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

Edwards “Suspension” Speech

Whoops, not that suspension. This one:

Incidentally, I think Chris Beam has the best analysis of why Edwards failed. The whole ‘blame the media’ thing is, to paraphrase someone else, one of the biggest fairytales I’ve ever heard.

Sphere: Related Content

John Edwads Drops Bid For White House

John Edwards exits the Democratic nominating contest today. He will deliver a speech at 1pm est in New Orleans. It makes sense, since he’s been dropping hints about it the past couple of days. I really don’t have anything else to say at this point, other than tomorrow’s Democratic debate just got a lot more interesting…

Oh, and he won’t be endorsing anyone anytime soon.

[Photo Credit: Indecision 2008]

Sphere: Related Content

On Political Coverage This Weekend

The Clinton campaign pushed hard for free media coverage in primetime this week, and was rebuffed:

Insiders tell TVNewser the Hillary Clinton campaign was prepared to give exclusive access for the next 48 hours to ABC’s 20/20, but because of a scheduling conflict, ABC News passed on the offer. Sources tell us the campaign had wanted ABC to accompany Sen. Clinton for a 48 hour period beginning today, with the report airing Friday night on 20/20.

With the Super Bowl airing Sunday, and thus presumably lower than normal viewership for 60 Minutes, an appearance on 20/20 would have been the Clinton campaign’s best shot at getting a prime time network audience before Super Tuesday. Nightline’s Cynthia McFadden will spend tomorrow with the candidate for a “day in the life” story which will air tomorrow night.

Candidates are not going to get much of a chance after the CNN debates to change the perception of them before Feb. 5, with the Super Bowl this weekend. Unless someone does something dramatic on Saturday, I suppose, but even then…

The debates tomorrow (for Republicans) and Thursday are looming especially large.

Sphere: Related Content

John Edwards Admits He’s Going to Lose … Sort of

Hat tip: TPM Election Central

His campaign manager elicited a desire to the NYT to be involved heavily in a brokered convention today:

But they have also floated other rationales for a continued Edwards candidacy, suggesting that his delegates could be used to promote his platform or to help him act as a power broker at the Democratic convention.

“We’re still hoping that John is the nominee,” said David Bonior, the national campaign manager. “But with a chunk of delegates, you can leverage what you’ve been fighting for and standing for. You can raise these issues to where they should be on the Democratic agenda. We’re running for those two reasons: to get the nomination and to have his voice heard on his issues.”

t’s
This is essentially the only reason Edwards can run anymore, and makes him the 2008 version of what Dennis Kucinich famously did in 2004. Will Edwards get in trouble with the FEC if it becomes clear mathematically that he will not get delegates, as Kucinich did?

As for who this helps, it’s hard to say. You can make reasonable arguments for Edwards prescence drawing away from either Clinton or Obama, although Edwards would more than likely lean towards Obama should it actually get to the convention, which still is highly unlikely. We’ll discuss this more in upcoming podcasts.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net’s Presidential Election Podcast (01/27/08)

This podcast looks at (1) results of the South Carolina Democratic Primary; (2) a brief discussion about the media coverage of identity politics and (3) a look ahead to the Florida and February 5th primaries…

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

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).

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Wins SC; Big Endorsement Coming Sunday?

As expected, Barack Obama won SC. However, few expected the margins to be this substantial.

In addition, Lynn Sweet says a big endorsement is coming and it may be Al Gore or Ted Kennedy.

We’re going to record a podcast tonight after the speeches wrap up [subscribe]. Clinton likely will not be giving a speech (as she’s flying to Tennessee tonight) but Obama speaks at 9 pm eastern. I’m unclear about Edwards right now.

[Update]

Sen. Clinton has released a statement indicating that she has called Obama to concede and congratulate him; she also juxtaposed this defeat with future contests (including Florida), saying:

“We now turn our attention to the millions of Americans who will make their voices heard in Florida and the twenty-two states as well as American Samoa who will vote on February 5th.”

Speaking in Independence, Missouri right now, Bill Clinton repeated pretty much the same line about the next contests where millions will get to vote…

Sphere: Related Content

Why Is Bloomberg Not Considered In Electability Scenarios?

Mike Bloomberg has dropped hints of running as someone who can fix bipartisan bickering and get things done. He gave a major economic speech in Washington today. People are more than happy to cover what Bloomberg is doing.

But no one, and I mean no one, looks at Bloomberg in the context of election scenarios. He’s less likely to run against McCain or Obama, as either of them would take away a lot of his bipartisanship appeal. But the rest of the candidates certainly seem like fair game. Even against Hillary Clinton, Bloomberg rumors have floated.

Take this entry from the Plank. Electability is gone over with a fine tooth comb, just completely around the elephant int he room. Angelo just pointed out that absolutely no one is considering Bloomberg when discussing Edwards electability issues.

Or more recently, Obama commented to David Brody that while he could get Clinton’s supporters, he did not know if she could get his. And people went into a tizzy (see here, here, and here), speculating on whom Obama’s supporters might gravitate towards. Did any of them consider Bloomberg? Absolutely none of them. (Props to the commenters who did, though.)

Look, I’m not saying he’s definitely going to run against Clinton or definitely will not run against Obama. I doubt even he’s made up his mind. But it’s absurd to discuss him as a potential candidate and refuse to look into how he actually might affect things, particularly when you’re trying to look into the future.

If you want to know why so much horserace analysis is so bad, this is a perfect example. People need to look at what is right in front of them, and not just what they think is right in front of them.

When you have the likes of Al Gore, Mike Bloomberg, and Newt Gingrich going far beyond what candidates from either side are saying, it’s worth considering the viability of a candidate who could literally drop billions in the race, especially with the delegate leaders being those of limited appeal like Clinton and Romney right now.

[Image Credit: Flickr User wallyg under a Creative Commons license]

Sphere: Related Content

Edwards’ (Seriously Flawed) Electability Argument

The Edwards campaign latest justification for remaining in the race is that John Edwards is the ONLY electable Democratic candidate (as opposed to a similar but very different argument that Edwards is more electable than the other candidates). The campaign started making this argument after Iowa and has expanded on it ever since. Recently, Edwards has been arguing that he’s the candidate that can take on John McCain, saying:

“I think it’s important for us to have somebody run against McCain who can beat him..And national polls show that I’m the one who beats John McCain in the general election.”

Rural Adviser to John Edwards, Mudcat Saunders echoed the campaign’s assertion-fest with a post on Huffington Post. Saunders states, but doesn’t really substantiate this contention:

It should be clear to anybody with over a 50 IQ that my boy John Edwards, with his combination of red state electoral experience and toughness, is the only candidate who can beat John McCain. Whether you believe polls or not, polls from CNN to Rasmussen say just that.

And it should be equally as clear to anybody with over a 25 IQ that Obama and Clinton are going to render each other totally unelectable against any Republican, especially John McCain, by the time we get to the convention.

All the Republicans have to be loving this. Because the Democrat they don’t want to face, John Edwards, is getting sandwiched between the coverage of this murderous cat fight between two so-called “historical” candidates who, when all is said and done, will be just that. HISTORY.

To begin, it’s just flat out silly to predicate an argument for electability solely on poll numbers. Polls, as recently demonstrated, are not definitive. Moreover, polls 10-11 months ahead of an election are even more insignificant. Finally, the numbers for Obama v. McCain and Hillary Clinton v. McCain are not so unbelievably one sided as to suggest that it would be impossible for either Clinton or Obama to beat McCain should he be the Republican nominee.

Additionally, there’s inherent flaw within Edwards’ argument. He contends that based upon the current polls, only he can beat McCain. This, of course, requires the assumption that the numbers are inflexible, relatively static and thus unlikely to change come November. That said, if polls are legitimate indicators of support (as the campaign seems to suggest), then why should trends in the Democratic primary be any different? In other words, Edwards is arguing that you should vote for him, despite his very low poll numbers in the Democratic primary, because some polls show Hillary and Obama losing in a match up against McCain. Let me be clear, I’m not suggesting that the numbers aren’t flexible, I’m just demonstrating how silly the logic of Edwards’ argument is when analyzed.

The Edwards campaign also criticizes both Obama and Clinton for attacking each other and suggests that its the battled between Obama and Clinton that is undermining the Democratic Party’s chance for victory in ‘08. I’m unclear as to why Edwards has the authority to criticize either candidate for negative attacks, when his campaign has levied some pretty scathing attacks when they believed it would suit them, such as Elizabeth Edwards questioning Hillary Clinton’s record on women’s issues or Edwards suggestion that his rivals are corporate Democrats (just a few the past); and more recently, with Edwards adding to the Obama-Rezko narrative by recounting a private discussion with Hillary on the subject (isn’t this a very similar tactic that Joe Trippi attacked Mark Penn for?). It’s worth noting that I’m not necessarily criticizing Edwards for the aforementioned criticisms of his opponents. What I am criticizing, as I have in the past, is Edwards doing one thing and then later taking the high ground on the same issue. You simply cannot argue that your opponents attacks on each other are bad for the party, when you participated in tough attacks yourself. That’s really all I’m saying.

Moving on to the core of Edwards’ electability, I offer the following considerations…

1) Edwards opted into public funding: Edwards’ decision to use public funds will limit his ability to spend money towards the general election. I recognize that there are discrepancies regarding what the specific limitations will be; however, this means that the question is really over the degree of how limited he is. Further, his campaign’s argument to rely on 527s to make up the difference, is just not a good idea. [JW discussed this issue prior to the Iowa Caucuses, and although a few of the details have since changed, the general gist of that post remains legitimate]

2) A dormant inconsistency that could bite Edwards during the general election: In addition to polls, Edwards has argued that he’s most electable against McCain because of his position on campaign finance reform, arguing:

“This is a guy [John McCain] who’s made central to his political life campaign finance reform. It seems to me we ought to be putting somebody up against him who’s never taken money from special interest PACs or Washington lobbyists. Between the three of us, that’s me.”

However, how’s it going to play in the general election, if McCain were to challenge Edwards on the Edwards’ campaign position that if the Republican nominee didn’t opt into the public finance system for the general election, then the Edwards campaign would also not opt into the public finance system come the general election. [And no, this does not contradict the first consideration, because there are two phases - the primary phase, which lasts up to the convention and the general election phase which begins after the conventions].

3) And if the nominee isn’t McCain: Then what? Could Edwards’ fiery rhetoric turn off potential donors, thus leaving him cash strapped? Meh, I’m not sure there’s much to that potential issue, but the question is worth raising nonetheless. Further, with the economy likely to be a key issue, could Edwards’ image as a class warfare guy scare a majority of the electorate away from him? (I’m not necessarily saying Edwards is arguing class warfare, but that’s an image that he has and certainly something a GOP opponent will capitalize on)

4) And what about Edwards’ evolution on several issues: Like it or not, the Republicans will rail on Edwards for several inconsistencies in his record. Just look at the following remark from Sen. Feingold, who has not endorsed a candidate yet, and imagine how the Republicans will tackle the same topic:

“I did notice that as the primaries heated up, all of a sudden, all the presidential candidates — none of whom voted with me on the timeframe to withdraw from Iraq — all voted with me and when we did the Patriot Act stuff.

The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn’t, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you’re playing the game in Washington and another way when you’re running for president, there’s some of that going on.”

5) The Bloomberg Factor: If Democrats nominate Edwards, would it create half of the required scenario for Mike Bloomberg, who is reported to be prepared to spend $1 billion on the campaign, to enter the race? Earlier last year, a former Bloomberg adviser indicated that a Bloomberg candidacy would be likely if both parties nominated “extreme” candidates (adviser’s word choice, not mine); the adviser went on to mention Edwards and Romney as examples (its worth mentioning that this consideration may or may not apply to Hillary Clinton, but this a post about Edwards, so I will table that discussion for now). I’m not sure what weight voters should give to the Bloomberg factor, but since it’s a growing possibly and relates more to Edwards than it does to Hillary and certainly to Obama, it’s worth mentioning.

—

To be clear: I am not trying to argue that John Edwards is unelectable. I am simply trying to point out that if a candidate starts to argue electability, then instead of only offering poll numbers and an amorphous campaign finance reform argument as support for the contention, he/she should actually develop the argument. Look, Edwards lost the primary in 2004 to John Kerry…was underwhelming in the 2004 campaign (this is more likely the fault of Kerry and less of Edwards, although he did fail to deliver his home state of North Carolina)… and despite intense focus on Iowa, he failed to win that critical state. Thus, if he is going to present a plausible electability argument, he’s going to need to offer a lot more than he is currently offering. Basically, I’m saying, “Where’s the beef?” Edwards needs to offer some real substance to the electability claim…some real reasons.

And countering this critique by blaming the media is not very compelling. Granted, they aren’t doing the best job now, but they certainly haven’t shut Edwards out and leading up to Iowa, Edwards got plenty of attention. Indeed, Edwards has some legitimate gripes with the press coverage (but not anywhere near what his campaign has been suggesting). The media isn’t going to suddenly change between the primaries and the general election. If he can’t manage them now, why should voters believe he will suddenly be able to better manage them in the general election? If Edwards loses the general election, what good will complaining about the media coverage do for the Democratic party?

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog of South Carolina CNN / CBC Democratic Debate (January 21, 2007)

5:51: The debate starts at 8 pm tonight on CNN. It’s been a yin/yang sort of day, with the candidates making nice over Martin Luther King while Obama calls Bill Clinton a liar, more or less. Lucky us, we have master of the subtle Wolf Blitzer to guide us through the minefield. Also, note that Clinton might be pressed on reports that she’s not going to be back in South Carolina after tonight until Friday.

5:59: One other thing; thankfully, we’re Kucinich-free tonight as well. He’s not a viable contender at this point, so spare me the whining.

7:40: Back. To commenters, the debate is streaming on cnn.com. Right now Howard Dean is addressing the audience. Presumably, he’s not scheming to steal their delegates. (But he also is not addressing a silly emerging controversy that is completely his fault.)

7:42: Rules of the debate. Apparently the Secret Service did not allow any cell phones or pagers into the building. CNN is also excited to show America the candidates walking onto the stage, citing transparency. Hey, they’re CNN, they do dumb crap like show candidates walking instead of debating or talking policy. The first half of the debate is a podium debate with rules, and the second half is candidates seated with ‘no rules’! CNN is sadly excited about having no rules (if they are so excited, why not do the whole debate in that format?).

7:46: CNN cannot find Wolf. I’m serious. With any luck, he’s lost and we’ll get a real moderator.

7:47: CNN presses for applause on 40 members of Congress showing up. Well, they’re not busy doing anything else, there’s no excuse to not be there.

7:48: The CNN Washington Bureau Chief says his Blackberry is going off, and a disembodied voice demands that he get applause; he’s run out of things to talk about, and a member of the audience demands he start telling jokes.

7:50: They found Blitzer. Damnit.

7:52: Blitzer says it is fun, and his fourth debate. He introduces himself. Regarding his name, he “did not make it up for the first Gulf War” and it is his real name. This is absurd.

7:54: This is a two and a half hour debate? What the hell? I’m betting 65% of it is pointless. Blitzer says it’s not easy, and he’s right; picking out inane topics to fill so much time is a tough job. Blitzer is concerned and has a guy ‘fix him’ to ‘make sure he looks good.’ He asks the audienceif they have any questions, and they demand to know where he was; he laughs it off, which is emblematic of the whole program.

7:57: Joe Johns and Suzanne Malvaeux are there. Blitzer says he always saw Malvaeux covering ’some ugly story in Washington’ every night. Good to know his true opinions of Washington, apparently.

7:59: Disembodied British voice congratulates me on watching the process, whatever that means. I feel like I’m watching dirty laundry, if that makes any sense.

8:00: If there are no rules in the second half, can Dennis Kucinich wander up on stage? CNN is really pushing no rules, but at the same time, half of the debate has the same rules they’re criticizing.

Alright, we’re actually starting, apparently.

8:01: It’s Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, Wolf tells me. He announces the candidates are not on stage, but the press pool is. Thanks, Wolfman. Edwards is introduced first, Obama second (to slightly louder cheers than Edwards, whom he gives a half hug to), and Clinton (to regular cheers). She loudly welcomes Barack, John, and Wolf by name. No half hug for Hillary.

8:03: Clyburn in the house, as Malveaux says people want substance. Well, no shit sherlock. But we’re watching people takes pictures of people hugging.

8:04: You can’t have a moment of inactivity without Dean popping back up onstage. Joe Johns says people want to know who is on the ballot. Groundbreaking analysis from the best political team on television, or meaningless drivel? You be the judge!

The press finally starts to get out of the way.

8:06: More housekeeping, although ironically without an illegal immigrant. Maybe they are coming for Blitzer’s job? Blitzer says they are on the honor system for time. Good luck with that.

8:07: He’s still going on as if this is a new idea, not the 98th debate or whatever it is.

8:08: Joe Johns asks Clinton about the economy, and worldwide markets in a tailspin. He wants to know how much the average South Carolinian will get. Umm, WTF? Clinton talks about most of her plan going to deal with the mortgage crisis and a moratorium on foreclosures. She also talks about freezing the interest rate for 5 years, and giving people $650 to deal with energy costs; she segues from that to creating green jobs; she says rebates need to be done right and need to target seniors and ‘working people’ who do not pay income tax. Thanks the CBC for leading on the issue. Obama points out the King march on Washington was for jobs and not only for justice. Says Bush ruined the economy and failed with his leadership on the war and education. He says that Clinton caught up with him on rebates after he mentioned tax cuts, and mentions the same demographics as Clinton. Blitzer asks if $650 is enough. (Seriously, this is what is being discussed). Obama says Social Security is a manner through which you can provide rebates and money for energy. Edwards starts by making up for his gender and race by talking up the CBC and the work of King, and how bad poverty is. He does admit there is no rebates in his package, but says he wants to end poverty. He says the difference is that he provides long term benefits in energy. Clinton just talked about doing this. Edwards says there is a difference on jobs, and the Peru trade deal hurt South Carolina … but Blitzer cuts him off and distinguishes the candidates on long term v. short term. This is an unfocused mess, with everyone giving their own talking points on the economy.

8:16: Obama says green jobs are important, but a long term focus. Says an immediate stimulus is necessary, not just long term. Obama says there are textile mills closed because of Nafta (and hits Clinton on it again). On Peru, Obama says Peru had standards for environment and labor, and the economy is the size of New Hampshire, and concludes by hitting Edwards on China. This is a hard hitting debate from Obama and Edwards so far. Clinton says that her original plan allowed for rebates, but does not want Republicans to alter the tax code, but now is too late and there is no other option. She criticizes Bush instead of responding in turn to Obama. She also talks up the green jobs, specifying some program in Oakland, before allowing that it is a long term issue. Says the CBC will lead on green jobs. This is awful and unfocused. Edwards says his green jobs would be created within 30 days. Edwards’ father is in the audience. Edwards says enforcement of standards lies with Bush. Obama says that he’ll be enforcing the laws in a year. Obama says Edwards gives powerful talk, but he’s taken action on the matter as a community organizer. Obama is criticizing Edwards for talk as compared to his action. Interesting turn of the tables.

8:22: Question for Obama on fiscal responsibility. Obama says that what Clinton said was not true, and it’s part of a pattern of factually inaccurate statements. Wow, Obama on the warpath. Criticizes Bill’s statements on his position on Iraq, or statements on ideas since Reagan. Says improvements matter, and that he’s tried to run a substantive campaign.Clinton responds that’your record and what you say does matter.’ Says Obama continually has to clarify what he said. Clinton says Republican ideas were bad, but Obama liked them “and we can give you the exact quote.” Says there is no evidence on his site on how he would pay for foreign programs. Says that he did oppose the war in 2002, but took the speech off his site and agreed with Bush and voted to fund the war. Says it is about words v. action. Obama said Clinton just lied about his statements and the two start bickering. Criticizes Clinton for being a corporate lawyer on the board of Walmart, and he spent a lifetime fighting Reagan’s policies. Says that appealing to independents and Republicans to build a working majority. Says Clinton and Bill Clinton praised Reagan in Brokaw’s book. Edwards starts yelling and Clinton goes off. Obama jumps in that he does not know who he is running against. This is great. Obama says he did not say the ideas were good ones. Clinton brings in Rezko and calls him a slum landlord, and Blitzer goes … to Edwards, who complains about being left out. Edwards says this squabbling helps no one, and is not about candidates personally. Goes back to fiscal responsibility and touts his plans. Edwards says Obama and he both talked about reform of Social Security, but Hillary does not talk about raising the cap even though it makes sense economically. Says Clinton does not want to talk about raising taxes.

8:33: Johns asks Edwards if lenders have specifically targeted African Americans? Edwards says yes, it’s a racial issue. Then he immediately backs off and says they targeted the lowest income families who tend to be black. Says we cannot pretend there is not a history of slavery and discrimination; that leaves African Americans more vulnerable to predatory lenders. Says he saw 38 foreclosures in one block in Cleveland. That’s because there’s no jobs there, John. I lived there. Says people need to be taught financial responsibility. Blitzer says Greenspan that plans like Clinton’s would prolong the agony by having a freeze. Clinton says economists were wrong for the past years, and it is destroying dreams of Americans, and it is a ‘work out’ not a ‘bail out.’ Says banks can borrow money from Abu Dhabi but people lose their homes. Obama says that helping people is important, not helping the speculators. He says it is not new, and there is a long history of preying on poor people. Echoes Edwards in that more people need access to banks. He talks of his action in introducing a bill two years ago and what he did in Illinois. Talks about the bankruptcy bill of 2001, and Clinton’s statement that she voted for it but hoped it would not pass. Obama gets a chance to respond to the charges on Rezko. Says he did five hours of work in a long firm for a church group, but the biggest issue is people trusting leaders. Clinton responds that she regretted voting for it and said so, and opposed a similar bill in 2005. Talks about an amendment of credit card companies charging over 30 percent interest and Obama voted for it. Also says that Obama did bidding for insurance companies in Illinois on health care. Says she is used to taking fire, and you have to expect attacks ‘in this arena.’ Obama says he voted for it but the limit was too high, and he opposed the bill the entire time. Oh, legislation. This is why Senators are not elected president. Clinton says Obama never takes responsibility and talks up the present votes. It’s a really dishonest line of attack. Obama says he feels bad for Edwards. Obama says he sponsored the bill in question. Says that he’s had family members be victims, and there was a legal problem with it. Says it presents one issue in the wrong light. Says people cannot say anything to get elected.

8:46: Edwards says that it is important to take hard positions. References the CBC taking hard positions. Wonders why Obama voted present. Obama says present votes indicated you had problems with a bill that you would otherwise vote for. Edwards says it would be safer to just not show up. Obama says there was technical problems with votes. Says he opposed legislation that put juveniles in the system as adults, and spoke out against the war. Says Illinois is different from Congress. That took too long.

8:49: On health care, now. Why are African American women better off under Clinton’s plan? She says it is not not government run and includes everyone. Says it will withstand attacks from the right. Says bills will be passed on to everyone, not just those sick. Johns asks if his plan covers illegal immigrants. Obama says it does not, since there are limited resources. Says there is an obligation to cover children. Says the critical issue is how to cover everyone. Says Clintons tried to pass health care in 1993 in the wrong way, that you have to have negotiations in a public setting. Says responsibility includes Congress as well, and that can only be done through the people. Edwards says none of the three plans covers illegal immigrants. Says you can strengthen the net of health care that could include people if there is comprehensive immigration reform. Edwards goes on to say that Obama’s plan is not universal. Obama says he received money from employees, not lobbyists. He says this is a legitimate policy debate, and that he disagrees with a mandate on adults that forces people to buy health insurance. Says Edwards allows that it might mean taking money out of people’s paychecks. Segues to his stock discussion of lowering costs and copayments. Says his plan reduces costs through catastrophic accident. Obama says that it allows for anyone to opt in, and that Edwards and Clinton do not coverthose with hardship arguments. Obama mentions Massachusetts, and Edwards says this is like the Social Security debate. Clinton says that you cannot get universal health care if you do not start out by standing for it. Says this is a core Democratic issue, and she will ‘go to the mat for it.’ Talks about Obama being for single payer in the past, and this being separate. She links it back to the ‘present’ votes and cites Sweet (I think) who said it was taking a pass. Obama gets 30 seconds and Edwards wishes him luck. Says if you are not making health care affordable that you cannot mandate it. Says that people will purchase the health care if it is affordable. Says that a single payer is only preferable in theory. Says that Hillary’s presentations have evolved. This is tense.

9:03: Moving to Iraq for the first time in a long time, it seems. Question about her statement that the next president has to end the war. Does she want to end the war or win it? She says she wants to bring troops home, and there is no military solution. Says that ‘the so called surge’ was able to pacify some areas, but the purpose of the surge was to move the Iraqi government quickly towards resolution. Says the political debate is motivating Iraqis. Blitzer asks Edwards about McCain saying the surge is working. Edwards says the surge was intended to create an environment for political progress. He jokes about even Bush recognizing it. Says there has been no meaningful political progres, then just a little. Edwards says everyone is committed to ending the war, but how quickly and aggressively is a question. Obama gives the careful getting out as careless getting in line. Says it depends on what happens in the next year, but creating a stable Iraqi government with no permanent bases is the goal. Obama says that financially the war is not sustainable, and Al Qaeda is stronger than ever since 2001 and needs to be addressed. Clinton says she will move as quickly as possible, and agrees with Obama on not knowing what will be inherited from Bush. Clinton mentions Bush’s argument of pushing for permanent bases in Iraq without the consent of Congress. Touts the CBC working on this legislation.

Time for a commercial debate. No rules, coming up. I hope Kucinich wanders up on stage. That would be high comedy.

9:15: The crowd laughs at the inability of CNN to exchange podiums for chairs.

9:19: Seven minutes later, the chairs are in place. Question for Obama on Rangel saying that black voters should do not what makes them feel good but is what is best for the country. Obama says the notion is right and women should vote that way and white males, Says he is running because he wants to bring the country together, and looks forward to working with him as President. Awkward question.

9:21: More awkward question, on whether African Americans will be seen differently if there is an African American president. Says that he is on the vanguard of issues Kings worked for, like poverty. This is as pointless as the MSNBC debate. Really, really, really dumb. Clinton respects his commitment to end poverty, and talks of working at the Children’s Defense fund after graduating law school. It’s why she is in legal service, etc. She wants a ‘reality check’ on how to end poverty. Says African Americans lost income under Bush, but were gained income in the 90s. She may as well be screaming ‘the 90s were great! Let’s go back!’ Obama says that he has put forward a poverty plan, but it’s more than talking about it during a campaign, and he worked in low income areas. He says that it’s not about race, but people want to move beyond it for positive change, partially blaming the media. Says there is an “African American, a woman, and John” to laughter, and talks up the Democratic Party on the issues. Edwards cites his battles with Bill O’Reilly on homeless veterans, and other work. It’s a resume battle and Richardson is nowhere to be seen. Edwards tells a story about poverty.

9:31: Question for Obama on Bill Clinton being the first black president. What does Obama think? Hillary chuckles. Obama cites Bill’s affinity with the African American community that still exists that is well earned. Says that the progress made indicates that people can change, and Bill is emblematic of that. Says that he’d have to look into Bill’s dancing abilities ‘before he judges whether he was a brother.’ Hillary says that can be arranged, and this is suddenly a love in. What a weird shift. Clinton says the stage celebrates King. Cites the ‘content of our character’ comment of King. Says the differences between them have a responsibility to be brought out. Obama says that there should not be too much civility. He says that ingoring the race and gender of a candidate does not mean you ignore racial problems in the country. Clinton moves into gender inequality as Obama agrees. There’s absolutely no attacks anymore. How strange. She goes onto attacking Republicans for not addressing these issues. John Edwards says his father who is in the audience (and worked in a mill!) taught him that people that work in the mill and own the mill are equal. Says America is not just about rich folks who can move out of problem neighborhoods.

9:40: Clinton is asked about Bill overshadowing her, as the audience oooohs. She defends him advocating on her behalf, but the campaign is not about spouses. Says what matters is who is the best president on day 1 and who can withstand the Republican attacks. Says it is not about them, but about the people, citing her 35 years of experience. It’s turning into a list of talking points, and I get the feeling attacks are coming. She says politics is not a game. Obama says he would expect Bill to campaign vigorously. Obama mentions that he is troubled to the extent of which his record is portrayed. Obama tries to distinguish withstanding the attacks from redrawing the political boundries to get through legislation they are talking about. Says that Bush and Cheney have given their party a bad name, and its a crucial opportunity to expand the Democratic base, and that there has been record turnout, noting that he is not taking all the credit. Edwards says people are voting for who is going to oppose McCain, and who can campaign against him everywhere in America. Edwards says he will campaign in the south against McCain. Edwards says it is important who can be competitive in rural areas, joking it is not a racial issue. Cites the CNN poll that put him up the most against McCain. Edwards is really tiptoing carefully on electability. Blitzer jumps in suddenly for another commercial break. Cue the overly dramatic music ….

9:52: Blitzer says there is a ‘raging conversation’ going on at CNNPolitics.com. But does not say what it is on.

9:53: Obama says he won rural areas in Nevada, and moves on to the issue of faith, saying that the Democrats did not reach out to evangelicals because of ‘choice’ or gay rights. Clever way to rebut the Muslim spears, but a bit heavy handed as he continually mentions he is a Christian. Hillary jumps in that there are polls that show her winning too. Clinton says a McCain nomination means a general election on national security and says she is the best on that issue. Says she has been there and done that and is still here. Edwards now says it is not about polls. Edwards cites campaign finance reform that McCain stands for and says that he made a commitment to not hiring corporate lobbyists. She says Edwards draws artificial distinctions and accepts money from people related to corporate lobbyists. Edwards says people expect something for their money. Edwards defends money he accept from trial lawyers who want him to stand up for rights in the courtroom.  Clinton says there is no difference, and she wants to get campaign finance. She says its important to look at the interests, not who rejects the lobbyists. Obama says no one has clean hands, but there are distinctions who can be drawn. Obama goes back to national security issues, and says that you take on McCain not by being like John McCain, but you have to have a strong contrast who stands against the politics of fear. Says he would not hesitate to strike if someone threatened America, but you have to describe a new foreign policy that looks at negotiating with enemies, instead of battling on GOP territory. Edwards says you have to appeal to youth and prevent them from going to Al Qaeda. Wants America to be a shining light. Reaganesque, ironically.

10:01: If MLK were alive - and Wolf points out he is not - why should he endorse you? Edwards drops the name of MLK III and  says poverty and equality. Cites the Voting Rights Act and people disengaged who do not vote. Obama says King would not endorse but would hold people accountable. Talks about change being from the bottom down, specifically mentions women a couple of times. Clinton says change comes from the American people, but King pushed political leaders and pushed them to be part of the movement, citing Clyburn and John Lewis (if you drank every time she mentioned the CBC tonight, you’d have been passed out by 9:30). She says she intends to follow in his lead, and everyone shakes hands as Wolf thanks everyone.

Sphere: Related Content

Nevada: Obama Hypocrisy On Outside Spending

After our experience at the 100 Club Dinner in New Hampshire, JW and I warned against overzealous Obama supporters potentially taking things a bit too far and turning off prospective supporters. It appears the early signs of this are visible in Nevada…

Quick context before getting into the story: Following the 60,000 member Culinary Union’s endorsement of Barack Obama, the Nevada State Teacher’s Union that is supporting Hillary Clinton (and some other people) filed a lawsuit which hoped to stop the Culinary Union from caucusing at their place of work (casinos). Given that the caucusing plan was in palce prior to the Culinary Union’s endorsement, there were some legitimate questions raised about the lawsuit coming after the Culinary Union announced its endorsement; naturally, the scrutiny was only more intense given the fact that a pro-Clinton union was the party that filed the lawsuit. Bill Clinton defended the lawsuit. A judge dismissed the suit.

Indeed, there are tensions in this campaign, but a few days ago both the Clinton and Obama camps declared a truce to racial tension that was beginning consume the discussion. Nevertheless, a pro-Obama labor union is running a tough radio ad in Spanish against Hillary in Nevada [audio here]. The ad attacks Clinton’s ostensible support of the aforementioned lawsuit, saying:

Hillary Clinton does not respect our people. Hillary Clinton supporters went to court to prevent working people to vote this Saturday — that is an embarrassment.

Hillary Clinton supporters want to prevent people from voting in their workplace on Saturday. This is unforgivable. Hillary Clinton is shameless. Hillary Clinton should not allow her friends to attack our people’s right to vote this Saturday. This is unforgivable; there’s no respect

Sen. Obama is defending our right to vote. Sen. Obama wants our votes. He respects our votes, our community, and our people.

Sen. Obama’s campaign slogan is “Si Se Puede” (“Yes We Can”). Vote for a president that respects us, and that respects our right to vote. Obama for president, “Si Se Puede” (“Yes We Can”).

Hillary responded to the ads and called for Obama stand against them, saying:

“They’re shameless and offensive. They’re untrue and I would hope that Senator Obama would have the same standards in Nevada that he did in Iowa where he called for the end of 527s and their independent expenditures. It is way beyond bounds for anyone to make the shameless and offensive claims that are in those ads.”

Others in the Clinton campaign have decried Obama’s conduct with respect to these ads ad urged him to distance himself from them. It’s also worth noting that the ads are being run by a PAC and not a 527, although I think the distinction isn’t terribly important in this particular situation.

Edwards also chimed in by denouncing the ads and criticized Obama for not taking a stand against the content of the ads, especially in light of all the criticism that Obama levied against Edwards back in Iowa under similar circumstances.

The Obama campaign has yet to speak against the ads and instead has opted to defend the content. An Obama spokesman said the following:

“Coming from a campaign that is repeatedly launching absolutely false attacks against Sen. Obama, it takes some chutzpah. The fact is, their camp [Hillary Clinton's] clearly would like to have workers’ voices silenced and they need to live with that unfortunate position”

Even putting aside Obama’s agreement to not inject race into the discussion (the corollary of that being that he will speak against instances of people injecting race/ethnicity into the discussion on his behalf) and his overall argument that he change politics as usual, it is still somewhat troubling that Sen. Obama hasn’t spoken against the ads given his prior position on similar issues in Iowa.

Leading up to the Iowa Caucuses, Obama spoke against outside spending on behalf of presidential candidates. At a time when 527s in Iowa were spending money in support of Edwards, Obama said that if the tables were turned, he would ask the unions to stop spending money on his behalf, however he dodged the larger question of whether or not he would ever accept the support of 527s:

When questioned this morning if he would take a pledge not to accept help from 527s, Obama dodged the question.

“You know the problem with 527s is you have no disclosure and you have no campaign laws. And my sense is if we want to increase transparency and accountability in how our campaigns are run then we should have monies funneled through channels where the people know who’s funding the campaigns and who’s accountable for the ads.”

Obama said that right now, he would tell a union to stop advertising on his behalf.

He was asked if he would accept support from 527s if he was the nominee but Obama did not give a definitive answer. He said he hopes to get Republicans to come up with an agreement on how to operate. However, Obama added, “I’m not going to endanger the Democratic party’s ability to win races by letting the other side outspend us by two or three hundred million dollars.”

In short, it would seem: when outside spending works against Obama (as in Iowa), he’s against it and when outside spending works in his favor (as in Nevada), he either supports it or remains silent on the issue. Now, again, I realize that these ads are being paid for by a PAC and not a 527; however, as noted above, the distinction is really meaningless in this particular situation — outside spending is outside spending, regardless if it’s being done under the legal structure of a 527 or a PAC.

In order to be consistent, Sen. Obama really needs to take a stand against this ad and others like it.

As an aside, Joan Walsh discuss a report of alleged voter intimidation by Obama supporters in the Culinary Workers Union. I don’t think this particular issue is anything to get too riled up about, especially in light of the sketchy facts. Further, I’m sure every candidate has some overzealous supporters and similar kinds of reports can be dug up for just about any candidate. That said, this report may do nothing else than underscore just how bad caucuses are and why they simply shouldn’t be used.

Sphere: Related Content

Our Coverage of Yucca

Clinton and Obama are duking it out today (our take: if Clinton’s approach was a consistent one, she’d have to concede a bunch of issues, like health care; and Obama is about as connected to that company as Clinton is connected to the Clinton administration that pressed forward with the project at times. Point being, this is a circus right now.), and Clinton also slammed Edwards on the issue this week during the debate. There’s nothing really new, and all of the candidates have taken pains this cycle to be as anti-Yucca as possible.

Our posts on Yucca:

• The Presidential Politics of Yucca Mountain
• Clinton and Obama Yucca It Up

Sphere: Related Content

John Edwards’ Media Fantasy

It’s the last resort of candidates: when things get bad, blame the media. Edwards has lagged behind Obama and Clinton in fundraising and in polls for all of the past year. He’s taken matching funds when Clinton and Obama did not. He took matching funds, which incredibly limited his ability to campaign, after at first criticizing the idea. Moreover, he’s actually managed to get himself treated like a front runner through Iowa. Everyone through Iowa called it a 3 way battle at the top. After New Hampshire, though, with Clinton and Obama at the top of every poll and Edwards universally in third, even in NC, his coverage has understadably fallen off. Instead of bucking down to get a win like Giuliani, he’s taken the Fred Thompson approach of bitching and complaining about his coverage.

Edwards himself has defined himself as irrelevant. He’s been on a national platform before (arguably, he was a bigger national figure than Barack Obama coming into this race) and has had much more recent exposure nationally than Hillary Clinton. By treating himself as a second class citizen in the race (instead of defining himself as the same) Edwards himself propelled the stereotype he was ostensibly fighting against. The fact of the matter is that Edwards has had extensive exposure to the American people and they are not buying his intense anti-corporate shtick. The only ones complaining are the members of media (mostly internet based) who share Edwards’ politics and want him to do better. Bill Maher on his last show had more or less a ten minute pity party with Matt Taibbi, as they blamed the media for killing Edwards without offering any evidence whatsoever.

I’ll offer one anecdote and one piece of evidence. In covering this election and watching the mainstream media often, people have clearly had access to Edwards the entire time. This is especially true for potential donors. The problem is not that people gave away 60 million more to Clinton or Obama and did not know about Edwards; it’s that they chose against giving to Edwards. Moreover, nationally people simply can listen to Edwards … they’re just choosing against him. I’m not clear, exactly, how people are supposed to learn about Obama or Clinton and not about Edwards.

Even in the last week, Google News shows no giant discrepancy. It turns up 55,838 results for John Edwards, against 69,549 for Barack Obama and 75,906 for Hillary Clinton. Perhaps it’s just me, but getting 75% of the media coverage of the candidates who actually have won and are reasonably predicted to be able to win elections is more or less fair.

Was Edwards complaining about getting too much coverage compared to Dodd or Biden? Nope. But the MO of the Edwards campaign seems to be to complain to get its supporters more and more outraged about anything involved with anything corporate, no matter what the implications are in terms of actually fixing anything. It’s not surprising that he’s running this type of campaign against the corporate media. It’s easier than actually taking responsibility for a campaign headed nowhere.

Image Credit: The Onion

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net’s Presidential Election Podcast (01/25/08)

This podcast takes evaluates the current state of the campaign and looks ahead to Nevada, South Carolina and Florida…

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).

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog Of MSNBC Democratic Debate In Las Vegas, Nevada (January 15, 2007)

8:20: Dennis Kucinich has apparently lost his appeal and will not be appearing on stage tonight. That leaves Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

8:47: Exit polls and early results seem to indicate a good night for Romney in Michigan, even though a few polls are still open.

8:53: Over to MSNBC. Their debate graphic is a boxing ring, which immediately makes me wonder if the debate is rigged. I’m affirmed in that stance by the news that Hillary Clinton was endorsed by and will campaign with Ugly Betty.

8:54: Chuck Todd is in the house, and predicts race will come up on the birthday of MLK.

8:56: Candidates are paraded on stage, Obama, Clinton, Edwards left to right. Harry Reid shows up to hug everybody and lead the debate in a moment of ceremonial non-productivity.

8:57: They’re sitting in a conference table that looks like it was an outcast from a bad King Arthur movie. Chuck Todd wonders what questions the candidates will ask each other, as if they’ll be anything really different. Olbermann is curious if the debate format makes it harder to attack someone sitting down. Seriously, that’s the analysis you’re missing. Apparently Republicans are dying to sit down, too.

9:00: Mitt Romney gets his big win in Michigan, and the Republican race is officially mucked up.

9:02: Harry Reid gets another shout out in yet another moment where nothing is accomplished. I think that’s enough Reid-karma for tonight. No applause tonight, and lights for time. There’s another moderator with just email questions.

9:04: Question to Clinton on how did we get here on race. Clinton says neither race nor gender matters, and cites Edwards being shockingly the son of a mill worker. Clinton says sometimes supporters are ‘uncontrollable’ in their exuberance. She recognizes MLK. Obama gets the same question and agrees. Edwards agrees and decides to add that he lived in the south when there was segregation there. He saw it! He lived with it! He takes a bold stance against going back to segregation.

9:09: On accountability, Russert asks if he regrets pushing the story. Obama agrees with Clinton that there were overzealous staffers, and that’s why he spoke yesterday. He says it was not a deliberate attempt to marginalize him as “the” black candidate. Russert asks about his campaign support falling off in NH. Umm, Tim, Clinton got a ten point bounce; Obama stayed more or less where he was. Obama says change happens because of what people say, not what candidates say. Russert asks if Robert Johnson will be asked to leave Clinton’s campaign after the faux pas. Clinton mentions the clarification he issued (that was complete BS) and moves on to a general line about people listening to what candidates say, not endorsers. Clinton says the comments were out of bounds “and he said that.” True, if today is opposites day.

9:15: Why choose between a black man or a woman? Edwards says it is about change and what type of change you want, etc. It’s personal for him! What is a white male to do? The audience laughs at the inanity of the question. Fifteen minutes in, and we’ve got undeniably the worst question of the night. Can we get to something that matters?

9:17: Question on women voting for Obama. Was his “likable enough” comment the cause of his loss? Obama points out how much of a non issue this is. I’m starting to regret live blogging. Get to something that at least might matter, please. Question for Edwards on whether he tag teamed with Obama. Edwards takes a bold stance in favor of telling the truth. Clinton gives him the stare of death.

9:22: Someone starts yelling in the back of the room briefly. Clinton is asked about the general election race. Clinton says there will be unity, and that what matters is who is ready on day 1, etc. She cites the highest home foreclosure rate in the country. Her experience is “rooted in the voices” she has heard. When asked if Edwards and Obama are prepared enough, she says that is up to the voters to decide. Obama is asked about saying he is not an executive officer. He says that being President means setting an agenda and having a vision, not making sure paperwork is done effectively. Bold argument to make, in that it’s almost surely going to be used against him should he be nominated.

9:26: Greatest strength and weaknesses: Obama, bringing people together. His weakness is organizing his desk, he needs people around him to do that. Edwards’ greatest strength is fighting for his whole life. He had to fight to survive! His weakness is a powerful emotional response. He tells a story about how he feels it in a personal way. Clinton says she wants to be an instrument for helping children. Change, Change, Change. Her weakness is impatience for not getting more change! Change! She segues into an attack on Obama, but that being president is being an executive officer. She says Bush failed at managing the bureaucracy. Obama says you do have to be a good manager, and hold your team accountable. He says in a light moment Bush was always on time and never lost any papers, but did not bring in different perspectives.

9:33: Question for Obama about the Muslim emails and slurs. He confirms he is a Christian and took the oath on a Bible, and leads the pledge of allegiance on occasion. He says people are smarter than to believe that. Again cites real issues that could be discussed, although denying this isn’t as much as a waste of time as the first 15 minutes.

9:39: Back from commercials.

9:40: Clinton is asked about Citigroup and Merrill Lynch getting loans from overseas. Clinton says they are ’sovereign wealth funds.’ She would like to know more, but looks at why this happened, specifically citing these companies betting on subprime mortgages. Edwards agrees with Clinton on calls for transparency. He further says all growth is as a result of the top 1% or multinational corporations. (Fact check?) He says the middle class does not feel secure in their jobs or health insurance. Obama says the lack of an energy policy is at root of the problem. He also says it happened because there was a lack of oversight by the Bush administration.

9:45: Edwards regrets his vote on the bankruptcy bill in 2001. He says universal health care and fighting for more change can help. He says getting rid of banks as an intermediary in student loans also can help. Clinton also regrets her vote on the 2001 bill, and points out it does not happen. She talks about changes to regulation that could help prevent another Countrywide disaster. Obama says he opposed both bankruptcy bills, and cites a bill he submitted a year and half ago. Cites the influence of special interest lobbyists on the issue. Calls for relief for those who cannot meet payments for health care based reasons.

9:52: Obama is asked about changes to the tax codes, and says he would consider exempting the middle class from dividends and capital gains, but that those like Buffet should not be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary. Refers to Edwards’ example of the top 1 percent. Clinton is asked about long term effects of the foreclosures. She says that interest rates will stabilize the market, and is in line with what the Fed is doing in the monetary area of the economy. Talks more about her stimulus program, which is intended for now, and not on or after inauguration, so I’ll leave the details out. Joking referral to timed lights.

9:58: Time for questions from each candidate to the others. Edwards says Obama recently passed Clinton for how much they raised from drug companies. Obama talks about the details of the donations not being directly from the companies, and that he has a record fo small donations. He says he wants to fight for public financing of campaigns. Apparently, there’s now only one question. Cl