-
An Iowa State ROTC student named Jessica explained to me how most of her friends, conservatives all, were swayed to the Huck side.
Initially, most of them supported Thompson because of his traditional conservative stances on abortion and taxation. But a couple months ago, they almost all switched to Huckabee. Was it because of his even more conservative pro-life positions? Was it his loony but still arguable FairTax ideas? Or maybe his views on immigration, compassionate in some cases but also strong when it comes to border security?
None of the above. They switched to Huckabee, according to Jessica, when they saw his Chuck Norris ads.
It's stories like these that make you question the campaigns' claims that they have Iowa's student population bent to their will. Sometimes I wonder if you couldn't sabotage the entire "youth vote" by organizing a Phish reunion concert for Jan. 3 in Des Moines.
-
In case you haven't heard, the Democratic caucuses in Iowa aren't exactly a microcosm of American democracy. Secret ballots are unheard of, candidates bribe voters with sandwiches, and second choices aren't just allowed, they're sometimes requested.
On Thursday night many supporters of Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Joe Biden won't be allowed to vote for their candidate. Democratic caucus rules say that any candidate who doesn't pull in 15 percent of the vote at the local caucus meeting isn't "viable," so their supporters must pick another candidate if they want their vote to count. Let's hear it for the democratic process!
Given that, we thought we'd put together a helpful guide for second-tier supporters when they have to shift allegiances. (Richardson supporters can find advice here.) Here’s a rundown on which candidates most closely share Biden's positions (just in case supporters lose their Mo-Joe):
Pakistan: Somehow, John Edwards has been getting rave reviews for his handling of post-Bhutto Pakistan, but picking up the phone when Pervez Musharraf calls doesn't make you an expert. Hillary Clinton seems like she could be a nice fit, with her competency and experience, but Barack Obama is the winner. Even though Biden was annoyed when Obama aped Biden's stance on attacking al-Qaida in Pakistan, the plans still resemble each other.
Iraq: Biden's three-part soft-partition plan is considered the gold-standard among Democrats, which means any of the Big Three are a step backward. This one's a wash.
Health care: Biden's plan doesn’t call for mandatory universal care, but it does make health care accessible to all children. It's far from all of the top Democrats, but it's closest to Obama's since there isn't a mandate for adults.
Resume: If Bill Richardson were polling higher, we'd give him the nod. But since he's unlikely to top the 15 percent threshold in most precincts, Clinton gets the edge. Not because of her White House experience, but because she's the only two-term senator among the top Dems.
There isn't an easy second-choice candidate for Biden supporters. His appeal comes from his foreign affairs expertise and his no-nonsense attitude. In many ways, Biden supporters would probably find a home with John McCain more than any other candidate. That says more about the Democratic front-runners than it does about McCain.
-
DES MOINES, Iowa -- It's been a risky day for Mike Huckabee. First he pulled his surprise peace-declaration press conference -- a surprise to even his closest aides. Then he staged a political aide's nightmare: a shave and a haircut open to the press.
Reclining in a barber's chair above Huckabee HQ, the governor was stuck for upwards of 45 minutes as reporters peppered him with questions about his decision to pull the ad. Had anyone been fired over it? No. Does he regret it? "I don't know if it was the right political decision," he said as barber Scott Sales trimmed his locks. "I do know it was the right personal decision." When a reporter pointed out that they didn't get all the audio from the ad, Huckabee made the point I voiced earlier: "Now you can't say we fed you the spot so you could put it on the news." Which is comforting, I guess. Unless, of course, he was planning it the whole time, in which case he's an evil genius who deserves to win anyway.
Eventually the ad questions ran dry, and attention turned elsewhere. What kind of tip did Scott expect? "A good joke," he said. "Some people say my tips are jokes," Huckabee replied. Had he seen Sweeney Todd? No. What are his expectations for Thursday? "A close shave," he said.
The questioning didn't turn ugly. But if it had, there he was, forced to respond to each and every one with nowhere to run. At one point, an aide declared, "No more questions." No one paid attention. Close shave, indeed.
Oh, and to answer your question: The haircut cost $18, the shave was $14.
-
DES MOINES, Iowa -- Today, Mike Huckabee essentially declared a war on cynicism. But depending on where you stand, it might be the most cynical campaign move so far.
In a packed press room at the Des Moines Marriott, Huckabee announced that he had decided at the last minute not to air an attack ad on Mitt Romney. See, over the past few days, he's become "very concerned" about the tone of the debate in Iowa. "My ten-and-a-half-year record can't be summed up in a 30-second commercial," he said, referring to ads Romney has been airing attacking Huckabee's record as governor of Arkansas. His campaign had been planning to air a response ad today, but within the last hour decided to pull it.
He then proceeded to play the ad for the roomful of reporters and dozens of cameras.
How now? The reason he had to show it now, he claimed, was that otherwise the press folk wouldn't believe the ad existed.
Why, then, was he standing there surrounded by placards criticizing Romney and McCain? Because the plan had been to hold a press conference attacking his rivals. But his conscience got the better of him. Should he withdraw his comments about Romney being dishonest? "I said what I said, and I spoke the truth." But doesn't this just mean the ad will be shown on every cable station in the country, now that he's shown it to the entire American press corps? Huckabee insisted that was not his intention.
"There's going to be cynicism," he said, maybe in response to the smirks, raised eyebrows, and incredulous laughs circulating the room. But from now on, he claims he is renouncing negative campaigning. It's a "huge gamble on my part," he said, adding that "if it turns out [Romney] pulls away, I'll be the last guy to do this."
By now the needle on your BS meter has probably broken. But here's one reason to believe him -- or at least to hear him out. When they started playing the ad on a big screen, there wasn't any audio at first. "Maybe that's why they're not airing it," someone quipped. They tried rewinding it and playing it again, but no dice. After that, Huckabee just let it run. The sound kicked in toward the end -- he was going after Romney on the usual issues of abortion, guns, and taxes -- but no one in the room could say they had seen the whole ad.
If the point was to get the ad out without actually airing it -- to attack without actually attacking -- then Huckabee or one of his people would have made sure the cameras got the whole thing. But afterwards, reporters were complaining to one of his aides, Charmaine Yoest, that they didn't get any audio. Yoest made it clear they wouldn't be showing it again. Judging from that, it sounds like Huckabee might -- might -- have been sincere.
What this means for the campaign is anyone's guess. Just when he had appeared to reinvent himself as "the New Huck," prickly and hyper-responsive, he's receded back into nice guy territory. Now, if he loses, he can call himself a martyr for the cause of positive campaigning. If he wins, he will go into the general election less bruised than otherwise. Worst case scenario, he goes back into attack mode and undermines his own crusade. Until then, whether or not you believe him is, according to Huckabee, a litmus test for your own cynicism.
-
Electability isn't even a word that's recognized by my Microsoft Word dictionary. But in the Democratic race, it's all anybody can talk about.
The rush to the caucus lets candidates shove policy distinctions into the shadows. Now it's about appealing to a more primal belief—that Americans don't want to waste their vote.
All of the candidates have been saying that they are the most electable for some time. And in the past few days, the Big Three have been outspoken about the unelectable pieces of their opponents' messages. But on a conference call today, Barack Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said something a bit different: Edwards is unelectable not because of his platform, but because he doesn't have enough money.
Edwards' decision to take public financing gave him a burst of money, but it capped his ability to spend in the long run. Essentially, it means Edwards is hamstrung if he wins the nomination in February and has to compete with the Republican nominee through the conventions. Obama's campaign estimates that Edwards will have only about $17 million to play with after Iowa. That $17 million will wilt under the GOP's fiscal sun.
Trying to convince Iowans not to vote for Edwards can easily backfire. Edwards' platform revolves around helping the middle class rise up, and in this wacky race Edwards' campaign's coffer is relatively middle-class. If Obama's camp isn't careful, Iowans will vote for Edwards so they can prove that the middle class can "fight" the rich in Washington. (Cue the Rocky theme.)
Indirectly, though, bringing up Edwards' wallet does allow Obama's campaign to get in another dig at the 527 groups doing Edwards' bidding. As Politico's Ben Smith notes, third-party groups can lobby for Edwards on his behalf. On today's conference call, Plouffe said that Edwards had "obviously showed special skill for benefiting from 527s and outside spending." 527 groups haven't spent money for Obama—yet.
The Obama-Edwards duel proves fights about electability quickly morph into fights about something else: money, flip-flopping, skeletons in the closet, you name it. Electability is a high-stakes "in" to denigrate your opponents while still sounding like America's future is what's most important. That's why campaigns love riffing on it-even if it's not a real word.
-
Welcome to caucus week, when campaign staffers and reporters freebase NoDoz, rumors of back room deals circulate, and Iowans are told they're God's gift to the political system.
The corollary to that last part is that any suggestion that Iowans are not the Second Coming times 3 million—or that their antiquated caucus system is somehow inferior or in need of reform—earns a candidate swift rebukes from his or her rivals. A late-night e-mail from Obama spokesman Bill Burton catches this lede from the Columbus Dispatch:
Beginning the presidential nominating process in Iowa, as will occur this week, "makes no sense," says Gov. Ted Strickland, who recently campaigned there for Sen. Hillary Clinton. "I'd like to see both parties say, 'We're going to bring this to an end,' " he said.
Strickland thus violated the first commandment of Iowa politics: He desecrated the caucus.
Time's Mark Halperin assures us all that "Clinton campaign disavows remarks." But that doesn't mean Obama and Edwards won't take this puppy for a ride. It probably won't spark blowback of Shaheen-like proportions, but I wouldn't be surprised if an apology also completely unrelated to the Clinton campaign is in the works. Or maybe they'll let Strickland off with 100 Hail Hawkeyes.
UPDATE 12:19 p.m.: Apparently Strickland isn't alone.
-
Sorry to keep returning to John McCain (have those words been uttered this year? Ever?), but I wanted to mention his family.
In a race largely defined by families—Romney’s sprawling brood, Giuliani’s mutinous children and torrid affairs, Obama’s diverse heritage, Edwards’ wife and her battle with cancer—McCain has kept his out of the limelight. Aside from his daughter Meghan, who assiduously documents the campaign (and, among other things, the fashion habits of Henry Kissinger) on her blog, McCain’s seven children have avoided the public eye. Nor does their father mention them, even in moments when it would serve his political interest. (His son, Jimmy, is currently serving in Iraq.) Here’s what McCain recently told the New York Times:
“It’s intentional,” he said. “I just feel it’s inappropriate for us to mention our children. I don’t want people to feel that, it’s just, I’d like them to have their own lives. I wouldn’t want to seem like I’m trying to gain some kind of advantage. I just feel that it’s a private thing.”
Compare that to Mitt Romney, McCain’s most recent antagonist. (It's mutual.) Romney’s five sons have trailed him for the entire campaign, sometimes even holding their own events on his behalf. He constantly mentions “strong families” as one leg of the American “stool.” His emphasis on family serves two purposes: It woos the so-called “values voters” who might be squeamish about his Mormonism, and it gently tweaks Giuliani, whose children won’t come within 10 feet of him in public.
I’m not suggesting that McCain rejects the family man shtick as a slight against Romney. But the contrast is important. To drag your family onstage for a big happy photo is to play the game. (Even if, as this video suggests, they all agreed to it.) To decline to mention that your son is fighting in Iraq, even when mentioning it would be perfectly appropriate, is to reject the game and, presumably, those who play it.
McCain’s “authenticity” cred took a hit when he backpedaled on his comment in 2000 that Jerry Falwell was an “agent of intolerance.” But his refusal to drag his family into his campaign should count as one step, however small, toward restoring it. For all of Romney’s talk about respecting family, the ultimate sign of respect would be to leave them out of it.
-
Even if Barack Obama loses Iowa, he could still win the nomination. Seriously.
The conventional wisdom is that if Clinton wins Iowa, Obama's shot at the presidency is shot. While that's certainly possible—and probably probable—pundits seem to be forgetting that momentum isn't everything.
There's a very real chance Obama could win New Hampshire even if he loses Iowa by a reasonable amount (e.g., less than five percentage points). Obama is essentially tied with Clinton in New Hampshire in polling averages, and John Edwards is less of a factor in the competition for the change vote. More telling, perhaps, is that only 6 percent of New Hampshire Democrats say their own vote will be swayed by the Iowa outcome. (Of course, who would cop to that?) Plus, New Hampshire has picked a different winner than Iowa in the Democratic primary three of the past five contested cycles (although not in the past two).
So, what if New Hampshire asserts itself and plays contrarian to Iowa's conventional wisdom? In a year when it was en vogue to hate on New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary, it's reasonable to think that residents will give the finger to the media, Iowa, and the rest of the country. Live-free-or-die pride is on the line.
One question has percolated in the background all cycle: Are voters waiting for somebody else to tell them it's OK to vote for the black guy with little experience but a big idea? An Obama win in the Granite State would start revealing the answer.
If Obama defeated Clinton in her former firewall state, all of the Clinton inevitability stories will be washed away by pro-Obama headlines. Clinton would probably win Nevada regardless (unless the culinary union backs Obama), which brings us to Jan. 26 in South Carolina. There, Obama's campaign thinks the black population will come out to vote as long as one of the first two states confirms Obama as a viable candidate.
Now, it's still more likely for Clinton to emerge the victor from most of the four meaningful early primaries. But if she and Obama split them, momentum won't be as large a factor. Momentum, after all, is only useful for convincing voters that votes won't be wasted. Anyone who wins two out of the first four states has proven viability, if not electability.
-
John Edwards' campaign unveiled its latest gimmick today: The chance to have Edwards, his wife, or even Joe Trippi (swoon!) call you on the phone. It's part of "Ask John," a new campaign meant to inform inquisitive Iowans about Edwards' policies.
Any question that an Iowan asks Edwards' camp between now and the caucus is guaranteed an answer by Jan. 3. Topics can range from Iraq policy to the name of Edwards' $400 barber. It doesn't matter how frivolous; if you're an Iowan, you'll get an answer. If you're lucky, you'll hear from one of the bigwigs or the candidate himself.
An Edwards spokeswoman told me the campaign already gets hundreds of questions a day at their Iowa offices. This stunt is just a way to make voters aware that the campaign is actively answering questions statewide. It also dovetails nicely with reports that Hillary Clinton is refusing to answer questions from the audience on the stump, although the spokeswoman said "Ask John" had nothing to do with that.
But here's the strange part: Edwards has a Web site where "Iowans" can ask him questions about his platform. Last time we checked, Web sites were accessible outside of Iowa, too. The spokeswoman told me she wasn't worried about rival supporters deluging the Web site with fake queries. They clearly weren't paying attention to what Bruce Reed did to Mitt Romney earlier this year.
It may be a transparent maneuver, but it's still a cool gimmick. Who wouldn't want to talk to a presidential candidate by phone? That's even better than Carl Kasell recording the greeting on your home answering machine.
-
Two new ads for Fred Thompson and John McCain prove that while voters' energy might be waning, theirs isn't.
In Thompson's spot, we see the candidate swaying back and forth and waving his arms, proving that he has more than enough energy to be president—maybe even too much. The film editor is clearly excited about split screens, but that's OK, because more screens means more Fred.
In McCain's ad, the candidate is bouncing around in fast motion, then slow motion, then fast again. Positive descriptors zoom across the screen, like the title sequence in Spider-Man. The upbeat music tells us that McCain is a man on the go. (Compare to his ghastly spot from last spring.) More than anything, though, the ad looks high-budget. What it should really say at the end is, I'm John McCain, and I could afford this message.
It's obvious why both candidates are trying to look energetic. Thompson still hasn't shed his rocking-chair rep, while McCain is trying to avoid more questions about dying in office. In McCain's case, the adrenaline injection is slightly more believable. He's riding a slew of newspaper endorsements to become once again competitive in New Hampshire; a strong showing there and he's back on the national map. Thompson, on the other hand, is still sagging, and in more ways than one. He's not a shoo-in anywhere—even in his best state, South Carolina, he's polling third.
Apparently that old saw about writing—"Everyone needs a good editor"—also applies to politics. But sometimes even that's not enough.
-
John McCain might not keep pace with Mike Huckabee for quantity of one-liners, but it’s a tight race for quality. McCain practically revived his candidacy with his quip during the October debate that he couldn’t attend Woodstock since he was “tied up.”
Now he’s back with another witticism, this time targeting Mitt Romney. Responding to Romney’s new “contrast” ad on McCain’s tax record, McCain said: "If there's any doubt that we're doing well, it's when Mitt Romney starts attacking. He's attacking Huckabee out here in Iowa. I'm familiar with tailspins and I think he's in one.”
This could be referring to one of two things. Either McCain is saying that he himself has helmed a stagnant campaign (first in 2000, then again earlier this year), and it takes one to know one. Or—or—he’s referring to having his plane shot down over North Vietnam.
Either way, the line is genius. If he’s talking about his own campaign problems, he gets points for self-deprecation. At the same time, he reminds voters that he’s now back in the saddle. (You only joke about your failing candidacy once it’s stopped failing.)
If he’s actually talking about his plane going into a tailspin, after which he was captured and held in Hanoi for five years, then, well, that’s just awesome. McCain has never hidden his disdain for Romney—remember him scowling while Romney talked during the October debate? The subtext here is, I was fighting for my country while you were gallivanting around Paris in a suit and tie. So, to recap: Remind voters of his POW experience: check. Tweak Romney for starting so many fights: check. Be funny: check plus.
Which one was it? McCain response pending ...
-
The latest from the Joe Biden press shop:
"Over the next week, Mo-Joe ’08 will sweep across Iowa, with Sen. Biden set to
attend over 30 rallies in 28 counties statewide."
Bad puns: the last refuge of a candidate with nothing left to lose.
-
If there's a lesson to be learned from international crises and the campaign trail, it's that candidates should do their homework before speaking.
Mike Huckabee got burned earlier this month when it became clear he didn't know about a new National Intelligence Estimate assessing Iran's nuclear capabilities. This time, commenting on the assassination of former Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto, he said the U.S. must consider “what impact does it have on whether or not there’s going to be martial law continuing in Pakistan.” Martial law was lifted two weeks ago.
Bill Richardson also botched the test, and he doesn't have a lack of international experience to blame. Richardson issued a statement calling for President Musharraf to resign. "Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani
government," he said. Richardson has sounded increasingly shrill in recent months, from his blanket insistence on "no residual troops" in Iraq to his transparent attempts at peacemaking during the debates. His Pakistan comments just sound desperate. Naturally, Joe Biden pounced, with a spokesperson calling Richardson's statement "so wildly irresponsible that it can't go unchallenged."
Leave it to Mitt Romney to step in as the voice of reason. Responding to reporters' questions about whether he has enough foreign policy experience to be president, he said: “The
president is not an expert. The president is a leader who guides
America in making the important decisions which must be made to keep us
safe.” True words, although it's odd to hear such a salient defense of Huckabee's ignorance come from Romney's mouth. Even if the two men have their differences, at least they can agree that a president doesn't have to know all that much.
-
If you've been under a rock for the past year, reading the candidates' pre-caucus speeches is a good way to catch up. Barack Obama’s “Stand for Change” address summarizes the argument on which his candidacy rests. It’s also chock full of the sly references, opaque allusions, and underhanded sleights we’ve come to expect in the 11th hour. But it might require a little clarification. Here are some excerpts:
I did not run for the presidency to fulfill some long-held ambition or because I believed it was somehow owed to me. Certainly not as far back as, say, kindergarten.
I believed that Americans of every political stripe were hungry for a new kind of politics, a politics that focused not just on how to win but why we should … Here he targets not just Hillary but the Democratic party itself. Many Democrats criticize the party’s obsession with tactics in place of a driving ideology.
Ten months later, Iowa … You've come out in the blistering heat and the bitter cold not just to cheer, but to challenge—to ask the tough questions; to lift the hood and kick the tires … Reminiscent of Christian leader Richard Perry’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, in which he likened electing a president to buying a pickup truck.
You've earned the role you play in our democracy because no one takes it more seriously. “Earned,” indeed. After 11 months on the trail, pandering comes as easy as breathing.
[W]e must never negotiate out of fear, but that we must never fear to negotiate with our enemies as well as our friends. Here Obama doubles down on the gamble he took in July, when he said he would sit down with Iran, Syria, and Venezuela without preconditions.
We can't afford the same politics of fear that … invokes 9/11 as a way to scare up votes … Look out, unnamed hypothetical future GOP nominee/opponent!
The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result. And that's a risk we can't take. Not this year. Not when the stakes are this high. The title of Hillary Clinton’s latest ad: “Stakes.”
The truth is, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change. I believe deeply in those words. But they are not mine. They were Bill Clinton's in 1992, when Washington insiders questioned his readiness to lead. Both Clintons have tried to diffuse the Bill-Barack parallel, but Obama is sticking with it. That way he gets to be the candidate of change and the heir to Clinton’s legacy.
I walked away from a job on Wall Street to bring job training to the jobless and after school programs to kids on the streets of Chicago. Jives nicely with Obama’s self-burnished rep for telling people—i.e., Wall Street execs—things they don’t want to hear.
It's change that won't just come from more anger at Washington or turning up the heat on Republicans. There's no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there. We don't need more heat. We need more light. A direct reference to Hillary’s “Turn Up the Heat” slogan.
We can change the electoral math that's been all about division and make it about addition—about building a coalition for change and progress that stretches through Blue States and Red States. Echoes the best line from Obama’s career-launching 2004 DNC speech: “We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states.”
-
Slate's John Dickerson has a new item up about how the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is impacting the presidential race. A quick excerpt:
To the extent that unpredictable news about the dangerous state of the
world helps anyone, it helps the "safe candidates" (Clinton, McCain,
and Rudy) rather than the untested, roll-of-the-dice candidates (Obama
and Huckabee).
Pakistan has already been an issue in the Democratic primary because,
remember, Obama took a controversial stand on taking military action in
Pakistan whether the leaders of the country liked it or not. Hillary
Clinton has been making the explicit pitch on the stump that voters can
never know what a president will face, and therefore, they should elect
a person who will be ready on Day One. ...
On the Republican side, Rudy was the first out with a statement (the terrorist attack meshed perfectly with his new ad).
McCain's response was to go a-boasting: "In my numerous visits to
Pakistan—to Islamabad, to Peshawar, even to tribal areas of
Waziristan—I have seen first hand the many challenges that face the
political leadership there." If he had more money, he'd probably run an
ad showing his passport stamps.
Read the rest here.
-
Shortly after Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, nearly all the candidates released statements condemning the murder. Most of their language was strikingly similar, so we mashed up their quotes to provide the ultimate statement from the next American president to the people of Pakistan. The quotes belong to the names that follow them.
Like her father before her, Benazir Bhutto worked her whole life—and gave her life—to help Pakistan become a democratic, secular and modern Muslim country (Biden). Mrs. Bhutto's concern for her country, and her family, propelled her to risk her life on behalf of the Pakistani people (Clinton).
There are, in Pakistan, brave individuals who seek to lead their country away from extremism and instability and into the light of a better day. America, I believe, must do all we can to support them (McCain). We join with them in mourning her loss, and stand with them in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world (Obama).
Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere—whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpndi—is an enemy of freedom (Giuliani). America must show its commitment to stand with all moderate forces across the Islamic world and together face the defining challenge of our generation—the struggle against violent, radical jihadists (Romney).
At this critical time we must do everything in our power to help Pakistan continue the path toward democracy and full elections. Our first priority must be to ensure stability in this critical nuclear state (Dodd). The United States must change its policy direction in the region. It must stop adding fuel to the fire (Kucinich).
At this critical moment, America must convey both strength and principle (Edwards). President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately. Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government (Richardson).
The terrible violence surrounding Pakistan's upcoming election stands in stark contrast to the peaceful transition of power that we embrace in our country through our Constitution (Huckabee).
-
Hillary Clinton kicks off a series of guest blogs by presidential candidates at Glamour.com with some boilerplate about her historic candidacy. But this was interesting:
At a recent campaign stop in Iowa, a little girl gave me a sign she had made that said “Hillary for President—Olivia for President in the future.”
How naive. Doesn't little Olivia know that could be used against her?
-
As the candidates enter the “closing arguments” phase—as if they did something terrible and are now standing trial for it—we’re seeing many of them circle back to where they started. In fact, the closing arguments look a lot like the opening arguments.
Rudy Giuliani has a new minutelong ad harping on 9/11. Barack Obama delivered a speech today called “Stand for Change,” which sounds a lot like his original campaign announcement. Mitt Romney is returning to the managerial-competence argument that fueled initial interest in his candidacy. John Edwards is still blasting lobbies and special interest groups (while navigating some conflict of interest problems of his own). Mike Huckabee is once again showing off his favorite gun (the Weatherby .300 Magnum, you surely recall). John McCain once again seems to have a fighting chance. And Hillary Clinton even calls her recent ad “New Beginning,” giving the whole primary calendar a warm, circle-of-life symmetry.
Even more telling: Both the Republican and Democratic races are just as much of a tossup now as they were in January 2007. For a race whose dominant theme has been “change,” it's bizarre to find ourselves back where we were. We're a year older, but are we any wiser? Arguably, at best.
-
Any time Mike Huckabee has a gun in his hand, it's a good bet he'll say something quote-worthy. The Huckster has a penchant for semi-morbid quips (he's even said he speaks in "Huckabese"), and yesterday's pheasant-hunt photo-op was the perfect opportunity to unleash a new one. But journalists are beginning to trip over themselves in their search for the money quote.
Ever since the press has gotten used to Huckabee's half-quip, half-stump speaking style, they've been trying to coax campaign-damaging jokes out of Huckabee. The strategy has yielded mixed results.
As CBS news reports, when Huckabee was asked how shooting birds is a metaphor for the campaign, he said, "Don't get in my way." Threatening, vaguely morbid, alludes to Republican opponents: 7 out of 10 on the Huckabese scale.
Then, desperation started to set in. Somebody said, “Governor, you haven’t made one Dick Cheney joke.” Huckabee threw her a bone, “I really do want to survive all the way through to the deal here.” Stokes the "Huckabee hates Bush narrative," reminds us he’s quick on his feet, but is child’s play compared with The Daily Show: 4 out of 10.
At some point Huckabee tired of the journalists' pleas. As he stood over the dead birds, one woman asked, "Do they have names? Like Romney, Thompson ... ?" Huck said, “I'll let you guys decide that. I would never be so coarse and crude as to do something that would be insensitive. I'm a sensitive guy.” Party pooper: 0 out of 10.
-
New Hampshire newspapers are not being kind to their friendly neighbor to the south. First, the liberal editorial board of the Concord Monitor put out a scathing un-endorsement titled “Romney should not be the next president.” Then, this morning, the conservative (and pro-McCain) New Hampshire Union Leader ran its own editorial with this money line: “But (Romney) lacks something John McCain has in spades: conviction.”
All of this is somewhat predictable from two of the three top New Hampshire papers. Romney wasn’t expecting any gifts from the Monitor, and the Union Leader has outspokenly supported McCain.
Most telling, then, is the partisanship Romney showed in his responses to the two papers. Today, Romney sent a release to journalists blasting the Monitor’s liberal editorial page. The release then lists all of the prominent conservatives backing Romney, which is tantamount to Mitt showing off his chest of endorsements to assert his conservative bona fides. Who needs liberals when you’ve got Tom Tancredo?
When I asked the campaign to respond to the Union Leader editorial, I received another GOP-centric response, one laced with a mix of caution and aggression. The following bit was especially illuminating:
We, of course, respect the Union-Leader's right to voice their opinion, but the differences between Governor Romney and Senator McCain are clear. We disagree with Senator McCain's joining Democrats to vote against Republican plans for tax relief, his pro-amnesty immigration proposal with Senator Kennedy and his McCain-Feingold legislation which hurt conservative advocacy efforts.
Interestingly, every negative point the statement raises about McCain’s record has to do with his bipartisan efforts in the Senate. Mixed with Romney’s harsh release against the liberal Monitor editorial board, it seems Romney thinks he has to be as pure of a conservative as possible to win in New Hampshire. Considering New Hampshire lets independents vote in its primaries (many of whom favor McCain), that’s a risky strategy.
Read the campaign's full response here.
-
For weeks Mike Huckabee has avoided Tim Russert while touring the Sunday-morning talk-show circuit. NBC’s Washington bureau chief has lobbied hard to get Huckabee on Meet the Press, but Huckabee has shied away from Russert’s withering Q&A.
Until now. Huckabee is going live on the show this Sunday (as is Barack Obama), four days before the Iowa caucuses. His comments with Russert will likely be his final narrative before Iowans vote, so his appearance is a major gamble. If Russert lands a few blows—which, with Huckabee’s record, is likely—the always-fluid Republican race will be shaken and stirred once again. A preemptive look at who has the most at stake.
WINNERS
Mitt Romney: Romney’s Iowa staffers must be salivating in anticipation. Romney survived Russert’s barrage relatively well (only his Martin Luther King comments have come back to bite him), and it’s likely that Russert will push Huckabee on many of the attack points Romney uses against the Huckster. Russert then becomes the attack dog, which legitimizes Romney's criticism and makes him less of a meanie.
Russert’s research staff: Talk about rich source material. Just some of the juicy topics from Huckabee’s past: the Wayne Dumond case, in-state tuition, questionable promotions, the Club for Growth’s scorn, a pro-Huckabee group's dirty tricks, borderline-morbid Huckabeeisms, and a quarantine for people with AIDS.
Huckabee’s ego: How many televangelists-in-the-making don’t love a national audience?
LOSERS
Huckabee’s political chances: In the media world, Huckabee has reached the point of diminishing returns. The potential negatives of Sunday’s interview far outweigh the positives. Media sharks are going to be circling their TVs, waiting for the slightest hint of weakness from Huckabee. Once Russert draws blood, every Huckabee story for four days is going to mention his MTP appearance. Will those stories enter the caucus-goer zeitgeist? Romney and Fred Thompson will make sure they do.
Even if Huckabee breezes through the interview, what does that prove? We already know he can hang with the big boys, so he no longer needs street cred among Beltway elites. He needs an organization on the ground, something Russert can’t provide.
John McCain and Rudy Giuliani: Both of them need a weakened Romney to stumble out of Iowa, which means they need Huckabee to hold strong. If Romney wins Iowa, he’ll likely win New Hampshire, therefore dooming McCain. With a win in New Hampshire, he’ll stay strong through Feb. 5, hurting Giuliani.
-
Are Bill and Hillary in a lover’s spat? A visit to presidentbillclinton.com or williamclinton.com redirects right to Barack Obama’s homepage. This is the same Obama that Bill Clinton hasn’t been too fond of recently. We’ve heard rumors of dissention within the Clinton ranks, but has it really gotten this bad?
No. Those Clinton domains were registered in 1998 by Joseph Culligan, a private investigator and part-time domain squatter based in Miami. Last week, after ABC News discovered Clinton was readying an Obama attack site, Culligan was inspired to drum up publicity for his own private investigation Web site, webofdeception.com. He redirected the Clinton domains, which had lay dormant for years, to Obama’s site, hoping that somebody would take the bait.
Well, it worked. Wonkette published a post on the redirects today, which piqued our interest on an unsurprisingly slow news day. I tracked the domains back to Culligan, who also owns domains based on the names of Barack Obama and Patti Solis Doyle, Hillary’s campaign manager.
Domain-name trickery is nothing new on the Internet. Just last week somebody tried to convince journalists that Hillary Clinton registered BarackOsama2008.org. But Culligan’s antics are an avoidable headache for the Clinton camp. Culligan says he doesn't hold any animosity toward the Clintons and that 42 “was a great president.” (He wouldn't say which candidate, Democrat or Republican, he supports.) He has offered to give Clinton the domains every year since '98, free of charge, but he’s never heard a response. “When Clinton is ready for his name, I’m ready to give it back."
-
John Edwards found himself ensnared in a catch-22 this weekend. Barack Obama, who has repeatedly targeted Edwards over the past week, began suggesting Edwards was a hypocrite for not controlling a 527 group that was readying a pro-Edwards TV ad in Iowa.
527 groups create a sticky situation for Edwards. The independent advocacy organizations are not officially allied with a campaign, but they bring to mind the shadowy world of special interest groups. Edwards, meanwhile, has wagered much of his candidacy on the assumption that America wants to rid Washington of lobbyists’ influence. When Obama starts using such strong rhetoric, nuances between 527s and special interest groups begin to disappear in voters’ eyes. In the caucus crunch, nobody has time to call a spade a spade. A shovel will do just fine.
By going after Edwards, Obama’s campaign manages to twist a negative into a positive. There haven’t been any 527 groups that have come out in support of Obama, which would usually mean that his official campaign would have to do more legwork on the ground and over the air. But—mainly thanks to Edwards—ethics have long been an issue in the Democratic race, which means there is room for Obama to take the high ground on the 527 issue. In the new battle for second-choice votes, Obama has discovered an opportunity to compete with Edwards for ethics-minded Iowans. He’s a victor of circumstance.
After Obama fired his salvo, Edwards released a statement asking the 527 group not to air the ad. Legally, candidates aren’t allowed to communicate with 527s, so Edwards’ request is tantamount to him asking for a favor. But the 527 in question is led by Edwards’ former campaign manager. So now, based on the twisted logic of 527s, it may look even more suspicious if the group doesn’t air the ad. Edwards may stand to benefit from politics-as-usual even as he continues to promise their demise.
-
We intended to let our Fringe series lay dormant as the primaries and caucuses neared, but then a slim little book arrived in the mail, courtesy of a Fringer. We couldn't resist. So, welcome back to the presidential Twilight Zone.
Benjamin Richards is a self-proclaimed "guy from Iowa" who's running for president as an independent. His book, Ben '08 is probably the glossiest policy briefing a no-shot presidential candidate has ever produced. The book outlines Richards' "A to Z platform," which is a cute way of saying it's organized alphabetically. He runs through the usual policy pieces, including budget (balance it), climate change (fix it), and terrorism (stop it). The paragraph-long briefings are accompanied by quotes from Aristotle, Proust, and Agatha Christie.
Richards toes a fine line between being a serious, policy-based candidate and a jokester. His signature image is his goofy smirk behind a big thumps-up. He even Photoshopped himself into the Oval Office for the book's back cover. But when I spoke to him on the phone, he was, well, relatively normal.
Richards told me he commutes between Las Vegas (where his wife lives) and Iowa while working for a company that packages show tours across Asia. He's trying to attract support through the art of the rant. The long-winded video up on his Web site proves that he knows geography, but not much else.
Richards' problem—and a problem with Fringers in general—is that his policies are a collection of ideas without much detail. He's a mashup of the other candidates' positions, but there isn't much that separates his campaign from any other mainstream candidate's—besides the Benjamins (the dollar kind). It's a hump all fringe candidates (including, for example, Huckabee, Tancredo, and Gravel) have to overcome if they want to be viable.
Richards seems to recognize this. I asked him how his platform is different than the bigwigs. "I don't think it does diverge from them," he said, "I think more people with more ideas joining the discourse is a positive thing."
UPDATE Dec. 26 1:45 p.m.: Image scanned from Richards' book, Ben '08.
-
After we posted a series of anagrams for each of the
presidential candidates yesterday, several reader wrote in with their own
submissions – most of them far superior to what Wordsmith.org’s Anagram Server
could produce. (Score one for humanity.)
James Kushner (“Jerk Has Menus”) points out that, before H.
Ross Perot, we had a real gem in Ronald Wilson Reagan ("Insane Anglo
Warlord"), and after him George Walker Bush ("We Go Berserk.
Laugh!").
Benjamin Holt (“Lent Him Banjo”) suggests for Rudy Giuliani:
“I, urinal id guy.”
Tariq Alvi, whose lack of a 'u' to accompany his 'q' has defeated Wordsmith, suggests the following:
- Hillary Rodham Clinton = Non-Chill, Harm Adroitly
- Barack Hussein Obama = Beam, aka Brash Cousin
- Willard Mitt Romney = Weird Man To Try Mill
Zach Sherwin (“Hazers Winch”), a Boston based comic, posted this
anagram-themed rap on YouTube a few weeks ago.
The winner of the official user submitted Candagram contest
(prize: a new hobby), is Benjamin T. Kallen (“Belt 'em, lank ninja!”), who
produced these.
- Hillary Rodham Clinton = Hi, darn ol' chilly matron!
- Barack Hussein Obama = Run amok, ace! Bash bias!
- Willard Mitt Romney = Wry lad, no term limit
- John Sidney McCain = Join in, chancy Dems!
- Fred Dalton
Thompson = Heft! Drop tons, old man!
We are, as always, humbled. Think you can top it? Email us.
-
THE SKY, Dec. 20—We’re hovering 1,500 feet above Baltimore in a 200-foot blimp with Ron Paul’s name on it, and I’ve lost feeling in my hands. Elijah Lynn, vice president of the Ron Paul Blimp, passes around heat packets, the kind made for skiers. “Shake it,” he says. Over the past week, temperatures in the blimp have dropped to as low as 28 degrees. As the crew has learned, it’s hard out here for a blimp.
The Ron Paul Blimp launched last week in Elizabeth City, N.C,. and has since moved through Columbia, S.C., Richmond, Va., and now Baltimore, taking days off for bad weather. (You can track the blimp’s path via GPS here.) Anyone craning their neck blimpward sees one of two messages: “Who Is Ron Paul?” (an homage to Ayn Rand’s “Who is John Galt?”) or “Ron Paul Revolution,” with the “evol” highlighted as a backwards “love.” The guys behind the blimp now spend every day inside it, giving interviews by phone, taking turns flying (“It’s like driving a boat”), blogging the voyage using the blimp’s wireless connection, and planning the blimp’s schedule.
Of course, the “schedule” is a joke. They had originally planned to head to Iowa for the Jan. 3 caucuses. Now, they’re going south after circling New York City instead. Likewise, our flight was at first supposed to take off at 8 a.m. That time was changed last minute to 12:30 p.m. But when we arrived at the Harford Airport at noon, the airship had already left. We ended up taking the next flight. “You can’t keep to a tight schedule,” said one of the organizers. Daniel Hornal, the official “blimpographer,” agreed: “You’re on blimp time now.”
The blimp springs from the same imaginative well as the Ron Paul “money bombs,” which have raised more than $10 million and put Paul among the Republicans' top likely fourth-quarter fund-raisers. The project is being paid for through online donations. They’re currently just shy of $280,000, which should keep the blimp aloft through Christmas. (All told, the blimp operation costs about $350,000 a month.) Trevor Lyman, the public face of the Nov. 5 and Dec. 12 money bombs (“That wasn’t my idea,” he says) and the Ron Paul Blimp (“That was”), says he thinks they’ll raise enough money to fly through Super Tuesday.
There’s something perfectly Paulian about the blimp. It’s a stunt, in the best sense of the term—big, memorable, and utterly silly—a lot like Ron Paul’s candidacy itself, at least in the eyes of outsiders. The project isn’t affiliated with the Paul campaign—FEC regulations forbid collaboration—but it does try to preserve the spirit. “We see what they’re doing, and we try to fit their image,” Hornal says.
Some of the guys behind the blimp are relatively recent Paul converts. Hornal says he wasn’t a big Ron Paul fan before getting involved. If anything, he’s for Kucinich.* He figures that libertarianism s