When Senator Barack Obama responded to President George Bush and presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Senator John McCain’s suggestion that he would indulge in the “appeasement” of terrorists, it underscored several lessons — and several key changes — in the political, national and media landscapes.
For one thing, the incident revealed Obama’s quick-response style where he turned a defense into media-friendly offense — and is indicative of many Democrats’ determination to not be defined anymore by Republicans on national security issues.
TV talk shows, newscasts and many blogs have been having a field day with the White House’s shifting explanations of what Bush really meant. But there have been enough news reports now to solidify the fact that the remarks were indeed aimed at Obama. And it wasn’t just a Bush oversight that he swiped at the Democratic frontrunner while international news cameras whirred during his address in Israel.
First, it showed that despite the fact that Bush is winding up his second term and battling charges of lameduck-ism, he still an unmatched ability to drive the political dialogue in this country.
Make no mistake: This was a pre-planned strategy by the Bush campaign to re-inject foreign policy into the presidential campaign in a way that many Republicans believe will ultimately be beneficial to McCain. Deride Bush — and his strategic team — if you will, but remember that Team Bush managed to get their man elected president and then reelected in the face of growing concerns about the war in Iraq and declining popularity numbers. Bush’s political judgment since 2004 has proved somewhat suspect, but to dismiss his ability to understand and effectively analyze the political landscape could be a mistake on the part of Democrats.
That’s why it was so fascinating today to watch cable casts, listen to talk radio shows and read comments in blogs where the most lockstep Republican defenders of Mr. Bush insisted Obama and the Democrats were being paranoid. White House officials gave reporters various explanations of about to whom Bush was “really” referering, latest being that he was really referring to Jimmy Carter.
But you can now read Cillizza and any number of seasoned reporters covering this mini-firestorm and they’re not running the spin but calling it as it is. And bluntly.
The second lesson of the Knesset Kerfuffle is that the Democratic presidential nomination race is over. Amid all of the “he said, he said” between Obama and McCain/Bush, the one figure that has been almost entirely absent is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Can you imagine that happening even three months ago?
We’ve written about that since this story broke. It was instructive because (a) a day after former Senator John Edwards endorsed Obama and nearly wiped Clinton’s huge West Virginia win off the media’s stories-to-cover list, Bush made his comments aimed at Obama, (b)Clinton was out of this debate, (c)coverage of this news cycle shoved Clinton out of news coverage almost completely yesterday and today (except for her statement condemning Bush’s comments).
The third, and most important lesson, is that Obama is ready and willing to fight Republicans over foreign policy and national security concerns.
Bush’s remarks at the Knesset provided Obama with an interesting conundrum. Refuse to rise to the bait or engage full force in an attempt to begin to address concerns — voiced privately by some Democratic strategists — that the Illinois senator may not be able to win a general election that is framed as a referendum on which party can keep America safe.
Obama, to our mind, took the smarter course by not simply answering the inherent critique offered by the president but also pivoting to try and make McCain answerable for the foreign policy pursued by the United States over the last eight years.
Obama turned the proverbial lemon (being attacked by Bush and being put on the defensive and having to answer) into lemonade (going after Bush by rattling off specific criticisms, using humor and sarcasm and tethering McCain tightly to Bush one after McCain made a major speech in which the Arizona Senator tried to inch himself away from the most unpopular President in modern polling history).
But the biggest change is in the approach of Obama and the Democrats themselves.
As Cillizza notes, the Democrats usually would try not to aggressively challenge the Republicans on national security issues. They’d respond and quickly try to move onto domestic issues, such as health care, environment, the courts….figuring those were the party’s strength.
Rather than battle the GOP with the Republican’s choice of weapons, they tried to use other ones. But it turned out to be trying to counter a shotgun with a nail file.
Then there came the change, as Cillizza notes:
The 2004 election may well have signaled a sea change in that strategy, as Bush effectively turned the election into a referendum on the threat of terrorism and the importance of national security as Democrats were unable to mount an effective response.
In 2006, the Democrats began to engage the Republicans on what the GOP felt was its own national security turf even more…and saw results. Polls began to show that many Americans did not whoppingly trust the Republicans more than the Democrats.
One of the signs of political savvy is learning from mistakes and adapting. The Democrats seem to have started to adapt in recent years — and if Obama’s response in this controversy is any indication the rules and responses in the game have changed. Cillizza again:
It marks a remarkable change in tactics that speaks to just how much the political landscape has shifted since 2004. McCain and Republicans are certain to work to frame the national security/foreign policy debate in their favor, but Obama’s initial response is a sign that they may have to adjust their tactics in the runup to the November election.
What’s changed are several factors, which can’t be applied to the most lockstep Bush administration supporters, but to many Democrats, Republicans and independent voters.
Simple spin won’t do anymore. Spin is a lot more to be countered by a press singed by duly reporting official Bush administration statements over the years and in some cases being accused of doing more stenography than journalism. The Bush administration now has a massive — and profusely documented — credibility gap. McCain has enjoyed much credibility but if Bush keeps roping him in, McCain will begin to morph into Bush Lite among more voters than just progressive Democrats, who never liked him to begin with.
2008 ain’t 2006 which wasn’t 2004 which wasn’t 2000 in terms of the mega-quick response time of the Internet, the growth and popularity of cable news talk shows, talk radio, and a mainstream news media that is trying to respond quicker and more decisively to breaking news stories in order to compete with the new media. Many newspapers now have excellent political weblogs.
So the Democrats are responding faster, they have a presumptive candidate who turned a trap into media and political gain, and the Democrats will find more rapid coverage from the new media and also be dealing with a mainstream media that has been burned by Bush and the Republicans over the past few years.
Obama may be no John Kennedy, but in this instance he proved he was no Michael Dukakis or John Kerry.
And Democratic leaders’ super-quick responses falling in line behind him also suggested that the Democrats of 2008 are….so far at least (and the campaign is still young)…not the Democrats of 2004.
Cartoon by Huffaker, Cagle Cartoons
Former Democratic Senator John Edwards endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the party’s presidential nomination — giving Obama a long-sought-after endorsement that both he and rival Senator Hillary Clinton sought…and raining on Clinton’s post-West Virginia primary political parade.
It was a sign of just how quickly this see-saw political drama can change, with Clinton last night insisting she’s in it for a while and can win last night, pundits seemingly rethinking Obama’s strength as a candidate even if he got the votes to be nominated, and the conventional wisdom seemingly starting to veer a bit against Obama’s electability, even though some poll numbers put Obama ahead.
But the main significance is this: in his endorsement Edwards came on a day when Obama picked up some more Superdelegates and added to the impression that the party is now starting to come together around Obama, even though the Illinois Senator was clobbered by Clinton — and blue collar voters — in West Virginia yesterday.
Over the past week many pundits wondered why more Democratic superdelegates and party bigwigs haven’t come foward to endorse Obama — and this could mark the start of Obama’s parade. It’s big news that in media terms is overshadowing Clinton’s win and the loss Barack suffered among several demographic groups in West Virginia.
Clinton needed to get a message out that she is still viable. West Virginia got her the media spotlight. Obama needed to the message out that he is ahead and can unify the party to start the battle against presumptive GOP Senator John McCain. Edwards’ endorsement now got him the media spotlight, and shoved West Virginia (for now) down in the news story rank.
Just look at some of the media coverage. MSNBC (linked above):
First, if you’re wondering what I as a Hillary supporter think about Hillary’s decision to continue running after yesterday, the answer is I don’t know what I think of it as a strategy. Naturally I would like to believe that she could still somehow prevail. I am not sanguine. People are speculating that she is now running for the VP slot. We’ll see.
But — and this matters more to me — I most definitely admire her for her unswerving commitment to see the process through. Despite the pissing and moaning in the media, and whatever the outcome, I predict that the day will certainly arrive when people will look back with awe and amazement at Hillary’s insistence in going the distance against all odds and wish that they had chosen her. She is indomitable. I like that in a Democrat and so should other Democrats. Alas, many of them are so beguiled by the media myths about Hillary that they just can’t see what a force of nature she really is.
Obama could learn a lot from her and he’d be a better (future) president for it. Instead, I imagine we’ll be stuck with him in his current incarnation — all rhetoric, all the time.
April 23rd, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Former Senator John Edwards hasn’t endorsed a candidate yet and rumors (just that at this point) continue to swirl that his wife Elizabeth Edwards could be on the verge of endorsing Senator Hillary Clinton. But now some 50 Edwards backers have come out for Senator Barack Obama:
No, John Edwards has not yet endorsed a candidate.
But nearly 50 of his most prominent backers lined up behind Senator Barack Obama today, in a gesture designed to give Mr. Obama a heavy boost of support less than two weeks before the North Carolina primary on May 6.
The group includes Ed Turlington, Mr. Edwards’s former national general campaign chairman; three North Carolina members of Congress; and 46 local activists, philanthropists and business leaders, among others. (Not surprisingly, given Mr. Edwards’s background, the list holds the names of 20 lawyers.)
Mr. Turlington, speaking from his law office in Raleigh, said that he had not expected to endorse a candidate after Mr. Edwards dropped out of the race on Jan. 30.
“I thought I was going to be on the sidelines,” Mr. Turlington said, adding that he made the decision about 10 days ago, after speaking to Mr. Obama. “I think his candidacy is doing a lot of important things that are similar to themes that John Edwards ran on.”
Is this a sign that some Democrats want to see this over? But will it be over? Or is this destined no matter what happens to fought all the way to the convention?
Hillary Clinton says she will not allow the “big boys” to “bully” her out of the race, and I think she is absolutely right.
Although it twigs me to no end that Clinton continues to play the gender card (when she or her surrogates are not playing race card), she has the right to soldier on despite the formidable obstacles standing between her and a presidential nomination that she long assumed would be hers for the taking.
So I will say this:
Let’s let things play out through that all-important Pennsylvania primary on April 22. But anything less than a resounding Clinton victory should be the opportunity for a gracious if not overdue concession.
This is because Obama has a commanding lead in North Carolina and a growing lead in Indiana, the two states of consequence with post-Pennsylvania primaries. (Oh, and by the way, pardners, Obama actually won Texas.)
No more moving the goalposts, Hillary.
No more demanding ad hoc primary and delegate rules changes.
And no more whining about the meanies in the media, some of whom have indeed been a bit over the top.
It will be time for Obama, Clinton and other top Dems to turn their guns on John McCain and the centerpiece of his campaign, The Forever War, like these good folks have.
Bill Richardson’s endorsement of Barack Obama last week raises the question of why the leader of the also-rans is being coy about making a choice
“John Edwards,” Politicoreports, “is unlikely to endorse either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton before the nomination is decided, according to interviews with several members of the former candidate’s inner circle.”
Why not? At this stage, the Democrats need all the clarity they can get. Despite his long-standing ties to the Clintons, Richardson made his announcement last week–a hard choice, but he made it.
Edwards has been courted with visits from Obama and Clinton, and he knows how helpful his endorsement might be, particularly in the upcoming North Carolina primary.
Why would he hold back? None of the possible reasons do him credit or even make much sense. Surely he knows enough about the two candidates to make a choice, and holding out will not encourage them at this point to take up his war on poverty any more than they already have.
Is he angling to be a king-maker at the convention? Not likely, all but a handful of his pledged delegates are gone, and none would take direction from him in any case. Does he want to be sure to back the winner and end up in the cabinet, perhaps as Attorney General? Bad strategy. They don’t give medals for showing up after the battle. Or is he just planning to become the 21st century Harold Stassen, a perennial Presidential candidate?
Jonathan Prince, Edwards’ former deputy campaign manager, thinks his man has clout, asserting “that before Ohio and Texas, the campaigns told me that the most popular Democrat in Ohio was John Edwards. And he was tied for the most popular Democrat in Texas. I would imagine that what was true in Ohio is true in Pennsylvania, too.
“One candidate is trying to show he’s got it wrapped up. I think John Edwards would help to do that. The other candidate is trying to show that things are breaking her way. I think John Edwards would help to do that also.”
Most of all, by choosing now he would set an example for his party to encourage settling their squabbles sooner rather than later to unite against the possibility of another Republican in the White House. John Edwards has dedicated himself to bringing together the two Americas. Is it too much to ask him to do something for the two Democratic parties?
The Trail says that, “Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has disappeared from the campaign trail, and her campaign plane, with no explanation. Clinton did not show up for this afternoon’s flight from Dallas to Columbus, Ohio, and campaign spokesman Doug Hattaway would not elaborate on the reason or her whereabouts.”
Hmmm. Any ideas? Check out the comments at that thread - some interesting suggestions.
From the article itself:
“It’s nothing bad,” Hattaway said on board the plane. He added that the press corps would see Clinton on Sunday.
She disappeared in similar fashion Feb. 7, when, it was later revealed, she had flown to North Carolina to meet with former rival John Edwards.
Days before a crucial set of primaries, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is expected to make a surprise appearance on Saturday Night Live tonight, an entertainment industry source tells CNN.
A spokesman for Saturday Night Live would not confirm the appearance, saying only, “It’s a live show, anything can happen”
Clinton did not arrive for a campaign charter flight from Dallas to Columbus, Ohio Saturday evening. The campaign would not say where she was.
Democratic candidate Barack Obama appeared on Saturday Night Live unannounced around Halloween, and GOP candidate Mike Huckabee did a bit on the show’s Weekend Update last Saturday. Clinton is also scheduled to appear on John Stewart’s “Daily Show” Monday, on the eve of voting in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont.
February 17th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
It’s becoming a pilgrimage, of sorts. First, Senator Hillary Clinton visited former Senator and former Presidential wannabe John Edwards — seeking his endorsement and support. And now, in yet another meeting at Edwards’ home, Senator Barack Obama has visited Edwards.
The goal of each campaign: get Edwards’ endorsement and, not parenthetically, his delegates — particularly as the battle between Clinton and Obama goes down to the wire amid predictions that, if one of them doesn’t pull ahead, it could come down to a party-splintering convention where “superdelegates” could make the final decision.
The most intriguing report about the Edwards-Obama visit comes via ABC’s Political Radar …particularly the last line of it, which will have pundits trying to read the political tea leaves:
ABC News’ David Wright and Sunlen Miller Report: Mother Nature may have called a cease-fire in the snows of Wisconsin, but Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., appears to have put the time to good use.
A helicopter cameraman for ABC’s Raleigh-Durham affiliate WTVD spotted Obama leaving former rival John Edwards’ house on the North Carolina.
Such secrecy. (Who does Obama think he is? Tom Cruise?) MORE:
Clinton met with Edwards on Feb. 7.
Obama speaks with Edwards over the phone regularly. On Wednesday at a campaign event in Racine, Wis., Obama said, “He is going to be a major voice in the Democratic party for years to come, and I want him involved and partnering with me in moving this country forward.”
But much had happened in terms of political junkie stories before that:
–A story came out saying Edwards was seriously considering endorsing Clinton, because he didn’t think Obama was tough enough to do what it took to change some aspects about America.
–Other stories said Edwards had decided to remain neutral like former Vice President Al Gore.
And now?
The weather helped the meeting take place this time, as Obama’s event in Appleton, Wis., was cancelled because of snowy conditions. Obama, who had spent the night at home in nearby Chicago, took advantage of the unexpectant gap in his schedule and flew down to Raleigh early afternoon. Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth, was present for the meeting.
Apparently, Obama and Edwards hugged at the conclusion of the meeting.
So what does that mean? To play the speculation game:
–He is going to endorse Obama in the end.
–He isn’t going to endorse Obama, but respects him and wishes him well
–He’s going to remain neutral but had a good session with him.
What would an endorsement mean? Firstly, if the timing came soon, it could influence the remaining primaries.
Endorsing Clinton would signal Edwards is in-effect saying “Whoa. Wait a minute. I don’t care what Ted Kennedy says, this dude isn’t really ready for prime time. We need someone who has more experience and is tougher.” Endorsing Obama would likely carry a lot of weight right now, it’d be a signal of yet another prominent Democrat who feels Obama is tough enough to bring about some changes but also can combine that with political skills so that he could bring about substantive change without polarizing the country.
And if Edwards stays neutral?
It would signal that Edwards, seeing how close the race is, is keeping his options open so he can be the Kingmaker/Queenmaker at the Democratic convention (on the other hand, a Clinton adviser says nothing really matters since Mrs. Clinton will win all the superdelegates in the end and be nominated, no matter what happens in future primaries).
Here is a cross section of other weblogs indulging in some tea-leaf reading and reaction:
An endorsement from Edwards could be very beneficial to either the Obama or Clinton campaigns, which are in a virtual dead heat at this point. Clinton has moved on in her campaign from Wisconsin to Texas in an attempt to rally her support there.
They hugged as Obama left John Edwards’ home after their sit-down today. Elizabeth was at the meeting too.
More tea-leaf reading anyone? Will Edwards wait until after March 4 and Ohio and Texas to announce his endorsement or will he give a much needed boost to Obama in those states? Or, could he be considering endorsing Hillary?
I wrote before that I think Edwards has waited too long to announce an endorsement for it to really sway anyone. But Obama and Clinton clearly disagree, so what do I know? It occurs to me that Obama is also on the lookout for a running mate and Edwards may help bring some of the southern states which in Obama vs. McCain matchups seem to be going overwhelmingly to McCain. People are talking about a Republican Southern Sweep. That’s got to have Obama worried.
CNN: Elizabeth Edwards was also in the meeting. Obama campaign said it was about the campaign and the issues that are facing America. Edwards looking for two things: who will be most effective in carrying on his message RE: fighting poverty; which of these candidates is most electable? He wants to make sure that whoever he backs can beat a Republican. Notes that Edwards has not committed to endorsing anyone at all — wanted to keep out of the endorsement business for a long time. Notes that an endorsement from today would make a lot of impact in Wisconsin. Notes that it was planned in advance, not a detour due to the weather (so I was wrong?). Planned in advance to essentially talk about an Edwards endorsement. Notes that endorsement will likely carry either candidate over the top in Ohio.
Note that Elizabeth Edwards was reportedly lobbying her husband in favor of Sen. Obama, per a CNN report which the family later denied.
John Edwards is still very popular here in Wisconsin–he lost narrowly to Kerry here even after Sen. Kerry had built up momentum. (I’ll always remember being on the stage in Middleton, chatting with Kerry’s siblings and meeting Sen. Max Cleland ,while we waited for the results to be final in 2004.) The day before our Feb. 19th primary would be the perfect time for an endorsement of Sen. Obama.
Barack Obama avoided a snowbound Wisconsin today and flew to North Carolina for a visit with John Edwards. The reasons for this meeting are probably obvious. Edwards has had a lot of attention lately, particularly from Hillary Clinton. This quiet meeting may turn out to have been more definitive as Obama edges ahead of Clinton in the primaries. But no one’s talking right now.
February 14th, 2008 by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
John Edwards, it seems, is conflicted, agonizing over whom to endorse, Clinton or Obama. As ABC News is reporting, he may be leaning towards Clinton, though he “appears deeply divided” and may “ultimately stay neutral in the race”. (Or it could be that he wants to endorse Clinton but is worried that Obama may be pulling too far ahead. I suspect his conflicted agonizing is genuine, however.)
I like Edwards a lot, even supporting him through much of the campaign, if not all that enthusiastically, but — so what? His supporters have already moved en masse to Obama (including me), and it’s not at all clear how much weight an Edwards endorsement would carry at this point. Some, I suppose, particularly among progressives (that is, if there are any uncommitted progressives left), but it may be too late to make much of a difference. He may still want to “play a major role in the race” — and Ohio and Texas, two states that could decide the race, are still to come — but, simply put, he may have missed his moment. Yes, he meant a great deal to the race, as I argued recently, but now is not the time to try to re-insert himself into it.
Basically, then, I think he should stay out of it. On this, I’m in agreement with Yglesias: “[T]he most reasonable course of action is to not endorse… [I]f he feels torn because there are things he likes about Clinton, but then there are other things he likes about Obama, then he should probably just say that.” And then work closely with whomever the nominee happens to be — hopefully, the next president — on the issues that matter most to him, like poverty and health care.
February 12th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
When voters to go the polls today in Potomac Primaries to vote in Virginia, Maryland and DC, they will likely answer two key political questions:
(1) Will the recent momentum gathered by Democratic Senator Barack Obama (which might as well be called Omentum) in his neck-and-neck battle with Senator Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic party Presidential nomination continue? If it does, some analysts are now saying Clinton’s highly-touted March “firewall” for primaries in Texas and Ohio — particularly in Ohio - could be at risk.
(2) Are Republican conservatives going to continue to send presumptive GOP nominee Arizona Senator John McCain a stern message bordering on virtual rejection at the polls by voting for former Governor Mike Huckabee and give Huckabee more raw material to keep his belief in a “political miracle” (that he is somehow propelled to the Heavens of the nomination while McCain burns in political also-ran you-know-where) alive?
It’s a big day for BOTH parties: if Obama can keep up his “omentum”, and win by impressive margins, not only do some analysts say there is a chance it could pierce Clinton’s upcoming firewall, but it could cause Superdelegates to consider whether they really want to be in a position where they give the nomination to someone who did poorly in the primaries. Be sure to read TMV columnist Shaun Mullen’s MUST READ post on the history and impact of brokered conventions.
And, on the Republican side, if Huckabee again garners lots of anti-McCain votes, it will likely mean McCain has to accelerate his fence-mending efforts — and will be a further indication that to win in November McCain will have to run much more to the right in the general election…and could then risk some support he has traditionally gotten from independent and Democratic voters.
The acutely close — and unpredictable — nature of the Democratic race is underscored by a piece by the Washington Post’s Dan Balz titled “8 Questions the Potomac Primary Could Answer.” The main answer: a lot will remain up in the air. It must be read IN FULL, but here are the questions and a short summary: Read the rest of this entry »
Has anyone speculated on how many of the millions of absentee ballots that have been cast across the Super Tuesday states were cast for John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Bill Richardson or Dennis Kucinich, all of whom have withdrawn from their party’s race for the presidential nomination?
This article outlines the mess in New Jersey, where some counties are allowing absentee voters to vote a second time if their first ballot was cast for a candidate who is now out of the race. But most of the state’s counties are not allowing that re-do.
When New Jersey moved its primary forward from June to February, the common conception was that Garden State primary votes might carry more weight early in the 2008 Presidential race.
Now, in some counties, those votes might carry none at all.
A judge in Ocean County ruled Thursday that voters who cast absentee ballots for candidates who have since withdrawn from the 2008 presidential race can get replacement absentee ballots before Tuesday’s primary.
But the ruling only applies specifically to Ocean County, and the decision for the rest of the ballots is up to the clerks of the other 20 counties in New Jersey.
The pollsters will tell us how previous Edwards and Giuliani supporters voted at the precincts today, but we’ll never know how things might have been different if the absentee voters had been able to designate their second Super Tuesday choices.
There also could be quite a few Californians who would like to change their votes on candidates or ballot measures because of what they have seen in late TV ads, last-minute mailers or even newspaper articles. But all things considered, it’s probably best that the absentee votes are locked in. That’s because the mailers that reached your door late last week or Monday are about as trustworthy as a flea-market laptop.
The chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party sent an e-mail reminder that “absentee ballots will save valuable time and money in the final weeks of the campaign and help busy people to remember to cast their ballots.”
Save time? Excuse me. The country asks its citizens to sit up and pay a little attention to politics every four years, rather than choosing a president by the venerable “one potato, two potato” method, and you can’t spare the time to check the headlines for a few more days? If voters can’t get to the polls before or after work, California law requires employers to give them a maximum two hours’ paid time off to vote.
Save money? What’s a stamp cost now, 41 cents? As for remembering, with political news wallpapering the world, who can forget that there’s an election on?
A call from my mother this morning prompted me to ask this question.
First, she wanted to know if I’d voted yet. I said no - I’m in Ohio - our primary isn’t until March 4.
Then she told me that she and my father had long ago cast their Connecticut absentee ballots - for John Edwards.
Then she told me that she’d heard that California was in receipt of at least 2 million absentee ballots already and that, given it’s California, very likely, many of those are for John Edwards.
So - now what?
We make such a big deal - rightly so I believe - that every vote should count.
We make such a big deal - rightly so I believe - that too few people and often only the hardest of hardcore wonks and voters in any political party vote in primaries.
We make such a big deal - rightly so I believe - about the insecurities in our voting system that we’ve encouraged record numbers of people to vote absentee.
And then, John Edwards (and Rudy, Fred, Dennis, Bill Richardson - did I miss anyone?) drops out. Before Super Tuesday. But after millions of people have cast absentee ballots. Many of which will be for him.
So - now what? Any good suggestions? Other than being upset, angry, not surprised or otherwise shrugging it off?
The field has narrowed a bit since the last time I posted on the presidential candidates’ reading choices (back in May, when they were asked to name the most recent fiction book they’d read). This week, Katie Couric asked the candidates “If you were elected president, what is the one book other than the Bible you would think is essential to have along?” (In fact I should note that the field has even narrowed since she asked the question: Giuliani and Edwards are included).
The video and text of the candidates’ responses are here, but they’re worth examining a bit.
John McCain, perhaps in a continued attempt to prove his knowledge of economics, selected Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. A standard text in the field, but perhaps just slightly dated in some senses.
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney took the political biographies route, choosing Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals and David McCullough’s John Adams respectively. Obama said of his choice “[Goodwin] talks about Lincoln’s capacity to bring opponents of his and people who have run against him in his cabinet. And he was confident enough to be willing to have these dissenting voices and confident enough to listen to the American people and push them outside of their comfort zone. And I think that part of what I want to do as president is push Americans a little bit outside of their comfort zone. It’s a remarkable study in leadership.” An excellent choice and well-considered rationale.
Romney said that McCullough’s book “connected with me in an unusual way - because of [John Adams’] relationship with Abigail - their closeness, and the extensive letter-writing. You saw something about his heart and character: A truly great leader who made a difference for America. And his example is one I’d want to follow.” It is a wonderful book, but I’m not sure Romney would want to run on Adams’ presidential record, which is (mostly undeservedly) not particularly well regarded.
Giuliani and Clinton both took the smooth path, choosing The Federalist Papers (Clinton prefaced her choice by saying “I would certainly bring my copy of the Constitution because there was apparently not a copy in the Bush White House to the best Read the rest of this entry »
Chris Cillizza’s ‘The Fix’ Blog at the Washington Post has moved on to considering the most-likely vice-presidential candidates with: The Line on Running Mates
As Super Tuesday draws ever closer, the fields for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations have narrowed significantly. [snip] With such a narrow field, it seems pointless to continue the presidential Line. [snip] Although neither party has settled on a nominee just yet, the speculation about who will be No. 2 on the ticket has already begun in earnest.
If John McCain is the Republican presidential nominee, ‘The Fix’ proposes former Gov. Mike Huckabee, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN), Gov. Mark Sanford (SC) or Sen. John Thune (SD) as his running mate.
If Mitt Romney is the Republican presidential nominee, ‘The Fix’ proposes Gov. Don Carcieri (RI), Gov. Mark Sanford (SC) or former Sen. Jim Talent (MO) as his running mate.
If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic presidential nominee, ‘The Fix’ proposes former Gov. and current Sen. Evan Bayh (IN), former Sen. John Edwards, Gov. Bill Richardson (NM), Gov. Ted Strickland (OH) or former Gov. Tom Vilsack (IA) as her running mate.
If Barack Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee, ‘The Fix’ proposes former Sen. Tom Daschle (SD), former Sen. John Edwards, Gov. Tim Kaine (VA), Sen. Claire McCaskill (MO) or Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (KS) as his running mate.
January 31st, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Get ready. Ready or not here he (likely) comes.
Get ready to hear him talk about how there really isn’t any difference between the two parties — a claim that perhaps was slightly off base in 2000, when some voters were convinced by it but later discovered after they cast their votes that there were some teenie-weenie changes in policy when the Bush administration came to power.
On the other hand, what do such things as major shifts in the Supreme Court, environmental policy and enforcement and the debut of pre-emeptive war matter? Both parties take money from corporations — so they’re therefore the same.
It’s that time again: just as wintertime means it’s gonna be flu season, it’s a Presidential election year — which means Ralph Nader is gonna be talking about running for President again.
And given his past statements about Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton, the statements should not be taken as Nader just thinking out loud:CBS News said he’s taken the first step to once again siphon off votes get ready to run.
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, whose very name can rile up Democrats still stinging from Al Gore’s narrow loss in the 2000 election, is flirting with what would be his third major run for the presidency. News reports indicate he’s filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission and he’s also launched a new Web site, NaderExplore08.org.
The site’s launch comes on the same day as Democrat John Edwards’ exit from the presidential race. Nader had kind words for Edwards previously, praising his progressive stance on a number of issues and his willingness to challenge corporate interests.
Nader’s committee is asking for initial contributions of $300, for which the donor will receive DVDs of Michael Moore’s documentary “Sicko,” a documentary about Nader, “An Unreasonable Man,” along with three books. A posting on the site says the exploratory committee hopes to enlist the support of 1,000 people in each congressional district.
Two heavyweights, John Edwards and Rudy Giuliani, got out of the ring today and left behind different modes of fighting for the presidency and being beaten.
Edwards, who began his campaign in New Orleans a year ago, ended it there and symbolically went to work building a house with Habitat for Humanity. He worked hard on the campaign trail, basing his claim to the nomination on an honorable Democratic tradition of fighting for the poor and dispossessed.
Giuliani, on the other hand, all smiles and guile, tried to ride the 9/11 wave that made him rich all the way to the White House, disdaining the early primaries and expecting to be anointed the Republican candidate with even less exertion than lackadaisical Fred Thompson, who at least showed up for the early contests.
Typically, Giuliani is trading in the fruits of his minimal effort by endorsing John McCain in return for who-knows-what if McCain gets to the White House. Edwards may eventually attempt to convert his delegates and supporters into leverage, but for now is pushing Clinton or Obama toward greater emphasis on the issues he raised.
Their personal stories are a contrast as well. Edwards made a run despite his wife’s cancer and with her spirited support. Giuliani was brought down, in part, by revelations of his misuse of New York Police to run errands for his third wife-to-be while he was still married to his second.
Running for President is a brutal trial. Edwards is being carried out on his shield. Giuliani leaves without a scratch, except to his ego.
January 30th, 2008 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
Horses running a race can be most easily injured in the home stretch.
Why? Because their jockeys can become over-enthused with the thrill of the neck and neck, with the small gains made on the inside curve of the track, losing focus on riding the horse evenhandedly, and instead being swept away in a thrall of jerking speed and imagined glory… aiming too soon for the finish line.
Thus, possibly the greatest threat to each Presidential candidate now, is not the other competing candidates.
My dad who followed the ponies, said Willie Shoemaker, the diminutive 4′11″ thoroughbred jockey who raced and won at Belmont, Preakness and The Kentucky Derby, rode smooth in the homestretch, like the wind over mountains, but not like a tornado…
else even a masterful rider can accidentally cripple his horse in the final moments and scotch his own finish.
Thus one of the greatest threats to the candidates now with the homestretch in sight, is they might in the thrall of the final moments of the race, read their own abilities wrongly; they might falter on the timing to take their butt-high stances in the stirrups, and to fatally abandon their steady lean into the reins, whirling instead and losing focus.
Willie Shoemaker again: “I lost the K. Derby in ‘57 because I stood in the stirrups too soon; I’d misjudged the finish line.”
To judge the finish line in error, and to allow aggression, enthusiasm and the thrill of it all to unwisely influence his or her choices in strategy during the coming days… that ought to be the prime consideration of the candidates.
Too cock-sure, and votes will be lost while the candidate’s benefactors unwisely cheer. Too timid, and votes will be lost while the benefactors cheer, for they do not see the falter, only the love of their candidate.
For a candidate to become lost in his or her own cheering section, or to be snagged by the jeering of those who would try to decimate him or her… either one of these will cause a deadly veering, a loss of judgment and focus in the homestretch.
Every horse has its tolerances for endurance and speed; a race is not won by ‘full speed all the way,’ but by ‘resting speed’ and ‘all out speed,’ in tandem, measured and irregular intervals. Thus now, even small mis-steps in timing or velocity of words and actions can prove disastrous to the candidates.
