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
Thursday, November 29, 2007
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/
Novak Admits Smear Column Is Even Weaker Than It First Appear
"Novak disclosed that his source for the story was not anyone close to Clinton but rather, someone who was "told by an agent of the Clinton campaign" about the alleged dirt. Got that? So Novak was not privy to the dirt itself, nor did he talk to Clinton's people. Rather, he heard it from someone who had heard it from someone else. Another secondary source, Novak went on to say, claimed to have heard the same thing. Fact-checking = completed."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/19/novak-admits-smear-column_n_73274.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/19/novak-admits-smear-column_n_73274.html
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Chicago Sun-Times: Lynn Sweet: Obama, Clinton clash over Novak item. The dish on dirt.
Sweet column: Obama, Clinton clash over Novak item. The dish on dirt.
LAS VEGAS -- Triggered by an item in Bob Novak's Sunday column suggesting that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has dirt on Sen. Barack Obama but won't use it, Obama's campaign Saturday accused Clinton's team of using "Swift boat" tactics against him.
Clinton's camp swung back, denying they were spreading rumors about Obama or that they planted information with Novak, wondering why Obama would want to fall into a "Republican trap" to "pit Democrats against Democrats."
Starting an unusual series of heated exchanges between the two front-running presidential campaigns was a three paragraph item in Novak's Sunday Chicago Sun-Times column that says "agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed."
Obama sent out an e-mail calling on the Clinton campaign to renounce the item, which he said was "heavy on innuendo and insinuation," adding, "The cause of change in this country will not be deterred or sidetracked by the old 'Swift boat' politics.
The 2004 White House campaign of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was savaged by TV ads undermining his military career, funded by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
A reason the Obama campaign went on the offensive -- or that any campaign might -- could be to protect itself from material that could surface later.
Clinton spokesman Jay Carson, in Las Vegas where Clinton was stumping, said "a Democratic candidate should be smart enough not to fall into a trap that he has set to pit Democrats against Democrats . . . if you don't know how to avoid that in a primary, you are going to be in a world of hurt in a general election."
Carson said they had no idea what Novak, whom he called a "Republican-leaning columnist" was referring to.
"Let's think about this rationally for a second. Do you really think Bob Novak will be the repository of information from the Clinton campaign?" Carson said.
Novak, asked to react, said neither he nor his source, who he said was a Democrat, have any more information. Novak said his source passed along what he was told "by people inside the Clinton campaign. It was not specified what it was, and it was said to a Democratic source. Clinton would not reveal it because she is such a good person."
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, in a second communique from the campaign, demanded that the Clinton team say if "they have 'scandalous' information" they are not releasing. "Yes or no?"
"No and no," Carson said.
Plouffe replied that Obama's team will take the Clinton campaign "at their word ... But what we don't accept is their assertion that this is somehow falling for Republican tricks."
Prodding along negative stories is commonplace in hotly contested races. Obama's presidential campaign "scored a significant hit" against Clinton "by helping to place" a story about tainted Democratic donor Norman Hsu, according to an article about Obama in the December issue of the Atlantic.
The story, titled "Teacher and Apprentice" by associate editor Marc Ambinder, describes how Obama campaign staffers were "frustrated" because the press was not covering Clinton "in the way they expected it would."
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/11/sweet_column_obama_clinton_cla.html
LAS VEGAS -- Triggered by an item in Bob Novak's Sunday column suggesting that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has dirt on Sen. Barack Obama but won't use it, Obama's campaign Saturday accused Clinton's team of using "Swift boat" tactics against him.
Clinton's camp swung back, denying they were spreading rumors about Obama or that they planted information with Novak, wondering why Obama would want to fall into a "Republican trap" to "pit Democrats against Democrats."
Starting an unusual series of heated exchanges between the two front-running presidential campaigns was a three paragraph item in Novak's Sunday Chicago Sun-Times column that says "agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed."
Obama sent out an e-mail calling on the Clinton campaign to renounce the item, which he said was "heavy on innuendo and insinuation," adding, "The cause of change in this country will not be deterred or sidetracked by the old 'Swift boat' politics.
The 2004 White House campaign of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was savaged by TV ads undermining his military career, funded by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
A reason the Obama campaign went on the offensive -- or that any campaign might -- could be to protect itself from material that could surface later.
Clinton spokesman Jay Carson, in Las Vegas where Clinton was stumping, said "a Democratic candidate should be smart enough not to fall into a trap that he has set to pit Democrats against Democrats . . . if you don't know how to avoid that in a primary, you are going to be in a world of hurt in a general election."
Carson said they had no idea what Novak, whom he called a "Republican-leaning columnist" was referring to.
"Let's think about this rationally for a second. Do you really think Bob Novak will be the repository of information from the Clinton campaign?" Carson said.
Novak, asked to react, said neither he nor his source, who he said was a Democrat, have any more information. Novak said his source passed along what he was told "by people inside the Clinton campaign. It was not specified what it was, and it was said to a Democratic source. Clinton would not reveal it because she is such a good person."
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, in a second communique from the campaign, demanded that the Clinton team say if "they have 'scandalous' information" they are not releasing. "Yes or no?"
"No and no," Carson said.
Plouffe replied that Obama's team will take the Clinton campaign "at their word ... But what we don't accept is their assertion that this is somehow falling for Republican tricks."
Prodding along negative stories is commonplace in hotly contested races. Obama's presidential campaign "scored a significant hit" against Clinton "by helping to place" a story about tainted Democratic donor Norman Hsu, according to an article about Obama in the December issue of the Atlantic.
The story, titled "Teacher and Apprentice" by associate editor Marc Ambinder, describes how Obama campaign staffers were "frustrated" because the press was not covering Clinton "in the way they expected it would."
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/11/sweet_column_obama_clinton_cla.html
Saturday, November 17, 2007
NY Times: For Clinton, More Time and More Advertising
By JEFF ZELENY
Published: November 18, 2007
DES MOINES, Nov. 17 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has nearly doubled the size of her staff in Iowa and has substantially increased her advertising here as her campaign reinforces its effort to prevent Democrats from coalescing around a single alternative to her candidacy.
In the four weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas, Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign has been on the defensive lately because of her own missteps and increasingly aggressive attacks from her rivals, is moving to double or triple the amount of time she has spent here in recent months. Seldom will a day go by, aides said, when either she or former President Bill Clinton will not be on some patch of Iowa soil trying to solidify her support and win over an unusually high number of uncommitted voters.
“We’re going to begin using all the assets we have,” said Tom Vilsack, a former governor of Iowa who serves as co-chairman of the Clinton campaign. “We haven’t been bashful about asking for the moon here.”
The intense attention is the latest indication of the Clinton campaign’s worry about establishing dominance in Iowa — the opening contest in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination — to match the strength she has shown in national polls. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina have waged spirited campaigns here, taking advantage of what polls suggest is unease with Mrs. Clinton among many voters.
The maneuvering here is critical, because Mrs. Clinton’s aides, along with many Democrats not associated with her campaign, believe that her momentum will be difficult to slow if she wins here; polls suggest that she is strong in New Hampshire. The Clinton campaign has been flying in operatives from across the country to bolster the effort here.
Complicating the matter even more, the campaigns of Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut also have the potential to sway the race. If candidates do not reach a 15-percent threshold in each of the 1,784 precinct caucuses on Jan. 3, their supporters make a second choice, a procedure that Mrs. Clinton’s aides fear could favor Mr. Edwards or Mr. Obama.
In the final seven weeks of the race, all campaigns are increasing their efforts here, placing new advertisements and investing more resources. To fight the new push by the Clinton campaign, rivals also are planning to spend nearly all their time in Iowa in December.
While the Obama and Edwards campaigns have been gradually building for months toward this moment, the Clinton campaign has bolstered its activity here in recent weeks, hiring 100 new workers to concentrate on a person-to-person drive to explain the quirky process of the caucuses, with a goal of having 50,000 in-home visits concluded by Christmas.
More than 60 percent of those who have identified themselves as Clinton supporters, senior strategists say, have never participated in the Iowa caucuses. It is a far higher share than the campaign had been anticipating, suggesting that many of the reliable rank-and-file Democrats have chosen another candidate. So the Clinton campaign is working to expand its universe of supporters to women who have never participated.
“No one is going to give Hillary Clinton this nomination,” said Terry McAuliffe, the national chairman of her campaign, who has traveled to Iowa nearly once a week for months. “She’s going to have to earn it.”
By this week, the Clinton campaign had completed opening 34 offices across the state, arriving in many cities more than two months behind the local operatives for Mr. Obama or Mr. Edwards. Last week, the Clinton campaign’s national headquarters sent a top communications operative to Iowa and hired eight deputies charged solely with drumming up media coverage in smaller cities across the state.
The campaign also began running radio advertisements and significantly increased its television commercials, spending $360,000 last week compared with $260,000 two weeks ago.
At the same time, Mr. Clinton is playing an increasingly larger role in Iowa. After never competing in the Iowa caucuses during his own presidential races, Mr. Clinton has sought to learn the nuts and bolts of the system and has studied regions where he believes his appearances could be most helpful.
Mr. Clinton was sent last week to the western Iowa towns of Onawa and Glenwood, where he created a stir and drew a large crowd of local Democrats.
“Clearly they weren’t all there because they support Hillary,” said Kenneth Mertes, the Democratic chairman in Monona County. “But he is a very persuasive speaker and can sway the voters who come to see him just out of curiosity.”
A New York Times/CBS News poll this month found that 38 percent of Iowa voters who are likely to participate in the caucuses said the former president’s involvement in the race would make them more likely to support Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. But 55 percent said it would make no difference in deciding which Democrat to support.
Mr. Clinton is expected to concentrate on rural areas and smaller cities, where campaign aides believe that Mrs. Clinton needs a boost. (A sign on the office door of Teresa Vilmain, the state director of the Clinton campaign, says: “Hillary is needed in rural Iowa.”) Already, Mr. Clinton has helped recruit precinct captains and has worked to persuade small clutches of undecided voters, but aides say his involvement will increase significantly after Thanksgiving.
With new anxieties about Iowa and a sense of heightened importance in the vote’s outcome, the Clinton campaign sent several senior strategists here, including Karen Hicks, who is known as one of the party’s top get-out-the-vote specialists. To compete with the strong organizations of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama, the Clinton campaign held a job fair in Washington to recruit many of the 100 new workers, but it remains an open question whether the late influx of young aides will be able to build the relationships with Iowa voters that other campaigns have been working on for months.
The Clinton campaign’s efforts to bolster its organization here come in the wake of a challenging period in the state, with aides conceding to planting questions in Iowa audiences and struggling to explain whether a tip was left for a waitress who served Mrs. Clinton during a recent visit. Three weeks ago, Patti Solis Doyle, the national campaign manager, traveled here to appraise Mrs. Clinton’s efforts. A strategy was devised to have the Clintons — and many high-profile surrogates — blanket the state in December.
Former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska is expected to endorse her candidacy and travel through the state on her behalf in the coming weeks. Former Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, a presidential candidate four years ago, is also scheduled to spend time in Iowa and urge his former supporters to sign on with Mrs. Clinton.
And when Mrs. Clinton returns to Iowa on Monday, aides said, she will begin concentrating on smaller audiences and intimate sessions with voters in outlying areas of the state. One stop on the itinerary, for example, is Tama, population 2,700.
“At the beginning, she didn’t understand the whole notion of relationship building,” said Mr. Vilsack, who often travels the state with Mrs. Clinton and introduces her to voters. “She now gets it. She now understands the psyche of this process.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/politics/18dems.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Published: November 18, 2007
DES MOINES, Nov. 17 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has nearly doubled the size of her staff in Iowa and has substantially increased her advertising here as her campaign reinforces its effort to prevent Democrats from coalescing around a single alternative to her candidacy.
In the four weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas, Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign has been on the defensive lately because of her own missteps and increasingly aggressive attacks from her rivals, is moving to double or triple the amount of time she has spent here in recent months. Seldom will a day go by, aides said, when either she or former President Bill Clinton will not be on some patch of Iowa soil trying to solidify her support and win over an unusually high number of uncommitted voters.
“We’re going to begin using all the assets we have,” said Tom Vilsack, a former governor of Iowa who serves as co-chairman of the Clinton campaign. “We haven’t been bashful about asking for the moon here.”
The intense attention is the latest indication of the Clinton campaign’s worry about establishing dominance in Iowa — the opening contest in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination — to match the strength she has shown in national polls. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina have waged spirited campaigns here, taking advantage of what polls suggest is unease with Mrs. Clinton among many voters.
The maneuvering here is critical, because Mrs. Clinton’s aides, along with many Democrats not associated with her campaign, believe that her momentum will be difficult to slow if she wins here; polls suggest that she is strong in New Hampshire. The Clinton campaign has been flying in operatives from across the country to bolster the effort here.
Complicating the matter even more, the campaigns of Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut also have the potential to sway the race. If candidates do not reach a 15-percent threshold in each of the 1,784 precinct caucuses on Jan. 3, their supporters make a second choice, a procedure that Mrs. Clinton’s aides fear could favor Mr. Edwards or Mr. Obama.
In the final seven weeks of the race, all campaigns are increasing their efforts here, placing new advertisements and investing more resources. To fight the new push by the Clinton campaign, rivals also are planning to spend nearly all their time in Iowa in December.
While the Obama and Edwards campaigns have been gradually building for months toward this moment, the Clinton campaign has bolstered its activity here in recent weeks, hiring 100 new workers to concentrate on a person-to-person drive to explain the quirky process of the caucuses, with a goal of having 50,000 in-home visits concluded by Christmas.
More than 60 percent of those who have identified themselves as Clinton supporters, senior strategists say, have never participated in the Iowa caucuses. It is a far higher share than the campaign had been anticipating, suggesting that many of the reliable rank-and-file Democrats have chosen another candidate. So the Clinton campaign is working to expand its universe of supporters to women who have never participated.
“No one is going to give Hillary Clinton this nomination,” said Terry McAuliffe, the national chairman of her campaign, who has traveled to Iowa nearly once a week for months. “She’s going to have to earn it.”
By this week, the Clinton campaign had completed opening 34 offices across the state, arriving in many cities more than two months behind the local operatives for Mr. Obama or Mr. Edwards. Last week, the Clinton campaign’s national headquarters sent a top communications operative to Iowa and hired eight deputies charged solely with drumming up media coverage in smaller cities across the state.
The campaign also began running radio advertisements and significantly increased its television commercials, spending $360,000 last week compared with $260,000 two weeks ago.
At the same time, Mr. Clinton is playing an increasingly larger role in Iowa. After never competing in the Iowa caucuses during his own presidential races, Mr. Clinton has sought to learn the nuts and bolts of the system and has studied regions where he believes his appearances could be most helpful.
Mr. Clinton was sent last week to the western Iowa towns of Onawa and Glenwood, where he created a stir and drew a large crowd of local Democrats.
“Clearly they weren’t all there because they support Hillary,” said Kenneth Mertes, the Democratic chairman in Monona County. “But he is a very persuasive speaker and can sway the voters who come to see him just out of curiosity.”
A New York Times/CBS News poll this month found that 38 percent of Iowa voters who are likely to participate in the caucuses said the former president’s involvement in the race would make them more likely to support Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. But 55 percent said it would make no difference in deciding which Democrat to support.
Mr. Clinton is expected to concentrate on rural areas and smaller cities, where campaign aides believe that Mrs. Clinton needs a boost. (A sign on the office door of Teresa Vilmain, the state director of the Clinton campaign, says: “Hillary is needed in rural Iowa.”) Already, Mr. Clinton has helped recruit precinct captains and has worked to persuade small clutches of undecided voters, but aides say his involvement will increase significantly after Thanksgiving.
With new anxieties about Iowa and a sense of heightened importance in the vote’s outcome, the Clinton campaign sent several senior strategists here, including Karen Hicks, who is known as one of the party’s top get-out-the-vote specialists. To compete with the strong organizations of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama, the Clinton campaign held a job fair in Washington to recruit many of the 100 new workers, but it remains an open question whether the late influx of young aides will be able to build the relationships with Iowa voters that other campaigns have been working on for months.
The Clinton campaign’s efforts to bolster its organization here come in the wake of a challenging period in the state, with aides conceding to planting questions in Iowa audiences and struggling to explain whether a tip was left for a waitress who served Mrs. Clinton during a recent visit. Three weeks ago, Patti Solis Doyle, the national campaign manager, traveled here to appraise Mrs. Clinton’s efforts. A strategy was devised to have the Clintons — and many high-profile surrogates — blanket the state in December.
Former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska is expected to endorse her candidacy and travel through the state on her behalf in the coming weeks. Former Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, a presidential candidate four years ago, is also scheduled to spend time in Iowa and urge his former supporters to sign on with Mrs. Clinton.
And when Mrs. Clinton returns to Iowa on Monday, aides said, she will begin concentrating on smaller audiences and intimate sessions with voters in outlying areas of the state. One stop on the itinerary, for example, is Tama, population 2,700.
“At the beginning, she didn’t understand the whole notion of relationship building,” said Mr. Vilsack, who often travels the state with Mrs. Clinton and introduces her to voters. “She now gets it. She now understands the psyche of this process.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/politics/18dems.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
The Fact Hub: Obama Campaign Tactics
Obama Campaign Tactics
Today, Sen. Barack Obama echoed Republican talking points by repeating a totally false claim by Republican Bob Novak about the tactics of the Clinton campaign.
It might be a good time for Sen. Obama to take a look at the tactics of his own campaign.
The Obama campaign pedaled an opposition research document, titled Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab), attacking Hillary for her ties to the Indian-American community:
Senator Barack Obama disavowed the document his campaign aimed at Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last week, saying today that it was "stupid and caustic." The headline of one of the documents, which referred to Mrs. Clinton as 'D-Punjab,' touched off a furor among Indian-American groups that called on Mr. Obama to apologize for the remarks. [New York Times, 6/18/07]
The Obama campaign made a false attack on Bill Clinton:
More Obama oppo is online today, including a detailed document on Bill Clinton and Ron Burkle (.pdf) and a story, which turned out to be false, about Bill Clinton giving a paid speech on 9/11/06. [The Politico, 6/15/07]
The Obama campaign took credit for placing stories attacking Hillary regarding Norman Hsu:
In August, Obama’s team scored a significant hit by helping to place a story in several newspapers revealing that Norman Hsu, a major Clinton donor, had skipped town after having pleaded no contest to a charge of grand theft 15 years earlier and still faced an outstanding warrant... (Hsu had also contributed to Obama.) [Atlantic Monthly, 12/2007]
The Obama campaign was 'digging for damaging facts' at the Clinton library:
How far is the money being spread? The Obama campaign spent $27 at the Arkansas state archives and $9.30 at the Clinton library, digging for damaging facts on Clinton. Asked what Team Obama found, spokeswoman Jen Psaki conceded, "Not much." [New York Daily News, 10/17/07]
The Obama campaign's communications director compiled a list of opposition research stories on Hillary that he was pitching to reporters:
I couldn’t help but notice some of what he had scrawled on a whiteboard hanging on his wall:
HC Bio > NY Post
HC Travel (AP?)
Tax Returns (Balz?)
Darfur investments (HF)
JE 527
HC is, of course, Hillary Clinton...These were obviously notes about stories the campaign was pushing or anticipating...'"
Today, Sen. Barack Obama echoed Republican talking points by repeating a totally false claim by Republican Bob Novak about the tactics of the Clinton campaign.
It might be a good time for Sen. Obama to take a look at the tactics of his own campaign.
The Obama campaign pedaled an opposition research document, titled Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab), attacking Hillary for her ties to the Indian-American community:
Senator Barack Obama disavowed the document his campaign aimed at Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last week, saying today that it was "stupid and caustic." The headline of one of the documents, which referred to Mrs. Clinton as 'D-Punjab,' touched off a furor among Indian-American groups that called on Mr. Obama to apologize for the remarks. [New York Times, 6/18/07]
The Obama campaign made a false attack on Bill Clinton:
More Obama oppo is online today, including a detailed document on Bill Clinton and Ron Burkle (.pdf) and a story, which turned out to be false, about Bill Clinton giving a paid speech on 9/11/06. [The Politico, 6/15/07]
The Obama campaign took credit for placing stories attacking Hillary regarding Norman Hsu:
In August, Obama’s team scored a significant hit by helping to place a story in several newspapers revealing that Norman Hsu, a major Clinton donor, had skipped town after having pleaded no contest to a charge of grand theft 15 years earlier and still faced an outstanding warrant... (Hsu had also contributed to Obama.) [Atlantic Monthly, 12/2007]
The Obama campaign was 'digging for damaging facts' at the Clinton library:
How far is the money being spread? The Obama campaign spent $27 at the Arkansas state archives and $9.30 at the Clinton library, digging for damaging facts on Clinton. Asked what Team Obama found, spokeswoman Jen Psaki conceded, "Not much." [New York Daily News, 10/17/07]
The Obama campaign's communications director compiled a list of opposition research stories on Hillary that he was pitching to reporters:
I couldn’t help but notice some of what he had scrawled on a whiteboard hanging on his wall:
HC Bio > NY Post
HC Travel (AP?)
Tax Returns (Balz?)
Darfur investments (HF)
JE 527
HC is, of course, Hillary Clinton...These were obviously notes about stories the campaign was pushing or anticipating...'"
Talk Left: Final Thoughts: Who Won The Nevada Debate?
Final Thoughts: Who Won The Nevada Debate?
By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 01:10:00 AM EST
Headlines after the debate: Clinton Sparkles in Vegas Debate (Guardian); Hillary Makes a Recovery in Las Vegas Debate (CNN); Hillary Shows She Can Take a Punch in Vegas Debate (San Francisco Chronicle); Clinton Calls and Raises in Vegas Debate (CBS News); Hillary Takes Aggressive Tack Against Rivals (International Herald Tribune); Clinton Swings Back Against Rivals (Boston Globe); Hillary Hits Back (Washington Post). After Rough Few Weeks, Hillary Clinton Gives Strong Debate Performance (ABC News).
Obama falters Over Illegal Immigrants (New York Sun); MSNBC: "Richardson, btw, had one of his better performances, possibly his best. Dodd didn't get a lot of time but when he did speak, he seemed to be on message."
My thoughts on the debate:
Winners: Hillary, Dodd, Richardson.
Waffler: Obama playing slip and slide on drivers' licenses for the undocumented. Four chances and wouldn't answer the question.
Least likely to have gained new support: Edwards. But he gave a great answer in response to a question from the audience on racial profiling. Said when he is President, there will be no racial profiling, no illegal spying, no Guantanamo, no torture.
Biden: Displayed a sense of humor, it still doesn't make up for his bad position on issues, particularly on crime. Sample comment: People are afraid their kids are going to run into a drug dealer on the way to school.
More --and a poll -- below the Fold
Kucinich: A little too angry tonight, but deserves praise for taking on Wolf for calling the undocumented "illegal." Best line on why he was the only one who voted against the Patriot Act: "Because I read it."
Favorite political line: Hillary saying she understands they're attacking her not because she's a woman but because she's ahead.
Favorite issue answer: Bill Richardson on drivers' licenses for the undocumented, "I've done it." "We should stop demonizing immigrants."
Who do you think won? Reminder: There are no losers because every one of these Democrats are better than the alternatives Republicans are offering.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/11/16/1625/4522
By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 01:10:00 AM EST
Headlines after the debate: Clinton Sparkles in Vegas Debate (Guardian); Hillary Makes a Recovery in Las Vegas Debate (CNN); Hillary Shows She Can Take a Punch in Vegas Debate (San Francisco Chronicle); Clinton Calls and Raises in Vegas Debate (CBS News); Hillary Takes Aggressive Tack Against Rivals (International Herald Tribune); Clinton Swings Back Against Rivals (Boston Globe); Hillary Hits Back (Washington Post). After Rough Few Weeks, Hillary Clinton Gives Strong Debate Performance (ABC News).
Obama falters Over Illegal Immigrants (New York Sun); MSNBC: "Richardson, btw, had one of his better performances, possibly his best. Dodd didn't get a lot of time but when he did speak, he seemed to be on message."
My thoughts on the debate:
Winners: Hillary, Dodd, Richardson.
Waffler: Obama playing slip and slide on drivers' licenses for the undocumented. Four chances and wouldn't answer the question.
Least likely to have gained new support: Edwards. But he gave a great answer in response to a question from the audience on racial profiling. Said when he is President, there will be no racial profiling, no illegal spying, no Guantanamo, no torture.
Biden: Displayed a sense of humor, it still doesn't make up for his bad position on issues, particularly on crime. Sample comment: People are afraid their kids are going to run into a drug dealer on the way to school.
More --and a poll -- below the Fold
Kucinich: A little too angry tonight, but deserves praise for taking on Wolf for calling the undocumented "illegal." Best line on why he was the only one who voted against the Patriot Act: "Because I read it."
Favorite political line: Hillary saying she understands they're attacking her not because she's a woman but because she's ahead.
Favorite issue answer: Bill Richardson on drivers' licenses for the undocumented, "I've done it." "We should stop demonizing immigrants."
Who do you think won? Reminder: There are no losers because every one of these Democrats are better than the alternatives Republicans are offering.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/11/16/1625/4522
New Hampshire Union Leader: Bill Clinton urges youth to support Hillary
By DAN TUOHY
New Hampshire Union Leader
MANCHESTER – The Comeback Kid was back in Manchester last night to urge young Democrats to fight for their party and support his wife's presidential bid.
Former President Bill Clinton, the candidate once grilled on MTV about his choice of underwear, called on the younger generation to not only "rock the vote" but also get plugged in and make a difference in their community.
"I'm glad to be here with you because you have the most at stake in this election," Clinton said as he kicked off a convention of the National Young Democrats at the Radisson Hotel Manchester.
The Clinton courtship paid immediate dividends. Gray Chynoweth, president of the New Hampshire Young Democrats, endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton before he introduced the former President.
The New Hampshire Democratic Party is trying to use the three-day summit to build a large grassroots army of volunteers. Chairman Raymond Buckley said the goal is to protect last year's political victories and deliver the state to the Democratic presidential nominee on Nov. 4, 2008.
The convention continues today with workshops and training sessions. Former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis is leading a presentation on grassroots organizing. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch is among those scheduled to deliver speeches. As many as 700 Democratic activists are estimated to be in Manchester over the three days. The Stonewall Democrats and Eastern Region members of the Democratic National Committee are also participating.
Bill Clinton is not the only spouse speaking to the Young Democrats this weekend -- Elizabeth Edwards is scheduled to speak at noon today -- but there was no second-guessing his star attraction. Clinton, who campaigned earlier in the day in the North Country, rifled through dozens of subjects, some obscure and some universal, from tribal greetings in South Africa to the need for alternative energy.
Former President Bill Clinton speaks at the Radisson in Manchester last night. (DAVID LANE)
"On climate change, there's another 'inconvenient truth' that has to be told," Clinton said, in a salute to Al Gore's documentary by the same name. "We ain't never going to get it done if we make it like swallowing castor oil."
His message was that people have to work together to effect change, regardless of political or cultural differences. Clinton said that, too, is a reason to support his wife: her ability to build consensus.
Clinton cited his 1992 campaign -- when he toughed out a second-place finish in the New Hampshire Presidential Primary and declared himself the Comeback Kid -- as an example of rejecting cynicism and the importance of focusing on the daily trials and tribulations of ordinary people. He noted critics in the media had made fun of him when he said, " I feel your pain."
As he wrapped up his 45-minute address last night, Clinton said he saw a little bit of himself in the fresh-faced crowd.
"I know you're here because you can feel other people's pain," he said.
Conference highlights
The Democrats' conference will include presentations by some of the country's top political experts.
"This conference will bring hundreds of diverse Democrats from around the country to New Hampshire to celebrate the importance of the New Hampshire Primary," said Buckley.
Today begins with an 8 a.m. welcome breakfast at the Radisson Hotel Armory featuring Lynch and 2nd District U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes. Also speaking will be Buckley and Chris Pappas, vice chair of the state party; Klye Bailey, vice chair of the YDA's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus; and Chris Anderson, executive vice president of YDA.
The morning sessions from 9:15 to 11:30 a.m. will include: grassroots organizing, led by Dukakis; becoming a delegate to the national convention, led by Phil McNamara, DNC director of party affairs; and delegate selection and VAN (Voter Activating Network, an online voter data base) training, led by Parag Mehta, DNC director of training.
At noon, a luncheon will be held in the Armory with speakers representing several presidential candidates. Elizabeth Edwards will appear for her husband, John, while Washington U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee will speak for Hillary Clinton and Connecticut U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney will stand in for Chris Dodd.
The afternoon sessions from 1:15 to 2:30 p.m. will include Mehta speaking on "The Plan," which is the party's political ground game for 2008, and Rick Boyland, a Stonewall Democrats board member, who will speak on "Pride in the Party."
From 2:30 to 5 p.m., conference participants will have the opportunity to volunteer for a Presidential candidate's campaign or for a U.S. Senate candidate's campaign.
This evening, the AFL-CIO Labor Reception will be held from 6:30 to 8 p.m. at The Shaskeen, 909 Elm St.
The YDA's Women's Caucus Reception, dubbed "Wonder Women: A Salute to Outstanding Activists and Candidates," will be held from 7:30 to 9 p.m. in the Presidential Suite in the Radisson. Special guests are state Senate President Sylvia Larsen, D-Concord, and state House Speaker Terie Norelli, D-Portsmouth.
Tomorrow begins with a continental breakfast in the Armory at 8:30 a.m. with speakers Stew Acuff, national director of organizing for the AFL-CIO, and Pennsylvania U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy representing Presidential candidate Barack Obama.
A workshop from 9:30 to 11 a.m. on the importance of including new media techniques in today's ever-increasing, virtual world will be led by Donnie Fowler, CEO and founder of Cherry Tree Mobile.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Bill+Clinton+urges+youth+to+support+Hillary&articleId=d53e6e01-ce54-49d9-901e-7e9e608b6548
New Hampshire Union Leader
MANCHESTER – The Comeback Kid was back in Manchester last night to urge young Democrats to fight for their party and support his wife's presidential bid.
Former President Bill Clinton, the candidate once grilled on MTV about his choice of underwear, called on the younger generation to not only "rock the vote" but also get plugged in and make a difference in their community.
"I'm glad to be here with you because you have the most at stake in this election," Clinton said as he kicked off a convention of the National Young Democrats at the Radisson Hotel Manchester.
The Clinton courtship paid immediate dividends. Gray Chynoweth, president of the New Hampshire Young Democrats, endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton before he introduced the former President.
The New Hampshire Democratic Party is trying to use the three-day summit to build a large grassroots army of volunteers. Chairman Raymond Buckley said the goal is to protect last year's political victories and deliver the state to the Democratic presidential nominee on Nov. 4, 2008.
The convention continues today with workshops and training sessions. Former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis is leading a presentation on grassroots organizing. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch is among those scheduled to deliver speeches. As many as 700 Democratic activists are estimated to be in Manchester over the three days. The Stonewall Democrats and Eastern Region members of the Democratic National Committee are also participating.
Bill Clinton is not the only spouse speaking to the Young Democrats this weekend -- Elizabeth Edwards is scheduled to speak at noon today -- but there was no second-guessing his star attraction. Clinton, who campaigned earlier in the day in the North Country, rifled through dozens of subjects, some obscure and some universal, from tribal greetings in South Africa to the need for alternative energy.
Former President Bill Clinton speaks at the Radisson in Manchester last night. (DAVID LANE)
"On climate change, there's another 'inconvenient truth' that has to be told," Clinton said, in a salute to Al Gore's documentary by the same name. "We ain't never going to get it done if we make it like swallowing castor oil."
His message was that people have to work together to effect change, regardless of political or cultural differences. Clinton said that, too, is a reason to support his wife: her ability to build consensus.
Clinton cited his 1992 campaign -- when he toughed out a second-place finish in the New Hampshire Presidential Primary and declared himself the Comeback Kid -- as an example of rejecting cynicism and the importance of focusing on the daily trials and tribulations of ordinary people. He noted critics in the media had made fun of him when he said, " I feel your pain."
As he wrapped up his 45-minute address last night, Clinton said he saw a little bit of himself in the fresh-faced crowd.
"I know you're here because you can feel other people's pain," he said.
Conference highlights
The Democrats' conference will include presentations by some of the country's top political experts.
"This conference will bring hundreds of diverse Democrats from around the country to New Hampshire to celebrate the importance of the New Hampshire Primary," said Buckley.
Today begins with an 8 a.m. welcome breakfast at the Radisson Hotel Armory featuring Lynch and 2nd District U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes. Also speaking will be Buckley and Chris Pappas, vice chair of the state party; Klye Bailey, vice chair of the YDA's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus; and Chris Anderson, executive vice president of YDA.
The morning sessions from 9:15 to 11:30 a.m. will include: grassroots organizing, led by Dukakis; becoming a delegate to the national convention, led by Phil McNamara, DNC director of party affairs; and delegate selection and VAN (Voter Activating Network, an online voter data base) training, led by Parag Mehta, DNC director of training.
At noon, a luncheon will be held in the Armory with speakers representing several presidential candidates. Elizabeth Edwards will appear for her husband, John, while Washington U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee will speak for Hillary Clinton and Connecticut U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney will stand in for Chris Dodd.
The afternoon sessions from 1:15 to 2:30 p.m. will include Mehta speaking on "The Plan," which is the party's political ground game for 2008, and Rick Boyland, a Stonewall Democrats board member, who will speak on "Pride in the Party."
From 2:30 to 5 p.m., conference participants will have the opportunity to volunteer for a Presidential candidate's campaign or for a U.S. Senate candidate's campaign.
This evening, the AFL-CIO Labor Reception will be held from 6:30 to 8 p.m. at The Shaskeen, 909 Elm St.
The YDA's Women's Caucus Reception, dubbed "Wonder Women: A Salute to Outstanding Activists and Candidates," will be held from 7:30 to 9 p.m. in the Presidential Suite in the Radisson. Special guests are state Senate President Sylvia Larsen, D-Concord, and state House Speaker Terie Norelli, D-Portsmouth.
Tomorrow begins with a continental breakfast in the Armory at 8:30 a.m. with speakers Stew Acuff, national director of organizing for the AFL-CIO, and Pennsylvania U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy representing Presidential candidate Barack Obama.
A workshop from 9:30 to 11 a.m. on the importance of including new media techniques in today's ever-increasing, virtual world will be led by Donnie Fowler, CEO and founder of Cherry Tree Mobile.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Bill+Clinton+urges+youth+to+support+Hillary&articleId=d53e6e01-ce54-49d9-901e-7e9e608b6548
Washington Post: With Strong Debate, Clinton Quiets Talk of a Slide
Spotlight Moves to Whether Rivals Can Slow Her Momentum Toward Nomination
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 17, 2007; A05
LAS VEGAS, Nov. 16 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's strong performance in Thursday's Democratic debate here will blunt talk that she is on a downward slide and shift the focus to whether Sen. Barack Obama or former senator John Edwards can stop her march to the nomination, party strategists said Friday.
"In some ways the hiccup of two weeks ago, or the misstep of two weeks ago, was good for the Clinton campaign, in that it brought the Clinton campaign back to earth and back to reality," said Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin, referring to her rocky outing in a debate in Philadelphia late last month. "It was a campaign that probably started looking to the general election a little too early, that didn't take the voters' questions about Hillary Clinton to heart enough."
Steve Elmendorf, who ran the presidential campaign in 2004 for then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, said Clinton's aggressiveness Thursday was a reminder to her rivals that she would not allow them to attack her indefinitely without responding. "She sent a very strong signal to the other candidates that there are no free shots here," he said. "She is ahead, and if they attack her, she'll hit back. Everybody has vulnerabilities."
Clinton (N.Y.) won the battle of Las Vegas by aggressively turning the tables on her rivals, challenging them where they are vulnerable and forcing them to answer questions they weren't ready to answer. She once again demonstrated her skill as a debater -- and Obama (Ill.) showed that he is not as strong in debates as he is in other forums.
The reactions from inside the Clinton and Obama campaigns signaled that between now and Iowa, there will be an intensifying debate over who should lead the party. Clinton advisers were ecstatic about the performance, which they felt successfully shifted the story line away from the candidate's earlier problems. Gone was talk about "piling on," which had marked their response to the Philadelphia debate, even though her rivals were as critical of her Thursday night as they had been earlier.
"She gave a commanding performance," said Howard Wolfson, the campaign's communications director. "I think this was the most important debate since the first one, and it was important for her to be dominating, and she was."
Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, disputed the high marks given to Clinton. "I think the questions and the narratives that surrounded the candidates going into this debate are mostly present going out of this debate," he said. "I think you could see this in a number of answers. I don't think she made any progress on providing clear or consistent answers to a number of questions she was asked last night."
Advisers to Edwards (N.C.) discounted reviews of their candidate's performance and said he continues to be a force, especially because of his strength in Iowa.
"Now more than ever it is clear that voters have a real choice in this election between John Edwards's bold vision of real change and Senator Clinton's flagging defense of the status quo and a broken system," said Chris Kofinis, communications director for Edwards.
Anita Dunn, a Democratic strategist who is neutral in the race, said she thinks the debate had two effects: to heighten the importance of a December debate in Iowa and to give a sense of a race that is narrowing to a contest between Clinton and Obama.
"Edwards seems to defy gravity" in Iowa, she said. "He's always had a group of people there who just really like him, but this debate kind of set out the fault lines between the front-runners for those Iowa debates, which are [always] incredibly important but even more so now."
Garin described the race as a contest between old and new, with Obama finally making his case as effectively as Clinton has been making hers.
"Obama has gotten much better and much sharper in framing that choice for voters over the course of the last four weeks," he said. "There's a lot more clarity and sharpness in the way he is defining the choice between new and old for voters and saying why it matters in a way that qualifies him more to be president."
But Clinton has been equally adept, he said, at leveraging her two principal strengths: her experience and the perception of Democratic voters that she cares about them and about policies that would make their lives better.
Obama showed again Thursday that debates are not his best forum. He excelled on stage at last Saturday's Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa but endured several difficult moments Thursday night, particularly on the issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.
After hammering Clinton for two weeks about her lack of clarity on that topic, he had trouble providing a yes-or-no answer Thursday, finally saying that he favored them. Clinton's war room erupted in cheers over his misstep, one campaign official said.
Edwards has chosen to wage a more classic outsider campaign, focused strictly on Clinton. In Iowa he remains a threat, but there is a question of whether he will be able to keep pace in the final weeks given the huge financial disadvantage he may face against both Clinton and Obama.
After two lively debates, Clinton's vulnerabilities are more clearly evident and Obama and Edwards have shown they are ready to maintain pressure on her. But both need to stop Clinton in Iowa to change the trajectory of the Democratic race.
"I think there are two candidates for whom the race comes down to a one-day sale," Garin said. "Iowa is not a make-or-break event for Senator Clinton, but it probably is for the other two."
Clinton was not flawless Thursday. Her answer on trade issues left questions her opponents will attempt to exploit -- Edwards's campaign jumped quickly on this Friday morning -- and she still has not made clear exactly what she thinks about payroll taxes and Social Security. Obama, Edwards and some of Clinton's other rivals are likely to try to focus continued attention on character questions such as whether she is candid or calculated, honest or evasive -- areas that polls show could be genuine vulnerabilities.
But in general, Thursday's debate was far better for Clinton than for her rivals. After Philadelphia the question was how she would respond. That's the question now facing Obama and Edwards.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601879_pf.html
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 17, 2007; A05
LAS VEGAS, Nov. 16 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's strong performance in Thursday's Democratic debate here will blunt talk that she is on a downward slide and shift the focus to whether Sen. Barack Obama or former senator John Edwards can stop her march to the nomination, party strategists said Friday.
"In some ways the hiccup of two weeks ago, or the misstep of two weeks ago, was good for the Clinton campaign, in that it brought the Clinton campaign back to earth and back to reality," said Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin, referring to her rocky outing in a debate in Philadelphia late last month. "It was a campaign that probably started looking to the general election a little too early, that didn't take the voters' questions about Hillary Clinton to heart enough."
Steve Elmendorf, who ran the presidential campaign in 2004 for then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, said Clinton's aggressiveness Thursday was a reminder to her rivals that she would not allow them to attack her indefinitely without responding. "She sent a very strong signal to the other candidates that there are no free shots here," he said. "She is ahead, and if they attack her, she'll hit back. Everybody has vulnerabilities."
Clinton (N.Y.) won the battle of Las Vegas by aggressively turning the tables on her rivals, challenging them where they are vulnerable and forcing them to answer questions they weren't ready to answer. She once again demonstrated her skill as a debater -- and Obama (Ill.) showed that he is not as strong in debates as he is in other forums.
The reactions from inside the Clinton and Obama campaigns signaled that between now and Iowa, there will be an intensifying debate over who should lead the party. Clinton advisers were ecstatic about the performance, which they felt successfully shifted the story line away from the candidate's earlier problems. Gone was talk about "piling on," which had marked their response to the Philadelphia debate, even though her rivals were as critical of her Thursday night as they had been earlier.
"She gave a commanding performance," said Howard Wolfson, the campaign's communications director. "I think this was the most important debate since the first one, and it was important for her to be dominating, and she was."
Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, disputed the high marks given to Clinton. "I think the questions and the narratives that surrounded the candidates going into this debate are mostly present going out of this debate," he said. "I think you could see this in a number of answers. I don't think she made any progress on providing clear or consistent answers to a number of questions she was asked last night."
Advisers to Edwards (N.C.) discounted reviews of their candidate's performance and said he continues to be a force, especially because of his strength in Iowa.
"Now more than ever it is clear that voters have a real choice in this election between John Edwards's bold vision of real change and Senator Clinton's flagging defense of the status quo and a broken system," said Chris Kofinis, communications director for Edwards.
Anita Dunn, a Democratic strategist who is neutral in the race, said she thinks the debate had two effects: to heighten the importance of a December debate in Iowa and to give a sense of a race that is narrowing to a contest between Clinton and Obama.
"Edwards seems to defy gravity" in Iowa, she said. "He's always had a group of people there who just really like him, but this debate kind of set out the fault lines between the front-runners for those Iowa debates, which are [always] incredibly important but even more so now."
Garin described the race as a contest between old and new, with Obama finally making his case as effectively as Clinton has been making hers.
"Obama has gotten much better and much sharper in framing that choice for voters over the course of the last four weeks," he said. "There's a lot more clarity and sharpness in the way he is defining the choice between new and old for voters and saying why it matters in a way that qualifies him more to be president."
But Clinton has been equally adept, he said, at leveraging her two principal strengths: her experience and the perception of Democratic voters that she cares about them and about policies that would make their lives better.
Obama showed again Thursday that debates are not his best forum. He excelled on stage at last Saturday's Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa but endured several difficult moments Thursday night, particularly on the issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.
After hammering Clinton for two weeks about her lack of clarity on that topic, he had trouble providing a yes-or-no answer Thursday, finally saying that he favored them. Clinton's war room erupted in cheers over his misstep, one campaign official said.
Edwards has chosen to wage a more classic outsider campaign, focused strictly on Clinton. In Iowa he remains a threat, but there is a question of whether he will be able to keep pace in the final weeks given the huge financial disadvantage he may face against both Clinton and Obama.
After two lively debates, Clinton's vulnerabilities are more clearly evident and Obama and Edwards have shown they are ready to maintain pressure on her. But both need to stop Clinton in Iowa to change the trajectory of the Democratic race.
"I think there are two candidates for whom the race comes down to a one-day sale," Garin said. "Iowa is not a make-or-break event for Senator Clinton, but it probably is for the other two."
Clinton was not flawless Thursday. Her answer on trade issues left questions her opponents will attempt to exploit -- Edwards's campaign jumped quickly on this Friday morning -- and she still has not made clear exactly what she thinks about payroll taxes and Social Security. Obama, Edwards and some of Clinton's other rivals are likely to try to focus continued attention on character questions such as whether she is candid or calculated, honest or evasive -- areas that polls show could be genuine vulnerabilities.
But in general, Thursday's debate was far better for Clinton than for her rivals. After Philadelphia the question was how she would respond. That's the question now facing Obama and Edwards.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601879_pf.html
Friday, November 16, 2007
Politico: Diamonds and Pearls for Hillary
By: Roger Simon
LAS VEGAS — "The (rhymes with rich) is back.
In a Democratic debate here Thursday night, Hillary Clinton was not the passive, parsing, punching bag that she was at the last debate in Philadelphia two weeks ago.
She gave as good as she got. And those who tried to kick her, stubbed their toes.
John Edwards got booed when he attacked her for taking money from Washington lobbyists — a charge he has made many times before — and seemed both surprised and irritated.
But when it came to a real stumble, Clinton left that to her chief opponent, Barack Obama.
He tried the same duck-and-cover tactic that Clinton failed at in the last debate and on the same subject: driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
When CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Obama if he supported giving out such licenses, Obama replied: “When I was a state senator in Illinois, I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety. That was my intention.”
But Blitzer was not going to settle for a non-answer answer and said: “Do you support or oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants?”
Obama replied: “I am not proposing that that’s what we do.”
This led to laughter in the debate hall and it was not the good kind of laughter.
“No, no, no, no, look,” Obama said, trying to stumble his way out of his own answer, but Blitzer was properly relentless.
“This is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes or no answer,” Blitzer said and the audience laughed again.
And, again, it was not the kind of laughter that Obama wanted to hear.
Finally, Blitzer said: “Senator Obama, yes or no?”
Obama was pinned. “Yes,” he replied.
Clinton neither parsed nor obfuscated — this time. When asked if she would also support driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, she replied with a firm, “No.”
She said nothing more. She didn’t need to.
At the beginning of the debate she said “my pantsuit is asbestos tonight,” but she hardly needed it to be.
This was a night for her opponents to feel the heat and, once again, the worst damage was inflicted by the journalists on the stage and not the other debaters.
At one point, Obama said he would sit down and talk to the leaders of rogue nations such as Iran.
“Hillary and I had a disagreement on this,” he said. “I said I would meet with not just our friends but also with our enemies.”
But Blitzer pointed out that Obama had missed a key Senate vote on Iran.
“This is true and it was a mistake,” Obama said. “This is one of the hazards of running for president.”
No, debates are one of the hazards of running for president.
Though often accused of not being clear on what she would do to save the Social Security system, Clinton was very clear during the debate about one thing: She was against Obama’s plan to increase Social Security taxes on some people making more than $97,000 a year.
“I do not want to fix the problems of Social Security on the backs of middle-class families and seniors,” she said.
“If you lift the cap completely, that is a $1 trillion tax increase. I don't think we need to do that.”
A visibly upset Obama responded: “Understand that only six percent of Americans make more than $97,000 a year. So six percent is not the middle class. It is the upper class!”
Then he lashed out with his strongest language of the evening. “You know,” he said, “this is the kind of thing that I would expect from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani, where we start playing with numbers.”
But Hillary had scored exactly the way she wanted to: by raising the electability issue.
It is no secret the Republicans intend to come at the Democratic nominate on the issues of immigration and raising taxes.
And Obama has now given them plenty of ammunition on both.
The last question of the evening came from a young woman who laughingly asked Clinton: “Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?”
“Now, I know I’m sometimes accused of not being able to make a choice,” Clinton said with a wicked smile. “I want both.”
And her opponents laid both at her feet Thursday night."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6926.html
LAS VEGAS — "The (rhymes with rich) is back.
In a Democratic debate here Thursday night, Hillary Clinton was not the passive, parsing, punching bag that she was at the last debate in Philadelphia two weeks ago.
She gave as good as she got. And those who tried to kick her, stubbed their toes.
John Edwards got booed when he attacked her for taking money from Washington lobbyists — a charge he has made many times before — and seemed both surprised and irritated.
But when it came to a real stumble, Clinton left that to her chief opponent, Barack Obama.
He tried the same duck-and-cover tactic that Clinton failed at in the last debate and on the same subject: driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
When CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Obama if he supported giving out such licenses, Obama replied: “When I was a state senator in Illinois, I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety. That was my intention.”
But Blitzer was not going to settle for a non-answer answer and said: “Do you support or oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants?”
Obama replied: “I am not proposing that that’s what we do.”
This led to laughter in the debate hall and it was not the good kind of laughter.
“No, no, no, no, look,” Obama said, trying to stumble his way out of his own answer, but Blitzer was properly relentless.
“This is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes or no answer,” Blitzer said and the audience laughed again.
And, again, it was not the kind of laughter that Obama wanted to hear.
Finally, Blitzer said: “Senator Obama, yes or no?”
Obama was pinned. “Yes,” he replied.
Clinton neither parsed nor obfuscated — this time. When asked if she would also support driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, she replied with a firm, “No.”
She said nothing more. She didn’t need to.
At the beginning of the debate she said “my pantsuit is asbestos tonight,” but she hardly needed it to be.
This was a night for her opponents to feel the heat and, once again, the worst damage was inflicted by the journalists on the stage and not the other debaters.
At one point, Obama said he would sit down and talk to the leaders of rogue nations such as Iran.
“Hillary and I had a disagreement on this,” he said. “I said I would meet with not just our friends but also with our enemies.”
But Blitzer pointed out that Obama had missed a key Senate vote on Iran.
“This is true and it was a mistake,” Obama said. “This is one of the hazards of running for president.”
No, debates are one of the hazards of running for president.
Though often accused of not being clear on what she would do to save the Social Security system, Clinton was very clear during the debate about one thing: She was against Obama’s plan to increase Social Security taxes on some people making more than $97,000 a year.
“I do not want to fix the problems of Social Security on the backs of middle-class families and seniors,” she said.
“If you lift the cap completely, that is a $1 trillion tax increase. I don't think we need to do that.”
A visibly upset Obama responded: “Understand that only six percent of Americans make more than $97,000 a year. So six percent is not the middle class. It is the upper class!”
Then he lashed out with his strongest language of the evening. “You know,” he said, “this is the kind of thing that I would expect from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani, where we start playing with numbers.”
But Hillary had scored exactly the way she wanted to: by raising the electability issue.
It is no secret the Republicans intend to come at the Democratic nominate on the issues of immigration and raising taxes.
And Obama has now given them plenty of ammunition on both.
The last question of the evening came from a young woman who laughingly asked Clinton: “Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?”
“Now, I know I’m sometimes accused of not being able to make a choice,” Clinton said with a wicked smile. “I want both.”
And her opponents laid both at her feet Thursday night."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6926.html
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Des Moines Register: Yepsen: That's Why The Lady Is The Champ
"Give Thursday’s debate to Hillary Clinton.
After two bad weeks in the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign, she recovered her footing and pushed back sharply at her opponents in a debate Thursday night.
The event, televised by CNN, was held in Las Vegas and was seen as an important milestone in the campaign. Clinton’s flawed performance in the previous debate and a series of campaign miscues in the weeks that followed indicated the national front-runner was stumbling. The evening gave her rivals a chance to trip her up some more.
They blew it. Barack Obama had only an average night, and on a couple of questions he seemed flummoxed. On the question of driver’s licenses for immigrants here illegally, his answer was as nuanced and fuzzy as Clinton’s was a couple of weeks ago. Moderator Wolf Blitzer underscored Obama’s fumbling by reminding him the question “is sort of available for a yes or no answer.”
By contrast, Clinton gave the answer she should have in the last debate: “No.”
Also, Obama got booed when he accused Clinton of using logic worthy of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. (That did seem a little canned. His handlers need to provide him some fresh material.) He also needs a more cogent answer for what he proposes to do with all the nation’s nuclear waste until someone invents that new processing technology he wants.
John Edwards should have stayed home. Clinton took the wind out of his sails early in the evening by implying he was “throwing mud.” He never seemed to bounce back from that slap, and he also got hooted when he talked about her as a corporate Democrat. Edwards also had a poor night because for the first time, the differences between his votes as a U.S. senator and his talk now came into clear focus. He voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear-waste disposal site. Those votes are at odds with the populist rhetoric he serves up today, and it will undermine the credibility of his message.
Ironically, Edwards’ poor performance may be bad news for Clinton in Iowa. That’s because Clinton, Edwards and Obama are in a statistical tie for first among caucus-going Democrats here. If either Obama or Edwards should fade in Iowa, his supporters may move to the other candidate, making that man the leading anti-Clinton candidate.
And that could give him enough votes to eke out a plurality win over her on caucus night. (Memo to Clinton: Don’t be too hard on poor Johnny. You need to keep him in this race in Iowa.)
Observers can also give lots of points to two of the second-tier candidates, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson. They turned in articulate, presidential-style performances during the evening.
It was clearly Dodd’s best debate of the campaign, especially when he rebuked his foes, primarily Edwards, for the “shrillness” of the campaign. Richardson, too, will get credit from voters for his call to “stop this mudslinging.”
Dodd and Richardson also showed political courage at various points in the evening — Dodd for his support for free trade, something not popular with many unions, and Richardson for supporting driver’s licenses for workers here illegally.
Joseph Biden seemed uneven. He’s excellent when he’s talking about foreign policy and judicial appointments — and bad when he tries too hard to be funny or gets angry. Dennis Kucinich says things a lot of Democrats believe, but he can’t be taken seriously because he’s not running a credible campaign."
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=3a86a5c341684631abb59d87c02a2df8&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a3a86a5c341684631abb59d87c02a2df8Post%3a9f32a81e-dd8d-42e6-a448-2fb362161155&sid=sitelife.desmoinesregister.com
After two bad weeks in the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign, she recovered her footing and pushed back sharply at her opponents in a debate Thursday night.
The event, televised by CNN, was held in Las Vegas and was seen as an important milestone in the campaign. Clinton’s flawed performance in the previous debate and a series of campaign miscues in the weeks that followed indicated the national front-runner was stumbling. The evening gave her rivals a chance to trip her up some more.
They blew it. Barack Obama had only an average night, and on a couple of questions he seemed flummoxed. On the question of driver’s licenses for immigrants here illegally, his answer was as nuanced and fuzzy as Clinton’s was a couple of weeks ago. Moderator Wolf Blitzer underscored Obama’s fumbling by reminding him the question “is sort of available for a yes or no answer.”
By contrast, Clinton gave the answer she should have in the last debate: “No.”
Also, Obama got booed when he accused Clinton of using logic worthy of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. (That did seem a little canned. His handlers need to provide him some fresh material.) He also needs a more cogent answer for what he proposes to do with all the nation’s nuclear waste until someone invents that new processing technology he wants.
John Edwards should have stayed home. Clinton took the wind out of his sails early in the evening by implying he was “throwing mud.” He never seemed to bounce back from that slap, and he also got hooted when he talked about her as a corporate Democrat. Edwards also had a poor night because for the first time, the differences between his votes as a U.S. senator and his talk now came into clear focus. He voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear-waste disposal site. Those votes are at odds with the populist rhetoric he serves up today, and it will undermine the credibility of his message.
Ironically, Edwards’ poor performance may be bad news for Clinton in Iowa. That’s because Clinton, Edwards and Obama are in a statistical tie for first among caucus-going Democrats here. If either Obama or Edwards should fade in Iowa, his supporters may move to the other candidate, making that man the leading anti-Clinton candidate.
And that could give him enough votes to eke out a plurality win over her on caucus night. (Memo to Clinton: Don’t be too hard on poor Johnny. You need to keep him in this race in Iowa.)
Observers can also give lots of points to two of the second-tier candidates, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson. They turned in articulate, presidential-style performances during the evening.
It was clearly Dodd’s best debate of the campaign, especially when he rebuked his foes, primarily Edwards, for the “shrillness” of the campaign. Richardson, too, will get credit from voters for his call to “stop this mudslinging.”
Dodd and Richardson also showed political courage at various points in the evening — Dodd for his support for free trade, something not popular with many unions, and Richardson for supporting driver’s licenses for workers here illegally.
Joseph Biden seemed uneven. He’s excellent when he’s talking about foreign policy and judicial appointments — and bad when he tries too hard to be funny or gets angry. Dennis Kucinich says things a lot of Democrats believe, but he can’t be taken seriously because he’s not running a credible campaign."
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=3a86a5c341684631abb59d87c02a2df8&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a3a86a5c341684631abb59d87c02a2df8Post%3a9f32a81e-dd8d-42e6-a448-2fb362161155&sid=sitelife.desmoinesregister.com
WSJ: ‘Yes or No’ Questions Not So Easy, Eh?
Susan Davis reports from Las Vegas on the presidential debate.
"They should have seen it coming. “Assuming there isn’t going to be comprehensive immigration reform, do you support or oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants?” CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked the Democratic candidates. That’s essentially the question that tripped up Sen. Hillary Clinton at the debate two weeks ago.
But as their responses show, it’s no easy task to sum up a top domestic concern in a single word.
Sen. Barack Obama: “I am not proposing that that’s what we do. What I’m saying is that we can’t… No, no, no, no. Look, I have already said, I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver’s licenses at the same level can make that happen. But what I also know, Wolf, is that if we keep on getting distracted by this problem, then we are not solving it.” (72 words)
Sen. John Edwards: “No, but I don’t accept the proposition that we’re not going to have comprehensive immigration reform. What I do support, and what I will do as president of the United States, is move this country toward comprehensive immigration reform. And anyone who’s on the path to earning American citizenship should be able to have a driver’s license.” (57 words)
Sen. Chris Dodd: “Well, it’s important to put it in context. It’s obviously, look, clarity is important here. The American people, in a debate like this, want clarity here. Certainly, the whole idea of getting immigration reform is something I strongly support. But I believe part of our job is to discourage those who want to come here — I understand why they want to come, but coming illegally creates serious problems — four to 500,000. No, my belief is that giving a — as I’ve said in the very beginning here, I think driver’s licenses are the wrong thing to be doing, in terms of attracting people to come here as undocumented.” (110 words)
Obama, Round II: “Yes. I’ll tell you, I am going to be fighting for comprehensive immigration reform, and we shouldn’t pose the question that, somehow, we can’t achieve that. I believe that the American people desperately want it; that’s what I’m going to be fighting for as president.” (45 words)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich: “I take issue with your description of people being illegal immigrants. There aren’t any illegal human beings. That’s No. 1. No. 2, they are undocumented. I believe that the best way to do it — thank you. I believe the best way to deal with this is cancel NAFTA and renegotiate the trade agreement with Mexico. You give people a path to legalization, and then they can be legal and have their driver’s license. That’s the way to work it. You know what? You give people a path to legalization and you work to make sure that you don’t criminalize their status any further. Again, I take exception to the way you framed that question.” (115 words)
Gov. Bill Richardson: “Well, my answer is yes, and I did it. You know why? Because the Congress — and I notice Barack mentioned the president — but the Congress also failed miserably to pass comprehensive immigration. And we need to have it in this country. I did it four years ago. My legislature sent me a bill. I signed it. My law-enforcement people said it’s a matter of public safety. What we need is public safety, a reduction in traffic fatalities. We wanted more people to be insured. When we started with this program, 33% of all New Mexicans were uninsured. Today, it’s 11%. Traffic fatalities have gone down. It’s a matter of public safety. States have to act when the federal government and the Congress doesn’t act. The answer is comprehensive immigration. The answer is secure the borders, a stronger relationship with Mexico. Those that knowingly hire illegal workers should be punished. And a path to legalization. That is the solution.” (161 words)
Sen. Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden were the only two to respond with a one-word answer. “No,” they both said. (1 word)"
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/11/15/yes-or-no-questions-not-so-easy-eh/trackback/
"They should have seen it coming. “Assuming there isn’t going to be comprehensive immigration reform, do you support or oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants?” CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked the Democratic candidates. That’s essentially the question that tripped up Sen. Hillary Clinton at the debate two weeks ago.
But as their responses show, it’s no easy task to sum up a top domestic concern in a single word.
Sen. Barack Obama: “I am not proposing that that’s what we do. What I’m saying is that we can’t… No, no, no, no. Look, I have already said, I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver’s licenses at the same level can make that happen. But what I also know, Wolf, is that if we keep on getting distracted by this problem, then we are not solving it.” (72 words)
Sen. John Edwards: “No, but I don’t accept the proposition that we’re not going to have comprehensive immigration reform. What I do support, and what I will do as president of the United States, is move this country toward comprehensive immigration reform. And anyone who’s on the path to earning American citizenship should be able to have a driver’s license.” (57 words)
Sen. Chris Dodd: “Well, it’s important to put it in context. It’s obviously, look, clarity is important here. The American people, in a debate like this, want clarity here. Certainly, the whole idea of getting immigration reform is something I strongly support. But I believe part of our job is to discourage those who want to come here — I understand why they want to come, but coming illegally creates serious problems — four to 500,000. No, my belief is that giving a — as I’ve said in the very beginning here, I think driver’s licenses are the wrong thing to be doing, in terms of attracting people to come here as undocumented.” (110 words)
Obama, Round II: “Yes. I’ll tell you, I am going to be fighting for comprehensive immigration reform, and we shouldn’t pose the question that, somehow, we can’t achieve that. I believe that the American people desperately want it; that’s what I’m going to be fighting for as president.” (45 words)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich: “I take issue with your description of people being illegal immigrants. There aren’t any illegal human beings. That’s No. 1. No. 2, they are undocumented. I believe that the best way to do it — thank you. I believe the best way to deal with this is cancel NAFTA and renegotiate the trade agreement with Mexico. You give people a path to legalization, and then they can be legal and have their driver’s license. That’s the way to work it. You know what? You give people a path to legalization and you work to make sure that you don’t criminalize their status any further. Again, I take exception to the way you framed that question.” (115 words)
Gov. Bill Richardson: “Well, my answer is yes, and I did it. You know why? Because the Congress — and I notice Barack mentioned the president — but the Congress also failed miserably to pass comprehensive immigration. And we need to have it in this country. I did it four years ago. My legislature sent me a bill. I signed it. My law-enforcement people said it’s a matter of public safety. What we need is public safety, a reduction in traffic fatalities. We wanted more people to be insured. When we started with this program, 33% of all New Mexicans were uninsured. Today, it’s 11%. Traffic fatalities have gone down. It’s a matter of public safety. States have to act when the federal government and the Congress doesn’t act. The answer is comprehensive immigration. The answer is secure the borders, a stronger relationship with Mexico. Those that knowingly hire illegal workers should be punished. And a path to legalization. That is the solution.” (161 words)
Sen. Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden were the only two to respond with a one-word answer. “No,” they both said. (1 word)"
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/11/15/yes-or-no-questions-not-so-easy-eh/trackback/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)