The Speeches
The Clinton campaign clearly made a decision to close the door on the South Carolina campaign with as little discussion as possible. Hillary flew out of the state early in the evening to Nashville where she gave her standard stump speech with a brief reference to Obama's win in South Carolina. Most of the networks seemed to cut away from her speech well before it was over -- after five minutes or so.
It's a bold move. I'm curious how people think it played. Let me know.
--Josh Marshall
Not Feeling the Mittmentum
The big news we're covering, of course, is the result of the South Carolina primary. But there's also some big news out of Florida. The state's very popular Republican Governor, Charlie Crist, has endorsed John McCain. Normally endorsements don't mean much. And this one may not either. But McCain and Romney, as I noted earlier, could scarcely be closer in the polls right now. So on top of the endorsement of Sen. Martinez (R-FL), which came yesterday yesterday, this could be significant.
--Josh Marshall
Their Spin
Just off the AP wire ...
Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South.
I guess they're really broken up about it.
--Josh Marshall
No Speech?
This is a little weird. MSNBC was just showing Bill Clinton speaking in what seemed sort of like a concession speech in Independence, Missouri. A little earlier they read a concession statement from Hillary. But it's not clear to me that she's going to speak tonight.
Not sure whether the other nets showed the Bill speech or no. So it's not clear to me how much this was a conscious strategy on the part of the Clinton camp or whether MSNBC just took it upon themselves to televise Bill's speech.
Late Update: Earlier MSNBC had suggested they weren't clear that Hillary Clinton was going to speak. Not so. Apparently she's going to speak at about 9:30 PM Eastern.
--Josh Marshall
Try To Explain This
Here's Bill Clinton this afternoon discounting Barack Obama's expected victory in South Carolina by explaining that Jesse Jackson won the state twice ...
--Josh Marshall
Hillary Gets Second
Nets project Hillary will take second place.
Bad news for John Edwards.
--David Kurtz
What the Exits Say
Starting to get a look at the vote breakdown:
Blacks made up 53% of voters, and Obama dominated, winning 82% of black men and 79% of black women.
Edwards won among white men, with 43%. Hillary won white women with 44%. But Obama fared better with white men than perhaps expected. Hillary barely beat him among white men, 29% to 27%.
--David Kurtz
Who Takes Second?
Too close to call between Hillary and Edwards, CNN reports.
That might explain why Hillary resorted to anti-Edwards robocalls at the last minute.
--David Kurtz
Obama Projected to Win
His lead was substantial enough in the exit polls that everyone was able to call it for him as soon as the polls closed. More shortly . . .
--David Kurtz
Results Start Rolling in at 7 PM
The polls are about to close. And we'll be reporting the results in real time as they come in.
Late Update: And there you go, all networks call it for Obama.
--Josh Marshall
The Problem With Bill 2.0
I've been trying for several days now to sort out my reactions to the increasingly bitter turn of the Democratic nomination race. So let share with you my thoughts about where we are.
As I told you at the time, I thought most of the charges that the Clintons were injecting race into the process were bogus. And the Obama campaign definitely tried to stoke questions about what were at worst awkward or ambiguous statements. What's more, most of the talk about venomous attacks on Obama really don't add up.
Bringing up Rezko or cherry-picking Obama's quotes about the Iraq War to cast doubt on his consistent opposition to the war don't cut it. You don't go into a campaign with the idea that your opponents are obligated to present a dispassionate and fair-minded picture of the totality of your record. Or if you do you're a fool. Maybe you think that it should be that way but I'm not even sure there's any point discussing that hypothetical. Fundamentally a campaign is an adversary process, like a courtroom; it's not a civics lesson. Each side puts the other to its test. And there's very little I've seen from the Clinton camp that would seem like anything but garden variety political hardball if it were coming from Hillary or other Clinton surrogates rather than Bill Clinton.
I hear from a lot of Obama supporters that that may be how it's been. But Obama is about the 'new politics'. But this is no different from what Bill Bradley was saying in 2000. And it was as bogus then as it is now. Beyond that there is an undeniable undercurrent in what you hear from Obama supporters that he is too precious a plant -- a generational opportunity for a transformative presidency -- to be submitted to this sort of knockabout political treatment. That strikes me as silly and arrogant, if for no other reason that the Republicans will not step aside for Obama's transcendence either.
And yet I cannot deny that I've felt a mounting sense of unease verging into disgust with Bill Clinton's increasingly aggressive role in the campaign over the last couple of weeks. So I've tried to figure out just what it is that's gotten to me. To give you some perspective, I don't think there are many people who are bigger fans of Bill Clinton than I am or who've expended more ink defending him and his presidency. Nor am I particularly sold on Obama's candidacy. Transcendence isn't usually a big sell for me in politics. And I continue to have my doubts about whether Obama is tough enough or savvy enough to withstand the avalanche the Republicans will throw against the Democratic nominee this fall.
I think there are a lot of us who sense an air of arrogance in Obama's talk of transcendence, reconciliation and unity. I think there are a lot of people who would say, I would have loved to have transcended back in 1995 or 1998 or 2002. But we were spending every ounce on the political battle lines trying to prevent the Republicans from destroying the country. It's hard for folks like that to hear from someone new that they're part of the problem, part of the 'old politics'.
But again, I've thought to myself, what is it that seems wrong about what's going on here. And it's this: seven years after he left the Oval Office, in many respects, Bill Clinton remains the leader of the Democratic party. No, not in any formal way. But he remains extraordinarily popular among Democrats. He is almost unique in the last century as a successful Democratic president continuing to live on after his term of office. Give it some thought and you'll realize that it's almost unprecedented. Harry Truman left office extremely unpopular. And the deserved cult that's grown up around him didn't take root until many, many years later. Certainly it didn't apply to Lyndon Johnson or Jimmy Carter. And Kennedy and Roosevelt didn't outlive their presidencies.
For all these reasons Bill Clinton is unique, sui generis. And for all these reasons he commands massive press attention. I agree with what TPM Reader JD said last night that, in effect, Bill Clinton holds a de facto office within the Democratic party. And what he's been doing amounts to an abuse of office. He has come into a primary process between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and used his unique power to jam his thumb down on one side of the scale in a way that I think is very difficult for anyone to overcome.
Now, when I've written similar things before, many of you have written in to say: How is that fair? Obama's and Edwards' spouses are vigorous advocates on their behalf; why can't Bill do the same for Hillary? Why should she be penalized? Others say, he's her husband. Of course he's going to do every thing he can to ensure victory for her. How could he not? Some even say that he owes her in some way because of past transgressions. But this is silly. Obviously there's no comparing Elizabeth Edwards or Michelle Obama to Bill Clinton.
But there's another aspect of this too. Bill Clinton may owe all sorts of things to Hillary Clinton. I'm sure there's a complicated mix of loyalty, love, sense that he owes her, probably the sense that she'd be a great president. But here's the thing. Back during impeachment folks like me made the point -- and I think it was the right one -- that Bill Clinton's obligations to his wife, to his marriage to sexual fidelity and so forth were an issue between him and his wife. He had a different set of obligations and responsibilities to his supporters and to the larger public. And it was the latter that concerned me.
I think something similar applies in this case. I respect all the loyalties and devotions between the two of them in what is clearly a very complicated but also very enduring relationship. But I'm not part of that marriage. Its obligations aren't any concern of mine and they have no claim on me. My relationship with Bill Clinton is as a member of the party that he is, as I've said, the leader of or at least the most revered elder statesman of. And I feel like he's violating the compact that I have with him.
You might say that's not fair, that that means his obligations as a husband and as a leader of his party are hopelessly in conflict. And I could only say you're probably right. But that frankly is one of the reasons we have instinctive suspicions about dynastic politics. And as I say, I can only see one side of the conflict. I'm not part of that marriage. And I can't see putting the fate of the Democratic party, or the country for that matter, into the balance of its obligations.
But before I finish there's another part of this that is I think even more important. With the exception of a few days in early January I've gone on the assumption for many months that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. But I think Bill's actions have greatly diminished her. He has put her back under his shadow where she hasn't been for years.
For the moment, I doubt either of them is losing much sleep over that. Get through today and then worry about tomorrow. But I think she looks much smaller now. He's dominating the race. And that makes her look like a weaker figure -- something that will not wear well in the general election. And this campaign really suggests this is going to be some sort of co-presidency. When Hillary's getting knocked around by the folks on the Hill is Bill going to go Larry King to knock her enemies around? Will he be going off to foreign countries on his own little diplomatic missions?
I had assumed he'd remain a step in the background as he has through through most of this decade. But that doesn't seem to be the case. If the constitution allowed it, I'd happily have Clinton back. I'd happily have Hillary in his place. But I don't want them both.
The presidency is a singular job. It should stay that way. And it's precisely because I'm looking forward to supporting her if she is the nominee that I hate seeing her being overshadowed by her spouse and having her husband bigfoot the process which diminishes her and makes me think her presidency could be a 4 year soap opera where Bill won't shut up and let her have a shot at doing the job.
--Josh Marshall
On the Ground
A field report from TPM Reader JW:
I just got back from voting in Greenville, SC. The weather is sunny, about 48 degrees.Inside the polling place....tumbleweeds. I was the only one there, and
no one came in during my entire visit.There was a cryptic note taped to the door that read "Voters must choose
a political party." Since this is an open-primary state, I asked the
workers what that meant. She said that you must say you are voting in
the democratic primary.In my mind, if I was a registered independent and read that sign I might
just walk away. I notified my candidate's field office and they're
looking into it.
--David Kurtz
Latest Outta Florida
I was thinking that Mitt had or was pulling ahead in Florida. But these polls of the Republican race down there are a rollercoaster. After a handfull of polls with Romney up, the last three released now say McCain, though the differences one way or another are seldom more than 3 or 4 points either way. Zogby's number out today is McCain 31% and Romney 28%. He says yesterday was a "big one-day result" for McCain.
He just may do it.
Another big wildcard in the Florida race is early voting. If I remember correctly, Floridians have been able to cast their ballots in the primary since the middle of January. So the final poll snapshot is the whole picture because a lot of people voted a couple days ago or maybe a week ago.
--Josh Marshall
Alligator-Sized Loopholes
Here's more, from today's Miami Herald, on how the Democratic candidates' pledge not to campaign in Florida is apparently interpreted, at least by the Clinton campaign:
U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston will host an 11:30 a.m. rally at the Century Village retirement community in Pembroke Pines for Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton. The candidate won't be there, of course, in keeping with her pledge not to campaign in Florida because its early primary breaks national party rules.But under the pledge's fundraising loophole, Clinton will attend two private events tomorrow in Miami Beach: a $500-per-person gig at Lucky Strike Lanes and a $2,300-per-person reception at developer MIchael Adler's home.
The candidates pledged not to "campaign or participate" in any primary or caucus prior to Feb. 5th. The fund-raising exception makes some sense, and I don't know the extent to which Obama and Edwards have held fundraisers in "off-limits" states. (Late Update: Obama popped in for a speech at a Sarasota fundraiser. Thanks to TPM Reader PA for the link.) Of course, Obama's national cable TV ad buy reaches into Florida, although that's arguably by default rather than design (yes, arguably). Put it all together though and it's clear that the DNC must define "participate" pretty narrowly.
--David Kurtz
Backing Away From The Brink
Obama tries to dial down tensions and fallout from so-called racial dust-ups with Hillary.
--David Kurtz
Chess
TPM Reader RR sees the angle ...
Doesn't the argument over seating Florida and Michigan delegates miss the smaller point, so to speak?Nothing Hillary says can actually browbeat her rivals, so nothing she says now has any direct bearing on whether those delegates are seated or not. As you said, there's little doubt that delegates from FL and MI will be seated in one way or another. If Hillary wins without them, she'll seat them. If Obama wins by an ample margin, he will play
generous and seat them. If he wins by a narrow margin, some other process such as caucuses will be ginned up to seat pro-Obama delegations. So why did Hillary raise the question at all?I speculate that she raised it for one purpose only - to heighten the profile of the Florida Dem primary on Tuesday. Hillary will almost certainly lose SC today, and possibly wash out to third: a negative media cycle for her. If she had her way, South Carolina would vanish into N-space before the polls close, and not re-establish contact with the outside universe until February 6. Since she can't arrange that, she
is aiming for the next best thing - a rapid shift of media attention to FL, and heavy coverage of her probable big win there. She wants the FL win, not the SC loss, to be what resonates through the echo chamber during the week leading up to Super Tuesday.So how does she shift the media's focus to Florida? Partly by reminding them that her delegates may be seated after all. More subtly, however, talking about Florida is a way to campaign there without setting foot in the state, and without technically violating the rules against campaigning there. FL Dems are paying attention. The larger their
turnout on Tuesday, the more attention the media will pay. If their turnout rivals or even exceeds GOP turnout, that in itself will be a story, further amping up coverage of the Dem results - and Hillary's presumed big win.As so often in this last three weeks, one gets the impression that Hillary's team is playing a move ahead of both Obama and the media.
--Josh Marshall
More on Delegates
Not surprisingly there's been an avalanche of heated emails in response to my post about the question of whether delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated at the Democratic National Convention. Oddly enough most of the people who wrote in from Michigan were actually against the effort to change the rules mid-way. But it's hard to know what that might mean or whether they're in any way a representative sample.
Let's start by stating what I think is not disputable. There's little real doubt that Michigan and Florida delegates will actually be seated at this summer's convention. Presumably one candidate will arrive at the convention with the nomination secured, even without those delegates. And under that candidates management it will be agreed that the delegates should be seated, whether most were for the winning candidate or not. And as is always the case, the result settled, everyone will come together and put the winner over the top unanimously. Certainly it would be foolish not to have representation from two pivotal swing states.
The question of course is what if we have a divided convention, or one where the votes of Michigan and Florida prove key to the result? For decades these have only been hypotheticals. But this year, on both sides, it's a real possibility.
That's what Hillary's trying to do here, lay the groundwork for seating those delegates -- which it now seems she'll win the majority of -- even though each of the candidates had accepted the decision of the DNC not to do so. I see no way that that's not trying to change the rules midway.
--Josh Marshall
No Way
The Clinton camp really needs to be shut down on this new gambit of theirs to muscle the party and the other candidates into seating the Michigan and Florida delegate slates.
And let me be very clear about what I mean. It was very debatable decision whether the DNC should have punished Florida and Michigan with the loss of their delegates slates because they broke the rules the party had set down for scheduling their primaries. By 'debatable' I don't mean it was right or wrong, only that it was a pretty draconian move and I know there was a lot of discussion about whether or not it was the right thing to do.
But that was the decision -- one that each of the candidates at least implicitly agreed to. Indeed, each agreed not to campaign in either of these states, again implicitly agreeing to the decision not to seat the delegates.
The Clinton camp is just pushing to seat these delegates now because the contingencies of the moment mean that the decision would favor Hillary. She was the only one whose name was on the ballot in Michigan, thus insuring her win. She has a wide lead in every Florida poll taken this month.
Even Michigan was a matter of her basically pulling a fast one on the other candidates by not taking her name off the ballot. Each of the major candidates signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in any primary or caucus prior to Feb. 5th except for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The other major candidates adopted what seems like the only reasonable interpretation of the pledge (see text here) and pulled their names from the ballot.
But then Hillary didn't, thus in essence guaranteeing her win in Michigan.
The Clinton campaign said taking her name off the ballot wasn't required by the pledge. But what can "participate" mean over and above "campaigning" other than formally being a candidate in the race?
In any case, by gaming the process Clinton already insured her win in Michigan, though it seemed only for a symbolic victory, not real delegates.
But all these particulars are secondary to the principle, which is that you don't change the rules in midstream to favor one candidate or another. This is no more than a replay, with different factual particulars, of the attempt to outlaw the at-large caucuses in Nevada after the Culinary Union endorsement made it appear they would help Barack Obama.
Perhaps there's some detail of this question that I'm not aware of. And if there is I'll revise my opinion accordingly. But based on what I know now this is pretty clear-cut.
Hillary can muscle for every advantage she wants. Good for her. She's a fighter. But everyone else should see this for what it is and say No.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Who Let the Dogs Out!?!?!
You won't want to miss our special Mitt "Who Let the Dogs Out?!?!" Romney edition of our Friday Clip Extravaganza.
Hard to believe anyone could ever have doubted that Mitt marched with MLK ...
--Josh Marshall
Oops
Bill Clinton says the President doesn't "run the bureaucracy."
Didn't we hear that somewhere already?
Late Update: Another "Oops." This goes both ways apparently.
--David Kurtz
Finally
I'm relieved that Mark Penn has again inserted himself into the Clinton-Obama brouhaha. Because after so much squabbling between two people both of whom I actually like, it's comforting to have a consummate bulls--t artist like Penn take the stage so I can pillory him with no misgivings or cognitive dissonance.
I'll say this, the real tragedy of Hillary's comeback win in New Hampshire is that it saved Mark Penn's job.
--Josh Marshall
Hillary made the rounds of the morning shows today--and got an unpleasant surprise from Matt Lauer.
--David Kurtz
Devotion
For those who got a chance to watch our coverage of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's masterfully composed performance yesterday, this shouldn't come as a surprise:
Shortly before Stephen L. Johnson was sworn in by President Bush as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, he gave the president a towel symbolizing a New Testament passage in which Jesus washes his disciples' feet. The towel, given to graduates of Johnson's alma mater, a small evangelical college, symbolizes a life of Christian service.Like the president, Johnson is a deeply religious man who says he relies on his faith in his work. Johnson prayed and spoke gratefully of early-morning prayer sessions held in his government office in a promotional video filmed there for an offshoot of a worldwide Christian ministry.
EPA's own staff thinks the Administration has taken an indefensible position on California's request to regulate carbon emissions from vehicles and will lose when challenged in court. The underlying issue--regulation of greenhouse gas emissions--is obviously important. But this appears to be another significant example of the Bush Administration's politicization of science, agency decision-making, and public policy--which transcends any particular issue. Yesterday, Johnson showed himself to be a willing disciple.
For instance, did Johnson coordinate the timing of his controversial decision on the California request with the White House's PR campaign on last month's passage of the energy bill? Despite all evidence, Johnson implied (he exhibited a devotee's discipline in never giving a straight answer) it did not.
The Senate intends to continue its investigation, but rather than waiting to get to the bottom of what happened--say what you will, but the Gonzales MO is effective at stalling investigations--Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has introduced a bill to overturn Johnson's decision.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
Confused about what went down yesterday in the Senate on FISA and telecom immunity?
Paul Kiel recaps the jockeying and brings us up to speed on where things stand now.
--David Kurtz
Final Thoughts
A lot of blogging tonight, so this will be brief.
Candidly, I was surprised that there wasn't more contentiousness in tonight's GOP debate in Florida. After all, probably at least two candidacies will end Tuesday night. So the stakes were extraordinarily high. Rudy could barely keep a straight face when claiming he was going to win on Tuesday. So let's be happy for him that he's moving past denial and anger to acceptance. He's done. Huckabee had some good lines. But I don't think it will change his sinking position in the polls. McCain was fine but not stellar. I think the night was Romney's. As many have said, the economy is his territory, far more than foreign policy. He had a strong, prepared presence. And the key is that he didn't have all his opponents knocking him over the head for his terrible addiction to flipflopping on every issue imaginable.
All told, I think it was a pretty uneventful debate. So uneventful, we decided to let our producer/editor go home early and not even do a highlight reel because there wasn't much to highlight. But with Romney already moving into the lead, I think his performance will probably reinforce that trend.
Feel the Mittmentum.
--Josh Marshall
Counter-Fluff
You know it wasn't a good night for McCain when even Fineman is saying McCain was bamboozling.
--Josh Marshall
D'oh
They say Huckabee doesn't really know jack about foreign policy. And it seems he doesn't even keep up with paranoid right-wing conspiracy theories. Asked for a save on his claim in the debate that Iraq probably did have WMDs that we just didn't find, he said he thought they'd probably been taken to Jordan. Now, Jordan is a big US ally, so that's a little hard to figure. And of course if you keep up on right-wing moonbat orthodoxy, it's Syria the weapons were supposedly smuggled out to.
Here's the video ...
--Josh Marshall
Chris Matthews on Catnip
If you're watching the post-game on MSNBC, Matthews' inner Clinton-hating id has been released. And yes, I know you thought he'd given it full rein before.
--Josh Marshall
Not Enough Fighting for My Taste Debate Blogging
9:54 PM ... Whether for hunting purposes or just .... well, for killing people, whatever.
9:55 PM ... Finally, some trainwreck. Rudy tries to push his pitiful Catastrophe Fund gambit. See the ad here.
10:07 PM ... So sad. Rudy can't help laughing at his own claim that he's going to win the Florida primary.
10:09 PM ... I'm pretty sure what McCain just said is false -- that he won the Republican vote in both South Carolina and New Hampshire. I'm pretty sure that's not true. We'll look into it. Update: It was right on the edge and it seems that different networks came down on different sides.
10:18 PM ... Finally we arrive at the Tim Russert Social Security blowhard phase of the debate.
--Josh Marshall
Yep, he said it
Seems McCain did say that.
Here's the video to refresh your memory ...
TPM Reader BY just sent in this clip from the Boston Globe ...
Like Mike Huckabee, who joked recently that he "may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night," McCain suggested to reporters Monday that American consumer culture offered a short cut to expertise. "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book."
I guess it was too much to ask to have Russert crash and burn on this one.
Russert's quote was: "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Apparently there's a more word for word one out there. McCain responded: "I dont know where you got that quote from, im very well versed in economics."
Now TPM Reader KK checks in with the exact quote, from Stephen Moore in the Wall Street Journal: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."
Later Update: TPM Reader RE comes up with another similar quote in the Baltimore Sun ...
That subject area might be the economy, an area McCain said he has never been completely comfortable with."The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should. I understand the basics, the fundamentals, the vision, all that kind of stuff,'' he said. "But I would like to have someone I'm close to that really is a good strong economist. As long as Alan Greenspan is around I would certainly use him for advice and counsel."
McCain said his staff hates it when he discusses his shortcomings on economics, even though he has read widely and studied the subject.
--Josh Marshall
Rudy Apocalypse Debate Blogging
9:04 PM ... Mitt fields it a question that it's challenge to pander on.
9:05 PM ... I think I'd forgotten what a hypocrite McCain's become on fiscal policy.
9:06 PM ... Wondering why it's taking so long for Russert to ask a preening question.
9:08 PM ... Rudy seems oddly restrained for the last debate of his political life.
9:09 PM ... Mystery quote? I can only imagine the glee in finding that Russert used a phony quote. But probably too much to hope for.
9:15 PM ... Eerie lack of whackjob attacks. Actually, there was something a look weird about the intensity and amazement McCain expressed about the GOP losing a single election. That can still happen, right?
9:17 PM ... Appreciate the vague whiff of contempt Ron Paul used in referring to Tim Russert.
9:19 PM ... Rudy hijacks international finance question to relive his 9/11 nostalgia glory days. Brief segue for Japan bashing for no particular reason -- about the Japanese who are now our best friends.
9:22 PM ... Did you notice how McCain threw in an errant "Let me give you some Straight Talk" tag line when it didn't seem connected to anything?
9:26 PM ... In the context of phony presentations and the general ridiculousness of the Republican primaries, I think Mitt's actually doing pretty well.
9:28 PM ... I guess this local dude isn't up to Russert's stature so he has to stand out in the crowd to ask his questions.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Debate Warm-Up
We're gearing up for live debate blogging of tonight's Rudy Apocalypse Florida debate. So while you're waiting for the main event check out our Florida Republican Primary Campaign Roundup ...
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Josh Marshall
Warming to the Fluff?
McCain tells reporters: "I respect Rush Limbaugh. He is a voice that is respected by a lot of people who are in our party."
--Josh Marshall
FISA Vote Delayed
After much parliamentary maneuvering late this afternoon, Sen. Reid has delayed the vote on the intelligence committee's pro-telecom immunity version of the FISA bill until Monday.
--David Kurtz
Closest To The Mark
TPM Reader JD ...
I've written before on this, but feel compelled to repeat. This is an issue _only_ because Bill is the face of the party. It's not about negativity or blood sport whatsoever. No one would feel in any way strongly about this if it were Carville, say, acting as Hillary's attack dog. That is politics. This is something a little different.For me, it's about a conflict of interest, abuse of office, what have you. As our party seeks to select it's candidate through democratic means, many people will feel distrustful if they see the head of the party get their desired result having used their substantial influence too nakedly. A little like Secretaries of State who promise to deliver their states for one party or another. That sort of thing hits a nerve in this party.
--Josh Marshall
David v. Goliaths
Is Obama succeeding in making the Clintons' ganging up on him into the campaign narrative of the moment?
--David Kurtz
Keeping with A-initialed Readers
TPM Reader AJ ...
Josh-What, exactly, is Bill Clinton supposed to have said that is so 'venomous?' I've noted many pro-Obama commenters and surrogates, including Claire McCaskill and Michelle Obama today, complaining in a very non-specific way about Bill Clinton's supposed 'distortions' and 'attacks' against Obama, but I can't find any specific credible charges of the same.The Iraq charge against Obama, he opposed the war in the beginning, but didn't offer consistent opposition to the war after that, is defensible, if debatable in terms of relavence and nuance. Same with Obama's infamous 'Party of Ideas' comments. I am not even sure what the other 'distortions' are supposed.
However, tt seems like there's an effort by the Obama team to avoid addressing the charges by just crying 'unfair!' and creating an impression of unseemliness about an ex-President campaigning, which again, is debatable.
That's fine, it's politics, on both sides. But, eitherway, on February 5th I am voting for John Edwards.
--Josh Marshall
Blood Sport
TPM Reader RA disagrees (with AK)
Politics is blood sport, it is about the lesser of two evils, and it was ever thus. I am sure the Romans and the Greeks and the Sumerians had this exact same conversation. Bill and Hillary are not going to destroy the Democratic party. In fact I would argue Clinton is more suited than either Obama or Edwards to take on the Republican machine. She seems to be the only Democrat that understands the way to win an election is to make your opponent seem worse than you, at every opportunity, in every state, and in every way. It's not pretty and it's not right, but it is what it is. Social change in this world comes incrementally or not at all. One way for sure to make it come not at all is to bitch about the Democrats. They may not be much better than the Republicans, but they are better, and deserve our support and encouragement to lead on the issues we care about.
For what it's worth, my very impressionistic survey of the responses to AK's post says reader emails (of which we're getting a flood) are running roughly 60-40 or 65-35 in favor.
Late Update: A few readers wrote in asking if it could really be true that 60% of readers agreed with AK's email. When I say agree, I mean the general thrust of his comment, not with all of the somewhat hyperbolic remarks.
--Josh Marshall
Noted without Comment
TPM Reader AK ...
I've been more than a little saddened by the way that you've "gentlemanly" sat on your hands and (for the most part) reserved extensive comment on the venom Bill Clinton has been unleashing on his wife's behalf. If Hillary wins this nomination in this fashion, the Democratic party will be destroyed. After seeing this side of the Clinton machine, I have zero interest in supporting their dynasty. Not only will the entire R-side of the country be in full-throated opposition to 8 more years of Bill (at this point Hillary is sadly almost an afterthought), but my instinct is that you can count on a very deflated and divided Democratic party not exactly rallying around Team Clinton.It's crushing, but it's true. If she wins by letting Bill kill the future of the Democratic party, the Ds are done.
--Josh Marshall
Telecom Immunity Survives -- For Now
Senate voting now on the no-telecom-immunity, Judiciary Committee version of the FISA bill . . .
Late Update: Judiciary Committee version fails 60-36.*
Later Update: For the parliamentarians out there, technically the motion to table the Judiciary Committee version passed 60-36,* effectively killing the bill.
*CSPAN originally reported the vote as 60-34, but the official tally was 60-36.
--David Kurtz
Fred, Trendsetter?
There's no question Fred Thompson was an innovative in his narcoleptic presidential campaign. But there's one thing that I don't think I've seen much mention of and I've been asking around the office to see if anyone had ever seen anything like it.
Fred didn't hold a press conference or go on a show or even put out a youtube video announcing his departure from the race. He just sent out a half-dozen line press release. I'm out. Bye. Thanks. A few more words, but not many.
I think the TPM audience probably has in their collective heads every bit of political trivia available. So here's the question, can anyone remember a major presidential candidate not holding some sort of public event to announce he or she was out? Not a press conference, TV appearance, not anything?
Late Update: TPM Reader HW has a theory ...
He intended to drop out on Saturday night, and his staff even notified the networks he would, but then somehow he goofed in the process of giving his speech and didn't realize that he didn't withdraw. Having missed the moment, it was somehow less embarrassing to just withdraw as an afterthought without a word than to admit to anyone that he botched his withdrawal speech so bad that he didn't actually withdraw. Just a hypothesis.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: 2008 Campaign Roundup #10
Tuesday is the big showdown in Florida between John McCain and Mitt Romney. And only one of them is going to come out of the state (politically) alive. Join us as we feel the Mittmentum and preview Tuesday's primary and tonight's blow-out, last-chance-for-Rudy debate ...
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Josh Marshall
Feel It (the Mittmentum)
Yet another poll is showing Fred Thompson's departure vaulting Mitt Romney into the lead in Florida. The latest Mason-Dixon poll has Romney 30%, McCain 26%, Giuliani 18%, Huckabee 13% and Paul 3%.
The connection between Thompson's withdrawal and Romney's rise is an inference. But I think it's a pretty solid one.
--Josh Marshall
So Sad
It seems the House Dems are giving way for the passage of a stimulus bill which will be a big piece of crap.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
The first testimonial trainwreck of 2008 may be about to happen.
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson goes before the Senate environment committee at 10 ET--right about now--to explain why he denied California a waiver to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
This could be fun. Paul Kiel provides the background in Today's Must Read and will have ongoing coverage of the hearing at TPMmuckraker.
--David Kurtz
The Senate Curse
Fun factoid of the day:
Of the 100 sitting senators, 16 have run for president. Since John F. Kennedy won the presidency in 1960, becoming only the second person elected from the Senate to the White House, 47 senators have unsuccessfully sought residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The first number is what surprised me. Sixteen current senators have run for president? I had to enlist TPM's walking encyclopedia of politics, Eric Kleefeld, to help me independently compile the list of 16.
I put the list on a separate page for those who want to test their skills without a cheat sheet.
--David Kurtz
Not All Fun and Games
TPM Reader SM explains ...
Now, I've enjoyed watching the Giuliani campaign trainwreck go over the cliff and explode in a fiery mess of failure -- in slow-motion -- as much as the next guy. But I think you may be taking the Schadenfreude a little too far.Amidst all your mockery of Rudy's staggering ineptitude and one-note 9/11 concertos, you seem to have forgotten that the collapse of the Giuliani campaign will have real consequences for real people, who will no doubt suffer greatly once America's Mayor has slinked off the trail.
Who will Chris Matthews fantasize about punching out Ahmadinejad on the flight deck of the USS Charles Bronson?
What will Pat Robertson do while he waits for God to tell him which candidate he really wants to endorse?
Into whose ear will Norman Podhoretz whisper sweet songs about tactical nukes leveling terrorist huts outside Riyadh?
When you see the sad faces of men who've had their man-crushes crushed, their God-chosen candidate forsaken, and their hopes for never-ending war razed, you'll realize that even when mocking an incomparable twit like Rudy Giuliani, it is possible to go too far...
--Josh Marshall
Latest Florida Numbers
Thanks to one of our most eagle-eyed readers I've now got the full numbers for that new Florida poll put out by the Miami-Herald and a couple other Florida papers. Another poll out this afternoon from Public Policy Polling showed Romney vaulting ahead of McCain (28% to 25%) in the aftermath of Fred Thompson's withdrawal from the race.
This latest one has McCain 25%, Romney 23%, Giuliani 15%, Huckabee 15%, Undecided 13%, Fred Thompson 4%, Ron Paul 3%.
This poll, like the PPP poll, was taken after Fred's departure, though it's worth keeping in mind that he will still be on the ballot. So perhaps he'll draw some small number of votes.
What catches my eye here is that there is a very real chance that Rudy will come in fourth in Florida. On the positive side for Rudy, he's beating Undecided, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson, though Thompson's no longer being in the race and Undecided's not being a candidate puts them both at a serious disadvantage.
--Josh Marshall
Bye Rudy, Hello Mittmentum
New Miami Herald poll: McCain 25%, Romney 23%, Giuliani 15%.
Before you write in and ask me about Huckabee and Paul, I couldn't actually find the complete poll statistics. But these numbers were in this article about the collapse of Rudy's campaign.
But there are some great quotes. This one's from the pollster: "Giuliani for all intents and purposes has virtually no chance to win in Florida."
Then there's Rudy's campaign motto: "Tested. Ready. Now."
I confess I've mainly confined my ridicule of Rudy to the foreign policy and shag fund fronts as well as on Rudy's megalomania. So I'd never really taken a moment to focus on this motto. But as Ann Friedman points out at Feministing.com, in an age of STDs and coming from a playah like Rudy, it sounds less like a campaign slogan than a free-form haiku Rudy might extemporize when trying to get one of his latest conquests into the sack.
--Josh Marshall
Hillary Hater Not Alone?
Judging from the emails we've been getting today from readers in South Carolina, those anti-Hillary phone calls we reported on yesterday are widespread down there.
At first the calls appeared to be the work of a lone Hillary hater named Robert Morrow, who drags up all the worst of the old right-wing smears of the Clintons. How many calls can one guy make, right? But he wouldn't tell us how much the calls had cost or who had done them for him and unless he has somehow figured out how to target TPM readers (there is no such list, believe me), this guy isn't working alone.
--David Kurtz
Calling the White House's Bluff
Last September we flagged the White House nomination of E. Duncan Getchell, Jr., to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. He was opposed by both of his home state senators, Democrat Jim Webb and Republican John Warner, of Virginia, who were incensed that he was nominated over their objections.
Today, the White House withdrew his nomination.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) issued a statement lamenting the wasted time: "The nomination of Duncan Getchell seemed to be an effort to pick a political fight rather than a nominee the Senate could confirm to fill a vacancy on the 4th Circuit. Now more time has been wasted and we are into the President’s last year in office."
So the next time White House publicly disparages Democrats for stalling his nominations, remember the games it played with the Getchell nomination in the face of bipartisan opposition.
--David Kurtz
It's Been a While
With the campaign season heating up and the President traveling abroad, we've not had our daily dose of Dana Perino. Today she pushes back on the new FISA bill, the housing market collapse and those pesky 935 lies:
--David Kurtz
Whatever Happened with Phase II?
Froomkin reports:
So what, you may well ask, ever happened to the Senate Intelligence Committee's promised inquiry into whether the White House intentionally deceived the public in the run-up to war? That, presumably, would provide an accountability moment of sorts.You may recall that more than two years ago, in November 2005, Democrats were so upset about Republican foot-dragging on the inquiry that they brought the Senate to a halt with a rare closed session to demand that work resume.
The Republicans, not surprisingly, continued to stall anyway. But the Democrats have controlled the Senate for more than a year now. Where is the report?
Wendy Morigi, spokeswoman for Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, told me this morning that it will be out before the end of spring.
Why the delay? Due to the "lack of comity on the committee" when Rockefeller took over the chairmanship, he decided that pushing ahead with the inquiry right away "would again create tension," Morigi said.
Nevertheless, the committee staff has "continued to work" on the report, she said. And a hearing on the matter will be held "within the next few months."
--David Kurtz
Capitulation
The handwriting has been on the wall for some time, but it now seems certain that Senate Democrats will pass a new FISA bill that contains retroactive immunity for telecoms, shielding them from lawsuits over their cooperation with the Bush Administration in its far-reaching warrantless wiretapping program.
Meanwhile, House Democrats have decided to postpone any vote on holding Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers in contempt for their refusal to testify to Congress about the White House role in the U.S. attorney purge.
Late Update: Sen. Chris Dodd has just reiterated his intention to filibuster telecom immunity, so maybe all is not lost.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: McCain vs. RightWing Media Elites
Limbaugh's against McCain; DeLay's against McCain. Indeed, they both say they'd rather sit out the campaign than see McCain be president. And you can hear similar claims that McCain is "unacceptable" to conservatives from various big time talk radio yakkers and political muckity mucks. But is it true? Is John McCain anathema to the GOP base. In today's episode of TPMtv we look at some polls that say it may not be ...
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Josh Marshall
Gettin' Sad
Okay, we've got another Rudy ad out and it's reaching the point of true pathos as Rudy tries to extend his 9/11 brand to anything else that is actually relevant to voters' lives. In his latest attempt, which you can see below, Rudy explains how among the Republican candidate only he's brave enough and tough enough to come out for a national catastrophe fund ...
"Some say that we don't need a national catastrophe fund, that FEMA can handle disasters. Others say they haven't looked at it yet, and want to sit down with the insurance companies first ..."
And to put it over the top Rudy does this one with a slightly funkified 70s porn soundtrack (not that there's anything wrong with that).
--Josh Marshall
You Call That a "Testy Exchange"?
Late yesterday, ABC News posted a story online about a supposedly "testy exchange" that Barack Obama had with a New York Times reporter on a ropeline in South Carolina. The story made it sound like Obama had lost it. It fit right in with the meme-of-the-moment being pushed by the Clinton campaign: Obama is frustrated.
But if you take a look at the video of the exchange, it's hard to see what possibly possessed the ABC reporter to characterize it as an angry confrontation between candidate and reporter. Take a look. I don't see it.
We got sucked in, too, linking over to the ABC piece at Election Central and, briefly, featuring it here on our front page earlier this morning. Until we saw the video.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
Lies, lies, and more lies.
The Bush Administration's 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq are finally cataloged.
--David Kurtz
Not for Debate
I was a little surprised when one of the questioners at last night's Democratic debate -- I think Joe Johns, but I'm not certain -- referenced the new and long-awaited Iraqi 'de-Baathification' law as an undisputed sign of political progress. Because from what I can tell it's been more or less an open secret that the law is a disappointment and even a sham. The people to be reconciled, the Sunnis, were against it; the Shi'a, the folks forced to do the reconciling, voted for it. And the most likely result of the new law seems to be a new and more thorough purge of ex-Baathists rather than their reintegration into the state and military bureaucracy.
So this new article in the Post did not come as a great surprise ...
Maj. Gen. Hussein al-Awadi, a former official in Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, became the commander of the Iraqi National Police despite a 2003 law barring the party from government.But now, under new legislation promoted as way to return former Baathists to public life, the 56-year-old and thousands like him could be forced out of jobs they have been allowed to hold, according to Iraqi lawmakers and the government agency that oversees ex-Baathists.
"This new law is very confusing," Awadi said. "I don't really know what it means for me."
He is not alone. More than a dozen Iraqi lawmakers, U.S. officials and former Baathists here and in exile expressed concern in interviews that the law could set off a new purge of ex-Baathists, the opposite of U.S. hopes for the legislation.
--Josh Marshall
Down, Down, Down
Any guesses?
The Dow? The value of the Dollar against the Euro?
Nope, the last four months of the Rudy Giuliani presidential nomination contract at the Intrade predictions market website.
Spent most of a year around 35% chance of securing the nomination, climbed up over 45% before a catastrophic Shagborne panic set in.
--Josh Marshall
It's Not for Lack of Spending
Rudy's harrowing plunge in Florida polls comes even as he's pouring $350K a day into TV ads there.
--David Kurtz
Ask Not What TPM Can Do For You ...
I have a favor to ask. It doesn't take any of your money. And it only takes a few seconds to do.
A lot of you watch not only our daily TPMtv episodes but also the video clips we publish. And often I get asked why we don't collect them all together so you won't miss any of them. Well, we're working on that -- a topic I'll be returning to. But it actually helps us a lot if you go to Youtube and subscribe to our videos.
We actually have crew of political junkies monitoring our bank of TVs at TPM World Headquarters to hunt up these little video nuggets. And of course we also rely on readers to spot stuff that we then go back and track down.
But the long and the short of it is that the more subscribers we get the more able we are to do this. So if you have an account at Youtube, I'd really appreciate if you could take a moment to stop by our Youtube page and subscribe. It's a link right down there on right above the archive of past videos.
Many thanks. I appreciate it.
--Josh Marshall
Live by the Shamble, Die by the Shamble
As you can see, Fred Thompson is now officially out of the GOP primary race. You can read his statement here. I thought it was worth pointing out though how hilariously Fred has managed to have his departure be as lackadaisical and delayed as was his entrance into the race.
As you can remember, Thompson fiddled and waited and yawned and dawdled, eventually going through something like two or three campaign managers before even getting in the race. And here it's been pretty obvious that the guy's been toast for weeks. He basically gave his withdrawal speech three days ago on primary night. Earlier today he put out word that he wasn't showing up for the next debate. And now as sort of an afterthought he mentions that he's dropping out of the campaign.
I say two weeks before he picks up the phone and lets his campaign workers know there's no need to come by the office any more.
--Josh Marshall
Another Bush Legacy: The Economy
Talk of global recession. Stock market plummeting. Emergency interest rate cuts. Housing market collapse.
What in the world is happening out there?
TPM's economists-in-residence, Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker, explain.
--David Kurtz
New poll suggests that American people don't really crave a third party run.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: War of Attrition?
In today's episode we look at highlights (or lowlights) of yesterday's Democratic debate and who looks set to take the lion's share of delegates on February 5th ...
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Josh Marshall
What We Do
What we do at TPM has changed a fair amount since we went from being a one-man operation to a small newsroom. But one of the things we hear from readers -- not from very many readers but with some consistency over time is that TPM focuses too much on the 'horse-race' and not enough on the policy positions of the candidates. So I hope this won't sound defensive but I'd like to explain my thinking on this issue because it's actually one I've had pretty strong feelings about since well before I started TPM.
To put it simply, it doesn't surprise me that people think we're dedicating a lot of time to the campaign horse race because that's what we're trying to do. Now there are certainly lame and not so lame ways to cover it. You can get more or less distracted by the irrelevancies kicked up by the debate, you can ignore whether what one side's saying is true or untrue and treat it like a he said/she said rather than digging down to provide some refereeing of the bamboozlement. And though I like to think we do pretty good on that score certainly we have and will fall short at times.
But my basic take on this is that at this point in the campaign the vast majority of our readers knows the basic policy differences between the candidates. Most of you are people who are into politics and are looking for really good coverage of the campaign. And that's what we're trying to provide. And the campaign is a race between one or more candidates. So, speaking for myself, I'm into polls. I want to know what the different campaigns strategies are, what issues voters are interested in and responding to, who's putting together good field organizations on the ground, etc. And I think readers are too.
Now, as you know from my blogging on Social Security, fiscal policy and lots about foreign policy, I'm very into the policy debates. But I think I can do both, be interested in both, walk and chew gum at the same time.
But I've always thought (and this is what I meant when I said that this is something that I've thought a lot about since well before I started TPM) that there's something a little 'eat your spinich-ish' about folks who cry out, in the thick of a campaign, how everyone's focusing on the 'horserace' rather than 'the issues'. I associate it a lot with the work of Thomas Patterson, a fellow up at the Shorenstein Center at the Kennedy School and others of a similar bent. And in that vein of thinking there's an always implicit and often explicit belief that investment and interest in politics itself is somehow discreditable or that there was a pristine before-the-flood time in our history where politics was a matter of disinterested mandarins dishing out and serving up issues to an attentive citizenry -- much as lawyers do to juries. But I don't think that's true. And I'm glad it's not. I think it's no surprise that the eat-your-spinach crowd has hugely invested in the idea that our more engaged politics of recent years has, is and will turn voters off from politics when in fact every measure -- voting, media viewership, small donor giving, etc. -- all show
that precisely the opposite is the case.
If you'll forgive me, as I wrote about exactly a decade ago in the American Prospect ...
It's true that one can scarcely imagine a Walter Lippmann or a Joseph Alsop duking it out on Crossfire, or rating the State of the Union address on the McLaughlin Group's notorious scale of one to ten. But that's not the point. Popular politics has always been like a waterfall, graspable only in motion, always in descent, and yet never quite falling. Politics is not simply a matter of issues -- at least not as we generally understand the term today. In a democratic society, politics is not just a means to governance but a form of public spectacle and drama. It is filled with rooting for your side; the joys of partisanship; the camaraderie of shared beliefs; the reveling in political talk; the pleasure of invective.To say that politics in a democratic society involves pomp and spectacle is not a concession. Nineteenth-century American politics, from Jefferson and Jackson to Bryan, was filled with the most scurrilous political attacks, vicious cartoons, a blatantly partisan press, torch-lit parades, and overt appeals to emotionalism of every kind. There is no such thing as an engaged politics that does not to some degree derive its vitality from antagonism. That's a reality high-minded liberals seem somehow to have forgotten. And it's one they ignore at their peril.
What we try to do, though certainly we fall short sometimes, is dig deeper, to find the stories that other outlets are ignoring or come at them in a different way. But the critique of interest in politics in itself -- that it is corrupting, unseemly or a tendency journalists are supposed to correct in readers -- is not one I buy into.
--Josh Marshall
New Hillary campaign video goes after Obama on single payer issue from last night's debate.
--David Kurtz
I Fought the Law and ...
The probation officer is asking the judge in the Brent Wilkes case to give Brent 60 years in prison for his central role in the Duke Cunningham scandal.
As Paul Kiel says, this isn't the prosecutor, who is part of the adversary proceeding and often asks for a maximal sentence. It's the probation officer, whose recommendation to the judge is supposed to reflect the sentencing guidelines and extenuating circumstances and whose lead the judge usually follows.
--Josh Marshall
L'Morte d'Rudy
This is fairly obvious from looking at the polls. And I suspect more detailed questioning would prove it. But it's worth noting a key factor in the GOP primary race that has not often been stated explicitly: that is, that the two big events of the season -- the collapse of Rudy and the resurgence of McCain -- seem to be directly related. McCain's gains seem to be more or less directly in proportion to Rudy's collapse.
Nor is it that surprising when you consider that they are the two candidates running most clearly on national security (though with different emphases) and with the greatest apparent heterodoxy on the GOP social values catechism.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Take a stroll down memory lane to Rudy's time as mayor, when loyalty was the watchword and pretty much the only thing that mattered.
--David Kurtz
Another Take
Another Reader Responds to TPM Reader CN ...
I think it's a mistake to choose the meanest junkyard dog in this fight - the response of a party traumatized by its losses. George W. Bush didn't beat Al Gore by slamming him in the debates, or by flinging opposition research in his teeth. He didn't defeat John Kerry by relentlessly attacking him when they met on stage. Instead, he struck a pose of good-natured calm. It allowed him to seem a reasonable and ordinary fellow, and made Gore and Kerry look pedantic, arch, and overwrought. Most pundits felt that Gore and Kerry won their debates on the merits, but it was indisputable that they failed to connect with the electorate on a gut level. And that cost them. We need a candidate who runs a campaign that's capable of giving as good as it gets, or of hitting back harder. But we also need a candidate who's capable of appealing to voters, of inspiring their trust and confidence, and of connecting with independents and moderate Republicans. That was the Bush formula - a likeable candidate who mouthed centrist mantras, and an unbelievably nasty, no-holds-barred campaign operation. It's an open question whether Obama's campaign can get down in the slime with the Clintons, and win. But Hillary's evident glee in throwing elbows is a big part of what drives her negatives. Obama's performance in the debates thus far, defending himself without seeming nasty or spiteful, is precisely what he'll need to win in November. Remember, debates aren't for pundits, they're for undecided voters. And time and again, those voters are repelled by strong attacks, however accurate, and drawn to the candidate who seems to rise above them.
--Josh Marshall
Knives at a Gunfight
TPM Reader CN checks in ...
I submit that your mixed feelings about Hillary are the result of two different desires: to nominate the best Democrat, and to nominate the best candidate. I suffer from the same problem -- the idealist in me is disquieted by Hillary's attacks and backhanded smears on Obama, while the pragmatist in me sees her ability to throw elbows as a plus. The general election will be a bitch-slapping muckfest no matter who gets the nomination. I've been a longtime Obama guy, mainly out of the belief that he has the best chance in the general, but Hillary is starting to seem pretty good. Every time she (or Bill, or another of her surrogates) gets in a shot at Obama, part of me is disgusted . . . but another part of me counts it as a point in her favor.Hillary is who she is; she can't change her spots just for the primary race. A lot of people who now condemn her for being a cunning operator will despair when Obama, if he wins the nomination, responds to bitch slaps from the right with "hope and unity" language. But you can't have it both ways. I'm reminded of people who hate lawyers because they're too contentious and sleazy and aggressive -- but when they get sued, they insist on getting the meanest bull dog of a lawyer they can find.
--Josh Marshall
Concluding Thoughts
It's hard for me to think of much good from this debate. If you view debates like a boxing match, I guess it was lively and perhaps entertaining, in the sense that a good boxing match can be, though the fighting was more intense than well executed. But that's only if you have no investment in the outcome. If you're watching this with a mind to wanting one of these three to be president in 2009, as I do, it wasn't a great thing to watch.
One observation stands out to me from this debate. Hillary can be relentless and like a sledgehammer delivering tendentious but probably effective attacks. But whatever you think of those attacks, Obama isn't very good at defending himself. And that's hard for me to ignore when thinking of him as a general election candidate.
In most of these cases -- such as the Reagan issue -- I think Obama's remarks have been unobjectionable but ambiguous and certainly susceptible to both misunderstanding and intentional misrepresentation. And if you're going to talk like that -- nuance, as we used to say -- be able to defend it when people play with your words. And I don't see it.
Let's hope Mitt wins Florida.
--Josh Marshall
Debate Bloggin': Calm Sit-Down Edition
Alas, I think we know from recent debates that debates tend to be a lot calmer when the candidates are sitting, especially if they're sitting close together.
9:38 PM ... Sigh
10:02 PM ... I think Blitzer has made a fitting end to this debate by posing a ridiculously obnoxious question: Why would Dr. King endorse you if he were alive today.
--Josh Marshall
Debate Bloggin'
8:23 Economy, economy, e-c-o-n-o-m-y ...
8:24 "You gave a great speech..."
8:29 PM ... Man, this can degenerate pretty quickly, can't it? Each side got in a couple really low blows there. I still think Hillary is just intentionally misrepresenting what Obama said about Reagan. It makes me cringe. As much I like her, it makes me cringe.
8:41 PM ... The one thing I'll say on Hillary's behalf is that she's right. There's nothing that's happening to Obama now that won't come at him at three or four times the ferocity if he's nominated.
8:43 PM ... Just when I'm seeing Hillary's side of things, she comes back with crap like this 'present' stuff. Anybody who's looked into this knows the whole 'present' thing is garbage. It's a standard thing in the Illinois legislature. Here's the NYTimes fairly critical article on the 'present' issue, which nonetheless gets at the nub of the issue that in almost every case this is a standard part of legislative procedure in Illinois.
8:54 PM ... This health insurance for illegals is sort of a weird question since the emphasis that Blitzer puts on the question makes it sound like he's asking the candidates to justify the non-inclusion of illegals -- which somehow I don't think they're worried about justifying.
8:57 PM ... In these extemporaneous policy discussions I always find myself wishing Obama could be more clear and concise. But my wishes don't seem to come true.
8:58 PM ... Edwards comparison of 'choice' in health care to 'choice' is Social Security is a pretty good analogy.
9:00 PM ... I find myself refinding my positive feelings for Hillary, my gut level support, when she talks about herself as a fighter, about her never giving up, being there today and tomorrow. And then she launches into these attacks and she starts to lose me.
9:03 PM ... Did no one mention to Joe Johns that that de-baathification law seems to have been a complete sham which will allow for more purging of Sunnis. Guess he didn't get the note.
9:05 PM ... TPM Reader MF writes in: "I understand that the New York Times has basically outlined why Obama voted "Present" while in the Illinois legislature. However, and I think a lot of beltway or New York people miss this, not everyone reads the New York Times. It is Obama's responsibility to explain the "Present" votes to the electorate and not to simply rely on a New York Times article. He was given an ample chance to explain the votes and in my view he failed." On this point, I've got to agree with MF. No fun going into a general election with a candidate who can't concisely explain why bogus charges are bogus. No fun blogging and blogging and blogging trying to debamboozle on their behalf.
9:07 PM ... A somewhat contrary view from TPM Reader SM: "To the extent that her "humanizing" moment of emotion helped her win NH, I'm wondering whether Sen. Clinton's jarring, attacking, and frankly groundless personal attacks against Sen. Obama will re-instigate the pre-NH narrative about her, namely that she is cold, calculating, triangulating, and when threatened, resorts to the politics of personal destruction. If she thinks this kind of performance is going to play well in the general election, she is wildly mistaken. This kind of performance will alienate independents, not motivate them."
In case you missed that big Clinton-Obama flare-up near the beginning of the debate, relive the brutal moments ...
--Josh Marshall
Whither Fred Thompson?
After his farewell speech sans farewell Saturday night in South Carolina, Fred was nowhere to be seen today. He was apparently visiting his mother, who is in a hospital in Nashville, but one report says he "has announced no campaign plans for Florida."
Meanwhile, a Georgia organizer for Thompson defected to the Romney camp today, saying: “I don’t know if he’s pulling out today or tomorrow or not at all. But clearly Fred Thompson is not going to be the nominee.” Ouch.
Rumors are that a formal announcement of his departure from the race could come as early as tomorrow.
--David Kurtz
Praying for Mittmentum
Another Robopoll out on Florida. This one from SurveyUSA ...
McCain 25%
Giuliani 20%
Romney 19%
Huckabee 14%
Thompson 7%
Paul 7%
Earlier today Rasmussen put out a poll with Romney 25%, McCain 20% and Rudy 19%.
--Josh Marshall
The Real Race Story
The preceding week had involved some trivial but intense parsing of an exchange between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama about Dr. Martin Luther King. But just let the real thing occur, with a full-blooded and full-throated bellow of old-fashioned authentic racism, and you can see the entire press refusing to cover it for fear of having to confront the real and unvarnished thing (and perhaps for reasons having to do with other "sensitivities" as well).
He's speaking, of course, of Mike Huckabee's defense of the Confederate flag in South Carolina. What he doesn't mention, but probably should have, are the pro-Huckabee TV ads that the group Americans for the Preservation of American Culture was running in South Carolina.
As far as I can tell, Huckabee hasn't done anything to distance himself from APAC or its ads, which may be difficult since the ads simply tout Huckabee's undisputed public position on the issue.
--David Kurtz
Losing My Edge
I have to confess -- and I'm actually being serious -- there was a twinge of a moment over the weekend where I found myself feeling sorry for Rudy Giuliani. But I quickly shook it off when I considered his months of strutting like a peacock and his ten point Armageddon agenda.
In any case, it's getting harder and harder for news anchors to keep a straight face when they confront Rudy with the fact that he's now 1 for 6 against Ron Paul. But here's a couple recent examples of Rudy trying to put a brave (and in one instance, Raccoon-like) face on it.
--Josh Marshall
Indicted!
The Heritage Foundation's 'blog' indicts the "moral bankruptcy of Talking Points Memo." It seems to be a rearguard action expressing some hurt feelings about the right-wing failure to substantiate any of their bogus election fraud charges, which they have used to suppress voter turnout by minority and low-income voters as well as provide fodder for Voter-ID laws and sundry other voter suppression tactics.
(ed.note: The direct link to the post seems to keep coming down. So here's the link to the blog itself, which still seems to be working. It's bad enough these jokers can't hack it out in the market economy. At least they could use all the foundation money to power up some reliable servers. Sheesh.)
Late Update: I am offended that Heritage is slyly using their server reliability as a metaphor for modern conservative governance. Earlier I linked to the main blog to try to give people a working link. But now it seems that your visits have brought down the entire blog section of the Heritage website. Then momentarily the direct link worked. But then it went down again too. If someone from Heritage would be willing to walk a paper copy to TPM headquarters we would be happy to scan it and post it directly on our site.
--Josh Marshall
Todd Gitlin bemoans the political press: "[N]o pundit, no vicar of vicariousness, no phony insider, ever suffers for fatuousness or bad prophecy …"
--David Kurtz
What the Grown-Ups Say
Seriously, why should John Edwards drop out of the race? I think his chances of winning the nomination at this point are quite slim. And I could understand if he wanted to drop out. But is there some reason he should? Is he under some obligation?
It's not clear to me which candidate his withdrawal would help most at this point. And depending on what your judgment of that question is, I can see supporters of Hillary or Obama wanting him to get out. That makes sense to me.
But I don't see any reason that Edwards is under any obligation to get out of the race as long as his supporters are willing to fund his campaign.
And in the case of Edwards specifically, I would say two things. First, as others have noted, his campaign has had an effect on this race out of proportion to his poll support in as much as he's forced the two other leading candidates to grapple with issues they would not have otherwise. And in this race specifically, there is at least a chance we could come into the convention with neither candidate having a majority of the delegates, in which case he might play the kingmaker. Not likely, but not impossible.
Just to be clear, I don't have any brief for Edwards campaign. I think it's clear his support is falling off now as the race becomes more and more a Clinton/Obama race. The result in Nevada must have been a sobering wake-up call. But I don't see where insider know-it-alls get off saying he's under some sort of obligation to 'do the right thing' and pack it in.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Helping or Hurting?
Bill was the big topic on the Sunday shows this weekend. I shared my own views yesterday evening. I must confess that when the Sunday yakkers say X I pretty much always think it must really be Y. But here I think I have to continue saying X in spite of the fact that the yakkers are saying it too.
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Josh Marshall
MLK Day
A couple of TPMCafe posts worth your attention:
Marshall Ganz, on King as a model for "Understanding Leadership and Organizing for Change."
Steve Clemons, on getting "Beyond King."
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
Freedom's Watch, the billionaire-funded "grass-roots" effort, looks to change the landscape of the '08 elections with a paltry $250 million.
--David Kurtz
The Problem with Bill
Yesterday I wrote that I was troubled by the intensity of Bill Clinton's attacks on Barack Obama. A number of readers thought I meant that I didn't like seeing bare-knuckle politics. But that's not it. What troubles me is seeing the man who is in many respects still the de facto leader of the Democratic party, certainly its elder statesman, inject himself as an attack dog into a intra-party contest. I think it's damaging to him and more importantly I think it's damaging to his party.
Yes, the bind is inseparable from the novelty of having the spouse of a former president run for president. But that doesn't make it less of a problem.
With a day to think about it though I think he's actually hurting her more than he or perhaps she realizes. Narrowly speaking, in the zero sum context of her battle with Obama, he's probably helping her. You can't deny that Hillary is back in a strong position. But here's the thing. In the week or so leading up to the Nevada caucus I feel like I heard more from and about Bill Clinton than I did about Hillary Clinton. Is that the media's doing rather than the campaign's? Maybe. But I don't find the argument convincing and I'm not sure it would matter if it were true. What seems difficult to deny is that his rising profile is threatening her position as the dominant force in her own campaign.
--Josh Marshall
Just Across the Sound
The Hartford Courant has a new poll out of Connecticut voters. And John McCain is, well, crushing Rudy Giuliani -- 39% to 16%. Hillary's solidly over Obama, but not by as big a margin -- 41% to 27%.
Special thanks to TPM Reader CM for the tip.
--Josh Marshall
My Man Mitt
A number of commentators are arguing that Mitt's victory in Nevada yesterday can be discounted because of the heavy turnout of coreligionist Mormons who voted almost unanimously for Romney. But as our numbers maven Eric Kleefeld pointed out to me last night, even if you exclude all the Mormons who caucused in Nevada, Romney still would have had more than twice the support of the candidate who came in second, Ron Paul.
--Josh Marshall
Sound and Fury
Eilperin and Weisman in the Post on how various prestige right-wing yahoos tried but failed to derail McCain in South Carolina.
But remember, they have several more chances.
--Josh Marshall
