Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Last Dem debate before 3/4 primaries, McCain blasts Obama

The final Democrat debate before the 3/4 primaries in Ohio and Texas occurred last night on MSNBC.  Thus far, the numbers show Clinton ahead in Ohio and a dead heat in Texas.  Should Clinton lose both states, a growing drumbeat calling for her to bow out will be heard in the Democratic party.  Should she win both, we could have a race again. 

McCain made Obama sound somewhat foolish in an exchange of harsh criticisms between the two candidates.  See http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/mccain.obama.iraq/index.html for the story.  Obama was caught saying that he would retain the option to go back into Iraq if Al Qaeda had a base there.  McCain stated that al Qaeda is already there, which Obama then had to defend by saying he already knows that but it was Bush and McCain's fault that we are there now.  Now, regardless of how folks feel about the heavily politicized issue of whether we should stay in Iraq or pullout, there are three reasons this exchange benefits McCain.

First, although McCain has a slightly more unpopular position in wanting us to stay in Iraq until the job gets done than Obama's call to get out of what amounts to another country's mess, McCain is at no risk in these types of exchanges of coming off as inconsistent.  Obama, by contrast, was reminiscent of John Kerry's flip flopper label of 4 years ago.  He states consistently he is the only candidate who will pull out of Iraq immediately, outflanking Clinton's left where she only would advocate phased withdrawal.  Then he says he would go back into Iraq if al Qaeda has a base there.  It sounds inconsistent, even if one were to acknowledge his position that it was error for the United States to go there in the first place.  This will continue to be a problem for Obama.  Obama can win the debate as to whether we should have gone there in the first place, a majority of the country believes Bush either lied or made a bad decision.  What is unclear is what exactly Obama's philosophy is on the war on terror, an issue focused on what to do from here on out.  McCain is polling ahead of Obama by about 10 points on this issue, and exchanges like this show McCain knows how to frame the debate on the latter question.  Obama will have a hard time pinning McCain to the decision to go into Iraq in the first place, as almost every Senator voted in favor of it at that time.  Bush may have lied, but McCain simply was not in charge of that decision.

Second, Obama has a difficult line to walk in maintaining the support he has every time he engages on this issue.  If he states he would never use military force, he isolates a vast majority of the population and looks timid.  If he commits to the possibility he would use force, he loses the "dove" vote, those who support him because they believe him to be a candidate for peace.  Its not an impossible line to walk, but very difficult.  As yet, he has not clearly defined himself on this score.  Expect McCain to continue to press him on this.  Obama will need to articulate a clear philosophy to avoid the label of a flip-flopper, a naive or weak foreign policy stance, or a liar if he commits to keeping troops in Iraq.  Also, besides the danger of having a negative label attached to himself, exchanges like these could endanger his positive ones.  Obama did not seem the positive, no negative personal attack primary candidate we have seen in the past.  He seemed to come down to a sarcastic tone here and somewhat negative.  McCain coined a turn on Obama's "audacity of hope" to the "timidity of despair."

Third, Obama still has to put away Clinton.  Right now, any new positions or nuanced stances are made more difficult by the possibility that he can be attacked not only by McCain, but by Clinton.  His key to defeating Clinton is to not rock the boat that is coasting his campaign toward a primary victory.  The last thing he wants is to create an opening for Clinton to show she can better take on McCain with her more developed foreign policy stance on Iraq, talking about a responsible and lasting withdrawal.  If Clinton is smart, she could use this as one of the wedge issues I mentioned she needed a few posts back.

To those with strong opinions on what we should do about Iraq, this exchange will mean rather little for now.  They will not be persuaded by either opposing candidate, they already know what they believe on this issue.  It is the undecided middle, those whose votes can be swayed who are leaning one way or the other that are touched by this exchange.  The first round goes to McCain.
Posted by at 23:47:50 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Sunday, February 24, 2008

McCain v. New York Times, Ralph Nader, and Clinton's last stand

The New York Times reported this week that back in 2000, unnamed McCain aides were advising McCain to not be seen with a young female lobbyist lest the appearance of impropriety hurt his campaign.  This remarkably unremarkable assertion carried an insinuation that McCain and the lobbyist might have had romantic interest in one another, something both of them have flatly denied.  No aide has gone on record, or apparently even off the record, in stating there was any romantic activity whatsoever.  This truly does look like a hit piece.

So the bigger story has become why was such a story run?  For the GOP base, the transparent answer is that the NYT is a partisan surrogate for the Democratic party typifying the worst in liberal media bias with the journalistic integrity of the National Enquirer.  For skeptics, the timing of a story such as this, run eight years after the alleged non-incident, was meant to divert attention from a potentially mud-slinging debate between Clinton and Obama, where Clinton was to make perhaps a new assault on Obama.  McCain used this occasion to help unify a disunited GOP base against the common enemy of the NYT, having his greatest single day in fundraising in the entire campaign.  For those in the GOP who are wary of McCain as a media darling who listens too much to groups such as the NYT his image has been remade as one who also struggles against liberal media bias.  Knowing your candidate is falsely accused by a group you were afraid would be unduly influencing him helps quash that fear and bring you behind the party candidate.  McCain has not seen a numbers drop from this incident, his remaining primary adversary has said he believes McCain and that there is nothing to the story, the disunited GOP has become more unified from the incident, McCain's fundraising has been boosted from the incident, and the media must be more careful now in running articles against him to try approach a stronger modicum of objectivity.  Thus, McCain 1 and NYT 0 for this round. 

Also this week, one of the x-factors has come into play as Ralph Nader has announced he is in and will run for President.  The Democrats have felt he siphoned off more votes from Gore than Bush in 2000, but largely succeeded through a series of legal challenges to keep him off the ballot in many key states in 2004.  This time around, with the backing of the Green party, it is very likely that Nader will be more aggressive and prepared to get the ballot access he was denied in 2004, and he likely has a seething anger against the Democrats who effectively censored his campaign voice four years ago.  They will plead with him to drop out, but he may not do so.  Still, given anger on the left towards Nader, he may find more of his support on the right this time through, so until the polls come out, people should forestall any assumptions about how this x-factor will influence the race.  McCain's centrist, independent appeal will likely be cut into by Nader more than the evangelical base that Bush relied on in 2000 was.  Also, we are still yet to hear about whether Bloomberg will run, but an announcement will be made likely in March one way or the other.  He has met with Obama privately, however.

Last, Clinton's last stand in Ohio and Texas could be her Alamo.  Although she has not come out swinging with wedge issues and a new theme or two as I detailed she needed, she has been somewhat more aggressive.  This has not stopped the hemorraghing of delegates and major endorsements flowing to Obama.  The Unite for Change union coalition, with over 6 million members, has endorsed Obama, another major blow to her campaign.  Time is quickly running out for her to take the necessary steps to rectify her campaign.  Accusing Obama of plagiarism has not slowed down his support.  In fact, as yet, Obama has the distinction of being a candidate running with no true negatives to weigh down his personal appeal to voters as no negative talking points have "stuck" to him.  Most candidates will have some such negative portrayals that the voting public will to some extent buy into, but as yet, Obama has not suffered this hit.  To some extent, Clinton's arguments that she has been vetted and already suffered these general election support losses that Obama has yet to experience are true, and although this does impact their electability, this themed attack on Obama is going nowhere fast in the Democratic primary.  Obama now leads Clinton by 99 delegates, which means that even if she wins Ohio and Texas, which she may well do, it may not be enough.  Still, stopping Obama's streak of 11 straight victories could impact the campaign in an unanticipated way. 

Last, Rasmussen has released its earliest Electoral College predictions, at  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update.
The skinny is that the if the primaries were held today and the general election tomorrow, we would have President Barack Obama.

Posted by at 13:03:19 | Permanent Link | Comments (1) |

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Primary end game begins

While the GOP has settled on John McCain, who has garnered endorsements from Giuliani and Romney, with Huckabee carefully avoiding any sharp criticism of McCain so as to run for the veep slot, the Democratic race could not be closer.

Obama has shed the underdog title and Clinton, down about ninety delegates, is now truly an underdog herself.  Major endorsements could still be received from players such as John Edwards and Al Gore, with the latter withholding his so as to help prevent a convention crisis if neither candidate can claim clear victory at the convention. 

With 15 states remaining, Clinton is by no means mathematically eliminated.  She can expect to win large in Texas and Ohio, which would roughly draw her even with Obama, if current polling numbers are accurate.  Still, Obama leads in other large states such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, which leaves Clinton unlikely to overtake him.  Clinton has five strategies she will employ besides the usual back and forth of campaigning to help her overtake Obama:

1.  The Clintons are already individually calling each unpledged superdelegate, that is, voters who cast their votes irrespective of what the voting public wants, to persuade them to vote for them.  Obama's camp is likely doing the same, and Obama has indeed been catching up by about plus 10 delegates over the past week or two in this category, but over time, the Clintons have the edge here due to their outstanding connections.

2.  The Clintons will work to have Florida and Michigan, two states that the DNC disenfranchised for moving up their primary voting date, reinstated.  Senator Clinton won both of these states in a big way, which means that if they were reinstated, she would be much more likely to win the race.

3.  Senator Clinton will emerge with a new theme for her campaign.  While she will continue to tout the "experience" factor, it clearly is not winning out over Obama's "hope/optimism" factor. 

4.  Senator Clinton must and will go far more negative on Obama, attacking the emptiness of his phrases as empty platitudes, portray him as incapable of living up to his grand promises, and all talk with no substance.  She'll say he's unqualified without using the word.  Thin on substance.  Showy.  A premadonna.  She will need to tirade all of his specific policy inadequacies, and probably develop one or two "wedge" issues that she can point to where Obama might be unacceptable to the base.  She could portray him as two-faced by showing how he has gone negative.  Has Obama ever done something flat-out insulting to women or cheated?  This is the type of smear the base will be particularly sensitive towards right now.

5.  Senator Clinton should challenge Obama to a series of debates on foreign policy and health care.  While not delving into the practicality of either of their plans, she believes and has passion that she is stronger on these topics than the unacceptable stances of Obama, and she is running out of time to make that argument.  Obama cannot refuse such a conversation if the challenge is publicly made without losing points.  While Obama has been the better debater thus far, she can show how unacceptable his total immediate withdrawal in Iraq plan is to conservatives while showing her practical plan to meet the base's plans and sound smart on health care issues where he has little experience.  If she wins these debates, these could be her "wedge issues."

Obama has momentum, but no matter how negative Clinton goes, he cannot go negative back without losing his hope/optimisim/positive campaign support.  He will tout his successes and momentum and continue his grandiose style speeches and promises.  In the meantime, in private, he will also seek both endorsements and superdelegates, and you can bet that once the Clinton team puts their plan into action, he will roll out at least one big endorsement to help restore momentum at a critical moment.  Probably John Edwards.  He may now charge Clinton with election fraud over irregularities in vote counting in many New York precincts, where Clinton had been stated to have won Harlem and Brooklyn, predominantly African-American precincts, with 100% support, where in truth, Obama likely won.  This will diminish her delegate count further and strengthen both his delegate count strength and momentum.  If they debate, he will want an array of issues discussed with a broad and sympathetic panel, likely with a large public audience.

The x-factor of a Bloomberg and/or Nader run remains on the horizon.  Bloomberg continues to speak as a candidate, McCain will not be able to unify the entire GOP due to his maverick stances over the years which will drive the GOP "suicide voters" to a Bloomberg candidacy, (suicide voters being a vote for anyone other than the party nominee), and Democrats' potential for a split convention could allow him to capitalize on splits on the left as well.  Voter affiliation with parties is at an all-time low, and those calling themselves "independent" is at an all time high.  He has a billion dollars, more pronounced stances on economic development, energy policy, and the environment than many candidates, and could pull in a true bipartisan team that many will prefer to one party or the other's polarized stances on every major issue.  A true "conversation, America first team" that by its nature is a bipartisan Presidential administration could have large appeal if crafted properly.  Time will tell.

Last, speculation continues over who McCain's veep should be.  Huckabee has run strong as the social conservative for the South, but I do not believe McCain will choose him.  They are different ideologically.  McCain might do better with a female veep in case Obama beats Clinton, which could enable him to siphon off women votes upset about Hilary Clinton's loss.  Senator Hutchinson of Texas might be acceptable to southern social conservatives while filling that bill.  Governor Polin of Arkansas is a telegenic and across the board conservative as well.  If Clinton wins the primary, he could go with a minority to reach out to that demographic, particularly a Hispanic, which are more a swing constituency.  Senator Mel Martinez of Florida supported him to his crucial Florida victory, and would be a great option as well.  He would carry both social conservative support and Hispanic support, outflanking by far the Democrats' outreach efforts to Hispanics by putting a Hispanic on a Presidential ticket. 
Posted by at 13:43:21 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |