MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: December 30, 2007

« December 23, 2007 - December 29, 2007 | Main | January 6, 2008 - January 12, 2008 »

January 5, 2008

Dem Debate in NH Previews Clinton's Get-Obama Strategy

At the Democratic debate on Saturday night in New Hampshire, John Edwards came to the rescue of Barack Obama. Not that Obama needed it. But it provided Edwards the opportunity to (a) whack Hillary Clinton and (b) grab for the change wave that propelled Obama to victory in Iowa. In a debate featuring few true policy disputes, the thrusts and parries defined the final Democratic face-off before the first primary election--and they revealed the Clinton campaign's strategy for taking Obama down.

Edwards' moment came when Clinton--in a much-anticipated move--went after Obama. She accused her Senate colleague of flip-flopping on health care. First, she said, he was for single-payer health care; then he proposed a different sort of health care reform. "I think that what we're looking for is a president we can count on," she added.

As far as punches go, this was no knockout blow. Clinton's previous attempt to pick a fight with Obama over the differences in their health care plans--a distinction too wonkish for most voters to worry about--did not succeed. But she was giving it another shot, hoping to depict the winner of Iowa as just another pol. Obama gently defended himself, explaining that he had once said that his preference would be a single-payer system but that he believed it would not be practical to scrap the existing system to make way for such a plan. And he noted, again gently, that he did disagree with Clinton and Edwards on the need for mandating health care coverage. He went on to point out, gently once more, that he and Edwards both have taken a stand on Social Security--advocating a small increase in payroll taxes--which Clinton has declined to do. The two bickered some more, with Clinton claiming Obama had waffled on the Patriot Act and Iraq war funding.

Then John Edwards swooped in. "Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack," he said. He was equating Clinton with those forces. She glowered at him. Edwards continued:

The one thing I do not argue with [Obama] about is he believes
deeply in change. And I believe deeply in change. And any time you're fighting for that -- I mean, I didn't hear these kind of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead. Now that she's not, we hear them. And any time you speak out -- any time you speak out for change, this is what happens.

Me and Obama versus the First Lady of the Status Quo--that was Edwards' message. It was a rather effective push-back against Clinton's offensive against Obama. Edwards was clearly choosing sides. And he was happy to do the dirty work--which allowed Obama to remain above the fray.

Clinton wasn't done with Obama. She moved on to another line of attack, basically saying that Obama was more talk than action. She noted that she had repeatedly delivered on change, helping to create the children's health insurance program and obtaining access to health care for National Guard members.

Clinton was signaling--not too subtly--that in the few days before the New Hampshire election she was going to try to make Obama look like just another do-nothing, back-flipping politician. But by the end of the debate, she had not done the front-runner much damage. All of the candidates--including former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson--were performing well, discussing various policy notions with specificity and passion. And the ammunition she deployed was not all that potent. (Moving from pro-choice to pro-life--now that's a flip-flop. Changing your mind about single-payer isn't quite the same.) "The Clintons really don't have anything on Obama," one reporter said to me in the middle of the debate. And he was right. For anyone trying to score the debate, it was probably a draw. And if Obama does have momentum out of Iowa, that would be bad news for Clinton.

But after the debate, in the so-called "spin room," the Clintonites demonstrated that they intended to keep pounding on Obama on these two fronts: flip-flopping and more-talk-than-action. Phil Singer, a spokesman for the campaign, told reporters that Obama couldn't cite any specific accomplishments to back up his claim to be an agent of change. (Actually, Obama had mentioned his work to pass legislation on ethics and loose nukes.) "He's taken multiple positions on health care," Singer exclaimed. I asked Singer if the same could be said of Clinton. After all, the health care plan she proposed during this campaign was quite different from the Hillarycare proposal she unveiled in 1994. Is she, too, a flip-flopper? Singer, a good spinner, didn't lose a beat. Nearly fifteen years had gone by between Hillarycare and her latest plan, he replied, and she had learned from her previous experience. But, he went on, Obama had shifted his position over the course of three years. Singer added that the Clinton campaign had a website listing Obama's policy reversals.

Why are you bringing all this up now? one journalist inquired, suggesting the campaign was acting out of desperation. (Duh!) Singer shot back, "I would ask why the media has not bought it up....Perhaps tonight will be a first step to getting people to have a better sense of [Obama's] record." So Clinton was merely goosing along this process of public education.

A few yards away, Doug Hattaway, a veteran Democratic consultant who joined the Clinton campaign five days earlier, told me that Clinton was only now getting the chance to make her case. Could her campaign, I ask, really beat back Obama, who has inspired so many Democrats, with the claim he's a disingenuous flip-flopper? "The bigger thing that breaks through," Hattaway said, "is the difference between talk and action." People like to be inspired. But they want to know they have a president that can deliver."

There's not much the Clinton crew is hiding. They have two anti-Obama memes. They will see if they can get either to stick to the Democratic dreamboat. David Axlerod, Obama's chief strategist, not surprisingly, voiced no concern. (In the spin room, no one is ever worried.) "This is the Washington playbook," he said. "A campaign gets in trouble and they go negative. The question is, is that what the American people are looking for?" No, the question is, what are New Hampshire voters looking for--and will they respond to the Clinton effort to rebrand Obama? Iowa showed that Clinton could not prevail on the strength of her own message. New Hampshire will indicate if Clinton can win by other means.

Whack-a-Mitt: The Republicans Debate in NH

Before you feel sorry for Mitt Romney for getting picked on relentlessly in tonight's Republican debate at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire, consider the fact that he's devoted millions of dollars to picking on everyone else.

There was no question who the collected cast of Republican candidates wanted to put between the crosshairs. Time and again, the former Massachusetts Governor was the target of full-scale grenade attacks and small potshots.

They frequently used his words against him. On the topic of the Iraq War, Governor Mike Huckabee looked straight at Romney, who has sniped Huckabee for abandoning the President, and said, "Governor Romney, you yourself on '60 Minutes' said that we had left Iraq in a mess. You've also said that you weren't going to have this 'my way or no way' philosophy… I supported the president in the war before you did. I supported the surge when you didn't."

On immigration, John McCain defended his position from his critics on the right, including Romney, by saying, "Now, no better authority than Governor Romney believed that it's not amnesty because two years ago, he was asked, and he said that my plan was, quote, 'reasonable,' and was not amnesty. It's a matter of record."

McCain delivered some of the petty remarks, too. When Romney, who is notorious for his flip-flops, said that he was going to more fully adopt Barack Obama's message of change because, "that was the message coming out of Iowa," John McCain replied, "I just wanted to say to Governor Romney, we disagree on a lot of issues, but I agree you are the candidate of change."

The attacks were at times almost gleeful. And that may be because Romney has run more negative ads than any of the candidates in the field. He has repeatedly hit Governor Huckabee on his record in Arkansas, and has several ads that imply Senator McCain is too old and out of touch to be president. (He also attacks McCain on immigration.) He has engaged in attack politics, and spent more than the rest of the field combined to do it.

But Romney didn't want to do it in person. When McCain responded to Romney's claim of being misquoted in the AP by saying, "When you change issues — positions on issues from time to time, you will get misquoted," Romney didn't hit back. He pleaded for civility, saying, "Senator, is there a way to have this about issues and not about personal attacks?"

And another:

ROMNEY: But, look, you know, Governor, don't try and characterize my position. Of course, this war...

HUCKABEE: Which one?

(LAUGHTER)

ROMNEY: You know, we're wise to talk about policies and not to make personal attacks.

Romney has demonstrated a willingness to play hardball with his money and his purchased airtime, but tonight he shied from the fight.

There is something to be said for this, however. Nobody looks good getting beat up, but at times, Thompson's barbs looked churlish, McCain's looked bullying, and Huckabee's tarnished his aw-shucks rep. Giuliani may have done benefited the most from the whack-a-Mitt routine simply by not participating and looking like an adult.

For the record, the debate would have been much smaller but for a quirk in Iowa's primary system. The Iowa Democratic Party has a viability rule built in which means that any candidate who received less than 15 percent of the votes in a caucus room came away with nothing. Thus, candidates like Biden and Dodd who may have consistently polled around 10-14 percent received such a tiny fraction of the actual delegates that they were forced to drop out.

The Republican Party in Iowa has no such rule, which means that a number of candidates who would have done as poorly as Biden or Dodd in the Democratic side appeared to do fairly well and lived to see New Hampshire's snowy hills. As a result, the Republican debate was larger than the Democratic one, which David will post on later tonight.

Frankly, however, I don't think the Republicans mind having Ron Paul in there, just to take one example. When it comes to foreign policy, each of the Republicans is trying to identify themselves as the heavyweight, and keeping around a punching bag like Paul (who is more right than any of them, but is a one-man minority in these GOP forums) is a service to the rest of the field.

Oh, and PS — I liked Michael Scherer's characterization of Romney here.

Oh, and PPS — Kudos to ABC and its partners for running what was largely a substance-filled debate. They asked solid questions and allowed just the right amount of back and forth.

Hillary Clinton Tosses the Script

As Hillary Clinton looks to become the second Comeback Kid in her immediate family, her campaign is trying a new approach. She kicked off her New Hampshire campaign by sticking to the stump speech that she relied on in Iowa, but that's changed. Perhaps sensing that her stump speech was, in effect, third-rate, Clinton delivered very brief remarks at the beginning of her campaign appearances today and spent most of the time taking questions from New Hampshire voters.

At Merrimack Valley High School in the town of Penacook this morning, Clinton spoke for roughly ten minutes before turning to the very substantial crowd for questions. Her remarks did have a point, however: three times in those ten minutes, she managed to say that she was the only candidate ready to lead "from day one" or "from the first day." The speakers that came before her also used the phrases three times, in equally brief comments. Perhaps the Clinton camp took a hard look at the strategy from Iowa—emphasize biography, emphasize the '90s, emphasize work ethic—and determined that only the "day one" sound bite was worth keeping.

And it's just as well. At both the Penacook appearance and a later one in Durham, Clinton was masterful in the question and answer sessions. The questions were easy; examples included "What are the top two reasons to vote for you?" and "I've been frustrated by the deceptively named No Child Left Behind. What will you do about it?" Clinton provided very long answers—an answer ostensibly on social security touched on middle class incomes, health care, energy, and the Republican war on science, and lasted over 10 minutes—that included smart tangents and acknowledgments of important sub-issues. For example, when asked a question about rising health care costs by a woman who claimed to be the caretaker of both her parents and her children, Clinton pointed out that "the most difficult time of day for families is often three to six" and that "you can get more help from the government putting parents in nursing homes than you can for keeping them in your own home." In another discussion, she pointed out dental hygiene's connections to heart health and infections all over the body. If other candidates have an appreciation of the issues that is this in-depth, they don't show it on the campaign trail.

And that may be the point of the new all-questions strategy. It allows Clinton to display the breadth and depth of her knowledge. Her ability to make reference to past battles and former achievements underscores her experience even if it isn't a central focus.

And the crowds loved it. An elderly woman leaving the Penacook event at the high school said, "If the election were today, she'd have my vote." After the Durham event, a man named Sam Quinn said, "I thought she was pretty together and well-organized. She seemed to have an answer for every question." Quinn said he was likely to vote for Clinton. The Durham crowd applauded enthusiastically after each of Clinton's responses.

But there are two problems. It was never Hillary Clinton's campaign events that turned people off. At Obama and Edwards events in Iowa, voters explained their opposition to Clinton by pointing to her vote with the White House to classify the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization; or the fact that her campaign had gone negative (the attack on Obama's kindergarten essay and the insinuations of drug-dealing were frequently cited); or the fact that she had embraced Rupert Murdoch after the media magnate spent years tearing into her family. Whatever the reason, it almost always had to do with her past actions or the behavior of her campaign. There's no performance Clinton can put on at these question and answer events that is going to counter that.

The other problem is that this new strategy includes no new message that will inspire people. It introduces no new ideas or principles that undecided voters can identify with from afar. They have to come to her events to see how impressive she is. And even if Hillary Clinton converts every single person at these question and answer sessions, the most people she can reach is 1,000 to 1,500 per day. With election day on Tuesday of next week, she's going to have to do better than that.

Photos: Top, Hillary Clinton supporters before her event this morning in Penacook; second, the Merrimack Valley High School gym at 9:00 am; third, the same gym roughly an hour later; bottom, Clinton speaking at the event.

Obama's New Hampshire Ads — Preview of National Race? Cause for Concern?

These Obama ads currently running in New Hampshire are obviously designed to pick up independent voters. If Obama wins the nomination, is this what we're going to see eight months of?

Obama highlights his independence and his ability to unify the country. Fair enough; he's trying to win in a state with lots of independents. (The main competitor for those votes, as odd as it sounds, appears to be John McCain; independents in New Hampshire can vote in either primary.)

I'm getting worried; should we be concerned about Obama's allegiance to progressive beliefs? Would a President Obama compromise on key issues in order to make it look like he is "bringing the country together"? And let's say at some point in his term(s) he faces stiff Republican opposition in Congress that doesn't share his passion for bipartisanship. Will he move to the center or to the right just to keep Washington from getting mired in gridlock?

Copycat GOPers: Mitt Channels Obama, McCain Claims He's an Agent of Change

Washington is fundamentally broken. It cannot deliver what the public demands: health care coverage for all, energy independence, good schools. And we're not going to change Washington by handing more power to the same-old people already there. Hillary Clinton says she has experience, but that's not what the voters want. They want someone who can bring real change to the nation's capital.

Is that Barack Obama campaigning in New Hampshire? No, it's Mitt Romney. At an "Ask Mitt Anything" meeting on Saturday morning in Derry, Romney was channeling the Democratic victor in Iowa. After finishing second in Iowa, where he had invested so much political and actual capital, Romney, good businessman that he is, took stock of the results and saw that the political market is demanding not experience but change. So he has recalibrated his sales campaign. "The message I read into" the Iowa results, he told the assembled in Derry, is that Hillary Clinton and John McCain were "handily rejected by people with messages of change." In that category he included Mike Huckabee, the GOP winner of Iowa, Obama, the Democratic winner, and...himself. Though Romney had finished 9 points behind Huckabee, he was claiming he had not been spurned by the voters and was a fellow rider of that change wave.

This is rather imaginative bookkeeping. But you can't blame a CEO for trying. And Romney appears to be in a tight (and bitter) race with McCain in New Hampshire. So he's attempting to hijack the Obama magic and discredit McCain as just another do-nothing Washingtonian.

At the Derry event, Romney stood near a giant sign proclaiming "Washington Is Broken" and unveiled a to-do list for the U.S. government. It included almost every idea that any candidate has proposed during this campaign: protect America, end illegal immigration, reduce taxes, cut pork, provide health insurance for everyone, end dependence on foreign oil, grow the economy, fix Social Security, put people ahead of "selfish interest." He was covering all the bases. And he discussed each as if he were conducting a PowerPoint presentation. Romney also noted that much of this would not be possible unless "we get the lobbyists off the shoulders" of the legislators. With this remark, not only was he swiping Obama's message, he was also shoplifting McCain's and John Edwards'. Talk about a hostile takeover.

What was the difference, then, between him and Obama? It's not the Iraq war—though he supports it, and Obama has called for ending it. Romney hardly referred to the war at all. He devoted much more time to praising his record in the private sector (and he had brought the founding CEO of Staples along to attest to Romney's business acumen). Romney argued that Obama has "never done it"—when it comes to "change"—and that he (Romney) has, as both a venture capitalist and as a governor. If you want a true agent of change, Romney was saying, I'm your executive.

The crowd at the event—respectable but not overwhelming in size—was somewhat enthusiastic about the fellow who used to be governor next door in Massachusetts. But Romney came across as only a so-so candidate. When a woman in the audience mentioned that her brother had suffered a serious injury playing rugby and asked about stem cell research, Romney said nothing to acknowledge her family's tragedy. He launched into a canned response about relying on adult stem cells for medical research. This reply caused one of his fans in the conservative media to cringe. When it comes to presenting a Washington-stinks/we-need-change message, Romney can get away with intellectual property theft. But he does not inspire or arouse as Obama does. He can alter the packaging, not the product.

A few miles down the road, Mike Huckabee appeared before a jam-packed auditorium of several hundred people at the Londonderry Middle School. Supposedly, he's not in the hunt in New Hampshire, due to the state's lack of evangelicals. But his supporters expressed far more enthusiasm than Romney's. And his backers are a curious lot. I found people in the room who said they had voted for Howard Dean in 2004 and now we're hot for Huckabee. Some said they were deciding between Huckabee and Obama. Several were died-in-the-wool social conservatives who explained they were supporting Huckabee because of "faith."

Given that he's not part of the death-cage-match transpiring between Romney and McCain—who each desperately need a win in the Granite State and sit atop the polls here—Huckabee was free to mount a rather unusual event, which was first organized as a fundraiser for local charities. After a high school band played R&Bish jazz tunes, Huckabee delivered a short speech, full of one-liners, about the "greatness" of America: that is, neighbors helping neighbors. Millions of Americans go to bed each night hungry, he said. These people should be assisted by their fellow citizens. And if Americans would meet this challenge, then there would be no need for government intervention. He went on about the wonders of the Declaration of Independence and New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" motto.

It was a sermon. He said nothing about his campaign, nothing about his win in Iowa, nothing about the election to come in New Hampshire. He asked no one to vote for him or to help his campaign. Then actor Chuck Norris, his No. 1 celebrity backer, spoke for about as long as Huckabee had. Unlike Huckabee, Norris discussed the Iraq War at length, though mostly he described his own trips to Iraq to visit with soldiers. "They tell me we're going to win this war," Norris said, prompting applause. Then Huckabee and Norris donated a box of soccer balls to a local group that sends supplies to U.S. soldiers in Iraq. (The soccer balls will be handed out by American soldiers to Iraqi kids to earn good will for the Americans.)

Huckabee next told a long story about an Arkansas school teacher who once removed all the desks from her classroom. She asked her students what they had to do to earn their desks. Get good grades? the students said. No, the teacher replied. Behave well? No—and there would be no desks until they came up with the right answer. Well, her students sat on the floor for the entire day. And shortly before school was to let out—and by now television news camera crews were on site—she opened the door to the classroom and in walked 27 veterans, each carrying a desk. The teacher told her students, you don't have to earn your desk because these guys already have earned that desk for you.

The folks in front of Huckabee hung on each word as he recounted this tale. Afterward, he and Norris unfurled a long banner thanking two older veterans who were in the room. The crowd applauded loudly. No policy, no politics. Huckabee had served up faith, family, and patriotism. Would this win over the undecided voters in the room? There was no way of knowing. But he sure went over well. After the event finished, I heard several people saying how "nice" Huckabee seemed. And he looked rather friendly in that red sweater.

Back to the mudwrestle. An hour's drive away, in Peterborough, McCain was holding a town hall meeting, where he again cited his experience on national security matters and claimed progress was under way in Iraq. After working a crowd covered with red, white and blue confetti, McCain took questions from reporters (which Romney and Huckabee would not), and I asked him what he thought about Romney comparing him to Hillary Clinton. "I can't respond to that," he said. But McCain also tried to wave the change flag. "I'm responsible for the biggest change that has saved American lives," he said, referring to his criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war. In McCain's view, his criticism led to the surge, and the surge is succeeding and saving the lives of U.S. soldiers. "I'm an agent of change," he declared.

That's what they all are saying these days: Clinton, Romney, McCain. Obama-ism is catching on. But that's probably better news for the source than for the copycats.

New Hampshire GOP Bails on Fox News Forum for Excluding Ron Paul

The New Hampshire GOP has pulled its sponsorship of a Fox News forum tomorrow because of Fox's decision to exclude Ron Paul. Fox claims that Ron Paul isn't a serious enough candidate to merit including, except that he doubled Rudy Giuliani's performance in the Iowa caucuses and polls close to Giuliani and higher than Fred Thompson in New Hampshire.

Hey Fox, man up! What are you afraid of? And kudos to the NH GOP.

January 4, 2008

Kucinich's UFO Sighting: What He Really Saw

Dennis Kucinich has taken a lot of flack for saying that he once saw an unidentified flying object near Shirley MacLaine's house back in 1982. The Wall Street Journal just did a front-page story on it, adding to the Kucinich-as-silly-person storyline. But what if he really did see something—just not an alien spaceship? That's the skeptical-yet-speculative theory being floated over at Cannonfire:

The sighting took place in Washington state near Mt. Ranier, where the "flying saucer" craze was born.

Judging from the description of the three vehicles witnessed that day, I theorize that the party saw a test of prototype UAVs, or drones. Such unmanned reconnaissance craft were little-known at the time. They are well-known nowadays, since they play a major role in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Although the early development of unmanned craft is not easy for outsiders to trace, these devices do have a long history. Marilyn Monroe, in the days before she had that name, once worked for a company producing the first mass-produced UAVs.

The Kucinich sighting took place in Graham, Washington, situated directly between Mount Ranier and McChord Air Force Base. (The mountain is some twenty miles away from the base.) The report indicates that the craft were flying toward McChord. After the flyover, Kucinich's party saw military helicopters in the area.

Then how to explain MacLaine's claim that during the sighting Kucinich felt "a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind"? No doubt the Department of Peace would want to keep that love-drone technology in its arsenal.

(Image: Buckeye State Blog)

Off the Trail, and on the Warpath

It turns out Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was half right. After a poor showing in Iowa last night, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., dropped his bid to be the Democratic nominee for president—and, as such, will not be captive to the pander-inducing whims of electoral politics when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is reconsidered later this month. But that doesn't mean he won't be back on the floor of the Senate blocking any FISA bill that contains an immunity provision for the telecommunications industry. Here's what he said in his concession letter:

"The fight to restore the Constitution and stop retroactive immunity does not end with my Presidential campaign. FISA will come back in a few weeks and my pledge to filibuster ANY bill that includes retroactive immunity remains operative.

You've been an invaluable ally in the battle, and I'll need you to stick by my side despite tonight's caucus results."

So he's on record—the filibuster will continue.

Incidentally, Dodd has actually received more money from telecom companies than has Reid, but both receive far less than the top two recipients—Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Oh. And the fourth largest Senate recipient of telecom money? Intelligence Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller.

—Brian Beutler
The Media Consortium

Brian Beutler is the Washington correspondent for the Media Consortium, a network of progressive media organizations, including Mother Jones.

Clinton, Edwards Campaigns Go Negative on Obama

So what does Clinton do to regain momentum in New Hampshire? Attack Obama from the right.

Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination.

And what does Edwards do to keep Obama from getting the whole Iowa bounce? Attack Obama as a corporate tool.

Edwards' staff also immediately began to take shots at Obama: Appearing on MSNBC this morning, Edwards' manager David Bonior described Obama as a sellout to corporate America: "Barack Obama's kind of change is where you sit down and you cut a deal with the corporate world."

Neither of these approaches look all that promising, from first glance. But this could get ugly. (Via Sirotablog)

In New Hampshire, Hillary Finds It Tough To Dash Obama's Hope

The battle of New Hampshire—on the Democratic side—opened Friday morning with an obvious question: what, if anything, would Hillary Clinton do differently? Her 8-point loss to Barack Obama in Iowa was a clear indicator that what she had been doing until then was not working. And when it comes to the sort of voters who contributed to Obama's impressive win on Thursday night—including independent, young, and upscale voters—New Hampshire is a better hunting ground for Obama than Iowa. So reporters and politicos were wondering how Clinton would recalibrate in response to the thumpin' she had received.

Early in the morning, in a cold airport hangar in Nashua, in front of a couple of hundred people (including Arkansans and AFSCME union workers who were bussed in), Clinton provided the answer: not much. In her only major campaign appearance of the day (she would later join the other Democratic candidates at a dinner for the state Democratic party), she essentially stuck with the message that had failed her in Iowa.

Before she took the stage with husband Bill (who looked somewhat somber) and daughter Chelsea, the crowd chanted "ready for change, ready to lead." Her husband gave a short introduction notable for what he did not say. Sixteen years ago, in the days prior to the 1992 New Hampshire primary, his candidacy was on the ropes due to the report that he had engaged in an extramarital affair with Gennifer Flowers. He ended up placing second in New Hampshire (behind former Senator Paul Tsongas, the near-favorite son from next door in Massachusetts) and immodestly declared himself the "comeback kid." During his introduction this morning—and during Hillary's subsequent remarks—there was no recognition that once again the Clintons were looking to New Hampshire to save them.

Instead, Clinton delivered, in B-plus (at best) manner, her generic stump speech: she has experience and she would be ready to go as president on Day One. She took a few of the usual pokes at Obama, noting "we need a president who won't just call for change... but a president who will produce change." She said voters should not make a "leap of faith" in selecting a nominee. She did shift one of her rhetorical standards. Instead of offering herself as ready to lead, she declared she was ready to win. Noting that she has been pursued by conservative antagonists for years, she maintained she was the candidate best "able to withstand the Republican attack machine." She added, "The one thing you know about me after 16 years of taking all their incoming fire, I am still here."

The message: they will crush Obama, so you better vote for me.

That's not very inspirational. But what else does she have to offer? She has been making the experience argument for a year, and Iowa Democrats said, thanks, but no thanks. There are no profound policy differences between her and Obama that she can exploit. Toward the end of the event, in response to a question from the crowd, she maintained that she was quite electable in red states, pointing out that ten Democratic senators have endorsed her. But given what happened in Iowa the night before, this was not the best time for her to be making an electability argument. (Remember, 70 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa spurned her.)

Clinton may have no choice but to keep repeating what did not work in Iowa. She could try to attack Obama directly. But when she previously has gone on the offensive it has backfired. And tearing into the party's new Bobby Kennedy could be perilous. Her presentation in the airport hangar indicated her campaign has made the strategic decision to keep with its preexisting game plan and hope to best Obama if not in New Hampshire than in subsequent rounds.

Arrogance? Denial? The only choice she and her crew have? At the end of the event, her chief aides, who were roaming the hangar, did not hang around to talk to (that is, work) the reporters, as so often happens at campaign functions. Maybe they had no spin to offer.

Hours later, Obama triumphantly appeared in a crowded gymnasium at Concord High School. The room was packed with students (who were allowed to cut classes to attend) and several hundred adults. Unlike the Clinton event, there was energy in the room. While Clinton supporters had clapped for her in the hangar, audience members at the Obama event screamed for their man. The passion differential was stark.

Obama, too, stuck with his routine speech. But now he had victory on his side. Since the start of his campaign, he had put forward a theory: there are voters who yearn for a different kind of politics. Over the months, he did put out progressive policy proposals, and he voiced his opposition to the war. But he added to all this a call for transcending the political divisions of America. If we can change the nature of politics, we can change the nature of the government, Obama said. He was offering voters something more than the usual Democratic positions. And he presented his desire for this change as a qualification for office. Moreover, he said, he was not merely mounting a candidacy, he was serving a cause that voters could join by supporting him. There was no telling if this could work. Until Iowa. Yes, the hunger that Obama claimed there was does seem to exist. And, yes, he was the answer—at least for a plurality of caucus-goers.

In the Concord High gym, Obama noted that he had been vindicated. He asked New Hampshire voters not to listen to those who would urge them not "to trust your own gut and feelings." He warned that there will be critics who will say that "Obama has not been in Washington long enough. He needs to be seasoned and stewed. We need to boil all the hope out of him." The audience laughed along. The "real gamble," he added, was relying on the "same old folks" in Washington (read: the Clintons). He said he was well prepared to deal with the "operatives who will try to tear me down." But, he added, "I'm not interested in them. I'm interested in you."

He spoke eloquently of the power of hope, citing hope as the motivation for the colonists who fought for independence, the abolitionists who fought to end slavery, the "greatest generation" that fought to defeat fascism during World War II, the unions that fought for the 40-hour work week and a minimum wage, the women who fought for the right to vote, and the civil rights workers who fought for equality. "That's what hope is," he said. "Imagining and then fighting... to create what wasn't there before, what the cynics say wasn't possible." He declared there is "a moment in every generation when that spirit has to come through. This is that moment."

It was heady stuff, a politician comparing his candidacy to American independence, World War II, and the civil rights movement. But Obama, who today reeked of the confidence that comes from being a winner, connected with the audience. He certainly can brag he connected with Iowan voters. Hillary's practical case—I have way more experience working in Washington and fighting off those Republican meanies—doesn't answer the inspirational argument Obama presents. The two are operating on different planes. She's selling vegetables; he's selling a vision. And the buyers in Iowa made a choice.

At the moment, it seems as if she cannot compete with him on these terms. How she can fight hope remains an unanswered question.

John McCain, All-Around Good Guy

If John McCain does something hypocritical in a forest, does anyone notice?

As everyone knows, John McCain is just a great guy. So great, apparently, that he can criticize negative ads one moment, then turn around and issue his own attack ads the next, and no one will report it. According to a biting Media Matters piece:

Numerous print media outlets reported on Sen. John McCain's assertion following the Iowa caucuses that "[t]he lesson of this election in Iowa is that ... negative campaigns don't work." But none of those articles noted that McCain has run negative TV and Web ads against Mitt Romney.

Numerous attack ads, indeed. McCain just released another one today, which says, in part: “Mitt Romney, leading? He’d rather call lawyers.”

The main-stream media, tell the full story? They'd rather just keep loving John McCain. Let's hope they at least report the "Let's stay in Iraq for 100 years" comment.

January 3, 2008

How Obama Won, and What it Means for the Democratic Race

I knew there was something afoot for Barack Obama about half an hour into the caucus I attended at Merrill Middle School in Des Moines, Iowa. First of all, there was the turnout. Democratic Precinct 72 had roughly 25 attendees in the 2004 caucus, according to precinct chair Louise Alcorn. Today, it had 58. And even though the caucus represented a union-heavy neighborhood, which one might expect to turn out for John Edwards, the first count of the night identified 24 Obama supporters, 16 Edwards supporters, and just 12 Hillary Clinton supporters. The caucus also included one Biden supporter, four Richardson supporters, and one undecided voter, all of whom later spread evenly to the larger groups.

The relatively small precinct only had two delegates to give, so the Clinton, Obama, and Edwards groups all tried convincing each other that they ought to switch camps. Though the Edwards supporters in attendance were well-prepared (they had pies and candy available for converts) and committed (they gave passionate speeches advocating for Edwards), the Obama supporters sat steadfast and quiet. After some heated moments, including a long discussion of whether Elizabeth Edwards' cancer necessarily meant she would die while her husband was in office, the final count showed that Obama had actually grown in strength. Obama 25, Edwards 22, and Clinton 11—Obama and Edwards each took home one of the precinct's two delegates.

By the time the caucus wrapped, it was becoming clear that Thursday was Obama's night. Anecdotal reports suggested that turnout was way up—the eventual turnout number would shatter all records—a fact that favored Obama significantly because it meant first-time caucus-goers, independents, and young voters were turning out big time. Indeed, young voters in particular might be the story of the Iowa caucuses: notoriously hesitant to participate, they composed over 50 percent of Obama's support. News reports even indicated that Obama had beaten Clinton among women.

The final results—Obama 38 percent, Edwards 30 percent, Clinton 29 percent—suggested that Iowans had responded to Obama's call for decreased partisanship and a renewed politics that left special interests and lobbyists behind. In fact, they had answered it so fervently, and in such large numbers, that they had bested the best political machine in politics by nine points. In his victory speech at the Hy-Vee Hall in Des Moines, where supporters hugged, cried, and hooted randomly, a grinning Obama struck almost grandiose tones.

He called the victory a "defining moment in history," one that proved that "in the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it." Was Obama buying into his own legend, or simply displaying the confidence of a candidate who can finally call himself the sole frontrunner? Only time will tell, but Obama didn't abandon his bread and butter. "We are one nation," he said. "We are one people. And our time for change has come." Those themes have worked so far, and are only getting stronger.

The real question is if the time for change has come for Hillary Clinton. Obama will take this victory and its attendant glowing press coverage and rampage through New Hampshire the next five days. The bounce he will see in the next round of polls should be considerable. But Clinton took third here tonight. She can't go into New Hampshire with the same message and expect to compete with Obama's momentum. But what can she change? It's a particularly difficult question considering the fact that she is operating with a stripped-down tool kit. Inevitability is out the window, and Obama's strong showing amongst independents probably tossed electability out too. She has only experience to point to now, and the recent Des Moines Register poll that got tonight's results so correct identified that as a falling stock.

It's possible that experience was never Clinton's strength, or at least not its main component. It's possible that Clinton was the safe pick, the known quantity. Like Romney on the Republican side, she would go before every sub-constituency in her party and tell them exactly what they expected to hear. Every narrow interest in the Democratic Party would be satisfied by a President Hillary Clinton; she was the establishment. But Obama's appeal is somehow greater than the sum of those narrow interests, and now that Iowa has put its faith in him, it's hard to see how other states won't follow. That said, no one with Clinton's money and organization should be counted out.

John Edwards faces a different conundrum. Beating Clinton allows him to see another day, but he has not cultivated a strong base of support in any of the other early states. Either his second-place finish will provide him with enough of a bounce to perform competitively in New Hampshire, or Obama's megabounce will soak up all the voters willing to shift their preferences. With New Hampshire less than a week away, we won't have to wait long to find out.

One last note. Polls aren't useless, they are just usually so. As I mentioned earlier, the Des Moines Register poll nailed the results: Obama winning by roughly seven, with Edwards and Clinton more or less tied. But no other poll came close to this kind of prescience. American Research Group predicted Clinton 34, Obama 25, and Edwards 21 in its latest poll. CNN found Clinton 33, Obama 31, and Edwards 22. And so on. As it turns out, polls have a tough time predicting historic nights with unprecedented levels of voter participation.

Photos: At top, the Obama victory speech at Hy-Vee Hall; above right, a Clinton supporter attempts to persuade others to join him in the Precinct 72 caucus at Merrill Middle School in Des Moines; below, Biden supporters organize in Precinct 70 caucus, also at Merrill Middle School.

Iowa Isn't Quite What You Think: Remember Jesse Jackson in '88

There are a lot of reasons not to compare Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson, but Obama's romp in Iowa tonight does bring to mind 1988, when Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow Coalition captured 11 percent in the Hawkeye State—coming in behind Dick Gephardt, Paul Simon (both veteran pols from neighboring states), and Michael Dukakis, but still astounding in a state where conventional wisdom had pegged Jackson as a quasi-fringe candidate (and where, as commentators never tired of pointing out, the black population was less than 1 percent). Back then, as I recall, some of the things that worked in Jackson's favor were cadres of passionate field organizers; some really smart strategizing that the campaign never got credit for; a deep, deep anger over the way ordinary people had been hung out to dry in the farm crisis; and, well, that thing that just might make Iowa a useful participant in the primary sweepstakes after all (okay, go ahead and flame), which is that people there seem to insist on making their own choices, conventional wisdom be damned.

Update: Yes, I'm confused too: some sources I've seen say Jesse got 11 percent, some say 9, and he's entirely missing from the Wikipedia entry; what's up with that?

Biden and Dodd Out; Richardson Stays In With Some Guile

CNN is reporting that Joe Biden and Chris Dodd are dropping out of the presidential race. According to the current count, Biden took 0.94 percent of delegates and Dodd took 0.02 percent. And though Richardson's press secretary told me in November that "a top three finish is all we need," Richardson is going to take his fourth place finish (and 2.10 percent of delegates) and move forward. "We made it to the final four," Richardson said in a statement. "My staff and volunteers worked their hearts out to get us here. Now we are going to take the fight to New Hampshire."

There's some intrigue with Richardson. I heard a Richardson precinct captain say he was told personally by someone in the Richardson campaign to throw his caucus-goers to Obama if Richardson wasn't viable. The reasoning given, according to this precinct captain, was that internal polling was telling the Richardson campaign that Obama needed the most help, and by throwing support to him, no clear frontrunner would emerge in the race. The move also insured that Biden and Dodd didn't get any additional support. After all, what does a few extra percent for someone like Obama really matter?

Richardson, however, will have to drop out soon, barring a miraculous comeback. It will be interesting to see if Biden, Dodd, or Richardson endorse a remaining candidate.

Edwards Tips Hat to Obama in Concession Speech

Edwards just took the stage to speak—introduced as the "second-place finisher in Iowa," which isn't exactly finalized—and began his remarks with the statement, "The status quo lost and change won." He then transitioned quickly into this standard stump speech.

I'm telling you, folks. Edwards is looking for the number two spot on an Obama ticket if he doesn't take the nomination.

The Edwards perspective tonight: he trails substantially in New Hampshire and wouldn't have survived a bad loss. His second place or close third place finish probably means that he'll receive a moderate bounce; people will likely take another look at someone who could hang tough with the Clinton machine. The size of that bounce relies heavily on the size of the Obama bounce. If Obama shoots through the stratosphere in the next few days, there may be few voters left over for Edwards to grab. In fact, some Edwards partisans may shift to the Senator from Illinois.

Iowa Caucus Sees Record Turnout for Dems

I wrote this week that the Iowa caucuses were a 120/135/150 game. If 120,000 people showed up, it would be heavy on Edwards' hardcore supports. If it was closer to 135,000, you'd have the hardcore plus Clinton's older voters. And if it was 150,000 or more, Obama got the youth vote out.

The Iowa Democratic Party just released this one-line email:

"With 93.5 percent of the precincts reporting we are seeing record turnout with 218,000 caucus attendees."

By now you probably know that Obama won Iowa, and won big. He may have won amongst the old, the white, the female—he may have won on other people's turf tonight. We'll find out soon. But what we do know is that he dominated on his turf. The Des Moines Register gets it right again.

Update: New email. "With 96 percent of the precincts reporting we are seeing record turnout with 227,000 caucus attendees." This may be a whole new paradigm...

Update Update: Another email. "With 100 percent of the precincts reporting we are seeing record turnout with 239,000 caucus attendees." I'm going with, yes, new paradigm. Turnout in 2004 was 125,000. For the record, this turnout isn't all Obama: an exceptionally strong set of Democratic candidates is creating enthusiasm across the board. So says Howard Dean: "Record turnout for Democrats—nearly twice as many people participated in the Democratic caucus as in the Republican caucus—shows that voters are excited about our candidates and that our Party is strong."

Breaking: Obama Wins Iowa. Clinton and Edwards Tied for 2nd. Ron Paul Kicking Rudy's Ass

Those are the results with 91% percent of precincts reporting. Best part is this:
Ron Paul 8,549 10.1%
Rudy Giuliani 3,053 3.6%

More here.

McCain in NH: Would Be "Fine" To Keep Troops in Iraq for "A Hundred Years"

The United States military could stay in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years" and that "would be fine with me," John McCain told two hundred or so people at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, on Thursday evening. Toward the end of this session, which was being held shortly before the Iowa caucuses were to start, McCain was confronted by Dave Tiffany, who calls himself a "full-time antiwar activist." In a heated exchange, Tiffany told McCain that he had looked at McCain's campaign website and had found no indication of how long McCain was willing to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. Arguing that George W. Bush's escalation of troops has led to a decline in U.S. casualties, McCain noted that the United States still maintains troops in South Korea and Japan. He said he had no objection to U.S. soldiers staying in Iraq for decades, "as long as Americans are not being injured, harmed or killed."

After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.

In other words, McCain does not equate victory in Iraq--which he passionately urges at campaign events--with the removal of U.S. troops from that nation. After McCain told Tiffany that he could see troops remaining in Iraq for a hundred years, a reporter sitting next to me quipped, "There's the general election campaign ad." He meant the Democratic ad: John McCain thinks it would be okay if U.S. troops stayed in Iraq for another hundred years.....

Well, it was straight talk. And McCain's combativeness livened up a session during which he alternated between the old McCain (as in punchy, feisty, humorous) and the old McCain (as in just plain old). He moved a bit stiffly on the stage set up in the middle of the Adams Memorial Opera House. And he--somewhat oddly--shared the spotlight with Senator Joseph Lieberman, who has endorsed him. Lieberman did not merely introduce McCain; he stood by McCain during the entire event, helping McCain to answer questions about education, climate change, and the Iraq war. Several times, Lieberman gave more coherent and animated replies than did McCain. Repeatedly, Lieberman maintained that McCain could rack up bipartisan successes as president. (The Lieberman sidekick bit was curious. But an elementary-age girl in the audience did say, after being handed a microphone, that Lieberman was her role-model and that she fancied McCain. Lieberman hugged her, and the whole crowd oohed at this cuteness.)

Update: Video after the jump.

McCain has been coming on strong in New Hampshire, where he beat George W. Bush by 18 points in the 2000 Republican primary. (Some polls place him in the lead.) Eight years ago, McCain thrived as an independent-minded GOPer willing to blast the corruptions of Washington. These days, his stock appears to be rising because he has stuck with the Iraq war and boasts of years of national security experience. "If the world was stable, we could afford Mitt Romney as the national CEO," says a McCain campaign aide (who asks not to be identified). "But in an unsafe and unstable world, Republican voters, and some independents, are coming to see that we need a warrior in the White House." The crisis in Pakistan, this aide notes, was a timely reminder.

So McCain is not doing so bad for a candidate who was on life-support last summer. But it's not that he has craftily orchestrated his revival; the other campaigns have fallen flat. Romney has hard a tough time selling himself as a fellow ready to be commander in chief. Rudy Giuliani cast himself as Mr. 9/11--which is different from persuading voters you are Mr. Win the War. Fred Thompson, who highlighted the foreign policy experience he obtained on the Senate intelligence committee, has mounted a lackluster bid. Mike Huckabee has had little to say about national security and has gaffed too often on foreign policy. Regarding national security and the war, McCain has become the default Republican.

"The Mac is back," Lieberman exclaimed in Derry. Perhaps it's merely that McCain managed to stay on his feet while his rivals have faltered. In the next few days, McCain and his supporters will be pushing him as the Republican who is ready for wartime. This is a potent argument. But will it win over the New Hampshire independents who swooned over McCain in 2000? This slice of the electorate is not particularly fond of the war McCain champions. Michael Dennehy, McCain's political director, says that independents "will agree to disagree on the war with him if they think he's being honest." Well, with McCain boldly declaring he doesn't give a damn how long U.S. troops are deployed in Iraq, his strategists can certainly say he is not holding back. Whether that indeed impresses independents (and Republicans) in New Hampshire won't be known until this Tuesday.

Romney's Message of Change Less Interesting Than Slamming Huck

WEST DES MOINES, Iowa — As you can tell from the photo at left, I sat at the very, very back of a Romney campaign event today. The former Massachusetts Governor visited the corporate headquarters of the Principal Financial Group. He emphasized the need for new solutions to meet America's challenges, a campaign message of Romney's that has been overshadowed by the fact that he seemingly redrew all of his political stances in order to match the old Republican establishment. "We need a very different kind of foreign policy," he said. Modernizing Islamic nations and partnering with moderates in potentially extremist areas were priorities. "We need to realize there's an end in sight to our traditional sources of energy," Romney said, calling for new solutions to America's energy needs. And we need new economic solutions to compete with the surging India and China.

Really, though, the one thing that might win this state for Romney tonight are his negative ads against Huckabee. The Huckabee surge has been slowed of late (Huck and Mitt are neck and neck here) not because of Romney's message of change (which has been largely ignored by the media), but because Romney released very effective ads that showed Huckabee's record on crime, immigration, and other issues. Also helpful has been the Club for Growth ad showing fat Huckabee okaying tax raises. It's still running constantly here. I'll put them below. If Mitt wins, you'll know why.

Ron Paul Attracts Out-of-Staters (And Beavers)

CLIVE CITY, Iowa — The Ron Paul event I attended this afternoon at Des Moines University was immediately unlike any campaign event I had been to before.

I arrived five minutes late, which ordinarily means I arrived 40 minutes earlier. But when I walked into the massive classroom that was holding the event, Paul was already deep into a discussion of monetary policy. The event was ostensibly a forum about health care, but Paul had already moved off topic and was calling for an end to the federal reserve and a more responsible monetary system.

This would become a theme, because to Paul, the federal reserve and America's monetary system are rarely off topic. Over the course of today's speech, he looped back to hospitals, doctors, and patients every so often, but only to point out that the struggles they face have much to do with inflation, which is caused by the federal reserve and America's monetary system.

The drop of the dollar was a favorite hobbyhorse because it played right into Paul's message. "The wealth of a country is measured by the strength of its currency," he said. "We're flunking."

One other thing Paul did talk about was disentangling ourselves from overseas commitments. He said that while other candidates (Democrats, of course) may want to pull troops out of Iraq, only he wanted to pull them out of Korea, Japan, and everywhere else they are installed around the globe. This would save us a ton of money, Paul argued, and make us safer, because the presence of our troops in foreign countries stokes a lot of the anger that is directed at us. But a few minutes after discussing foreign policy, Paul was back to statements like, "Our nation is based on debt."

But for my lack of interest in Paul's pitch, the crowd was loud and enthusiastic. I set out afterwards to meet them. In particular, I hoped to meet the guy in the cape and the two people dressed in animal costumes (a chimp and a beaver, I suspect; judge for yourself at right).

The first person I ran into was an employee of the university who joked that he was there for the "free lunch." He said he was only checking Paul out; he was caucusing for Obama. The second and third people I spoke to were Paul supporters, but happened to be out-of-towners from Minnesota. The fourth person I spoke was an organizer for the Iowa Fair Trade Campaign who said he liked Paul's trade ideas (because Paul opposes NAFTA and other trade agreements) but that he planned to caucus for an as-of-yet-undetermined Democrat.

Next I talked to an airplane pilot who loved Ron Paul but was in from Texas. Then it was an ardent fan of Paul's monetary policy views who had driven down from Minnesota. Then two college-age kids who were taking their Ron Paul signs back home to New Jersey.

Getting desperate to find an Iowan supporter who planned on caucusing tonight, I headed outside, where people were clustering around Paul as he got into his van. I approached four people carrying Ron Paul signs, but was careful to ask where they were from before I began the interview. No luck: Kansas City. Then the guy in the cape showed up.

"Are you a Ron Paul supporter?" I asked.

"No," he said. "I'm with the Iowa Fair Trade Campaign."

Despondent, I told him I had stopped him because he was wearing a cape. He said it had something to do with fair trade. I asked if he had seen the people in the chimp and beaver suits. He had. "I think they're a little weird," he said.

Noticing the complete lack of irony, I said, "This coming from a guy wearing a cape."

He was taken aback. "I'm wearing this cape for a reason," he said.

Eventually, I found a student from Northwestern who was planning on caucusing for Paul. He said that he liked Paul's non-interventionist views, his free market positions, and his devotion to the Constitution.

And there you have it. If this event was any indication, Ron Paul has an awful lot of committed supporters nationwide who are going to be very disappointed when the results roll in tonight. Commence slaying me in the comments.

Swift Boat Blow Back: The Hypocritical John McCain

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth funders are back in the political mix, and they're not fooling around. According to the Nation, they've donated and bundled $200,000 for conservative presidential candidates thus far. Romney and McCain have received the most. The fact that McCain is at the top of the list is notable because...

When the Swift Boat ads were first unleashed, McCain was alone among his Republican colleagues to condemn them. A fellow Vietnam veteran, a good friend of Kerry's and a former target of smears about his own service, McCain ca