time Obama has taken the lead there. The senator from New York has since stepped up her attacks on the newly strengthened challenger.
On Monday, the Clinton campaign's press charter plane filled with smoke on the tarmac in Mason City, Iowa. Clinton was on her way to an event at Buddy Holly Place, where the musician last played before his fatal plane crash.
-
sponsorship
“Fluid” seems to be everyone’s favorite word to describe the Republican race. Maybe that’s why, looking at John McCain, I can't help but think of embalming fluid.
But somehow, McCain isn’t dead yet. After delivering a solid debate performance last week and snagging the Manchester Union Leader’s endorsement yesterday, McCain must be feeling young again. He signed up for not one but two big media appearances today, first this morning with pal Don Imus and then this evening for an MTV/MySpace forum (7 p.m., MTV). He even secured the coveted endorsement of Curt Schilling. To Imus, McCain insists that "we're coming on very well." (Listen here.)
The problem is, the polls don’t reflect these small victories, at least not yet: McCain still trails a distant third in New Hampshire, and he’s invisible in Iowa or South Carolina. But he’s still fun to watch. For example, peep this magical interview between McCain and MTV veejay Sway Calloway. The money quote: “I intend to work hard for the youth vote of America. That's why I go on 'Jon Stewart.' That's why I go on 'Letterman.' That's why I go on 'Leno.' That's why I'm here with the worst interviewer I've ever had.” Sway rolls with it: “That’s an honor coming from you, because bad means good, right?” McCain goes, “Bad, bad, bad, bad,” and sounds like he’s about 80 percent joking. (A tone he's pretty much mastered.)
Some have theorized that should Huckabee take Iowa—a less outlandish scenario now than it was just two weeks ago—neither Romney nor Giuliani will have enough momentum to win New Hampshire, so McCain will take the Granite State. I don’t buy it. He’s got his New Hampshire diehards, but why would Giuliani and Romney supporters swing over to has-been McCain instead of rising-star Huckabee, assuming they swing at all?
Either way, it’s impressive that McCain is still kicking. He keeps a schedule that would ruin someone a third his age. Whether appearing before a college-age crowd tonight makes him look alive or out of touch, he’d be wise to take his daughter Meghan's advice: “Keep it real.” Because, as she says, “you can smell when someone’s being disingenuine.”
Listen to the Imus interview. Watch the MTV interview.
-
sponsorship
Mike Huckabee returns to Iowa for the first time in 24 days today, and the time away seemed to do him some good. When news first broke that Huckabee was going to campaign outside of Iowa during the majority of November, a senior Romney aide showed me the headline with a pleased smile and a glimmer in his eye. Pundits cautioned that Huckabee was ruining his momentum in the Hawkeye State. But they were wrong: Huckabee's charm lingered.
So today he arrives in Des Moines to glowing headlines of his continued surge in the state. A glimpse back at the main themes of Huckabee's three Iowa-free weeks:
- Bump in the polls: When Huckabee left, Iowa polls had him trailing Romney by double digits. Now he holds a margin-of-error-proof lead over Romney. Romney, feeling vulnerable, has decided to hold The Mormon Speech in response.
- Aggressive endorsements: Huckabee picked up support from both Chuck Norris and Ric Flair over the past few weeks. College Republicans nationwide made pained puns about "hearting Huckabee."
- Advertisements: Huckabee compensated for his lack of face-to-face visits with two new ads, one touting his conservative and Christian credentials and one touting Chuck Norris' fist.
This isn't to say Huckabee had a stress-free vacation. His opponents have begun to attack his pro-immigration record. Ethical questions from his time as Arkansas governor have also begun to dog his campaign. But the attacks seem to have added fuel to Huckabee's rise.
Huckabee's success creates a dilemma. Does he spend the rest of December in Iowa, trying to make sure that Romney doesn't sneak back into first on caucus night? Or does he look past the state--at the risk of alienating caucus-goers--and try to make his candidacy viable in other early primaries? It's unlikely New Hampshire Republicans will flock to the polls to support a Southern Baptist, so Huckabee really needs to make a choice between Iowa and South Carolina. Given that he was still a dark horse just weeks ago, it's what you might call a high-end problem.
-
sponsorship
Presidential candidates have accused each other of being childish before, but never quite like this. Hillary Clinton sent out a weekend e-mail blast announcing, "SEN. OBAMA REWRITES HISTORY, CLAIMS HE HASN'T BEEN PLANNING WHITE HOUSE RUN." The statement takes issue with Obama's claim that "I have not been planning to run for President for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for.” In fact, the release says, Obama has been planning on becoming president since kindergarten, when he wrote an essay called “I Want To Become President.”
The statement works on two levels: Big picture, it’s part of a larger attack on Obama’s honesty. If we can’t trust him to be straightforward about his ambitions, how can we trust him at all? But the statement also repeats a strategy previously noted in this space: portraying Obama as a child. Last month, Hillary argued that just because Obama lived abroad as a 10-year-old doesn’t mean he knows foreign policy. In some ways, her words suggested, he’s still that 10-year-old. Now she paints Obama as a conniving, opportunistic, careerist kindergartener.
She has a point about Obama downplaying his own ambitions. It's not like he woke up one day in January and decided to run. And to be fair, Obama has gone after Hillary on this point as well, echoing a suggestion published in the book Her Way (and since denied) that Hillary and Bill had a “20-year plan” to attain the presidency. But that doesn’t change the inherent silliness of marshaling Obama’s kindergarten essay as evidence of dishonesty.
More importantly, though, how does it benefit a candidate to paint his or her opponent as wanting the job more badly? Obama has spent many months pillorying Hillary for her lack of foresight on the Iraq war. Why is foresight about one's own career suddenly a liability? Sure, Obama might want to perpetuate the image of Hillary as calculating and opportunistic. But to try and out-casual your opponent—to pretend that you can wake up one day and fall into the Oval Office—is just, well, childish.