Those Endorsements ...
Endorsements don't usually count for much. But if they're big enough and come at critical moments they can count for a lot. And this string of endorsements Obama has picked up since his narrow defeat in New Hampshire four days ago is, I believe, a major story that has not gotten the attention it deserves.
Since losing the New Hampshire primary four days ago, Obama has been endorsed by Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ). Additionally, he's also been endorsed by Rep. Miller (D-CA), Sen. Kerry (D-MA) and Ned Lamont. But they're in a slightly different category and it's the first four I want to discuss.
The first of these came from Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) who put out word he'd be endorsing Obama the day after New Hampshire. Johnson is a protege of former Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD). And Daschle has close ties to Obama -- a lot of operatives in the Daschle world went to Obama after 2004. So when I saw word of the endorsement I figured this was something Daschle or his former staffers had helped put together to help stabilize Obama's fortunes after the New Hampshire loss.
But now you have three others -- Nelson, Napolitano and McCaskill. Nelson and Johnson are from very red states while Napolitano and McCaskill are from swing states.
Now, there are a bunch of things you can draw from this spate of endorsements. One is that these folks don't seem worried about themselves running or having their supporters run with Obama at the top of the ticket. And these are people from either very conservative or somewhat conservative states. Despite the fact that Obama is running in some ways to the right of Clinton (at least tonally, as the candidate of unity and bipartisan reconcilation), there are still a lot of questions inevitably being asked about whether the country is 'ready' for Obama, whether that's his race, his name, his background in community organizing, his youth, etc. So these folks think America's ready; in fact, more ready than they are for Hillary.
But that isn't the biggest significance. The key is timing. You don't hit a big time politician like Hillary Clinton when she's down unless you're really against her and you're fairly confident she's not getting back up. After winning in New Hampshire, albeit narrowly and after the clobbering in Iowa, there's been a sense that Clinton may be back on track to consolidating her frontrunner status and perhaps following a modified version of the standard script in which the anointed frontrunner gets a scare in the early states before mopping up the competition as the race goes national. But these four clearly don't want that to happen. In fact, they're sticking their necks pretty far out to help make it not happen. And their endorsements, coming right now, tell me they have some confidence it won't.
--Josh Marshall
Ignorance is Bliss
I don't talk much about international economics because most of it is beyond my comprehension. But am I right to be unnerved by the fact that as a result of the mortgage crisis big chunks of major US-based financial services companies -- Citibank, Merrill Lynch, etc. -- are being bought up not by foreign owners of capital but, in effect, by foreign governments?
--Josh Marshall
Deserves Attention
Maybe there's a reason this isn't as beyond the pale as it looks. But I'm not seeing it.
The Nevada State Democratic party has set up nine at-large caucus locations on the Las Vegas strip for casino workers who might not otherwise be able to caucus on January 19th. Remember, because of the recent Culinary Workers Union endorsement of Barack Obama, casino workers are expected to vote heavily for him.
Now, the Nevada State Education Association (the state teachers' union), which is seen as supportive of Clinton though it has not formally endorsed her, is suing the Democratic party to prevent those at-large caucuses from meeting on the grounds that similar arrangements have not been made for other Nevadans.
I don't know the particulars of how the Nevada caucuses are arranged. But the 'tell' is the fact that the teachers' union apparently didn't think this was a problem until Sen. Obama bagged the key union endorsement. When asked why the union had never approached the state party about this issue until Friday, union president Lynne Warne, tellingly replied, "We're approaching them now."
If there's one thing that's core to the modern Democratic party is that voter suppression tactics are always wrong. Much of the US Attorney purge scandal was at root about Republican voter suppression tactics. I suspect this is doubly wrong -- both in the sense that the suit is meritless on its face but certainly also in the sense that you don't decide how easy to make it for people to vote depending on who you think they're likely to vote for.
Please leave these shameful tactics to Republicans.
Late Update: Jeralyn at TalkLeft thinks there is some substantive merit to the suit. And in the abstract, she may have a point. But following on the distinction I drew above, I think the timing tells the story.
Later Update: ABC's Jake Tapper has more details.
--Josh Marshall
Dead Even
As you know we keep pretty close tabs on polls here at TPM. And I can report that in our informal reader-email-based poll of readers who think we should come clean with our covert support of Obama and readers who think we should come clear with our secret support of Hillary, the numbers are running at about 50%-50%.
--Josh Marshall
Nope
John Judis explains why the 'Bradley effect' -- the propensity of white voters to lie to pollsters about their willingness to vote for a white candidate -- doesn't add up as the explanation for Hillary's surprise win on Tuesday.
--Josh Marshall
Mitt-nertia
Daniel Gross explains why Mitt is probably going to crash and burn in Michigan.
--Josh Marshall
Taking a Deep Breath
It is remarkable, or perhaps it's not so remarkable, how rapidly this punching match over race has escalated between the Clinton and Obama camps. Even calling it that is perhaps controversial in itself.
I'm discussing this with you because it's quickly become a complicated editorial issue for us to deal with.
It's genuinely unclear to me how much one side or the other is consciously pushing this, how much it's escalated based in part on misunderstandings, or whether, in a somewhat related fashion, hyping journalistic accounts has given the engagement a life of its own.
Some of the statements recently attributed to the Clintons have seemed at best awkward in how they're discussing race and the civil rights movement, others have struck me as unobjectionable statements interpreted in a tendentious fashion.
You can see in our news section we've picked up the story just out from The Guardian which quotes some unidentified "Clinton advisor" saying: "If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool."
Now, as I said, I have a bit of a hard time knowing what's going on here. If this is really the word the Clinton campaign wants its surrogates putting out, they're really much stupider than I could have imagined. On the other hand, 'advisor' is a notoriously slippery phrase that can mean almost anything. Campaigns have hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who in one fashion or another 'advise' them. A lot of those people aren't under any kind of real control. And if a reporter talks to enough of them one of them is bound to say something stupid. On the other hand, you have to rely on the journalist and the news outlet not to send you down the wrong path or give you the sense that this is a Clinton insider rather than just someone spouting off.
Race is an inherently compromising issue in American culture and politics. And some of what I think is happening here is that it is ricocheting in all sorts of directions in this campaign which is about the heart of the Democratic party.
I don't have any global answer here. This has spiraled pretty far in the last 48 hours. And I'm just now taking stock of it again. Like I said, it's not completely clear to me the mix of intention, inertia and accident involved. But this is explosive. So we're going to do the best we can to tell you what's happening, not to hold anything back but also to be conscious of each step we take as we report on and thus in a real sense relay these increasingly inflammatory statements and reports.
--Josh Marshall
By Way of Explanation
Bill Clinton: Obama's candidacy isn't the "fairy tale"; his Iraq war opposition is.
--David Kurtz
Huck's Secret Weapon?
Who knew that Mike Huckabee has a state-of-the-art, multi-million call push-polling operation fueling his presidential bid? It is, technically, an independent operation. But one of the premier push-polling operations, Common Sense Issues, who we reported on last year when they were Common Sense Ohio, is going all out for Huckabee in primary states around the country. And they seem to be pulling most or all of their money from existing Huckabee backers.
They made tons of calls in Iowa and New Hampshire. They're now making calls in Michigan and Florida. And they've already made 1 million calls for Huckabee in South Carolina, even though those calls appear to be illegal in the state (the group argues the law should not apply to them).
--Josh Marshall
Bye Rudy ...
It's bad enough that Rudy's had to ask his top staff to go without pay so that his campaign can conserve money for the do-or-die (for Rudy) Florida primary on January 29th. Now comes word that Rudy has fallen into a tie with John McCain in New York.
The most recent poll of his do-or-die state of Florida has him running third, six points behind Huckabee and two behind Romney. Seventeen polls have been taken in Florida since September 12th. And before the most recent one, only one of those did not have Rudy in the lead.
Late Update: I'd never thought of this from this angle. But TPM Reader CS makes a good point ...
The conventional wisdom on Rudy's Super Tuesday "strategy" has been universally described as "risky" and occasionally "crazy."To me this provides a direct window into his judgement and how he would govern as President and it's not a flattering picture. Is he the kind of president who would
go with a high risk, high reward strategy all the time? It sure gives me pause.I'm surprised the other candidates have not used this as a way to paint Rudy as a risky or crazy choice for President. It could dovetail
with some of his other judgement problems like Bernie Kerik & dealing with his ex-wives & children.Poor judgement is not just limited to Bernie Kerik. His whole election strategy suffers from poor judgement as well.
As I implied above, I think we're past the point where anyone really needs to use this against Rudy. But it's a really good point. This is out there as a really good example of the guy's judgment. Who sold him on this idea?
--Josh Marshall
Huckabee: Fred Needs Some Metamucil
The high quality of the discourse from last night's GOP debate carried over to today:
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
What really happened between those Iranian speedboats and the U.S. Navy?
--David Kurtz
Highlight Reel: South Carolina Ronald Reagan Debate
Who was the big winner in last night's FOX News-sponsored GOP debate from South Carolina? His name was Ronald Reagan ...
Late Update: Here's Election Central's Debate Roundup.
--Ben Craw
Cracks
From the NYT ...
Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, said he was rethinking his neutral stance in his state’s presidential primary out of disappointment at comments by Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton that he saw as diminishing the historic role of civil rights activists.Mr. Clyburn, a veteran of the civil rights movement and a power in state Democratic politics, put himself on the sidelines more than a year ago to help secure an early primary for South Carolina, saying he wanted to encourage all candidates to take part. But he said recent remarks by the Clintons that he saw as distorting civil rights history could change his mind.
“We have to be very, very careful about how we speak about that era in American politics,” said Mr. Clyburn, who was shaped by his searing experiences as a youth in the segregated South and his own activism in those days. “It is one thing to run a campaign and be respectful of everyone’s motives and actions, and it is something else to denigrate those. That bothered me a great deal.”
--Josh Marshall
Rock On!!!
NYT's Kit Seelye on Fred ...
9:41 p.m. | Confrontation at Sea Mr. Thompson rocks tonight. Asked about the recent confrontation between United States warships and Iranian speedboats, he suggests casually that if Iran’s Revolutionary Guard becomes more hostile, the Iranians will see those virgins they’ve been looking for.
Special thanks to TPM Reader TT.
--Josh Marshall
Debate Blogging (Secessionville Edition)
Not sure I've ever seen the national anthem sung before a debate.
9:16 PM ... I find it fascinating that they just managed to have a highly technical and detailed discussion of economic and fiscal policy that was nevertheless complete nonsense.
9:24 PM ... We can be a shining family on a hill.
9:25 PM ... Fred Thompson would seem a lot more hardcore tearing into Mike Huckabee if he didn't keep having to look down at his notes to remember what his answer was.
9:35 PM ... Brit Hume is really a piece of work. The Captain of that Cruiser in the Gulf reacted "passively" because he didn't open fire on those Iranian speedboats.
9:39 PM ... Say what you will about McCain, he can't put silly Brit Hume in his place on this second-guess the Navy captain question.
9:42 PM ... There Brit is again with "passive".
9:52 PM ... Ron Paul is really making the most of being allowed to rejoin the Fox debates. He's taking over the whole thing.
10:13 PM ... Hadn't noticed this before. But on more than half his questions, Fred Thompson runs out of things to say before his time has run out. And then he goes into like a free association cliche fugue. Check him out next time he draws a question. (He's also hit the tanning booth, but that's admittedly less substantive.)
10:37 PM ... Wonderful, another completely surreal Frank Luntz focus group. Only this time it's Fred Thompson whose personality cult they've joined. It's really like watching an informercial.
10:39 PM ... Remember that Frank told TPMmuckraker's Paul Kiel that he tries to get repeaters to come to his focus groups.
--Josh Marshall
GOP Eating Its Own
Your candidate is more liberal than my candidate!
Is not!
--David Kurtz
Next Stop Secessionville
Let's put this together. South Carolina should be Mike Huckabee's state. John McCain is rising in South Carolina. Mike Huckabee's got the push-poll kingpins in his back pocket.
Hmmm ...
--Josh Marshall
The Horse's Mouth: Is The Politico's big mea culpa just talk or will it lead to action?
--David Kurtz
Talk about phoning it in ...
Turns out Maureen Dowd's Hillary-whacking column written from New Hampshire on primary night was actually written from Jerusalem.
--Josh Marshall
Rove Gives Us a Preview
I'm probably not going to stun you by telling you that Karl Rove is using racial code words. But as long as we're talking about Andrew Cuomo's decision to stick his foot so far into his mouth that it's coming out of his behind, you really must read Karl Rove's piece on New Hampshire in today's Journal oped page.
I'll just pick out the highlights, but in the course of a single column Rove manages to flag Obama's "trash talking", "his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard", and the alleged fact that "he is often lazy."
It's January. Obama's five days as frontrunner are over, at least for the moment. So you can just imagine how dirty this is going to get.
--Josh Marshall
Wire Reporter With Sense of Humor?
From Reuters:
Passing through a tiny "Door of Humility", U.S. President George W. Bush made a pilgrimage to the traditional birthplace of Jesus on Thursday in the West Bank.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: WTF?
Well, Tuesday night certainly didn't turn out like we thought. So in today's episode we take our stab at explaining what happened as well as expressing our complete bewilderment about what's going on on the Republican side ...
--Josh Marshall
Businessmen First, Patriots Second
Supporters of telecom immunity argue that the telecoms were doing their patriotic duty by caving to Administration requests for illegal wiretapping. That patriotism apparently has its limits: like when the government fails to pay the wiretapping phone bills.
--David Kurtz
Music to My Ears
Hugh Hewitt and Rick Santorum discuss how McCain is a phony conservative and Mitt Romney is still poised for victory.
--Josh Marshall
El Movimiento!
I'm not sure I'm yet able to build up too big a head of steam about Mike Bloomberg's ridiculous push to run for president this year. But please. Let's not call it "Bloomberg for president movement." I'm completely happy with him as my mayor. But to call yourself a 'movement' you at least need to go through the motions of hiring some astroturf groups to gin up some phony support.
--Josh Marshall
Enough
I was going to write a post like this. But I'm glad someone else has done it better than I could (see this diary up at Daily Kos). In the wake of the stunning results out of New Hampshire on Tuesday night, I've gotten more emails than I care to admit claiming that the only reasonable explanation for the discrepancy between the polls and the results is that the voting machines were 'hacked'.
There is so much screwed up about this reaction that it's difficult to know what part of the perversity to grab on to. (For a discussion of the factual and logical errors behind the claims of hacking, see the post I linked to above.) First is the notion that public opinion surveys and even exit poll data is so reliable that any substantial discrepancy between those numbers and the official result is prima facie evidence of tampering. That is simply absurd.
There is also something perverse about the quick knee-jerk reaction to assume that any election that dramatically doesn't go your way was stolen. It stems from the same fidelity to assumption and desire over fact that so many of us have excoriated in the present administration. There is a sullen childishness at work in this thinking that no robust political movement can ever be built on.
Now, before you write in, I too think that electronic voting machines with no paper trail are a big problem because they're too insecure and they make confirmatory recounts impossible. But the possibility or danger of tampering is not a license to assume it or imagine it -- in the absence of any evidence -- any time the vote doesn't go how we'd like.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Remember the U.S. "benchmarks" for Iraq?
Now there's a new catchphrase in town: "Iraqi solutions."
--David Kurtz
Breaking . . .
John Kerry endorsing Obama.
Late Update: Who will Ted Kennedy endorse?
Later Update: Watch the video of Kerry.
--David Kurtz
Endorsements
Sen. Johnson (D-SD) endorsing Obama.
Remember, Obama has strong ties to the Daschle world. And Johnson is Daschle's protege.
--Josh Marshall
Whackhawk Down?
Larry Johnson explains how right-wingers are up in arms over the fact that an 'Islamofascism' yakker named Stephen Coughlin has been canned at the Defense Department.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Five Days in New Hampshire
They say a week is a lifetime in politics. And I'm sure the last week felt like a lifetime for Hillary Clinton. So with Hillary's stunning come from behind victory last night in New Hampshire we went back and picked out what we thought we several of the key moments between her defeat in Iowa on Thursday and her victory yesterday evening. Check it out. You may think it looks different now with the benefit of hindsight ...
--Josh Marshall
Zogby: I did have Hillary coming on strong in New Hampshire — but the sample size was so small I couldn't say so publicly.
--David Kurtz
Jim Sleeper: If I vote for Obama, it will be because my yearning to get beyond race will impel me to roll the dice.
--David Kurtz
The Crazy Uncle of American Politics
Chris Matthews on Hillary's victory: She's only competitive for the presidency because Bill "messed around."
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
With the Supreme Court hearing the Indiana voter ID case today, supporters of the law still struggle--mightily--to produce evidence of actual voter fraud.
--David Kurtz
Being for Both
TPM Reader DB ...
Based on what I was feeling, there were two turning points for Clinton in the past week. One was a report that people were chanting "Iron my shirt" at her during a rally. The other was John Edwards' idiotic statements about Clinton tearing up at an event. Mix that in with the subtle media digs at Clinton's gender in recent months (descrptions of what she's wearing, how she "emasculates" men, etc.), and I think you had a tremendous push back from women, and men, who are tired of the misogyny underlying this campaign. It swayed me toward Clinton the past few days, even as I cheered for an Obama coronation.
--Josh Marshall
Evidence of the Late Shift to Hillary?
Hillary ran well among voters who decided their preference late in the campaign.
--David Kurtz
Likable?
A friend points out -- and he's right -- that another key moment in Saturday night's debate, beside Hillary's impassioned statement of her qualifications for job, came late when the moderator asked her about her likability or lack of it.
It was her best moment and Obama's worst ...
--Josh Marshall
What the Heck Just Happened?
As we start the the New Hampshire postmortems, there are two distinct sets of analysis to do. The first is what I've seen on most of the TV commentary. You take the exit poll data from yesterday and compare them to the Iowa exit polls to see what changed in the support for Obama and Hillary. (Relatedly, you can closely analyze what New Hampshire voters said most affected their voting decisions.) It's a useful exercise, and I'm as interested as anyone in what made last night's results different from Iowa's.
But for my money the second set of analysis is far more interesting: comparing the exit poll data from last night to the final rounds of polling before the primary. Why were the results so divergent from the late polling which showed Obama with an overwhelming lead? What happened exactly that the polls didn't show?
Most of the coverage I've seen has conflated the two, explaining what happened in New Hampshire by contrasting it to Iowa and then using that contrast to explain the deviation between the New Hampshire polls and the actual election results. Those are two separate issues, and I'm not sure the analysis for the former holds up for the latter.
--David Kurtz
Making Sense of It
It's hard for me to remember an election where the trend of polling and the final poll results so failed to predict the actual vote. Certainly, there's no example I can remember of it happening in such a high profile contest. In the next couple days we'll probably get a better sense of what happened. My hunch is that the polls were not 'wrong', that they were right in showing a big bounce for Obama, but that there was a late swing in Hillary's direction.
That, however, is just a hunch. And it's undermined, at least to a degree, by the fact that, as far as I can remember, none of the polls showed any slackening of Obama's lead, even though I believe the pollsters were still surveying as late as Monday evening.
Perhaps we'll know more once the numbers are more closely examined. But it will probably remain undetermined to a significant degree.
What's exciting about this, just speaking for myself, is that we're now on to a solid month of campaigning before the big cluster of contests on February 5th. Both candidates have had a riveting win. We've got a real battle on our hands. And I do not think that any of Clinton's critics can say that she won this one by overpowering Obama with money or mobilizing a dominating political machine or by expectations of inevitability and certainly not with the help of a friendly press. However you slice it this was a real victory under pressure. And if she's the nominee she'll be a much better one for it.
I've read a lot of reader emails tonight. And there's one line I've heard a fair amount of that I'd like to take some gentle exception to. A lot of people say that the pollsters and pundits have something to answer for or that they tried to put this away for Obama or close the book on Hillary. The character of reporting is another matter. But polls are usually right. Not always and not exactly. But by and large they have a very good record. It's silly to think that we -- whether 'we' is reporters or political junkies or ordinary voters -- are going to ignore the information that's right in front of us. And why should we?
It's true I guess that in an abstracted reality we could simply listen to the candidates, ignore all probabilistic data available, go to the polls with no idea of the result and learn the outcome the following morning. But that's not the world we live in nor do I think it's one I'd want to live in.
This result doesn't make me second guess polling and (if you can separate out the reporting that assumed Hillary was headed for defeat from that which engaged in various psychobabble about her) it doesn't make me second guess the reportage either. This is simply an upset, a dramatic, unexpected result. I suspect it came about because of some mix of the Saturday debate and Hillary's moment of unvarnished emotion yesterday. But it might as easily be the case that the Obama surge was just ephemeral and dissipated on its own.
I certainly didn't suspect this outcome for a moment and I strongly suspect that very few in the Clinton campaign did either.
Why that should produce disgust or leave people disenchanted about the incorrect expectations that made it an upset is something I really don't understand. This is just a matter of the fact that no outcome is certain before the votes are cast. And to me, it's one of the exciting and wonderful things about the democratic process.
Both sides have now had transcendent moments. Both sides can plot credible paths to the nomination. And both campaigns have found arguments that appear to resonate with sizable constituencies. It's game on. And as someone who likes politics and loves his country I can't see any reason not to be pleased with that result.
In case you've forgotten, here's what I think was her key moment from the debate ...
And here's the moment from yesterday ...
--Josh Marshall
A Primary Season First
It's the first time that four different candidates have won the Democratic and Republican races in Iowa and New Hampshire since the modern era of primaries was ushered in in 1976.
Late Update: As the esteemed Eric Kleefeld notes, this is not correct. In 1988, Dole, Bush, Gephardt and Dukakis won the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.
--David Kurtz
Where Are We?
One thing clear out of the GOP race is that that race is blown wide open. McCain has momentum but he's going into states where he can't rely on independent voters. Romney is almost down for the count, but not quite. And he's got plenty of money to keep fighting as long as he wants. And then, oh yeah, Mike Huckabee. He's likely to win South Carolina next week. And he's ahead nationally. Some people think this leaves Rudy still in contention by default. Maybe but I really don't see it.
And on the Democratic side ...
Even if Hillary doesn't win this thing, if she loses by only a percentage point or two, she'll have plenty of claim to a political comeback. More than enough to hearten her supporters and calm any sense that she's getting run out of this race on a rail.
We could be looking at a situation in which the first two contests on both sides -- the ones that usually tell the tale -- have settled very little.
--Josh Marshall
Mittster: Two Silvers, I'm Loving It!
The Mittster discusses his two silvers and one gold, and how if he gets five silvers that will count as a gold, and also how he jogs a lot more than John McCain. Okay, I made some of that up. Actually this speech was seriously weird. I was pretty sure he was going to start hyperventilating and crying toward the end. But he stuck it out. ...
--Josh Marshall
Open Thread at TPM Cafe
We've got a special post all set up for your New Hampshire primary comments.
--David Kurtz
McCain Speech
I'm not above liking John McCain. I liked him in 2000. But that speech was lame. Stiff. Long. And maybe just really self-serving? "I came to you not as a dickhead like Mitt Romney but to tell you the truth ... I am glad you allowed me to say the truth ..."
--Josh Marshall
More
TPM Reader MS ...
I have always had somewhat lukewarm feelings about Hillary Clinton. It took me years to forgive her for her "baking cookies" comment. At the time I had just given birth to my first child and decided to leave my job as an attorney to stay home and take care of my baby. I have been on the fence throughout this campaign, liking John Edwards more than the others. The media coverage of Sen. Clinton has caused my blood to boil. I can not bear to witness blatant misogyny. Gloria Steinheim's article in the NYT this morning was so on the mark. If I lived in New Hampshire, I would have voted for Sen. Clinton today. I would not allow the talking heads to tell me who to vote for or declare this race over. And I certainly was not going to participate in the sexist bs that has been spewing out the mouths of the likes of Chris Matthews.
--Josh Marshall
I thought it would be fair to give a run down of the fringe candidates on the GOP side.
At the moment, it's Rudy about 300 votes ahead of Ron Paul.
--Josh Marshall
Mittmania!
This has be one of funniest, truest and most brutal blind quotes I've seen in some time (from ABC) ...
When asked what made the difference in Romney's projected loss to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one Romney advisor simply said, "Authenticity." Romney called to congratulate McCain at 8:20 p.m.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader AL pipes up ...
I'm a woman (Obama supporter) who has no particular issues with Hillary -- liked the Clinton administration, think she's competent, etc. I'd vote for her in the general. But the idea that people would vote for her simply because they're "outraged" over media coverage these last few days is incomprehensible to me. I live in DC and follow politics VERY closely, but even I don't watch that idiot Matthews or any of the cable talking heads; I tune them out completely. So, first, it's hard for me to imagine that people in NH who are already bombarded with candidates, ads, etc., are spending their free time watching that crap and getting outraged about it. Second, if they are, and that's how they're making their voting decisions, then they're idiots. Voting to disprove a media narrative has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Truly.
--Josh Marshall
Late Shift?
TPM Reader JS chimes in ...
I almost wonder if more Dems didn't vote for Hillary to counter the BS media narrative about rejecting the Clintons once and for all. I say this as someone who has given 1500 bucks to Obama, gone to several of his events out here in CA, met him, and plan to vote for him. Part of me, however, was so pissed about this media narrative about Hillary and the Clintons in general that I had in the back of my mind that I would consider voting for her just to piss the media off. That's not going to happen now as it appears we have a real race, but still . . . do you see what I am saying? I mean this whole weekend we see people like Andrea Mitchell and Chris Matthews salivating over how the Democrats "rejected the Clintons" and want to puke. I am for Obama not because I am against Clinton (either one), but because I am for Obama. That's it. I think he is the best of the big 3 dem candidates. Would I be happy to vote for Hillary or Edwards in the general? Hell yeah. Did I think Bill Clinton was a great President? Yes. And I think Hillary would probably be pretty good too. This whole media narrative sickened me.
TPM Reader DB too ...
I have been an Obama supporter since 04, gave money to him this year, own the t-shirt, etc., etc. But the sexist bullsh-t these past days (I am a woman) from the media is making me root for her to win this tonight. The only thing I dread if she wins tonight is the inevitable story from the media that this proves that white america really won't vote for a black man, the resulting made-up defection of Obama's made-up new found black support, etc., etc.
--Josh Marshall
In For a Surprise?
Whatever the final results are tonight it seems clear the final polls missed some late movement in Hillary's direction -- to put it mildly.
--Josh Marshall
McCain
MSNBC and Fox both calling it for McCain. And ABC.
Late Update: Where to for Mitt? Not pretty.
--Josh Marshall
Too Close
The news of the last 72 hours ginned up a lot of expectation that Obama would crush Hillary tonight. But the polls have just closed and the nets are calling it too close to call.
--Josh Marshall
Fibber
As long as we're waiting for the numbers, some more Rudy fun. From ABC ...
Though former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has generally attributed his poor showing in New Hampshire to a campaign strategy that focuses on larger, delegate-rich states holding later contests, statistics compiled by ABC News indicate that he was clearly competing to win in the Granite State as hard -- if not harder -- than many of his rivals.Statistics compiled by ABC News Political Unit and ABC News' team of off-air reporters indicate that Giuliani held more events in this first-in-the-nation primary state than any other Republican except for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in neighboring Massachusetts. He also spent more on TV ads than anyone except for Romney and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
--Josh Marshall
Out of It
Whatever happens tonight, there's going to be a lot of elation and a lot of bitter disappointment. The only question is who gets what. So I think it's always good to start the night with some good news that can bring us all together.
As you know, Rudy Giuliani premises his whole campaign on a late-primary strategy. Basically ignore the first, high-profile, small state contests, and focus on the mega-states on Feb.5th, where the real delegate count is.
The key state for Rudy, the pivot, is Florida at the end of January. A big state a week before the big night where Rudy has invested tons of time and resources. The plan is he comes in first there and sets the stage for his boffo break out on Feb. 5th.
Alas, the latest poll shows Rudy now down in fourth place.
--Josh Marshall
Not Us! Not Us!
AFSCME President Gerald McEntee just put out a statement denying reports that AFSCME is one of the groups that might be considering funding an anti-Obama 527 group ...
“We’re not about the business of swift-boating any Democratic candidate. We will not be party to any kind of effort of this type. Our campaign is about promoting Hillary Clinton – not tearing down any other candidate. Our number one priority is having the strongest Democratic candidate to take back the White House in November.
And as I was writing this post, we got this statement from Ellen Moran of Emily's List, which was also flagged in the Huffpo piece ...
“This report is incorrect. We are absolutely not setting up a 527 to engage in the presidential primary. We have a proven mode of engagement in elections via our WOMEN VOTE! program and we are proud of the work WOMEN VOTE! has done for more than a decade to engage and mobilize women voters to help elect Democrats up and down the ballot.”
Just to be clear, I'm not vouching for one side or another here. I just wanted to share what we're hearing from the groups in question.
Late Update: Greg Sargent has more background on the politics behind the scenes.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Special NH Primary Roundup
Today's the big day. Here's my roundup of what to expect tonight and what it might mean ...
--Josh Marshall
Guerrilla Warfare?
The graf that really jumped out at me from that Tom Edsall piece at Huffpo was this one ...
At the same time, some top independent expenditure groups supporting Clinton have been exploring the creation of an anti-Obama "527 committee" that would take unlimited contributions from a few of Clinton's super-rich backers and from a handful of unions to finance television ads and direct mail designed to tarnish the Illinois Senator's image.
If Obama wins big tonight, as the polls suggest, I think the Dems will quickly move to a major gut check on this question. And I don't think it will be an easy one.
I don't expect and I don't think anyone should expect Hillary Clinton to roll over and play dead just because Barack Obama has won two state contests granting only a tiny fraction of the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination. But just how much are they going to tarnish him? And on what issues?
It really is a tough nut because Hillary has millions of supporters around the country, many of whom have contributed money, volunteered time and all the rest. Is it just too bad for them and now they have to get behind Obama? That's too much to ask and certainly an unrealistic expectation. There's really no way for Hillary to continue contesting the nomination without in some sense convincing voters Obama isn't all he's cracked up to be -- that he lacks experience or is wrong on the issues or whatever.
But as I said, how much are they going to tarnish him? Do they bloody the guy who at that point is the probable nominee for an outside chance at a comeback?
It's a tough question. And I suspect there will be very divided opinions from readers. But Hillary's future, the general election, the Clinton legacy and a lot else will be in the balance.
--Josh Marshall
Turn the Lights Out, The Party's Over
As New Hampshire goes to the polls, a reminder of the guy they're looking to replace, from Agence France-Presse:
Lights in the Old City of Jerusalem will be turned off before dawn this week so visiting US President George W. Bush can get a better view of the sun rising over its ancient walls.Bush, who arrives in the Middle East on Wednesday for a visit lasting more than a week, had made a request to watch the sun rise over the Old City from his suite at the King David Hotel, a municipal spokesman said on Tuesday.
To make the scene more dramatic, the authorities have decided to turn off the lights illuminating the limestone walls before dawn on Thursday and Friday, the spokesman told reporters.
Security for the President's visit is reportedly costing Israel $25,000 an hour.
--David Kurtz
Hillary Giving Up on Nevada and S.C.?
From Tom Edsall:
A panicked and cash-short Clinton campaign is seriously considering giving up on the Nevada caucuses and on the South Carolina primary in order to regroup and to save resources for the massive 19-state mega-primary on February 5.At the same time, some top independent expenditure groups supporting Clinton have been exploring the creation of an anti-Obama "527 committee" that would take unlimited contributions from a few of Clinton's super-rich backers and from a handful of unions to finance television ads and direct mail designed to tarnish the Illinois Senator's image.
The Clinton campaign has raised over $100 million, but has "only" $15 to $20 million left. It faces donor reluctance to give more in the face of the Iowa defeat and the prospect of a second loss in New Hampshire today. Even worse, the campaign fears defections among those fundraisers who want to be with a winner and who might be easily persuaded to support Barack Obama.
--David Kurtz
Reports of Carville's Return are Exaggerated
James Carville tells TPM Election Central he's not going to work for Hillary, as Fox News reported.
--David Kurtz
Beleaguered in Rural N.H.
From TPM Reader AO:
As encouraging as CS's report was, I'm afraid my own experience at the polls wasn't as positive. I live in a smallish border town & voted around 11 this morning. I'm glad to say there was a line, comprised mostly of older folks & "soccer moms." I was the only person I saw who actually took a DEM ballot. (!) & from the looks of it, the many Republicans in my fair town seem split between -- ARGH -- Ron Paul, John McCain & Huckabee. Despite lots of Mitt signs littering the town, there didn't seem to be much Mitting going on at the polling place.Perhaps it was just the time of day or something but on the whole, I'm surprised. I had thought that there were many more democrats in this town (we have a lot of folks who move here from MA because NH is a much cheaper place to live mostly due to no state income tax).
There were a fair number of people who were also registering to vote, btw, but from a distance it was impossible to tell what party (if any) they were choosing.
Finally, from very brief exchanges with my fellow voters, it looks as if most of them were voting not for a candidate's total platform but just for one specific thing -- a "strong military" to combat "terror" or a "return" to "good Christian values" and so forth. *sigh*
Democracy in action.
--David Kurtz
Good Question
TPM Reader KA on the Mittman ...
You haven't explored Mitt's campaigning for change in Washington. If I'm not wrong, Mitt fully supports Bush and the rest of the Republicans. I've never heard him utter a bad word about any of them. What exactly does he want to change? Does he mean Congress? Sure the Dems have it (barely) but they've only been in "power" for a year. The Republicans had Congress and the Oval Office for six years. What specifically does Mitt not like about Washington? Who does he think is to blame? Maybe it's just campaign sloganing but I'm surprised no one has put it to Willard.
--Josh Marshall
Two Rallies
Here's John Dickerson at Slate looking at two rallies, one for Obama, one for Clinton at the same High School gym on two successive days ...
--Josh Marshall
Michael Berube takes on Michael O'Hanlon over Iraq:
O’Hanlon makes a good point. Truly, to bring America together, Obama will have to be more respectful of people who were wrong about war in Iraq, and who spent most of 2002-03 sneering derisively at people who turned out to be right about war in Iraq. If Obama can’t be nicer to all those people who dismissed war opponents as lunatics and Saddam-enablers, we will never have Unity in 2008.
--David Kurtz
Long Lines
Heavy turnout reported in New Hampshire.
Maybe it has something to do with the weather.
--David Kurtz
On the Ground
TPM Reader CS checks in from New Hampshire:
My wife and I are NH residents and registered independents (or undeclared as the state calls it) and went to vote at 7am in Nashua. There was no line per-say, but there was a lot of activity. People going in and out...exit pollster (complete with media logos) handing out clipboards with surveys...Obama and Hillary supporters with signs at the school parking lot entrance. There were lots of Edwards signs out on the street. The only evidence of republicans was a single Ron Paul sign across the street.When I want to pick up my ballot, I saw a lot of names in the book with "UND" crossed out and "DEM" written in its place. Anecdotally, this indicated a lot of independents breaking for the dems, probably for Obama. McCain just held a big rally here yesterday, but there was no evidence of it now.
Just thought you might want this piece of info.
--David Kurtz
O'Reilly: I Had No Choice But To Defend the Constitution
O'Reilly explains that he had no choice but to defend the constitution when he roughed up the Obama aide ...
Late Update: It looks like the incident has gotten O'Reilly nominated for an international Freedom of the Press Award.
--Josh Marshall
Edwards: I Wasn't Criticizing Hillary for Tearing Up
This morning, Edwards was asked about his comments yesterday:
--David Kurtz
We Would be Remiss . . .
On the morning of the New Hampshire primary, it's de rigueur to report on the midnight results from Dixville Notch and Hart's Location.
--David Kurtz
Happy Primary Day
Obama up 13 points over Hillary in final Zogby tracking poll; McCain up 9.
Late Update: Rasmussen's last tracker shows Obama up 7; McCain up just 1 over Romney.
--David Kurtz
More Grist
E.J. Dionne captures the pathos and ironies of Clinton's collapse. Another good piece is Jon Alter's in Newsweek, but I'm too tired to explain why. Tomorrow. Tomorrow ...
--Josh Marshall
Mittmentum Roundup
Still not looking good for Mitt tomorrow. But the final swing of the pendulum, picked up by various observers like Marc Ambinder and winger reporters like Bob Novak and others is that Romney's regrouped in the final 48 hours and could pull off a surprise by nudging ahead of McCain.
My gut tells me that McCain probably pulls through. But perhaps not.
But let's plot out this map a little further. Let's say McCain takes first tomorrow with Romney a very close second. It's close to fatal for Romney but not quite. What's more, and what you need to look at to game out the significance is what comes next. The next big fight is in South Carolina. And two new polls out today (Rasmussen and SurveyUSA) show Huckabee in a dominant position in the state. So Huckabee looks likely to take Secessionville with either McCain or Romney coming in second.
At that point you'll have to say that Huckabee, who the GOP establishment is roundly against, is the frontrunner in the campaign. And the others are going to coalesce around an anti-Huckabee candidate. It's not clear to me that McCain is a shoe-in for that role.
--Josh Marshall
Bad Call
There's been a lot of rough news for Hillary Clinton in the last 72 hours. And a lot of unforced errors. But I think on this MLK and Lyndon Johnson remark, the edited quote that's circulating from The Politico is misleading.
The Politico quote is ...
"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to get it done."
But I think the full quote reads differently.
You can see the video here. The exchange starts at 3:40 in. Fox's Major Garrett reads Clinton a quote from a speech Obama gave earlier in the day.
Here's the Obama quote he reads ...
"False Hopes. Dr King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial looking out over the magnificent crowd, the reflecting pool, the Washington Monument, sorry guys, false hopes, the dream will die, it can't be done, false hope, we don't need leaders who tell us what we can't do, we need leaders to tell us what we can do and inspire us."
He then asks if she would respond and she says ...
"I would, and I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."
It's an ambiguous statement. But her reference is to different presidents -- Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, one of whom inspired but did relatively little legislatively and Johnson who did a lot legislatively, though he was rather less than inspiring. Quite apart from the merits of Obama and Clinton, it's not a bad point about Kennedy and LBJ.
Now I know in writing this I'm going to get tons of emails saying I'm defending an indefensible statement, making excuses for her, etc. I'm not. It's poorly worded, and easy to misunderstand. And it will be misunderstood. Her 'false hopes' line from the debate was one of the worst of the campaign. And you can read her realization of the dream point as putting a lot of focus on legislation and sort of discounting activism. But when I look at the actual words in this statement it just doesn't match up with the line that's circulating -- that she was saying Obama's King and she's LBJ.
The Politico quote at a minimum distorts what she said. And I thought I should say so.
--Josh Marshall
Last Minute Hits
Hillary drops a mailer in New Hampshire criticizing Obama on Social Security and taxes.
--David Kurtz
Better and Better
State troopers were called to the Clifton Park home of fmr. Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) after Sweeney stiffed a cabbie on the fare for a ride back from a local strip club.
--Josh Marshall
Todd Gitlin: John Edwards' response to Hillary's tears gives my entire sex a bad name.
--David Kurtz
The Tracks of Her Tears
In case you missed it, here's the video of Hillary Clinton that's gotten so much buzz today:
And here is her response later in the day to all the buzz:
--David Kurtz
Should She Stay or Should She Go?
Inside the Clinton campaign, a debate over what to do if she loses New Hampshire: Some worry about long-term damage if she stays in the race; others urge her to fight on.
--David Kurtz
Fluffus Interruptus?
Bus carrying the traveling press corps behind McCain's Straight Talk Express broke down outside Concord. McCain's bus kept on going.
Guess he was ready for his scene.
--Josh Marshall
Sad Day
Rep. Doolittle (R-CA) won't seek reelection. Standard excuse: wants to spend more time with defense counsel.
--Josh Marshall
Muskie?
TPM Reader AB just asked if this was Hillary's 'Muskie' moment, when she teared up a bit talking about her presidential campaign with voters in New Hampshire. I'm skeptical about whether it'll matter too much one way or another. But I would say it's a net positive if it's anything. This isn't 1972 and she's no Edmund Muskie. I thought it showed her in a very positive light.
--Josh Marshall
Penn Don't Tell'er
There's been a lot of talk about whether Mark Penn will be thrown under the bus to help right Hillary's campaign or whether, win or lose, her troubles will spell the end of stranglehold of ridiculousness over large sections of the Democratic party. But we shouldn't expect anything to happen too soon. The Clinton (and I mean both of them) relationship is extremely tight. It transcends the normal pol-consultant arrangement.
Here's a note from an informed observer I received today ...
They go back to 94, when (as I understand it) Hillary helped bring Dick Morris back into the WH and he in turn brought in Penn, ousting Stan Greenberg. Ever since then they've been inseparable. It's a far more personal relationship than the usual consultant/politician relationship. They're completely intertwined.Penn is the worst kind of agenda pollster. He's a complete charlatan. Never shows his work. Methodologically he's a disaster. He crafts his questions so to get the results that support whatever advice he's giving the candidate and it's only in campaigns like this when his advice bumps up against reality that people start to ask questions about what's going on.
It's pretty obvious that in Iowa his polling was totally off the mark and they had no idea what was happening. My suspicion is that rather than him being devious with the 'Where's the Bounce' meme, his polling was just wrong again.
As far as I'm aware, he's never won a difficult campaign. In 2000 he was fired for putting the Gore campaign in the exact same trouble, but unlike Gore, I can't imagine there's any way that the Clintons are going to fire him. They have this sort of irrational love for him because they believe his incremental/triangulation advice is what saved his presidency.
All I'm really saying is that people need to understand how big of a deal it would be if Penn was to be sidelined. That's huge. That's a divorce of the biggest political magnitude imaginable.
I can't say I know much about the Clinton-Penn relationship myself. But I've watched his polls over more than a decade now, including various presentations of his findings. (See the new Penn poll? Something I was used to hearing on the lips of my New Dem friends.) And they've always struck me as precisely what this reader says -- a classic case of cherry-picking data, or rather framing the questions to yield your desired result. Mark might have been a good fit for the Rumsfeld Defense Department in this sense.
There's always this risk with what you might call ideological pollsters. And by this I mean ones who are not just professional survey takers and public opinion specialists but are also activists in the context of one or the other party's politics. But Penn seems that way to an almost parodic degree.
In the context of an election that risks sending a campaign adrift into the treacherous waters of its own wishful thinking. And again, what tough, hard-fought races has Penn won? Someone remind me.
Late Update: TPMer Eric Kleefeld makes a good point. Not only is Penn a good match for the Rumsfeld DOD in his cherry-picking of data. He seems even more so in how much he seems not to have given his candidate a Plan B if everything didn't go precisely as expected. Obama winning Iowa was always a real possibility. And with only five days separating Iowa from New Hampshire that always had to mean he'd hit New Hampshire on the crest of a sizable Iowa bump. But they really do not seem to have had a plan for this very very realistic possibility.
--Josh Marshall
An Inauspicious Start
Turns out Bill Kristol's first NYT column contains a factual error. He attributes a Michael Medved quote to Michelle Malkin. Hard to keep all those right-wing hacks straight.
--David Kurtz
Hillary's stoic facade cracks with emotion during a meeting with a small group of New Hampshire voters this morning.
--David Kurtz
Duncan "I Got One Delegate in Wyoming" Hunter
You never know when a presidential candidate might wander onto your set in New Hampshire:
--David Kurtz
Mitt-ptonite
Having become a highly experienced Mittologist in recent weeks, I do think I've got his number now on the guy's key weakness as a candidate -- at a minimum, as a debater. The drubbing Mitt took on Saturday night mainly came down to the man's deep inner humorlessness.
Yes, you might say this is only another way of describing Mitt's entirely artificial personality and affect. But bear with me.
When McCain and Huckabee stung him, the jabs were pretty funny as politician humor goes. But to roll with punches like this you have to show some sense that you get the joke, that you have some sense of humor about it, even if you want to kick the joker's ass or knock his head off. You absorb the blow and swing the humor momentum back at the other guy. But when you see people razzing Mitt he can't help looking back with this sort of doltish 'that's not funny' look. Or perhaps it's 'shut up, dick!'
A lot of successful folks don't much cotton to humor at their expense. But I think here there's more to it. And like charisma a sense of humor is really hard to fake in an unscripted situation.
This is the two minute clip reel we put together yesterday of Mitt as punching bag. Give it a look, it's only 150 seconds long. And tell me whether or not you agree.
--Josh Marshall
Pass the Pipe
As you know, my man Mitt had a pretty solid debate performance in last night's Fox GOP debate. But when I saw Joe Klein's post at Swampland saying that the Sunday and the Saturday debate were "two of [Mitt's] best debate performances yet" I was sure Joe was smoking crack.
But he does make one good point. Klein says the 'tell' about how good a night Romney had Saturday is that none of the Republicans who were clobbering Mitt on Saturday night took after him again on Sunday.
Now, there are a few problems with this inference. One is that the Sunday night debate had the candidates sitting literally right next to each other, as opposed to spaced apart. And that creates a very different body language situation. It's harder to get nasty. Second, the Mittster was more on his game. So Huckabee, McCain and Thompson didn't have Mitt's palpable confusion and disorientation to take advantage of. And it may even be that they thought Mitt did so poorly
That said, I think Klein's at least partly on to something. He really is smoking crack if he thinks Romney had a good debate Saturday night. Mitt was barely coherent. But I could buy the idea that Mitt's trainwreck wasn't good for McCain or Huckabee if they seemed like they were being nasty to Mitt or taking advantage of Mitt's achilles heel -- his inner humorlessness.
So is it possible that Mitt suckered McCain and Huckabee into a trap by pretending to seem rattled, incoherent and sometimes about to cry?
--Josh Marshall
Is Camp Hillary Broke?
Even taking Joe Trippi's comment with the necessary grain (or whole shaker) of salt, I think he's on to something about the Clinton campaign's burn rate.
--David Kurtz
Bill: I Can't Make Hillary Younger
As far as closing arguments go, this one doesn't strike me as particularly persuasive:
What do you think?
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
Take a moment to step back from the New Hampshire battle and survey the bigger 2008 war: The Supreme Court hears arguments this week on Indiana's vote-suppressing voter ID law.
--David Kurtz
Bill Kristol makes his NYT debut--in all his cliched glory.
M.J. Rosenberg: "It's not a column. It a series of GOP talking points."
--David Kurtz
The Latest from New Hampshire
Polls out this morning:
Zogby's New Hampshire tracking poll is now all post-Iowa. It has Obama with a 10-point lead over Hillary, and McCain up 5 on Romney.
Meanwhile, Rasmussen has McCain with a one-point lead on Mitt.
We'll keep rolling these out as they come in.
--David Kurtz
Yesterday's News
The ultimate indignity: Hillary gets public advice from Bob Shrum. And actually the advice isn't that bad.
But there's a point he makes that's a good one and brings up something I've long thought about what I'll call the Late Clintonites. There's a good deal of overlap to be sure. But there was always a pretty substantial difference in personnel between the folks who worked for Clinton in 1992 and those who helped win his reelection in 1996 and, to a significant degree, worked for Hillary in 2000, 2006 and now 2008.
Mark Penn is perhaps the best example, though there are a lot of others who fit the model. To some degree a lot of these guys got a great reputation and big egos based on stuff they did in the late 1990s when it was really just that they had Bill Clinton as their candidate. But it's bit more than that.
There's a particularly kind of politics -- ideological and tactical -- when you're king of the hill, the guy or gal on the high ground parrying competitors trying to unseat you. This was particularly the case in the unique politics of the late 1990s when you had this great and very canny politician, Bill Clinton, holding the bundle of powers and prerogatives of the presidency squaring off against an emboldened but frequently unpopular and overreaching Republican Congress.
There are certain dynamics unique to that particular situation. Many Dems now bewail and reproach Clinton's 'triangulation' and micro-initiatives. But they had a great deal of political logic in that context.
The problem is that the experience created a generation of Democratic operatives -- pollsters, flaks, campaign workers and more -- who thought they'd discovered the key to successful campaign work, the consultatory midas touch. Often they just fell in love with their own pretended genius.
But that model doesn't work for a damn when you're in opposition, as has been the case since 2001. And it was a ridiculous model for Hillary to follow in this election.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: GOP Forum Highlight Reel
Did Mitt Romney live to debate another day after his Saturday night drubbing? Watch the Mittmentum return in today's Highlight Reel of last night's FOX News Republican forum ...
--Ben Craw
Where We Are
Here's a post, in its entirety from Ben Smith's blog at The Politico ...
Spin from the spin roomEdwards aide Jonathan Prince: "Tonight change won, and the status quo lost it."
Obama aide Robert Gibbs: "It's the Clinton argument from 1992, change versus more of the same. Only she's on the other side."
Clinton aide Ann Lewis: "Presidents don't get to vote present."
Also, a minor slip by Mark Penn, defending himself against anonymous snipers:
The same quotes, he said, "appeared in the paper in 1996 as well, and I helped get President Bush into a successful second term."
He meant Clinton.
The rip at Mark Penn at the end is fun. But that's not why I'm reprinting it. At the top we have spin lines from each of the campaigns coming off Saturday night's debate. Now, these are lines Smith picked out as capturing the essence of the spin. So I guess I should leave open the possibility that the campaigns themselves would have chosen a different foot to put forward.
But if we take this on its face it's a good, telling sign of how dire a situation the Clinton camp may be in.
Edwards' message is clear and in line with his strategy of setting up a 'change' mano a mano with Obama. Same with Obama's. You can agree with them or disagree with them. But anyone will understand immediately what they mean.
And then Ann Lewis: "Presidents don't get to vote present."
Now, I'm confident that the vast majority of people, even a lot of politically aware people, would not have any idea what Lewis was even talking about, let alone whether they agreed with it or whether it would sway their vote.
If you're interested, the reference is to an issue discussed in this article in the New York Times a couple weeks ago -- the number of times Obama voted "present" while serving in the Illinois legislature. As it happens, it seems to be at least a fairly bogus issue. As the Times explains, he did so "nearly 130 times," though virtually all of those votes seemed to be cases where a "present" vote would be unremarkable in the context of the way the Illinois legislature works.
But my point is not to get into the merits of this 'voting present' issue. Read the article and make your own judgment.
My point is that this issue scarcely rises to the level of inside baseball. Hillary is in a five day fight for her political life. And the best one of her chief message gurus can come up with is an obscure jab that wouldn't even be that cutting if people had any idea what she was talking about?
One could make the argument that Lewis's audience here wasn't voters but political reporters. And she was trying to plant the seed of their counterattack on Obama. But it all amounts to the same thing. These folks have been knocked senseless by the events of the last three days. And they seem almost incapable of even thinking straight. Through the day I got pitched, formally and informally, by various Clintonites on Obama stories, most of which were almost embarrassing to hear.
I don't use these words and phrases lightly or indiscriminately. I find it difficult to conceive of how unprepared her team was for this not-that-hard-to-predict turn of events.
What it tells me is that they never really planned for this. And they literally have no idea what to do at the clutch moment. For the now they are grasping for anything and everything.
--Josh Marshall
Rough Times, Mark
Most fun graf in Tom Edsall's new piece about Hillary in Huffpo ...
A number of Clinton operatives and supporters report privately that her campaign organization is beset with internal turmoil, and that Mark Penn remains in serious danger of losing his position as the senior and dominant strategist. "There are a lot of people saying Mark Penn is going to be thrown under the bus," said one source.
--Josh Marshall
GOP Debate Wrap-Up
First, I think you have to say that tonight's Republican debate didn't hold a candle to yesterday's in terms of entertainment firepower. That said, all jokes aside, Mitt Romney did much, much better than he did last night. It didn't take much of course. That was the worst debate trainwreck I've ever seen in a national race. I think I may have to go back and watch Lord of the Flies to fully understand what was going on there.
But tonight he didn't get attacked that much. He made his case well. He had some solid answers.
But then something weird happened. I thought Mitt did a good job and repaired some of the damage from last night. But then after the debate Fox had Frank Luntz on hand with a focus group at the Merrimack Restaurant (where I usually ate meals when I was reporting New Hampshire primaries) in Manchester. And basically the focus group was unanimous that Mitt had had a crushing victory. No kidding. The Mittmentum was palpable.
Now, it was clear that a lot of the people in this particular focus group were as dumb as posts. One of the guys Luntz interviewed explained how Mitt was obviously more credible on the pro-life issue than Mike Huckabee. I mean, I had no idea Mitt could do so well bamboozling these folks. Seriously, it was so surreal that I had to consider whether Mitt had possibly forced a leveraged buyout of the restaurant or possibly the members of the focus group.
But if these folks were at all representative of New Hampshire Republicans I think there's a possibility that Mitt really changed the dynamic with 36 hours left to go.
Here's the focus group, you make up your own mind ...
Feel the Mittmentum!
--Josh Marshall
GOP (Paul Muzzled) Debate Blogging
Go Mitt!
8:10 PM ... Mitt clearly spent the last twenty-four hours taking a McKinsey consulting marathon refresher on debate sparring.
8:37 PM ... Mitt's a big improvement tonight in as much as he is avoiding utter humiliation.
8:42PM ... Mitt actually has a pretty good statement of his qualifications for the presidency, as a governor vs. a senator. If you set aside what a complete phony Mitt is it was really convincing.
9:16 PM ... I guess it's just part of its being a Fox News debate but Wallace has been pretty obviously on Romney's case. In all seriousness, I do not think I've ever seen a debate where the network runs a visual for one debater's attack. They put on the screen one of the quotes McCain used against Romney.
--Josh Marshall
Mitt Special Pleading Primer
Should Mitt Romney lose on Tuesday he's going to need some argument why his strategy for becoming nominee is not swirling down the toilet of oblivion. So I've been trying to work on some excuses for Mitt. And I think I've got his best angle.
If you look at the just out USAToday/Gallup, while McCain is up by 4 points, he's actually only tied with Mitt among registered Republicans. Zogby says Mitt's actually leading among Republicans by a substantial margin. And the Suffolk poll shows the same thing.
If memory serves, after McCain defeated Bush in New Hampshire in 2000, this was precisely the argument he made -- that the Republican nomination should be decided by Republicans. So there may be spin hope for Mitt yet!
Mittmentum!!!
--Josh Marshall
Hope for My Man Mitt?
Before tonight's debate I wanted to briefly flag what the latest polls out of New Hampshire are saying on the Republican side. It's definitely not looking good for the Mittster. But the polls are a lot less clear cut about the direction we're going in than on the Republican side. Two of the five polls released today actually have Romney ahead, though by inconsequential margins. And the just released CNN/WMUR/UNH poll, which has McCain up by 6 points, actually has both Romney and McCain dropping a point since yesterday.
There's some evidence that Obama is pulling independent voters out of the Republican column (they can vote in either primary) and thus holding down McCain's potential post-Iowa bounce.
--Josh Marshall
Penn In Your Eye
As I explained last night, one big plus side of the current battle going on in New Hampshire is that it might finally disrupt (hope springs eternal) the mind control powers Mark Penn uses to get Democrats to pay him money to lose their campaigns for them. Earlier I'd noted Penn's use of tendentious polls and politics by gimmick and catch phrase. But some knowledgeable campaign watchers have now confirmed me in my impression that virtually every Democratic primary campaign Penn has run going back to 2000 or earlier has lost -- Checchi, Blanchard, Cuomo, Lieberman, Deutsch. The guy has an absolutely terrible record.
He's the Shrum of Triangulation. Only, outside the presidentials, Shrum actually won a lot of elections.
And now he's smacked himself in the face with yet another embarrassment.
I know a lot of journalists are looking for angles now to write about in chronicling what is at a minimum shaping up as a major setback in Clinton's campaign. But I think the Penn angle bears much more scrutiny and consideration.
Late Update: Ken Baer has some more.
--Josh Marshall
Mammoth Bounce?
The new CNN/WMUR/UNH poll is out and it suggests a huge post-Iowa bounce for Obama. A ten point lead in today's poll 39% to 29% against the tied (33%-33%) poll they put out just yesterday. It's just one poll but this is one of the most respected ones for New Hampshire elections.
--Josh Marshall
Why Did She Say This?
Hillary, today in Nashua: I never would have taken us to war in Iraq.
--Eric Kleefeld
Rasmussen: Obama Way Ahead, McCain Barely Ahead
The new Rasmussen tracking poll in New Hampshire shows that Barack Obama's newfound lead over Hillary Clinton is holding steady, and maybe even growing — he's now ahead by 12 points, up from yesterday's 10.
Meanwhile on the Republican side, Mitt Romney might not be dead just yet. Yesterday he trailed John McCain by seven points, but now he's only behind by two.
--Eric Kleefeld
Mitt: I'm Loving It!!!
I've been chronicling my disappointment in last night's Mitt Trainwreck. I'm not sure I've ever seen one goof knocked around more or say how good the beating he's taken is for him in 150 seconds of video.
My money is on the Mittmentum hittin' high gear tonight ...
--Josh Marshall
Still Hope
TPM Reader SG throws me a bone ...
A couple of quick points on the Romney drubbing last night: 1) My sense was the others don't so much dislike Romney as that they have contempt for him. The sharp barbs were delivered with an undercurrent (or in McCain's case, overtly) of derisive laughter. Give Romney his due: It is quite an achievement to be too phony for even the GOP.2) There's still hope for your boy: There's another GOP debate tonight on Fox. Viewership should skew heavily toward registered Republican voters who still have a basic distrust of McCain, so Romney has another shot at rehabilitating his traditional GOP charlantry with the voters he must win.
--Josh Marshall
SlapHappy
TPM Reader DK chimes on the Mitt Slapfest ...
I can't believe you haven't made this point yet. All the Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) were jumping on top of one another to basically call Mitt Romney a weak conniving empty suit in extraordinarily snide and disrespectful tones.All Romney could do in reply was stutter about the unfairness of personal attacks. Isn't this a perfect example of the bitch-slap theory of electoral politics? What's important here isn't the content of the attacks, but the way they made Romney look incapable of standing up for himself. Will voters rally to Romney out of sympathy, as Noam Scheiber suggests? Did they rally to Kerry? I think we have some relevant data on how Republican voters respond to this sort of thing.
TPM Shrink Reader MB too ...
Just a bit of psychological thinking from a shrink:I think what happened to Mitt last night looked more like a football tackle. A pile-on.
If you think of a pecking order, well Mitt for sure is at the bottom of it. Rather than empathize with the underdog, and he acquitted himself poorly in whining about it, people will often distance themselves from a loser. It's a psychological thing. There's a sense that the loser deserves it. That they must be piling on him for a reason. People like a winner. At some point they are looking to root for a winner.
So, if it had been one repub only attacking him you could sympathize with that. But the guy kept interrupting last night. Wanting the last word. Hogging the time. I simply don't think he came off well. What was there to sympathize with?
--Josh Marshall
So Disappointed in Mitt
To say Mitt Romney had a bad debate last night is an understatement for the ages. Some of the best moments came when Mitt was getting so knocked around that he seemed to forget which side of the argument he was arguing.
Sometimes as a debating technique one will embrace an opponents contention only to flip around the significance of the fact as a point in your own defense. But there were several times -- most notably in the fracas over 'amnesty' with John McCain -- where Mitt basically fell into arguing McCain's point for him and then didn't seem to have any follow up to explain why this didn't mean McCain was right and he was wrong. It was like the rhetorical equivalent of getting so punch drunk that you start walking into the other guy's punches.
Mitt's big point in his argument with McCain was that his (i.e., Romney's) attack ads didn't really say McCain's bill was 'amnesty' like McCain claimed. And given how much Mitt hung on this semantic point, I figured he had to be right. And McCain did not seem to directly contradict. But apparently on This Week this morning, Mitt had to come clean and admit he was wrong. It did say amnesty.
At TNR, Noam Scheiber says he thinks actual voters will react more negatively to the attackers than to the hapless Mitt as the target of the attacks. And I certainly hope he's right. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Thompson, of all the attackers seemed cocky and a bit of a prick. But Thompson is cocky and a prick. So I guess that shouldn't be surprising. What made him seem that way in this case was that in his jibes against Romney he didn't even seem to have any real points to make. Mitt was just already getting knocked around so much that he figured it would be fun to get in a few whacks too.
What struck me more about McCain and Huckabee's attacks were that they felt very personal. As a lot of other commentators have noted, it was hard not to get the sense that these guy's really don't like Mitt. And my hunch is that rather than feel sorry for Mitt or think badly of the other guys, voters' first sense would be to think: wow, they all really hate this guy. I wonder why?
Both in my Mitt-supporting alter-ego and in my real desire for how this race plays out I'm rooting for Mitt. But I fear Mitt has fallen and cannot get up. Hope I'm wrong, of course. And I'm going to have my ear to the ground for signs of resurgent Mittmentum.
--Josh Marshall
New Poll
Mason-Dixon has new numbers out. Obama up two points over Hillary. And McCain up eight over Romney.
--Josh Marshall
McCain and Romney Swap Lead
Romney has stopped the bleeding in the latest Zogby tracking poll and retaken the lead from John McCain in New Hampshire.
As I mentioned below, Mitt may have Barack Obama to thank for it.
Obama is pulling independents in New Hampshire who might otherwise go to McCain, who has a strong advantage over Mitt among independents.
So Obama's gain is in some respects McCain's loss, and it's keeping Romney in the race.
--David Kurtz
Hillary Clings to One-Point N.H. Lead
Zogby has just put out its latest New Hampshire tracking poll. Obama continues to gain on Hillary, as more post-Iowa data is added to the sample.
--David Kurtz
Obama hurting McCain and helping Mitt? Apparently so. The numbers from New Hampshire shortly . . .
--David Kurtz
Work Horse v. Show Horse
A complete wrap-up of the Democratic debate at TPM Election Central.
--David Kurtz
