Election 2008

If you look carefully, you can see that Barack Obama’s vulnerability in foreign affairs is not his inexperience. His questioning of General David Petraeus on Wednesday at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing was thoughtful and probing, focusing on whether the conditions set by U.S. commanders for withdrawal could actually be achieved. Obama also correctly points out that Congressional tenure alone is no guarantee of foreign affairs expertise (watching the hearings made this painfully evident). It is even plausible that Obama’s private travel abroad in Indonesia and Pakistan actually may have given him some insights that most Congressmen never gain. Maybe that’s why he spoke out against the invasion of Iraq in 2002 when Hillary voted for it.

No, Obama’s problem in foreign affairs is not his inexperience — it’s whether he will be opposed by supporters of Israel for his stance favoring talks with Iran. As Petraeus pointed out, Iran continues to assist terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and represents a major threat to Iraq’s security. Time/CNN correspondent Michael Ware, who interviewed Petraeus on Wednesday, was particularly adamant in stressing the now obvious point that the struggle for influence in Iraq is essentially between the United States and Iran. Given Iran’s Islamic fundamentalism (at least in its leadership), its virulently anti-Israeli rhetoric, and given Obama’s support for official US contacts with Iran — Obama seems to have staked out a politically vulnerable position. It is only a matter of time before Hillary tries to turn this into a “kitchen sink” to be thrown at him. If she fails, and Obama is nominated, McCain will pick up where Hillary left off.

Washington is still digesting Petraeus’ hours of testimony and interviews, but his assessment of Iran’s activities was impossible to ignore and in other times would be a clear casus belli.

Last October, here’s what General Petraeus said:

“[The Iranians] are responsible for providing the weapons, the training, the funding and in some cases the direction for operations that have indeed killed U.S. soldiers…There is no question about the connection between Iran and these components, (the) attacks that have killed our soldiers.”

This week, the general added that Iran is “funding, training, arming and directing” Shiite Muslim militias known as “special groups… Unchecked, the[se] special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq,” Petraeus said.

Finally, Joe Lieberman asked: “Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?”

Petraeus’ response: “It certainly is. I do believe that is correct. Again some of that also is militia elements who have then subsequently been trained by these individuals.”
All this spells more trouble in Southwest Asia and the Middle East at a time when the American public is looking for relief from our foreign engagements there. As Senator Lugar (one of the rare foreign policy experts in the Senate and now about to retire) put it: “Simply appealing for more time to make progress is insufficient. Iraq will be an unstable country for the foreseeable future.”

Lugar’s candid comment had the intellectual honesty of someone not running for office. America is in a funk over the economy and over Iraq. It doesn’t want another four-letter word — Iran — added to its vocabulary of words best left unspoken. Congress’ fixation on withdrawal from Iraq and silent treatment re Petraeus’ warnings on Iran told Tehran all it needs to know. America will probably not attack Iran — not for killing our soldiers nor for resuming uranium enrichment — but Hillary will attack Obama verbally for being willing to talk to opponents of Israel. That’s good politics in Pennsylvania, but ignores the fact that by next January our willingness to talk may be totally undermined by our unwillingness to do anything else.

If you happen to be wrapped up in the news cycle, you would be aware of the diminishing chance Hillary Clinton has to win the Democratic nomination. Keep in mind, though, that it’s only early April. (seriously!)

One of Clinton’s chief strategists, Mark Penn, left the campaign over the weekend. Reportedly, he departed voluntarily. Also reportedly, Clinton was furious over his meeting with a delegate from Colombia regarding the Colombian free trade agreement, a proposal the candidate does not support. No matter which is more true; at this point Mrs. Clinton might be expected to insist upon a tight reign.

For the past two months, Clinton has lost momentum to Obama. Either candidate–Clinton or Obama–will have to gain support among both “real” delegates and superdelegates to win at the convention. While many Democratic voters have chosen their candidate, superdelegates’ votes are still fluid. Until the final voting at the convention, many will voice support for one of the candidates, some will change their minds, and others will remain undecided. By nature, these Democratic party insiders are tied to the influence of the media and the news cycle. Momentum in the press and in primaries lead to superdelegate perspectives.

For Clinton, it is “tough math” to say the least. According to NYT, however, a full 364 superdelegates are undecided or chose not to answer in a recent poll. This week (or two) the pendulum swings in Obama’s favor, but the Pennsylvania primary is approaching and Clinton is expected to do well in the state. Emphasis then turns to North Carolina, and the Democrates are likely to continue the competition.

And thus the horse race continues, as does its coverage.

It looks like we should settle in for the long haul:

BBC 

Washington Post

New York Times and NYT

John McCain has not always been the Republican party’s sweetheart. He was George W. Bush’s adversary for the nomination in 2000, a fierce advocate against the use of torture practices of detainees, and one of the few Republican candidates to take a hard line on immigration in the 2008 primary season. But now, as the party’s anticipated nominee, he campaigns on behalf of the party and its legacy.

McCain is known for his “maverick,” and “straight-talking” ways, but from speech to speech McCain presses on, carrying the conservative moniker. On his recent fundraising trip to California, he received the endorsement of Nancy Reagan. A staunch supporter of the surge in Iraq, McCain’s Iraq policy has come under fire and his positions on domestic and economic affairs solidify McCain towards the right of the American political spectrum. At his core, however, he is a moderate–a label which his recent foreign policy address to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles solidifies.

In such a world, where power of all kinds is more widely and evenly distributed, the United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone.

Is the era of Republican realism over?

[America] must be strong politically, economically, and militarily. But we must also lead by attracting others to our cause, by demonstrating once again the virtues of freedom and democracy, by defending the rules of international civilized society and by creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish.

When was the last time a high-level Republican politician advocated not just for the support, but for the creation of new international institutions? In just one speech, McCain has brought to an end any party notions of “with us or against us”:

Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.

This is likely to be one of many foreign policy speeches the candidate gives as he seeks a win in November’s election, but its diversion from the Bush Republican mainstream is noteworthy. (Granted, he delivered the speech in California to an internationalist crowd, though) perhaps the maverick title holds, for McCain certainly seems to have chosen the Republican road less traveled.

Photo by Flickr user pingnews.com used under a Creative Commons license

Barack Obama’s speech on race this week brought the issue to cable news, blogs, and dinner tables nationwide. Shadi Hamid, a blogger and American of Middle Eastern descent, watched the speech from Jordan and thought “he might as well have been talking about the burgeoning anger toward America felt by millions of frustrated Muslims around the world.” Hamid writes in this Saturday’s Washington Post.

Thus far, the national discourse on the question of Muslim anti-Americanism, and particularly the violence and terror perpetrated in the name of Islam, has been dominated by condemnation and denunciation. As it must be. Targeting innocents — whether they are Israeli children on their way to school or the nearly 3,000 Americans who showed up to work one day and found it would be their last — can never be excused. And we must unapologetically wage war on those who seek to destroy us.

At the same time, we can’t simply wish future violence and terrorism away by relegating it to the domain of irrational, crazed fanaticism. We cannot say that “they hate us for who we are” and leave it at that.

Obama’s comments about race in the United States apply to a number of racial and cultural conflicts around the world. Would a President Obama apply the same logic to international misunderstandings as domestic?

Last week, when the U.S. archives released 11,000 pages of Hillary Clinton’s documents from her eight years as First Lady, it was not the trove of information that many expected. Why? One reason: some of what transpired was never written down. Another: the government censored much of the most potentially enlightening information. The official, misleading word for this practice is “redaction.” But this wasn’t mere editing. Of the 11,000 pages, many had extensive content blacked out before they were released to the press.

Did Mrs. Clinton play a role in the Northern Ireland peace process? Did she negotiate the transit of refugees from Kosovo? Did she contribute to the formulation and conduct of foreign policy during her husband’s tenure as President? She and her campaign say that she did, but the “redacted” documents from her tenure as First Lady don’t tell us the answer. On the days when Bill Clinton made critical foreign and security policy decisions – the disastrous Somalia intervention, the response to the bombings of U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, the terrorist attack on the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, the U.S. air attack on Yugoslavia – there is no contemporaneous record of Mrs. Clinton having taken part in them. There is obviously no official role for a First Lady in the “3 a.m. phone call” scenario that has become so much a part of Hillary Clinton’s campaign advertising. We are asked to believe that she is “ready on day one” based on her proximity to decision makers, not her having been one.

Mark Penn and other Clinton supporters point to now-Senator Clinton’s decades-long life in the public eye as evidence of “vetting” – another misused word. True, many journalists have written about Bill and Hillary Clinton in the course of their political lives – enough to fill a library. But “vetting” is usually an organized, directed process, not the independent activity of journalists. Also, it usually implies a positive outcome, as in “Mrs. Clinton has been vetted for the position of X, and has been cleared for duty.” Political candidates – even for high office – really don’t get vetted in any systematic way. (Witness last week’s chance revelations that led to the downfall of New York Governor Elliot Spitzer.) Even when personal peccadilloes are exposed, voters may not be aware of them, or may disregard their importance. Victory in a political campaign should not be confused with ethical vindication.

It is not clear why so much of Hillary Clinton’s record as First Lady has been censored – sorry, redacted. But it is clear that we cannot consider her “vetted” until all evidence – supporting and otherwise – about her foreign policy record is made available. For the same reason, the public has every right to see “unredacted” copies of the Clintons’ tax records.

When we hear about State Department contract employees prying – unauthorized — into Barack Obama’s passport file, or seven-year-old videos of Obama’s church pastor being surfaced in an effort to discredit him, it is clear that we are into a very extreme season of “opposition research” – yet another misnomer. Such so-called “research” amounts to nothing so much as an effort to find more mud beneath a river of slimy political tactics.

Senators and Representatives travel abroad on a regular basis, usually on fact-finding trips funded through the generosity of one various interest group or another. As a Senator, John McCain has made many such trips, many of which have been to the Middle East and Europe. This time, though, the purpose is broader.

Acting as his party’s chief ambassador, McCain is meeting with high-ranking officials in Israel, Iraq and Europe. In preparation for his time with Prime Minister Brown and President Sarkozy, McCain released this op-ed in the Financial Times. In it he says,

Americans and Europeans share a common goal – to build an enduring peace based on freedom. Our democracies today are strong and vibrant. Together we can tackle the diverse challenges we face…

McCain seeks to “strengthen the transatlantic alliance,” but in order to do so he must secure his party’s nomination and win November’s general election; which is, after all, the purpose of his trip (it’s not as if the average middle class family in London are potential swing voters from whom he is asking for votes).

Note the venues and personalities involved in McCain’s excursions: Prime Minister Blair, President Sarkozy, Iraq, the Wailing Wall, Israel, and Palestine. These are images well known to the politically conscious American. While filling the presidential role, McCain seeks to raise awareness of his foreign policy background, and reinvigorate his own image as a forward-thinking candidate for President.

Update: From the New York Times,

Senator John McCain’s trip abroad this week — which took him from the Middle East to No. 10 Downing Street to the Élysée Palace here — was more than just a Congressional fact-finding trip, or even a candidate’s attempt to appear statesmanlike.
It was also an audition on the world stage for Mr. McCain in his new role as the Republican presidential nominee. And it offered him the chance to test his hope that he could repair America’s tattered reputation by shifting course on some of the policies that have alienated its allies, in areas like global warming and torture.

John McCain, while bolstering his foreign policy credentials on a trip to Europe and the Middle East, made an erroneous and rare gaffe today.

Iran=majority Shiite. Al-Qaeda=majority Sunni. For years John McCain has worked on foreign affairs issues in the Senate and as a presidential candidate, but the basics are good to have down. As some commentators have noted, if it weren’t for Obama’s speech winning a great deal of free media, this might be on the front pages of the papers. Nevertheless, what a good friend and travel buddy Joe Lieberman is!

The blogosphere, like cable news, is abuzz with analysis and discussion of Barack Obama’s speech today, “A More Perfect Union.” Overall the commentary has been positive, with many applauding Obama’s thrust to the fore the issues of race and religion in American society and raising the level of political rhetoric.

In the speech, however, Obama responds to the recent controversy of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his church pastor in Chicago. By some analyses, Obama is acting on the defensive; but his speech seems to have gained for him all the benefits of “offense.”

The political team at NBC has this round-up of commentary.

Taylor Owen at Oxblog thinks the speech is a testament to Obama’s Christianity and the unique voice he offers to the political dialogue.

the style he exhibited goes to the core of his candidacy. He speaks about issues, controversial issues, with a political voice that hasn’t been heard before. He transcends old ideological, ethnic, religious and historical divides. This voice is not just new to the US, but internationally. This is why so many people in Canada and Europe, for example, are watching him in a way they don’t even look at their own leaders.

Owen agrees with Andrew Sullivan, who vociferously advocates for Obama on his blog, that the candidate is transcendent of the race divide, among others.

I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history.

The Economist sees it as a possible turning point in the primary contest.

Barack Obama’s ambitious and impressive speech on race and religion earlier today has rightly got the political pundits and blogosphere buzzing. It may even set the stage for a new chapter in this primary season. It is unlikely the Reverend Wright controversy is over just yet, but Mr Obama has tried to change the context of this conversation.

And in case you missed it, here is the speech in full:

Obama took a controversy and elevated it to the level of a national dialogue. He stood in front of eight American flags and a blue backdrop; he wore a blue tie and a dark suit. He looked presidential. To the extent that Rev. Wright’s comments wavered beyond the scope of his pulpit, Obama ensured that his response raised the issue of race to the contemporary consciousness.

Hillary Clinton delivered a major speech on Iraq today, amid the growing sense of crisis in the financial markets.

“The American people don’t have to guess whether I’m ready to lead or whether I understand the realities on the ground in Iraq or whether I’d be too dependent on advisers to help me determine the right way forward.”

John McCain is on a short trip to Europe and Iraq to highlight his foreign policy experience. From the Wall Street Journal:

John McCain takes an overseas detour from the campaign trail this weekend to the Middle East and Europe. The Arizona senator says he is doing it as a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, not the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. He insists this isn’t a campaign trip.

In both cases, events that could presumably generate significant foreign policy press–and therefore discussion–have been overshadowed by the concern foremost on Americans’ minds: the economy.

News of the buyout of Bear Stearns echoed throughout Wall Street and international markets. The news of the weakening dollar and likelihood that the U.S. is in a recession filtered through the national news.

In what was expected to be the foreign policy election, voters are increasingly finding the economy to be their foremost concern. At this point in the process, very few have changed their story to: “it’s Iraq, stupid.”

This blog recently reported on the volatility of the Obama campaign’s foreign policy surrogates (Susan Rice: neither Clinton nor Obama are ready for the 3am phone call; Samantha Power: Clinton is a “monster”). Throughout the campaign, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had to keep a particularly watchful eye on their surrogates’ and supporters’ public appearances. But as the media attention grows and the campaigns need surrogates to convey increasingly negative messages, surrogates are taking on a greater burden.

Geraldine Ferraro, an open supporter of Hillary Clinton, has taken her turn spurning controversy. After the South Carolina incidents for which Mrs. Clinton apologized, Geraldine Ferraro has again brought race into the conversation:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

Marc Ambinder says it best: “gas, meet fire.”

UPDATE: The former Vice Presidential candidate is now a former member of Hillary Clinton’s finance committee. Geraldine Ferraro stepped down today saying “that Senator Barack Obama’s campaign was twisting her words to make her appear racist and that this was hurting Mrs. Clinton.”

The two incidents that have caused resignations from the Obama (Samantha Power) and Clinton (Ferraro) campaigns, demonstrate the unprecedented speed with which

A comment each to a Scottish or a minor Los Angeles area newspaper first led to vehement controversy on the Internet, then cable news, then national news. In just two days, and amid the height of another political scandal, it’s yet another sign that campaigns are facing increased scrutiny from all sides this time.

Photo: Getty Images via npr.org

Barack Obama seeks to usher in a new kind of politics. His stump speech calls on supporters to help him “end the politics of fear,” and borrowing from John F. Kennedy, “that we should never fear to negotiate.” Now in a one-on-one battle with Hillary Clinton for the nomination, Obama has been forced to the defensive, searching for an effective way to fight back.

Hillary Clinton has persisted with her claim that Obama is less prepared than she and John McCain for the “3am phone call” that will come as President. But the Obama campaign is built upon positive ideals–the candidate could tarnish his image, should he go negative. The answer: send out the surrogates, particularly those who can vouch for national security credentials, to convey the message.

The Obama campaign had two of its most high-profile foreign policy advisors, Susan Rice and Samantha Power, grant a series of interviews with the press. They tried to send the message that, in their views, Senator Obama was equally, if not more qualified for that middle-of-the-night phone call than his opponents.

In one of these interviews, Samantha Power let it slip in what she thought was an off-the-record comment to The Scotsman that she thought Hillary Clinton had been a “monster” during the campaign. Ms. Power, a prominent scholar and advocate for US involvement in Darfur, quickly apologized and resigned from her post with the campaign. She issued a number of apologies to Senator Clinton, most of them equally as poignant as this:

Susan Rice took her turn speaking with the press this week, as she responded to Senator Clinton’s characterization of Obama’s in ability to handle the 3am phone call. On Tucker Carlson’s show on MSNBC, Ms. Rice announced that she believed neither Clinton nor Obama have substantial national security experience.

As Samantha Power pointed out, she is a relative novice to the tires of a political campaign. Ms. Rice, while not new to the Washington and foreign policy arenas, also made a slight error in her comments on television. Both have created nominal headaches for the Obama campaign, and failed to accomplish their objective. Instead, they made the candidate seem to be just what he had intended to combat: inexperienced.

Democrats have a problem. Not the excitement of a close race, in which millions have voted in primaries for the first time, and not the prospect of running against a Republican Party weakened by an unpopular President. The Democrats’ problem, which threatens to outweigh their considerable advantages, is their inability to govern themselves.

It is now mathematically certain that, without delegates from Florida and Michigan, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama can go to the Democratic Party convention in Denver in August with enough elected delegates to win the nomination. Democrats from Florida and Michigan, you will recall, decided last fall to disobey the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and hold their primaries in January. The Party then ruled that the delegates chosen in these two states would not be allowed to vote at the Convention.

In deference to the DNC, Obama and Clinton did not campaign in Florida and Michigan — although Hillary did go to Florida for fund-raisers right before the vote. Obama’s name was not even on the Michigan ballot. Hillary won both primaries easily, and now Hillary’s supporters in these two states are lobbying to have the election results upheld and the delegates seated. More likely, there will be a new primaries scheduled in Michigan and Florida.

NPR’s Juan Williams said it best last night on Fox News:

I think that Barack Obama is in a trap here. He can’t say, “No, I oppose a do-over,” because otherwise, he’d then be saying he wants the status quo, which is to disenfranchise those voters. Hillary Clinton can take the higher ground, but you and I both know what she has out of this is delegates. She wants to say she she’s won not only the popular vote and she’s likely to win the popular vote in both those states, but to win those additional delegates. It’s a trap.

Now, that’s the scenario. If you count today the delegates elected through votes in primaries or caucuses, Obama has 1366, Clinton 1222. A candidate needs 2025 delegate votes at the Convention to win the nomination. There are a total of only 611 more delegates left to be chosen through state primaries. Because delegate votes will be awarded proportionate to the election results in these states, neither Hillary or Obama can capture enough in the remaining primaries — excluding Michigan and Florida — to win the nomination.

Michigan and Florida together would have added another 338. That leaves the Democratic Party with a potentially schism-causing choice: either change its ruling in effect and include Michigan and Florida votes, or allow the so-called “superdelegates” — there are 795 of them from around the country — to determine who becomes the Party’s candidate. Right now, the superdelegates who have already declared a preference are fairly evenly split between Obama (209) and Clinton (242). But they are not “pledged,” and can change their minds and vote for whomever they please.

Hillary and Obama have already staked out positions on how the Michigan and Florida primary results should be treated, but there is really no one in a strong position to mediate between them. The DNC and its Chairman, Howard Dean, have been shown to be ineffectual so far in enforcing their own decisions.

There are a number of nightmare scenarios for the Democrats that are, of course, dream scenarios for the Republicans. The worst might be if a candidate who wins the most votes in the primaries — with or without Florida and Michigan — fails to get the nomination. This would not only be a “train wreck” in terms of efforts to unify the Party for the general election, but would discredit the American political process in the eyes of many in the United States and around the world.

As the WSJ’s Peggy Noonan puts it today, the Democrats are in the trenches today, and for weeks to come. As they fight it out, in the muck and mud of a now less than clean campaign, they need to decide if a non-democratic result will help the Democratic Party.

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.