2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (06/29/08)

Today, we take a look back at this week in the election and also have an in-depth discussion about the Obama Campaign’s general election strategy.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

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

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (06/24/08)

John and Angelo are back and will be recording podcasts several times a week now.  This podcast covers (1) Obama’s ‘get over it’ statement and (2) McCain staffer Charles Black’s comments to Fortune Magazine regarding who would benefit from a terrorist attack.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

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

Sphere: Related Content

Morning Briefing (April 9, 2008)

What’s news today…

• Mark Penn’s new role is clarified.  Despite all the hullabaloo, it’s clear that Penn will not play as influential a role as he was or what many still think he will.
• Sizzle: TNR scolds Obama for dismissing Clinton and McCain’s foreign policy experience as well as for  using his personal experience living abroad as a child to buttress his foreign policy credentials.
• An excellent look inside McCain’s campaign.  Is this what a McCain administration will look like?
• In our last podcast, we discussed Obama’s reversal on public financing and its political implications.  Coincidentally, it seems that Obama is preparing his justification for not opting into the public finance system should he become the nominee by contending, “We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful.”
• Why?  Howard Dean criticizes McCain and calls him “not a strong candidate.”  Somewhat ironically, one of the reasons he suggested McCain is a weak candidate is because “he is out of touch with the American people.”  To me, it certainly seems out of touch to suggest that McCain is a weak candidate.  I recognize that as Chairman, Dean has to support his party, but it seems that recognizing reality is often the fastest way to earn credibility.  Recognizing McCain’s strength is not mutually exclusive with opposing him.
• Bill Clinton’s recent trip to Puerto Rico could have gone better.  A report: While Clinton was giving a speech, in English:Nobody interpreted, and only a handful of audience members seemed to understand him. The crowd — raucous and dancing a few minutes earlier — remained mostly silent during the 10-minute speech. Some people left. Others chatted on their cellphones. ‘What is he saying? Do we clap now?’ asked Jerry Nieves Rosario, a college student who speaks only Spanish.
• Inform yourself: This roundup of Iran nuclear related news is useful.
• Can we just stop with the ‘calls to Al Gore‘ for the time being?  Honestly, who throws a shoe?
• A Democratic debate on Science?  Maybe, it’s still very early in the planning stage.  I like the idea, that’s for sure.

 

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (04/05/08)

During this show, the gurus discuss the state of the race, the Clinton tax returns, Obama’s strategy in Penn., McCain strategy, a general election preview and much more….

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

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

Sphere: Related Content

The Bill Richardson Chronicles

In a word, boring. Michael Crowley gives the cliffnotes version:

Bill Richardson ran for president. He was nice to Hillary. Maybe he was angling for her veep? Then in Iowa he threw his non-viables to Obama. The Clintonites raged about a betrayal. Then he watched the Super Bowl with the other Bill and all was well. Then he was “genuinely torn” about who to endorse but didn’t like a phone call he got from a Clintonite. Then he endorsed Obama. Then Carville called him Judas. Then he blasted Carville for “character assassination.” Then they said he’d promised not to endorse Obama. Then he denied that. Then he said Hillary said Obama can’t win. Then Hillary’s people said he said Obama isn’t ready. Then he denied it. Then she seemed to deny saying what she supposedly said. Then her people said she didn’t deny saying that but won’t say if she did say it.

He’s going to make a really fun footnote in some historian’s book 50 years from now. Aside from that….

Sphere: Related Content

Behind The Scene At CDP: Bill Clinton Expresses Anger At Richardson And The Media; Turns Off Some Superdelegates

On Saturday, March 30, Bill Clinton addressed California Democrats State Convention.  This speech was not only intended to address the larger question of Democratic party unity, but also an opportunity to woo some of California’s remaining 23 undecided superdelegates.  California has 65 super delegates.  Of these 65, Clinton has the support of 29, Obama has 13 and 23 remain undecided.  During his speech, President Clinton struck a conciliatory and optimistic tone, saying:

“There is somehow the suggestion that because we are having a vigorous debate about who would be the best president, we are going to weaken this party in the fall.

“We’re going to win this election if we just chill out and let everybody have their say.”

However, Mr. Clinton offered a sharp contrast behind the scenes turning off some superdelegates.  Prior to his speech, he met privately with about 16 undecided superdelegates.

At first all was well and then: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Lieberman and the Democrats Differ on Trade

This Sunday on This Week, Joe Lieberman chastised the Democratic Party for not being the party it used to be as reason for him endorsing John McCain:

Well, I say that the Democratic Party changed. The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It’s not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. It’s been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will –and very, very hyper-partisan. So it pains me. I’m a Democrat who came to the party in the era of President John F. Kennedy. It’s a strange turn of the road when I find among the candidates running this year that the one, in my opinion, closest to the Kennedy legacy, the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain.

Most of the focus on these comments have been regarding foreign policy. While many people point out the foreign policy ramifications of this, there seems to be less meat on that bone. Traditional Democratic and Republican foreign policy of yore really has little to no relevance. We don’t know how Democrats would have conducted foreign policy outside of the Cold War. It’s completely speculative. And while some guesses are better than others, it also seems pointless.

Moreover, Lieberman seems to be using somewhat of a straw man here. Neither Clinton nor Obama is as liberal on foreign policy as other Democrats. Indeed, Hillary Clinton could reasonably be described as one of the most hawk-like Democrats today at all. The candidates who are no longer in the race are all by far more liberal on foreign policy, save perhaps Biden. However, it’s a fair accusation in the sense that Clinton and Obama are currently locked in a silly argument on who could withdraw forces the fastest. As Ambers pointed out, that argument is spurious.

It seems to be more of a response to the Democrats taking the “100 years” comment of McCain out of context. That, in turn, seems to be in response to the general “cut and run” characterization of all Democratic policies.

Point being? Foreign policy is politicized. You have to wade through both sides’ rhetoric to find the truth.

The real disagreement seems to be on trade. The attempts to pander to the base of the party are clearly moving away from Democratic economic policies of the 90s. No one is admitting this, but strangely, no is worried about this. Conservative point to it as a matter of fact.

Picking a conservative blog at random, it seems Powerline last dealt with the substance of NAFTA back when Edwards was in the race. And it’s not that conservatives are not prepared to make this argument. Just that it has not been made yet. It’s coming.

I think this is something that could get more traction. On the same day that Lieberman made these comments, Chelsea Clinton said that her parents do not agree on NAFTA. Read more

Sphere: Related Content

God Bless First Read

Easter Shmeaster. There’s a better holiday:

Meanwhile, Bill and Chelsea hit Indiana all day today. They’ll be there for something called Dyngus Day. According to one Google search, Dyngus Day is a day where guys get to drench gals in water; apparently tomorrow, gals get to throw dishes at the guys. It’s a Polish holiday. Of course, what part of Dyngus Day will Bill Clinton take part in?

More on Dyngus Day here.

Sphere: Related Content

Bill Clinton: We Wrote The Texas Rules Assuming We Would Win

More or less, that is.

First Read reports today:

Here’s a quote from him campaigning in Odessa late last month: “Now look, this system was set up years ago when Texas was late, late in the primary process. No one ever thought that the votes would determine the nominee of the party. And frankly, the party leaders set this up, so they could go in. They knew nobody else would go to these conventions, and they could make sure they had a fair share of the folks that went to the national convention. It was never intended to basically reverse the results of a popular election in the daytime, but it could happen.”

Yet given that criticism, it’s worth noting that, according to Texas Democratic Party attorneys NBC spoke with in the last few days, Bill Clinton’s campaign helped write those rules for 1992, and Bill Clinton twice won the Texas primary using those rules.

Now, the point of this isn’t to attack Bill Clinton having a connection on writing the rules. As such a major figure in the Democratic Party over the last 16 years, that is to be expected (although saying votes were designed to not matter most of the time is … curious, to say the least). It’s more that I just disagree with him on the value of a two tiered primary. I mentioned it here, and the news reported here gives me an excuse to reprint my analysis the day before the primary: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Weird Clinton Campaign Suggestion of the Week

The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two to one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states. In fact, when all is totaled, Senator Obama and his allies have outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of $18.4 million to $9.2 million on advertising in the four states that are voting next Tuesday.

Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states. He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches.

If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there’s a problem.

No need to cite everyone else that’s weighed on this. (Which has happened a lot.) But the message that Obama needs to win all four states next Tuesday when only a week ago none other than Bill Clinton said that Hillary Clinton had to win Ohio and Texas … well, it’s poppycock.

But that’s happening on so many Clinton memos nowadays that it drowns out whatever good they have to say. It’s as if they’re the campaign that cried wolf too many times. …

Sphere: Related Content

Clinton Campaign: Caucus or Death?

The Texas Primary includes both a primary vote and a caucus. The vote is to measure the width of support - who has the most supporters. The caucus, meanwhile, is to measure the depth of support - who cares the most. It’s a system I like more the more I read about it, since it resolves a lot of the problems traditionally associated with voting (Person A, who cares a lot, has equal say with Person B, who does not care who wins and chooses randomly). This rewards passion in supporters, while not solely basing it on passion. That’s a good thing, from where I sit.

But Bill Clinton thinks otherwise:

“The doors open at 7 and they close at 7:15. It would be tragic if Hillary were to win this election in the daytime and somebody were to come in at night and take it away.”

I can only presume that Bill is busy writing the concession speech if Obama wins the primary vote and loses the caucus vote.

It’s amazing how the Clinton campaign refers to caucuses as undemocratic but does not apply the same label to superdelegates.

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog Of Bill Clinton Event In Madison, Wisconsin (February 14, 2008)

Today, Bill Clinton is campaigning for Hillary Clinton in Madison, Wisconsin. He’s scheduled to speak at 2:15 CST. I’ll be live blogging.

1:15: Alright, I’m here and I have my press credentials. He’s speaking at the UW Stock Pavilion. It’s probably worth noting that there are animal feces on the floor (not a lot, but enough to make the place smell a bit and certainly enough to mess up one’s shoes, like mine for instance). This is an especially sour point for me because I was forced to throw out my soda before taking my seat in the press area. Apparently, poop is okay, but Coke Zero is just going to create too much of a mess.

1:30: Apparently, President Truman spoke here during his campaign for reelection. I wonder if it was smelly/messy back then.

1:50: They’re still seating people. An inordinate amount of effort appears to be going into the locations of where people stand/stand.

2:12: And the seating continues. As of now, the venue is approximately half filled with some people on the floor in front of the stage. So, I’d say there are about 1100-1300 people right now.

2:16: “A Change Will Do You Good” is blaring from the speakers.

2:18: And now, they are playing Obama’s entrance music - U2’s “City Of Blinding Lights.” This was certainly not an accident. And this is the kind of lame actions that people criticize the Clintons for.

2:21: Some woman takes the podium. I have no idea who she is (and neither does anyone else in the press area). She talks about tomorrow being Susan B. Anthony’s birthday; then goes on to explain why she is supporting Hllary Clinton.

2:23: The speaker notes that “Hillary represents the kind of change we need to get our country back on track.”

2:26: She criticizes Republicans for cutting financial assistance to energy programs, then goes on to say “you don’t need to be from Wisconsin to know that people need heat” - an ironic statement given that this building isn’t heated and it’s freezing.

2:30: Congresswoman Hilda Solis from California takes the podium.  She begins, “Bienvenidos! That means welcome in Spanish.” Then she starts a chant, “What do we want!?” The crowd, obviously confused, did not respond. So she helps them by exclaiming, “Hillary Clinton!” She goes on, “When do we want it?!” Again, only a few responses from the crowd.  She tries another cycle of the chant, but quickly moves into her speech.  She begins by explaining that she’s campaigning in Wisconsin because she believes in Hillary Clinton.

2:37: Solis makes a reference to the low turnout at Bill Clinton’s earlier event Milwaukee (reportedly only had a few hundred people showed up). She says that there was a right wing radio host, who she didn’t name, that was telling people that the event was canceled or postponed. I should add that the event I am at has about 2,000 people.

2:43: Some annoying girl in the audience keeps inexplicably screaming “Hillary!”

2:44: The crowd roars as Bill Clinton takes the podium.  He begins by talking about how Rep. Solis’ district is comprised of Latinos and African Americans. Someone in the crowd shouts “YEA!,” there’s an awkward pause, Bill says “huh?” and then moves on with his speech.

2:48: Bill talks about the founders and their desire to create a more perfect union. He adds that Hillary believes in their vision, even though, at the time of the founding neither she nor Obama would have been allowed to participate because only white men were allowed.

2:50: He talks about the recession that most people are beginning to feel. Asks the crowd to compare these past 7 years with the 90s. Then, he goes on enumerate some economic problems: 1) growth rates, 2) job rates and 3) types of jobs. Already, this speech has more substance than Obama’s speech in Madison, which took place two nights ago. [To clarify: I'm not saying one is necessarily better than the other, I'm just saying is all]

2:53: Asks the crowd to raise their hand if they know someone without health insurance, then tells everyone to look around.  He states that this question couldn’t even be asked in any other wealthy country around the the world because they all have universal health insurance.

2:55: He launches into a discussion about the context in which this election is taking place. According to Bill, it’s taking place in the context of: the Iraq war, an international community that’s angry with us, climate changes and an economic downturn. After discussing each of those issues a bit (some more than others), he goes on to remind voters that their decision on who to vote for must be made in the context of these issues.  After complimenting the other people who have run for the Democratic nomination this cycle, he suggests a calculus for voters to use when making their decision.

2:59: But first, he responds directly to Obama’s movement of change for change’s sake by arguing that it seems unfair to eliminate someone solely because they were part of the struggle during the 90s.

3:00: Now, his proposed voting calculus: “how would you define success?”  Hillary’s answers this question with three considerations:  (1) She will want the American people to be better off after after she leaves office than when she started; (2) she will want the children and grandchildren of this generation to be better off; and, (3) she will want the United States’ prestige and respect restored in the international community.

3:02: Moving on, he offers a biographical discussion of Hillary.  He begins by referencing her decision to stay at law school an extra year in order to fight for children’s’ rights. He forgot what he wanted to say for a second and says to himself, “I’ve forgotten what I wanted to say.” Then, remembers, and offers some contextual information about the children’s issues that Hillary addressed at that time.  This speech is substantive.

3:06: Next up, he mentions Hillary’s work in the Irish peace process. Notes how when the Irish leaders recently came to Washington to thank Bush for his support, they also requested that Hillary be present.

3:09: Continuing with the ‘Hillary is a doer’ theme, Pres. Clinton talks about a conversation he recently had with a “crusty Republican,” who indicated that he’ll vote for Hillary because she’s the only person that’s ever “done something.”

3:10: Now, he talks about her work against PCBs, for increased health benefits for national guardsman and a few other things. Challenges the audience: ‘you can say that these things don’t mean anything, but they do’

3:11: Changing topics quickly, he talks about Climate change and Hillary’s plans to combat it, while also creating green collar jobs.

3:13: Changing topics now, now it’s health care.  He discusses how universal health care is possible now because businesses and labor unions are joining together to support universal coverage.  He adds, “now if you really think this [universal health care] matters, you only have one choice. There is only one candidate left that really offers universal coverage.”  Tells voters not to believe the ads that they have seen telling them otherwise.

3:15:  He explains the specifics of Hillary’s health care plan; if you want to know, go to her website, because I’m not going to write about it now.

3:17: Aside from talking about the specifics of Hillary’s plan, he offers a broader discussion about insurance, how it functions and why universal coverage is feasible.

3:20: New topic, now he’s on to education. He begins by going through the bullets from Hillary’s website regarding education.  He spends some extra time touting Hillary’s national service program, which offers educational debt relief for individuals that perform community service.

3:23: Talks about the need for reforms in general. He talks about taking the “politics out of science” (big applause for that line), fighting special interests and a few other reforms. Notably, he says, “we’re going to…” as opposed to “Hillary’s going to…” a few times. He adjusted this rhetoric to be more Hillary focused after using “we” a couple of times.

3:24: He offers the reasons why Hillary believes we need to get our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible: 1) It’s best for Iraq because the greatest likelihood for success there is if they do it themselves and 2) It’s best for the American military - we’re strained now and need to get them out so we can fix our military.

3:30: Adds that if you elect her, she will send a message to the world: “America is back.”

3:31: Concludes: “You need to decide what you want in a president.” Says that there are not many differences between the two on issues, but there are some differences: 1) Only Hillary’s health care plan is universal; 2) Hillary’s plan for dealing with the mortgage crisis is more aggressive (then he starts to wander off into an explanation about this issue…I guess this is a side effect of not having a planned speech; sometimes, the speaker will meander)

3:33: “Finally, let me say, we need your help” - Then goes on to discuss how Hillary’s campaign ran out of money in early January, but people helped out by donating as soon as they found out the campaign was in trouble. Then urges people to volunteer to help, tells them text message the word “join” to 442008.  Concerned that people don’t get it, Bill explains that “it’s electing the 44th president in 2008.” The crowd gets it now. *sigh*

3:36: Ends on an optimistic note by saying that Hillary’s administration will be even better than his was in the 90s. Now, he promises to tell some jokes, since he recognizes that his speech was a bit heavy. This speech is ending like the third Lord of the Rings movie - just when you think it’s over, the screen goes dark, and then a new scene begins.

3:39: As promised, he tells some jokes about the presidency - jokes about music playing when you walk in a room and how you get to live in best public housing.  He says that the presidency is a fleeting time - “poof, it’s gone.” Then, he talks about how if Hillary is elected president, “she will never forget the look in your eye.” (He’s used this line a few times during this speech). I actually have no idea what it means or how it relates to anything.

3:43: He tells another story about a conversation he had with a fireman in New York City. The story isn’t all that interesting, but his inflection is pretty impressive. I fancy myself (and I am) an extraordinary public speaker. There are few people that I will openly admit are better public speakers than me; Bill is definitely one of them.

3:44: And here it is, the closer: “I think it would be a good thing for this country to have the first woman president…but that’s because I was born to a widowed mother.” Then goes on to say that he also thinks it would be a good thing for this country to have the first African American president, and how it’ll be good for this country when we have the first Asian, Jewish, etc.. elected president. Why? “because we shouldn’t be divided by our categories.”

3:47: And we’re done.

Sphere: Related Content

An Unfair Attack on Clinton?

The CNN Political Ticker has the following:

For the second election night in a row, Hillary Clinton failed to acknowledge or congratulate Barack Obama after he won the day in dominating fashion.

On Tuesday in El Paso, hours after Virginia had been called for Obama, she stuck to her “Texas campaign kickoff” message and did not stray from an energetic, Lone Star-themed stump speech. She did mention Obama by name, only to chide his health care plan.

On Saturday night in Richmond, Virginia, Clinton spoke to a crowd of thousands at the state’s annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner, but she ignored Obama’s quartet of blowout primary and caucus wins that day as well (Obama also won the Maine caucuses the next day).

The courtesy of conceding a primary or caucus loss — and then congratulating your opponent — is by no means required. But it has become standard practice during campaign season.

Clinton congratulated Obama and John Edwards after their first and second place finishes in the Iowa caucuses. Obama returned the favor in New Hampshire, saying Clinton “did an outstanding job.” That courtesy continued through the early states.

But as the race has shifted to a delegate chase with dozens of states in play around the country, the notion of congratulating one’s opponent seems, for Clinton, to have fallen by the wayside.

They neglect to note that Obama did not give a concession speech after Nevada; that’s mostly because he claimed a victory in terms of delegates. Clinton gave a brief thank you to South Carolina on that date, but from then on, there’s been no concession speeches or congratulations. The only other date before this weekend was Feb. 5, and both won enough states to not have to congratulate the other explicitly. So I think it’s unfair to ding Clinton over this. She has congratulated him and thanked him and as Bill Clinton has said, had a very nice debate with him.

That said …

It’s a very silly political strategy.

Insulating yourself and pretending that bad news does not exist is what Democrats see from George W. Bush. And from the beginning of this campaign, the Clinton campaign has been determined to emulate the Bush campaign and not the Kerry campaign, and are falling into the same traps and problems Bush ran into with Democrats. Portraying yourself as insulated from reality is perhaps the dumbest possible campaign strategy I could think of this year. It’s no surprise the last two Republicans standing are two who buck party ideology and claim to represent real interests - McCain on criticizing Rumsfeld and Huckabee on representing the little guy.

So memo to the Clinton campaign: be honest about where you are at; and I don’t mean spin it and say it’s bad but Texas is coming up. If Americans don’t connect with the candidate and understand how she is handling this, then I don’t see how they’ll find her fit for the highest office in the land.

(In short: it’s 2008, not 2004; you’ve had 12 months to adjust, get on with it already)

Sphere: Related Content

2008 Campaign Weekly Roundup (February 4-8, 2008)

A roundup for February 3-8 on the Democratic side…

• Super Tuesday Results:
  • Hillary Clinton won Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma and Tennessee.
  • Barack Obama won Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota and Utah.
  • The winner of New Mexico is yet to be determined, but with 99% of precincts reporting Hillary Clinton is currently ahead by 1,123 votes.
• Delegate Standings Projections (including superdelegates):
  • Hillary Clinton: 1076
  • Barack Obama: 1006
• The Obama campaign has stepped up its argument that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee elected Democratic officials in conservative areas may suffer from a backlash by sending out a mailer that blames the Clintons for Democratic losses between during the 90’s and the 2000 election.
• The Clinton campaign clashes with MSNBC and just two days after TPM asks “Is Obama Being Hurt By MSNBC And His Other Media Worshippers?”
• Debatarama: Hillary Clinton challenges Obama to a debate a week (including one on Fox News) between now and March 4. After some back forth, the campaigns eventually agreed to hold two debates - one in Ohio and one in Texas.
• Obama campaign pushes for the release of Hillary Clinton’s tax returns.  When pressed on this issue during a press conference call, Clinton Communications Director obfuscated by asking “When will Senator Obama release the complete details of his relationship with Tony Rezko?”
• Barack Obama picks up Washington’s Governor Chris Gregoire; Clinton gets Rep. Norm Dicks.
• Fund Race: Following reports that Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million dollars, the Obama campaign used this information to kick off a fundraising blitz, which the Clinton campaign countered.  Now that the dust has cleared, the totals so far since Super Tuesday show Obama with an edge, but Hillary Clinton isn’t getting blown away:
  • Barack Obama: Over $7.5 million (figures disclosed yesterday, so this number is sure to be higher now)
  • Hillary Clinton: About $8 million; 75,000 new donors (figures disclosed today)
• Bill Clinton promises to be nice going forward, clarifies his role in a Hillary Clinton administration; JW criticizes.

A roundup for February 3-8 on the Republican side…

• Super Tuesday Results:
  • John McCain won Arizona, California, Connecticu, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Oklahoma.
  • Mitt Romney won Alaska, Colorad, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and Utah.
  • Mike Huckabee won Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee and West Virginia.
•  Delegate Standing Projections:
  • John McCain: 724
  • Mitt Romney: 281
  • Mike Huckabee: 196
  • Ron Paul: 14
• Mitt Romney suspended his presidential campaign on February 6 and noted that he was motivated in part out of concern that continuing his quest would help get Obama or Clinton elected, which would mean surrender to terrorists (Romney’s argument).
• Fred Thompson endorsed John McCain and called on the rest of the party to get behind McCain.
• Mike Huckabee promises to carry on with his campaign and demonstrated his commitment to the trail by appearing as a guest on the Tyra Banks Show (you have respect anyone that wants something so bad that they’re willing to sit across from Tyra for an hour…*shudder*).
• James Dobson backed Mike Huckabee; Huckabee’s connection to televangelist Kenneth Copeland are likely to be the subject of a Senate investigation into Copeland’s ministry (we blogged about Huckabee’s connection to Copeland in late January).
• Ron Paul’s blimp was grounded after being vandalized.
• Question: Ron Paul making a third party run?  Answer: No.
• Cindy McCain taken to task on her “grudge list” among other things.

Sphere: Related Content

Playing The Saddest Song on the World’s Smallest Violin For Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton today:

“The mistake that I made is to think that I was a spouse like any other spouse, who could defend his candidate. … I think I can promote Hillary but not defend her, because I was president. I have to let her defend herself or have someone else defend her.”

Whoa.

1) Does he in his mind somehow believe that attacking other candidates counts only as a ‘defense’ of Hillary?

2) Do other spouses say things like he has said over the past month? The most critical Michelle Obama was of Hillary was that every Democrat would support her if she won, but she would have to think about Hillary before she campaigned for her. And Cindy McCain keeps her grudge list private, at least.

Meanwhile, Bill was off comparing Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson, and saying that electing Obama would be a “roll of the dice.”

3) Bill just now realized that he has obligations and expectations as a former President?

4) Lastly, it’s all still about Bill playing the victim. You would think he could move on by now.

Sphere: Related Content

What About Barack? CPAC Pays No Attention To Obama, But Lots To Clinton

Tomorrow, kicks off the three day Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which is hosted by the American Conservative Union. The four remaining Republican candidates - Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul - are expected to speak and we’ll be sure to discuss their speeches should anything notable arise out of them. After looking over the schedule of events, I noticed that no attention has been given to Barack Obama, but an awful lot seems to be given to Hillary Clinton and it left me wondering: What about Barack?

The Clinton lineup…

• February 7, 2008:
  • 11:30AM - Book Signing – Whitewash: What the Media Won’t Tell You About Hillary Clinton, But Conservatives Will
  • 8:00PM - Exclusive Screening of Hillary: The Movie
• February 8, 2008:
  • 12:00PM - Book Signing – Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of the Bill and Hillary Clinton
  • 12:30PM - Book Signing – Clintonisms: The Amusing, Confusing and Suspect Musing of Billary
• February 9, 2008:
  • 1:00PM - Book Signing – The Clinton Crack-Up: The Boy President’s Life After the White House
  • 1:00PM - Book Signing – The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’s Dossier on Hillary Clinton
  • 2:30PM - Panel - Is Hillary Electable?

Stanley Fish offers some insight into some of the more extreme claims levied against the Clintons:

My reward was to pick up an e-mail pal who has to date sent me 24 lengthy documents culled from what he calls his “Hillary File.” If you take that file on faith, Hillary Clinton is a murderer, a burglar, a destroyer of property, a blackmailer, a psychological rapist, a white-collar criminal, an adulteress, a blasphemer, a liar, the proprietor of a secret police, a predatory lender, a misogynist, a witness tamperer, a street criminal, a criminal intimidator, a harasser and a sociopath. These accusations are “supported” by innuendo, tortured logic, strained conclusions and photographs that are declared to tell their own story, but don’t.

So, what about Obama?  Is there no interest in Obama exhibits? Or, were they just not anticipating for Obama to still be in the race by the time CPAC came around?  Or (and more likely), is that there’s just a bigger draw (at this point) for Clinton exhibits?

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

Obama Blames Clinton Presidency For 8 Years Of Dem Losses

Barack Obama is enhancing pressure on a on fissure within the Democratic Party over the prospect of Hillary Clinton’s nomination.

In short, elected Democrats in “red states” or conservative leaning areas are concerned that if Hillary is the nominee, there will be a backlash within their constituencies that could end up either hurting their own reelections or eroding their political influence. This is something that we’ve been talking about for quite a long time and very likely helps to explain some of Obama’s endorsements:

Some Red State lawmakers are backing Obama for pragmatic reasons — they’re concerned that having Clinton at the top of the ticket may polarize the electorate and cause state and local Democratic candidates to lose their own jobs, said Melvin Kahn, a member of the Central Kansas Democratic Committee. “Clinton is a liability,” Kahn said.

With this in mind, the campaign has been pushing this hot button issue with a new mailer that blames Bill Clinton’s presidency for 8 years of Democratic losses. It reads [link]:

8 years of the Clintons, major losses for Democrats across the nation.
————–
Governors (-12 Ds)
30 Dems after 1992 election
18 Dems after 2000 election

US Senators (-7 Ds)
57 Dems after 1992 election
50 Dems after 2000 election

Reps (-46 Ds)
258 Dems after 1992 election
212 Dems after 2000 election

Obama will continue to push this topic as he looks to the contests beyond Super Tuesday. This consideration ties in nicely with the appeal he made to superdelegates today, where he noted that many of these super delegates are local officials and should consider the desires of their constituencies.

The rise of the Obamicans? We’ll see. But, I imagine this kind of mailer is going to roil some Democrats and will certainly draw the ire of the Clinton campaign.

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »