Damage Control: Clinton Campaign Website Issues Updated To Include Entry On Immigration Reform

Following Hillary Clinton’s trouble last night with drivers licenses for illegal immigrants question, the Clinton campaign has been spinning all day long. If there was any doubt that the campaign is seriously worried about the impact of Clinton’s answer that doubt can end now…

At some point today, the Clinton campaign website was updated to include a new entry in the issues section called “Reforming our Immigration System.” Given that up until today, this list only had 10 topics on it, the rapid addition of the immigration issue can only mean one thing - damage control. I spotted this addition based on memory, but verified by comparing a cached version of website from October 27, 2007 to the current version. [As an aside, this is the kind of situation that exemplifies why I was and am so frustrated with the Edwards campaign for their intentional blocking of the archiving of their website].

The entry itself is nondescript, containing mostly vague generalities on the topic. The haste in which it was drawn up is evident from the typos and the fact that it doesn’t even have an entry on the index page for her issues yet. However, the intended purpose to mitigate the damage of yesterday’s confusing response is pretty clear. Some selected quoted:

“Hillary has consistently called for comprehensive immigration reform that respects our immigrant heritage and honors the rule of law.”

“Hillary strongly believes we need to do more to know who is in our country by securing our borders and ensuring that employers comply with the law against hiring and exploitating [sic] undocumented workers.”

“Along with these changes, Hillary believes we need to repair those broken portions of our immigration system that irrevocably damage families and force citizens and lawful immigrants to choose between their newly adopted country and living with their spouse or children.”

“And Hillary understands that our immigration policies have a direct impact on American workers. She opposes a guest worker program that exploits workers and creates a supply of cheap labor that undermines the wages of U.S. workers. Hillary believes all workers deserve safe conditions and decent wages.”

I recognize the need for the campaign to address this issue head on now that it has become a bit of a hot button issue. That said, one of the major critiques of Sen. Clinton’s response yesterday evening was that it was vague, non-committal and confusing. I think many of the same criticisms could be said of this new addition to Sen. Clinton’s website. It’s one thing to get called out for behaving too much like a politician. Sure the pundits will go nuts and the voters will grumble a bit, but at the end of the day the criticism of being too political probably won’t hurt a candidate THAT much. However, Sen. Clinton’s response last night and now this new addition to the issues section makes her susceptible to a new criticism - incompetence. Running for president and being called “political” is one thing, but running for president and being called incompetent is something totally different. To use a line from Biden last night, “when you’re in a hole - stop digging.” The Clinton campaign needs to stop trying to rapidly respond to this issue, stop trying to triangulate on this issue and put together both a better response to the question and to the media.

Related at 2008Central.net:

• Hillary Clinton: Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain (10/31/07)
• Edwards Campaign Conceals Internet History By Preventing Archiving Of JohnEdwards.com (7/11/07)

Sphere: Related Content

Poll Vaulting: Good News For Clinton, Worse For Giuliani: New Poll Finds Clinton Would Crush Giuliani in National Election

Politico has the story, and it’s worth a read.

Here’s the crux:

In a hypothetical matchup between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, bloc after bloc of traditionally Republican voters break for Clinton:

She wins the South.

She polls evenly with voters who attend church at least once a week.

She splits families with a household income above $100,000.

She loses rural voters and men — but only by a narrow margin.

All are constituencies Republicans have dominated for decades; George W. Bush won each by double-digit margins.

The findings from The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press remain preliminary, considering even the primaries are still two months off.

But Pew questioned an unusually large number of voters to try to paint the most accurate picture possible of where the presidential contest stands today.

Should the race continue down its current trajectory, the poll finds Clinton defeating Giuliani by eight percentage points.

First, on Giuliani. This is pretty damaging, as his main claim to the Republican mantle has been his electability, and this poll severely undermines that. The specter of not even carrying the South against Clinton could prove to be a major turning point in the Republican primary. It should also be noted that this news comes on the heels of the attack on Giuliani by Biden last night; the Giuliani campaign has resorted to attacking Biden back, but frankly that’s too easy a target, and not the real issue. All the retorts back by Giuliani and his supporters have been at Biden, and not on what he said, which actually got a big laugh. As pointed out earlier, it seems clear that Giuliani recognizes this himself. In fact, a little humor by him himself might go a long way towards capitalizing on it. The worse news is that with this bit fresh in everyone’s mind, now this poll comes out: suddenly, Giuliani’s two biggest pillars of his campaign - his performance on 9/11 and his electability - are both undermined. That’s not an easy problem to overcome, as normally Giuliani could focus on the other when pressed on one. But given his demeanor, he’s not going to back down, and I expect him to go to work immediately on a campaign to mitigate the poll number (although it’s large sample size may make that difficult) and salvage his reputation. But if Giuliani doesn’t win the nomination, I’d recommend looking back to this week, as these events and his response are going to be crucial.

As for Clinton, after the disappointing night she had last night (to put it mildly), this is really welcome news for her campaign. It underscores her electability compared to both Obama (who might have bigger problems in the South) and Edwards (who certainly could not be any better).

Now, I’ve gone on record as saying I don’t like national polls. I still don’t. But that doesn’t change the very real political impact that a poll like this will have.

Also, it should be noted that given their relative notoriety and that they’re running national campaigns, a poll like this is slightly more reliable.

But it should be still taken with a giant pail of salt. Right, Michael?

 Update: Same day, different poll, different results: A Quinnipiac University national poll finds Giuliani ahead 45-43; but there’s no comparable demographic breakdown. Reasonably good news for Giuliani, but the Pew poll should be more influential.

Sphere: Related Content

How Punditry Is Awful: The Stephen Colbert Edition

From the Washington Post blog the Trail:

Each of the presidential candidates have their own profile on Facebook, the social networking site of the moment. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has 158,000 supporters on his page, tops among the Democratic candidates, and Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), the online star of the Republican field, has 34,000. There are also dozens of pro-candidate and anti-candidate groups. The most popular pro group, “Barack Obama: (One Million Strong for Barack),” has 392,000 members and was created by 26-year-old Farouk Olu Aregbe. Stephen DeMaura, 22, founded the largest anti group, “Stop Hillary Clinton: (One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary),” which lists 514,000 members.

But Vachhani’s Colbert group beats them all.

“At a political level, comparing Mr. Obama and Mr. Colbert is patently unfair. To join Mr. Obama’s group … requires an explicit statement of political beliefs. Joining Mr. Cobert’s group signals that you’re a fan of his hilarious TV personality. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with this — but to comapre Obama and Colbert is truly to compare apples and oranges,” Fred Stutzman, a doctoral student at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, blogged Monday on TechPresident, the hub of online presidential campaigning.

Added George Washington University’s Michael Cornfield, who teaches about political strategy and message development: “Colbert is entertainment and entertainment always outrates politics. People want to be entertained. That’s all this means.”

Well, maybe.

Facebook has gotten increasingly political in recent months — and why not? YouTube has its CNN/YouTube debates, and MySpace has partnered with MTV for its live instant messaging forums. Earlier this month, Facebook — with more than 44 million members, the core group being high school and college age students — hosted two two-hour seminars for congressional and campaign staffers in Capitol Hill.

Maybe punditry would be more meaningful if they took more time looking at real candidates instead of fake ones. Or at least didn’t use fake candidates for anything but comedic relief. (Articles about Colbert threatening Georgia: fine. Comparing MySpace friends as a lead-in to serious analysis: not fine).

This amount of attention paid to Colbert by anyone but Colbert himself is embarrassing, or at least an indictment of the inane year and a half long election process. Especially when they make direct comparisons with Facebook or something of that ilk. Yes, people are more likely to sign up with Colbert than Obama because it means far, far less. It’s as if pundits get paid not to think.

Sphere: Related Content

Giuliani And Biden “Go To The Mattresses” Over Debate Quip

During yesterday’s Democratic Debate, Joe Biden delivered the YouTube moment with the following quip about Rudy Giuliani:

“Rudy Giuliani - there’s only three things he mentions in a sentence; a noun, a verb and 9/11″

The remark was punchy enough to warrant a response from the Giuliani campaign while the debate was still going on In a press release, Giuliani’s communications director stated:

“Senator Biden’s comments were of particular interest. The good Senator is quite correct that there are many differences between Rudy and him. For starters, Rudy rarely reads prepared speeches and when he does he isn’t prone to ripping off the text from others. And, Senator Biden certainly falls in to the bucket of those on the stage tonight who have never had executive experience and have never run anything. Wait, I take that back, Senator Biden has never run anything but his mouth.

Such a desperate attack from Senator Biden is to be expected considering I – Katie Levinson – have a better chance of becoming President than he does.”

Given the speed and harshness of the response, it’s clear that Biden’s remark struck an uncomfortable nerve with the Giuliani campaign. As previously discussed on this site and often mocked on social satire news sites and programs, Giuliani does excessively make reference to 9/11. Clearly, his consistent references to this event is a strategic political decision. Accordingly, the campaign must be aware of the fact that overusing the reference may at some point backfire. If voters are already susceptible to 9/11 reference fatigue before the general election, then Giuliani’s campaign will need to do some recalibration of their message. Indeed, it already seems that they are doing this. Within the last few weeks, Giuliani has been ramping up criticisms of his opponents’ lack of executive experience. Expect this theme to expand as Giuliani, wisely, begins to temper his direct references to 9/11 (that doesn’t mean he’ll stop, it just means that the references will likely become more subtle).

Within minutes, Biden’s communications director responded:

“We are well aware that former Mayor Giuliani will attempt to drag this race into the mud where the Republicans like to wage their campaigns. It’s pretty obvious that they can’t defend themselves on the real charge that Mr. Giuliani walked away from the cops and firefighters who were waiting for the 9/11 Commission to be enacted and the Biden crime bill to be restored.”

Politically, this kind of exchange is good for Joe Biden. First, the fact that he is drawing criticism from and engaged in an argument with Giuliani allows him to gain much needed media attention. Secondly, if this argument continues to play out, Biden could be able to add to his own electability impression by 1) getting attention from the GOP frontrunner and thus seeming like a more serious candidate and 2) being able to put his general toughness (albeit unpolished), experience and quips on display. With the shakiness among the top candidates after last night’s debate, this could be an opportunity for Biden to seize some political ground.

[Photo Credits: CarryOnAmerica.com]

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Clinton: Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

Maybe Clinton is hoping that this much spinning will reverse time, ala Superman? From Clinton campaign strategist, Mark Penn:

Despite the best efforts of her six fellow candidates to trip her up, Senator Clinton stood strong and made her case on critical issues like Iran, Iraq and Social Security. She kept her focus on the real target in this election: Republicans and the Bush Administration. Instead of going after the other Democrats, Hillary made the argument for why change is needed and why she has the strength and experience to lead the Democratic Party in its efforts to make that change happen.

Sadly, Senator Obama caved to the pressure of the pundits and fundraisers who demanded that he go negative and abandoned the “politics of hope” message that sparked so much interest in him early in the campaign. Meanwhile, Senator Edwards doubled down in his effort to become the guy best known for attacking other Democrats. Not to be outdone, the rest of the pack followed suit and piled on in the hope that they’d get some media attention.

Even putting aside the primary risks, which we’re going to get into a bit later, this has an important general election effect should Clinton end up getting nominated: Americans do not like the type of answers she gave. Blaming it on people attacking her (when they were only pointing out the obvious, specifically referring to illegal immigration and the National Archive issue) or calling Tim Russert “unfair” or “unprofessional” (as noted here) are mere excuses, and bad ones at that. All of Russert’s questions very well could have been given on Meet the Press to any candidate of either party and no one would have batted an eye, really.

The impact of this debate is that Clinton is going to lose credibility, especially with the advent of Youtube and cable news (which didn’t really concern Clinton in 92, did they?). I’m not sure denying the mistake or blaming others is going to be a meaningful way to regain credibility.

Obama for his part sent out a campaign memo highlighting the problems Clinton had last night … but completely eliminated any mention of Barack Obama in prompting those questions or responding to the same. It seems slightly calculated to downplay any aggressiveness on his part. We’ll have to see if Obama keeps trying to have it both ways, or if it was just an isolated memo. Because the other candidates are not going to let Obama get away with washing his hands of any controversy (nor should they).

Sphere: Related Content

MSNBC Democratic Debate In Pennsylvania Scorecard (October 30, 2007)

Debate Performance Ranking…

This is a ranking of the candidates using the criteria of whom based only on the debate, improved their chances for winning the nomination the most. In other words, if all the candidates were completely tied this evening then the debate alone would tip the scales in the following way.

1. Joe Biden
2. Chris Dodd
3. Barack Obama
4. John Edwards
5. Hillary Clinton
6. Bill Richardson
7. Dennis Kucinich

This was definitely a lively debate. As expected, Sen. Clinton received strong criticism from her opponents. If you’re interested in our explanations for the rankings, be sure to tune into our next podcast. Congratulations to Sen. Biden for winning another Democratic debate.

Related at 2008Central.net:

• Live Blog Of MSNBC Democratic Debate In Pennsylvania (October 30, 2007)
• MSNBC Democratic Debate In Pennsylvania Time Allotments (October 30, 2007)

Sphere: Related Content

MSNBC Democratic Debate In Pennsylvania Time Allotments (October 30, 2007)

See below for the amount of time that each candidate spoke in tonight’s MSNBC Democratic Debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania…

Actual Time Spoken:

• Hillary Clinton - 22:39
• Barack Obama - 18:40
• John Edwards - 15:15
• Chris Dodd - 9:33
• Dennis Kucinich - 8:53
• Joe Biden - 6:33
• Bill Richardson - 6:04

Opportunities to Speak (Questions/Rebuttals):

• Hillary Clinton - 28
• Barack Obama - 17
• John Edwards - 14
• Chris Dodd - 12
• Joe Biden - 7
• Dennis Kucinich - 7
• Bill Richardson - 6

Our numbers are a bit different than those provided by the Dodd campaign (we stand by our numbers).  Regardless, it’s clear that it was a very, very Clinton-centric debate.

[Kind thanks to 2008Central supporter BDA, who compiled this data]

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog Of MSNBC Democratic Debate In Pennsylvania (October 30, 2007)

We are ready to go! The debate starts at 9pm EDT. It will air on both MSNBC and on MSNBC.com and will be moderated by Brian Williams with supplemental questions from Tim Russert. The debate is taking place at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

8:05: Less than an hour to go. Currently working on getting some pictures from the press photo pool, although they’re usually just taking the preliminary pictures about now, so it may still be too early…

8:11: Candidates from left to right: Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson. And, if you’re just dying to know, Brian Williams is indeed “happy to be back in Philadelphia.”

8:52: Where in the World is Mike Gravel? Well, he’s having his own online debate here, which is being broadcast from a spot in Philadelphia, where he is protesting GE (owner of NBC) for censorship. Sorry, Mike, but one debate per night is enough for us. Who do we look like, leaders of the Florida Democratic Party?

9:02: Brian Williams introduces Drexel University by talking about the school’s mascot, Mario The Dragon.

9:03: First question to Obama about whether or not he’s going to get tough with Hillary Clinton. He gives a solid response about changing politics. Hillary’s rebuttal was sure to ignore the fact that Obama even spoke and to note that the criticism she receives from the right is ample evidence that she is very different from the right.

9:06: John Edwards makes a point to use a positive tone when asked about using the harshest rhetoric in the campaign against Clinton. Clinton responds by referring to her record in very generic terms, and refers vaguely to battles in the 90s. She’s referring more and more to the policies of the 90s, and she only does that when on defense.

9:08: Russert doesn’t let Hillary dodge the question and frankly asks her about her Iran policy. She adimately denies that the vote is a pretext for war. Clinton loses her cool a bit and sounds like the guy that flipped out on the Bobs in that movie, Office Space.

9:13: It’s Doddtime! Dodd calls for leadership and notes that although the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is not an overt pretext for war, the 76 votes in favor of it could be used down the line in order to pressure support for military action. Dodd notes that it was critical to oppose it in order to stop the trend.

9:14: Biden says, the president already had the authority to do everything that amendment called for and contends that the real harm in passing the amendment was that it feeds into the negative impressions of the United States abroad. Says it was a bad foreign policy. Ultimately, Dodd and Biden frame their answers on Kyl-Lieberman in a way that significantly hurts Clinton and adds credence to the attacks that Obama and Edwards have been laying.

9:15: Obama is asked about attacking Iran, and says it should not be the focus or the concern, and focuses on diplomacy while referencing the points Dodd and Biden made. He eventually concedes that should Iran be on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon that war would be an option.

9:17: Clinton notes that the amendment didn’t give Bush any special powers. Calls for action on Sen. Jim Webb’s legislation, which explicitly requires the President to get approval from congress before taking military action in Iran. somehow claims to agree with Biden on Iran, even though he spent his whole time criticizing her.Clinton reiterates that she will not let Iran get nuclear weapons, stresses diplomacy and economic sanctions. Specifically, she mentions economic sanctions in regards to Libya and North Korea but does not mention the elephant in the room with sanctions - Iraq.

9:20: Edwards asks the obvious question of why Clinton voted for the resolution if she’s as demanding for diplomacy as she claims. Edwards goes on to chide Democrats for not standing up to the Bush administration. I imagine that’s a lot easier to do when you’re not in the Senate any longer.

9:22: Kucinich gets to speak. Invokes Article 2 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution and calls for the impeachment of President Bush.

9:24: Russert asks for a pledge to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. Hillary pledges that she will do everything she can do to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, John Edwards says he would take every responsible notion. Obama notes that all of them likely want to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, says “let’s short circuit this” and begins talking about the politics of fear and how they impact foreign policy and erode civil liberties. Biden pledges to keep the U.S. safe and notes that “it is complicated stuff” (because, stuff really demonstrates just how complex it really is). Biden goes on to put things into perspective and says that there are other more immediate problems that need to be considered when considering Iran. Dodd talks about experience and says Pakistan is more immediate problem. Richardson takes the bate and pledges to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear, then points to his experience in foreign diplomacy. He points to one of the hostages from Iraq whom he negotiated the release for (during the 90s, not now). Kucinich asks the media to be more cautious with their rhetoric; calls for nuclear nonproliferation.

9:32: Hillary Clinton opposes the Iraq War, but not the soldiers (duh). Says that there is no military solution and that she will begin withdrawal as soon as she takes office. Clinton criticizes Bush for only relying on a small group of people for advice (Pot, meet Kettle, he’s black too).

9:35: Edwards draws a dichotomy: ‘If you believe that combat missions should continue in Iraq, if you believe that there should be no timetable for withdrawal’ then you should support Clinton; but if you want the combat missions to end within the first year (so he won’t immediately stop them?) and if you want the troops out then you should support Edwards. Edwards criticizes Clinton for her general election strategy and says that there should only be one type of rhetoric, the truth as opposed to rhetoric for the primary and rhetoric for the general election.

9:38: Clinton clarifies the combat missions critique. Notes that she will have a responsible withdrawal and that troops will remain to protect our embassy and pusue al-Qaeda. Says that combat missions will continue in a limited way so that soldiers can defend themselves while the withdrawal is occurring.

9:43: And we’re back, Hillary gets her 9th opportunity to speak. This time it’s to respond to Giuliani’s recent critique that she is inexperienced. Clinton says, “the Republicans and their constant obsession with me demonstrates that I am communicating effectively what I will do.” Clinton speaks broadly about what she will bring. Clinton one ups Obama’s catchphrase of turning the page by saying that she wants to “throw the whole book away.” Good metaphor.

9:44: Russert follows up. Asks if Clinton will the national archives to release Sen. Clinton’s communications as first lady with then president Clinton. Clinton says that the archives are moving as quickly as they can. Russert asks about a letter written by Bill Clinton requesting that specific records not be released until 2012. Hillary dodges, not even mentioning Bill’s letter.

9:45: Obama says that Republicans are “obsessed with Hillary” because that is fight that they are comfortable with and one that they are used to fighting. Goes on to say that it is precisely the reason why he should be the nominee because if she is elected partisan bickering will prevail for the next 8 years, whereas he has an opportunity to transcend it.

9:46: Edwards follows Obama with a nonsensical response. Mentions Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and asks, “Will America Be Fine?” if a Democrat who can bring change is not elected.

9:50: Hillary responds to the criticism by saying that progress was being made in the 90s and hits a home run by saying “change is just a word if you don’t have the strength and experience to make it happen.”

9:52: Obama asked about his specific experience. He cites a few things. I can’t help but think the other candidates must be frustrated by their lack of attention.

9:54: Richardson gets a turn. Cites some differences with Clinton but resorts the same old, “Look, I’m a Governor…” line.

9:55: Dodd is asked about his recent criticism of Hillary’s electability. He doesn’t really explain why she isn’t electable. Edwards gets a follow up and talks about Clinton’s lobbying.

9:58: Kucinich gets his.

10:00: Biden says he is not running against Hillary Clinton, that is he running to be the leader of the free world. He then launches a strong attack against Rudy Giuliani. Criticizes him for not having foreign policy experience and delivers his first YouTube moment, saying: “There’s only 3 things he [Rudy Giuliani] mentions in a setence…a noun, a verb and 9/11.” Biden then turns to Richardson and reminds him that he’s the one on the stage with the most experience, talks about things he was doing in the 70s, then says another great line: “maybe I’ve been around too long that you’ve forgotten all the good things that I’ve done.”

10:05: Russert challenges Hillary on an apparent difference between her private and public positions on social security taxes. As an aside, Russert’s questions can basically be boiled down to: ‘you’re a hypocrite….why?’

10:06: Obama says that it’s common sense that something needs to be done about Social Security and says that of the options available raising the cap on social security is the best one of the options available. Returns to politics in general and says that the problem is ultimately that candidates are afraid to discuss good ideas that are on other side of the political spectrum and says that he is not afraid to embrace good ideas.

10:10: Obama responds to concerns about swift boating by saying that when he was running for Senate, he was told it wasn’t going to end well because no one would vote for a “black guy named Obama.” Says that what matters is dealing with the swift boat ads fast and strong.

10:12: Break time. It’s worth noting that Ron Paul spammers have completely taken over the chat room for Mike Gravel’s protest debate. *sigh*

10:15: And we’re back. This time with a rule change - enforced 30 second responses.

10:17: Chris Dodd responds to a question about the price of oil by plugging his website. Biden’s response to the rising price of oil: “When you’re in a hole, stop digging.” Edwards says that Americans need to be willing to sacrifice and talks about the importance of conservation in dealing with oil prices.

10:22: Dodd talks about his call for a corporate carbon tax and overall energy independence plan. To his credit, Dodd rightfully points out that his plan is the most ambitious and comprehensive of any presidential candidate.

10:26: Russert asks Sen. Clinton about Rangel’s proposal to change the Alternative Minimum Tax. Hillary says that she supports a better and more fair tax system (dodges the question really, other than to note that she doesn’t fully support Rangel’s plan), then launches into an attack on the Bush Administration and their tax breaks to the wealthy. Of note, earlier in Clinton’s response she said she didn’t know all the details, then later goes on to say that she disagrees with some of the details. Obama gets a shot to speak about taxes, rolling back the Bush tax cuts. The verdict: Democrats talking about taxes in a debate setting is painful.

10:31: Russert asks Kucinich about hedge funds and Harry Reid’s decision not to adjust the tax rates for hedge fund managers. Kucinich chides Democrats for not standing up to fight for fair taxes, for not standing up against the war and for not standing up against insurance companies. Concludes that in the status quo, people are confused about the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

10:34: We’ve entered the hyperbole portion of the debate…

10:35: Lighting Round!

10:36: Oversees students spend about 1 additional year in school than in the United States. Richardson believes the school year should be extended, underscores the gap and talks about better pay for teachers and getting rid of no child left behind.

10:39: Edwards responds to the education question by noting that there are two school systems in America (makes sense since it’s consistent with his campaign theme of two americas).

10:40: Biden hits a home run on the education question by giving a strong concise answer. He proposed extending the school year back in 1987 and observes that unless we believe our children on naturally brighter than children in the rest of the world, then we absolutely need to extend the school year.

10:46: In response to a question about medical care, Edwards talks about a nursing crisis in an obvious plea for more SEIU unions to endorse him.

10:50: Obama is asked about the awfulness of air travel. There’s no serious answer to this question and his flubbing of the response only demonstrates this.

10:52: Clinton is asked about New York’s plan to provide a license to illegal immigrants.  Clinton sinks herself, or drives off the road for a more apt metaphor.  We’ll deal with this issue in a specific post.

10:57: Russert asks Kucinich about his UFO sighting.  Kucinich says he did see a UFO and that it’s not that crazy.  Russert asks Obama whether he believes there is life on other planets, Obama says he doesn’t know, but knows that there is life here on earth and that as president, these are the people he’ll be tending to first.

10:59: Clinton is asked about whether she’ll fight focus on fight against cancer.  Obviously, Clinton notes that she will oppose cancer.

11:00: Edwards states that he opposes decriminalizing marijuana because it sends the wrong message.  Dodd replies that the reality is that too many people are being locked up in jail and that it’s important to get a lot smarter on the subject.

11:02: Asked about Halloween costumes, Obama says that he will likely wear a Mitt Romney mask (that has two sides to it that go in opposite directions).

Sphere: Related Content

Preview Of MSNBC Democratic Debate In Pennsylvania (October 30, 2007)

Tonight, there will be a democratic debate on MSNBC from 9-11pm (eastern); it will also be simultaneously broadcast on MSNBC.com. Brian Williams will be moderating the debate and Tim Russert will also be asking questions.

The debate participants will be: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson. Mike Gravel will not be participating in this debate on account of not raising $1 million (the minimum amount required by MSNBC to participate in the debate); he has only raised a bit more than $379,000 to date. Mike Gravel is in Philadelphia, however, and will be conducting a live protest debate, where he will be responding to the questions and other candidate’s responses from the debate.

We’ll be live blogging the debate. So be sure to check in with us frequently once the debate starts.

Sphere: Related Content

I’m Not Impressed With Ron Paul’s Ads

Some people are, some are not. I’m with the latter. I’m not sure this type of approach (and style) works in an age of cynicism when people have enormously high expectations. The only good part is the ad with Paul talking, in the substance of what he is saying. On the whole, I’m skeptical this ad buy will be worth what he’s paying for it.

If you disagree, leave a comment and we’ll discuss.

Sphere: Related Content

Giuliani Still Lobbying on the Side

This is everywhere today. From the Washington Post:

Ten months into his presidential bid, Rudolph W. Giuliani continues to work part time at the security consulting firm he promised to leave this past spring to focus on his pursuit of the Republican nomination.

Giuliani’s continuing involvement with a firm catering to corporate clients makes him unique among Republican contenders. It also complicates the task of separating his firm’s assets from his campaign spending.

Several of the firm’s employees do volunteer work for his campaign. And Giuliani did not decide until mid-June, six months after he entered the race, to bill his campaign for the cost of the security detail traveling with him on campaign trips; before then, the firm paid the expense.

Aides at Giuliani Partners in New York and with his campaign confirmed that he continues working part time at the firm. They declined to answer specific questions about the nature of his efforts, his compensation or the amount of time he spends there.

“Mayor Giuliani spends the majority of his time on the campaign,” Giuliani Partners spokeswoman Sunny Mindel said, declining to be more specific.

Federal election laws prohibit Giuliani’s firm from absorbing costs or providing services that legally should be covered by political donations, campaign experts said.

“This is a lawyer’s nightmare,” said Republican political consultant Scott Reed, who ran the 1996 presidential bid of then-Sen. Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) but is not aligned with a presidential campaign in this race. “I don’t think the vulnerability is with voters on the level of his commitment to the race. The concern is really about FEC violations and whether anything this corporation does to help him essentially is making a contribution to run for president in the form of staff time, materials, travel billing or security.”

Strategically, this is a bad idea, for obvious reasons: if it won’t be brought up sooner, it will be brought up later to his detriment. It’s one thing to have lobbied in the past (Fred Thompson) or to have ties to lobbyists that other candidates try to capitalize on (Hillary Clinton). To actually run for President while still lobbying implies severe boldness on Giuliani’s part.

In the long run, this is probably his weakness. Not just lobbying in general, but being so arrogant as to continue lobbying through the campaign despite giving past assurances it will stop. You’re not going to hear the word “precaution” a lot around Giuliani.

Sphere: Related Content

Watch Out Now: Barack Obama Busting A Move On The Ellen Degenerous Show

From our friends over at YouDecide2008.com, Barack Obama dancing during his recent appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show:

Sphere: Related Content

DNC Nullifying Florida Delegates: More Consequences

Following the DNC’s decision to nullify Florida’s delegates at the convention because of Florida’s early primary, the consequences start to become clear. A recent editorial in the St. Petersburg Times notes:

The latest Quinnipiac poll finds that 22 percent of Florida’s independent voters say they are now less likely to vote for a Democratic president because of the DNC’s shenanigans. In this still closely divided partisan environment, 22 percent is enough to turn Florida red - which is not the color Dean wants to see on the election map.

This editorial came during the 2007 Florida democratic convention, which was in many ways a disappointment due to the fact that the state party was unable to attract any democratic presidential candidates other than Mike Gravel. Even Mike Gravel partly snubbed the party by canceling his morning speech and move his originally scheduled afternoon speech to later in the evening.

Frustrations within the party were clear (prevalent but not omnipresent):

• Hundreds of party members skipped the convention to protest the DNC’s boycott on Florida.
• Sen. Bill Nelson, who has filed a lawsuit against the DNC for the nullification, noted: “This is unacceptable. Paying for political participation is unacceptable.”
• One party activist called for action, saying: “We should not be giving them [the Democratic candidates] one dime.”

These frustrations are underscored by GOP candidates aggressive showing in Florida. They debated in Orlando earlier this month and will be debating in St. Petersburg next month. And candidates are even directly challenging their Democratic rivals on the issue. Earlier this month, at a stop in Florida, Giuliani urged frustrated Democrats to switch parties and vote for him.

In a swing state as crucial and close as Florida, the consequences of the DNC’s decision to nullify Florida’s delegates extends beyond the concerns of political junkies and onto the radar of regular voters, who undoubtedly will vent their frustrations at the polls come the general election. This is not to suggest that the Democrats will automatically or likely lose Florida. However, there is no denying that: (1) Frustrated, moderate Democrats will be tougher to keep in the general election and (2) their general election efforts will be affected by the delayed start the Democratic candidate will have in setting up a Florida operation.

Related at 2008Central.net:

• On the Primary Shuffle… (10/22/07)
• Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden Pull Out Of Michigan Primary (10/9/07)

Sphere: Related Content

Giuliani Criticizes Clinton And Obama For Supporting Diplomacy With Iran; Suggests They’re Supportive Of Bin Laden And Ahmadinejad

Speaking in New Hampshire yesterday, Rudy Giuliani expressed strong support for the war in Iraq and chided Democratic rivals on Iraq and other foreign policy issues.

On Iraq:

“I think they’re going to change their minds. I think the verdict of history is going to be that it was the right decision…Do I think the mission overall in Iraq is the correct one, I think without a doubt it is.”

Giuliani also argued that without the war in Iraq, we would currently be dealing with both Iran and Iraq in a nuclear arms race.

From this rhetoric, we can glean some insight into Giuliani’s foreign policy perspective as well as his political strategy for dealing with the Iraq/Iran issue.

• First, it’s clear that Giuliani is linking Iraq to Iran. His argument is that whether or not you support the Iraq war, it has served as a helpful component of foreign policy because it removed the possibility of a nuclear arms race between the two countries.
• Secondly, this linking of Iraq and Iran serves a political benefit. The political reality is that a Republican candidate will have to deal (politically) with the unpopular Iraq War. Accordingly, linking the unpopular war to Iran, which people view as a legitimate threat, may help stave off the attacks that a Republican candidate can expect for supporting the Iraq War.

Giuliani also took Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to task for their support of diplomacy with Iran:

“This is the world we live in. It’s not this happy, romantic-like world where we’ll negotiate with this one, or we’ll negotiate with that one and there will be no preconditions, and we’ll invite (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad to the White House, we’ll invite Osama (bin Laden) to the White House.”

Adding:

“Hillary and Obama are kind of debating whether to invite them [bin Laden and Ahmadinejad] to the inauguration or the inaugural ball.”

The Obama camaign quickly replied to Giuliani’s remarks:

“Mayor Giuliani has stooped to a disgraceful new low that embraces the very worst legacy of George Bush and Dick Cheney’s cynicism and divisiveness. We must be united in our determination to hunt down Osama bin Laden, something that George Bush and Rudy Giuliani’s disastrous Iraq War has prevented. Mayor Giuliani’s cheap applause lines, unfounded political smears, and shoot-first-think-later politics are irresponsible in a campaign, and would be catastrophic in a presidency.”

Two remaining thoughts…

• I have concerns with a presidential candidate seemingly ruling out diplomacy. In a campaign where candidates cannot and will not rule out the use of nuclear attacks or pre-emptive strikes, is diplomacy really that destructive of a concept that it needs to be ruled out before you even have an opportunity to develop foreign policy as president. I’m not necessarily saying that Giuliani is wrong, I’m simply saying that it does create a needless starting point for his foreign policy should he be elected.
• I’m not entirely comfortable with juxtaposing Iran and Al-Qaeda without clarifying that they are not connected. Indeed, both Iran and Al-Qaeda pose a threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests (although, not necessarily the same degree of threat); however, they are very different. For starters, Iran is mostly Shi’a and Al-Qaeda is Sunni. The differences go on, but the purposes of this point, it’s not necessary for me to continue. As a presidential candidate, I would not want to blur the lines between the two. People need to understand the complexities of the threats and complications affecting our foreign policy. This is more a critique of election rhetoric in general and less a specific critique of Giuliani’s statements, although I think he, like others, are guilty of this issue in their political rhetoric.
• From a political perspective, Giuliani’s rhetoric will help him, at least for now.

[Photo Credit: 4president.us]

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net’s Presidential Election Podcast (10/29/07)

This podcast covers: (1) Poll craziness - Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney; (2) Romney’s speech on faith; (3) Obama ratcheting up pressure on Clinton; (4) Consequences in Florida for DNC; (5) Chris Dodd on Meet The Press; (6) Tom Tancredo is not running for re-election; (7) Kucinich, Richardson and UFOs; (8) Edwards brings the hammer on UNC student reporter; (9) Mike Bloomberg buying Google AdWords; (10) and more…

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

Mike Bloomberg Buying 2008 Election Related Google Adwords

Just saying is all…

I noticed today that Mike Bloomberg has purchased Google Adwords, some of which must be related to the 2008 election, since they are popping up with other election related links on election related stories. I don’t think this means anything other than an attempt to drive some traffic to his website, while putting in minimal effort to keep his options open should an opportunity arise for him to enter the race.

Related at 2008Central.net:

• Bloomberg Continues to Deny He’s Running (8/21/07)
• A Taste of Who Mike Bloomberg Is (7/3/07)

Sphere: Related Content

Edwards Campaign Attempts To Stifle Student News Video Critical Of Campaign

The Edwards campaign had a heavy handed response to a UNC student reporter’s video about the location of Edwards’ campaign headquarters. The report criticizes the campaign for placement of the campaign’s headquarters in an affluent North Carolina neighborhood instead of using the headquarters to draw attention to a poverty stricken area.

The Edwards campaign first contacted the student, Carla Babb, and demanded that she remove the video from YouTube. Babb refused. The campaign then contacted Babb’s professor, C.A. Tuggle, three times to demand that he force Babb to remove the video report. The campaign threatened that Edwards’ relations with the university could be jeopardized if Tuggle refused to pull the video.

I recognize that the campaign was upset, perhaps legitimately so, because they believe the story was misrepresented to them when access was initially requested. Even if their concern is legitimate, it does not justify their demand that the student pull the report. The video was clearly a commentary and not based on nor required any special information. If the student chose to criticize the campaign for their location of the headquarters, then that’s her right to do so, despite Edwards’ close ties to the university.

Moreover, it’s simply bad political strategy. The report was not scathing, nor was the criticism all that ground breaking. It was a student report that would not have received much attention had the campaign not created a story by demanding that the report be pulled down. You’d think Edwards’ communications people would know better than to create a story out of nothing, but alas, they don’t.

As an aside, I’ve personally experienced some of the strange antics that take place with Edwards’ press folks. Back in March, as I was preparing the report about the Edwards campaign blocking the archiving of JohnEdwards.com, I was placed on hold for quite a while, to have someone finally pick up the phone and promptly hang up. Repeated follow ups were all ignored.

Overall, it seems strange that a presidential campaign doesn’t recognize that the consequence of trying to stifle free press will be negative press. It’s a fairly basic component of politics and the fact that the campaign hasn’t quite accepted this yet may explain why Edwards has not been able to get the kind of attention he desires for his campaign theme of poverty.

[Photo Credit: SouthCarolinaCampaign2008.com]

Sphere: Related Content

Book: Kucinich Claims To Have Seen A UFO

Shirley MacLain’s new book, “Sage-Ing While Age-Ing,” contains some interesting election fodder about Dennis Kucinich. MacLain tells of Kucinich’s claimed encounter with a UFO:

“… [Dennis Kucinich] had a close sighting over my home in Graham, Washington, when I lived there. Dennis found his encounter extremely moving. The smell of roses drew him out to my balcony where, when he looked up, he saw a gigantic triangular craft, silent, and observing him. It hovered, soundless, for ten minutes or so, and sped away with a speed he couldn’t comprehend. He said he felt a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind.”

I really don’t imagine this becoming much of an issue for Kucinich for the sole reason that his campaign is simply well overshadowed at this point by his Democratic rivals. Beyond that, his campaign has simply ignored the issue so far as to not give it any additional fuel.

That said, a few (comical) thoughts…

• What does this mean for Kucinich’s ability to respond to crisis? I mean, ignoring a UFO hovering over your head for 10 minutes seems, well, kind of an issue.
• “Heard directions in his mind” - What does that mean? Like the directions for a traveling device? Like the directions that Bill Pullman’s character in Independence Day? Or, like directions to run for president?
• “Felt a connection in his heart” - Is Rep. Kucinich trying to tell us something about himself?

If it was indeed an alien craft, then you’ll probably want to vote for the only candidate who has promised to defend us against aliens - Rudy Giuliani.

[Photo Credit: Brit & Grit]

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »