Election 2008

Yesterday’s election results were another lesson in how hard it is to predict outcomes in this year’s campaign. America is sharply divided, but where the dividing lines are varies from state to state and from day to day. The opinion polls in Texas and Ohio misjudged Hillary’s strength, just as they did in New Hampshire in January, forcing us to conclude that either the pollsters are incompetent or the (Democratic) electorate is impressionable and subject to last-minute mood swings.

I think it is more the latter. If you look at the last 72 hours before the New Hampshire contest, and the several days leading up yesterday’s vote, media coverage highly favored Hillary Clinton. Right before the New Hampshire vote the “news” was her emotional answer to a citizen asking her at a Town Hall meeting “How do you do it? How do you keep up?” Her response was good television, a news clip that was incessantly repeated in the last day or two before the New Hampshire vote. The media concluded that Clinton had “found her voice,” although her stump speech remained the same. After Hillary pocketed a victory, the pollsters, in league with the media, concluded that they needed to do more polling close to the election in order to capture the impact of such last-minute dynamics.

Now Clinton has found her voice again. CNN reported last night from Texas that about two-thirds of last-minute deciders voted for Hillary. What influenced their vote? Was it her TV commercial or the incessant media coverage of the commercial? Was it the dubious report of an Obama aide’s discussion of NAFTA with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, or the way Clinton succeeded in browbeating the media into covering it? (”I would ask you to look at this story, substitute my name for Sen. Obama’s name and see what you would do with this story. That’s what I would ask you to do.”)

The media have become the “back story,” to use their phrase. If it can be shown that in a close race it’s the media coverage above all that influences voters, then the campaigns will fight over every bit of “breaking news.” By playing media victim in the run-up to yesterday’s vote, starting with her rehearsed quip in last week’s TV debate (“If anybody saw ‘Saturday Night Live,’ maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow”), Hillary showed she understood better than Obama the media’s hunger for news and respect. Many broadcasters and journalists weren’t sure whether they had (perhaps unconsciously) favored Obama, but they couldn’t afford to ignore the allegation. After all, if Saturday Night Live “reported” it, and Hillary repeated it, it was “news!”

More than campaign commercials and pamphlets, it’s the news media’s coverage of them that has become the line of scrimmage in the Democratic campaign. Barack Obama may not like this kind of game, but he can’t change the playing field or the spectators. All he can try to do is to influence the way it’s covered.

Twenty-five delegates are not all that the state of South Carolina has granted Barack Obama this weekend.

The Saturday primary was exactly for what the Obama campaign could have hoped. It was a win for Obama of greater proportions than yet seen in the primary race—margins of thirty-percent in favor of him over Clinton and Edwards.

The exit polls tell the story of a victory among young voters, females, and African-American voters, a compelling story for the Sunday papers, talk shows, and brunch banter.

In New Hampshire Hillary Clinton’s victory was a result of her, well, Clintonian door-to-door/ town-hall style of campaigning around the state (and yes, the “tears” could have helped). But now, less than ten days away from Super, or Tsunami Tuesday on February 5, the meet-and-greet approach is impractical and impossible. At this stage, free media is gold.

Endorsements are central to playing the media game, and few are more coveted within the Democratic party than support from the Kennedy family. Today Caroline Kennedy wrote in the New York Times of her belief that Obama can be a “President Like My Father.” Senator Ted Kennedy is in agreement.

As Democrats are not campaigning in Florida prior to Tuesday’s primary, the candidates’ attention and paid media cash is scattered across the country, from California to Georgia. Any little bit of help from the commentariat can only help.

This weekend Barack Obama took center stage and was able to portray himself as the candidate to beat. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards must reclaim the front page if they are to curtail Obama’s momentum before next Tuesday.

We’re back on-line (after some server trouble) at just the point when the candidates have to pause briefly to allow the voting public a chance to celebrate Thanksgiving. The candidates may not be thankful, but the public surely is. For a day we will be without new polls, candidate debates or spin. It’s a good time for taking stock, which is, after all, a big part of Thanksgiving.

We’re in a strange place right now in terms of the campaign and foreign affairs. None of the candidates – in either party – thinks the Iraq war has been conducted well, none thinks that the decision to go to war (based on what we now know) was wise. But no one (except Joe Biden) has articulated a strategy for what should happen in this critical country after American troops begin leaving, probably sometime before next November. The military “surge” seems to be working, for which we should all be thankful, but where is the political “surge?” The only public action in Washington last week on Iraq was inaction, as both the Senate and House left town without passing funding for the troop deployment.

In a post after last week’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas, I compared it to professional wrestling – a kind of political “smackdown.” For a couple of news cycles afterward, the talk was about Hillary having picked herself up, then came polls that showed Obama for the first time with a five point lead in Iowa and closing the gap in New Hampshire. The tighter the race gets, the less it will be about issues and the more it will be about perception. This is the province of the campaign ad, and a slew of them have just been introduced into the airwaves of Iowa and the early primary states. I recommend you watch Giuliani’s muscular pitch or Hillary’s tough talk on energy. But resurgent Mike Huckabee’s hard-hitting promo takes this all to its logical (ridiculous) conclusion. Watch it before sitting down to your turkey dinner, but after you’ve had a drink.

After dinner, you might listen to a discussion by two prominent pundits, Mark Halperin (ABC) and John Harris (Politico), who spoke last week before the San Francisco World Affairs Council. You can listen to it here. To whet your appetite, I will list their shorthand descriptions of the three top Democratic candidates, as they viewed by the “filter” – political professionals and media pundits: Clinton – “warrior”; Obama – “interesting, frivolous”; Edwards – “phoney.”

Enjoy your turkey!

Our political contests borrow heavily from military vocabulary: “campaigns” are waged in “battleground” states, “attack” ads “target” key opponents, and so on. Since 2004, we even have an opprobrious tactic — “swiftboating” — drawn from a synonymous naval vessel.

But on this Veterans’ Day, we are reminded that there is very little military experience — except for John McCain’s — among the current Presidential candidates and their lieutenants. Our most notable military hero in public life, McCain is the only candidate who can speak of deploying American forces with a credibility borne of his own personal experience. However, due to the unpopularity of the Iraq War and his strong support of it, this turns out not to be much of an asset. Without a very strong showing in New Hampshire and South Carolina, this survivor of the Hanoi Hilton will be an early primary casualty.

On Veterans’ Day, the candidates automatically focus on helping veterans. Hillary has a campaign video featuring endorsements from veterans, Romney a campaign speech pledging benefits for vets, and Edwards a talk promising new support for treating Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Obama has a pro-vets activity scheduled as well.  But don’t look for this focus to last beyond today’s news cycle.

Hillary’s approach to foreign affairs and security as campaign themes seeks to position her between — as she would have it — Bush’s rush to use military force and Obama’s rush to talk to dictators. She will continue repeating, as she puts it in her Foreign Affairs piece, that the military is “but one element in a comprehensive strategy.”

Meanwhile, the Democrats’ skirmish at last weekend’s big Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines showed that the five speakers (Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Dodd) are sharpening their rhetoric on other topics in preparation for the next campaign battle — the debate on Thursday in Los Vegas. The long, positive, cover stories on Obama that have appeared in the last week (NYT Magazine, The Atlantic) are another indicator that Obama’s forces are winning over the media — at least for now.

There are a number of wounded candidates on the presidential battlefield: Giuliani from the Bernie Kerik indictment, Thompson from lackluster campaigning. On the Democratic side, Richardson’s emphasis on his years of experience in elected and high-level positions has not gained him any points in the polls. In both parties, it is the real survivors, the candidates with the most years of experience — McCain, Biden, Dodd and Richardson — whose future now seems most in doubt.

• Rudy Giuliani received an unexpected endorsement on Wednesday from Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson. It shocked many watchers of the Republican campaigns, but Hugh Hewitt at Townhall isn’t convinced that it matters. Many of the leading Christian conservatives have elected to support different candidates in the party, signaling a general discontent among the Republican base.
• Giuliani and McCain have been sparring over the issues of torture and immigration (via Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report and others).
• Ron Paul was able to raise over 4 million dollars in one day through an online ad campaign referencing Guy Fawkes day.
• HRC has had a week of bad press (Hotline, subscriber-only). Rs ask: is this the beginning of her downfall?

• Who would’ve thought The Clinton campaign fought back today with an ad on social security, directly challenging the Obama camp.  Watch for the careful mention of “other candidates” towards the end.
• Process over policy Based upon a new study by the Center for Excellence in Journalism, most of the coverage of the campaign thus far has been of just five candidates; nearly two-thirds of the articles published were “process” stories, covering the campaigns.  E&P has the analysis here.
  • Sidebar: There’s an interesting fact in here about Democrats receiving more negative coverage on talk radio (where conservative pundits dominate).  Note the new radio ad Giuliani released in New Hampshire today.
• Grasping at straws  John Edwards is looking for whatever wedge issue he can find to run away from the pack of second-tier candidates.  An Edwards candidacy could be all-but over if Iowa and South Carolina do not go well for him.  What issue plays particularly well in midwestern and southern caucuses these days: trade.  FP outlines the issue.

• Barack Obama has come out strong, announcing that he believes Senator Clinton has been dishonest with Democratic voters on many positions, namely her stances on social security and Iran.  The offensive marks Obama’s first major foray into attacking Clinton, answering calls of many of his supporters to engage with her.  Obama remains points behind Clinton in national and New Hampshire polls, though he is competitive in Iowa.  His campaign is trying to balance his message of “a politics of hope” with the requisite debate with his clear competitor.  Democrats may not be thrilled that he has raised the social security issue, but his supporters, financial supporters in particular, will view this new approach as long overdue.
• Meanwhile, Clinton has announced she will be hiring upwards of one hundred paid staff in Iowa.
• Candidates from right to left are stating their policies on Iran.  The NYTimes.com today has a bit of context.
• In case you missed it, Giuliani is a Sox fan.  Coincidence that most of New Hampshire is too?

• Ds The latest rendition of what TPM calls the “dueling memos” phenomenon between the Obama and Clinton camps has to do with the newsy case of Iran, upon which the Bush Administration designated serious sanctions today. They are some of the harshest imposed on the country since 1979. If the Administration continues to move in this direction, not only will there be a 2003 Iraq-like discussion in the international community, but the campaign front-runners will be forced to take stances they may not be prepared to take.
• Rs The New York Times, Alex Massie and The New Republic call out Rudy Giuliani’s response to a question raised at a town hall meeting in Iowa regarding torture. Christopher Orr calls it “what may be the mot honest defense of torture I’ve seen from an American politician.”
• Rs Iowa papers are abuzz with John McCain’s statements on the Middle East, which include hints at long-term American involvement in Iraq and the construction of military “lily pads” in the region, similar to those currently in Eastern Europe, in case of “crisis.”

• Immigration It’s likely that the Senate won’t be passing any immigration legislation after this move today before the ‘08 election.  This leaves the wedge issue out for discussion among the candidates, some of whom (most recently Fred Thompson), already have come out with statements.
• Rs John McCain’s campaign released this ad, highlighting his remark at the Fox News debate this weekend about Clinton’s former support for the Woodstock museum in up-state New York.  His “I was tied up at the time” comment serves multiple purposes: not only does it allow his team to use colorful tied-eyed backgrounds in the ad, but it also highlights, yet again, his service and capture during Vietnam.
• Rs Mitt Romney released a new ad today, featuring his plans to bring change and spending accountability to Washington.  Per The Caucus, the campaign says it will air in South Carolina.
• Ds The folks at DailyKos are pushing for a stronger response from the Clinton campaign and Senate office re her stance on the FISA legislation.  This as Politico’s Ben Smith reports on possible threats to Clinton’s campaign from the left.

• Rs and Trade Romney proposes opening markets in his “Reagan Zone of Economic Freedom” plan. He suggests opening markets and helping American workers “succeed,” claiming it would be the largest free trade zone “ever.” By raising the trade issue, not only does Romney get policy points (which he may be in even more need of after this rough morning), but he would renew a dialogue about the issue in Republican circles. Democratic candidates have taken stances on NAFTA and Doha before, but broadened debate could propel this issue to the fore.
• Ds and FISA Obama and Clinton offered “conditional support” for filibustering the FISA bill, which has yet to make it through Committee. They join Dodd and Biden in their distaste for the measure, which liberal bloggers are touting as “defending the Constitution against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.”
• Rs and Immigration Mark Krikorian over at The Corner is a fan of Fred Thompson’s recently announced platform on immigration.
• Endorsing Rs Mitt Romney lost an endorsement today from Pastor Don Wilton of South Carolina today, the pretty heavy-handed state Baptist Convention President. If nothing else, the loss of Wilton’s support signals the continued hesitation on the part of social conservatives to back the candidate. Does it all come down to his Mormon faith, or is there something more political going on here?
• Ads Bill Richardson (D) released this ad yesterday, highlighting his role in negotiating the release of hostages out of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1995. He has made his experience the focus of his spots in the past; this new ad drills down onto the finer points of his CV.

Amid today’s Family Research Council straw polls and conference speeches, the blogs are a bit preoccupied. Here’s a round-up what little foreign policy commentary is out there.

• From the Right Michelle Malkin discovers why Ahmadinejad visited Ground Zero last month.
• Somewhere near Center Andrew Sullivan points to Kupchan and Trubowitz’s piece in this fall’s issue of International Security. They assert that the Bush era has led to the “unraveling of the liberal internationalist compact,” of Twentieth Century U.S. foreign policy.
• From the Left Dan Drezner hits Clinton on her revised stance on economic policy and her hesitation on foreign trade agreements, which, he says, are key components of a foreign policy that would restore America’s place in the world.

Oh, and a major candidate declared that the U.N. is no longer relevant. More on that to come.

Way back when, campaigns started around the winter before Election Day. Now, still over a year prior to the 2008 contest, I’m wondering where to begin discussion; there’s so much to catch up on. For now, let’s stick to some points of interest from this week.

Ivory Tower American Interest launches a series among top public intellectuals on foreign affairs in the 2008 election. Barry Posen starts off the exchange, with comments from heavyweights like Fukuyama, Ferguson, Joffe, and Ikenberry following. This first debate, at least, seems to commence a worthwhile academic dialogue on post-November ’08 foreign policy. A must-read, indeed.

In the Journals John McCain and Hillary Clinton are the latest contributors to the Foreign Affairs Election ’08 segment. CFR.org puts their pieces in context. Clinton and McCain’s essays, like those of the other candidates’, prove adequate in conveying worldviews and issues of interest.

Rs Kathryn Jean Lopez contemplates John McCain’s call to serve at National Review Online. Kate O’Brien thinks he might be a better option than Giuliani. Is the conservative commentariat coming around on McCain?

Ds Bloggers on the left are happy that Chris Dodd announced he would place a hold on the Senate FISA legislation, though as the Washington Post notes, the bill has yet to come to the Senate floor and is still in mark-up. According to Dodd, the bill would grant immunity to telecommunications companies who cooperated with the president’s terrorist surveillance program. Dodd has fared poorly in recent polls and the move is seen as a means of courting, among others, liberal bloggers.