David Corn

Washington Bureau Chief

Corn has broken stories on presidents, politicians, and other Washington players. He's written for numerous publications and is a talk show regular. His best-selling books include Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.

Get my RSS | Follow @davidcorndc

How Will Ron Paul's Libertarian Fans View His Big Anti-Abortion Endorsement?

—By David Corn

| Tue Jan. 22, 2008 12:02 PM PST

Do all those libertarians swooning over Ron Paul realize he's no get-the-government-out-of-my life freedom-lover when it comes to reproductive rights? Today Representative Paul was in Washington--not toiling hard to abolish the Department of Education or to end the Iraq war--but holding a press conference with Norma Leah McCorvey. She was the "Jane Roe" of the Supreme Court's 1973 Rove v. Wade decision, which declared that most antiabortion laws in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy. But since then McCorvey has switched sides and has become an antiabortion activist. These days, she runs her own antiabortion ministry.

At the press conference, McCorvey endorsed Paul. For antiabortion outfits, McCorvey has long been a much used icon. And her support of Paul, who authored legislation in Congress that would define life as beginning at conception, could help his far-from-the-mainstream candidacy among social conservatives. But for his libertarian fans, this endorsement is also a reminder that Paul is indeed in favor of Big Government...when it would do his bidding. If elected president, Paul could fire all those people working at the Department of Education and offer them jobs chasing after anyone who obtains an abortion or uses an IUD.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Nevada Results Reveal A Big Challenge for Obama: How To Win Die-Hard Dems?

—By David Corn

| Sat Jan. 19, 2008 3:17 PM PST

Ever wake up in Las Vegas the morning after a not-so-good night? Barack Obama has not yet gotten the chance to sleep off the Nevada caucus returns--and he's not likely to be getting much sleep between now and Supersaturated Tuesday on February 5--but the Nevada results ought to be troubling for the Obama camp (even though the Nevada caucus was a rather odd affair). Exit polls showed that Hillary Clinton, who won by 6 points, scored well with women, Hispanics, and working-class voters fretting about the recession. The problem for Obama: this is a big chunk of the Democratic electorate.

Sasha Abramsky focuses on the lemonade: Obama was competitive with Clinton in rural white areas. But even if Obama can scoop up John Edwards voters in future contests--Edwards ran a distant third in Nevada, bagging about 5 percent of the vote--Clinton is sitting on a damn good base at the moment: women, Latinos and blue-collar Dems. It will be hard to win the Democratic nomination without those blocs.

Obama could well triumph in South Carolina, depending on how African-Americans vote. But his true political challenge is besting Clinton among the critical die-hard Democratic slices. And with February 5 fast approaching, he doesn't have much time to win over these voters.

A Problem for Barack Obama

—By David Corn

| Fri Jan. 18, 2008 8:36 AM PST

No matter what happens in the Democratic caucus in Nevada (this Saturday) and the Democratic primary in South Carolina (next Saturday), Barack Obama has a problem. Mind you, I'm not predicting his demise. But as he and Hillary Clinton head toward Supersaturated Tuesday on February 5, Obama will have a profound challenge that she will not.

Both have money and organization. But she is running a conventional campaign; he is not. She waves her resume, cites her experience, and proclaims she is ready to do the heavy lifting on Day One. He claims that he can change politics--and, thus, government policymaking--because of his vision and strength (and force) of character. He is mounting a campaign that aspires to be transformative. She is heading a campaign that seeks to put its candidate into a job.

After South Carolina, the presidential campaign will be dominated and shaped by ads. With so many states--including California--in immediate play, there's no way the candidates can do retail politicking that matters (like they did in Iowa and New Hampshire). It will be easy for Clinton to sell herself (in conventional terms) through television ads, radio spots, mailers, and the like. Obama may find in tougher to convey the intangibles he is banking on--hope, faith (in him), transcendence--via 60-second snippets. Before signing up with a noble crusade, some Democratic voters might need first to feel the Obama magic. On the other hand, no voter needs to experience Clinton's soul to conclude she is the most qualified for the job.

Connecting with voters in a transformative manner will be a difficult task for Obama in the crazy nine days between South Carolina and February 5. As a more conventional candidate, Clinton could have an advantage at this stage. After all, the conventional often works.

I explain this all a bit further here.

Leahy Endorses Obama, Saying Clinton's Not the Best Dem To "Reintroduce" America

—By David Corn

| Thu Jan. 17, 2008 9:21 AM PST

The email came in: Barack Obama Campaign about to Announce a Major Endorsement. Who could that be? Al Gore? The campaign was holding a conference call in minutes to break the news. I quickly called in. And the big catch turned out to be....Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.

This certainly won't turn the race. But one standard line for Senator Hillary Clinton has been that she has outdrawn Obama in senatorial endorsements. She had bagged ten; he had six. Now Obama has cut her lead by 25 percent. She better watch out!

In the conference call, Leahy gave one reason for picking Obama over Clinton and former Senator John Edwards:

I believe many around the world have lost respect for America....I think we can restore that respect. But we need a president who can reintroduce America to the world.

I asked the obvious question: why did Leahy think that Obama could better reintroduce America than Clinton?

[Read more in the MoJo blog]

Dems Debate in Nevada: All's Calm on Iraq and Race, But Not on Nuclear Energy

—By David Corn

| Tue Jan. 15, 2008 9:55 PM PST

What did the umpteenth Democratic presidential debate, held in Nevada on Tuesday night, demonstrate? That Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton each need a nap. The trio looked worn out. Perhaps that was why few punches were thrown. The Iraq war, the politics of race, tears (or near tears)--the Democratic contest had become rather heated in recent days. Clinton, using misleading information, had accused Obama of being a disingenuous hypocrite regarding the war. Obama's camp had seized on a comment Clinton had made to Fox News and assailed her for supposedly dissing Martin Luther King Jr. And Edwards had snidely insinuated Clinton might not be strong enough to be president (after she became emotional at a campaign stop in New Hampshire). It was getting nasty.