08 Presidential Candidates, Political Analysis

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.