Not So Many Friends of Fred?

You might recall that when Fred Thompson launched his website on June 6th, immediately after the Republican debate, there was a lot of excitement of his initial fundraising numbers.

The following quote was attributed to the NY Sun:

According to the Thompson campaign, these are the results of the first 48 hours since they launched imwithfred.com and announced it on “Hannity & Colmes” after the GOP debate:

In 48 hours since the Web site launch (with no paid advertising, or pre-oorganized push by donor operation):
29,463 registered supporters

$352,323.00 in donations

3,360 contributors

Or: $7,340 an hour. If they could keep that up for a month (just as an admittedly silly mathematical exercise), they’d have $5.3 million by early July.

As late as July 11, Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post was writing why Tennessee was such a good fundraising state.

Towards the middle of July, though, indications began to surface that Thompson would hold off as long as possible to report his financial numbers.

On July 25, First Read reported that Thompson would only file $3 million received in June and July, far less than the $5 million or so hoped for:

Sources close to the presumptive campaign tell NBC News that Fred Thompson’s fundraising is down “markedly.” One claimed it has “slowed down big-time.” The pace is described as a consequence of the delayed announcement to enter the race.

“The Friends of Fred, Inc.” will report to the IRS its revenue by July 31st. Sources reveal to NBC News that number will be in the range of about $3 million. Five million dollars had been the talked-about June goal. Sources describe an early burst of donations in June and say the summer fundraising has fallen off. While additional fundraisers are planned, sources say the scheduling of fundraisers was “frozen” for a time while the team was going through some internal strains.

First Read also reported in that post the Sept. 4 announce date for Thompson, the day before the Republican debate in New Hampshire. That’s a fairly risky scenario: most candidates do not announce just before an event like that. A mediocre performance would take a lot of the announcement wind out of the sails, and a good performance would not get those excited to see him in the race any more excited. Point being, he has a lot to lose in that scenario and very little to gain.

Especially now with lackluster fundraising numbers, candidates and newspapers targeting him at every chance, and a reputation (well earned or not, I can’t say) of being lazy, it’s hard to see exactly what staying out of the race will do for Thompson, other than continue to let him get his house in order and hire more staff (if they don’t quit too soon).

And all of this without getting into the Jeri Thompson controversy and the campaign’s recent staffing problems.

If Thompson is this late and unorganized, how will he be able to mobilize caucus goers in Iowa or get out the vote in New Hampshire, and if he loses those two states to Mitt Romney, will he have enough money to run a national campaign? I’m in no way counting him out, but it’s still to be seen if Thompson will be anything more than a paper tiger.

[Photo Credits: Origami-instructions.com and flickr user Churchouse Creative]

Sphere: Related Content

Bill Clinton Bridges Growing Rift Between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton

On the same day that Sen. Barack Obama escalated his continuing feud with Sen. Hillary Clinton by launching a new waive of criticism entitled “judgment matters”, former President Bill Clinton began closing the divide.

Speaking to the Democratic Leadership Council in Nashville, Tennessee, Bill Clinton had the following to say about the fracas between his wife and Sen. Obama:

“I don’t want to get in the middle of that whole spat Hillary and Senator Obama had, but there’s more than one way to practice diplomacy,” Bill Clinton told a gathering of the Democratic Leadership Council.

He said all the major Democratic candidates had “a vigorous agreement on the big question, which is ‘Should we have more diplomacy?’ The answer is yes. Then you can parse their answers to the specific questions and decide who you think is right.”

“I’ve heard no fewer than four candidates in the last month remind us that in the middle of the Cold War, in the darkest hours, we never stopped talking to the Soviets at some level. So nobody disputes that. And we’re going to have to do that.”

This is classic Bill Clinton. Find the middle ground and run to it as quickly as possible. Politically, it’s obviously good for Hillary to have Bill Clinton out there reinforcing the notion that the Democrats are unified, while at the same time reminding folks that he doesn’t regard Hillary as “Bush-Cheney lite” and neither should they.

Of course, President Clinton also ouldn’t resist the urge to defend himself from Obama’s recent jabs at his administration during the 1990s:

“When people criticize the 1990s, they have to live in an evidence-free world.”

From a political perspective, it’s simply not possible for the former president to get too intertwined in Hillary’s public disagreements with other candidates. It’ll run the risk of undermining Hillary Clinton, while simultaneously reducing his own political capital. That said, it’s certainly helpful to have him out on the trail providing gentle reminders and subtle responses to attacks. Although, he can’t be an attack dog this time around, he’ll certainly be, as he has already proven, an effective buttress to the campaign.

[Photo Credit: New York Daily News]

Sphere: Related Content

Gingrich Run Looking Unlikely

Newt Gingrich was on Fox News Sunday this morning (he seems to have monthly appearances on that show). He confirmed rumors he had dinner recently with Fred Thompson, and also said that he would likely not run:

WALLACE: Of course, people wonder whether you’re going to get into the race or whether you’re going to stay on the sidelines.

There was a report the other day, and this is the level of political reporting these days, that the Gingriches had dinner a couple of weeks ago with Fred and Jeri Thompson at the Thompsons’ house and that you discussed policy.

So I don’t care so much about the menu. Are you going to endorse Senator Thompson for president?

GINGRICH: Chris, I love this business, and I know why you enjoy every Sunday morning. We’ve now gone from the systemic crisis of the French Fourth Republic to did we have dinner.

Calista has given me permission to tell you that yes, we had a very nice dinner with Jeri and Fred and with Bob Livingston. It was a delightful discussion. They’ve been good friends for many years.

And I think that Fred will be a very formidable candidate. And I start with — American Solutions is offering all of its polling data and all of its ideas to every candidate in both parties. We literally delivered our last poll to every candidate in both parties.

Fred Thompson will be a serious candidate. I think the Republicans have three major choices in Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. I think any of the three will be…

WALLACE: And not John McCain.

GINGRICH: I think Senator McCain has taken positions so deeply at odds with his party’s base that I don’t see how he can get the nomination.

But I think that either Mayor Giuliani or Governor Romney or Senator Thompson would be a very formidable opponent for what I expect will be a Clinton-Obama ticket, and I think that there’s a possibility that will work.

After we’re done with our workshops at American Solutions in September, if there is a vacuum and if there’s a real need for somebody to be prepared to debate Senator Clinton, then I would consider running. I think we’ll know that in October.

But these three are serious people. They’re working very hard. And if they can fill the vacuum, I don’t feel any great need to run.

Gingrich could still be a VP possibility. But he seems content to be the idea man for the right at this point, and will only run for President if the situation is dire. His position politically is really similar to Al Gore’s in that regard - both are unlikely to run, but have not ruled it out in any definitive sense.

I’m not holding my breath for either, though.

Sphere: Related Content

Romney May Participate in Youtube Debate Now…

From the Washington Post:

CNN Washington Bureau Chief David Bohrman, the mastermind behind the CNN-YouTube marriage, spoke with Romney’s campaign late yesterday. CNN says the former Massachusetts governor may participate if the debate, scheduled for Sept. 17 in St. Petersburg, Fla., can be pushed back.

Not to toot my own horn needlessly, but this is exactly what I said would happen in yesterday’s podcast.

Related at 2008 Central:

• Mitt Romney: YouTube Debates ‘Not Presidential’ But Endorses GOP “Machine-Gun” Fundraisers

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net’s Presidential Election Podcast (07/29/07)

This week’s podcast covers:

• CNN/YouTube Democratic Debate (July 23, 2007)
• Clinton-Obama Fracas
• Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney back out of proposed CNN/YouTube Republican Debate
• Republican candidates in a political spitball fight (Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Newt Gingrich)
• Spotlight on John Edwards’ tax plan

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for next week’s podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Subscribe to 2008Central.net’s Presidential Election Podcast

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday Morning Talk: Gingrich

Meet the Press (NBC): Political Roundtable.

Face the Nation (CBS): Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter.

This Week (ABC): Charles Schumer, Orrin Hatch, Bob Dole, and Donna Shalala.

Fox Sunday Morning: Russ Feingold, Newt Gingrich, and Cal Ripken Jr.

Late Edition (CNN): Charles Rangel, Christopher Shays, and Roy Blunt.

Sphere: Related Content

Youtubed: Obama - Clinton

The biggest news of the week was obviously Clinton and Obama tusseling over diplomacy.

First, the debate where it started:

Obama makes Bush-Cheney lite comparison:

Then Clinton responds:

And continues responding:

I’m still trying to locate Youtube video of Obama’s interview with NBC that really escalated this. A Clinton supporter is the one who posted the latter three videos…

Sphere: Related Content

Caption This

Whoever adds the best caption for this picture in the comments will win a prize*….

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Dodd Talks About His Innovative Health Care Plan to Seven People

The Dodd campaign in a nutshell:

The Connecticut senator’s plan would establish a Universal HealthMart, an insurance marketplace based on the current health benefits system for federal workers. He said he would launch the program by the end of his first term as president.

All employers would provide insurance for workers through the HealthMart, or continue with existing channels, Dodd said. Individuals and businesses would then have a choice of plans, and would contribute wages based on their ability to pay.

Dodd said he favors this “more practical” system over a single-payer method because of its lower initial costs.

“I’m not reinventing or inventing a whole new structure where the government is basically an insurance company,” he said.

He said the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan - which currently covers more than 4 million workers, retirees and their dependents - is a good model to follow.

“I have a very, very good health care plan,” Dodd told the seven Iowans gathered around the kitchen table at Jerry Vuichard’s home in Marion.

This is pretty much Dodd’s continual problem. He talks in depth about big plans with big ideas, from this health care plan to his energy plan, and continually gets overlooked, this time introducing his health plan to seven people in an Iowa home. No other candidate would introduce a health care plan like that, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Dodd deciding to introduce his plan in a personal setting. But at the same time, it’s an affirmation of something the Clinton campaign has said: that running for President is more than offering plans, and is about selling oneself as a candidate. And Dodd really hasn’t engaged voters on that level yet. He seems to be running a proficient campaign for someone who expects to be in the thick of the race. For a candidate coming from behind, though, he’s just a policy guy. He’ll need to do something to break through to be a candidate people take seriously as more than a policy guy or a Senator. It’s really a shame too, since he is bringing so many ideas to the race.

[Photo Credit: Flickr User Chris Dodd for President]

Sphere: Related Content

John Edwards Sends Mixed Messages in Speech to the Urban League

A glace at the recap of John Edwards’ speech to the Urban League in St. Louis this morning helps explain whyhis campaign is having problems gaining traction:

Edwards called for an increase in the national minimum wage to $9.50, with an automatic index for increases. “Nobody should be working full time in the United States of America and living in poverty,” he said.

Edwards said his message of “two Americas” is often misunderstood to mean only the rich and the poor. “What I mean are big corporations and the richest people in America, and everybody else,” he said.

Reflecting on his recently completed poverty tour, Edwards spoke passionately about what he saw, specifically mentioning a 51-year-old man he met who only recently was able to have his speech restored because he was finally able to have an operation he could not afford most of his life.

“He lived for five decades in the United States of America, not able to talk because he could not get the health care treatment he needed,” Edwards said. “I am outraged by what is happening in the United States of America and it is time for us to express that outrage.”

Even in a recap, the theme goes from poverty, to anyone who is not rich, and back to poverty. It’s as if Edwards does not to want to run solely against the rich (since that is stereotypical and a sure fire way to lose) and also does not want to run just on the basis of advocating for the poor. The result of which is a middle ground in which he’s really not that convincing politically.

This isn’t to endorse or condemn his policies; they may be great, they may be terrible. Rather, he’s seems to be doing a poor job at selling them. It’s telling that the people in Iowa who have known him the longest and know him as a person like him the most. The people across the rest of the country who undoubtedly know who he is (as he was on a national ticket previously) are so far not really buying what he’s been selling (as he is a clear third nationally in just about every poll). The good news is that if Edwards finds a way to streamline these two messages, he still can make noise. But talking about how it’s not just about the poor, before and after talking about the impact of poverty, is sending a mixed message that voters are not responding to.

[Photo Credit: moonbattery.com]

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Clinton Now Using Obama Fracas To Raise Money

The Clinton-Obama fracas continues to escalate (if you need to catch up on this week’s events, you can look at the related articles listed below). Today, the Clinton campaign capitalized on the disagreement, by turning it into a fundraising opportunity. Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton’s Campaign Manager, sent an email to supporters urging them to “help Hillary.”

She begins:

Last week, one of the leading Republican candidates equated Hillary with Karl Marx. Yesterday, one of the leading Democratic candidates called her “Bush-Cheney lite.”

Can you imagine?? Hillary like George Bush??!! Or Dick Cheney!!

LOL! I mean, WTF? *Emiticon* *Emoticon* Hillary Clinton did say that this argument was silly, but I didn’t realize that it had gotten to the point where campaign managers are so overcome with emotion that they are left with no choice but to revert to the punctuation used in a 13 year old’s instant messenger conversation. It’s just a general rule of mine, but whenever someone uses excessive punctuation, I’m immediately unable to take them seriously.

Doyle goes on:

You and I both know that Hillary has stood up time and time again to the failed Bush/Cheney policies.

Well, I guess this is what Hillary gets for being the strongest, most qualified, the most substantive, the most experienced, the most ready to be president. That’s what Hillary has gotten all her career for being willing to fight for change.

From a political perspective, this is dangerous. First and foremost, stating that Clinton stood up to the failed Bush/Cheney policies only further opens her up for attacks on her war vote. Moreover, stating that people are criticizing/attacking you because you are the “strongest, most qualified…” candidate is not exactly the best way to deflect criticisms that you’re “Bush-Cheney lite.” Currently, George W. Bush is under lots of scrutiny. Does this mean that he’s being attacked because he’s the best, or is it because there are things that he is doing worth criticizing? The point is, while I understand the message that Sen. Clinton is trying to convey and why she needs to do it; it just seems politically risky to me.

At this point, she needs to demonstrate that she’s not “Bush-Cheney lite” and I can assure you that assuming that criticism of you automatically means that you’re right and everyone else is just hating on you is not the way to portray yourself as not “Bush-Cheney lite.”

The email goes on solicit funds. Politically, this is a smart thing for the Clinton campaign to be doing, especially in light of how well it worked for Edwards (although opposition to someone like Ann Coulter is much more likely to galvanize Democrats than opposition to someone like Barack Obama). Despite being a politically smart decision, the email itself has some problems. I think the language of the email ignores some of Sen. Clinton’s vulnerabilities and exposes her to a strong response from the Obama campaign and/or a backlash from Democrats. If you’re running for the Democratic nomination, I just don’t think it’s smart to feed into a charge that you’re “Bush-Cheney lite.”

If I was on Obama’s communication team, I would use this opportunity to two do things - get out of this fray that is benefiting Clinton at the moment and get in one last shot. I would advise Obama to say something to this effect: We had a policy disagreement. My concern was that Sen. Clinton’s position is similar to that of Bush and Cheney’s. Instead of having a reasonable discourse, Sen. Clinton chose to interpret criticism as an implication that her policy is the best and began even more attached to it. This kind of thinking that the current president employs is the reason why we are having so much difficulty ending this war in Iraq. At this point, I see no benefit in continuing to engage someone that becomes empowered by criticism.

Politically, Obama needs to end soon. Up until this point, Obama couldn’t back down for fear of looking weak. However, Clinton’s email today gives him the ideal out, one where he can end it immediately, take the high road and give Clinton a quick hit before ending it. Should be interesting…

[Photo Credit: Iowapresidentialwatch.com]

Related at 2008Central.net:

• Obama Finally Goes on Offensive; Clinton Pushes Back (7/26/07)
• Obama-Clinton Fracas Expands: Now Joe Biden and Chris Dodd Are Involved (7/26/07)
• Clinton’s Political Machine Wins Another Battle (7/25/07)

Sphere: Related Content

Weekend Calendar Preview

Some Republicans push in Iowa this weekend, while many Democrats address the Urban League this morning.

Barack Obama

• Obama addresses the urban league today and then campaigns the rest of today and tomorrow morning in Iowa.

Bill Richardson

• Richardson campaigns in New Hampshire today and tomorrow, before fundraising in New York City tomorrow night and Sunday morning.

Chris Dodd

• Dodd’s wife, Jackie Clegg Dodd, will campaign today in New Hampshire, while Dodd himself campaigns today and tomorrow in Iowa following the launch of his health care plan.

Dennis Kucinich

• Kucinich will address the Urban League today, and College Democrats tomorrow.

Hillary Clinton

• Clinton will also address the Urban League forum in St. Louis today, after holding a fundraiser this morning. Later today whe will hold an economic roundtable in West Virginia followed by a fundraiser (or proceeded, I’m not clear on the time of the fundraiser), before addressing the National Beauty Culturists’ League Convention in Fairfax, Virginia tonight. She addresses College Democrats in South Carolina tomorrow morning, before holding a large campaign even in Hilton Head.

John Edwards

• Edwards also addresses the Urban League, while Elizabeth campaigns in New Hampshire today. They both continue the push in New Hampshire the rest of the weekend.

John McCain

• McCain fundraises this morning in New York City.

Mike Huckabee

• Huckabee addresses the American Legislation Executive Council today in Philadelphia before fundraising in Arkansas tomorrow.

Mitt Romney

• Romney again has a full schedule of events today in Iowa, before going to Florida tomorrow while his wife Ann holds a campaign breakfast in Wyoming tomorrow morning.

Ron Paul

• Paul is holding a fundraiser in San Antonio tomorrow night.

Rudy Giuliani

• Giuliani holds a campaign event in Dallas this afternoon.

Sam Brownback

• Brownback and his wife campaign in Iow atoday, and Brownback campaigns there tomorrow as well.

Tom Tancredo

• Tancredo also is campaigning this weekend in Iowa, campaigninging through Monday.

Tommy Thompson

• Thompson also campaigning in Iowa this weekend, continuing his bus tour.

Visit our up-to-date campaign calendar section for complete schedules.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Finally Goes on Offensive; Clinton Pushes Back

After Tuesday, where Clinton called Obama “irresponsible and, frankly, naive” on the issue of meeting foreign leaders, both sides had issued memos and sent their advisors to go over talking points, and it seemed over … and then Obama on Wednesday said this on camera to NBC News:

“I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out — and you know I think Senator Clinton hasn’t fully answered that issue.

“The general principle that I was laying out is that we should not be afraid as America to meet with anybody.

“Now, they may not like what we want to hear — so if I’m talking to the President of Iran, I’m going to inform him that Israel is our stalwart ally, and we are going to do what’s necessary to protect them — that we will not accept a nuclear bomb in Iran, but that doesn’t mean we can’t say that face to face. And obviously, the diplomatic spadework has to be done ahead of time.

“The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous.

“But the general principle is one that I think Senator Clinton is wrong on — and that is if we are laying out preconditions that prevents us from speaking frankly to these folks, then we are continuing with Bush-Cheney policies, and I am not interested in continuing that.

“I know that she has said in the past that we have to talk to our enemies — well that’s what this is about. And if we say that we will not talk to them unless they meet a series of preconditions, then that’s the same position that Bush and Cheney have maintained over the last six years, and it has made us less safe. And that’s what I think is going to be a significant part of this debate in 2008.”

It starts with tying in the explicit attack on Clinton that Obama made during the debate that somehow got glossed over, and then Obama went really the most on the attack that he’s ever done during this campaign.

Since Obama has previously refrained from doing anything like this, one has to ask if his plan all along was to rely on retaliatory rhetoric (when the public is far less likely to see someone as playing politics) or if he is defending his position after seeing what passivism did to John Kerry in 2004.

This morning, after picking up an endorsement in New Hampshire in the form of Rep. Paul Hodes, Obama strengthened and furthered his language comparing Clinton to the Bush Administration:

“I’m not afraid of losing the PR war to dictators,” continuing, “I’m not going to hide behind a bunch of rhetoric. I don’t want a continuation with Bush-Cheney. I don’t want Bush-Cheney light. I want a fundamental change.”

On a conference call he went on:

“You’ll have to ask Sen. Clinton what differentiates her position from their position.” He added that his answer at the debate — that he WOULD be willing to meet with the leaders of Syria, Iran, etc. with preconditions — “sends a message that we’re willing to sit down and talk, and that increases over leverage and our capacity to get something done.”

Responding to another question on the matter, Obama then referred to Clinton’s 2002 war authorization vote. “It’s a debate over the same conventional thinking that led people to authorize the war in Iraq without asking questions.” He said that thinking was “talking tough and not acting very smart.” He continued, “Part of what I believe we have to have is a willingness … to talk tough, but be tough and smart enough to engage our enemies.”

The Clinton campaign’s immediate response Wednesday was to issue this statement by former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke:

“As she has said many times, Senator Clinton believes we need to engage in vigorous diplomacy after the cowboy approach of the Bush years. She has said she would initiate serious, responsible dialogue with nations with whom we don’t agree in order to further the national security interest of the United States. But she is right not to risk the prestige of the presidency by unconditionally committing to meet with leaders of adversarial nations.”

After Obama did not back down from his rhetoric today, Clinton followed Obama’s lead and did a television interview, this with CNN:

“You know I have been called a lot of things in my life, but I have never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney, certainly. You know you have to ask, whatever has happened to the politics of hope?’’

“I have been saying consistently for a number of years now, we have to end the Bush era of ignoring problems, of ignoring enemies and adversaries. And I have been absolutely clear that we have to return to robust and effective diplomacy.

“But, I don’t want to see the power and prestige of the United States president put at risk by rushing into meetings with the likes of Chavez and Castro and Ahjmenanjad. I think we have to be absolutely clear that we are going to engage with the world, that we are not afraid to have diplomacy. But, I know that diplomacy takes a lot of hard work. It takes a lot of planning and it takes many many people to be involved before we give a visit with the president without any precondition whatsoever.’’

The most notable thing is Clinton attacking Obama on not running a campaign of hope. This is a serious charge, since Obama’s whole campaign is built around doing things differently. That said, I don’t think it’s going to hold as much weight, since it’s fairly obvious that Clinton started the back and forth when she called Obama’s position “irresponsible and, frankly, naive” as I mentioned above. Now, to be fair, the distinction that Clinton is trying to draw is that Obama crossed a line when he compared her to Bush and Cheney. But it’s a minor distinction since Obama was comparing her policy to that of Bush and Cheney (and even said that she should explain her differences if that’s not the case). And frankly, if Obama is wrong for responding, what does that make of Clinton’s initial argument? It’s OK to criticize someone but not OK for that person to defend themselves?

The reason I say all this is because for perhaps the first time in the campaign, the Clinton camp was bested in a political battle on the air. I’ve mentioned time and time again the ‘little mistakes’ that Obama was making. Over the past two days, the table has turned a little. It’s clearly not going to decide the election or anything, but it does start to give the Democratic base an idea of who Barack Obama is, and it clearly paints him as the “alternative” to Hillary Clinton in the race. It also legitimizes his campaign to see him going back and forth with Clinton. Instead of being a junior Senator with little experience, he’s being the ones who is arguing -credibly- with Clinton on diplomacy. For a lot of voters around the country, this is going to be one of the first times they see who Obama is and the type of politics he stands for.

Meanwhile, Clinton is getting help from Romney and McCain, two people that most of the Democratic base is going to run from on foreign policy. I don’t expect her to cite them anytime soon.

Add on that this just magnifies the Iraq target on Clinton’s back that has so far been avoided, and I have to wonder if Clinton regrets starting this argument.

And I never would have imagined I would say that on Monday night.

Related at 2008 Central:

• Clinton’s Political Machine Wins Another Battle
• Live Blog Of CNN / YouTube Democratic Debate (July 23, 2007)

Sphere: Related Content

Obama-Clinton Fracas Expands: Now Joe Biden and Chris Dodd Are Involved

Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd each issued sharp rebukes to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama regarding their continuing disagreement over Obama’s statement that he would consider meeting with any and all world leaders.  Before getting to Biden and Dodd’s remarks, some background info on the Clinton-Obama fracas…

At the CNN/YouTube Democratic Debate on July 23, 2007, Senator Obama response to a question about meeting with foreign leaders:

QUESTION: …In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous….

Hillary Clinton’s follow up to this question foreshadowed the friction that was to come later in the week:

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are…

In the days after the debate, the Obama and Clinton campaigns continued the exchange with a series of critical memos and statements.

Enter Joe Biden and Chris Dodd.  The Biden campaign took the first jab yesterday evening when Luis Navarro, Biden’s Campaign Manager, issued the following statement:

“This squabble is a distraction from the main event: defeating the Republicans and ending the war responsibly. Petty arguments about foreign policy credentials will not get mine resistant vehicles in the field any faster and will not get our troops home any sooner. Already Republicans are seeking to divide Democrats on the one issue that they have no credibility on after four and a half years of President Bush’s failed policy in Iraq. During the CNN/YouTube debate on Monday night, Joe Biden told the truth about how long it would take to withdraw our troops from Iraq. And Sen. Clinton said, ‘Joe is right.’ Sen. Biden is the only Democratic candidate to put forth a detailed political plan for how we end this war without leaving chaos behind.”

It’s definitely politically smart for someone with the foreign policy credentials of Joe Biden to enter a foreign policy disagreement between some frontrunners, who simply do not have his expertise in this area.  That being said, the Biden campaign missed an important political opportunity.  I understand why Biden’s campaign focused on the Iraq dimension to Obama and Clinton’s disagreement.  After all, Biden is the “Plan For Iraq” Democratic candidate.  There’s certainly nothing wrong about his response, however, it falls short of the kind of response that’s really going to get Biden engaged in a widely publicized disagreement between Clinton and Obama.  Talking about Iraq is fine, but he should have either picked a side or offered a new answer to the question of whether or not it’s a good idea to consider high level talks with any foreign leader.  A response that also covered the heart of Clinton and Obama’s disagreement would have made bigger waves.

I also understand why Sen. Biden did not go so far as to attack either Clinton or Obama or disagree with either of them.  It’s no secret that if this presidential campaign doesn’t work out for Biden, he’ll be a strong contender for Secretary of State.  Thus, sniping the frontrunners and thus possibly hurting their chances of success or simply making them mad are likely to reduce his chances of running the State Department.  This consideration also likely explains why Biden did not make the comments himself, but instead let his campaign manager respond.

Chris Dodd entered the fray today saying that both Clinton and Obama were wrong.  In a statement, Dodd said:

“With all due respect to both Senators Clinton and Obama, their responses to the question posed at the debate on Monday night about diplomacy were either overly-simplistic or overly-rigid.

“I have helped resolve conflict from Latin America to Northern Ireland, and with experience you learn that neither of those approaches serves the interests of the United States.

“Diplomacy is essential both to repair our nation’s fractured world relationships and move forward with a more global perspective to our foreign policy. However, there are some leaders - like Iran’s Ahmadinejad, who denies the Holocaust ever took place - which cannot and should not be diplomatically rewarded with visits from the American president.

“Unfortunately, this false debate, which has now lingered for days, has become just another personal argument among politicians and that’s lamentable given the stakes in this election. There is nothing new about this kind of politics and it certainly doesn’t demonstrate a readiness to lead the nation when our reputation around the world is in tatters.”

This was the political opportunity that Dodd needed (and still needs) to break out of the pack a little.  In order for Dodd’s campaign to heat up, voters need to become concerned that the frontrunners lack the experience and political stability necessary to win a general election and be a successful leader.  Needless to say, Dodd’s not in the greatest position.  If he were to attack Obama and Clinton in the fashion necessary to erode their support, he’d essentially be torpedoing the party and that will definitely not play with Democratic voters come primary day.  On the other hand, if Obama and Clinton fall by their own actions, then Dodd is poised to strike by reminding voters that he’s around.  Dodd’s response successfully walked the political tightrope that he’s on.  He was able to issue a strong rebuke to both Clinton and Obama without seriously hurting their viability as general election candidates, while at the same time scoring some points by coming off as the reasonable, experienced person capable of responding to the complexities of foreign policy. (I’m not necessarily saying that Dodd is, I’m simply saying that from a political perspective that’s the way he came off).

For months, I’ve been criticizing the Dodd campaign for not sharpening the rhetoric and for not taking enough political chances to get some attention.  In this case, Dodd finally did what he needs to be doing consistently if he hopes to get the nomination: That is, to subtly portray Clinton and Obama as candidates who refuse to appreciate the complexity of issues both foreign and domestic, while simultaneously squeezing into the policy wedge that this criticisms create.  For a candidate who has completely ruled out the possibility of running on the ticket as the Vice President, it’s a bit easier for him to do what needs to be done if he hopes to get the nomination.

[Photo Credit: Newsweek]

Related at 2008Central.net:

• Clinton’s Political Machine Wins Another Battle (7/25/07)
• Do Democratic Primary Voters Care About Iraq? (7/18/07)
• Chris Dodd Joins Criticism of Edwards and Clinton; Also, Dodd on Iraq (7/14/07)

Sphere: Related Content

Mitt Romney: YouTube Debates ‘Not Presidential’ But Endorses GOP “Machine-Gun” Fundraisers

Republican presidential contender, Mitt Romney has been successful at climbing the polls and raising cash.  Indeed, Romney is a skilled politician (this is not a judgment on his politics, simply his political skill).  As the spectre of Fred Thompson looms, Romney has been especially aggressive recently attempting to lock up as much support as possible before the increased competition arrives.  His aggressive politicking, while strategically smart in that it helps Republicans become comfortable with him as their leader, has been a tad sloppy lately…

Following the CNN/YouTube Democratic Debate, Mitt Romney expressed concerns about the format and indicated that he may not participate.  The very idea, that the candidate who hosts “Ask Mitt Anything” events would refuse to participate in the CNN/YouTube debate because of the format is a flat out contradiction.  Either, he actually wants voters to ask him anything, as he claims in the description of these events, and by extension would not have an issue with a debate format where voters actually get the chance to ask him anything OR he doesn’t really want voters to ask him anything.

Specifically, he took issue with the video question of a snowman inquiring about climate change, saying:

“I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman.”

Very well, I’ll accept his criticism; it’s can certainly be considered legitimate.  As a presidential candidate or president, it’s acceptable for someone to say that they do not want to participate in something because they think it’s silly.  However, if you’re going to take the high road, then you are somewhat obligated to stay on it (at least for a little while).  Accordingly, it was somewhat striking to me when he expressed support for a  Republican “Machine Gun” fundraiser in New Hampshire, where participants will have the opportunity to shoot Uzis (yes, Uzis), M-16s, AR-15s, Swedish Ks, MAC-11s and other sub-machine guns.  In support of the fundraiser, Romney said:

“It sounds to me like a novelty and a fundraising opportunity,” Romney said. “We have to lighten up a bit as a society and not always be looking for ‘gotcha.’”

Mitt Romney had a similar reply to a questioner who asked him to apologize for recently posing for a picture with a woman holding a sign (and for holding the sign himself) that said “No Obama, Osama and Chelsea’s Moma.”  In response, Romney said:

“You know what? Lighten up slightly.  There are a lot of jokes out there. I’m not responsible for all the signs I see.”

Is Mitt Romney serious when he tells people to “lighten up” about Uzis, machine guns and vague comparisons of rivals to Osama Bin Ladin while at the same time being serious about a video question from a snowman not exactly satisfying the “higher level” that the “presidency ought to be held to”?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not attacking Romney for supporting the fundraiser or for posing with the picture.  I’m simply saying that if a candidate says that decorum and respect for the presidency influences their decisions about whether or not to participate in events, then one must logically assume that Romney is applying the same standards to all of his decisions, unless of course Romney has consistency issues.

My only response to the possibility of Romney not participating in the CNN/YouTube debates for fear of disrespecting the office of the presidency is: Either follow your own advice and lighten up, or stop posing for pictures with absurd signs or endorsing fundraisers where automatic weapons and Uzis (yes, Uzis) will be shot.

Of note: Romney will not be attending the “Machine-Gun” fundraiser, however in his endorsement of it he discussed his prior experience with such weapons:

“I’ve fired a machine gun. I was in Iraq and they gave me machine guns to fire at a target. I’ve fired an Uzi and I fired a couple of other weapons. … It’s hard doing that and keeping it on target”

I couldn’t help but have a flashback to the April controversy surrounding Romney’s exaggeration about his hunting experience.  I’m a bit curious why his familiarity with Uzis and assault rifles wasn’t mentioned back then?

[Photo Credits: Truthdig.com and TMZ.com]

Related at 2008Central.net:

• Living in the Age of Hyperbole (7/23/07)
• This Is Not Presidential (7/23/07)
• Romney Questions Fred Thompson (7/18/07)
• YoseMITTe Romney (4/6/07)

Sphere: Related Content

Clinton’s Political Machine Wins Another Battle

The Clinton-Obama fracas started at the debate, where I said:

8:01: Would the candidates be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba. Obama says yes unequivocably. Says Reagan and JFK both talked, but there is an obligation to find areas of agreement. Clinton will not promise to meet until she knows what intentions are, such as being used for propaganda.

8:04: Edwards takes a middle ground - he would meet with them, but make sure the meeting is safe first. Says it’s not enough to just meet with leaders, but also needs to hear from the President.

For those that missed the tet-a-tet yesterday, the International Herald Tribune reiterated the majority of the happenings:

Within hours, Clinton advisers were arguing that Obama’s response had been too soft, while Obama advisers were making two points: That their candidate was not promising meetings but said only that he was willing to consider them, and that Clinton’s response mirrored Bush’s pattern of not meeting with leaders of “rogue nations,” as he calls them.

By Tuesday morning, both the Obama and Clinton campaigns had prepared memos to showcase these talking points.

The Obama campaign released its memo first, arguing that Obama would pursue “tough diplomacy” but also use carrots like leader-to-leader talks; Clinton, the memo asserted, disagreed with using “every tool at the president’s disposal to address problems before they become threats.”

Half an hour later, a reporter from The Quad-City Times, in Iowa, asked Clinton about the memo. According to the newspaper, Clinton said that she had not never reversed herself on leader-to-leader talks - and that she would not rule them out. But she also asserted, according the paper, that Obama was regretting his answer at the debate, an answer, she said, “that was irresponsible and, frankly, naive.”

Obama advisers said Tuesday that they had struck a nerve, prompting her to attack.

While the Obama staff memo came first, it is another thing for the candidate - in this case, Clinton - to go on the offensive herself.

….. [T]he Clinton campaign released its own memo doing so Tuesday afternoon.

“Senator Obama has committed to presidential-level meetings with some of the world’s worst dictators without precondition during his first year in office,” the memo argued. “Senator Clinton is committed to vigorous diplomacy but understands that it is a mistake to commit the power and prestige of America’s presidency years ahead of time by making such a blanket commitment.”

I omitted the portion about Madeline Albright touting the Clinton record, mostly because that’s to be expected.

What the IHT and most papers are omitting is the response of Obama, which is in the Chicago Sun Times:

Obama told the paper that Clinton’s camp was trying to score “political points.” He stood by his response and that Clinton’s position was not that different from the Bush administration policy, so she “can’t claim the mantle of change.”

Obama’s campaign was trying to regain its footing after walking into a potential political minefield. The debate story in the Miami Herald, another early primary state where Cuban Americans make up a voting bloc, said Obama and Edwards “suggested Monday that they would meet with two leaders who top South Florida’s most-hated list: Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.”

If he met with Chavez, Obama told the Iowa paper, it would be to tell him “what I don’t like” while finding areas to “potentially work together.”

“I didn’t say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon,” Obama said

Obama is also pushing for answers on why Clinton didn’t ask for an exit plan (in terms of logistics) before the war started.

Now, positions aside, this highlights the difference between Obama and Clinton. Both challenged the position of the other - Clinton on Obama’s diplomacy, and Obama on Clinton’s foresight on Iraq. Clinton was able to press forward on her issue and seize the initiative in the mainstream press, while Obama was left with ‘by the way’ type mentions in his own hometown paper. The ability and experience of Clinton’s team in dealing with the media prevented her from having to really deal with Obama’s charge, and instead put the onus on him to defend his position.

We’ve seen time and time again Obama’s inexperience hurting him. He didn’t create conflict with his charge about Clinton in the debate, when I wrote:

7:48: Clinton agrees there is no military solution; mentions the fracas with the Pentagon this week, not getting action. Shifts blame to the Republicans.

…..

7:53: Gravel says soldiers in Vietnam died in vain, given the capitalism in Vietnam right now, and that everyone in Iraq is too. Obama is asked the same question, and the time to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in.

Obviously that was directed at Clinton, and yet, it’s gone practically nowhere. Anderson Cooper didn’t follow up on it, and it hasn’t been lingering in the media, mostly because the Obama campaign has not made enough of a deal about it until after Clinton went on the offensive.

And if Clinton took the initiative on the diplomatic issue to prevent Obama from doing the same on Iraq withdrawal (which really could have been an effective attack, had Obama made a bigger deal about it), then she might just be unstoppable.

This is what we’ve seen time and time again since Obama declared: Clinton takes the initiative back. Obama has the money, but will it be enough to close the sizeable political gap between the two campaigns? Right now, I would not hesitate to say no. But I also would not hesitate to point out how much time is left until January…..

Meanwhile, John Edwards is somewhere wondering what he can do to be part of this discussion.

Sphere: Related Content

Thompson Adds, Subtracts From Non-Campaign Team

From the NYT Caucus:

Mr. Thompson’s new communications director, Linda Rozett, said that former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, a Republican who is also a former senator from Michigan, had joined Mr. Thompson in a “major role” that would be considered campaign manager — if the staff was using the terminology of a presidential campaign. (But they are not.)

Randy Enwright, a veteran Republican strategist with ties to the Bush family, also joined the team, officially called Friends of Fred Thompson, as the director of national political operations

There are some reports that say there is more to the additions. From Fox News:

But there has been much speculation about the role of Thompson’s wife, Jeri Kehn Thompson, and today, a senior adviser to Fred Thompson today stepped out of a day-to-day role in the campaign because of friction with her.

When asked to confirm reports that Tom Collamore would reduce his role to senior adviser, two senior Thompson insiders adamantly denied it to FOX News today, insisting that the emergence of Randy Enright as campaign manager and the reduction of Tom Collamore’s role had always been part of the plan.

But multiple sources close to Thompson now tell FOX News that denial was inaccurate. In fact, Collamore and Kehn butted heads, and that was partially responsible for Collamore’s move.

Thompson’s wife Jeri is a hard-nosed former Republican party operative and a long time political professional with a strong will. Insiders have long speculated that her personality would play a big role in the narrative of Thompson’s candidacy.

Marc Ambinder seconds that something had to have changed regarding the relationship of Collamore to Thompson, as Collamore was previously going to have a major role.

I’m not of the opinion that this is anything more than personalities that don’t fit stepping aside. For a candidate who has not even been publically considering been running for President for anything longer than earlier this year (this first indication was him wanting to address CPAC), It’s not that surprising that a member of his team and his wife (apparently) do not get along.

But that’s not the point. This is a good political move because it What this subtly does, though, is reflect the recent criticism of Thompson’s wife as being a trophy wife. The story puts her in the middle of the campaign as a key advisor, and not as some ditz as recent rumors had implied.

Because if this is not about his wife, then it’s about a non-candidate changing his campaign manager in waiting. And there’s no reason for that to be news….

Sphere: Related Content

Following CNN/YouTube Debate, Mike Gravel Offers Supporters “Uncensored” Thoughts

Capitalizing on his strong and sometimes controversial rhetoric, democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel is now offering supporters an email newsletter where he promises to provide his “real and uncensored” thoughts.  Further developing their netroots support is something I would encourage any candidate to do, regardless of how they’re performing in the polls.  That being said, there’s something disconcerting and odd about a presidential candidate promoting “uncensored” material; it’s usually a bad political strategy when your language is more suited for a Girls Gone Wild commercial than serious, substantive discussion.

The opening of the welcome email is telling about the state of Mike Gravel’s campaign:

Welcome to my inside exclusive e-newsletter.

This is the nerve center of my campaign now.  This way, I can
communicate to you directly.

If indeed it is the case that an e-newsletter has now become the “nerve center” of his operation, then Gravel desperately reconsider his strategy.  It’s simply not possible to mount a serious presidential campaign around an e-newsletter.

Gravel then explains what subscribers will get from their subscription to his e-newsletter:

Here’s what you can expect from me:
—————————————–

 1. Get first notice on the things you won’t hear in the
mainstream media

 2. Exclusive access to videos and special features not available
anywhere else

 3. Special perks we have coming up you’ll appreciate.

That’s all well and good, although quite frankly, the offer of “special perks” intrigues me while simultaneously boggling my mind.  I just can’t imagine what these special perks could be, especially when his campaign is $64,000 in debt and only has $31,000 cash on hand.

I’m a proponent of pluralism within the electoral process, so if Mike Gravel really wants to remain in this race, he’s going to need to make some massive changes immediately.  I’ve said it before, he’s forcing people, especially the media, to further marginalize him. I understand his frustration with the state of mainstream media, I do.  I understand his anger towards most politicians who would rather offer voters platitudes instead of serious solutions and I also understand his anger when politicians who do offer serious solutions are either ignored or pointlessly criticized by the press.  Dealing with the anger, manging it and turning it into something useful is what leadership is about.  As president, there will be a lot of things that Mike Gravel will not have direct control over.  There will also be a lot of things that anger him.  Mike Gravel not only needs to get mad about issues worth getting mad about (anger only shows that he cares), he also needs to demonstrate that he can manage that anger.

From a political perspective, I just don’t see this happening for former Sen. Mike Gravel.  At this point, the cynic in me thinks that he’ll push fundraising until he’s raised enough money to cover his debt and then he’ll drop out of the race with one last rhetorical flurry.

[Photo Credit: Democracy In Action P2008]

Related at 2008Central.net:

• Mike Gravel Continues To Lash Out - Democrats Are Reminded Why There Are Attempts To Limit His Participation In Events (7/18/07)
• FEC Report: Mike Gravel (7/16/07)
• Mike Gravel Unleashes Fury at NAACP Forum (7/12/07)

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »