Monday, December 31, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
Sweet: Obama says, “No, I, I, I, I, I have to, I heard, I heard, I don’t need it, I don't need to hear what you read because I was, I overheard it whe
DES MOINES, IA.—The Obama campaign faced a distraction on Thursday after some news outlets ran stories suggesting chief Obama strategist David Axelrod seemed to link Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s vote to authorize the Iraq war with the assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
Sen. Barack Obama vigorously defended Axelrod during a CNN interview on Thursday evening for comments Axelrod made in the morning after a speech Obama delivered in Des Moines. The dust-up will likely be over by the time you read this and the news cycle has moved on.
The Des Moines remarks were Obama’s penultimate “change” speech, completely overshadowed by Bhutto’s murder. The terrorist attack returned the conversation to foreign policy.
In standing up for Axelrod, Obama fell back on one of his campaign standbys and blamed the off-message situation on “Washington,” as in “Washington is putting a spin on it.”
Obama got a little impatient with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer when Blitzer started to read him the Axelrod quote. One of the most accomplished speakers in the nation was reduced to stuttering as Obama tried to head off Blitzer from reading the quote on national television.
Blitzer asked, “Your chief political strategist, David Axelrod, causing some commotion out there today with his comments about Hillary Clinton, and blaming her—at least some are interpreting it this way—blaming her in part for a series of events that resulted in Benazir Bhutto's assassination today. Let me read to you what he said.”
Obama replied—and I think I nailed the quote here—“No, I, I, I, I, I have to, I heard, I heard, I don’t need it, I don't need to hear what you read because I was, I overheard it when he said it, and this is one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it. It makes no sense whatsoever.”
(Might you wonder what “I overheard it” means? One should not read this literally. Obama was not standing near Axelrod when he was talking to reporters after the speech. A bunch of reporters were interviewingAxelrod near the press risers at the back of the hall.)
Blitzer continued, “Tell us what he meant. Tell us what he meant.”
Obama said, “He was—he was—he was asked very specifically about the argument that the Clinton folks were making that somehow this was going to change the dynamic of politics in Iowa.
(At this point it was the reporter making the argument--asking if the assassination would bring the campaigns more to foreign policy and “that’s been more Hillary Clinton’s sort of strength, is that is that…that’s what the Clinton campaign will say, that this plays right into her strength.”)
Obama: “Now, first of all, that shouldn't have been the question.”
(Disputing a question is a technique Obama has used in the presidential debates when confronted with being asked something he did not want to specifically have to respond to. )
Obama then said, “The question should be, "how is this going to impact the safety and security of the United States," not "how is it going to affect a political campaign in Iowa."
"But his response was simply to say that if we are going to talk politics, then the question has to be, "who has exercised the kind of judgment that would be more likely to lead to better outcomes in the Middle East and better outcomes in Pakistan."
Obama went on to defend Axelrod, one of his closest advisors.
“He in no way was suggesting that Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for the situation there. That is the kind of, I think, you know, gloss that sometimes emerges out of the heat of campaigns that doesn't make much sense, and I think you're probably aware of that, Wolf.”
Since a viewer by this point would have little idea what Obama was reacting to, Blitzer pressed ahead and read the quote.
That’s live television. Obama was trapped and Blitzer knew it.
Blitzer said, “ Well, I know that sometimes comments can be taken out of context and you're trying to give us the context. I'll just read to you what he said, and then I'm going to let you just respond. "She was," referring to Hillary Clinton, he said…
“Wolf!” said Obama.
Blitzer continued, reading the Axelrod quote: "She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which, we would submit is one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Al Qaeda, who may still have been players in this event today. So, that's a judgment she'll have to defend. “
Here’s another version; I asked Axelrod, “Looking ahead, does the assassination put on the front burner foreign policy credentials in the closing days?
Axelrod replied, “Well, it puts on the table foreign policy judgment, and that's a discussion we welcome. Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that. Al Qaeda's resurgent, they're a powerful force now in Pakistan, they may have been involved — we've been here, so I don't know whether the news has been updated, but there's a suspicion they may have been involved in this. I think his judgment was good. Sen. Clinton made a different judgment, so let's have that discussion.”
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_obama_says_no_i_i_i_i_i.html
Sen. Barack Obama vigorously defended Axelrod during a CNN interview on Thursday evening for comments Axelrod made in the morning after a speech Obama delivered in Des Moines. The dust-up will likely be over by the time you read this and the news cycle has moved on.
The Des Moines remarks were Obama’s penultimate “change” speech, completely overshadowed by Bhutto’s murder. The terrorist attack returned the conversation to foreign policy.
In standing up for Axelrod, Obama fell back on one of his campaign standbys and blamed the off-message situation on “Washington,” as in “Washington is putting a spin on it.”
Obama got a little impatient with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer when Blitzer started to read him the Axelrod quote. One of the most accomplished speakers in the nation was reduced to stuttering as Obama tried to head off Blitzer from reading the quote on national television.
Blitzer asked, “Your chief political strategist, David Axelrod, causing some commotion out there today with his comments about Hillary Clinton, and blaming her—at least some are interpreting it this way—blaming her in part for a series of events that resulted in Benazir Bhutto's assassination today. Let me read to you what he said.”
Obama replied—and I think I nailed the quote here—“No, I, I, I, I, I have to, I heard, I heard, I don’t need it, I don't need to hear what you read because I was, I overheard it when he said it, and this is one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it. It makes no sense whatsoever.”
(Might you wonder what “I overheard it” means? One should not read this literally. Obama was not standing near Axelrod when he was talking to reporters after the speech. A bunch of reporters were interviewingAxelrod near the press risers at the back of the hall.)
Blitzer continued, “Tell us what he meant. Tell us what he meant.”
Obama said, “He was—he was—he was asked very specifically about the argument that the Clinton folks were making that somehow this was going to change the dynamic of politics in Iowa.
(At this point it was the reporter making the argument--asking if the assassination would bring the campaigns more to foreign policy and “that’s been more Hillary Clinton’s sort of strength, is that is that…that’s what the Clinton campaign will say, that this plays right into her strength.”)
Obama: “Now, first of all, that shouldn't have been the question.”
(Disputing a question is a technique Obama has used in the presidential debates when confronted with being asked something he did not want to specifically have to respond to. )
Obama then said, “The question should be, "how is this going to impact the safety and security of the United States," not "how is it going to affect a political campaign in Iowa."
"But his response was simply to say that if we are going to talk politics, then the question has to be, "who has exercised the kind of judgment that would be more likely to lead to better outcomes in the Middle East and better outcomes in Pakistan."
Obama went on to defend Axelrod, one of his closest advisors.
“He in no way was suggesting that Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for the situation there. That is the kind of, I think, you know, gloss that sometimes emerges out of the heat of campaigns that doesn't make much sense, and I think you're probably aware of that, Wolf.”
Since a viewer by this point would have little idea what Obama was reacting to, Blitzer pressed ahead and read the quote.
That’s live television. Obama was trapped and Blitzer knew it.
Blitzer said, “ Well, I know that sometimes comments can be taken out of context and you're trying to give us the context. I'll just read to you what he said, and then I'm going to let you just respond. "She was," referring to Hillary Clinton, he said…
“Wolf!” said Obama.
Blitzer continued, reading the Axelrod quote: "She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which, we would submit is one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Al Qaeda, who may still have been players in this event today. So, that's a judgment she'll have to defend. “
Here’s another version; I asked Axelrod, “Looking ahead, does the assassination put on the front burner foreign policy credentials in the closing days?
Axelrod replied, “Well, it puts on the table foreign policy judgment, and that's a discussion we welcome. Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that. Al Qaeda's resurgent, they're a powerful force now in Pakistan, they may have been involved — we've been here, so I don't know whether the news has been updated, but there's a suspicion they may have been involved in this. I think his judgment was good. Sen. Clinton made a different judgment, so let's have that discussion.”
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_obama_says_no_i_i_i_i_i.html
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
NY Times: After Delay, Clinton Embarks on a Likability Tour
POLITICAL MEMO
After Delay, Clinton Embarks on a Likability Tour
By PATRICK HEALY
Published: December 19, 2007
DES MOINES — The tableau was classic Clinton: Bill Clinton chatting with African-American cashiers and baggers at a grocery store here Tuesday, telling them how wonderful Hillary Rodham Clinton was, while she waited quietly for him to finish so they could dazzle more voters.
The couple’s one-two political punch, still going strong after three decades, has special import now: Mrs. Clinton has embarked this week on a warm-and-fuzzy tour, blitzing full throttle by helicopter across Iowa to present herself as likable and heartwarming, a complement to her “strength and experience” message that the campaign felt a female candidate needed first.
Now another major question faces the Clinton team in Iowa: Did it wait too long to try to humanize Hillary? The presidential caucuses are little more than two weeks away, Mrs. Clinton’s negative poll ratings remain high, and some of her advisers wanted to accentuate her personal side earlier.
Instead, until now she has embraced a variety of other strategies, and faces a high hurdle as she competes for popularity against a familiar face (former Senator John Edwards) and a charismatic newcomer (Senator Barack Obama).
Mrs. Clinton addressed the challenge head-on with reporters Tuesday at the grocery store, a frenzied scene where Mr. Clinton delayed a photo opportunity with his wife by giving an interview to “Entertainment Tonight,” and where their special guest, the former basketball star Magic Johnson, was a bit off message in noting Mrs. Clinton’s experience rather than what a nice person she was.
As her husband and Mr. Johnson looked on, Mrs. Clinton told the reporters: “I know that people have been saying, ‘Well, you know, we’ve got to know more about her, we want to know more about her personally.’ And I totally get that. It’s a little hard for me. It’s not easy for me to talk about myself.”
Or, as Mr. Clinton put it a few minutes later, “We want to give people a good sense of her, not only as a leader but as a person.”
Mr. Clinton’s role in all this is particularly interesting. He has been unleashed in ways that he never was in the 2000 campaign, when his favored candidate, Al Gore, kept him on the bench. At that time, the Gore camp worried that Mr. Clinton was scandal-scarred and that the candidate needed to appear like his own man. (In 2004, Mr. Clinton was recovering from heart surgery and did not campaign for the Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry, until the final weeks.)
Mrs. Clinton appears to have fewer doubts about conveying independence. She is counting on her husband to help voters color in her human side, and Mr. Clinton has embraced that role with a vengeance.
“We faced Clinton fatigue and Clinton scandals in 2000, and had to navigate Gore around that, but now it’s very different,” said Donna Brazile, who served as a campaign manager for Mr. Gore and is a friend of the Clintons. “Bill Clinton has rehabilitated himself in terms of his stature, and he has a great opportunity to help her win.”
But he is only one weapon in the campaign’s efforts, as Mrs. Clinton said Tuesday, “to kind of round out who I am as a person.” After months of holding off campaign officials who wanted to roll out her mother, Dorothy, and her daughter, Chelsea, Mrs. Clinton recently relented, and the two women happily joined her in Iowa and were videotaped for soft-glow political commercials.
Farmers from New York State, some of them Republicans, are in Iowa talking to farmers about ways she has helped them, and her best friend from the sixth grade is touring Iowa telling stories like the one about the way Hillary Rodham would take off her thick glasses to flirt more confidently with boys.
The timing is delicate, however. For much of this year, the Clintons concentrated on arguing that Mrs. Clinton was tougher and better prepared than Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards, a posture intended not only to appeal to voters who wanted a tested leader but also to persuade them that a woman was strong enough to be commander in chief.
But since November, Iowans have been whipsawed with messages from Mrs. Clinton: She and her allies have attacked Mr. Obama to try to increase his negative ratings, argued in favor of her strength, portrayed her as a force for change and, now, highlighted her persona.
Inside the campaign, the communications director, Howard Wolfson, has been well known for urging that the humanizing effort start earlier, but the campaign decided to emphasize strength and experience instead. Now some voters and advisers wonder if her camp waited too long to address Mrs. Clinton’s personality.
At several of her campaign events recently, Iowans, even some of her own supporters, publicly asked if she was likable enough to win, and some noted that people found her “cold” and “remote.”
Ellen Sweet of Iowa City, who attended a Clinton rally on Monday night, said she was surprised at how nice Mrs. Clinton was.
“I’ve been pledged to Obama for so long, I can’t change, but she moved way up in my mind tonight,” Mrs. Sweet said. “She just came across as appealing and confident in her beliefs. I wish I had seen all these sides of her before.”
To be sure, some Iowans may not ultimately accept the warmer Mrs. Clinton as genuine.
At Mr. Clinton’s campaign stop with Mr. Johnson in Waterloo on Tuesday, Teresa Fagerlind, 58, an activities coordinator at a retirement village, said the former president had persuaded her to support Mrs. Clinton.
“He said some things about her that I hadn’t heard before,” Ms. Fagerlind said.
But her son, Matt, 28, was less persuaded, saying he was not sure that Mr. Clinton was the best one to vouch for his wife. “It’s like my mom saying how great I am,” he said.
Admitting that her own mistakes may have fed unfavorable impressions of her is still not the style of Mrs. Clinton. On Monday night, when asked by someone at the rally why there were people who did not like her, she did not criticize herself or delve into introspection.
“There are people who will never vote for me,” she said. “It breaks my heart, but it’s true.”
Katharine Q. Seelye contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/us/politics/19clintons.html?ref=politics
After Delay, Clinton Embarks on a Likability Tour
By PATRICK HEALY
Published: December 19, 2007
DES MOINES — The tableau was classic Clinton: Bill Clinton chatting with African-American cashiers and baggers at a grocery store here Tuesday, telling them how wonderful Hillary Rodham Clinton was, while she waited quietly for him to finish so they could dazzle more voters.
The couple’s one-two political punch, still going strong after three decades, has special import now: Mrs. Clinton has embarked this week on a warm-and-fuzzy tour, blitzing full throttle by helicopter across Iowa to present herself as likable and heartwarming, a complement to her “strength and experience” message that the campaign felt a female candidate needed first.
Now another major question faces the Clinton team in Iowa: Did it wait too long to try to humanize Hillary? The presidential caucuses are little more than two weeks away, Mrs. Clinton’s negative poll ratings remain high, and some of her advisers wanted to accentuate her personal side earlier.
Instead, until now she has embraced a variety of other strategies, and faces a high hurdle as she competes for popularity against a familiar face (former Senator John Edwards) and a charismatic newcomer (Senator Barack Obama).
Mrs. Clinton addressed the challenge head-on with reporters Tuesday at the grocery store, a frenzied scene where Mr. Clinton delayed a photo opportunity with his wife by giving an interview to “Entertainment Tonight,” and where their special guest, the former basketball star Magic Johnson, was a bit off message in noting Mrs. Clinton’s experience rather than what a nice person she was.
As her husband and Mr. Johnson looked on, Mrs. Clinton told the reporters: “I know that people have been saying, ‘Well, you know, we’ve got to know more about her, we want to know more about her personally.’ And I totally get that. It’s a little hard for me. It’s not easy for me to talk about myself.”
Or, as Mr. Clinton put it a few minutes later, “We want to give people a good sense of her, not only as a leader but as a person.”
Mr. Clinton’s role in all this is particularly interesting. He has been unleashed in ways that he never was in the 2000 campaign, when his favored candidate, Al Gore, kept him on the bench. At that time, the Gore camp worried that Mr. Clinton was scandal-scarred and that the candidate needed to appear like his own man. (In 2004, Mr. Clinton was recovering from heart surgery and did not campaign for the Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry, until the final weeks.)
Mrs. Clinton appears to have fewer doubts about conveying independence. She is counting on her husband to help voters color in her human side, and Mr. Clinton has embraced that role with a vengeance.
“We faced Clinton fatigue and Clinton scandals in 2000, and had to navigate Gore around that, but now it’s very different,” said Donna Brazile, who served as a campaign manager for Mr. Gore and is a friend of the Clintons. “Bill Clinton has rehabilitated himself in terms of his stature, and he has a great opportunity to help her win.”
But he is only one weapon in the campaign’s efforts, as Mrs. Clinton said Tuesday, “to kind of round out who I am as a person.” After months of holding off campaign officials who wanted to roll out her mother, Dorothy, and her daughter, Chelsea, Mrs. Clinton recently relented, and the two women happily joined her in Iowa and were videotaped for soft-glow political commercials.
Farmers from New York State, some of them Republicans, are in Iowa talking to farmers about ways she has helped them, and her best friend from the sixth grade is touring Iowa telling stories like the one about the way Hillary Rodham would take off her thick glasses to flirt more confidently with boys.
The timing is delicate, however. For much of this year, the Clintons concentrated on arguing that Mrs. Clinton was tougher and better prepared than Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards, a posture intended not only to appeal to voters who wanted a tested leader but also to persuade them that a woman was strong enough to be commander in chief.
But since November, Iowans have been whipsawed with messages from Mrs. Clinton: She and her allies have attacked Mr. Obama to try to increase his negative ratings, argued in favor of her strength, portrayed her as a force for change and, now, highlighted her persona.
Inside the campaign, the communications director, Howard Wolfson, has been well known for urging that the humanizing effort start earlier, but the campaign decided to emphasize strength and experience instead. Now some voters and advisers wonder if her camp waited too long to address Mrs. Clinton’s personality.
At several of her campaign events recently, Iowans, even some of her own supporters, publicly asked if she was likable enough to win, and some noted that people found her “cold” and “remote.”
Ellen Sweet of Iowa City, who attended a Clinton rally on Monday night, said she was surprised at how nice Mrs. Clinton was.
“I’ve been pledged to Obama for so long, I can’t change, but she moved way up in my mind tonight,” Mrs. Sweet said. “She just came across as appealing and confident in her beliefs. I wish I had seen all these sides of her before.”
To be sure, some Iowans may not ultimately accept the warmer Mrs. Clinton as genuine.
At Mr. Clinton’s campaign stop with Mr. Johnson in Waterloo on Tuesday, Teresa Fagerlind, 58, an activities coordinator at a retirement village, said the former president had persuaded her to support Mrs. Clinton.
“He said some things about her that I hadn’t heard before,” Ms. Fagerlind said.
But her son, Matt, 28, was less persuaded, saying he was not sure that Mr. Clinton was the best one to vouch for his wife. “It’s like my mom saying how great I am,” he said.
Admitting that her own mistakes may have fed unfavorable impressions of her is still not the style of Mrs. Clinton. On Monday night, when asked by someone at the rally why there were people who did not like her, she did not criticize herself or delve into introspection.
“There are people who will never vote for me,” she said. “It breaks my heart, but it’s true.”
Katharine Q. Seelye contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/us/politics/19clintons.html?ref=politics
Washington Post: Clinton Under A Harsher Microscope?
Clinton Under A Harsher Microscope?
The Candidate's Coverage Is Bemoaned for Being Held To a Tougher Standard
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 19, 2007; Page C01
DES MOINES, Dec. 18 -- After weeks of bad news, Hillary Clinton and her strategists hoped that winning the endorsement of Iowa's largest newspaper last weekend might produce a modest bump in their media coverage.
But on Sunday morning, they awoke to upbeat headlines about their chief Democratic rival: "Obama Showing New Confidence With Iowa Sprint," said the New York Times. "Obama Is Hitting His Stride in Iowa," said the Los Angeles Times. And on Monday, Clinton aides were so upset about a contentious "Today" show interview that one complained to the show's producer.
Clinton's senior advisers have grown convinced that the media deck is stacked against them, that their candidate is drawing far harsher scrutiny than Barack Obama. And at least some journalists agree.
"She's just held to a different standard in every respect," says Mark Halperin, Time's editor at large. "The press rooted for Obama to go negative, and when he did he was applauded. When she does it, it's treated as this huge violation of propriety." While Clinton's mistakes deserve full coverage, Halperin says, "the press's flaws -- wild swings, accentuating the negative -- are magnified 50 times when it comes to her. It's not a level playing field."
Newsweek's Howard Fineman says Obama's coverage is the buzz of the presidential campaign. "While they don't say so publicly because it's risky to complain, a lot of operatives from other campaigns say he's getting a free ride, that people aren't tough enough on Obama," Fineman says. "There may be something to that. He's the new guy, an interesting guy, a pathbreaker and trendsetter perhaps."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton says the accusation of softer treatment is untrue but "the Clinton campaign whines about it so much, it becomes part of the chatter. No candidate in this race has undergone more investigations and examinations than Barack Obama has," he says, citing lengthy pieces in the Chicago Tribune and New York Times. "As Obama says, running against the Clintons is not exactly a cakewalk. Their research operation has ensured that if there's any information about Obama to be had, it's been distributed to the media."
The question, of course, is what journalists do with that information.
Asked for comment about the coverage of Clinton, her spokesman, Jay Carson, says: "I'll just say that at the Clinton campaign, we do our best to live by the old adage that it's not wise to pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel."
For nearly a year, the New York senator was widely depicted as the inevitable nominee. But now many media accounts are casting her recent dip in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls as a disaster in the making.
"Slipping Away?" said a headline on ABC's "Good Morning America." "Hillary Clinton's campaign is teetering on the brink," Fineman wrote in Newsweek. CBS's Jim Axelrod said her operation is "reeling." The Los Angeles Times said she is facing her "most serious crisis." And a banner headline on the Drudge Report asked: "Is It the End?"
When Clinton's New Hampshire co-chairman resigned last week after raising the issue of Obama's adolescent drug use, the issue itself received scant treatment in the media because Obama had disclosed it in his 1995 autobiography. "He has been able, by luck or planning, to control his own story, because he wrote it first," Fineman says.
The Illinois senator's fundraising receives far less press attention than Clinton's. When The Washington Post reported last month that Obama used a political action committee to hand more than $180,000 to Democratic groups and candidates in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the suggestion that he might be buying support received no attention on the network newscasts. The Clinton team is convinced that would have been a bigger story had it involved the former first lady.
There was also a lack of media pickup when the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reported that an Obama aide had sat down next to him and "wanted to know when reporters would begin to look into Bill Clinton's post-presidential sex life."
When NBC's David Gregory interviewed Hillary Clinton Monday during her round of morning-show appearances, he briefly noted her endorsement by the Des Moines Register before asking what had happened to her momentum. He pressed six times for a reaction to her husband's telling PBS's Charlie Rose that the country would "roll the dice" if it elected Obama. "So you're choosing not to answer that question," Gregory finally said.
Moments later, when Meredith Vieira interviewed John McCain, who had also won the Register's endorsement, most of the questions revolved around how he could win the Republican nomination despite trailing in the polls, with one query about his temper.
When Obama appeared on "Today" last month, Matt Lauer asked whether Clinton was playing the "gender card" against him, about his pledge to meet with hostile foreign leaders, and whether he thought the country was heading for a recession.
Journalists repeatedly described Obama as a "rock star" when he jumped into the race in January. His missteps -- such as when his staff mocked Clinton's position on the outsourcing of jobs overseas by referring to the Democrat not as representing a state but as "D-Punjab" -- generated modest coverage, but rarely at the level surrounding Clinton's mistakes. Some reporters told Clinton aides when she enjoyed a double-digit lead that she is held to a higher standard as the front-runner.
Obama did undergo something of a media audit earlier this year, with stories focusing on his record in the Illinois Senate and his ties to indicted fundraiser Tony Rezko. But his recent rise in the polls hasn't brought the kind of full-time frisking being visited on the hottest Republican, Mike Huckabee. In fact, much of the coverage of Oprah Winfrey stumping for Obama bordered on gushing.
In an online posting Monday, ABC reported that an Obama volunteer wearing a press pass asked the candidate a friendly question about tax policy at an Iowa event. But several of the assembled reporters huddled and concluded that it was not a story, one of them said. Clinton faced a storm of media criticism over a similar planted question.
Some reporters confess that they are enjoying Clinton's slippage, if only because it enlivens what had become a predictable narrative of her cruising to victory. The prospect of a newcomer knocking off a former first lady is one heck of a story.
Halperin, who surveys political news at Time.com's the Page, says: "Your typical reporter has a thinly disguised preference that Barack Obama be the nominee. The narrative of him beating her is better than her beating him, in part because she's a Clinton and in part because he's a young African American. . . . There's no one rooting for her to come back."
Sometimes the Clinton complaints go too far. In the PBS interview last week, Bill Clinton challenged the media's ridicule of his wife for pointing out that Obama had written a kindergarten essay saying he wanted to be president one day. It was just a joke, the former president contended, and Obama's camp "got a few stenographers to write stories as if this kindergarten letter was serious," he said. In fact, the kindergarten matter was included in a humorless release about Obama's longtime ambition, and Clinton aides have admitted it was a mistake.
Her campaign faces lingering resentment among many reporters over the lack of access to the candidate and the aggressive style of some of her operatives, who push back hard against stories they dislike. CNN correspondent Candy Crowley received a blistering e-mail merely for asking questions about reports that the former president was unhappy with the campaign's direction.
When Obama was languishing in the polls for months, the media tended to fault him for not being aggressive enough against Clinton, rather than for specific positions or comments.
"The problem here may be that Obama remains reluctant to really go after Hillary's character -- to portray her as unethical and dishonest on some fundamental level," the New Republic's Michael Crowley wrote. Fineman suggested that Obama "attack more in sorrow than in anger" and "argue that Clinton is too polarizing, that she cannot win a general election."
Some accounts have questioned Obama's record but were not widely picked up by other news organizations, despite a full-court press by the Clinton camp. Politico questioned whether Obama might be too liberal for a general election, noting a 1996 questionnaire in which he opposed the death penalty and backed a ban on the manufacture and possession of handguns. The Capitol Hill newspaper also reported that after reporters questioned Obama's declaration that lobbyists "won't work in my White House," he softened his stance at the next campaign stop, saying lobbyists "are not going to dominate my White House."
Clinton benefits greatly from her global celebrity and the novelty of a president's wife trying to win the office he had held. She can command attention at a moment's notice, such as when all six network and cable morning shows jumped at the chance to interview her Monday, just as the five Sunday shows did in September. But the withering spotlight can also lead to the spread of distortions, such as an erroneous radio report that she and her party had eaten at an Iowa diner without leaving a tip.
At an appearance Monday in suburban Johnston, where she was lauded by old friends and people she had helped, Clinton seemed to signal a degree of frustration with her media image.
"I want you to have some flavor of who I am, outside of the television cameras," she said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121802184.html?referrer=emailarticlepg
The Candidate's Coverage Is Bemoaned for Being Held To a Tougher Standard
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 19, 2007; Page C01
DES MOINES, Dec. 18 -- After weeks of bad news, Hillary Clinton and her strategists hoped that winning the endorsement of Iowa's largest newspaper last weekend might produce a modest bump in their media coverage.
But on Sunday morning, they awoke to upbeat headlines about their chief Democratic rival: "Obama Showing New Confidence With Iowa Sprint," said the New York Times. "Obama Is Hitting His Stride in Iowa," said the Los Angeles Times. And on Monday, Clinton aides were so upset about a contentious "Today" show interview that one complained to the show's producer.
Clinton's senior advisers have grown convinced that the media deck is stacked against them, that their candidate is drawing far harsher scrutiny than Barack Obama. And at least some journalists agree.
"She's just held to a different standard in every respect," says Mark Halperin, Time's editor at large. "The press rooted for Obama to go negative, and when he did he was applauded. When she does it, it's treated as this huge violation of propriety." While Clinton's mistakes deserve full coverage, Halperin says, "the press's flaws -- wild swings, accentuating the negative -- are magnified 50 times when it comes to her. It's not a level playing field."
Newsweek's Howard Fineman says Obama's coverage is the buzz of the presidential campaign. "While they don't say so publicly because it's risky to complain, a lot of operatives from other campaigns say he's getting a free ride, that people aren't tough enough on Obama," Fineman says. "There may be something to that. He's the new guy, an interesting guy, a pathbreaker and trendsetter perhaps."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton says the accusation of softer treatment is untrue but "the Clinton campaign whines about it so much, it becomes part of the chatter. No candidate in this race has undergone more investigations and examinations than Barack Obama has," he says, citing lengthy pieces in the Chicago Tribune and New York Times. "As Obama says, running against the Clintons is not exactly a cakewalk. Their research operation has ensured that if there's any information about Obama to be had, it's been distributed to the media."
The question, of course, is what journalists do with that information.
Asked for comment about the coverage of Clinton, her spokesman, Jay Carson, says: "I'll just say that at the Clinton campaign, we do our best to live by the old adage that it's not wise to pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel."
For nearly a year, the New York senator was widely depicted as the inevitable nominee. But now many media accounts are casting her recent dip in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls as a disaster in the making.
"Slipping Away?" said a headline on ABC's "Good Morning America." "Hillary Clinton's campaign is teetering on the brink," Fineman wrote in Newsweek. CBS's Jim Axelrod said her operation is "reeling." The Los Angeles Times said she is facing her "most serious crisis." And a banner headline on the Drudge Report asked: "Is It the End?"
When Clinton's New Hampshire co-chairman resigned last week after raising the issue of Obama's adolescent drug use, the issue itself received scant treatment in the media because Obama had disclosed it in his 1995 autobiography. "He has been able, by luck or planning, to control his own story, because he wrote it first," Fineman says.
The Illinois senator's fundraising receives far less press attention than Clinton's. When The Washington Post reported last month that Obama used a political action committee to hand more than $180,000 to Democratic groups and candidates in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the suggestion that he might be buying support received no attention on the network newscasts. The Clinton team is convinced that would have been a bigger story had it involved the former first lady.
There was also a lack of media pickup when the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reported that an Obama aide had sat down next to him and "wanted to know when reporters would begin to look into Bill Clinton's post-presidential sex life."
When NBC's David Gregory interviewed Hillary Clinton Monday during her round of morning-show appearances, he briefly noted her endorsement by the Des Moines Register before asking what had happened to her momentum. He pressed six times for a reaction to her husband's telling PBS's Charlie Rose that the country would "roll the dice" if it elected Obama. "So you're choosing not to answer that question," Gregory finally said.
Moments later, when Meredith Vieira interviewed John McCain, who had also won the Register's endorsement, most of the questions revolved around how he could win the Republican nomination despite trailing in the polls, with one query about his temper.
When Obama appeared on "Today" last month, Matt Lauer asked whether Clinton was playing the "gender card" against him, about his pledge to meet with hostile foreign leaders, and whether he thought the country was heading for a recession.
Journalists repeatedly described Obama as a "rock star" when he jumped into the race in January. His missteps -- such as when his staff mocked Clinton's position on the outsourcing of jobs overseas by referring to the Democrat not as representing a state but as "D-Punjab" -- generated modest coverage, but rarely at the level surrounding Clinton's mistakes. Some reporters told Clinton aides when she enjoyed a double-digit lead that she is held to a higher standard as the front-runner.
Obama did undergo something of a media audit earlier this year, with stories focusing on his record in the Illinois Senate and his ties to indicted fundraiser Tony Rezko. But his recent rise in the polls hasn't brought the kind of full-time frisking being visited on the hottest Republican, Mike Huckabee. In fact, much of the coverage of Oprah Winfrey stumping for Obama bordered on gushing.
In an online posting Monday, ABC reported that an Obama volunteer wearing a press pass asked the candidate a friendly question about tax policy at an Iowa event. But several of the assembled reporters huddled and concluded that it was not a story, one of them said. Clinton faced a storm of media criticism over a similar planted question.
Some reporters confess that they are enjoying Clinton's slippage, if only because it enlivens what had become a predictable narrative of her cruising to victory. The prospect of a newcomer knocking off a former first lady is one heck of a story.
Halperin, who surveys political news at Time.com's the Page, says: "Your typical reporter has a thinly disguised preference that Barack Obama be the nominee. The narrative of him beating her is better than her beating him, in part because she's a Clinton and in part because he's a young African American. . . . There's no one rooting for her to come back."
Sometimes the Clinton complaints go too far. In the PBS interview last week, Bill Clinton challenged the media's ridicule of his wife for pointing out that Obama had written a kindergarten essay saying he wanted to be president one day. It was just a joke, the former president contended, and Obama's camp "got a few stenographers to write stories as if this kindergarten letter was serious," he said. In fact, the kindergarten matter was included in a humorless release about Obama's longtime ambition, and Clinton aides have admitted it was a mistake.
Her campaign faces lingering resentment among many reporters over the lack of access to the candidate and the aggressive style of some of her operatives, who push back hard against stories they dislike. CNN correspondent Candy Crowley received a blistering e-mail merely for asking questions about reports that the former president was unhappy with the campaign's direction.
When Obama was languishing in the polls for months, the media tended to fault him for not being aggressive enough against Clinton, rather than for specific positions or comments.
"The problem here may be that Obama remains reluctant to really go after Hillary's character -- to portray her as unethical and dishonest on some fundamental level," the New Republic's Michael Crowley wrote. Fineman suggested that Obama "attack more in sorrow than in anger" and "argue that Clinton is too polarizing, that she cannot win a general election."
Some accounts have questioned Obama's record but were not widely picked up by other news organizations, despite a full-court press by the Clinton camp. Politico questioned whether Obama might be too liberal for a general election, noting a 1996 questionnaire in which he opposed the death penalty and backed a ban on the manufacture and possession of handguns. The Capitol Hill newspaper also reported that after reporters questioned Obama's declaration that lobbyists "won't work in my White House," he softened his stance at the next campaign stop, saying lobbyists "are not going to dominate my White House."
Clinton benefits greatly from her global celebrity and the novelty of a president's wife trying to win the office he had held. She can command attention at a moment's notice, such as when all six network and cable morning shows jumped at the chance to interview her Monday, just as the five Sunday shows did in September. But the withering spotlight can also lead to the spread of distortions, such as an erroneous radio report that she and her party had eaten at an Iowa diner without leaving a tip.
At an appearance Monday in suburban Johnston, where she was lauded by old friends and people she had helped, Clinton seemed to signal a degree of frustration with her media image.
"I want you to have some flavor of who I am, outside of the television cameras," she said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121802184.html?referrer=emailarticlepg
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Hillary should play her gender card to the hilt
Hillary should play her gender card to the hilt
BY ROBIN GERBER | Robin Gerber is senior faculty with the Gallup Organization and author of "Leadership the Eleanor
Sen. Hillary Clinton has a trust problem. Polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show that voters give her very low marks for being trustworthy and honest. The media and her opponents have built and reinforced the charge.
But they're blaming the victim. Clinton is running for president in a sexist culture that persists in seeing strong, capable women as suspect.
It's not that voters and her opponents think Clinton's experienced and competent, and they don't like or trust her. It's that they think she's experienced and competent and that's why they don't like or trust her.
A study earlier this year by Catalyst, a nonprofit business research organization, showed the stark dilemma that competent women face. In "The Double-bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership," women were criticized for being "too aggressive and self-promoting," but men with similar styles were praised for being direct.
Women were forced to choose between competence and being liked and trusted by their colleagues, but leaders must have both to succeed. Stereotyed expectations about leadership styles led to conclusions that men were being assertive in the same situation where women were viewed as abrasive.
As the study concluded, "These perceptions not only influence whether people respect women's styles of leadership, but also the extent to which women leaders are perceived as trustworthy."
Clinton's two main rivals for the nomination, Sens. John Edwards and Barack Obama, are exploiting her double-bind. They realize that she's secured her position as an experienced, accomplished politician. That's why they've taken to accusing her of being dishonest. Edwards put it most baldly, at one debate saying, "The American people ... deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth."
Is there evidence proving that Hillary Clinton can't be trusted? To quote one of the great presidential debate responses: "No."
Take the example of abortion rights, where Clinton was accused of changing her position to match a shift in the political wind. The attack started in July 2006, when she said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," and was immediately pilloried in the media for abandoning her pro-choice stance. But she'd used those same words seven years earlier in a speech as first lady. Clinton is a strong defender of abortion rights and also hopes unwanted pregnancies can be avoided. Where's the dishonesty in that?
Clinton's vote on the 2002 resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq has raised the loudest cries about trusting her. Obama's been relentless in construing her vote as a blank check for war, and portraying her as dissembling when she disagrees. As proof of her perfidy, Clinton was accused of failing to make any effort before the invasion of Iraq to influence the president's policy.
In fact, she repeatedly pressed the case for weapons inspections in Iraq, and against President George W. Bush's acting precipitously. She said she believed that Bush would live up to his statements about using UN inspectors, and that Bush "took the authority that others and I gave him and he misused it." While it's fair to disagree with her approach, there's no fairness in the claim that her actions on Iraq prove her untrustworthy.
As a presidential candidate, Clinton has held her know-how and experience up like a battle flag. But along with competence goes the ambition, assertiveness, even aggressiveness that she and other leaders bring to the tough job of leadership. And there's the rub. Dominance, authority and ambition are widely viewed as essential leadership characteristics - as long as you're a man. When Clinton displays this "masculine" style, she loses the public trust.
What's a woman running for president to do? Pull the gender card out of the deck and hold it up high. Most people are unaware of their bias or don't want to recognize or acknowledge it.
Clinton needs to challenge her opponents and voters with a simple test: Substitute "Henry" for "Hillary" and reassess his/her strengths and weaknesses. They may be surprised to find that the smart, competent, assertive, aggressive, ambitious "Henry" Clinton running for president seems like a very trustworthy man.
Robin Gerber is senior faculty with the Gallup Organization and author of "Leadership the Eleanor Roosevelt Way" and the forthcoming novel "Eleanor vs. Ike."
BY ROBIN GERBER | Robin Gerber is senior faculty with the Gallup Organization and author of "Leadership the Eleanor
Sen. Hillary Clinton has a trust problem. Polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show that voters give her very low marks for being trustworthy and honest. The media and her opponents have built and reinforced the charge.
But they're blaming the victim. Clinton is running for president in a sexist culture that persists in seeing strong, capable women as suspect.
It's not that voters and her opponents think Clinton's experienced and competent, and they don't like or trust her. It's that they think she's experienced and competent and that's why they don't like or trust her.
A study earlier this year by Catalyst, a nonprofit business research organization, showed the stark dilemma that competent women face. In "The Double-bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership," women were criticized for being "too aggressive and self-promoting," but men with similar styles were praised for being direct.
Women were forced to choose between competence and being liked and trusted by their colleagues, but leaders must have both to succeed. Stereotyed expectations about leadership styles led to conclusions that men were being assertive in the same situation where women were viewed as abrasive.
As the study concluded, "These perceptions not only influence whether people respect women's styles of leadership, but also the extent to which women leaders are perceived as trustworthy."
Clinton's two main rivals for the nomination, Sens. John Edwards and Barack Obama, are exploiting her double-bind. They realize that she's secured her position as an experienced, accomplished politician. That's why they've taken to accusing her of being dishonest. Edwards put it most baldly, at one debate saying, "The American people ... deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth."
Is there evidence proving that Hillary Clinton can't be trusted? To quote one of the great presidential debate responses: "No."
Take the example of abortion rights, where Clinton was accused of changing her position to match a shift in the political wind. The attack started in July 2006, when she said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," and was immediately pilloried in the media for abandoning her pro-choice stance. But she'd used those same words seven years earlier in a speech as first lady. Clinton is a strong defender of abortion rights and also hopes unwanted pregnancies can be avoided. Where's the dishonesty in that?
Clinton's vote on the 2002 resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq has raised the loudest cries about trusting her. Obama's been relentless in construing her vote as a blank check for war, and portraying her as dissembling when she disagrees. As proof of her perfidy, Clinton was accused of failing to make any effort before the invasion of Iraq to influence the president's policy.
In fact, she repeatedly pressed the case for weapons inspections in Iraq, and against President George W. Bush's acting precipitously. She said she believed that Bush would live up to his statements about using UN inspectors, and that Bush "took the authority that others and I gave him and he misused it." While it's fair to disagree with her approach, there's no fairness in the claim that her actions on Iraq prove her untrustworthy.
As a presidential candidate, Clinton has held her know-how and experience up like a battle flag. But along with competence goes the ambition, assertiveness, even aggressiveness that she and other leaders bring to the tough job of leadership. And there's the rub. Dominance, authority and ambition are widely viewed as essential leadership characteristics - as long as you're a man. When Clinton displays this "masculine" style, she loses the public trust.
What's a woman running for president to do? Pull the gender card out of the deck and hold it up high. Most people are unaware of their bias or don't want to recognize or acknowledge it.
Clinton needs to challenge her opponents and voters with a simple test: Substitute "Henry" for "Hillary" and reassess his/her strengths and weaknesses. They may be surprised to find that the smart, competent, assertive, aggressive, ambitious "Henry" Clinton running for president seems like a very trustworthy man.
Robin Gerber is senior faculty with the Gallup Organization and author of "Leadership the Eleanor Roosevelt Way" and the forthcoming novel "Eleanor vs. Ike."
Monday, December 3, 2007
AP: Clinton Cranks Up Rhetoric Against Obama
Clinton Cranks Up Rhetoric Against Obama
By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer
CLEAR LAKE, Iowa (AP) -- Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Monday that Barack Obama has too little experience and perhaps too much ambition, pressing an increasingly aggressive campaign against her chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Both candidates were in Iowa, one month before the nation's leadoff caucuses with new polls showing Obama had whittled away her early lead and they were virtually tied among Democrats in the state.
"So you decide which makes more sense: Entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one ... or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate," Clinton said.
For the second day in a row, the New York senator and former first lady turned up the heat in her race with the Illinois senator.
Her rhetoric - and countercharges from Obama - underscored the tightness of a race in which polls show a dead heat between them, with former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina also in strong contention. Many Iowa caucus goers say they still haven't made up their minds or could yet change them.
Clinton accused Obama of a "rush to campaign" in not returning to Washington this fall to vote on a resolution naming an Iranian military unit a terrorist organization. The Bush administration supported the measure, as did Clinton - and Obama has criticized her for it.
"Presidents can't dodge the tough political fights," she said.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton retorted, "The truth is, Barack Obama doesn't need lectures in political courage from someone who followed George Bush to war in Iraq, gave him the benefit of the doubt on Iran, supported NAFTA and opposed ethanol until she decided to run for president."
A new AP-Pew poll showed Clinton essentially tied with Obama in Iowa, 31 percent to 26 percent, with Edwards at 19 percent and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson at 10 percent.
Clinton's campaign events on Monday were all based encouraging voters to go to the Jan. 3 caucuses - and to bring a buddy.
She held a campaign event at the Surf Ballroom at Clear Lake, the same hall where three Rock 'n' Roll legends performed before their death in a plane crash in February 1959.
"I am old enough to remember Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and the Big Bopper," Clinton told her audience. She said she felt like hearing Valens' "La Bamba."
She was late for the Clear Lake event after a campaign plane carrying reporters ahead of her remained on the runway after landing when the cabin began filling with smoke. The plane had to be towed off the runway before Clinton's plane could land. The source of the smoke was not immediately apparent, the pilot and campaign aides said.
"We were circling and circling and circling," Clinton said.
She pledged to be "a president who wakes up every morning ready to fight for our families ... and the causes we believe in. It's what I've been doing for 35 years."
While her husband Bill was president, she said, "we created" millions of new jobs during the 1990s.
The Iowa caucuses are Jan. 3, and New Hampshire votes Jan. 8. Several other states quickly follow, culminating in races on Feb. 5 when two dozen states hold contests.
Clinton is fighting to nurture a sense of inevitability and to stop Obama or Edwards from undercutting it with an Iowa victory.
Clinton assailed the Illinois senator on Sunday for a political action committee he controls that has contributed money to elected officials in early voting states. Obama has brushed off the criticism.
By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer
CLEAR LAKE, Iowa (AP) -- Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Monday that Barack Obama has too little experience and perhaps too much ambition, pressing an increasingly aggressive campaign against her chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Both candidates were in Iowa, one month before the nation's leadoff caucuses with new polls showing Obama had whittled away her early lead and they were virtually tied among Democrats in the state.
"So you decide which makes more sense: Entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one ... or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate," Clinton said.
For the second day in a row, the New York senator and former first lady turned up the heat in her race with the Illinois senator.
Her rhetoric - and countercharges from Obama - underscored the tightness of a race in which polls show a dead heat between them, with former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina also in strong contention. Many Iowa caucus goers say they still haven't made up their minds or could yet change them.
Clinton accused Obama of a "rush to campaign" in not returning to Washington this fall to vote on a resolution naming an Iranian military unit a terrorist organization. The Bush administration supported the measure, as did Clinton - and Obama has criticized her for it.
"Presidents can't dodge the tough political fights," she said.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton retorted, "The truth is, Barack Obama doesn't need lectures in political courage from someone who followed George Bush to war in Iraq, gave him the benefit of the doubt on Iran, supported NAFTA and opposed ethanol until she decided to run for president."
A new AP-Pew poll showed Clinton essentially tied with Obama in Iowa, 31 percent to 26 percent, with Edwards at 19 percent and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson at 10 percent.
Clinton's campaign events on Monday were all based encouraging voters to go to the Jan. 3 caucuses - and to bring a buddy.
She held a campaign event at the Surf Ballroom at Clear Lake, the same hall where three Rock 'n' Roll legends performed before their death in a plane crash in February 1959.
"I am old enough to remember Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and the Big Bopper," Clinton told her audience. She said she felt like hearing Valens' "La Bamba."
She was late for the Clear Lake event after a campaign plane carrying reporters ahead of her remained on the runway after landing when the cabin began filling with smoke. The plane had to be towed off the runway before Clinton's plane could land. The source of the smoke was not immediately apparent, the pilot and campaign aides said.
"We were circling and circling and circling," Clinton said.
She pledged to be "a president who wakes up every morning ready to fight for our families ... and the causes we believe in. It's what I've been doing for 35 years."
While her husband Bill was president, she said, "we created" millions of new jobs during the 1990s.
The Iowa caucuses are Jan. 3, and New Hampshire votes Jan. 8. Several other states quickly follow, culminating in races on Feb. 5 when two dozen states hold contests.
Clinton is fighting to nurture a sense of inevitability and to stop Obama or Edwards from undercutting it with an Iowa victory.
Clinton assailed the Illinois senator on Sunday for a political action committee he controls that has contributed money to elected officials in early voting states. Obama has brushed off the criticism.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Politico: Obama warned drive could offend Iowans
The campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is drawing some local skepticism for a drive to recruit non-Iowans to caucus at their Iowa colleges.
“If you are not from Iowa, you can come back for the Iowa caucus and caucus in your college neighborhood,” says a four-page “Students for Barack Obama” brochure provided to Politico.
David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register, the state’s leading political commentator, wrote in a blog post called “The Illinois Caucus” that the effort to increase participation by out-of-staters “risks offending long-time Iowa residents.”
“Given that lots of students in Iowa’s colleges and universities are from Obama’s neighboring home state of Illinois, the effort could net him thousands of additional votes on caucus night,” Yespen wrote.
The Obama campaign contends that it’s doing nothing unusual — that Iowa college students have long caucused near their colleges. And a separate Reigster news article quoted Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro as saying of the Obama instructions: “I think it's playing within the rules.”
A Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign official said: “We are not courting out-of-staters. The Iowa caucus ought to be for Iowans.”
Chris Dodd for President Iowa State Director Julie Andreeff Jensen said in a statement on Saturday:
“I was deeply disappointed to read today about the Obama campaign's attempt to recruit thousands of out-of-state residents to come to Iowa for the caucuses. ... ‘New Politics’ shouldn't be about scheming to evade either the spirit or the letter of the rules that guide the process. That may be the way politics is played in Chicago, but not in Iowa."
The instruction is part of an Obama campaign effort to counteract a potentially serious blow to youth support for his campaign: The Jan. 3 caucus date means colleges will still be on holiday break.
Many Democrats theorize that college students are more likely to vote heavily for Obama if they go as organized college groups rather than hit or miss as individuals, scattered at their folks’ caucuses all over Iowa.
“If you are from Iowa,” the brochure says, “you will probably be home for the caucus and will caucus in your hometown.” The brochure gives instructions about where to call or go online for information about where to caucus.
Yepsen wrote that the out-of-state college students’ participation would be legal, but said he isn’t certain “whether it’s fair, or politically smart.”
“No presidential campaign in memory has ever made such a large, open attempt to encourage students from out of state, many of whom pay out-of-state tuition, to participate in the caucuses.,” he said. “No other campaign appears to be doing it in this campaign cycle.”
The student section of BarackObama.com has a “Rock the Caucus” section designed to make it as easy as possible for collegiate supporters of Obama to turn out.
“Join the Facebook group to learn more,” the site says. “If you are 17 years old — you can still caucus! Just as long as you are 18 by Nov. 4, 2008. You do not have to register beforehand — just show up at the caucus. ... We at the Obama campaign have plenty of resources for students out, especially if it is your first time caucusing!”
The question of who can participate was already sticky. In early November, Dodd’s campaign staff asked the campaigns to pledge that their out-of-state staff and volunteers would not attempt to caucus. Most of the campaigns signed the pledge.
The Clinton official said: “We have a policy that if you move to Iowa for the express purpose of working on the campaign, you can not caucus.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7125.html
“If you are not from Iowa, you can come back for the Iowa caucus and caucus in your college neighborhood,” says a four-page “Students for Barack Obama” brochure provided to Politico.
David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register, the state’s leading political commentator, wrote in a blog post called “The Illinois Caucus” that the effort to increase participation by out-of-staters “risks offending long-time Iowa residents.”
“Given that lots of students in Iowa’s colleges and universities are from Obama’s neighboring home state of Illinois, the effort could net him thousands of additional votes on caucus night,” Yespen wrote.
The Obama campaign contends that it’s doing nothing unusual — that Iowa college students have long caucused near their colleges. And a separate Reigster news article quoted Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro as saying of the Obama instructions: “I think it's playing within the rules.”
A Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign official said: “We are not courting out-of-staters. The Iowa caucus ought to be for Iowans.”
Chris Dodd for President Iowa State Director Julie Andreeff Jensen said in a statement on Saturday:
“I was deeply disappointed to read today about the Obama campaign's attempt to recruit thousands of out-of-state residents to come to Iowa for the caucuses. ... ‘New Politics’ shouldn't be about scheming to evade either the spirit or the letter of the rules that guide the process. That may be the way politics is played in Chicago, but not in Iowa."
The instruction is part of an Obama campaign effort to counteract a potentially serious blow to youth support for his campaign: The Jan. 3 caucus date means colleges will still be on holiday break.
Many Democrats theorize that college students are more likely to vote heavily for Obama if they go as organized college groups rather than hit or miss as individuals, scattered at their folks’ caucuses all over Iowa.
“If you are from Iowa,” the brochure says, “you will probably be home for the caucus and will caucus in your hometown.” The brochure gives instructions about where to call or go online for information about where to caucus.
Yepsen wrote that the out-of-state college students’ participation would be legal, but said he isn’t certain “whether it’s fair, or politically smart.”
“No presidential campaign in memory has ever made such a large, open attempt to encourage students from out of state, many of whom pay out-of-state tuition, to participate in the caucuses.,” he said. “No other campaign appears to be doing it in this campaign cycle.”
The student section of BarackObama.com has a “Rock the Caucus” section designed to make it as easy as possible for collegiate supporters of Obama to turn out.
“Join the Facebook group to learn more,” the site says. “If you are 17 years old — you can still caucus! Just as long as you are 18 by Nov. 4, 2008. You do not have to register beforehand — just show up at the caucus. ... We at the Obama campaign have plenty of resources for students out, especially if it is your first time caucusing!”
The question of who can participate was already sticky. In early November, Dodd’s campaign staff asked the campaigns to pledge that their out-of-state staff and volunteers would not attempt to caucus. Most of the campaigns signed the pledge.
The Clinton official said: “We have a policy that if you move to Iowa for the express purpose of working on the campaign, you can not caucus.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7125.html
Politico: Clinton seizes opportunity after crisis
Friday afternoon began with possible tragedy: A hostage crisis at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign office in Rochester, New Hampshire.
As the incident unfolded Clinton’s campaign closed its doors and canceled her public appearances.
But nightfall brought a happy ending: the campaign workers safe, the man in police custody — and Clinton flying to the scene to express thanks.
The hostage-taking itself offered a rare, if small, genuine drama in a campaign season governed by strict schedules and scripted stump speeches.
And as soon as it ended, Clinton took full advantage of the opportunity she had unexpectedly been handed.
In her New Hampshire press conference, she stood before a column of police in green and tan uniforms. She talked of meeting with hostages. She mentioned that she spoke to the state’s governor about eight minutes after the incident began.
The scene was one of a woman in charge.
“It looked and sounded presidential,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “This was an instance of the White House experience of this campaign. They knew how to handle this.”
That the crisis was outside Clinton's control gave it a rare quality in this era of hyper-controlled politicking, Sabato added.
“What’s most important about it is that it’s not contrived. It’s a real event and that distinguishes it from 99 percent of what happens in the campaign season.”
Clinton’s campaign has long been dogged by key questions: is she authentic, does she genuinely have the experience to be president, and is the country ready for a woman as commander in chief — especially during wartime.
“She has never run anything. And the idea that she could learn to be president as an internship just doesn’t make any sense,” former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, said in one campaign ad.
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani has argued the same line.
“I don’t know Hillary’s experience,” Giuliani has said. “She’s never run a city, she's never run a state. She’s never run a business. She has never met a payroll. She has never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less even hundreds of people.”
Looking the part
Friday presented Clinton with a moment to look the part of president.
“You had one of these breaking news stories ... and so everybody was glued to the set,” said Robert Thompson, founding director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University. “She got on TV and provided a sense of closure and executive cool. It is like how Giuliani used television during his crisis.
“There was a sense that this was a dress rehearsal of how she was going to deal with... crisis as president,” Thompson added.
In her two public appearances after the hostages were freed, she was stern, but she also spoke of the concerns she felt as a mother, admitting to a “horrible sense of bewilderment” and “outrage.”
Her decision to express her personal anxieties offered a window into how she may veer into territory men avoid — personal feelings during a possible public tragedy.
Clinton heads the largest and most manicured of all operations. Her campaign has an especially organized staff that surrounds her. She stays on script and she stays on schedule.
Even as she flew to New Hampshire Friday evening, she was planning to return to Iowa Saturday in order to return to schedule.
What the hostage incident offered Clinton was a brief reprieve from the petty narrative of her versus Sen. Barack Obama, a break from what at times has devolved to intra-party bickering.
“Voters look for opportunities to see how candidates react in crisis,” Sabato said. “And this was a mini crisis.”
As the incident unfolded Clinton’s campaign closed its doors and canceled her public appearances.
But nightfall brought a happy ending: the campaign workers safe, the man in police custody — and Clinton flying to the scene to express thanks.
The hostage-taking itself offered a rare, if small, genuine drama in a campaign season governed by strict schedules and scripted stump speeches.
And as soon as it ended, Clinton took full advantage of the opportunity she had unexpectedly been handed.
In her New Hampshire press conference, she stood before a column of police in green and tan uniforms. She talked of meeting with hostages. She mentioned that she spoke to the state’s governor about eight minutes after the incident began.
The scene was one of a woman in charge.
“It looked and sounded presidential,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “This was an instance of the White House experience of this campaign. They knew how to handle this.”
That the crisis was outside Clinton's control gave it a rare quality in this era of hyper-controlled politicking, Sabato added.
“What’s most important about it is that it’s not contrived. It’s a real event and that distinguishes it from 99 percent of what happens in the campaign season.”
Clinton’s campaign has long been dogged by key questions: is she authentic, does she genuinely have the experience to be president, and is the country ready for a woman as commander in chief — especially during wartime.
“She has never run anything. And the idea that she could learn to be president as an internship just doesn’t make any sense,” former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, said in one campaign ad.
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani has argued the same line.
“I don’t know Hillary’s experience,” Giuliani has said. “She’s never run a city, she's never run a state. She’s never run a business. She has never met a payroll. She has never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less even hundreds of people.”
Looking the part
Friday presented Clinton with a moment to look the part of president.
“You had one of these breaking news stories ... and so everybody was glued to the set,” said Robert Thompson, founding director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University. “She got on TV and provided a sense of closure and executive cool. It is like how Giuliani used television during his crisis.
“There was a sense that this was a dress rehearsal of how she was going to deal with... crisis as president,” Thompson added.
In her two public appearances after the hostages were freed, she was stern, but she also spoke of the concerns she felt as a mother, admitting to a “horrible sense of bewilderment” and “outrage.”
Her decision to express her personal anxieties offered a window into how she may veer into territory men avoid — personal feelings during a possible public tragedy.
Clinton heads the largest and most manicured of all operations. Her campaign has an especially organized staff that surrounds her. She stays on script and she stays on schedule.
Even as she flew to New Hampshire Friday evening, she was planning to return to Iowa Saturday in order to return to schedule.
What the hostage incident offered Clinton was a brief reprieve from the petty narrative of her versus Sen. Barack Obama, a break from what at times has devolved to intra-party bickering.
“Voters look for opportunities to see how candidates react in crisis,” Sabato said. “And this was a mini crisis.”
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Washington Post: Obama Campaign Worker Discussed PAC Donations
Obama Campaign Worker Discussed PAC Donations
By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 30, 2007; Page A08
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign helped recommend several of the donations his political action committee made in recent months to politicians in key primary states as the campaign was working to secure endorsements, campaign officials said yesterday.
The acknowledgment alters the campaign's original account of how donations were directed and raised questions among some legal experts about whether the presidential committee was using Obama's leadership PAC to benefit his campaign. The Obama campaign said it is confident it complied with the law.
Obama's Hopefund Inc. distributed more than $180,000 in donations to political groups and candidates in the early presidential voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and more than $150,000 to federal candidates in other states with primary dates through mid-February. The donations accounted for nearly three-quarters of the money the PAC has given out since this summer.
An Obama campaign spokesman last week said that "there is no connection" between the PAC donations and the presidential campaign.
But Bob Bauer, the private counsel for both Obama's campaign and Hopefund, said yesterday that campaign workers were involved over the summer in identifying and recommending possible recipients when Hopefund was deciding how to spend its remaining money. In particular, Bauer said, senior campaign strategist Steve Hildebrand was consulted "multiple times" on potential donations.
Hildebrand was a paid consultant at Hopefund last year and is now a deputy campaign manager.
"He was being paid in part to help us identify targets of opportunity, and to the extent there was any one person who had an overview of what we were trying to accomplish, it was Steve Hildebrand," Bauer said. Asked if other campaign officials also made recommendations, Bauer added, "I have no doubt."
Bauer stressed that Hopefund also solicited input from others, including the fundraising committees for Democratic House and Senate candidates. The PAC also processed requests directly from local candidates. In the end, Bauer said, his law firm made the final decisions and dispatched the donations.
Obama stopped raising money for Hopefund when he announced his presidential bid in January, but he has stood out from some of his rivals by continuing to make donations from Hopefund as the primaries approach. Most other presidential candidates shuttered their PACs.
Bauer said he is confident that the PAC and the campaign complied with rules the Federal Election Commission enacted in December 2003 governing how leadership PACs can operate when their candidate is running for office. "There's not even a remote question about whether this is legal," he said.
Campaign law experts, however, said they were less certain. They noted that the 2003 rules state that any leadership PAC expenditure coordinated with the politician's campaign should be treated as "in-kind contributions" subject to a limit of $5,000. The rules define a coordinated expense as any made in "cooperation or concert with or at the request or suggestion" of a campaign.
"I think this is something the commission should look at. If the money was, in fact, used to help the campaign, was requested by the campaign and coordinated with the campaign, then it could be considered an in-kind contribution," Lawrence Noble, the FEC's retired chief counsel, said.
Former FEC chairman Scott E. Thomas, a Democrat who served on the commission when the 2003 rule was approved, said the FEC at the time was focused more on how to keep PACs from subsidizing presidential campaigns by picking up the costs of polling, salary and other goods and services.
"He is clearly pushing the envelope, no doubt," Thomas said. "I would clearly recommend the commission take another look at this to see if there is some reasonable line that can be drawn so presidential campaigns aren't directing donations from the PAC a few months before the primaries."
While PAC donations went to politicians who endorsed Obama's presidential bid, campaign spokesman Bill Burton said, "Hopefund did not make contributions to obtain presidential endorsements and the campaign never expected or instructed staff to recommend a contribution because it would win an endorsement."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/29/AR2007112902229.html?hpid=topnews
By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 30, 2007; Page A08
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign helped recommend several of the donations his political action committee made in recent months to politicians in key primary states as the campaign was working to secure endorsements, campaign officials said yesterday.
The acknowledgment alters the campaign's original account of how donations were directed and raised questions among some legal experts about whether the presidential committee was using Obama's leadership PAC to benefit his campaign. The Obama campaign said it is confident it complied with the law.
Obama's Hopefund Inc. distributed more than $180,000 in donations to political groups and candidates in the early presidential voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and more than $150,000 to federal candidates in other states with primary dates through mid-February. The donations accounted for nearly three-quarters of the money the PAC has given out since this summer.
An Obama campaign spokesman last week said that "there is no connection" between the PAC donations and the presidential campaign.
But Bob Bauer, the private counsel for both Obama's campaign and Hopefund, said yesterday that campaign workers were involved over the summer in identifying and recommending possible recipients when Hopefund was deciding how to spend its remaining money. In particular, Bauer said, senior campaign strategist Steve Hildebrand was consulted "multiple times" on potential donations.
Hildebrand was a paid consultant at Hopefund last year and is now a deputy campaign manager.
"He was being paid in part to help us identify targets of opportunity, and to the extent there was any one person who had an overview of what we were trying to accomplish, it was Steve Hildebrand," Bauer said. Asked if other campaign officials also made recommendations, Bauer added, "I have no doubt."
Bauer stressed that Hopefund also solicited input from others, including the fundraising committees for Democratic House and Senate candidates. The PAC also processed requests directly from local candidates. In the end, Bauer said, his law firm made the final decisions and dispatched the donations.
Obama stopped raising money for Hopefund when he announced his presidential bid in January, but he has stood out from some of his rivals by continuing to make donations from Hopefund as the primaries approach. Most other presidential candidates shuttered their PACs.
Bauer said he is confident that the PAC and the campaign complied with rules the Federal Election Commission enacted in December 2003 governing how leadership PACs can operate when their candidate is running for office. "There's not even a remote question about whether this is legal," he said.
Campaign law experts, however, said they were less certain. They noted that the 2003 rules state that any leadership PAC expenditure coordinated with the politician's campaign should be treated as "in-kind contributions" subject to a limit of $5,000. The rules define a coordinated expense as any made in "cooperation or concert with or at the request or suggestion" of a campaign.
"I think this is something the commission should look at. If the money was, in fact, used to help the campaign, was requested by the campaign and coordinated with the campaign, then it could be considered an in-kind contribution," Lawrence Noble, the FEC's retired chief counsel, said.
Former FEC chairman Scott E. Thomas, a Democrat who served on the commission when the 2003 rule was approved, said the FEC at the time was focused more on how to keep PACs from subsidizing presidential campaigns by picking up the costs of polling, salary and other goods and services.
"He is clearly pushing the envelope, no doubt," Thomas said. "I would clearly recommend the commission take another look at this to see if there is some reasonable line that can be drawn so presidential campaigns aren't directing donations from the PAC a few months before the primaries."
While PAC donations went to politicians who endorsed Obama's presidential bid, campaign spokesman Bill Burton said, "Hopefund did not make contributions to obtain presidential endorsements and the campaign never expected or instructed staff to recommend a contribution because it would win an endorsement."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/29/AR2007112902229.html?hpid=topnews
Boston Phoenix: Hillary is Still the Strong Favorite
Hillary is Still the Strong Favorite
By Steven Stark
With roughly a month to go until the nominating process actually begins in Iowa, the contours of the 2008 presidential race are now clear. On the Democratic side, the nomination is still Hillary Clinton's to lose. And on the Republican side, which we'll review in depth next week, there are still, incredibly, five candidates with a legitimate chance to gain the GOP nod.
Because the mainstream press focuses on the day-to-day machinations of the campaign -- a process exacerbated by the rise of Internet coverage, which takes every minute-by-minute development and blows it up out of proportion -- it's often difficult to get a sense of the big picture.
But each race has now assumed a discernible story line. For any of the Democrats not named Clinton, the key is to beat her in Iowa, lest they see their chances for an upset slip away. Sure, the nomination likely won't be decided until February 5, when more than 20 states hold their contests. But if Clinton's challengers can't beat her in Iowa on January 3, they're unlikely to win in the other key Democratic tests before Super Tuesday -- namely New Hampshire on January 8 and South Carolina on January 26. The race, then, will be over almost before it started.
(Michigan will also hold a primary on January 15, but the DNC declared the state to be in violation of the rules on the ordering of primaries, so most of the Democratic contenders have asked to have their names removed from the ballot. As a result, the press is unlikely to cover it extensively. The Nevada caucus on January 19 is also likely to receive little coverage, since caucuses, which require voters to meet at a designated spot and time to declare their preference publicly, tend to attract fewer voters than primaries. Plus, South Carolina Republicans are holding their primary the same day, so that's bound to steal some headlines from Nevada.)
Hillary's heels
Clinton currently holds about a 20-point lead in most national polls, which should give her some security. After all, one has to go back to 1972, when George McGovern bested early leader Edmund Muskie, to find a race in which a front-runner blew such a large lead going into the primaries. That doesn't mean it can't happen again. But it does mean, despite Clinton's well-publicized recent travails -- specifically her sub-par debate performance in late October and some narrowing opinion polls in Iowa and New Hampshire -- that it's unlikely.
Clinton does, however, have two Achilles' heels. The first is that an unusually large number of voters just don't like her, raising the possibility that, if an opponent could galvanize all the anti-Clinton voters on his behalf, he might have a chance of upsetting her.
The second is that, if she had to rank all 50 states in which she'd like to be tested first, Clinton would probably put Iowa last. There's a bit of a culture clash between New York, Clinton's designated home, and Iowa -- which is one reason Rudy Giuliani has, by and large, stayed away from the Hawkeye State. Clinton's husband didn't even run there in 1992, conceding Iowa to favorite son Tom Harkin, so she has had to build her organization from scratch. And Barack Obama is a senator from a neighboring state, which, on paper at least, should be a huge advantage -- even though the press seldom mentions it. (Although Clinton grew up in Illinois, it's not the same as representing it in an elected national body.)
Most important, Iowa is not a primary contest but a caucus state, so level of participation is far lower than in an ordinary primary. That's bad news for Clinton, since her voters tend to be poorer than Obama's more upper-middle-class constituency and, historically, poorer voters don't vote in as great numbers. All things being equal, her voters in Iowa are simply less likely to turn out.
In truth, however, should Clinton lose that state, it's not at all clear that she would then go on to lose New Hampshire five days later. There's a long history of candidates losing Iowa and coming back to win New Hampshire -- such as Ronald Reagan against George Bush the elder in 1980.
And New Hampshire is, after all, a primary state where Clinton should do better -- though the participation of independents in that Democratic primary could skew that, since she polls better among registered Democrats.
But as long as Clinton wins New Hampshire, she is likely to remain the front-runner and go on to win South Carolina on January 26 and wrap up the nomination on Super Tuesday 10 days later. Conversely, both Obama and John Edwards must finish ahead of Clinton in Iowa to remain viable. And they probably have to win one of the other two big January contests, too, in order to seriously challenge the front-runner. Again, it's not impossible. But it won't be easy.
By Steven Stark
With roughly a month to go until the nominating process actually begins in Iowa, the contours of the 2008 presidential race are now clear. On the Democratic side, the nomination is still Hillary Clinton's to lose. And on the Republican side, which we'll review in depth next week, there are still, incredibly, five candidates with a legitimate chance to gain the GOP nod.
Because the mainstream press focuses on the day-to-day machinations of the campaign -- a process exacerbated by the rise of Internet coverage, which takes every minute-by-minute development and blows it up out of proportion -- it's often difficult to get a sense of the big picture.
But each race has now assumed a discernible story line. For any of the Democrats not named Clinton, the key is to beat her in Iowa, lest they see their chances for an upset slip away. Sure, the nomination likely won't be decided until February 5, when more than 20 states hold their contests. But if Clinton's challengers can't beat her in Iowa on January 3, they're unlikely to win in the other key Democratic tests before Super Tuesday -- namely New Hampshire on January 8 and South Carolina on January 26. The race, then, will be over almost before it started.
(Michigan will also hold a primary on January 15, but the DNC declared the state to be in violation of the rules on the ordering of primaries, so most of the Democratic contenders have asked to have their names removed from the ballot. As a result, the press is unlikely to cover it extensively. The Nevada caucus on January 19 is also likely to receive little coverage, since caucuses, which require voters to meet at a designated spot and time to declare their preference publicly, tend to attract fewer voters than primaries. Plus, South Carolina Republicans are holding their primary the same day, so that's bound to steal some headlines from Nevada.)
Hillary's heels
Clinton currently holds about a 20-point lead in most national polls, which should give her some security. After all, one has to go back to 1972, when George McGovern bested early leader Edmund Muskie, to find a race in which a front-runner blew such a large lead going into the primaries. That doesn't mean it can't happen again. But it does mean, despite Clinton's well-publicized recent travails -- specifically her sub-par debate performance in late October and some narrowing opinion polls in Iowa and New Hampshire -- that it's unlikely.
Clinton does, however, have two Achilles' heels. The first is that an unusually large number of voters just don't like her, raising the possibility that, if an opponent could galvanize all the anti-Clinton voters on his behalf, he might have a chance of upsetting her.
The second is that, if she had to rank all 50 states in which she'd like to be tested first, Clinton would probably put Iowa last. There's a bit of a culture clash between New York, Clinton's designated home, and Iowa -- which is one reason Rudy Giuliani has, by and large, stayed away from the Hawkeye State. Clinton's husband didn't even run there in 1992, conceding Iowa to favorite son Tom Harkin, so she has had to build her organization from scratch. And Barack Obama is a senator from a neighboring state, which, on paper at least, should be a huge advantage -- even though the press seldom mentions it. (Although Clinton grew up in Illinois, it's not the same as representing it in an elected national body.)
Most important, Iowa is not a primary contest but a caucus state, so level of participation is far lower than in an ordinary primary. That's bad news for Clinton, since her voters tend to be poorer than Obama's more upper-middle-class constituency and, historically, poorer voters don't vote in as great numbers. All things being equal, her voters in Iowa are simply less likely to turn out.
In truth, however, should Clinton lose that state, it's not at all clear that she would then go on to lose New Hampshire five days later. There's a long history of candidates losing Iowa and coming back to win New Hampshire -- such as Ronald Reagan against George Bush the elder in 1980.
And New Hampshire is, after all, a primary state where Clinton should do better -- though the participation of independents in that Democratic primary could skew that, since she polls better among registered Democrats.
But as long as Clinton wins New Hampshire, she is likely to remain the front-runner and go on to win South Carolina on January 26 and wrap up the nomination on Super Tuesday 10 days later. Conversely, both Obama and John Edwards must finish ahead of Clinton in Iowa to remain viable. And they probably have to win one of the other two big January contests, too, in order to seriously challenge the front-runner. Again, it's not impossible. But it won't be easy.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Media Matters: Matthews cited Zogby Interactive poll without noting criticism of methodology
On the November 27 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, during the recurring "Big Number" feature, host Chris Matthews said, "Tonight, our Big Number is the number five. That's the number of Republican presidential candidates that [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] trails in the November matchups." Matthews said the information came from "a new Zogby poll." However, Matthews did not note that the poll was an online Zogby Interactive poll in which participants were chosen from a database of volunteers. Matthews omitted this fact despite statements by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) and Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal -- who appeared earlier in the day on MSNBC -- that such polls are unreliable.
A November 26 release detailing the findings cited by Matthews clearly identified the Zogby Interactive poll as an "online survey." The release included a link to the "Interactive Poll/Survey Methodology," which answers the question "Who Participates in Zogby Interactive Polls?" by noting that the participants "are selected at random from a database of hundreds of thousands of individuals." The database is composed of people who register themselves, as the same answer noted:
Zogby has assembled a database of individuals who have registered to take part in online polls through solicitations on the company's Web site, as well as other Web sites that span the political spectrum -- liberal, conservative, and middle of the road; politically active and apolitical; easy to reach and hard to find. Many individuals who participate in Zogby's telephone surveys also submit e-mail addresses so they may take part in online polls.
In the same answer, Zogby responded to "criticisms that interactive political polls include 'self-selected' political junkies skewing polls for fun and one-upmanship" by asserting that "[r]espondents of Zogby Interactive polls do not choose to take part in a poll, rather they are selected at random from a database of hundreds of thousands of individuals, much like the database of millions across the country who have telephones."
However, during his November 27 appearance on MSNBC Live, Blumenthal expressed doubt about the Zogby Interactive methodology. Blumenthal noted that the poll's findings differed from other recent telephone polls and added: "[W]hat's different about it is it was done online for people who had volunteered to be interviewed online. That particular method by that pollster wasn't all that accurate in 2006. So, I would just -- I'd be more cautious about the online surveys." Indeed, Wall Street Journal Online columnist Carl Bialik noted on November 16, 2006, that Zogby Interactive's 2006 Senate election "predictions missed by an average of 8.6 percentage points in those polls -- at least twice the average miss of four other polling operations I examined."
In a November 26 post on his blog Political Arithmetik, University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Charles H. Franklin, former president of the Society for Political Methodology, wrote that the Zogby Interactive poll cited by Matthews "has produced some odd results" and mentioned that the online poll did not rely on "a normal random sample of the population." Referring to a November 26 Reuters article headlined "New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans," Franklin further wrote that "based on the large outliers the Clinton results produce, I'd hold off on the Reuters headline until I saw some confirmation from other polls."
On its website, the AAPOR states that "[e]ven if opt-in surveys" -- like the Zogby Interactive poll -- "are based on probability samples drawn from very large pools of volunteers, their results still suffer from unknown biases":
When we draw a sample at random -- that is, when every member of the target population has a known probability of being selected -- we can use the sample to make projective, quantitative estimates about the population. A sample selected at random has known mathematical properties that allow for the computation of sampling error.
Surveys based on self-selected volunteers do not have that sort of known relationship to the target population and are subject to unknown, non-measurable biases. Even if opt-in surveys are based on probability samples drawn from very large pools of volunteers, their results still suffer from unknown biases stemming from the fact that the pool has no knowable relationships with the full target population.
Similarly, in response to a previous Zogby Interactive survey, Blumenthal wrote in an April 26, 2006, blog post:
Why is it important that the survey was conducted online?
1) This survey is not based on a "scientific" random sample -- The press release posted on the web site of the trade group that paid for the poll makes the claim that it is a "scientific poll" of "likely voters." As we have discussed here previously, we use the term scientific to describe a poll based on a random probability sample, one in which all members of a population (in this case, all likely voters) have an equal or known chance of being selected at random.
In this case only individuals that had previously joined the Zogby panel of potential respondents had that opportunity. As this article on the Zogby's web site explains, their online samples are selected from "a database of individuals who have registered to take part in online polls through solicitations on the company's Web site, as well as other Web sites that span the political spectrum." In other words, most of the members of the panel saw a banner ad on a web site and volunteered to participate. You can volunteer too -- just use this link.
Zogby claims that "many individuals who have participated in Zogby's telephone surveys also have submitted e-mail addresses so they may take part in online polls." Such recruitment might help make Zogby's panel a bit more representative, but it certainly does not trans[f]orm it into a random sample. Moreover, he tells us nothing about the percentage of such recruits in his panel or the percentage of telephone respondents that typically submit email addresses. Despite Zogby's bluster, this claim does not come close to making his "database" a projective random sample of the U.S. population.
From the discussion on the 10 a.m. ET hour of the November 27 edition of MSNBC Live, which featured Blumenthal and Iowa-based pollster J. Ann Selzer, whose firm conducts the quadrennial Iowa Poll for The Des Moines Register:
HALL: Here to help us make sense of some of the numbers that are floating around out there, Mark Blumenthal, editor and publisher of Pollster.com, and Ann Selzer, she's a pollster and president of Selzer and Company. Thanks for joining us.
BLUMENTHAL: [unintelligible] to be here.
HALL: All right, Mark, I want to start with you.
SELZER: Good morning.
HALL: Good morning. We were talking in our newsroom. There are two recent polls out showing very different results --
BLUMENTHAL: Right.
HALL: -- when it comes to Hillary Clinton versus the top Republican candidates. You got one poll showing that she'd be beat by these Republican candidates. The other shows that she would come out ahead.
HALL: How do you make sense if you are a person at home and you stumble across one of these reading them online or maybe in the paper, and they're so different?
BLUMENTHAL: Well, that's always the trick, and I'd say go to Pollster.com, and we'll help you figure it out.
HALL: OK, outside of that.
BLUMENTHAL: The Zogby poll -- the one that looks very different from the poll from Gallup -- also looks very different from all the other recent surveys, and what's different about it is it was done online for people who had volunteered to be interviewed online. That particular method by that pollster wasn't all that accurate in 2006. So, I would just -- I'd be more cautious about the online surveys.
HALL: And, Ann, is that a concern how the pollsters get the information? Is, let's say, a phone or online not as reliable?
SELZER: Well, online polls are notoriously unreliable. And with one poll you get one answer, you do another poll the same way the next day, you can get a very different answer. So, telephone has shown to be the most reliable, that is you get the same answers if you do it the same way, consistently.
From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the November 27 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Time now for the Hardball "Big Number" that tells a big story. Tonight, our Big Number is five. That's the number of Republican presidential candidates that Hillary Clinton trails in the November matchups. According to a new Zogby poll, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and, believe it or not, Mike Huckabee, that's five, count 'em, five Republicans all now beating, yes, Hillary Clinton in the matchups for next November, and it's tonight's "Big Number."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711280004?f=h_latest
A November 26 release detailing the findings cited by Matthews clearly identified the Zogby Interactive poll as an "online survey." The release included a link to the "Interactive Poll/Survey Methodology," which answers the question "Who Participates in Zogby Interactive Polls?" by noting that the participants "are selected at random from a database of hundreds of thousands of individuals." The database is composed of people who register themselves, as the same answer noted:
Zogby has assembled a database of individuals who have registered to take part in online polls through solicitations on the company's Web site, as well as other Web sites that span the political spectrum -- liberal, conservative, and middle of the road; politically active and apolitical; easy to reach and hard to find. Many individuals who participate in Zogby's telephone surveys also submit e-mail addresses so they may take part in online polls.
In the same answer, Zogby responded to "criticisms that interactive political polls include 'self-selected' political junkies skewing polls for fun and one-upmanship" by asserting that "[r]espondents of Zogby Interactive polls do not choose to take part in a poll, rather they are selected at random from a database of hundreds of thousands of individuals, much like the database of millions across the country who have telephones."
However, during his November 27 appearance on MSNBC Live, Blumenthal expressed doubt about the Zogby Interactive methodology. Blumenthal noted that the poll's findings differed from other recent telephone polls and added: "[W]hat's different about it is it was done online for people who had volunteered to be interviewed online. That particular method by that pollster wasn't all that accurate in 2006. So, I would just -- I'd be more cautious about the online surveys." Indeed, Wall Street Journal Online columnist Carl Bialik noted on November 16, 2006, that Zogby Interactive's 2006 Senate election "predictions missed by an average of 8.6 percentage points in those polls -- at least twice the average miss of four other polling operations I examined."
In a November 26 post on his blog Political Arithmetik, University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Charles H. Franklin, former president of the Society for Political Methodology, wrote that the Zogby Interactive poll cited by Matthews "has produced some odd results" and mentioned that the online poll did not rely on "a normal random sample of the population." Referring to a November 26 Reuters article headlined "New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans," Franklin further wrote that "based on the large outliers the Clinton results produce, I'd hold off on the Reuters headline until I saw some confirmation from other polls."
On its website, the AAPOR states that "[e]ven if opt-in surveys" -- like the Zogby Interactive poll -- "are based on probability samples drawn from very large pools of volunteers, their results still suffer from unknown biases":
When we draw a sample at random -- that is, when every member of the target population has a known probability of being selected -- we can use the sample to make projective, quantitative estimates about the population. A sample selected at random has known mathematical properties that allow for the computation of sampling error.
Surveys based on self-selected volunteers do not have that sort of known relationship to the target population and are subject to unknown, non-measurable biases. Even if opt-in surveys are based on probability samples drawn from very large pools of volunteers, their results still suffer from unknown biases stemming from the fact that the pool has no knowable relationships with the full target population.
Similarly, in response to a previous Zogby Interactive survey, Blumenthal wrote in an April 26, 2006, blog post:
Why is it important that the survey was conducted online?
1) This survey is not based on a "scientific" random sample -- The press release posted on the web site of the trade group that paid for the poll makes the claim that it is a "scientific poll" of "likely voters." As we have discussed here previously, we use the term scientific to describe a poll based on a random probability sample, one in which all members of a population (in this case, all likely voters) have an equal or known chance of being selected at random.
In this case only individuals that had previously joined the Zogby panel of potential respondents had that opportunity. As this article on the Zogby's web site explains, their online samples are selected from "a database of individuals who have registered to take part in online polls through solicitations on the company's Web site, as well as other Web sites that span the political spectrum." In other words, most of the members of the panel saw a banner ad on a web site and volunteered to participate. You can volunteer too -- just use this link.
Zogby claims that "many individuals who have participated in Zogby's telephone surveys also have submitted e-mail addresses so they may take part in online polls." Such recruitment might help make Zogby's panel a bit more representative, but it certainly does not trans[f]orm it into a random sample. Moreover, he tells us nothing about the percentage of such recruits in his panel or the percentage of telephone respondents that typically submit email addresses. Despite Zogby's bluster, this claim does not come close to making his "database" a projective random sample of the U.S. population.
From the discussion on the 10 a.m. ET hour of the November 27 edition of MSNBC Live, which featured Blumenthal and Iowa-based pollster J. Ann Selzer, whose firm conducts the quadrennial Iowa Poll for The Des Moines Register:
HALL: Here to help us make sense of some of the numbers that are floating around out there, Mark Blumenthal, editor and publisher of Pollster.com, and Ann Selzer, she's a pollster and president of Selzer and Company. Thanks for joining us.
BLUMENTHAL: [unintelligible] to be here.
HALL: All right, Mark, I want to start with you.
SELZER: Good morning.
HALL: Good morning. We were talking in our newsroom. There are two recent polls out showing very different results --
BLUMENTHAL: Right.
HALL: -- when it comes to Hillary Clinton versus the top Republican candidates. You got one poll showing that she'd be beat by these Republican candidates. The other shows that she would come out ahead.
HALL: How do you make sense if you are a person at home and you stumble across one of these reading them online or maybe in the paper, and they're so different?
BLUMENTHAL: Well, that's always the trick, and I'd say go to Pollster.com, and we'll help you figure it out.
HALL: OK, outside of that.
BLUMENTHAL: The Zogby poll -- the one that looks very different from the poll from Gallup -- also looks very different from all the other recent surveys, and what's different about it is it was done online for people who had volunteered to be interviewed online. That particular method by that pollster wasn't all that accurate in 2006. So, I would just -- I'd be more cautious about the online surveys.
HALL: And, Ann, is that a concern how the pollsters get the information? Is, let's say, a phone or online not as reliable?
SELZER: Well, online polls are notoriously unreliable. And with one poll you get one answer, you do another poll the same way the next day, you can get a very different answer. So, telephone has shown to be the most reliable, that is you get the same answers if you do it the same way, consistently.
From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the November 27 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Time now for the Hardball "Big Number" that tells a big story. Tonight, our Big Number is five. That's the number of Republican presidential candidates that Hillary Clinton trails in the November matchups. According to a new Zogby poll, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and, believe it or not, Mike Huckabee, that's five, count 'em, five Republicans all now beating, yes, Hillary Clinton in the matchups for next November, and it's tonight's "Big Number."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711280004?f=h_latest
DailyKos: Kos: Zogby "interactive" polls are junk
Zogby "interactive" polls are junk
by kos
Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 06:53:47 AM PST
I know Hillary's opponents are jumping on Zogby Interactive's latest poll showing Hillary doing substantially poorer than her opponents in head-to-head matchups than her opponents.
Let me make this as clear as possible: Zogby interactive polls are JUNK. They are about as solid as the Daily Kos cattle call polls would be if we were trying to claim the community represented all Democrats.
Witness this little bit of disclaimer:
The poll of 9,355 people had a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point. The interactive poll surveys individuals who have registered to take part in online polls.
How a poll that is essentially a web poll can be considered credible is beyond me. But you don't have to take my word for it. Look at how poorly the Zogby interactive poll performed in 2006 (after a disastrous debut in 2004):
I opted to use Mr. Mitofsky's method in my own number crunching. I looked at five pollsters that were among the most prolific: Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, Zogby (which releases separate telephone and online polls) and Washington, D.C.-based Mason-Dixon. For all but the latter, I used the numbers posted on the organizations' own Web sites. For Mason-Dixon, which keeps some of its poll data behind a subscriber wall, I used Pollster.com to find polls from the two weeks before the election. I checked the results against vote counts as of this Tuesday [...]
On to the results: In the Senate races, the average error on the margin of victory was tightly bunched for all the phone polls. Rasmussen (25 races) and Mason-Dixon (15) each were off by an average of fewer than four points on the margin. Zogby's phone polls (10) and SurveyUSA (18) each missed by slightly more than four points. Just four of the 68 phone polls missed by 10 points or more, with the widest miss at 18 points.
But the performance of Zogby Interactive, the unit that conducts surveys online, demonstrates the dubious value of judging polls only by whether they pick winners correctly. As Zogby noted in a press release, its online polls identified 18 of 19 Senate winners correctly. But its predictions missed by an average of 8.6 percentage points in those polls -- at least twice the average miss of four other polling operations I examined. Zogby predicted a nine-point win for Democrat Herb Kohl in Wisconsin; he won by 37 points. Democrat Maria Cantwell was expected to win by four points in Washington; she won by 17 [...]
The picture was similar in the gubernatorial races (where Zogby polled only online, not by phone). Mason-Dixon's average error was under 3.4 points in 14 races. Rasmussen missed by an average of 3.8 points in 30 races; SurveyUSA was off by 4.4 points, on average, in 18 races. But Zogby's online poll missed by an average of 8.3 points, erring on six races by more than 15 points.
Seriously, Zogby polls suck. Yet according to Google News right now, the "Hillary loses against all Republicans in the general" poll has been cited by over 200 media, while the far more respectable Gallup effort which shows that Hillary in fact beats them all has been far less reported.
The Zogby survey was covered repeatedly on CNN, earned coverage from MSNBC, Fox News, and Reuters and was covered by multiple other smaller outlets.
By contrast, I can't find a single example of any reporter or commentator on the major networks or news outlets referring to the Gallup poll at all, with the lone exception of UPI. While the Zogby poll was mentioned by multiple reporters and pundits, the only mentions the Gallup poll got on TV were from Hillary advisers who had to bring it up themselves on the air in order to inject it into the conversation.
You could argue that the Zogby poll got all the coverage it did precisely because it is out of sync with multiple other polls, and thus is news. But the truth is that the reporters and editors at the major nets know full well that the Zogby poll is bunk -- yet they breathlessly covered it anyway.
Worse, the Zogby poll was covered with few mentions either of its dubious methodology or of the degree to which its findings don't jibe with other surveys. Bottom line: The Zogby poll was considered big news because many in the political press are heavily invested in the Hillary-is-unelectable narrative for all kinds of reasons that have little to do with a desire to, you know, practice journalism.
The media has its agenda, which right now is the "Hillary is fading" narrative. The hard core supporters of the other Democratic primary candidates have their agenda -- to raise bullshit "electability" arguments against Hillary.
And those of us who remain reality-based and dispassionate throughout this all can only shake our heads at the credence being put in a discredited shill of a "pollster".
Update: Pollster.com:
It is reasonable that the people who volunteer to take political polls over the internet are considerably more interested in politics (and likely more strongly partisan) than is a random sample of likely voters. That should be expected to lead to fewer people with "don't know" responses as better informed and more partisan respondents are likely to both know more about the candidates and to have made up their minds sooner than a proper random sample. That helps explain why Zogby's 2006 internet polls looked as they did.
But this does no good in Clinton's case.
Actually, it's a perfect explanation. You see Hillary's results in the dKos straw poll? In all internet polls she far underperforms her "real world" numbers.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/28/95347/662
by kos
Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 06:53:47 AM PST
I know Hillary's opponents are jumping on Zogby Interactive's latest poll showing Hillary doing substantially poorer than her opponents in head-to-head matchups than her opponents.
Let me make this as clear as possible: Zogby interactive polls are JUNK. They are about as solid as the Daily Kos cattle call polls would be if we were trying to claim the community represented all Democrats.
Witness this little bit of disclaimer:
The poll of 9,355 people had a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point. The interactive poll surveys individuals who have registered to take part in online polls.
How a poll that is essentially a web poll can be considered credible is beyond me. But you don't have to take my word for it. Look at how poorly the Zogby interactive poll performed in 2006 (after a disastrous debut in 2004):
I opted to use Mr. Mitofsky's method in my own number crunching. I looked at five pollsters that were among the most prolific: Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, Zogby (which releases separate telephone and online polls) and Washington, D.C.-based Mason-Dixon. For all but the latter, I used the numbers posted on the organizations' own Web sites. For Mason-Dixon, which keeps some of its poll data behind a subscriber wall, I used Pollster.com to find polls from the two weeks before the election. I checked the results against vote counts as of this Tuesday [...]
On to the results: In the Senate races, the average error on the margin of victory was tightly bunched for all the phone polls. Rasmussen (25 races) and Mason-Dixon (15) each were off by an average of fewer than four points on the margin. Zogby's phone polls (10) and SurveyUSA (18) each missed by slightly more than four points. Just four of the 68 phone polls missed by 10 points or more, with the widest miss at 18 points.
But the performance of Zogby Interactive, the unit that conducts surveys online, demonstrates the dubious value of judging polls only by whether they pick winners correctly. As Zogby noted in a press release, its online polls identified 18 of 19 Senate winners correctly. But its predictions missed by an average of 8.6 percentage points in those polls -- at least twice the average miss of four other polling operations I examined. Zogby predicted a nine-point win for Democrat Herb Kohl in Wisconsin; he won by 37 points. Democrat Maria Cantwell was expected to win by four points in Washington; she won by 17 [...]
The picture was similar in the gubernatorial races (where Zogby polled only online, not by phone). Mason-Dixon's average error was under 3.4 points in 14 races. Rasmussen missed by an average of 3.8 points in 30 races; SurveyUSA was off by 4.4 points, on average, in 18 races. But Zogby's online poll missed by an average of 8.3 points, erring on six races by more than 15 points.
Seriously, Zogby polls suck. Yet according to Google News right now, the "Hillary loses against all Republicans in the general" poll has been cited by over 200 media, while the far more respectable Gallup effort which shows that Hillary in fact beats them all has been far less reported.
The Zogby survey was covered repeatedly on CNN, earned coverage from MSNBC, Fox News, and Reuters and was covered by multiple other smaller outlets.
By contrast, I can't find a single example of any reporter or commentator on the major networks or news outlets referring to the Gallup poll at all, with the lone exception of UPI. While the Zogby poll was mentioned by multiple reporters and pundits, the only mentions the Gallup poll got on TV were from Hillary advisers who had to bring it up themselves on the air in order to inject it into the conversation.
You could argue that the Zogby poll got all the coverage it did precisely because it is out of sync with multiple other polls, and thus is news. But the truth is that the reporters and editors at the major nets know full well that the Zogby poll is bunk -- yet they breathlessly covered it anyway.
Worse, the Zogby poll was covered with few mentions either of its dubious methodology or of the degree to which its findings don't jibe with other surveys. Bottom line: The Zogby poll was considered big news because many in the political press are heavily invested in the Hillary-is-unelectable narrative for all kinds of reasons that have little to do with a desire to, you know, practice journalism.
The media has its agenda, which right now is the "Hillary is fading" narrative. The hard core supporters of the other Democratic primary candidates have their agenda -- to raise bullshit "electability" arguments against Hillary.
And those of us who remain reality-based and dispassionate throughout this all can only shake our heads at the credence being put in a discredited shill of a "pollster".
Update: Pollster.com:
It is reasonable that the people who volunteer to take political polls over the internet are considerably more interested in politics (and likely more strongly partisan) than is a random sample of likely voters. That should be expected to lead to fewer people with "don't know" responses as better informed and more partisan respondents are likely to both know more about the candidates and to have made up their minds sooner than a proper random sample. That helps explain why Zogby's 2006 internet polls looked as they did.
But this does no good in Clinton's case.
Actually, it's a perfect explanation. You see Hillary's results in the dKos straw poll? In all internet polls she far underperforms her "real world" numbers.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/28/95347/662
Huffington Post: Obama's PAC Money
An examination of Federal Election Commission disclosures reveals that over the last reporting period Senator Barack Obama's now suspended political action committee, known as Hopefund, has given New Hampshire politicians, supporters and others tens of thousands of dollars.
The Washington Post has previously reported the flow of Obama PAC money toward Granite State politicians but did not itemize or total the $73,000 that the Illinois Senator has recently sprinkled through New Hampshire.
Congressman Paul Hodes and Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter received $4,000. Hodes has endorsed Obama and is his New Hampshire campaign Co-Chair.
After hearing reading the report, the Clinton campaign released a statement that said "On the campaign trail, Senator Obama is outspoken about his desire to reform the campaign finance system so it was surprising to learn that he has been using his PAC in a manner that appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing election laws."
State Senators Janeway and Cilley also received a donation from Obama's PAC and endorsed the Illionis Senator. Cilley told The Washington Post "There were no negotiations about financial remuneration. No quid pro quo. I endorsed him because I believe in him and his policies."
Among the list are several politicians who have endorsed Hillary Clinton. Senators D'Allesandro, Sgambati, Hassan and Estabrook all received $1,000 from Obama yet endorsed Clinton.
Total Disbursements To New Hampshire Politicians For Last Reporting Period:
Paul Hodes for Congress: $4,000.00
Carol Shea-Porter for Congress: $4,000.00
NH Democratic Party: $5,000.00
Jeanne Shaheen for Senate: $5,000.00
Hillsborough County Democrats: $1,000.00
Belknap County Democrats: $1,000.00
Janeway for Senate: $1,000.00
Sullivan County Democrats: $1,000.00
Rockingham County Democrats: $1,000.00
Iris Estabrook Campaign for State Senate: $1,000.00
John Shea: $1,000.00
Carroll County Democrats: $1,000.00
Strafford County Democratic Committe: $1,000.00
Merrimack County Democrats: $1,000.00
Grafton County Democrats: $1,000.00
Hollingsworth for Executive Council: $1,000.00
Cheshire County Democratic Committee: $1,000.00
New Hampshire for John Lynch: $5,000.00
New Hampshire for John Lynch: $1,000.00
Friends of Jackie Cilley: $1,000.00
Sgambati 4 Senate: $1,000.00
Comm. To Elect Lou D'Allesandro: $1,000.00
Maggie '08: $1,000.00
Friends of a Democratic Senate: $15,000.00
Committee to Elect House Democrats: $15,000.00
Coos County Democrats: $1,000.00
Martha Fuller Clark for State Senate: $1,000.00
Total: $73,000.00
The Washington Post has previously reported the flow of Obama PAC money toward Granite State politicians but did not itemize or total the $73,000 that the Illinois Senator has recently sprinkled through New Hampshire.
Congressman Paul Hodes and Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter received $4,000. Hodes has endorsed Obama and is his New Hampshire campaign Co-Chair.
After hearing reading the report, the Clinton campaign released a statement that said "On the campaign trail, Senator Obama is outspoken about his desire to reform the campaign finance system so it was surprising to learn that he has been using his PAC in a manner that appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing election laws."
State Senators Janeway and Cilley also received a donation from Obama's PAC and endorsed the Illionis Senator. Cilley told The Washington Post "There were no negotiations about financial remuneration. No quid pro quo. I endorsed him because I believe in him and his policies."
Among the list are several politicians who have endorsed Hillary Clinton. Senators D'Allesandro, Sgambati, Hassan and Estabrook all received $1,000 from Obama yet endorsed Clinton.
Total Disbursements To New Hampshire Politicians For Last Reporting Period:
Paul Hodes for Congress: $4,000.00
Carol Shea-Porter for Congress: $4,000.00
NH Democratic Party: $5,000.00
Jeanne Shaheen for Senate: $5,000.00
Hillsborough County Democrats: $1,000.00
Belknap County Democrats: $1,000.00
Janeway for Senate: $1,000.00
Sullivan County Democrats: $1,000.00
Rockingham County Democrats: $1,000.00
Iris Estabrook Campaign for State Senate: $1,000.00
John Shea: $1,000.00
Carroll County Democrats: $1,000.00
Strafford County Democratic Committe: $1,000.00
Merrimack County Democrats: $1,000.00
Grafton County Democrats: $1,000.00
Hollingsworth for Executive Council: $1,000.00
Cheshire County Democratic Committee: $1,000.00
New Hampshire for John Lynch: $5,000.00
New Hampshire for John Lynch: $1,000.00
Friends of Jackie Cilley: $1,000.00
Sgambati 4 Senate: $1,000.00
Comm. To Elect Lou D'Allesandro: $1,000.00
Maggie '08: $1,000.00
Friends of a Democratic Senate: $15,000.00
Committee to Elect House Democrats: $15,000.00
Coos County Democrats: $1,000.00
Martha Fuller Clark for State Senate: $1,000.00
Total: $73,000.00
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The Fact Hub: Fact Check: Polls Show Hillary Beating All Republicans
There were two polls yesterday that pitted Hillary versus her potential Republican challengers. One was an online poll by Zogby that found Hillary trailing Republicans, the other was a poll from Gallup that found Hillary beating all Republicans by substantial margins.
Which do you think got more coverage?
As of about 9AM, the Zogby poll was covered on TV news 15 times and the Gallup poll was mentioned twice – by the Hillary campaign's Mark Penn and Ann Lewis.
The Gallup poll showed that if Hillary was the nominee she would beat Giuliani by five points but if Sen. Obama was the nominee the race would be tied. Gallup also showed Hillary beating John McCain (by 6 points), Mitt Romney (by 16 points) and Fred Thompson (by 13 points). Hillary also leads all Republican contenders in Real Clear Politics' poll average.
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4383
Which do you think got more coverage?
As of about 9AM, the Zogby poll was covered on TV news 15 times and the Gallup poll was mentioned twice – by the Hillary campaign's Mark Penn and Ann Lewis.
The Gallup poll showed that if Hillary was the nominee she would beat Giuliani by five points but if Sen. Obama was the nominee the race would be tied. Gallup also showed Hillary beating John McCain (by 6 points), Mitt Romney (by 16 points) and Fred Thompson (by 13 points). Hillary also leads all Republican contenders in Real Clear Politics' poll average.
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4383
Washington Post: Calculation and Conviction
Calculation and Conviction
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, November 26, 2007; Page A15
Barack Obama suggests that Hillary Clinton is guilty of triangulating, poll-testing and telling the American people what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.
Maybe so. But then it's fair to ask: Is Obama telling the American people anything they don't want to hear? More specifically, as he campaigns for votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, is he saying anything except what polls suggest Democrats there might want to hear?
His campaign points to Obama's traveling to Detroit to endorse higher fuel standards for automobiles, his preaching parental responsibility in black churches and his refusing to promise Iowa activists that he will cut the defense budget. He backs driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, not a crowd-pleaser this electoral season.
But to the extent that Obama's positions have shifted over the past several months, they've shifted uncannily to where middle-class Democratic voters happen to be.
Obama still presents himself as the candidate who can rise above the tired old debates and tell everyone "what they need to hear," as he said in an address on schools last week. But what he said about schools was what Democrats and the teachers unions want to hear: Schools need more money. Merit pay for teachers has morphed, in his plan, into a "professional compensation system designed with the help and agreement of teachers' organizations." And making sure schools teach all children, especially poor and minority children, to read and do math is derided as preparing children "to fill in bubbles on standardized tests."
In keeping with the pacifism of much of the Iowa caucus electorate, Obama now attacks Clinton for a position on Iran that is nearly identical to one he espoused a few months ago. On Iraq, he used to agree with her that some troops would stay to fight al-Qaeda and other terrorists, train Iraqi forces, and guard embassies. Now he says the anti-terrorist mission might be accomplished from outside Iraq, and recently on "Meet the Press" he dropped the training idea altogether.
In September, he proposed $80 billion in tax goodies for middle-class earners, including a tax credit that wouldn't be phased out until earnings reached more than $200,000.
It's true that he favors the tiny Peru trade agreement. But with polls showing increasing anxiety in Iowa about globalization, Obama has turned up the anti-trade rhetoric, opposing the more meaningful agreement proposed with South Korea and ignoring NAFTA's record of raising living standards here and in Mexico.
It's also true that, more responsibly than Clinton, he acknowledges a fiscal challenge for Social Security. But where he used to accept that all possible remedies must be on the table to achieve a political compromise, he now opposes benefit cuts and proposes to solve the problem with, yes, a tax hike on the rich.
You could argue that there's nothing terrible or surprising in this. People who run for office, unless they're totally quixotic, respond to voters' views; that's the point of democracy. It's commonly accepted that Democrats "run left" in the primaries and then shift toward the center in the general election, while Republicans perform the mirror-image dance. A little cynical, maybe, but nothing new; by this reading, Clinton, as the front-runner, has just had the luxury of shifting a bit early.
But campaigning does pose a test of character: Are there any principles that a candidate holds strongly enough to take an electoral hit -- or to try to lead and bring the electorate along -- rather than follow the polls? This year and over the years, we've seen, for example, that John McCain has some such principles: on Iraq, on immigration, on curbing the influence of money in politics. With the rest of the field, in both parties, it's not so clear.
The question is particularly acute for Obama, because of his line of attack on Clinton and because he built his candidacy on two foundations: that he can heal the nation's partisan divisions and that he will lead "not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction," as he said in Iowa this month. Without those distinctions, he's just a former state legislator from Illinois with a half-term, and few accomplishments, in the U.S. Senate.
But when the first selling point left him stuck in second in national polls, he shifted, apparently without much difficulty, to attacking Clinton from the left. And at some point it's no longer enough to describe yourself as courageous. Obama followed his not-calculation-but-conviction statement, in a speech generally credited as one of his strongest of the fall, by pledging to stand up to corporate lobbyists, end the war in Iraq and take tax breaks away from companies that send jobs overseas -- not exactly bitter medicine for his Democratic audience.
In the last Democratic debate, Obama again laced into Clinton for not providing "straight answers to tough questions," but it seemed a bit half-hearted. Maybe that's a good sign; maybe he's not happy with how his campaign has diverged from what he promised it would be.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/25/AR2007112501557.html
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, November 26, 2007; Page A15
Barack Obama suggests that Hillary Clinton is guilty of triangulating, poll-testing and telling the American people what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.
Maybe so. But then it's fair to ask: Is Obama telling the American people anything they don't want to hear? More specifically, as he campaigns for votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, is he saying anything except what polls suggest Democrats there might want to hear?
His campaign points to Obama's traveling to Detroit to endorse higher fuel standards for automobiles, his preaching parental responsibility in black churches and his refusing to promise Iowa activists that he will cut the defense budget. He backs driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, not a crowd-pleaser this electoral season.
But to the extent that Obama's positions have shifted over the past several months, they've shifted uncannily to where middle-class Democratic voters happen to be.
Obama still presents himself as the candidate who can rise above the tired old debates and tell everyone "what they need to hear," as he said in an address on schools last week. But what he said about schools was what Democrats and the teachers unions want to hear: Schools need more money. Merit pay for teachers has morphed, in his plan, into a "professional compensation system designed with the help and agreement of teachers' organizations." And making sure schools teach all children, especially poor and minority children, to read and do math is derided as preparing children "to fill in bubbles on standardized tests."
In keeping with the pacifism of much of the Iowa caucus electorate, Obama now attacks Clinton for a position on Iran that is nearly identical to one he espoused a few months ago. On Iraq, he used to agree with her that some troops would stay to fight al-Qaeda and other terrorists, train Iraqi forces, and guard embassies. Now he says the anti-terrorist mission might be accomplished from outside Iraq, and recently on "Meet the Press" he dropped the training idea altogether.
In September, he proposed $80 billion in tax goodies for middle-class earners, including a tax credit that wouldn't be phased out until earnings reached more than $200,000.
It's true that he favors the tiny Peru trade agreement. But with polls showing increasing anxiety in Iowa about globalization, Obama has turned up the anti-trade rhetoric, opposing the more meaningful agreement proposed with South Korea and ignoring NAFTA's record of raising living standards here and in Mexico.
It's also true that, more responsibly than Clinton, he acknowledges a fiscal challenge for Social Security. But where he used to accept that all possible remedies must be on the table to achieve a political compromise, he now opposes benefit cuts and proposes to solve the problem with, yes, a tax hike on the rich.
You could argue that there's nothing terrible or surprising in this. People who run for office, unless they're totally quixotic, respond to voters' views; that's the point of democracy. It's commonly accepted that Democrats "run left" in the primaries and then shift toward the center in the general election, while Republicans perform the mirror-image dance. A little cynical, maybe, but nothing new; by this reading, Clinton, as the front-runner, has just had the luxury of shifting a bit early.
But campaigning does pose a test of character: Are there any principles that a candidate holds strongly enough to take an electoral hit -- or to try to lead and bring the electorate along -- rather than follow the polls? This year and over the years, we've seen, for example, that John McCain has some such principles: on Iraq, on immigration, on curbing the influence of money in politics. With the rest of the field, in both parties, it's not so clear.
The question is particularly acute for Obama, because of his line of attack on Clinton and because he built his candidacy on two foundations: that he can heal the nation's partisan divisions and that he will lead "not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction," as he said in Iowa this month. Without those distinctions, he's just a former state legislator from Illinois with a half-term, and few accomplishments, in the U.S. Senate.
But when the first selling point left him stuck in second in national polls, he shifted, apparently without much difficulty, to attacking Clinton from the left. And at some point it's no longer enough to describe yourself as courageous. Obama followed his not-calculation-but-conviction statement, in a speech generally credited as one of his strongest of the fall, by pledging to stand up to corporate lobbyists, end the war in Iraq and take tax breaks away from companies that send jobs overseas -- not exactly bitter medicine for his Democratic audience.
In the last Democratic debate, Obama again laced into Clinton for not providing "straight answers to tough questions," but it seemed a bit half-hearted. Maybe that's a good sign; maybe he's not happy with how his campaign has diverged from what he promised it would be.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/25/AR2007112501557.html
Monday, November 26, 2007
Washington Post: Clinton's New Hampshire Machine
CONCORD, N.H. -- Barack Obama may be gaining in Iowa, but Hillary Clinton touched down here yesterday to issue an implicit reminder: when the race moves to New Hampshire, she'll have the Machine.
That may be an overly harsh word to describe the New Hampshire Democratic establishment -- state legislators, retired officials and lawyer-lobbyist types who tend on the whole to be as personable as most of their small-state neighbors. But there was no mistaking the show of Establishment force at the historic carriage house here where Clinton came to pick up yet another high-profile Democratic endorsement, from Susan Lynch, the wife of the state's popular governor John Lynch. Clinton was introduced by the speaker of the New Hampshire House, Terie Norelli, and the relatively small audience packed into the room included the president of the state Senate, Sylvia Larson; an influential veteran senator from Manchester, Lou D'Allesandro; and at least a dozen other state legislators from the Concord area.
Larson said the local establishment backing for Clinton is a reflection of legislators' belief that she is better prepared for presidency than her rivals. "She's the experienced, capable candidate who's ready to go to work on the first day," said Larson. "Those of us who've worked in the field all these years recognize that it takes time to make things happen, that you need that background to succeed."
Just how much weight the local poobahs' backing will carry come the Jan. 8 primary remains to be seen. Al Gore had a similar lineup of support in 1999 and 2000 and barely eked out a victory in New Hampshire over Bill Bradley. In 2004, the establishment was more splintered among the Democratic candidates.
The Clinton campaign is hoping that Susan Lynch's endorsement, for one, could pack some real punch. It will be seen in many quarters as an implicit blessing from her popular husband, who is officially remaining neutral, much as John Kerry benefited from the endorsement of then-Gov. Tom Vilsack's wife in Iowa in 2004, and as Clinton benefits in New Hampshire from the backing of power broker Billy Shaheen, husband of New Hampshire's former governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is officially remaining neutral as she prepares to run for Senate. In addition, Susan Lynch, a pediatrician, is well-liked and respected in her own right, and her word may carry some extra weight given that she has generally shied from politics.
"As a first lady, pediatrician and most importantly, a mother, I do not take my endorsement light heartedly," she said today with Clinton at her side. "But I truly believe that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our country."
After the event, former state representative Carol Burney said Clinton may be getting such particularly strong establishment support in New Hampshire because that establishment includes so many women leaders. "We got women running the state here," she said. "It's wonderful so many [establishment Democrats] support her because it says our New Hampshire machine is in the process of getting her elected."
Confirmation of this theory was provided a moment later when Mary Louise Hancock, a former state senator and the unofficial grand dame of New Hampshire Democrats, called Clinton to her wheelchair to give her a Susan B. Anthony coin that Hancock had won as part of a women's leadership award. The coin was a good luck charm, Hancock said, to be returned when Clinton became president. "If you've been a legislator then you understand government," Hancock said, later explaining her strong support for Clinton. "What people don't understand is that politics is about government. Because she understands government, she'll be able to run the country."
After Clinton left with the coin, Hancock was swarmed by television crews asking her to elaborate on the moment. The significance of the blessing of the 87-year-old Mrs. Hancock -- a longtime fixture of the Concord scene -- was lost on some of the Secret Service agents looking on. "Can I ask you a question?" one of them asked a reporter. "Who is she?"
That may be an overly harsh word to describe the New Hampshire Democratic establishment -- state legislators, retired officials and lawyer-lobbyist types who tend on the whole to be as personable as most of their small-state neighbors. But there was no mistaking the show of Establishment force at the historic carriage house here where Clinton came to pick up yet another high-profile Democratic endorsement, from Susan Lynch, the wife of the state's popular governor John Lynch. Clinton was introduced by the speaker of the New Hampshire House, Terie Norelli, and the relatively small audience packed into the room included the president of the state Senate, Sylvia Larson; an influential veteran senator from Manchester, Lou D'Allesandro; and at least a dozen other state legislators from the Concord area.
Larson said the local establishment backing for Clinton is a reflection of legislators' belief that she is better prepared for presidency than her rivals. "She's the experienced, capable candidate who's ready to go to work on the first day," said Larson. "Those of us who've worked in the field all these years recognize that it takes time to make things happen, that you need that background to succeed."
Just how much weight the local poobahs' backing will carry come the Jan. 8 primary remains to be seen. Al Gore had a similar lineup of support in 1999 and 2000 and barely eked out a victory in New Hampshire over Bill Bradley. In 2004, the establishment was more splintered among the Democratic candidates.
The Clinton campaign is hoping that Susan Lynch's endorsement, for one, could pack some real punch. It will be seen in many quarters as an implicit blessing from her popular husband, who is officially remaining neutral, much as John Kerry benefited from the endorsement of then-Gov. Tom Vilsack's wife in Iowa in 2004, and as Clinton benefits in New Hampshire from the backing of power broker Billy Shaheen, husband of New Hampshire's former governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is officially remaining neutral as she prepares to run for Senate. In addition, Susan Lynch, a pediatrician, is well-liked and respected in her own right, and her word may carry some extra weight given that she has generally shied from politics.
"As a first lady, pediatrician and most importantly, a mother, I do not take my endorsement light heartedly," she said today with Clinton at her side. "But I truly believe that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our country."
After the event, former state representative Carol Burney said Clinton may be getting such particularly strong establishment support in New Hampshire because that establishment includes so many women leaders. "We got women running the state here," she said. "It's wonderful so many [establishment Democrats] support her because it says our New Hampshire machine is in the process of getting her elected."
Confirmation of this theory was provided a moment later when Mary Louise Hancock, a former state senator and the unofficial grand dame of New Hampshire Democrats, called Clinton to her wheelchair to give her a Susan B. Anthony coin that Hancock had won as part of a women's leadership award. The coin was a good luck charm, Hancock said, to be returned when Clinton became president. "If you've been a legislator then you understand government," Hancock said, later explaining her strong support for Clinton. "What people don't understand is that politics is about government. Because she understands government, she'll be able to run the country."
After Clinton left with the coin, Hancock was swarmed by television crews asking her to elaborate on the moment. The significance of the blessing of the 87-year-old Mrs. Hancock -- a longtime fixture of the Concord scene -- was lost on some of the Secret Service agents looking on. "Can I ask you a question?" one of them asked a reporter. "Who is she?"
Time: Why Oprah Won't Help Obama
To win the Democratic nomination for President, Barack Obama still needs the same thing he has needed all along — for voters to see him as ready to be commander in chief by January 2009. So now the question is: Will appearing at weekend campaign rallies with Oprah Winfrey help him achieve that goal?
Mark me down as more than a bit skeptical.
Winfrey's endorsement — and her announcement that she will appear with Obama at campaign events in Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire on December 8 and 9 — helps bring the following four things to Obama: campaign cash, celebrity, excitement and big crowds.
The four things that Obama has on his own in great abundance — without Winfrey's help — are campaign cash, celebrity, excitement and big crowds.
It might seem that the support and upcoming appearances of Winfrey are surely a net plus for Obama. His campaign manager David Plouffe tells TIME that she is a "transcendent figure," who has avoided sullying herself in politics before and, thus, will provide "a newness and freshness" in appealing to the female and older voters whom Obama is trying to reach.
Without question, Winfrey's foray onto the campaign trail will get Obama more publicity and a chance to convert her fans into Obama supporters.
But a more important event for his chances of winning might actually be taking place on Tuesday of this week, when he appears in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with some of his top foreign policy advisers for a forum with local residents. Joining Obama will be Bill Clinton's former national security adviser Tony Lake, along with Richard Danzig, Susan Rice, Samantha Power (a TIME contributor), and Sarah Sewall, as well as some prominent New Hampshire retired military officials. It was just this kind of event that Bill Clinton used effectively in his 1992 campaign to convince voters that he was ready to be commander in chief.
None of these Obama supporters are, of course, as famous as Oprah Winfrey — or particularly famous at all. But their validation — that Obama's brand of experience and his foreign policy vision make him qualified to lead America's military and protect the nation's national security — could well do more for Obama than anything a talk show host (even a talk show host as powerful as Winfrey) can do.
In polls and focus groups, voters continue to express doubts about Obama's readiness for the presidency, particularly when compared with Clinton. Some analysts have taken to saying that "experience" is a threshold question — that Obama does not need to be seen as more ready than Clinton, just ready enough to do the job. That might be true (or it might not), but the evidence suggests that many voters still have reservations about the Illinois Senator. And the Clinton campaign plainly intends to do what it can to undermine her rival on this very point between now and January.
So yes, expect loud, rousing rallies in all three early voting states when Oprah Winfrey comes to town with her friend Barack Obama in early December, with gobs of media attention, raucous crowds, emotion and great pictures. But don't expect those events to do anything productive to allow Obama to get over the biggest hurdle standing between him and the White House. American voters are not looking for a celebrity or talk show sidekick to lead them. Obama is an intelligent and thoughtful potential President, but Winfrey's imprimatur is unlikely to convey those traits to many undecided voters.
In that respect, Winfrey's events might even be — dare it be said — counterproductive.
With reporting by Karen Tumulty.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1687526,00.html
Mark me down as more than a bit skeptical.
Winfrey's endorsement — and her announcement that she will appear with Obama at campaign events in Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire on December 8 and 9 — helps bring the following four things to Obama: campaign cash, celebrity, excitement and big crowds.
The four things that Obama has on his own in great abundance — without Winfrey's help — are campaign cash, celebrity, excitement and big crowds.
It might seem that the support and upcoming appearances of Winfrey are surely a net plus for Obama. His campaign manager David Plouffe tells TIME that she is a "transcendent figure," who has avoided sullying herself in politics before and, thus, will provide "a newness and freshness" in appealing to the female and older voters whom Obama is trying to reach.
Without question, Winfrey's foray onto the campaign trail will get Obama more publicity and a chance to convert her fans into Obama supporters.
But a more important event for his chances of winning might actually be taking place on Tuesday of this week, when he appears in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with some of his top foreign policy advisers for a forum with local residents. Joining Obama will be Bill Clinton's former national security adviser Tony Lake, along with Richard Danzig, Susan Rice, Samantha Power (a TIME contributor), and Sarah Sewall, as well as some prominent New Hampshire retired military officials. It was just this kind of event that Bill Clinton used effectively in his 1992 campaign to convince voters that he was ready to be commander in chief.
None of these Obama supporters are, of course, as famous as Oprah Winfrey — or particularly famous at all. But their validation — that Obama's brand of experience and his foreign policy vision make him qualified to lead America's military and protect the nation's national security — could well do more for Obama than anything a talk show host (even a talk show host as powerful as Winfrey) can do.
In polls and focus groups, voters continue to express doubts about Obama's readiness for the presidency, particularly when compared with Clinton. Some analysts have taken to saying that "experience" is a threshold question — that Obama does not need to be seen as more ready than Clinton, just ready enough to do the job. That might be true (or it might not), but the evidence suggests that many voters still have reservations about the Illinois Senator. And the Clinton campaign plainly intends to do what it can to undermine her rival on this very point between now and January.
So yes, expect loud, rousing rallies in all three early voting states when Oprah Winfrey comes to town with her friend Barack Obama in early December, with gobs of media attention, raucous crowds, emotion and great pictures. But don't expect those events to do anything productive to allow Obama to get over the biggest hurdle standing between him and the White House. American voters are not looking for a celebrity or talk show sidekick to lead them. Obama is an intelligent and thoughtful potential President, but Winfrey's imprimatur is unlikely to convey those traits to many undecided voters.
In that respect, Winfrey's events might even be — dare it be said — counterproductive.
With reporting by Karen Tumulty.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1687526,00.html
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Huffington Post: What's With Chris Matthews Flacking Obama?
Following a week of "Hardball" encomia to Barack Obama coming off the Washington Post/ABC News November 20 Iowa poll, this morning's NBC "Chris Matthews Show" had the rat-tat-tat commentator declaring Obama "ahead" in that state.
Culminating in an eye-widening leading question to his panelists -- did the Illinois Senator have his best chance ever to beat Sen. Clinton in Hawkeye-land -- the network show exposed Chris Matthews as ballistic on Barack Obama. Perhaps escaping the chance to be invited back, Elizabeth Bumiller and David Brooks demurred and refused to catch Matthews' Obama bouquet. Bumiller said she didn't know; Brooks said there was an improvement over six months ago.
What are the facts about this poll?
First, the "ahead" moniker is false. The poll shows Obama ahead within the margin of error. In fact, the poll shows that Clinton, Edwards and Obama are each commanding so substantial a part of the caucus voters that a victor is unpredictable. And all polling in Iowa is suspect because diehard supporters can change their minds through the caucus process; many are undecided until the end; and supporters of candidates bringing up the rear (who may get less than the 15% of those present required to be considered) can throw their support to a front-runner, a result no poll can anticipate.
Second, some of the poll was done in the two days prior to the Nevada CNN debate. In that debate, both Obama and Edwards were booed when attempting to knock Hillary. She showed strength and leadership in deflecting their attacks, something that some poll respondents did not know or see.
Third, it depends who shows up at the caucuses. If caucus-goers are predominantly from the group of Iowans who think strength and experience are most important, Hillary Clinton wins running away. The fact that those polled are "likely voters" does not disclose whether they are "strength and experience" voters or "change" voters or, indeed, whether such arbitrary designations are mutually exclusive (they are not).
It is indeed unfortunate that Matthews has attached himself to this poll like a barnacle to a hull. Most commentators would cite the results with at least the caveat regarding the margin of error. Not he. And he hardly ever mentions Edwards, a formidable player is Iowa with an experienced and dedicated cadre of caucus voters.
The fluid situation in Iowa deserves a more balanced account than that being broadcast by Chris Matthews.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-baer/whats-with-chris-matthew_b_73995.html
Culminating in an eye-widening leading question to his panelists -- did the Illinois Senator have his best chance ever to beat Sen. Clinton in Hawkeye-land -- the network show exposed Chris Matthews as ballistic on Barack Obama. Perhaps escaping the chance to be invited back, Elizabeth Bumiller and David Brooks demurred and refused to catch Matthews' Obama bouquet. Bumiller said she didn't know; Brooks said there was an improvement over six months ago.
What are the facts about this poll?
First, the "ahead" moniker is false. The poll shows Obama ahead within the margin of error. In fact, the poll shows that Clinton, Edwards and Obama are each commanding so substantial a part of the caucus voters that a victor is unpredictable. And all polling in Iowa is suspect because diehard supporters can change their minds through the caucus process; many are undecided until the end; and supporters of candidates bringing up the rear (who may get less than the 15% of those present required to be considered) can throw their support to a front-runner, a result no poll can anticipate.
Second, some of the poll was done in the two days prior to the Nevada CNN debate. In that debate, both Obama and Edwards were booed when attempting to knock Hillary. She showed strength and leadership in deflecting their attacks, something that some poll respondents did not know or see.
Third, it depends who shows up at the caucuses. If caucus-goers are predominantly from the group of Iowans who think strength and experience are most important, Hillary Clinton wins running away. The fact that those polled are "likely voters" does not disclose whether they are "strength and experience" voters or "change" voters or, indeed, whether such arbitrary designations are mutually exclusive (they are not).
It is indeed unfortunate that Matthews has attached himself to this poll like a barnacle to a hull. Most commentators would cite the results with at least the caveat regarding the margin of error. Not he. And he hardly ever mentions Edwards, a formidable player is Iowa with an experienced and dedicated cadre of caucus voters.
The fluid situation in Iowa deserves a more balanced account than that being broadcast by Chris Matthews.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-baer/whats-with-chris-matthew_b_73995.html
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
NY Times:Clinton vs. Obama, Take 2 in Iowa
Clinton vs. Obama, Take 2 in Iowa
By PATRICK HEALY
Updated SHENANDOAH, Iowa — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton just sharpened her new attack on whether Senator Barack Obama is experienced enough to be president, questioning his recent statement that living overseas as a child contributed to his experience level.
Senator Clinton made the remarks to a campaign audience here after a new Washington Post/ABC News poll showed a statistical tie between the two rivals here in Iowa, with Mr. Obama at 30 percent and Mrs. Clinton at 26 percent among likely Democratic caucus-goers. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points. A third candidate, John Edwards, was at with 22 percent.
Here was the Clinton wind-up: “I have traveled the world on behalf of our country - first in the White House with my husband and now as a aenator. I’ve met with countless world leaders and know many of them personally. I went to Beijing in 1995 and stood up to the Chinese government on human rights and women’s rights. I have fought for our men and women in uniform to make sure they have the equipment they need in battle and are treated with dignity when they return home.
“I believe I have the right kind of experience to be the next president. With a war and a tough economy, we need a president ready on Day One to bring our troops home from Iraq and to handle all of our other tough challenges.”
And here was the pitch: “Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face. I think we need a president with more experience than that. Someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to, and has confidence in. I don’t think this is the time for on-the-job training on our economy or on foreign policy.
“I offer my credentials, my experience, and qualifications which I think uniquely equip me to be prepared to hit the ground running on Day One. And I offer the experience of being battle-tested in the political wars here at home. For 15 years, I have been the object of the Republican attack machine and I’m still here.”
Updated: 3:35 p.m. Bill Burton, campaign spokesman for Senator Obama had this to say: “Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld have spent time in the White House and travelled to many countries as well, but along with Hillary Clinton, they led us into the worst foreign policy disaster in a generation and are now giving George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran. The real choice in this election is between conventional Washington thinking that prizes posture and positioning, or real change that puts judgment and honesty first.”
On Monday, Mr. Obama cited his personal background and his four years living in Indonesia as a child as contributing to his experience and knowledge on foreign affairs.
“I spent four years living overseas when I was a child living in Southeast Asia,” he said, according to the Associated Press. “If you don’t understand these cultures then it’s very hard for you to make good
foreign policy decisions. Foreign policy is all about judgment.”
He also said, according to the AFP, “a lot of my knowledge about foreign affairs isn’t just what I studied in school — I studied international relations when I was in college — it’s not just the work I do on the Senate foreign relations committee. It’s actually having the knowledge of how ordinary people in these other countries live.”
Mr. Obama has cited many factors contributing to his experience and judgment on foreign affairs and national security, from his work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to his years studying and observing issues as an Illinois state senator. He has cited his early opposition to the Iraq war as a sign that he has better judgment on national security than Senator Clinton, given her vote in favor of military action in Iraq. Mr. Obama has also written two books that have drawn on his trips and experiences overseas, including in Africa, where his father was born and lived for many years.
Mrs. Clinton began anew trying to undercut Mr. Obama’s experience during a campaign swing on Monday, saying that Americans should choose a candidate for president who did not need “on the job training.” Mr. Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004; Mrs. Clinton was elected in 2000 after eight years as First Lady. One Clinton adviser said this morning that Mrs. Clinton decided to make the new offensive against Mr. Obama after facing weeks of criticism from him and another rival, former Senator John Edwards; the three of them are locked in a very tight race in Iowa.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/clinton-vs-obama-take-2-in-iowa/
By PATRICK HEALY
Updated SHENANDOAH, Iowa — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton just sharpened her new attack on whether Senator Barack Obama is experienced enough to be president, questioning his recent statement that living overseas as a child contributed to his experience level.
Senator Clinton made the remarks to a campaign audience here after a new Washington Post/ABC News poll showed a statistical tie between the two rivals here in Iowa, with Mr. Obama at 30 percent and Mrs. Clinton at 26 percent among likely Democratic caucus-goers. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points. A third candidate, John Edwards, was at with 22 percent.
Here was the Clinton wind-up: “I have traveled the world on behalf of our country - first in the White House with my husband and now as a aenator. I’ve met with countless world leaders and know many of them personally. I went to Beijing in 1995 and stood up to the Chinese government on human rights and women’s rights. I have fought for our men and women in uniform to make sure they have the equipment they need in battle and are treated with dignity when they return home.
“I believe I have the right kind of experience to be the next president. With a war and a tough economy, we need a president ready on Day One to bring our troops home from Iraq and to handle all of our other tough challenges.”
And here was the pitch: “Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face. I think we need a president with more experience than that. Someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to, and has confidence in. I don’t think this is the time for on-the-job training on our economy or on foreign policy.
“I offer my credentials, my experience, and qualifications which I think uniquely equip me to be prepared to hit the ground running on Day One. And I offer the experience of being battle-tested in the political wars here at home. For 15 years, I have been the object of the Republican attack machine and I’m still here.”
Updated: 3:35 p.m. Bill Burton, campaign spokesman for Senator Obama had this to say: “Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld have spent time in the White House and travelled to many countries as well, but along with Hillary Clinton, they led us into the worst foreign policy disaster in a generation and are now giving George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran. The real choice in this election is between conventional Washington thinking that prizes posture and positioning, or real change that puts judgment and honesty first.”
On Monday, Mr. Obama cited his personal background and his four years living in Indonesia as a child as contributing to his experience and knowledge on foreign affairs.
“I spent four years living overseas when I was a child living in Southeast Asia,” he said, according to the Associated Press. “If you don’t understand these cultures then it’s very hard for you to make good
foreign policy decisions. Foreign policy is all about judgment.”
He also said, according to the AFP, “a lot of my knowledge about foreign affairs isn’t just what I studied in school — I studied international relations when I was in college — it’s not just the work I do on the Senate foreign relations committee. It’s actually having the knowledge of how ordinary people in these other countries live.”
Mr. Obama has cited many factors contributing to his experience and judgment on foreign affairs and national security, from his work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to his years studying and observing issues as an Illinois state senator. He has cited his early opposition to the Iraq war as a sign that he has better judgment on national security than Senator Clinton, given her vote in favor of military action in Iraq. Mr. Obama has also written two books that have drawn on his trips and experiences overseas, including in Africa, where his father was born and lived for many years.
Mrs. Clinton began anew trying to undercut Mr. Obama’s experience during a campaign swing on Monday, saying that Americans should choose a candidate for president who did not need “on the job training.” Mr. Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004; Mrs. Clinton was elected in 2000 after eight years as First Lady. One Clinton adviser said this morning that Mrs. Clinton decided to make the new offensive against Mr. Obama after facing weeks of criticism from him and another rival, former Senator John Edwards; the three of them are locked in a very tight race in Iowa.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/clinton-vs-obama-take-2-in-iowa/
Obama Fumbles Again
Politico:
Obama's facts
No good campaign innovation goes unimitated, and the Obama campaign just launched an answer to Clinton's "Fact Hub," called Fact Check.
A bit of a stumble out of the gate, though: The campaign seems to have posted, and then removed, an item claiming that Hillary called Nafta a "boon." Here's a screenshot of the vanished item.
(In, er, fact, the word comes from a Newsday claim about what she was thinking, not a quote.)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1107/Obamas_facts.html
Obama's facts
No good campaign innovation goes unimitated, and the Obama campaign just launched an answer to Clinton's "Fact Hub," called Fact Check.
A bit of a stumble out of the gate, though: The campaign seems to have posted, and then removed, an item claiming that Hillary called Nafta a "boon." Here's a screenshot of the vanished item.
(In, er, fact, the word comes from a Newsday claim about what she was thinking, not a quote.)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1107/Obamas_facts.html
Senator Clinton's New Ad
Clinton ad strikes back at attacking Republicans
"CONCORD – Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., unleashes her first negative ad today, hitting back at leading Republican hopefuls who in recent weeks have launched assaults at her over the airwaves.
The ad forcefully makes the argument that she's become the favorite target of Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain of Arizona because she stands the best chance of beating any of them in a November 2008 general election. The commercial viewed by The Telegraph on Monday opens with slowly moving video images but not the audio from Romney and McCain ads critical of the New York senator.
"Here they go again – the same old Republican attack machine is back. Why?" the announcer begins in this new, 30-second commercial.
"Maybe it's because they know that there's one candidate with the strength and experience to get us out of Iraq, one candidate who will end tax giveaways for the big corporations, one candidate committed to cutting the huge Republican deficit and one candidate who will put government back to work for the middle class."
The ad will air on TV stations in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, began airing a commercial earlier this month blasting "Hillary and the other Democrats" for wanting to give illegal aliens an eventual path to citizenship if they pay fines, unpaid taxes and learn English.
McCain had his own TV commercial that lampooned Clinton as a pork barrel politician for favoring $1 million towards a museum to honor rock concerts at Woodstock, N.Y.
In September, Giuliani, former mayor of New York, purchased a full-page ad in the New York Times blasting Clinton for attacking the character of Iraq war commander Gen. Anthony Petraeus, the architect of the surge of American troops sent to Iraq last summer."
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071120/NEWS08/311200022
Monday, November 19, 2007
Newsweek: HRC: TCB in Vegas. A Conversion Story.
"She came, she saw--and she conquered.
After a year of polls, pundits, fundraising, ads, endorsements and "debates," the 2008 presidential election can start to seem like, well, sound and fury, signifying nothing (to coin a phrase). Which is exactly what I expected to find Saturday morning when Sen. Hillary Clinton addressed the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association (SMWIA) in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Why would I expect otherwise? The event was a victory lap--an appearance in front of a group, recently merged with the United Transportation Union to form the 230,000-strong Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation (SMART) conglomerate, that had already decided to support Clinton for president. No wooing necessary Just order up a few hundred yellow "SMART Choice" t-shirts and blue "SMART Choice" buttons, pass out the "SMART Choice" placards, stand at the "SMART Choice" podium in front of the "SMART Choice" backdrop and let the flashbulbs flash.
Not that union endorsements aren't useful and all. But announcement ceremonies aren't typically the best place to experience the unique frisson of retail politics--the skepticism, the seduction, the sale--in person.
Unless, you know, they are. With Bruce Springsteen's "The Rising" warming up the crowd--and Clinton herself still touring the next-door SMWIA Apprenticeship Facility--I approached Jerry Waller and asked why he's supporting Clinton. His answer? "I'm not." Two of his yellow-shirted union brothers rolled their eyes. Waller, 54, moved from Detroit to Las Vegas ten years ago; a former military police officer, he was broke until the Local 88 "took him in." That said, his loyalty doesn't necessarily extend to his union's presidential pick. "A lot of guys hate her, actually," he said. "There's a lot of anger. I remember when they passed out fliers a few weeks back. One guy just threw it to the ground."
Waller's top concern this cycle is health care. On Sept. 21, 1984, he was "completely buried" when an underground pipe he was working on collapsed. "You New Yorkers have 9/11," he said. "I have 9/21. I was out of commission for five years. Workingman's comp blew me off." I asked who he is supporting. "Don't know yet. I'm still researching. John Edwards came by here, oh, five months ago. I was impressed. It was more informal than all this. If Hillary wants my vote, she needs to turn more human. She's too staged."
Clinton's speech wasn't a barnburner, by any stretch. But it was relatively rousing. In addition to the usual labor-friendly lines ("You can't say you're pro-family if you're anti-union"), attacks on the Bush administration ("We gave them a $5.6 million surplus...") and local appeals ("Vegas is the fastest-growing city in America, right? Lots of things to build!"), she delivered a spirited "analysis" of last Thursday's debate. "This time what happened in Vegas didn't stay in Vegas!" she said. "I loved the debate because we finally got into some real issues. For example, my health care plan covers every American. Sen. Obama's doesn't. He didn't make that decision. I think it takes strength and experience to make the tough decisions."
Still, as the applause died down and I asked Waller what he thought, I was surprised by his response. "I'm impressed," he said. "She was better than I expected. Sounds a lot smarter than I expected, actually. I heard what I wanted to hear: heath care, taking care of our military guys, the middle class. " He was smiling. Wait, are you, like, a supporter now? I asked. "I am. I'm leaning more this way." But what about the "human" thing? Did that give you a sense of warmth? "It's not a problem for me any more. I got a good feeling."
Nice work, Hillary. It just goes to show: anti-Clinton sentiment might be broad (recall those 49 percent unfavorable ratings), but it's not always deep. Especially if, after a year of polls, pundits, fundraising, ads, endorsements and "debates," all it takes to win over a guy like Jerry Waller is a standard 20-minute speech, delivered live in person."
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2007/11/19/hrc-tcb-in-vegas-a-conversion-story.aspx
After a year of polls, pundits, fundraising, ads, endorsements and "debates," the 2008 presidential election can start to seem like, well, sound and fury, signifying nothing (to coin a phrase). Which is exactly what I expected to find Saturday morning when Sen. Hillary Clinton addressed the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association (SMWIA) in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Why would I expect otherwise? The event was a victory lap--an appearance in front of a group, recently merged with the United Transportation Union to form the 230,000-strong Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation (SMART) conglomerate, that had already decided to support Clinton for president. No wooing necessary Just order up a few hundred yellow "SMART Choice" t-shirts and blue "SMART Choice" buttons, pass out the "SMART Choice" placards, stand at the "SMART Choice" podium in front of the "SMART Choice" backdrop and let the flashbulbs flash.
Not that union endorsements aren't useful and all. But announcement ceremonies aren't typically the best place to experience the unique frisson of retail politics--the skepticism, the seduction, the sale--in person.
Unless, you know, they are. With Bruce Springsteen's "The Rising" warming up the crowd--and Clinton herself still touring the next-door SMWIA Apprenticeship Facility--I approached Jerry Waller and asked why he's supporting Clinton. His answer? "I'm not." Two of his yellow-shirted union brothers rolled their eyes. Waller, 54, moved from Detroit to Las Vegas ten years ago; a former military police officer, he was broke until the Local 88 "took him in." That said, his loyalty doesn't necessarily extend to his union's presidential pick. "A lot of guys hate her, actually," he said. "There's a lot of anger. I remember when they passed out fliers a few weeks back. One guy just threw it to the ground."
Waller's top concern this cycle is health care. On Sept. 21, 1984, he was "completely buried" when an underground pipe he was working on collapsed. "You New Yorkers have 9/11," he said. "I have 9/21. I was out of commission for five years. Workingman's comp blew me off." I asked who he is supporting. "Don't know yet. I'm still researching. John Edwards came by here, oh, five months ago. I was impressed. It was more informal than all this. If Hillary wants my vote, she needs to turn more human. She's too staged."
Clinton's speech wasn't a barnburner, by any stretch. But it was relatively rousing. In addition to the usual labor-friendly lines ("You can't say you're pro-family if you're anti-union"), attacks on the Bush administration ("We gave them a $5.6 million surplus...") and local appeals ("Vegas is the fastest-growing city in America, right? Lots of things to build!"), she delivered a spirited "analysis" of last Thursday's debate. "This time what happened in Vegas didn't stay in Vegas!" she said. "I loved the debate because we finally got into some real issues. For example, my health care plan covers every American. Sen. Obama's doesn't. He didn't make that decision. I think it takes strength and experience to make the tough decisions."
Still, as the applause died down and I asked Waller what he thought, I was surprised by his response. "I'm impressed," he said. "She was better than I expected. Sounds a lot smarter than I expected, actually. I heard what I wanted to hear: heath care, taking care of our military guys, the middle class. " He was smiling. Wait, are you, like, a supporter now? I asked. "I am. I'm leaning more this way." But what about the "human" thing? Did that give you a sense of warmth? "It's not a problem for me any more. I got a good feeling."
Nice work, Hillary. It just goes to show: anti-Clinton sentiment might be broad (recall those 49 percent unfavorable ratings), but it's not always deep. Especially if, after a year of polls, pundits, fundraising, ads, endorsements and "debates," all it takes to win over a guy like Jerry Waller is a standard 20-minute speech, delivered live in person."
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2007/11/19/hrc-tcb-in-vegas-a-conversion-story.aspx
NY Times: Clinton and Clark Campaign in Iowa
"DES MOINES – File this under the Department of Getting Ahead of Ourselves: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is campaigning in Iowa this morning with a political ally, Gen. Wesley K. Clark (ret.), and on first blush it’s pretty easy to see a future political ticket there.
For one thing (superficiality alert!), there’s height.
Mrs. Clinton is said to stand at 5’8’’ (some observers put her an inch or two less); if she wins the Democratic presidential nomination, one school of thought is that she would be better off with a running mate who did not tower over her and create a jarring contrast for the cameras.
Mr. Clark, the former NATO commander during Bill Clinton’s administration, appears only slightly taller than Mrs. Clinton, and they had good stage presence together as they table-hopped together at the Drake Diner this morning in search of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers.
There are more important things in a running mate, of course, than height, and Mrs. Clinton is far from becoming her party’s standard-bearer. But like Barack Obama, who would be the first black Democratic presidential nominee, Mrs. Clinton, as a woman, would probably calculate her vice-presidential pick in a different way than the white males who led the ticket in the past.
General Clark, for his part, talked up Mrs. Clinton as a strong commander-in-chief during his asides with patrons at the diner. He told a tableful of middle-aged men that “she knows what she believes” and “she knows where she stands,” while Mrs. Clinton said of Mr. Clark, “he was leading our forces in Kosovo and Bosnia when we got rid of a dictator.”
There were only a few tables of folks at the diner this morning, so Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Clark soon found themselves sat at the counter for coffee, fruit, and chitchat for the benefit of the television cameras. They were joined by Christie Vilsack, the former first lady of Iowa – whose husband, former Gov. Tom Vilsack, is also mentioned as a possible running mate for Mrs. Clinton."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/clinton-and-clark-campaign-in-iowa/
For one thing (superficiality alert!), there’s height.
Mrs. Clinton is said to stand at 5’8’’ (some observers put her an inch or two less); if she wins the Democratic presidential nomination, one school of thought is that she would be better off with a running mate who did not tower over her and create a jarring contrast for the cameras.
Mr. Clark, the former NATO commander during Bill Clinton’s administration, appears only slightly taller than Mrs. Clinton, and they had good stage presence together as they table-hopped together at the Drake Diner this morning in search of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers.
There are more important things in a running mate, of course, than height, and Mrs. Clinton is far from becoming her party’s standard-bearer. But like Barack Obama, who would be the first black Democratic presidential nominee, Mrs. Clinton, as a woman, would probably calculate her vice-presidential pick in a different way than the white males who led the ticket in the past.
General Clark, for his part, talked up Mrs. Clinton as a strong commander-in-chief during his asides with patrons at the diner. He told a tableful of middle-aged men that “she knows what she believes” and “she knows where she stands,” while Mrs. Clinton said of Mr. Clark, “he was leading our forces in Kosovo and Bosnia when we got rid of a dictator.”
There were only a few tables of folks at the diner this morning, so Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Clark soon found themselves sat at the counter for coffee, fruit, and chitchat for the benefit of the television cameras. They were joined by Christie Vilsack, the former first lady of Iowa – whose husband, former Gov. Tom Vilsack, is also mentioned as a possible running mate for Mrs. Clinton."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/clinton-and-clark-campaign-in-iowa/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)