-
sponsorship
Chris Matthews must dread Wednesday mornings. The always amusing, rarely restrained Matthews is reinvigorating his career this election season by creating YouTube moments nearly every election night. His comments are so far-fetched and hyperbolic that they’re tailor-made for a morning-after viral video binge. Last night, he may have turned in his greatest performance yet. During MSNBC’s election night coverage, Matthews asked pro-Obama state Sen. Kirk Watson to name Obama’s legislative accomplishments, which made Watson stammer like a doofus.
This was a seminal moment in the campaign for Matthews. Finally, here was proof that he wasn’t a total softie when it came to Obama. He’s been derided over and over again for his pro-Obama—and therefore anti-Clinton—bias. Matthews, the former Jimmy Carter speechwriter, has said Obama’s speeches both make him cry and send a thrill up his leg. And don’t forget when he said Hillary owed her political career to Bill’s blue-dress indiscretions in the White House (which he later apologized for).
Surely, a journalist as connected and high-profile as Matthews has heard Clinton aides whispering in his ear to stop with the Obama-is-our-savior shtick. So when Matthews saw he had a frozen Watson in his sights, he realized it was his golden chance to look tough on Obama. Surprisingly, Matthews turned it into a moment of true journalism.
“No, no, what has he accomplished, sir?” Matthews said to Watson. “You have to give me his accomplishments. You’ve supported him for president. You’re on national television: name his legislative accomplishments. Barack Obama. Sir.” Matthews’ line of questioning is fair, and his repeated insistence that Watson not wriggle his way out of answering the question is admirable. This was cable news as it’s supposed to be—riveting watchdog rather than mind-numbing lapdog.
Matthews shed light on one of Obama’s key weaknesses—that his supporters don’t actually know what he cares about. (Which we’ve already discussed.) Clinton has already latched on to the line of attack, and John McCain is sure to follow, if needed. But if the Obama campaign uses this as inspiration to broadcast his policy positions more widely, then Obama could come out stronger in the end. If that happens, then Matthews may have ended up showing his pro-Obama bias, after all.
-
sponsorship
Obamaccomplishment n., something Barack Obama has done, most likely unmemorable.—Encyclopedia Baracktannica
Texas State Sen. Kirk Watson’s spectacular flub on Hardball last night has already handed Hillary Clinton her first post-Wisconsin attack angle: Obama’s supporters can’t name a single accomplishment of his.
It might be the single worst thing that could happen to a surrogate, especially when the top charge against Obama is his inexperience. (To his credit, Watson’s apology is pitch-perfect.) Obama’s just lucky it was Watson and not a more prominent endorser like Caroline Kennedy or a Senate colleague.
But Watson’s amnesia says more about Obama’s supporters than it says about the candidate. As this post points out, Obama has accomplished quite a bit for a first-term Democratic senator working under a Republican administration. (Of course, that’s not a very good excuse if the charge is inexperience.) What’s true, however, is that most Obama fans tend to be unversed in his background beyond his biography.
Some of this can be blamed on the campaign. Obama spends an inordinate amount of oxygen on lofty generalizations—perhaps no more than his colleagues do, but certainly more effectively. And when he does talk policy, it’s not about what he’s done, but programs he would like to see. Hard-core Obama fans could rattle off details of his health-care plan and economic stimulus package, since he repeats them in ads and on the stump. But ask them about the minutiae of his Senate ethics reform package and their eyes begin to dart.
Supporters themselves deserve flak, too. A similar moment occurred on Hannity & Colmes a few weeks ago, when a roomful of Democrats couldn’t name an Obamaccomplishment beyond “ethics reform” and “community organizing.” When the camera panned to him, one guy proudly declared, “Inspiration.” That is just sad. I’ve heard the question asked at parties, with similar responses.
Perhaps this is a wake-up call for Obama. He spends so much time discussing the future, he might consider reminding people of what he has done in the past. For an opponent like John McCain, whose legislative record could encircle the planet, Obama’s relatively tame list of achievements is catnip. Obama’s campaign better start reminding people what the young candidate has done in the Senate, lest he have to do more of it in 2009.
-
sponsorship
Slate intern and unabashed Hillary supporter Alex Joseph just passed along this e-mail from the campaign:
From: Hillary Clinton
Date: Feb 20, 2008 12:19 PM
Subject: What it takes to win in Texas and Ohio
Dear Alex,
Here's what you need to know this morning. We were outspent in Wisconsin by a 4 to 1 margin on ads -- and we can't let that happen on March 4.
If we want to win in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont, we've got to even the odds. We can't let the Obama campaign overwhelm us financially. Today, I am calling on you and other online supporters to act together, making sure we have the resources to create a fair, level playing field on March 4.
In the last few weeks, thousands upon thousands of people have contributed to my campaign. With so many people acting together, any donation you make today -- even as little as $5 -- makes a difference. …
I have total confidence that, as long as we have the resources to compete, March 4 will be a day of dramatic victories for our campaign. Let's make it happen.
Thanks,
Hillary Clinton [emphasis added]
Meanwhile, Slate has also obtained another e-mail, scheduled for release on March 5.
From: Hillary Clinton
Date: March 5, 2008 4:08 AM
Subject: What it takes to win in Wyoming and Puerto Rico
Dear Alex,
I know you're probably really busy right now, but we're being massively outspent, 28 to 1. If you could spare a quarter, a dime, a nickel, anything you may have, we would really, really appreciate it. If not, perhaps that sandwich? Our fundraising director has not eaten in days, and he is starting to close his eyes for long periods of time. Ever since Mark and Howard joined the Obama campaign, things have been difficult. I just sent Maggie Williams, our campaign manager, down the street to root around for discarded bottles. Also, they turned off the heat here at Hillary HQ. Our supporter list charts tell me you live nearby. Could you possibly bring a blanket over? Lastly, I don’t know what kind of laptop you have, but my battery is almost dead, and I left the charger in Dayton. Please, Alex, help us make a difference. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate ready to lead on Day One, once she returns that money she lost in poker last week.
We can do this. Please.
Hillary Clinton
-
sponsorship
Remember how everyone had to peel their jaws off the floor when Obama’s campaign announced it had raised $32 million in January alone? Guess what? They were wrong. It was $36 million.
In any other campaign, an additional $4 million for that month would be a major increase. Forty percent in McCain’s case, 30 percent in Hillary's. But for Obama, it’s an afterthought. How's that for a little morning-after insult to injury?
-
sponsorship
Last week we argued that Obama would be unwise to refuse to take public funds in the general election, seeing as he pretty much agreed to do so if McCain did. Sure, Obama stands to lose an impressive and expanding donor pool, the vast majority of which have contributed small amounts. But chucking his image as a reformer out the window would be more politically perilous.
Now it looks as if Obama is trying to wriggle out of his near-promise by turning the tables on McCain. Press secretary Bill Burton sent out a statement saying that McCain “abandoned the latest campaign finance reform efforts in order to run for the Republican nomination and went back on his commitment to take public financing for the primary election this year.”
As proof, Burton offers up McCain’s conspicuous absence from a campaign-finance reform bill introduced in 2006. As for the senator’s alleged “commitment” to taking public financing, Burton cites a recent Washington Post piece detailing how McCain secured a $1 million bank loan by promising to take federal matching funds if his campaign began to falter. There’s some debate over whether, by using a promise of federal funds as collateral for a loan, McCain obliged himself to enter the public financing system. But that is far from settled.
Still, it looks as if Obama’s campaign is developing an excuse to decline federal funds in the general. Even if Obama kinda-sorta promised that he would take them, he will now argue that McCain has disqualified himself from the agreement. Never mind that McCain is essentially responsible for the current campaign finance reform system. The Arizona senator wants to keep his financing options open—something Obama also wants to do—and that is suddenly cause for contempt.
The face-off over public funds involves some game theory. If Obama and McCain both take federal funds, they both look good, but McCain gets Obama to forego his treasure-trove. If Obama refuses funds and McCain accepts, Obama looks bad but has a huge financial advantage. If Obama and McCain both refuse, it’s a wash PR-wise, but Obama maintains a huge financial advantage. (The fourth scenario, in which Obama accepts and McCain rejects, is pretty much impossible.)
For Obama, this last scenario (in which both refuse) is clearly the most desirable. But for that to happen, he needs to convince McCain that he won’t take federal funds under any circumstances. And for that to happen, he needs a plausible moral rationale. The McCain-is-a-hypocrite tack appears to be the strategy of choice.
Needless to say, it’s risky. There are a few areas where Obama has a strong, high-contrast case against McCain—Iraq, health care, jobs, and the economy, among others. Campaign finance is not one of them. If Obama wants to make it one of his first battlegrounds, good luck with that.
Update 4:09 p.m.: As a reader points out, Obama weighed in on the subject in a USA Today column on Wednesday, reiterating his commitment to a "meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits."