Election 2008

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.

The media are awash with commentary after tonight’s Republican CNN/You Tube debate, most of it tactical parsing of what was said and who looked best saying it. To this observer, however, the real interest in this debate was the focus on illegal immigration. The first half-hour of the debate was devoted entirely to this one subject. Was New York a “sanctuary city?” Was Massachusetts home to six “sanctuary cities” — and a Governor’s mansion where illegals sometimes worked? Did Arkansas give “subsidies” to children of illegal aliens so they could go to college? Each of the top three Republican contenders had some explaining to do before a skeptical Republican audience. And the more each one — Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee — tried to depict his actions as vigorously against favoring illegals, the more chinks could be seen in his armor.

McCain, by contrast, defended his unpopular stand rather more convincingly. He said that he now realized that the borders had to be secured before the U.S. could offer illegal immigrants a deal. As an ally of the White House’s failed plan to offer illegals an accomodation, McCain was the only Republican tonight to mention President Bush favorably. At one point he said he was “saddened” by the tone of the other Republicans’ remarks. The illegals were also “God’s children,” he said.

What this should really tell us is that illegal immigration may be the trickiest issue of this campaign. Hillary got into trouble over her answer in Philadelphia on whether illegals should get drivers’ licenses; now it’s the Republicans’ turn to try to fashion a response that seems forthright without being jingoistic.

There is also the not small matter of how it plays in the Hispanic community — those whose documents now include voter registration cards. As Dan Schnur put it (quoted in last Sunday’s NYT), “a Republican who only talks border control or a Democrat who only talks about benefits and services for illegal immigrants are going to find themselves in a lot of trouble next fall.”

Duncan Hunter may vow to build 800 miles of border fence within six months of taking office, but no nominee will be able to base his immigration policy on simply keeping everyone out. Those 12 million immigrants who are here already, illegally, must either be integrated into society or sent home. How we handle this will tell us and the rest of the world what we are really like. A nation of immigrants — legal and equal — is the way it should be.

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?

Campaign headlines tonight center on the Democratic debate, which wrapped up just a few minutes ago from Drexel University in Philadelphia.

Standing center stage, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was the heavyweight on the stage. On Iran, Iraq, social security, the Alternative Minimum Tax, NY Governor Spitzer’s plan to document illegal immigrants with driver’s licenses and more, Sen. Clinton’s opponents, particularly John Edwards and Barack Obama, attacked her for what they called “double speak”–voicing conflicting opinions on key stances. Clinton, meanwhile, carefully turned her attention to the failures of the Bush Administration.

The format (HRC asked question; Obama/Edwards respond; HRC rebuttal) for the first half of the evening limited the availability of any candidate to shine. The later 30-second spots forced the otherwise verbose Dems to condense answers on education, immigration, and UFOs (in case you missed it, Dennis Kucinich has seen them and Chris Matthews is afraid the party will become pro-UFO vs. the anti-evolution Republicans).

• Winner: to be determined. Obama and Edwards did what they came to do. HRC wasn’t able to stay above the fray, but she didn’t lose her cool.
• Best line: Joe Biden. Rudy Giuliani’s sentences consist of a “verb, a noun, and 9/11.”
• Post-debate spin: at this posting, the fight between the Giuliani and Biden camps has only just begun.
• Issue: Iran got three rounds of questions, at least.

We’ll have more analysis on this largely foreign policy-related debate to come, but we’d like to hear your thoughts on the debate. Leave us your comments on the candidates’ stances, whether on halting Iranian nuclear proliferation, or the comparatively shorter school year American children attend than their international counterparts. Let’s delve into the issues in more time than the “lightening round” would allow.

 Photo: AP/Matt Rourke

• 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.

LOS ANGELES – The sprawling coastal megapolis of Southern California continues to battle fires in its arid chaparral-filled hillsides, so for the moment the local focus is not on politics or elections but on disaster relief and providing shelter for a half million displaced residents. But Hurricane Katrina proved that a botched relief effort can have enormous repercussions on national politics and even international relations. As the President visits the disaster area tomorrow, accompanied by Governor Schwarzenegger, comparisons with Katrina will be hard to avoid. Both men are oddly in the background of the 2008 elections landscape – the unpopular Bush shunned by Republican candidates to replace him, Schwarzenegger a victim of his foreign birth. Amidst the natural tragedy, political ironies are inescapable: Schwarzenegger has a “Giuliani moment” but can’t run for higher office while President Bush, learning from Katrina, will be faulted for treating San Diego better than New Orleans.

A visitor to Los Angeles is struck by this region’s Hispanic character and complexion and, along with it, the salience of the Hispanic vote in next year’s election. Bush did well with the Hispanic voters in 2000 and 2004, but this is one part of the electorate whose sympathies next year are hard to predict. The first Hispanic candidate, Bill Richardson, has run an oddly listless race. Non-Hispanic politicians tread carefully while, behind the scenes, many are preoccupied with the immigration issue. The Internet was awash yesterday with warnings about Senator Reid’s maneuvers in the Senate on the so-called “DREAM” legislation to grant citizenship to the younger generation of foreign born (illegal) residents. Lou Dobbs, on CNN last night, was particularly strident, accusing both parties of “pandering” to the Hispanic community.

Immigration, of course, has a foreign policy dimension, as President Bush’s speech on Cuba today in Washington illustrates. A Cuban reaching Florida’s shores gets legal sanctuary, a Mexican fleeing poverty and chaos becomes an illegal immigrant in California. Austrian-born immigrant Arnold Schwarzenegger, watching from the election sidelines, probably has more than a few thoughts on the subject, as he ponders the Constitutional provision that keeps him out of the race.

• 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.