Clinton Campaign Press Call: “Why Is Obama Hiding From Debates”…Also, ‘This Race Could Go On To June’

The Clinton campaign held a press conference call today. On the call was Mark Penn (Chief Strategist), Howard Wolfson (Communications Director) and Guy Cecil (Political and Field Director). A few notable pieces of information from this call:

On Debates…

The campaign hammered home the point that Barack Obama has refused to debate Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin. Their selling point is that the people of Wisconsin deserve this and that based upon the ratings for the last Clinton-Obama debate, there is considerable demand for such an event. Wolfson at one point indicated what they’d like voters to take away from Obama’s refusal by opining, “Why is Obama hiding from debates?” The campaign also began running a television ad in Wisconsin noting Obama’s refusal to debate there [video].

On Superdelegates…

The campaign stated that this election is a delegate fight and at this point is extremely close and will likely remain that way throughout the remainder of the campaign. Asked whether they were concerned about Dona Brazile’s recent criticisms of superdelegates and her insistence that they vote the will of the people. Wolfson responded by noting that neither campaign can win the nomination without the support of superdelegates.

This, of course, led to a question regarding how those super delegates should vote. The reporter stated: the Obama campaign is saying that whoever is ahead with the pledged delegates, that is the person who the superdelegates should vote for. Wolfson took exception with this state and referred to Obama Chief Strategist, David Axelrod’s remarks regarding superdelegates on The Today Show earlier this week (02/11/08):

LAUER: Let me ask you about superdelegates. A lot of discussion about the role they’re going to play in all this by the time it’s over and the debate being whether they should vote out of loyalty to a candidate, particularly if they’re elected officials, or whether they should vote the way their state or district votes.

So, when it comes to Senators John Kerry and Senator Ted Kennedy, should they vote for had Barack Obama because they’ve endorsed him or should they vote for Hillary Clinton because the state of Massachusetts voted for Hillary Clinton?

AXELROD: I think that the role of the superdelegate is to act as, sort of, a party elder. These are elected officials from across the country and they’re supposed to exercise their judgment as to what would be best for the party. And as they look at this, they need to decide who would be the strongest candidate for the party…

LAUER: David, you’re not answering. Should those two senators vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?

AXELROD: I think they and all the superdelegates should vote according to what they think is best for the party and the country. And I think that we need the strongest possible candidate against John McCain…

Just to provide a bit of context, Lauer was pressing Axelrod on this issue after a statement Obama made regarding superdelegates a week prior. Speaking on February 7, Obama said:

“[superdelegates] would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, ‘Obama’s our guy.’ “

That statement raised some immediate questions regarding its meaning. Specifically, did he mean that superdelegates (like Kerry and Kennedy, who support Obama) in states like Massachusetts should cast their vote for Clinton because she won their state? [Penn tried to make this point on the call today, but his tone tends to undermine some of the points he tries to make]. Or, does he mean that superdelegates should wait until the end of the primary process and then cast their vote for whoever has more pledged delegates? (If he meant this, it certainly didn’t sound like it given his reference to the superdelegates’ constituents). Thus, it’s important to view Axelrod’s comment regarding superdelegates in light of some of the confusion on the issue.

Regardless of the confusion, Wolfson stressed the fact that Clinton campaign is in agreement with the position that Axelrod expressed on The Today Show. In short: they think delegates should vote for who they think is best for party and country and as such they plan to fight for the support of as many as possible.

On the length of the campaign and staying power…

In an attempt to demonstrate the strength of the campaign, Cecil announced that the campaign will be opening offices with staff in all states that have upcoming primaries/caucuses. Following up on this point, a reporter asked if the campaign imagines that the contest could carry on to the Puerto Rico Caucuses on June 7, which is the last nominating contest. The campaign stressed the closeness of race and suggested that it very well could go all the way to Puero Rico. Circling back, Cecil used the closeness of the race as a reason for why offices and staff are being put into all remaining contests.

On Michigan and Florida…

Asked what efforts the campaign was taking to coordinate with Florida and Michigan in order to schedule a vote that can count for delegates, Wolfson expressed the campaign’s position, which is sure to be the most controversial takeaway from the call:

“Our position is the people in Michigan and Florida have already weighed in. [Wolfson then goes on to talk about the record number of participants and
concludes by stating that they believe that their] “will should be honored.”

Just a note…

It’s probably worth mentioning that sitting through these calls can be somewhat painful at times. If you’re a fan of logic and facts, the combination of the campaign’s sometimes strange syllogisms and logical gaps along with some of the mindbogglingly trite or just completely off the wall questions from the press, can lead to a sense of exasperation.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Raises Over $5 Million Since Polls Closed Super Tuesday; Campaign Using Hillary’s Self Funding To Raise Money

Following reports that Senator Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million dollars in late January, Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe sent out an fundraising appeal to supporters. At the time of the email, according to the campaign Obama had raised over $3 million since the polls closed on Super Tuesday, at the time of this post that figure was already over $5 million.

Plouffe writes (graphic from email to featured right):

The Clinton campaign just announced that Hillary and Bill Clinton injected $5 million of their personal fortune into her campaign a few days ago.

It’s worth noting that Plouffe does seem to try and instill a bit of hysteria amongst Obama supporters by claiming that the loan could end up being as close to $20 million:

The Clinton infusion of $5 million — and there are reports it could end up being as much as $20 million — will give them huge resources for the next set of primaries and caucuses.

I actually haven’t seen any reports like the one Plouffe mentioned (I have seen reports that she is considering another loan though, but no figures were mentioned) . If anyone has seen such a report, would you kindly email or comment?

Regardless, this fundraising appeal is a wise move for the Obama campaign. They’ll have to be careful though not to paint Clinton too far into a corner, lest she become the underdog. If the pendulum swings too far in his direction and Hillary has a subsequent victory, the momentum could be affected. This is probably why the Obama campaign is consistently saying that Clinton is still the frontrunner (at some point though, especially with numbers like this, his campaign is going to have to own up to the frontrunner label and what it brings with it).

As an aside, these fundraising issues probably help explain Clinton’s recent decision to accept Fox News’ debate and to challenge Obama to a debate a week between now and March 4. To date, the Obama campaign has not accepted any proposed debates; Obama spokesman, Tim Burton, said:

“As of right now, there are no debates on our schedule at all. We’ll figure out our schedule, including any debates, soon.”

Naturally, Kos and others is mad about the prospect of giving Fox News a debate:

Obama should say “no way” to the smear mongers on Fox. It’s incomprehensible that Clinton would seek to legitimize the Republican Party’s chief propaganda arm.

Meh. If Obama says no, it should be for his own strategic reasons. It shouldn’t be because Kos told him, nor should it be out of concern for “legitimizing” Fox News. Legitimizing? Really? If they are a propaganda wing, then going on there and being persuasive can only help undermine Fox.

Sphere: Related Content

Remember, Remember The Fifth Of November…

Today’s the big Ron Paul fundraising push and within 12 hours the campaign has raised $1.9 million. Impressive. Full campaign update after the jump…

Read more

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

Dodd Goes On Offensive Against Edwards Over Lobbyists

During yesterday’s ABC News Democratic Debate, John Edwards repeated his challenge over candidates’ acceptance of money from lobbyists:

EDWARDS: …Listen, Senator Clinton, both as first lady and as a United States senator, has done a terrific job. She’s been in Washington a long time. I’ve asked — Senator, I have never taken money from Washington lobbyists.

Senator Obama is not taking it in this campaign. I applaud him for that. And I’ve said: Why don’t we all make an absolutely clear statement that we are the Democratic Party; we’re the party of the people; we are not the party of Washington insiders?

And we can say it clearly and unequivocally, by saying we will never take another dime from a Washington lobbyist.

I’ve asked the other candidates to join me in that.

And at least, until now, Senator Clinton’s not done it.

Senator Clinton initially dodged the issue, then eventually responded by saying that it was an artificial distinction. Debate moderator, George Stephanopolous then turned the question to Senator Dodd:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Dodd, will you accept the challenge from Senator Edwards?

DODD: Well, look, first of all, I find this sort of situational ethics here. I mean, over the years, the fine people taking money from one group or the other were sort of competing with each other as to which group is a good or bad group here.

The fact of the matter is: I’ve been supporting, for years and years, public financing of federal offices. That’s what needed in this country. We’re never going to solve this problem, unless we move in that direction.

And, certainly, it’s not only the money you take, but what are you doing? How are you casting your votes? Where were you on bankruptcy? Where were you on dealing with the estate tax reform?

Those critical questions that affect people in this country are very important considerations. But public financing is where we need to be….

Following the debate, the Dodd campaign issued a statement entitled “John Edwards May Not Take Money From Washington Lobbyists, But He Sure Acted Like It.” In it, the Dodd campaign takes issue with Edwards’ voting record, noting:

• Edwards would not allow relief for people who were forced into bankruptcy from medical bills. Edwards also sided with the entire GOP caucus to vote against the Wellstone amendment to the 2001 bill. This amendment would have provided an exemption for debtors who were forced to file for bankruptcy due to medical expenses, under the rationale that health expenses are often unpreventable and can be an especially debilitating cost to low and middle income families. Chris Dodd was one of the 34 Democrats who voted for this amendment?a group that included Senators Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wellstone. [S.420, Vote 16, 3/7/01]
• Edwards rejected a means test amendment that would have protected debtors from sudden financial misfortune. On the same bill, Edwards again voted with the entire GOP caucus to reject an amendment that would have included a more consumer friendly means test than that included in the original bill. The amended means test would have used the average of a debtor’s last two months of income to determine their ability to pay a certain threshold amount of debt, instead of the last six months of income. The amended means test was designed to protect debtors who face financial difficulties from sudden job loss or disability. Paul Wellstone, who authored the amendment, said the original test “will make it impossible for families to rebuild their lives.” 22 Democrats supported this amendment, including Chris Dodd. Dodd was accompanied by Senators Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, and Kennedy. [S.420, Vote 33, 3/15/01; CQ Quarterly, 3/5/01]

The political strategy here is to kick up some dust and hope the media catches on in order to get some attention for the campaign. In all likelihood, this won’t happen. However, if Dodd continues to levy attacks against top candidates, he only increases the chances that they’ll take the bait at least once. If Dodd can get Edwards (or Obama or Clinton) to engage him directly, then he’ll get the attention that he’s craving. However, like we saw last month and earlier this month, these attacks by Dodd and others against Obama and/or Edwards tend to leave Hillary Clinton as the principle beneficiary.

It might make more sense to avoid the “shots in the dark” and take Edwards on directly over an issue that he considers himself the champion of. If Dodd really wants to get a response from Edwards, he should directly engage him on the poverty issue.

[Photo Credit: Flickr user Michael Millhollin]

Related at 2008Central.net:

• Live Blog Of ABC News Democratic Debate (August 19, 2007)
• Dodd and Biden Attack Obama and Edwards (8/9/07)
• Obama-Clinton Fracas Expands: Now Joe Biden and Chris Dodd Are Involved (7/26/07)

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net’s Presidential Election Podcast (06/24/07)

This week’s podcast covers…

• Mike Bloomberg departing the GOP
• Fred Thompson to announce soon?
• John McCain and Mitt Romney’s political scuffle
• Hillary Clinton booed at the Take Back America Conference: What’s it mean?
• 2008Central.net’s John Whitehouse attended the “Generation Barack Obama” event in New York City on June 22, 2007. What were his impressions?
• Despite a rough couple of weeks, Rudy Giuliani remains the leader of the pack
• Notes on the second tier
• A look ahead to the close of the second fundraising quarter of 2007 and the significance of primary date movement in Floria and New Jersey
• 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

The Ad Hoc Nature of Giuliani Campaign Stops

 Most candidates either list their campaign stops online, whether on their main page, as a press release, or in an ‘events’ section of their site.

Rudy Giuliani seems to be a notable exception. The only way to get any updates on where he is on his website is if you sign up to join his email list, and even then it does not give you everything (yours truly signed up, to no avail). It’s not a coincidence his calendar on our site is the most empty.

An AP story about a campaign appearance today in California illustrates part of the problem:

Giuliani stepped off a plane at San Francisco International Airport and promptly went to the Broadway Grill a few minutes away to chat with customers. His campaign ensured the lunchtime visit was stacked with supporters, sending out an e-mail Wednesday morning urging them to stop by the cafe en route to the fundraiser.

Those crowded into the restaurant appeared to be a mix of regulars in T-shirts and committed supporters clad in suits and ties and bound for the fundraiser, which cost $250 and up.

That’s not how most candidates organize their events - morning emails to people already attending an event asking them to attend another one. I have to wonder how much of this is avoiding potential sticky protests by the the IAFF outside his events, as mentioned earlier.

If anyone has any confirmation on how Giuliani schedules events in early primary states - where he would probably want to reach out to more undecided voters than in northern California events - please forward them along to us using the email addresses to the right.

You May Have Missed…

• Criticism Over Giuliani’s Handling Of 9/11 Continues To Heat Up While McCain Capitalizes On Rudy’s Weakness (5/30/07

Sphere: Related Content

Kucinich Creates Network Of ‘Spies’ - Hillary Clinton Targets Women

Today, the Kucinich campaign receives the award for the creepiest campaign email.  In an email sent to supporters, the campaign announced the launch of the “Eyes and Ears Project.”

“… it is important that we track, monitor, and gather information about the other candidates…we want other campaigns to know we are monitoring them…this process serves the dual function of keeping other campaigns honest.  If they know we are monitoring them, they will be more likely to be transparent and honest…”

With the expected endorsement from the National Organization for Women today, the Clinton campaign aggressively targeted women with an email sent to supporters from Geraldine Ferraro.  Ferraro writes:

It’s been 23 years since I was the first woman on a major party presidential slate, and I remember what it was like breaking that barrier — including the barrage of attacks at the hands of the Republicans.

Now Hillary is poised to break the biggest glass ceiling of them all. This time, when we elect the best, most qualified candidate for president, for the first time we’ll be putting a woman in the White House.

Full text of both emails after the jump.

Read more

Sphere: Related Content