Hillary Clinton, faltering in her march toward the nomination after 13 straight primary losses, has turned to the tactics of Walter Mondale (with a little LBJ and Georgw W thrown in,) to try and turn things around (the tactics of Richard Nixon [experience matters! ... ignore the whelp!!!...] Bush I [smearing one's opponent ... prudent at this juncture...] and Mommie Dearest [one moment, kind and maternal, next moment ... horrible and cruel!!!] having failed her.)
Mrs. Clinton is apparently spending that $35 mil of hers (Barack has more than that, apparently...) finding new ways to eviscerate her opponent, and, it seems, to render him unelectable in the primary, unelectable in the general, and unelectable for all time. Clinton's new TV ad is a doosy (the NYT blog The Caucus analyzes it here):
In other words, vote for Hillary ... if you want your children to live...
To be fair, Camp Clinton isn't whipping up anything the McCain camp wouldn't have thought of on their own, and it's a near certainty that no matter how mean Hillary gets during the primary, the GOP and McCain will make her look like a masseuse by the fall. But ... there's something to be said for grace, and for putting the war ahead of the battle. It's getting to the point where I, at least, am wondering whether it's more important for Mrs. Clinton to be the nominee, in her camp's thinking, than for the Democrats to win in the fall.
I have had such great respect for the Clintons, especially Bill, over the years, and have been sufficiently supportive of them to consider myself a "Clinton Democrat." And while I am supporting, and voted for, Barack Obama this cycle, had he not been in, Hillary would have been my girl.
That said ... I would have much preferred to see Hillary run on her own merits, her vision for America, and the attributes that make her a good potential president, not on her team's perception of the demerits of Barack Obama. Ultimately, the goal is to win the White House in the fall. Becoming the echo chamber of the Republican Party doesn't strike me as the best way to get that accomplished.
Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) campaign manager said Friday morning that a new ad on national security from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) will backfire as it will only remind voters that Clinton voted for the Iraq war.
Entitled “Children,” the spot features sleeping children and says: “It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House, and it's ringing. Something’s happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call.”
The ad, which is already being compared to the famous “Daisy” ad of the 1964 campaign, is the same strategy that Clinton has been using since losing the Iowa caucuses and has been “rejected by voters,” said David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, on a conference call with reporters Friday.
“Sen. Clinton already had her red phone moment,” Plouffe said. “She had it in 2002. It was on the Iraq war.”
He added: “This is about what you say when you answer that phone.”
Slate has dismissed the John McCain is from Panama! story with the back of its Slatey hand, so who am I to call it a story? Still, the New York Times did go to the trouble to write the story, so why not post just a little bit:
Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.
Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
Of course, it should be noted that the first president to be born in the United States when it was the United States (rather than a territory that would later become part of the United States) was Martin Van Buren (1837-1841). More presidential firsts here. Back to the story:
“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”
Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.
But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.
“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”
The phrase “natural born” was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to “declare expressly” that only a natural-born citizen could be president.
Ms. Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of Mr. McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.
And now, for the history geek bit:
Mr. McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.
It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell P. Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility.
Quickly recognizing confusion over the evolving nature of citizenship, the First Congress in 1790 passed a measure that did define children of citizens “born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States to be natural born.” But that law is still seen as potentially unconstitutional and was overtaken by subsequent legislation that omitted the “natural-born” phrase. Oooh, Lou Dobbs is gonna have a fieeld day with this one...
Oh, and George Will basically called John McCain a holier than thou hypocrite on campaign finance today, it turns out Johnny Mack not only met that Cunningham jerk (more than once) but that his campaign, via Ohio's Mike Dewine, hired the guy on purpose ... meanwhile, the media speculates on what damage McCain's tap dancing act with the winger faithful could mean to his campaign...
Had a busy day today, so I missed a few posts. Here's my attempt at catch-up, before Lost comes on and I say damn this blog altogether...
One in every 100 Americans is behind bars, according to a new report. That should come as welcome news to the Republican Party, who can both wallow in the negativity and get more tax breaks for big, privately-run corporate-owned prisons...
George W. Bush continues to whinge about telecom immunity and demand (!) that the Congress send him a bill ... I guess nobody has informed the POTUS that no one is listening anymore.
Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, Republicans can't understand why all their hard work on behalf of immunity from 'spensive lawsuits hasn't loosened up the purse strings of the telecoms, who are still giving most of their cash to the party in power. And after all that hard work saving those telco's asses the American people from terrorists!
How come Congress can find time to demand a perjury probe of Roger Clemons, but they can't manage to enforce their own subpoenas against Karl Rove and Harriet Miers? And doesn't the FBI have anything better to do?
Who's more manly: George W. Bush of the Texas Air National Guard (at least when he showed up ...) or Britain's Prince Harry? It's Harry by a long shot. He's been fighting in Afghanistan on the front lines for some 10 weeks. Too bad he can't keep the mission from utterly failing.
I am clearly not a conservative (at this stage, I consider myself a center-left libertarian ... sort of...) but ever since I was a nerdy, news junkie kid in the 1980s, I have always been fascinated by William F. Buckley. The way he talked, with the eye-bulging, hyper-upscale dialect (like a male Peggy Noonan ... "eh-yeeahhhz..." were fun to listen to, and his powerful intellect was impressive, whether you agreed with him or not. My mom and I used to watch every news show we could get our hands on, and he was on more than his share. Fascinating guy. And in the end, I completely agreed with him on the war. He had the courage to turn against the policy from inside the conservative journal, National Review, which he founded, and I give him great credit for that. William F. Buckley has died at the age of 82. May he rest in peace. He had a great run.
This man claims to be a legendary basketball player... but is he a REAL American...?
So Republicans have finally chosen to fight Barack Obama on the basis of his policiesmiddle name. Good for them! So now, I think it is the patriotic duty of every REAL American to name and denounce the other subversives with curious, foreign-sounding names who continue to infiltrate our venerable American institutions, sowing the seeds of enemy infiltration and ... foreign sounding-ness... Here's a short list for Rush, Bill Cunningham and the folks in the Tennessee Republican Party to get started with (Up with America! Down with Hope!):
Kareen Abdul-Jabbar ... posing as a "basketball legend," but what's his REAL agenda...?
Mohammed Ali ... claims to be a legendary boxer ... but hello??? His name is "Mohammed..."
Rasheed Wallace ... He has infiltrated the Detroit Pistons ...what will he infiltrate next?
Hakeem Olajuwon ... suspiciously African NBA player. I'm thinking background check...
Mike Huckabee ... sure, he looks white, but what kind of name is "Huckabee"...?
Jordin Sparks ... sparks of WHAT??? Dirty bombs, maybe???
Shaquille O'Neal ... when have you EVER met a red-blooded American man named "Shaquille?"
Charles Krauthammer ... way too many syllables in that last name to be American...
Arnold Schwarzenegger ... Austrian ... need I say more?
Chaka Khan ... just to be safe, better send her to Gitmo, too...
Ashford and Simpson ... okay, they're names sound fine. They just creep me out. Deport!
Najee ... all terrorists go by one name: "Osama" ... okay, he goes by three names ... Saddam ... okay he had a last name, but you get the friggin point! His last name was HUSSEIN! HUSSEIN, get it? Just like Barack HUSSEIN Obama!!! and King HUSSEIN of Jordan ... okay he's our ally, but so WHAT! And stop playing that damned elevator music!!
Listen to John McCain. The al-Qaida in Iraq who weren't there before we invaded Iraq but who will follow us home if we leave Iraq and move to Detroit, where they will take THE JOBS AMERICANS AREN'T WILLING TO DO, are trying to kill us...!!! We need a president in the White House who the TERRORISTS won't mistake for a family member, or for a guy from some other foreign, un-American place ... like Hawaii.
Life sucks, and you're gonna get blown up. Vote Republican!
Blowback (n); an unintended adverse reaction or effect from an action or cause, especially political [Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English]
Blowback normally refers to consequences that are unintended, but in the case of the Clinton campaign, one has to wonder whether the consequences of their tactics are very much intended.
Already, the repercussions from the release of that now infamous photo (which the Clinton campaign still sort of denies destributing to the Drudge Report) are being felt around the country, with the Tennessee Republican Party seeking to scare voters in that state into thinking Obama is some sort of Muslim plant.
And Hillary's needling of Obama last night on the issue of Louis Farrakhan, who praised Obama at the annual Savior's Day event in Chicago over the weekend, is bearing fruit: questions are now being raised on the radical right about the ties, not of the candidate himself, but of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, to the controversial Nation of Islam leader.
You had to know this was coming. Luckily for Barack, it's coming now, early in the campaign, when he can get a handle on it, and be all the more prepared for the full onslaught of foolishness that's coming his way during the general, no matter how many members of the press corps John McCain charms with his "I'll be so respectful" routine...
Perhaps the most effective attack leveled by the Clinton campaign at Barack Obama, which the campaign continued today, is that as chairman of a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, he has failed to hold a single hearing on Afghanistan, even though his subcommittee includes oversight over U.S. policy in Europe, and our participation in NATO, the main fighting force in Afghanistan. That's a substantive charge, and one that the right has already picked up on, along with the media (Lou Dobbs hit Obama on that tonight.) This is one weakness for Barack that the GOP will definitely exploit this fall, although it remains to be seen whether voters not already disinclined to vote for Obama will care more about hearings than about the overall policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For Hillary, though, the danger is that her attacks on Obama, and her campaign itself, could begin to be seen by Democrats as a service, not to the Democratic party or to women seeking political lift, or to history, but to Republican opposition researchers. If Hillary appears to be trying to torch Barack Obama's campaign in order to preserve her opportunity to run again in four years, she can kiss that opportunity good-bye. The same voters and superdelegates she's hoping will rescue her this summer will have a say in her future, too, say, as Senate Majority Leader, or as a future candidate for any office who needs friends (and that, by the way, is every candidate...)
Yesterday, Rev. Joseph Lowery, co-founder of SCLC (and a great speaker, as I got to see recently at the rededication of Virginia Key Beach in Miami) put Rep. John Lewis on the spot, saying he would switch his vote as a superdelegate to Barack Obama. Today, Lewis made good:
Hoping to put an end to a month of confusion and dismay, Rep. John Lewis on Wednesday said he's switching his support from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Lewis cited the overwhelming preference for Obama in his district as a reason for his change of heart, but he also talked about Obama's campaign as transformational for the nation.
"Something's happening in America, something some of us did not see coming," Lewis said. "Barack Obama has tapped into something that is extraordinary.
... Can't have anything to do with that Lewis opponent Obama's candidacy tapped into, could it...?
Best line of tonight's debate according to the collected punditry of MSNBC: Obama responding to the Hillary point that since his 2002 speech he has voted on Iraq exactly as she has by saying that once you've driven into a ditch, there are only so many ways to get out, and accusing her of voting to drive the U.S. into the Iraq ditch. It was a good line, and the Iraq/foreign policy section was one of his strongest sets.
Another good line from Barack: "I think Senator Clinton equates experience with longevity in Washington."
And I like this one: "... the insurance companies actually are happy to have a mandate. The insurance companies don't mind making sure that everybody has to purchase their product. That's not something they're objecting to. The question is, are we going to make sure that it is affordable for everybody? And that's my goal when I'm president of the United States."
Hillary's best line tonight was about the sea change that a woman president would represent. She should have used that tack more during the campaign...
Her worst line, by far, was this one:
SEN. CLINTON: Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don't mind. I -- you know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious, and if anybody saw "Saturday Night Live," you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow. (Laughter, boos.) I just find it kind of curious that I keep getting the first question on all of these issues. But I'm happy to answer it.
Bad form, Senator.
I do think its funny that Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews didn't enjoy the debate, with Maddow calling it the "Democratic Voter Enthusiasm Suppression Act of 2008" while Olbermann and Pat Buchanan found a lot to love about the debate, as did Jason and I. I think the better term for tonight is the "Feminists Disappointed by Lack of Hillary Slam Dunk Act of 2008." I guess Rachel and Chris wanted a smack-down rumble, and instead they got a sober, serious debate.
Oh god ... Stephanie Tubbs Jones is back on TV ... damn, she can't even admit that Barack's run fulfills Martin Luther King's dream ... oh, good, she's gone. Whew!
I notice that MSNBC promptly benched Maddow after her sourpuss reaction to the debate.
The NBC News post-debate love-fest is in full swing, with Chris Matthews smooching Tim Russert on "reeling in his marlin" on Hillary's answer regretting her vote on Iraq (I think the mutual admiration and agreement society is almost irresistible for journalists.) But a few minutes ago, Keith Olbermann was the one playing the part of the fisherman, and Russert was playing the fish.
Olbermann nailed Russert on the phony issue about Obama's supposed pledge to take public financing in the general election, a pledge that, as Olbermann has pointed out on "Countdown" and as he pointed out again tonight, Obama didn't really make. Russert didn't concede the point, but Olbermann won the exchange. Barack answered a questionnaire in which he said he would pursue and agreement with the Republican nominee to attempt to get a public financing deal if he became the nominee. That's a promise to negotiate, not a promise to unilaterally disarm his campaign against the GOP. I know Russert would like to see the fight between Obama and McCain pulled even for the general via the money if necessary (and the commentraitor agrees, based on last Sunday's "This Week" ...) but it ain't gonna happen.
More importantly, this is a false media story promulgated by MSM types who, like Russert, want to see a horserace this fall. And none of them are pointing out the very important point that John McCain has already made it clear that he has no intention of accepting public financing for the general election campaign, and is in fact trying to wriggle out of it in the primary.
(sigh) Anyhow, for once and for all (and then I never intend to blog about this again) here is the question asked of the candidates by the Midwest Democracy Network (only Obama and John Edwards responded):
Question I-B: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?
Yes ___ No ___
And here is Barack Obama's answer:
OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.
Is that a pledge to take public financing come what may? You be the judge.
The Rumble in Cleveland is under way, and the candidates just did a 16 minute back and forth on universal health insurance coverage (horridly misnamed "universal healthcare" by many Dems on the left. Hillary filibustered most of the discussion, and looked a bit like she was trying to prolong it. Barack finally made the point that my husband and I have been screaming at the television hoping he'd hit in the last few debates, in response to Hillary's claim that his fliers on the issue read like they were written by the big insurance companies. Obama pointed out that "the insurance companies aren't unhappy about a plan mandating that everyone in America buy their product." Bingo.
Hillary just made her first big mistake. Taking the second issue question, on NAFTA, Hillary bitched about always being given the first question in the debates, and adding that "anybody who saw Saturday Night Live" would see her situation, and notice that she isn't the one being offered a fluffed pillow by the moderators (paraphrasing). Way too early to use your "hit the moderators" schtick, Hillary. It looked petty.
Update: I think Obama got the better of Hillary over the entire NAFTA exchange. He was able to get to his prescriptions for job creation before she did, while she wasted her first answer mired in criticisms of the way he and the press have characterized her support (or lack of it) for NAFTA during her husband's term. I will give Hillary points for superior fact control. When she is taking criticism, she puts a game face on while Barack tends to pout.
Update 9:40: Barack just delivered a facial to Hillary on Iraq. She tried the "he gave a speech in 2002 but his judgment since then has been the same as mine and I would look more credible standing next to John McCain" angle, and he responded with this:
"Hillary has said during this campaign that she is ready on day one, but she was ready to give in to George Bush on day one on this critical issue. the same person she criticizes for having terrible judgment, and we can't have another one of those, she facilitated him."
Ouch.
He also successfully rebutted her claim that he "threatened to bomb Pakistan."
Update 10:06: Hillary got Tim Russert on a question regarding Iraq in which he threw out a hypothetical dire outcome of the U.S. pulling out of Iraq (straight out of Fox Noise, Tim...) Hillary called it out as such, and won that exchange with Tim. Unfortunately, she went right back to criticizing Barack rather than making an affirmative case for herself after that. She did score points on Barack's failure to hold any hearings in his subcommittee on European affairs, which includes NATO. Barack's answer that he was appointed to the chairmanship at the start of the campaign wasn't his best moment.
The candidates then reacted to video clips of them criticizing each other. Both did fine.
Now, Tim Russsert is trying to push the issue of Farrakhan endorsing Barack. Barack already denounced Farrakhan's past statements, and Russert won't let it go. Now, he's trying the angle of making Barack answer for his pastor, Jeremiah Wright's past praise of Farrakhan. How in the hell Barack is supposed to answer for someone else's statements you couldn't tell me. Russert is reaching for ways to prove he doesn't have a crush on Obama, and it doesn't make him look good. Obama's line: "I live in Chicago, he lives in Chicago. I can't tell him he can't say I'm a good guy." He kept the answer on himself.
Now, Hillary is trying to turn it around by pointing to her past rejection of the support of people deemed anti-Semitic, when she was running her Senate campaign in 2000. Hillary just tried to say "there's a difference between 'denouncing' and 'rejecting'" -- okay... Obama's response: "I have to say I don't see the difference between denouncing and rejecting ... but if Senator Clinton feels that the word 'reject' is stronger than 'denounce', I will concede the point, and I'll reject and denounce." Set point: Obama.
I hope I'm still somewhat objective on this, but I have to say that so far, Barack is drinking Hillary's milkshake. He's drinking it up...
The TiVo's caught up now. More after the commercial break.
10:20 update: Obama just answered the "National Journal calls you the most liberal Senator" question by pointing out the two issues that placed him to the left of Ted Kennedy in the conservative mag's rankings: revolving guest worker status that includes a year of illegality if the worker doesn't go home, and the idea of having an independent ethics investigator overseeing Senate ethics probes. He turned it around by saying that the American people don't care about the labels, they care about results.
10:23: does it matter that Hillary couldn't quite name the likely next president of Russia? She was very artful in talking about Putin's hand picked successor without using his name, and you knew it was coming that Russert would try to pin her down on the name. Unfortunately for Hillary, she had a semi-Bushian moment, garbling out "Medeveduh ... whatever..." (For those of you writing this down, his name is Dmitry Medvedev, and yes, I had to look that up...)
10:26: Hillary just answered the "is there any word or vote you'd like to take back" question by naming her vote on Iraq, saying "I would never have taken this country to war as president." It's about as close as she's come to apologizing for the decision. Now she's pivoting to a "what we will inherit from George Bush" soliloqy, which was well done. Obama is taking the question now, saying that during the Schiavo dust-up, he is saying he didn't stand on the floor and stop the Congress from voting to intervene. He is rejecting his inaction, rather than an affirmative vote, saying "sometimes inaction can be as costly as action."
Now, Obama is saying that "there's still a lot of fight left in this contest, but one thing I'm clear about is that Hillary has been campaigning magnificently, she's an outstanding public servant, and I'm honored to be running with her. What's important is that these campaigns deliver for the American people." Damn. this guy just stole Hillary's swan song from the last debate, only when he does it, it doesn't look like the ned, it looks like the beginning. He added that both of them are "running to restore the sense of public service." Well done.
Final question, from Brian Williams:
What question does Hillary need to answer for the voters?
Paraphrasing Barack's answer: "there's no doubt that Hillary is qualified and capable and would be a much better president than McCain, who has tethered himself to the policies of GWB... I don't think she has to answer a question of whether she's capable, but here's why I'm better: I think I can bring this country together in a unique way, across race, religion and other divisions..." Well done.
Hillary's turn: what questions does Barack need to answer:
"Both of us feel strongly about our country and bring enormous energy and commitment to this race and would bring that to the White House." She reprised that it's been an honor to run, and added that it's history making. She finally threw in the fact that she's running to be the first woman president, eliciting the first applause for her of the night. "Either one of us will make history, but the question I have been posing is, who can actually change the country?" Also well done, although her answer was more somber sounding and less genuine sounding than last time (besides, he stole her lines moments before... I guess she's not complaining about having to go first this time. Going last against Barack is no great shakes, either...)
Hillary is reracking her line about the wealthy having had a president, and saying its time the working people had one, too, but her final answer lacked the punch and exuberance that it needed to be effective.
Overall, I think Barack one this debate hands down. Not only did Hillary not knock him out, she really didn't lay a glove on him, and I think her demeanor at the end proves that she knows that.
Waiting for the Youtube on ... Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Is Stephanie Tubbs Jones drinking? First, she referred to Barack Obama "in his native clothing" regarding that Kenya photo circulated by the Clinton campaign on MSNBC this morning. Then, the Ohio congresswoman who sat through the humiliation of that poor Texas state senator (Kirk Watson and acts like she did the humiliating (kind of the way Rudy Giuliani survived 9/11 and acted like he thwarted it) ... turned in a very odd performance on "Hardball" tonight. She seemed way too giddy, constantly interrupting Bill Clinton's former campaign manager, David Wilhelm, who is now supporting Barack, and generally stepping all over the proceedings. This lady has either completely fallen in love with the notion of herself on television or she's fallen off the wagon.
WTF???
Update: here's the video of Tubbs ... in her native clothing...
Still waiting for the Youtube on Tubbs Jones in her falling down drunk performance on Hardball...
...to help Hillary sort out her persona for tonight's debate on MSNBC (which Howard Fineman has helpfully dubbed "Hillary's last stand"...) Will we see ... Nice, honored to be on the stage with Barack Hillary...?
Or angry, yelling, pointing, "shame on you" Hillary?
Only her psychic knows for sure...
Meanwhile, add a Rasmussen poll to Hillary's headaches. The latest Rasmussen survey shows Hillary nursing only a five point lead in Ohio, holding steady at 48%, while Barack has climbed from 38% to 40% to 43% in three weeks.
And on a truly serious note, the candidates have different requirements tonight.
Barack: freeze the ball. Barack needs to look calm and presidential, no matter what Hillary throws at him. And he might try using her "what Democrat would attack another Democrat in such Rovian fashion" line on HER, regarding the photo flap, as long as he does it in a very grown-up, measured tone.
Hillary: clean it up. Hillary has got to get back to the steady, presidential demeanor she displayed after the tragic death of Benazir Bhutto. That day, Hillary looked regal, serious, and rather elegant, as she took charge of the news cycle. She also needs to learn to speak in her lower register. It's a sad truth about women in broadcasting that I had to be reminded of myself by my PD at 1080. Women tend to sound tinny in the upper register, whether we like it or not. If she wants to sound like a president, drop that register, stay away from the pointing and attacking, and make her points firmly, but with grace. She also needs a big moment tonight -- something she can either stick Barack with (and leave questions about his ability to lead in the minds of Ohio and Texas voters) or she needs to draw him into a mistake, preferably on foreign policy. If she can't do that, it's game over for her.
Had John McCain's advance team taken a few minutes to Google Bill Cunningham, the Cincinnati right wing talk show host chosen to introduce him at a rally today, he would have discovered that Cunningham has a habit of referring to Barack Obama with an emphasis on his middle name ... and he's even been known to throw in a stray Mohammed into Obama's name, where it most decidedly doesn't belong.
In 2001, shortly after race-related riots over the police killing of an African-American teenager who was fleeing their pursuit, Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Nathaniel Jones blasted Cunningham in a speech at a local YMCA, calling the show “trash, and filth and profanity.” (Jones is a former civil rights lawyer who worked for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; Cunningham has been a frequent critic of the organization and civil rights activists in general, particularly Rev. Jesse Jackson, who Cunningham nicknames the "Rhyming Reverend.")
In December 2003, Cunningham drew more fire for making fun of Nathaniel Jones (no relation to the federal judge), an African-American resident of Cincinnati who died after violently resisting police outside a White Castle restaurant; video of the incident again inflamed the local African-American community. Jones, who weighed more than 350 lb. (159 kg), was found to have died of an enlarged heart, and various narcotics were found to be present in his body while violently resisting arrest at the time of his death, which may have contributed to his reaction to police efforts to subdue him. Cunningham made fun of Jones' obesity and apparent drug use in a skit on his show, which prompted various local civil rights groups to call for his resignation or firing.
They would have known that Cunningham's station, WLW, puts straight-up racists like this guy on the air, and that at the least, Cunningham would not be a man in keeping with the image John McCain claims he wants to portray on the campaign trail.
And had the advance team done this simple bit of homework, their candidate wouldn't now have to denounce Cunningham's remarks, and reassert how respectful his campaign will be toward his Democratic "friends" -- probably alienating Cunningham's cohort of right wing radio wackjob fellow travelers in the process, just when they had begun to get used to defending McCain against the evil New York Times.
Related: What's the difference between a Democrat and a Republican? According to Cunningham, it's R-E-S-P-E-C-T ... no, seriously...
Care to email Bill, and ask him what HIS middle name is? Here ya go: willie@700wlw.com Update: Here's the video of Cunningham's rant. The part AFTER he riffs on Barack's middle name is even worth, with the Cincinnati nitwit projecting Barack as the lunchtime pal of dictators and terrorists. Watch for yourself:
Update 2: Cunningham reacted to McCain's denunciation of his remarks by carping that the Senator "threw me under the bus" and whining that now he's going to endorse Hillary.
The normally right-leaning New York Post hits Camp Hillary on the Barack in Africa photo flap (hereby dubbed "turbangate", while the New York Daily News plays it down the middle. (Drudge provides the front page montage)
My friends, John McCain is already back peddling on that 100 years of WAR, WAR, GLORIOUS WAR!!!!! ... in Iraq remark. And the "I'll lose if I can't convince Americans to love the war" remark, too...
A raft of fresh, new polls hit the streets this morning, and there's nothing nice in them for Senator Clinton.
USAT/Gallup (Feb. 21-24 poll of 829 Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents and 1,009 Democrats and Democrat leaners) starts us off with head-to-head match-ups that show Barack Obama as more electable than Hillary Clinton versus John McCain:
Among likely voters:
McCain - 50% Clinton - 46 Other/Neither/No opinion - 4
[Interestingly enough, while 46% of Republican respondents in the poll felt that Mike Huckabee should drop out of the race, 49% said he should stay put...]
The Illinois senator leads Clinton by 23 percentage points among white men and by 17 points among liberals -- groups that were evenly divided between the two in early February. He has a similar advantage among people earning $50,000 to $100,000 annually -- whom she led earlier by 13 points.
Clinton maintains robust leads among some groups that have been cornerstones of her candidacy, including those age 65 and up, white women and people earning under $50,000 annually.
Overall, Obama has 46 percent to Clinton's 43 percent, a virtual tie. Clinton had a slight 5 point lead nationally in early February.
Although the AP/I poll shows both Dems beating John McCain, which is good news for Hillary, Barack wins by bigger margins:
Clinton - 48% McCain - 43 Neither/Not sure - 9
Obama - 51% McCain - 41 Neither/Not sure - 8
And the internals, particularly on white men, are more important than the national horse race, because they speak to a trend against Hillary that could carry over into a general election.
And finally, the CBS/NYTimes poll shows the following national match-ups:
McCain - 46% Clinton - 46 Other/not sure/other - 8
Obama - 50% McCain - 38 Other/not sure/other - 12
And, says CBS, "Obama beats McCain by 10 points among independents, while McCain beats Clinton by 17 points among that group."
All in all, not good numbers for Hillary, who if she were another candidate and not a Clinton, would already be being Huckabeed by the mainstream media.
And speaking of Clinton and the media, WaPo's Dana Milbank has a telling post about the state of Clinton press relations these days -- which are much as they have always been: nasty.
The Hillary Clinton campaign appears to be running off the rails. Hillary is down to Sybill-like changes of character, from conciliatory to sarcastic to downright deranged, all in 24 hours. According to the New York Times on Tuesday, her campaign is preparing to throw everything but the "kitchen sink" at Obama and hope something sticks. At this stage, the campaign has to ask itself some serious questions, starting with this one:
What is the goal?
If the goal is to win this primary at any cost, and then hope that you can bring the Obama voters home after the convention, that strategy will fail. Hillary has crossed the nastiness rubicon, I think, and she will have a tough time getting strong turnout beyond her base of white women, even if she could win mathematically -- which, by the way, she really can't.
If the goal is to scorch the earth under Barack Obama, in order to render him unelectable in November, and preserving Hillary's option to run again in four years, that's a strategy too risky to be worthwhile. Democratic voters have long memories, and don't like second-run candidacies (just ask John Edwards) -- especially second-run candidacies by candidates who appear to have put personal glory ahead of their country's fate (see Ralph Nader...)
They must also ask another question, before changing directions yet again, in terms of Hillary's public demeanor. And this one is particularly important given that there's a debate tomorrow, and considerable confusion out there about which Hillary will show up to it. The question is this:
Is it presidential?
Is what Hillary is doing and saying -- and is the manner in which she is saying it -- likely to be interpreted by the public as conduct befitting a future president of the United States? Barack has had to answer this question in the public's mind, too, because he is so new to the Washington game, and polls show he has largely answered it for Democratic voters. Like Hillary, he has had to overcome a certain resistance to the notion of him as commander in chief -- the guy with his finger on the button -- and that is even more true because of his youth than his race. But Hillary has had to answer it too -- as a woman, which she largely took care of early in the campaign -- but now, as a person -- as a character. So Hillary, dig deep, and ask yourself...
Is this presidential?
Is this presidential?
And while I understand Hillary's frustration -- she's right that the media loves Obama and despises her and her campaign (in part because of Howard Wolfson and company's bully-boy tactics) and it's true that as the known quantity in the race, she has a less exciting story to tell. But this is an important question of presentation, because temperament is one of the elusive factors that voters consider when they are choosing a president. Hillary's demeanor has been all over the place in the last few days. She and her handlers need to regain control of her imaging, because right now, it's not looking ... well ... presidential.
A new New York Times/CBS News poll shows Barack Obama's support continuing to ascend the celestial plain (sorry, Hillary...) and it reveals some troubling trends for Hillary...
Her support among men has cratered, according to this poll, dropping from 42% in December to 28% at the end of February. Barack's, meanwhile, has climbed from 26% to 67%.
Hillary is holding steady with women - 46% then and now, but Barack has caught up to her, climbing from 27% of Democratic women to 45% from December to February.
Barack is preferred by Democratic voters overall, and by a wide margin (54% to 38%). In December, Hillary led that question 44% to 27%).
And the poll shows his support climbing among blue collar voters ($50K and under households) and self-described moderates.
Meanwhile, a new set of polls shows Hillary hanging onto a shrinking lead in Ohio but appearing to lose her lead in Texas. Not a good sign for a campaign that needs to win both states handily. Worse, the polls closed on February 24th (Sunday) -- before news of her rather shrieky weekend rants and Obama in Muslim garb gambit sunk into the public zeitgeist. I would guess those antics will cut against Hillary, at the same time Barack's NAFTA flyers will begin having an impact in Ohio.
The ARG polls (first and last columns) which are looking better and better after they nailed Wisconsin, show Barack pulling ahead in Texas, and Hillary maintaining about a 10 point edge in Ohio (again, pre-rant):
The Republican National Committee is cautioning its members not to do anything racist or sexist during the Fall presidential campaign. Well if you have to say it...
A new Pew Poll has bad news for organized religion. Americans are becoming, shall we say, more European in our outlook on organized religion. Spirituality without religion -- faith without structure (and bully-boy tactics on "tithes") ... may be the new "black."
I think I fall into that category. As I get older, I grow more disillusioned with "the church," more cynical about religious leaders and less inclined to seek, or to need, organized religion. It's a source of guilt for me because I think that organized religion provides a good, moralizing structure for kids, of which I have three. But I just find it hard to drink the Kool-Aid with all that I've seen, particularly in Miami, where some preachers are literally for sale (as I saw during the fight on gambling in Miami,) others are unbelievably timid when it comes to standing up for (or against) Big Things, and still others seem to be mostly in it for the bling. There are very few who truly work for social change or who openly confront the serious issues facing the communities they pastor. That's a shame, but not an unchangeable one.
