In his book, Schecter makes the case for why, although he supported McCain in his run in 2000, McCain no longer deserves support and in fact, his candidacy should be fought actively, without hesitation and on all fronts. Schecter outlines his reasons for these sentiments and fills in those reasons with more details than you may be able to absorb. Schecter draws a portrait of both McCain’s political trajectory and the parallel trajectory of how his political choices since 2001 are a thumbing of his nose at the very people who got him to the presidential precipice in the first place.
A couple of disclosures before I offer you my phone interview with Cliff: I’ve never been a McCain supporter. And I haven’t known of Schecter that long either - here’s the first post I ever wrote about Schecter. However, it was fascinating talking to someone with a seemingly vast knowledge base about someone whom I’ve never really studied.
JMZ: You argue on behalf of former McCain supporters who should be able to realize that McCain isn’t what he once was. Who, then, is the alternative and why?
CS: Well. There’s always, “What we have versus what we’d like to have.” I’m an Obama supporter and he has a lot of appeal to Independents. But he hasn’t done it the way McCain did it – by attacking his own party in big speeches. Obama has done it by standing up, not by splitting. Obama talks about rising above partisanship and reaching out to all people on all sides and getting past the muck where politics has gotten so nasty. Obama says, I’m going to talk to you like an adult. And that’s what McCain had called “straight talk” – but he hasn’t given us much of that [this election cycle.] Read the rest of this entry »
Angela Winters’ earlier post on Barack Obama’s speech this morning has generated some wonderful discussion. I’m enormously grateful for those thoughtful comments, since I’m truly not an economy expert. (I’d describe it as barely literate…)
But there was also a bit of buzz before the speech, centered up on Mayor Bloomberg’s introduction of Obama. Is an endorsement in the offing? Or (even more politically affecting) is there the possibility of an Obama-Bloomberg ticket?
Personally — very personally — I hope not. I wrote about my problem with this Veep suggestion, here.
I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate.
In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House.
February 24th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Onetime iconic consumer advocate Ralph Nader has announced yet another run for the White House — but past-campaign political hubris plus a loss of a big chunk of his previous voting constituency is unlikely to make him a major factor. Even so: his presence in the race threatens to siphon some votes away from the Democratic Party’s 2008 nominee.
Several factors have converted Nader from a onetime-youthful consumer advocate, idolized on college campuses, to what he is today: the modern Harold Stassen whose philosophy, resentment towards both major parties and apparent love of the national political spotlight probably means he’ll run again until his aging legs can’t carry him. The news reports give you some of the story and his prospects — but not all of it.
Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will “shift the power from the few to the many.”
Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt.
“You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected,” he said. “You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts.”
“In that context, I have decided to run for president,” Nader told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Nader also criticized Republican candidate John McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton for failing to support full Medicare for all or cracking down on Pentagon waste and a “bloated military budget. He blamed that on corporate lobbyists and special interests, which he said dominate Washington, D.C., and pledged in his third-party campaign to accept donations only from individuals.
The AP story also noted that Republican former Gov. Mike Huckabee said that GOPers will welcome Nader into the race, since he draws votes away from Democrats.
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader said on Sunday that he is launching another long shot independent campaign for president of the United States.
Nader, who will turn 74 this week, announced his presidential bid on NBC’s “Meet the Press” saying that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are addressing the problems facing Americans.
Nader also ran for president in 2000 when he got about 2.7 percent of the national vote as the Green Party candidate and played a role in deciding the final presidential outcome. He also ran as an independent in 2004 and got only a tiny fraction of the vote.
Many Democrats blame Nader’s participation in the close race between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George Bush in 2000 for tipping the election in favor of Bush. They believe that but for Nader’s name on the ballot in Florida, Gore would have been the clear winner and president today instead of Bush.
Nader called Washington “corporate occupied territory” that turns the government against the interest of its own people.
The days of a third-party candidate claiming a large share of the American vote — such as the nearly 20 percent that H. Ross Perot won in 1992, playing a role that many Republicans will never forget — may be gone.
Yet, with elections contested on the margins in many states — from Iowa to Wisconsin, and from New Hampshire to Florida in recent years — any active third-party candidacy could have an impact on the Electoral College balance.
And already this year, sizable numbers of people have voiced discontent with the leading candidates — discontent manifested in the campaign of Republican Ron Paul, for instance. So the question looms this year: Might Nader play the spoiler once more?
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that current Democratic party primary front-runner Senator Barack Obama professes not to be concerned:
Barack Obama said today during a visit at the Ohio State University Medical Center that he wasn’t terribly concerned about the prospect of a Nader campaign. “I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference.”
An email to supporters from Nader’s presidential exploratory committee ticked off a list of issues that have been “pulled off the table by the corporatized political machines in this momentous election year,” including defense budget cuts, opposition to nuclear power, and a single-payer national health insurance system.
Obama responded to criticism from Nader, who has suggested that the Democratic hopeful lacks substance, by noting that Nader has reached out to his campaign. “My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies thinks you’re not substantive,” Obama said, before praising Nader as a “heroic” and “singular figure in American politics.
So that gives a clue how Obama — if he wins the Democratic spot — will deal with Nader, respectfully but assertively. It sounds as if Obama won’t ignore the Nader challenge but won’t kowtow to it.
In realistic political terms, three party bids have been losing propositions in American politics because of our winner-take-all system. Third parties have (a) influenced the future policies of a major party, (b) didn’t have much of an impact, or in some close races (c) siphoned votes away from a major political party, often giving victory in some cases giving victory to the party the siphoning party’s voters agreed with the LEAST.
Even though his followers and third party advocates hate to hear it, there is virtually no chance Nader can win. And his influence on the American electoral scene has waned from the days when he was an iconic young crusading lawyer taking on the car manufacturing corporations in his landmark book Unsafe At Any Speed.
I was then a student from Connecticut — his home state. Nader would be often be on the radio, on TV talk shows — he was the epitome of the serious, incorruptible, idealistic young crusader with his devoted “Nader’s Raiders” followers all over the country.
What has happened to him since is sad because he became overexposed politically and weighted-down with hubris — so the most he will gain in 2008 would indeed be siphoning-off Democratic votes if it’s a razor-thin-victory-margin election. He is not an up and coming force — or even as respected as he once was — any longer.
What’s the ground look like in California right now for the primary candidates? For one thing, it’s a pretty blue state, even if we’re talking about Michael Bloomberg. From the California Progress Report:
In a dizzying week of polls on all subjects near and dear to our state’s voters, today’s offering from the California Field Poll showing that only one in four California registered voters would even consider voting for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg if he were to run for President sends a clear message.
62% of the voters in the largest state in the nation, according to Field, say they “would definitely not support him.” [Emphasis added] This includes 68% of Democrats and 66% of Republicans and even a slight plurality of “non-partisan/others) would not countenance the thought.
…
When asked if a Bloomberg independent candidacy would be a good thing or bad thing, California’s registered voters are perhaps a bit more charitable, but Read the rest of this entry »
January 15th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Democratic Senator New York Hillary Clinton has pulled way ahead of Barack Obama in national polling in the 2008 Democratic nomination race amid a “dramatic shift” of black voters towards Obama — and Clinton likely won her surprise in New Hampshire by her organization getting massive numbers of “old line” Democrats out to vote on voting day, Gallup Polls’ editor-in-chief said in a bloggers conference call today.
Meanwhile, Gallup Editor in Chief Frank Newport said in the telephone interview, polling shows the national atmosphere now is less hospitable for a third party run by someone such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg than it was for Ross Perot in 1992.
And on the subject of “change?” According to Newport, new polling shows people don’t want a systemic change in Washington but by “change” mean “solve our problems. Fix the Iraq war. Fix health care. Fix immigration.”
His key points:
(1) There was a massive actual turnout in New Hampshire with 70,000 additional voters going to the polls and Clinton apparently won the ground war. Gallup’s polling, which did not go all the way up to election eve, showed Obama’s voters fired up. Obama was ahead among likely voters. But more voters showed up at the polls, and it is believed that the Clinton camp got old-line Democrats who might not have been as fired-up about Clinton — but they got them to the polls.
Gallup is now re-interviewing all of the people interviewed to find out who they actually voted for and why.
Newport believes “real world events” such as the Saturday before the vote debate in which Clinton was pounced on by Obama and former Senator John Edwards and gave a tough response to questions, plus her famous crying video, likely played a key role.
(2) Present polling suggests this isn’t the best year for Bloomberg to run, since it shows voters are generally pleased with the menu of candidates from both parties. “It is not propitious for Bloomberg, really, as much as it was for Perot in 1992, he said.”
(3) Interest in this election is MUCH higher than normal. “There is a very strong level of interest. Eight percent of Americans could say without printing — no hints — that they knew Obama had won the Iowa primary. That is an extraordinary high level of knowledge,” he said.
(4) There has been a “dramatic shift” in black voters away from Clinton to Obama.
(5) In the New Hampshire polling, he said, Gallup didn’t poll up until election eve. Gallup may have to poll up to primary eve in the future because New Hampshire showed that. if there is a high turnout, it could greatly impact polls that were completed a day or a few days before.
(6) Voters ARE influenced by the results of the state primaries and caucuses. “If candidate wins, some of them will say ‘Oh, then maybe I’ll change my allegiance.”
(7) Gallup polling right now shows about a 14 percent advantage nationally for Clinton over Obama — a sudden change. After Iowa, Obama had surged in the polls — but trending has suddenly shifted again Clinton’s way.
TMV Editor’s Note: Part of this post had been up earlier, unfinished and not totally corrected and then there was a major technical glitch on TMV which could be seen in a massive design problem. Due to that glitch, this post was up on the site uncorrected for nearly 30 minutes. We regret the inconvenience to readers.
Former OK senator David Boren was on NPR yesterday (audio here) to talk about Monday’s tripartisan conference in Tulsa, where various former and current centrist officeholders will discuss the potential for a “government of national unity.”
December 30th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
It now appears as if the public, the media and the political establishment are being prepared for an announcement that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will launch an independent run for President.
Yesterday we ran THIS POST which noted Bloomberg’s upcoming meeting with Unity 08, a high-powered bipartisan group that is on the brink of finding a candidate to back — and to buck two parties increasingly mired in partisanship, polarization and seemingly lacking a desire to truly aggregate national political interests.
That’s ONE media leak type story.
And now here’s ANOTHER via the New York Times — which means the word is being slowly eased out. Some of it repeats what we had in our other post. But here’s the key info that this writer has now heard verbally from two other analysts as well:
Next week’s meeting, reported on Sunday in The Washington Post, comes as the mayor’s advisers have been quietly canvassing potential campaign consultants about their availability in the coming months.
And Mr. Bloomberg himself has become more candid in conversations with friends and associates about his interest in running, according to participants in those conversations. Despite public denials, the mayor has privately suggested several scenarios in which he might be a viable candidate: for instance, if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart, like Mike Huckabee, a Republican, versus Barack Obama or John Edwards as the Democratic nominee.
A final decision by Mr. Bloomberg about whether to run is unlikely before February. Still, he and his closest advisers are positioning themselves so that if the mayor declares his candidacy, a turnkey campaign infrastructure will virtually be in place.
Bloomberg aides have studied the process for launching independent campaigns, which formally begins March 5, when third-party candidates can begin circulating nominating petitions in Texas. If Democrats and Republicans have settled on their presumptive nominees at that point, Mr. Bloomberg will have to decide whether he believes those candidates are vulnerable to a challenge from a pragmatic, progressive centrist, which is how he would promote himself.
Some other details we have read about or were told about privately are in here as well:
Mr. Bloomberg, who has tried to seize a national platform on gun control, the environment and other issues, has been regularly briefed in recent months on foreign policy by, among others, Henry A. Kissinger, his friend and the former secretary of state, and Nancy Soderberg, an ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration.
These aren’t usually the kinds of briefings municipal mayors seek (unless they write weblogs).
Advisers have said Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire many times over, might invest as much as $1 billion of his own fortune (he spent about $160 million on his two mayoral races) on a presidential campaign.
But they warned that while they were confident of getting on the ballot in every state, the process was complicated and fraught with legal challenges, and that Mr. Bloomberg would begin with an organizational disadvantage, competing against rivals who have been campaigning full time for years.
Another tidbit in the Times piece that echoes what has been written and said before is that Bloomberg does NOT want to be seen as “a rich Ralph Nader” — someone who is in the race but doesn’t really have a chance to win, although he could influence the debates and take votes away from someone else as a “spoiler.”
One person close to the mayor, who requested anonymity so as not to be seen discussing internal strategy, stressed that Mr. Bloomberg would run only if he believed he could win.
“He’s not going to do it to influence the debate,” the person said.
Meanwhile, former Republican Presidential candidate Steve Forbes fully expects Bloomberg to run. USA Today’s On Politics blog:
“I think it would be highly unlikely that he wouldn’t run,” former Republican presidential candidate and media magnate Steve Forbes said today of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Forbes, who’s supporting the presidential bid of Republican (and former New York mayor) Rudy Giuliani, said on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer that he’s convinced that Bloomberg will mount an independent run for the White House.
“I’ve thought, for a long time, he’s itching to do it,” Forbes said, according to a transcript sent to us by CNN. “He may have blown hot and cold on it, short-term. But he’s itching to do it. And so he can wait. He’s got the resources to wait until after February 5th, see who the two party nominees are.
“But unless something extraordinary happens, I expect him in the race.”
And who knows?
The American political process — if you include the way campaigns are run, negative campaigning, the tone of talk radio and some aspects of the blogosphere — may have disgusted enough people so that a candidate who doesn’t have the same predictable reactions, whose utterances don’t elicited the all-knowing smug wink and nod from those TV analyst talking heads and isn’t out of a politico cookie-cutter could have REAL appeal.
It looked like it could happen for Ross Perot in 1992, until he withdrew and jabbered about Republican operatives planning to disrupt his daughter’s wedding. By the time time Perot got in again, he had irretrievably lost Big Mo.
If Bloomberg does get in, many Americans open to a new option will be holding their breath — hoping he doesn’t have an engaged daughter.
December 29th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Hold your political calculations. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is going to meet with the bipartisan group Unity and there’s a possibility that they could join forces in a third party bid.
There have been stories plus speculation in informed political circles that Bloomberg could still jump into the race — and now the Washington Post’s David Broder reports this:
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a “government of national unity” to end the gridlock in Washington.
Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to “go beyond tokenism” in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.
Of course, miracles do sometimes happen in politics. And it is not entirely unlikely that one of the two major political party candidates will would want to try and short-circuit a potentially vote-siphoning third party bid involving (a) a group of highly dedicated, high-profile bipartisan politicians, officials and young activists (b) a billionaire businessman-mayor who has made it clear that he could wind up spending a record-breaking amount of his own considerable bankroll on winning the White House if he does decide to jump in.
But both political parties and many of their partisans now are deeply-locked into polarization patterns (which motivate activists to gather and work for candidates and get the party faithful to vote). So it’s likely that if Unity wants to put up a slate and Bloomberg feels its winnable and wants to jump in, 2008 could see a well-funded, high-profile third party bid.
Those attending the upcoming meeting are impressive, indeed:
Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.
Boren, who will host the meeting at the university, where he is president, said: “It is not a gathering to urge any one person to run for president or to say there necessarily ought to be an independent option. But if we don’t see a refocusing of the campaign on a bipartisan approach, I would feel I would want to encourage an independent candidacy.”
Fair enough. But if Bloomberg decides to jump in and if they survey the other possibilities, it’s hard to see how he won’t be at the top of the list. Additionally, Bloomberg’s big bucks can buy him boatloads of advertising and TV time but if he decided to run and worked with Unity he’d ALSO have an already-in-place core of dedicated, experienced politicians and volunteers enthusiastically out there working the campaign.
All of this does mean that in this bronco ride of an election year, the wild cards we’ve seen (the rise of Huckabee, the Clinton campaign problems, the murder in Pakistan) are most assuredly going to be joined by a few more. And all analyses that state what’s “likely” to happen in a race involving two candidates could be seriously flawed.
Because if Unity launches, there will be an electoral impact — and if it joins forces with a Mayor who has proven to be a skilled politico and has deep pockets it will be an election with a huge deck of wild cards.
December 28th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Here’s a special original 2008 presidential campaign poetic commentary by TMV’s favorite poet, Michael Silverstein, aka Wall Street Poet.
A growing number of election races are “self-financed” — a euphemism for rich folks buying public office. At the national level Ross Perot did it a few years back, Mitt Romney is doing it today, Mike Bloomberg may opt to do it next year. Here, I not only describe this phenomenon in verse, I give it a name.
Naming The New Politics
In days of yore the rich would seek a needy candidate,
And legally (though quietly) his campaign chest inflate.
Both giver and receiver liked the tradeoff here just fine,
One got himself more access, one could buy more TV time.
But these days folks with money have devised a better plan;
It’s a lot more cost effective, it shuts out the middleman.
Instead of buying influence with others they select,
They run themselves for office and buy public posts direct.
The process here is simple, a no-strainer to relay;
First you hire a consultant to spruce up your resume;
Then greenery you sprinkle among local party hacks,
And one way to dole out more’s created via campaign PACs.
If on the stump it’s clear you’re not a public speaking giant,
A coach can make you sound a lot like William Jennings Bryant;
On bread and butter issues if you’re prone to spouting gapers,
A seasoned campaign flack will write you great position papers.
In the end, of course, it all comes down to making TV buys;
When you spend enough on media, your numbers always rise.
Perfect family, hard hat workers, ethnic types, a waving flag,
Are the content of your message, which gets shown till viewers gag.
While talking heads may hold their nose at such crude repetition,
It’s the perfect way (just ask the pros) to beat the competition.
In mayors’ contests coast to coast, in House and Senate races,
Rich nobodies who buy the tube end up with smiling faces.
So a moneyed power seeker need no longer use a beard,
He can buy an office outright and no one now thinks its weird.
Though perhaps the deeper meanings here require research thorough,
For me a simple term describes it: “New Age: rotten borough.
Copyright 2007 Michael Silverstein
EDITOR’s NOTE: This was supposed to be on the site this morning and actually showed up as being published. But it was NOT on the site. So we are running it now on top of TMV.
December 19th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
The political poll see-saw in this topsy turvy election year continues — this time with the latest poll out of New Hampshire. — which is good news for New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
The big news dominating media (and blog) coverage has been from Iowa, where the latest in a series of see-saw polls has former Senator John Edwards ahead on the Democratic side, and Governor Mike Huckabee surging (to the horror of the GOP establishment) on the GOP side. And in New Hampshire? Iowa schmiowa:
Hillary Clinton appears to have recaptured the lead among Democratic candidates in New Hampshire, according to results of a new CNN/WMUR poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire.
Clinton was virtually tied with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in last week’s New Hampshire poll, along with several other recent surveys.
But in the Wednesday poll, the New York senator now has a 12-point lead over Obama — 38 percent to 26 percent.
What could be going on?
Despite political analysis that make sense and polls that have shown her in trouble, could Ms. Clinton have turned a corner and started to convince Demmies that she is their best shot at regaining the White House? Or is it a manifestation of the Clinton camp’s organizational prowess which can even be seen in Iowa in the Senator’s smart selection of a coordinator?
If Edwards does win in Iowa, will Big Mo propel him to do better in New Hampshire? Or will — given how down in this most recent New Hampshire poll Edwards is — will Big Mo prove to be Big Schmoe?
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards is in third place with 14 percent, with the remaining Democratic hopefuls in single digits, according to the poll.
Clinton gained some 7 percentage points over last week’s poll, with Obama losing 4 percentage points.
This suggests what some other news articles have suggested: Obama may have “peaked.” If so, has he peaked too soon?
Nearly all of Clinton’s gains come among older voters. She also is ranked higher than Obama on every issue tested, with health care and the economy her strongest suits,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
On the Republican side, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is in first place for the Granite State’s GOP voters, with 34 percent. Arizona Sen. John McCain has 22 percent, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has 16 percent. Since last week’s poll, McCain has gained 3 percentage points and Giuliani has slipped the same amount.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is in fourth place with 10 percent. The remaining Republican candidates are in single digits.
What does this suggest?
It suggests that if Iowa plays out the way polls are showing you could have one set of winners there and one set of winners in New Hampshire….in both parties. And the races will be more unsettled than ever.
The guy to watch: News stories have noted that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg — the latest politico to do a Hamlet/Mario Cuomo/Fred Thompson imitation and rule out running but not really rule it out — had said that he would not run unless certain conditions were ripe for him to run. If the races look unsettled or there are high negatives among the likely nominees, it would not be surprising to hear that Bloomberg is going to enter the race. News stories are already surfacing suggesting that he’s already thinking about it and even taking the first steps to assemble a team.
December 14th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
As you look at the political landscape, you now see a big question mark: so what will happen NEXT?
At a seemingly-breakneck pace, Campaign 2008 is shaping up as a campaign of surprises that quickly make the conventional wisdom outdated.
Who would have ever thought that New York Senator Hillary Clinton’s once seamless and seemingly unstoppable campaign would suddenly need a professional seamstress (or two)?
Who would have ever thought that Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee would be the guy who came from behind in the GOP as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s polls slowly decline and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (who should be a Republican dream candidate) is hamstrung by anti-Mormon sentiment within the GOP?
And brace yourself because some new developments suggest some more surprises could be down the pike. To wit:
Up until now, Edwards’ 2008 role seemed to be shaping up as the “also ran” — a perpetual second tier candidate who looks great on paper, is photogenic but failed to live up to expectations in 2004 (particularly in his debate with GOPer Dick Cheney). Perhaps he is now scoring because he has had years to fine-tune his pitch. Or, perhaps he is coming across as simply more passionate than the two perceived Democratic front-runners New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Or perhaps it’s because, as the L.A. Time’s blog notes, Edwards is making it clear where he stands and not hedging on his key campaign theme:
John Edwards no doubt benefited in today’s debate from being next to last among the six Democratic presidential candidates present in answering what, if elected, he would aim to accomplish in year one. Still, when he got his chance, the son of a mill worker used it to drive home the unvarnished populism that has defined his second White House run.
…..Of late, he’s been delivering that class manifesto with less anger than previously. But win or lose, Edwards cannot be accused of mincing his words. And somewhere, the ghost of William Jennings Bryan must be smiling.
MSNBC, focusing on Edwards’ unswerving adherence to his theme, counted the number of times he mentioned the word “corporate” (as in, “corporate power” or “corporate greed”). The result: 13
But could he prove a bigger player in the vote than many now think? And, if so, does he have a chance of winning some big ones? If not, who would he hurt more when voters vote for him rather than Clinton or Obama?
What seems clear is that while Clinton and Obama work to knock each other out and not lose existing support, Edwards is constantly hammering home his campaign theme. Is it too late to make a difference? In the end Edwards may not get the nomination — but one Republican strategist says Edwards is the candidate that he would fear the most.
#2 There’s yet ANOTHER REPORT that says New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is seriously considering jumping into the Presidential race.The Wall Street Journal reports that Bloomberg’s buds say he’s still considering running despite all the denials — and that developments make it more likely that he will run.
At this point, journalists should have two “evergreen” stories to save and run: Bloomberg is running and Bloomberg isn’t running. And if he does want to run, is he falling into the same trap of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and actor and former Senator Fred Thompson, whose Hamlet imitations went on so long they missed the call of political history — and lost their big moment?
Some pooh-pooh the idea of a Bloomberg run as having little impact…but if he runs he will get lots of initial media attention (sucking up the media air that other candidates need) and will have to take votes away from someone.
Meanwhile, there is the ultimate wild card: external events. Something unforeseen by commentators, politicos and policy makers could happen that changes the political dynamics or the issues confronting the country.
Stay tuned. This could be a year when you not only need to buckle your seat belt, but you need to make sure you have an air bag ready…
November 25th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Actor and former Senator Fred Thompson’s candidacy has always been one of the most interesting in the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination sweepstakes. You can’t quite say he was drafted but there was a virtual clamor by some to get him in the race.
After all, he was the perfect anti-Giuliani, the anti-Romney, the anti-McCain and reminded many in his plainspoken manner, with his ability to communicate and his acting background of a former actor and California Governor who made a mockery of the conventional wisdom (even on the fate of the Cold War) all through his career. He was to have been the real conservative amid a field of perceived conservative pretenders.
So Thompson had his moment in history where he was literally called into the political realm.
Now the question is: did he wait too long? And did he miss his moment in history? Time Magazine says the answer is most likely YES.
Fred Thompson is finally getting the hang of running for president. In the last few weeks, the former actor and senator from Tennessee has sharpened his message, picked up the pace of his campaign, leveled some clean shots at his opponents, cut two effective television ads, received one very big endorsement and issued some of the most substantial policy proposals of any of the Republican contenders.
But it may be too late.
The rationale behind Thompson’s candidacy was simple, and sound: in a G.O.P. primary that glaringly lacked a conservative who was both true and viable, Thompson would enter late and immediately be embraced by all those Republicans who had been unhappy with their options. Then he would roll to the nomination.
Yet, as Time notes, it hasn’t quite worked out that way and it’s due to timing — someone missing, perhaps by just a beat, their elusive moment in history:
It hasn’t turned out as planned, primarily, say Republicans both inside and outside the Thompson operation, because he waited too long to get in the race — and then, once he did get in, ambled through his first month as an official candidate as if his heart wasn’t in it. The result: in national polls that once had Thompson running even or better with front-runner Rudy Giuliani, Thompson now trails by double-digits. More troubling for Thompson is the emergence of Mike Huckabee, the former Baptist minister and Arkansas governor who is now statistically tied for first with Mitt Romney in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll of likely Iowa GOP caucus voters. Huckabee’s sudden surge of support among conservatives threatens to shred the rationale behind Thompson’s candidacy.
November 23rd, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
The ever-debate-sparking Andrew Sullivan frames the (for now) likely 2008 Presidential tickets as a choice between “Fear And Loathing” and says this:
Lying awake the other early morning, I found the twin images of Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton coming into my mind. Maybe it was the Ambien, but inevitably the choice between those two haunts the fevered brow in the dead of night. I realized that beyond the policy arguments, my psyche sees the decision between the two of them as the choice, baldly put, between fear and loathing. I loathe Clinton; I fear Giuliani. Which emotion surges most? Clinton could still pull it out as my least favorite, but right now, my fear of Giuliani is outweighing my loathing of Clinton. David Brooks reminds me today how that didn’t use to be the case. I always admired Giuliani, marveled at what he did with New York City, liked his social liberalism, admired his way with bureaucracies, enjoyed his knockabout style. Any pol who’s happy to put a dress on for a bit of fun is fine by me.
But then he writes about his sinking feelings about the campaign 2007 Rudy Giuliani, and news stories involving him. And, he writes, the choice of Hillary Clinton seems a better one to him.
Read the entire post.
And, indeed:
On Thanksgiving Day this independent voter (who has been in both parties and been both a conservative and liberal in his voting lifetime) talked to a relative who favors former Governor Mitt Romney for President. And I found myself saying something unexpected: “I’ve always liked Rudy Giuliani. I liked him before 911 and on 911. But I’ve found some of the way he’s campaigning by in effect suggesting ‘Vote for me if you don’t want the terrorists to kill you because the Democrats can’t protect you..’ troubling and alarming and the news stories about his loyalty to dubious people are turning me off.”
If you use Sullivan’s scenario about a Clinton-Giuliani face-off (even though this could not really be what voters are offered) you could offer this thumbnail, quick sketch of the two candidates:
CLINTON is not inevitable. She’s getting better on TV but still seems programmed. Still, she comes across as highly-intelligent and capable. And she is indeed now afflicted with Frontrunner’s Syndrome where the press that spent lots of time doing stories about her rise now shifts to a new narrative looking for signs of her impending fall or falls (she is in the media Danger Zone). You get the sense that, if she gets the Democratic nomination, it will be a down to the wire (again) vote after one of the most brutal Presidential campaigns in American history. And you increasingly sense that if she’s in office her biggest problem will be to serve four years while somehow defusing a partisan polarization explosion that could mean her 2008 election benefits Republicans in 2010 or even 2012. She is trying to keep her party’s base and the center in the unfolding primary campaign. The continued existence of the periodically-raised “dynasty issue” suggests the press and pundits aren’t yet convinced that she is where she is had she had not been married to who she is married to.
GIULIANI is the best overall politician in the GOP race. He has diffused some of the opposition to him, “adjusted” positions in ways where he suffered minimum political consequences, and done what Arizona Senator John McCain could not — win over some elements of the GOP that considered him anathema before he started to run. But the tone of his campaign (defining Democrats as soft on terror and risks to the nation’’s security), loyalty to some associates who’ve gotten in trouble with the law, and some comments suggesting he would continue or even expand the muscular use of executive branch power increasingly suggest he could well be a President who emerges as a cross between George W. Bush and Richard Nixon. Giuliani is not reassuring if you’re concerned about strong checks-and-balances and separation-of-powers. He is mostly trying to woo his party’s conservative base in the primary campaign. He comes across as an intelligent policy-maker who will do anything he has to do implement his chosen policy and achieve his goals — and that is part of the problem.
Sullivan nails it. Re-read his post again.
P.S.: But in the end it won’t matter a fig to voters whether Ms. C is polarizing or Mr. G is like Nixon or whatever. Whoever runs the best-organized, most-aggressive campaign will win. And whichever party loses a chunk of its constituency on voting day due to anger over their party’s nominee will lose.
But then…what if Ralph Nader jumps in as a third party candidate? And what if New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg jumps in?
So it’s still early and there could still be some consequential twists…but some impressions are starting to harden about some of the candidates, their pluses — and their risks.
November 8th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
A new polls shows a tie between Democratic New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani if a presidential election was held today — and indicates trouble down the political pike for Clinton that her handlers…and her party…will have to anticipate and counter if she is to be elected.
The poll shows Americans have decided turned away from President George Bush, who is now on the way to becoming one of the most unpopular Presidents ever — more unpopular that Richard Nixon. But it also shows reservations against Clinton so ingrained that the Republicans now have more openings than Starbucks Coffee has shops:
Democrats enter the 2008 presidential race with powerful political advantages, but face a tough and unpredictable battle because of the vulnerabilities of front-runner Hillary Clinton.
A new Wall Street Journal-NBC poll shows that Americans have turned sharply away from President Bush and toward domestic issues favoring his partisan adversaries. But offsetting that demand for change in the presidential contest are reservations about Clinton’s truthfulness and ideology, even as Americans applaud her experience and leadership qualities. The result: She’s locked in a dead heat against leading Republican candidate Rudolph Giuliani.
The fact that the Democrats now face a toss-up at a time when Bush and the Republicans otherwise seem on the political ropes on several fronts isn’t good (or reassuring) news for Democrats. Any lead X candidate usually has at the start of a Presidential campaign is greatly tested and can dissipate once the campaign unfolds. If her campaign starts at a dead heat and has an underlying weakness, that weakness could be accentuated during a general campaign.
This means that if Clinton is indeed the candidate, the Democrats (and the Clinton campaign) will have their work cut out for them to overcome Clinton’s negatives…and try to bring up Giuliani’s.
The key question: as the Republicans inevitably try to do the same thing to the former first lady, have her negatives “bottomed out” since so many are rooted in past controversies and perceptions, or is she indeed as her Democratic Party critics suggest the easiest candidate for Republicans to beat? MORE:
By 50% to 35%, the poll shows, Americans prefer that a Democrat gets elected to succeed Bush next November. In a direct matchup of leading candidates, however, that margin shrinks to 46% for Clinton and 45% for Giuliani.
That’s a HUGE impact for a candidate’s negative to have on an election.
The survey, conducted among an unusually large sample of 1,509 adults with an error margin of 2.5 percentage points, shows a remarkable divergence in assessments of Clinton’s personal qualities. While a 51% majority gives her high marks for being “knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency,†pluralities rate Clinton negatively on honesty, likeability, and sharing their positions on of the issues.
The poll shows Giuliani now the favorite of 33 percent of the Republicans and in the lead. It also shows former Senator and actor Fred Thompson’s campaign fizzling faster than a glass of Alka-Seltzer — going from 23 percent to 15 percent.
Another factor to keep in mind is the independent non-candidacy of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Some months ago there was a flurry of speculation about him running as an independent but he pooh-poohed the idea. Stories later came out saying he wouldn’t run unless his advisers told him a) there were huge negatives for the top candidates of the two main parties and b) he had a chance of winning, not just being a spoiler or making a political statement.
More than eight in 10 Republicans and more than half the married men in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say they definitely wouldn’t vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton for president.Read the rest of this entry »
October 7th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
It sounds as if the Bloomberg for President bandwagon boomlet, which was all the rage among the political talking heads, writing-with-authority newspaper columnists and ever excited bloggers has now fizzled — even though New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his aides continue to give signs that he could jump in at the last minute.
The reasons for the apparent fizzle: an apparent conclusion by Bloomberg — ever the cooly-assessing businessman — that a run would not be cost-effective in terms of the probability of his election plus some other factors such as a messysex discrimination lawsuit against his company. The New York Times:
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s defection from the Republican Party in June seemed to confirm what many people had long suspected: that despite his protestations to the contrary, the mayor was serious about running for president and was taking steps to mount an independent bid.
But now, despite an elaborate effort to transform Mr. Bloomberg into a global political brand, that excitement seems to have fizzled, as he has publicly retreated from the idea and an opening in the field of candidates has not materialized. Associates say that although Mr. Bloomberg has not completely closed the door on making a run, he seems unlikely to join the race, and is not interested in ensuring someone else’s victory or simply making a point.
“The orchestration of the rumor of the prospect of his running for president and the platform that has given him would overwhelm P. T. Barnum,†said Robert Zimmerman, a public relations executive who is one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fund-raisers. “At the end of the day I don’t think Mike Bloomberg wants his legacy to be that he was a spoiler.â€
After all, why have two “spoilers”? There are already rumblings that third party perennial candidate Ralph Nader — whose campaign in 2004 took money from Republicans who hoped to siphon votes away from Democrats — is thinking about running once again. (In case you forgot, Nader ran- in 2000 telling voters that it would really make no difference if Democrat Al Gore or Republican George Bush was elected since both parties were basically the same).
The Times correctly notes that Bloomberg’s candidacy would be a long-shot due to his unique political style and the way the American political system is set up with the electoral college:
Part of his appeal to New Yorkers — that he is unfettered by the usual political allegiances and is willing to speak his mind — could also create trouble for him in a national campaign. An opponent could seize upon the kind of remark Mr. Bloomberg made recently at Cooper Union in Manhattan in an interview with Tom Brokaw, comparing the United States in Iraq to the British during the Revolutionary War to paint him as far left, or unpatriotic.
There are other challenges, including a federal sexual discrimination lawsuit filed recently against his company, Bloomberg L.P.
“This latest legal brouhaha wouldn’t enhance his prospects,†said Douglas A. Muzzio, a professor at the Baruch College School of Public Affairs.
Still, according to the Times, Bloomberg and his aides are acting as if they are getting ready to get the pieces in place to enter the race, if he should decide to do so. At recent appearances he sounds as if he is a candidate. But he may simply be morphing into another version of the 2007 Al Gore or 2007 Newt Gingrich: someone who makes a big media splash “flirting” with running but who really won’t in the end.
One notable quote in the Times piece:
And Mr. Bloomberg has told associates that he studied the 1992 presidential campaign of Ross Perot to see how much a bid in 2008 would cost.
Mr. Perot drew 19 percent of the vote as an independent, and no electoral votes.
“Polls are showing that people are dissatisfied with the two parties,†Professor Muzzio said, “but are they willing to overthrow their party affiliation for an independent candidate?â€
If Bloomberg is looking at the history of Perot and that moment in political time, he won’t jump in. Perot ran at a time when it was clear an overwhelming number of Americans were highly-dissatisfied over their choices in the election. Perot started running and polls showed he might actually have a chance to squeak in, but when he pulled out, his campaign deflated and never regained its previous footing when he decided to re-enter the fray. Perot is literally someone who was handed a moment in history — and lost it.
So far in the 2008 race rumblings about the need for a third party are coming from the religious right, which threatens to run a third-party candidate if former Mayor Rudy Giuliani gets the nomination. Democrats don’t seem to hate any of their candidates, although each faction of the Democratic Party has its favorites.
If Bloomberg wanted to run, he’d probably have to do so early in the race — and so far there are no indications that will happen. So, if you had to place money on it, it appears as if a) he won’t run and b) if he does, his chances of winning will be as likely as Ross Perot’s…after Perot pulled out of the race and got back in when it was too late and the damage to his image was done.
August 17th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Is it through reforms passed by Congress? Or is that naive? Is that the equivalent of having Sylvester the cat babysit Tweety bird?
Is the best way via reforming politics by changing campaign rules WITHOUT Congress getting involved?
Walking Think Tank’s idea is the latter. The post is a MUST READ (even for those who already don’t like the idea) but we won’t quote much of it here because it would take everything too much out of context.
So here’s the beginning and the ending of this intriguing, thoughtful post:
Al Gore, Mike Bloomberg and Newt Gingrich may come from different parts of the political spectrum, but their potential candidacies all share a common rationale: our political system is failing to address the enormous challenges we face as a nation.
Gore has fended off calls to run for president by describing himself as a “recovering politician,†but that’s exactly why he should run – as a public service to help our political process recover and elevate our democracy.
Any one of the three men that decides to run has a rare opportunity – win or lose – to begin to redefine public service, reinvigorate our democracy and help bring about the change they seek. But if they all get into the race at once, they could transform our politics practically overnight. If they want to do something incredible for their country, they should really give it some thought, pick up the phone and talk it over.
Here’s why:
And the ending:
There are talented, thoughtful, independent-minded citizensaround the country who have ruled out a run for office, but they may reconsider if they see a real chance to make a difference without diving into the neck-deep muck of big-money politics. And there are surely some members of Congress who understand that our political process no longer serves the country well and who wish to leave a different legacy. They can leave a different legacy and lead a renewal of our democracy. Together those challenging Washington from the inside and from the outside have the power to unleash a new idealism in American politics and overpower the forces of cynicism, opportunism, entitlement and apathy.
Those answering this call need not be united by ideology or partisanship, only a dedication to a cause greater than themselves – the cause of America. The point isn’t to elect more Democrats, more Republicans or more independents. All things being equal, voters would choose a candidate who is a true public servant, rather than a party hack. But at the end of the day, voters will select the candidate who inspires the most confidence and bestrepresents their views. The only purpose is to let our democracy flourish and to give people a real choice.
Now be sure to read it from beginning to end — to learn all the details.
August 3rd, 2007 by DAVID SCHRAUB, Assistant Editor
Michael Bloomberg has hinted he may run for President if the GOP strays too far right. Now, Mike Huckabee is threatening an independent bid if the Republican nominee is too moderate. Is the Grand Old Party cracking up?
A new poll indicates that if New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg decides to launch an independent bid for President he’ll help the Democrats in Florida:
If New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg runs for President as an independent candidate, it helps Democrats in Florida, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. In a two- way race, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani edges New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 46 - 44 percent. With Bloomberg in the mix, taking 9 percent, Clinton inches past Giuliani 41 - 39 percent, giving the Democrat her best shot so far at Florida’s crucial 27 electoral votes.
In a matchup of second place contenders, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama tops former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson 42 - 39 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. In a three-way race, Obama doubles his lead over Thompson to 38 - 32 percent, with 14 percent for Bloomberg.
“The conventional wisdom may be that Mayor Bloomberg’s generally liberal approach to many issues would mean he would take more votes from Democrats and help the Republicans in a three-way race. At this point, that just isn’t so,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
“Mayor Bloomberg can clearly be a spoiler in Florida, but he would have a long way to go to have a serious chance of winning the state,” said Brown. “Only slightly more people view him favorably than unfavorably and 57 percent don’t know enough about him to venture an opinion.”
However, the poll doesn’t take another factor into consideration. Third party perenniel Ralph Nader has increasingly suggested that he’s going to jump into the race (again), particularly if Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination. So 2008 could be a wild one, indeed…
