June 21, 2008
We are now in what was known in another context as "the phony war" -- the time of the campaign season in between the primary campaign and the general election campaign. Sure,there will be some occurrences worth noting in this period, but not many. Thus, expect this blog to resume shortly before the party conventions in late August.
Until then, there are still the weekly Tote Board columns and odds in the paper.
May 28, 2008
This week's Tote Board column looks at how the press may be misanalyzing the way the voting public looks at issues and candidates in presidential politics.
April 01, 2008
The most important decision task in front of Hillary is that she needs to strike the right balance between winning and governing (if she wins). Even sixteen years after the two-for-one deal signed by Bill Clinton, they remain a potent political package. One of the reasons Bill fell for Hillary was that they had complementary skill sets. He also once said that he was born at age sixteen and that Hillary was born at age forty. The main fault lines of the Clintons have been pored over by many. Suffice it to say that she was (and remains) a lot more focused (Maggie Williams success in crafting campaign narratives), disciplined (top-down) and confrontational (SNL is the latest embodiment).
As Hillary ponders her veep-list she needs to look first and foremost in the mirror. She should look at the failures of her and her husband: in Bill’s 1980 gubernatorial defeat (trying to do too much too quickly); in mishandling the early Clinton administration through nominations like Zoe Baird (bad planning plus too ideological); and, in the Health Care debacle (secrecy and stubbornness) to say nothing of Whitewater (cutting corners), Cattle Futures and Monica (ethical lapses). Whoever she picks for the VP slot should have a complementary skill set for BOTH Bill and Hillary Clinton. This consideration really limits the list of ideal candidates. Ideally, she should pick somebody who has a big-picture mindset. The ‘vision thing’ as Bush Senior called it. This issue goes way back for Hillary to her college thesis where she lamented that the subject of her thesis quickly learned that ‘one of the hardest jobs of the leader is an imaginative one as he struggles to develop a rationale for spontaneous action’
The overriding tragedy of the Clinton campaign has been that they have been wonderful tacticians at everything from goading the media into more favorable coverage, to casting attacks on them as a referendum on their attackers and in crafting campaign narratives. In short, they have proven adept at setting the campaign agenda. Unfortunately, the promissory notes of her tactics have looming expiration dates.
1. For example, in casting attacks against her as ‘gendered’ she has maintained (and at crucial moments like N.H.) strengthened her position with women. Fairly or unfairly, the trouble with doing so is that it is a massive turn-off for men. According to a recent Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, Hillary has a 32-point deficit with men relative to Obama. A subsequent report of theirs claimed that two-thirds of Hillary supporters are women.
2. Mark Penn and Harold Wolfson’s dismissal of states won by Barack Obama like Mississippi as irrelevant almost begs for an advertisement to be run by John McCain in the general election. Her main surrogates have said something derisive about many ‘red’ and ‘purple’ states.
3. Hillary likely did have rougher press treatment than did Mr. Obama. Yet, one could be provocative and argue the heightened scrutiny served to create a stature gap between the two candidates. As Hillary herself claimed to Josh Green ‘'nobody gets the scrutiny that she gets and as a result I have no margin for error” (See: “Hillary Take Two”). But, she also had a bad relationship with the press going back to when she closed a wing of the White House off to the press and, her secret task force and, her belief that the press had gotten out of control after Watergate.
4. The fundamental contradiction of the Clinton campaign is Bill’s status. On the one hand, he is a major reason why she is still in this race. A December 9th CBS Poll showed that a decisive portion of her support in the primary was derived from being a ‘Clinton’. Yet having Bill on the campaign trail in such prime fashion as he was in South Carolina is simply toxic for her in the general because it revives more general fears of a co-presidency. Please note: It is in the poll and, it is not sexist to say so.
5. In considering a veep-list for Hillary one should remember that according to Bob Woodward’s ‘A Woman in Charge’ Hillary declared that nobody who had been in Carter’s inner-sanctum would serve at the highest levels of the 1992 Clinton Administration in response to Carter letting the Clintons down over Fort Chafee which contributed to Bill’s 1980 governor loss. If the past is prologue, don’t expect anybody who has left the Clinton reservation too far to be chosen unless practical Hillary emerges out of the wings and sees the necessity.
6. The biggest part of this puzzle is Barack Obama. In many ways, he is the perfect anti-Clintons: younger, his sobriety a good counterpoint to Bill’s excesses, idealistic as Hillary Rodham once was at Wellesley and secure in who he is unlike both Clintons. The loyalty idea noted above finds some support in how Hillary has created an Obama discourse. She has tried to nudge and wink at voters saying that maybe they would run together. It would be the best thing for her both in terms of temperament and, political terms. Yet, I think she set that trial balloon out with the intention of deflating it. This could be a re-play of 1964 all-over again with Hillary as Lyndon Johnson and Obama being Bobby Kennedy. LBJ and Kennedy described each other in terms strikingly familiar to the current discourse. As Jeff Shesol wrote: ‘Kennedy said Johnson was a mean, bitter, vicious animal in many ways while Johnson considered Kennedy a grandstanding little runt”. Still, political historians note that Kennedy needed Johnson to win his Senate seat in 1964 – there is a lesson there for the current feud.
7. Hillary must be careful to avoid being painted with the ‘establishment’ tag by John McCain. This necessitates that she be extremely wary of picking a female congressperson – the potential to be held liable for Speaker Pelosi’s performance should be a serious red flag.
With these considerations in mind, let’s move on to the list. It reflects the policy interests of Hillary Clinton. In particular, it is shaped by her attention to issues of children’s policy, healthcare and gender issues. Further, this list has two Pennsylvanians on it and, I would add Ed Rendell to consideration as well. I do not profile him because so many others have elsewhere.
It also considers the electoral map: it is very hard to get Hillary to 270 without Pennsylvania.
One issue which I expect will gain greater traction if the Dems ever pick a nominee is education. In 2000 Bush ran a timely ad on the ‘education recession’. I anticipate that the Democrat will launch a strong critique of No Child Left Behind and that this will become more of an issue as we move on in the campaign (particularly, if the democrats link the economic recession to the education recession).
1. Gov. Phil Bredesen: (TN): Déjà vu? Gore squared? There are many good reasons to pick him. First off, Clinton seems to have strength in the mid-south which means that TN might be in play with this pick. If Hillary is as passionate about universal healthcare as she would have us believe, Bredesen helped create HealthAmerica Corp which would offer her an understanding of the business-side of healthcare economics and reform which eluded her in 1993. He won the Nashville mayoral race in 1991 and was re-elected in 1995. He also has managerial experience in education much as Hillary does from her days reforming the Arkansas education system in the mid-eighties. As governor he emphasized transparency and accountability in the political process. A recent SurveyUSA poll showed TN tied in a Clinton-McCain match-up.
Downsides: He’s 64 which cuts against a generational argument; Cut the rolls of the Tenncare program
2. Sen. Max Cleland (GA): Will she try to out McCain McCain? Bill was particularly incensed about the treatment of Cleland as evidenced by his comments in the 2004 campaign trail. This would be continuing the old triangulation strategy of Bill Clinton and merging it with the cooptation strategy Hillary has used so adeptly. It would also would galvanize the netroots which has been supportive (but not effusive) towards her candidacy as many were outraged over the Chambliss campaign’s heavy-handed approach.
Downsides: Does not carrying Georgia matter? Does voting against the war open up an old can of worms for Hillary about needing to apologize? If the electorate has fatigue about the Iraq war will voters really want to turn in for another rehash of the boomer fault line of Vietnam?
3. Gov. Brian Schweitzer (MT) As close as the Democratic Party will get to having a frontiersmen (he flies planes). He could help with those who fear that the Clintons would resurrect their co-presidency. Schweitzer is a force to be reckoned with. He would inoculate Hillary with men and make them more comfortable with the ticket and, he would be a decided benefit in rural areas. Further, he is young. Schweitzer’s presence would also help deflect the stereotypes some may associate with New York City elitism (a degree in soil science can do that). His work as an irrigation developer and in agriculture would be useful in the context of soaring commodity prices and, the perceived need to move on issues like Global Warming. Appointment during Bill’s tenure bodes well for him to pass the loyalty threshold.
Downsides: Could Bill handle being third-fiddle? Is Schweitzer sufficiently qualified? Reaction to his effort to transform coal into fuel?
4. Janet Napolitano (AZ)
Factors increasing probability of being picked: A fellow Methodist, Anita Hill’s lawyer, Achieved voluntary free kindergarten in Arizona, Cut taxes in Arizona, Fiscal Responsibility; legal background in Arizona could bulk up a murky Democratic position on immigration issue.
Downsides: Can she win McCain’s home-state? Too much for some men? Record number of vetoes does not augur well for changing Washington’s culture.
5. Wild Card: Judith Rodin (PA): Nobody said that the Vice-President needed to be an elected official. Dwight Eisenhower served as interim head of Columbia University after World War II. Mrs. Rodin served as the first female president in the Ivy League (University of Pennsylvania). She now heads the Rockefeller Foundation. Formerly a professor medicine, psychology and psychiatry. Passes loyalty question through service on B. Clinton panel on science and technology.
Downsides: Would she be considered a Pennsylvanian? An oppo-researcher for the McCain campaign would salivate at the depth of her publication record.
6. Chaka Fattah (PA): He is an African-American Philadelphia-district House member who is relatively young (51) and has made education policy a central piece of his legislative portfolio.
Downsides: Strongly anti-war and controversy between Philly fraternal order of police and Mr. Fattah’s desire for a new trial in the Faulkner case.
Also, I would like to thank those who commented on the last piece. Jon Corzine is indeed the governor (not the senator as I had said). So far as the prospect of an Obama-Clark ticket, for Sen. Obama’s own good, he should avoid Mr. Clark. First, Clark’s ‘general’ credential would likely be somewhat marginalized in political perception and utility by the public because while Vietnam and the first coalition Iraq war have set operational and political precedents within the broader policy debates (I.E. modification of the ‘domino theory’/‘containment’ ideas and, the ‘overwhelming force’ idea behind the Powell doctrine). I’m not an expert but, I do not think that the most salient foreign policy challenges have that much in common with the Bosnia experience. Would the public accord him the status of an Eisenhower, Powell or, McCain? Personally, I’m skeptical.
Further, Barack needs to be wary of placing a Vietnam vet on his ticket because it almost would invite the use of McCain’s compelling narrative and impede his own post-partisan narrative. Further, Clark is a political neophyte. Obama should pick someone who has a bit more polish on the national-stage.
A last word, I agree with the commenter who speculated that a President Obama would paint in broad strokes and leave the contours to others.
March 27, 2008
March 25, 2008
The party’s over. Only, apparently, no one is brave enough to tell Hillary Clinton.
Granted, I pay more attention to “momentum” and to trends in public opinion polling than to the delegate math. But I learned something that startled me today. According to Josh Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo,
“ the press has been largely complicit in maintaining the fiction that the Democratic nomination race is not for all intents and purposes over. The obstacles in the way of Hillary Clinton are virtually insurmountable. And her now-sizable deficit among pledged voters is only one of them.’
Who would have known?
I am a political junkie, I read articles and blogs about the campaign constantly; I watch Hardball, the Daily Show, Colbert, and sometimes even Tucker Carlson before he was cancelled. I find watching a bunch of talking heads screaming at each other about the campaign oddly relaxing. And I honest to God didn’t know that her obstacles to the nomination are “virtually insurmountable.”
So…let me get this straight. Hillary Clinton is tearing the party apart. Her only remaining strategy is to destroy Barack Obama. She is creating sound bites for John McCain’s general election campaign about Obama's experience and his fitness to serve as commander in chief. She is feeding the Reverend Wright frenzy and shrugging non-committally when asked whether Obama may really be a Muslim. Her campaign is sending around photographs of him in Somali garb. She is trying to woo superdelegates to vote against the majority of Democratic voters. As McCain solidifies his base, replenishes his coffers, and goes on international junkets, looking Presidential, she is forcing Obama to spend money trying to keep, as one commentator noted “his limbs intact.” She is doing everything she can to alienate him from the working class voters he will desperately need in the fall.
All for an “insurmountable” quest?
Where are the grown-ups in the Democratic Party to step in? Where are Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, John and Elizabeth Edwards, Howard Dean and Harry Reid? Robert Kennedy used to say that the hottest place in hell is reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, remain neutral. I argue that this is a moral crisis for the Democratic Party, and, potentially, for the country, if we end up electing John McCain because of bitter rifts within the Democratic Party.
Seems to me an intervention of the Democratic grown-ups on the Clintons is in order.
March 20, 2008
March 19, 2008
Obama's speech on race in Philadelphia yesterday was wonderful rhetoric and the reaction has been almost universally positive. But will it help his campaign? On that, of course, the jury is out and we won't have any answers until at least the Pennsylvania primary in a month. Remember that Republican pundits tended to love Mitt Romney's speech earlier in the campaign on his faith, too, (though it wasn't nearly as good), and in retrospect, it certainly wasn't the political plus they said it was.
For what it's worth, the hunch here is that the speech didn't advance Obama's cause nearly as far as some of his supporters might like to admit. He needs to be recasting his rhetoric more to attract white working-class voters -- a subject we'll be addressing in tomorrow's column.
March 14, 2008
As we noted recently, it's always been our view that blogs belong to the people who read them
and post. So, in that spirit, the Tote Board has been seeking anyone
interested to file guest blog dispatches. The
requirements are that, as always in this space, the blogger attempt to
provide good, dispassionate analysis of the race. It's nice to be a
partisan but this isn't the blog for that. Please address any
interest and inquiries to Steven Stark's email, listed below.
It probably goes without saying but these guest posts represent the views of the author, not my (Steven Stark's) views.
Over to Tyler Carpenter:------------------------
Recent campaign and media events have exposed American divisions across racial lines. Some events, like the "3 AM commercial" with it's subtle images of sleeping white children who need protection (images eerily similar to those in the film "Birth of a Nation", some 90 years ago) are subtle, and relatively unnoticed by the mainstream media; others, like the overtly racist message of Ferraro's recent comments, have caused much finger pointing. But the messages of this Democratic campaign season -- moving from hope and racial unity to fear and racial division -- are significantly changing the direction of this primary. This change benefits the Hillary Clinton campaign in a very significant manner. It may give her the nomination.
I offer 2 recent examples from the past week:
The first example
is the (very funny) Saturday Night Live skit . The sketch, played at the very beginning of the show, when the ratings are highest, plays into almost every negative African American stereotype -- the shiftless, stupid, profanity-filled, drug-abusing man who gets a job for which he is totally unqualified and needs help from the eminently qualified more deserving (white) person. When you combine this with the previous SNL skits that promote the message that Obama isn't being properly examined by an overly fawning media, you get a very clear message: The black candidate is where he is primarily because of his race, and that he probably doesn't deserve to be there.
The second example is the
recent Ferraro comment, where she says that Obama's successful candidacy is due solely to his race. Like the SNL piece, it couches racist views in politically correct language. While Ferraro might not see herself as holding racist views, her statement delivers a subtle implication that we, the voters, only support his candidacy because of his race, and that Obama's professional and political success is due to a subtle, liberal form of reverse discrimination.
The change in the nature of this campaign is already having effects. These effects benefit the Clinton campaign. The first sign of success in her revamped campaign message was in the results of the Mississippi Democratic primary. While most of the broadcast media focused on "another easy and expected win for the Obama campaign", the real story is the divisive nature of the victory. According to exit poll numbers, over 90 percent of African Americans voted for Obama. Almost 75 percent of non-Hispanic white people voted for Clinton. This shows two things: (1) the percentage of African Americans who vote for Obama is increasing slightly (from about 80% to about 90%), and (2) the percentage of non-African Americans who vote for Obama is decreasing -- significantly and rapidly. It marks the first time that "white" people voted in wide numbers against Obama, and as we move to Pennsylvania, a state where a much smaller percentage of the Democratic voting population is African American, it shows a possible opening in Obama's campaign message where Clinton's message can drive a wedge between different factions that make up Obama's core support.
One of Karl Rove's tenets of campaign wisdom was to "find your opponent's strongest point and undermine its effectiveness". In 2000, Al Gore's strength was his policy knowledge and his interest in identifying solutions to difficult problems. The undermining was to imply that "he really wasn't that smart" or that "he was a know-it-all". John Kerry's strength was his war record and his ability to see both sides of thorny issues. The undermining there was to imply that he "really wasn't that brave" or that he "can't make a decision". Barack Obama's strength is his ability to organize and to bring people with differing political viewpoints together. His undermining message will one that implies that "he really isn't that organized" or that, because of age and his oratorical skills, "he really doesn't work hard". By subtly but repeatedly working the racial divides in our country, the Clinton campaign intends to get voters to consider the idea that, despite his professional and political success, Barack Obama might be nothing more than "an uppity, lazy and ignorant ***". Certainly, no person associated with the Clinton campaign will ever say this -- that message is too crude and offensive. We voters may never realize we're thinking this -- after all, "we're not racists". But the message will be there, disguised in subtlety or humor or politically correct language, and we'll hear it. Then we'll vote.
This tactic could work. It already started paying results in Mississippi, and from the early numbers in Pennsylvania -- where a recent poll shows Clinton's lead extending to almost 20 points -- it will work there too. This election is far from over, but if I were a betting person, my money would be on Clinton at this point. Her campaign has finally found its voice. We the voters will respond appropriately.
March 13, 2008
This week's Tote Board column looks at why John McCain should pick former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge as his running mate -- if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.
March 12, 2008
Sporting analogies are overdone in politics but this year's Democratic campaign -- with its clear demographic contours -- is a bit like a tennis match. Obama last night won a state he was predicted to win. Now, on to Pennsylvania, where it's up to Hillary to hold serve in a state she should carry.
March 10, 2008
Given the demographics of the Democratic race, by now one can predict with some accuracy the outcome of most contests. If there's a high percentage of African-Americans in the electorate and/or a large percentage of upper-income voters, Barack Obama does well. If there is a high percentage of Latino voters and/or a large percentage of working class voters, Hillary Clinton does well. Virtually all caucuses go to Obama handily, most likely because the Clinton campaign negligently failed to prepare in these states.
Given these trends, Obama's landslide win in the Wyoming caucuses over the weekend was no surprise and it would be a shock if he did anything but win handily on Tuesday in Mississippi.
March 07, 2008
Obama's Dark-Horse Veep List:
1. Senator Russ Feingold:
The strongest counterpoint to the McCain aura of reform and cleaning the corporate system up. If Senator Obama is truly serious about challenging the 'Iraq Mindset' he needs to strongly consider Russ towards the top of the list. His selection would generate a serious debate about America's role in the world and its ideals at home. He is the other piece of the McCain Campaign Finance Bill. Additionally, he is the only senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act in 2001. This may be the highest-risk and highest-reward prospect in the Democratic line-up. Still, Feingold's vote for Obama in the Wisconsin primary makes it possible and plausible. Could a constitutional law professor (Obama) make his point about the Iraq Mindset using the reformist aura of Mr. Feingold? He also plays into the generational dynamic that Obama has against McCain. Feingold is in his fifties and, his Jewish faith won't hurt amidst the Farrakhan issues.
Negatives: Introduced Censure of President Bush, Is that a new politics? Voted for John Ashcroft.
2. Mayor Michael Bloomberg:
Jewish (a plus with the Farrakhan brouhaha in the papers and, a key group in Florida). Another M.B.A. at a time when we appear to be drifting towards recession. Philanthropy background may give him a unique perspective on the proliferation of national and international NGOs. Impairs of the ability of the Chief GOP spokesman about the War on Terror (Rudy Giuliani) to go after an Obama/Bloomberg ticket given Rudy's strong support for Bloomberg in the Fall of 01. Legitimate continuing gains in falling crime, Perceived Gains in Education policy
Negatives: Earlier sexual harassment claims, stridently pro-choice; opposes Iraq withdrawal timeline. Too gruff for the country?
UPDATE: New York 1 is reporting that in an interview on "Inside City Hall" Friday night, Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey promoted the idea of an Obama-Bloomberg presidential ticket – and revealed that Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke Thursday with the Democratic presidential frontrunner Barack Obama.
3. General Colin Powell:
Recently, Mr. Powell has speculated that he might endorse a Democrat in the upcoming presidential campaign. Would the 'good soldier' be willing to fight against his old bosses? Probably not. Still, the potential to reinforce many of the messages of an Obama candidacy -- unity, diversity and a new approach -- could be reinforced by Powell in many the same ways that Gore reinforced Clinton in 1992. The founder of 'America's Promise’ and the man who coined the Powell doctrine would be a powerful critic of the Iraq War and would make this election truly a referendum on Bush and the run-up to Iraq. Press accounts from 1996 suggest Powell was hesitant to enter the race because of his standing as a giant above politics. Since that halo has since been tarnished by a UN performance, he may be more willing to entertain such notions now.
Negatives: How would the Democratic base receive a man who said that the Contract with America was a 'little too harsh and hard'? Would Alma Powell support the decision? Would he? Is the country ready? He's also 71.
4. Senator Kent Conrad:
Compelling life story (orphan); Critic of spending habits of Bush administration; Moderate on abortion and gun control issues; Very popular democrat in very Republican State; Critic of deals like NAFTA may help in the industrial Midwest. He voted against the Iraq War in 2003. Further, he presents well on Television.
Negatives: Wouldn't lock up a swing state as would say an Ed Rendell. No added heft on the War on Terror front and since he voted against the 1991 Gulf War Act it may be a liability.
5. Senator Jon Corzine:
Served in the Marine Corps; Has an MBA at a time when the economy is slowing and McCain by his own admission is lacking in economic detail. May help the party define a vision which successfully bridges the industrial and information ages. He voted against the Iraq War. Further, his co-Authorship of Sarbanes-Oxley which cracked down on corporate fraud is a plus.
Negatives: Ex-Wife nastiness, Plays into perception of 'elitist' democratic party of the very wealthy. Risks of Machine-tendency taint within NJ politics. Will his fingerprints arise on any subprime involvement?
6. Governor of Wisconsin Jim Doyle:
Peace Corps member [what greater way to claim heir to the New Frontier] Worked with Native Americans providing legal services; early Obama supporter; Swing state within a swing region; President of Nat Association of Attorney Generals augurs interestingly for the Democratic argument about prosecuting the War on Terror; Early and enthused Obama supporter. Negatives: In an anti-incumbent mood, the whiff of scandal proves quite a problem. Georgia Thompson controversy wherein a state employee was accused of steering a contract to a firm politically connected with his campaign.
7. Senator Chris Dodd:
Fluent in Spanish, Peace Corps member, Catholic, Watergate '74 Class [familiar terrain: how to restore faith in government] Family and Medical Leave Act Author.
Negatives: Banking ties; Carbon tax for global warming won't play well in Midwest and plays into liberal narrative Obama must be very careful to avoid. As with any senator serving at length, votes can be twisted easily.
March 06, 2008
The huge problem facing Barack Obama is clearly outlined in the
latest Pew poll:
A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.
Simply put, if this holds, Obama can't win a general election because over time, the independents who say they are backing him will begin to follow the same pattern and dwindle as well. He must reverse those numbers.
March 06, 2008
This week's column looks at the problems ahead for the Democrats and why Hillary Clinton could well be the stronger general election candidate.
March 05, 2008
As we anticipated in earlier posts and columns, the Democratic race is now headed to a train wreck, on the heels of Hillary Clinton's strong showings last night. The race now heads to Pennsylvania in late April but, as Fred Barnes noted jokingly last night on Fox, Pennsylvania is more like Ohio than Ohio, so it's uphill for Obama there. There's now a chance Florida and even Michigan will be rerun in late June or July.
But the bottom line is that while Obama will likely have a small delegate lead when the electoral process ends, the superdelegates will decide the nominee. And, given that Obama is likely to receive increased scrutiny in the weeks ahead, Clinton is very much alive.
More in tomorrow's Phoenix.