Four Months of Accusation Ping Pong?

There’s a bit more than four months to go before voters elect their next president. Between now and then we have the two conventions needed to make official what’s already certain: the nominees. We’ll have the pseudo-excitement generated by the selection of their running mates. And, it appears, we’ll have endless days of accusation ping pong.

It’s already started. Not a day goes by without headlines “Obama criticizes McCain for this” or “McCain raps Obama for that.” This and that changes daily. So far we’ve had attacks on off shore oil drilling, taxes, flood insurance, negotiating with bad foreign leaders and so on and so forth.

To listen to the candidates and their spokespeople, the other guy wakes up each morning trying to think of something boneheaded to weaken America’s security, enrich the rich and degrade the environment.

When they get bored with this kind of rhetoric, the candidates revert to the “next term” of the failed presidency routine. Senator John McCain is apparently seeking to create the third term of the current President George Bush administration and Senator Barack Obama can’t wait to get started on President Jimmy Carter’s second term.

The only people who could possibly be enjoying this are the talking heads on 24 hour news stations who need something to fill up the time between commercials for arthritis medications, get rich quick schemes and high definition sunglasses. For the rest of us, the tone of the campaign is a huge disappointment.

Senators McCain and Obama both have a great deal to offer America. Senator McCain is a devout conservative. Yes, he’s fostered a reputation as a maverick, but he diverts from the traditional GOP position on only a handful of issues, most notably immigration.

Senator Obamais an equally devout liberal. He’s not an ideologue who will scuttle good legislation in order to keep it pure. But there’s no denying he’s a pragmatic liberal. Like Senator McCain, he’s willing — sometimes eager — to reach across party lines to fashion a compromise.

Both a intelligent. Both care deeply about this country. And both have fashioned personas that attempt to rise above politics as usual. Which makes their daily attack press releases so disappointing. Nothing is more usual in politics than denigrating the other guy. Nothing would be more refreshing than two campaigns who explain why we should vote for their guy and spends less time, money and resources shouting at us to oppose the other guy.

If any campaign in recent history has the chance to focus on principals and policies it’s this one. The two candidates have different visions for the country, different agendas and different priorities. Instead of rapping the other guy, perhaps they could promote their own qualifications? At least for a little while?

Perhaps they could call a truce. For two weeks of every month the candidates and their surrogates should agree to hold back on criticizing the other guy and simply state their own case. They’d still have two weeks a month to attack and belittle one another. But for 14 straight days, the campaign could be as civil as voters deserve it to be.

A VP for Change

Senator Hillary Clinton and former-Senator John Edwards are both under consideration by Senator Barack Obama’s as a running mate.Senator Obama himself has said, on numerous occasions, that Senator Clinton would “be on anyone’s short list.” And the Associated Press, among others, reported that Senator Edwards is in the running. Both would be poor choices.

In fact, Senator Obama should rule out anyone who has been on a national ticket of late. Yes, that would include former Vice President Al Gore, but that’s the price to be paid when “change” is the core principal of your campaign. (OK, I’d make an exception for Vice President Gore, but c’mon, what are the odds he’d take it? That would make him the Crash Davis of politics.*)

Senator Clinton stands for many things. Some good (those 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling) and some not so good (much of her campaign from March through May). She’s a return to the 90’s, not a choice for the 21st century.

Senator Edwards has been around the track too many times as well. He’s lost twice for the presidential nomination and once as the running mate to Senator John Kerry. But there’s a bigger problem with Senator Edwards: his approach to politics is incompatible with Senator Obama’s. Yes, both are genuinely committed to lifting up the nation’s poor and to helping the middle class achieve greater security. But while Senator Obama’s approach is open, inclusive, and civil, that of Senator Edward’s is harsh, exclusive and borders on demagoguery. Senator Obama talks of “disagreeing without being disagreeable.” Senator Edwards demonizes his opponents. 

Senator Obama needs a running matethat demonstrates to independents and moderate Republicans that he’s serious about a more civil, results oriented political culture. That means steering clear of running mates that divide the country into “us” and “them.” It means finding someone with a proven ability to rise above partisanship in order to deliver meaningful change.

I’ve already written about how well Senator Evan Bayh meets this requirement. I haven’t looked into her background deeply, but from what I have read, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano might fill the bill, too.

Senator Obama’s greatest strength is the promise of change. Looking backward on the single most important decision a presidential nominee makes undermines the premise of his campaign. Yes, conventional wisdom and the talking heads urge him to go with Senators Clinton and Edwards. But if he listened to them, he’d never have run in the first place, let alone won the nomination.

* For the trivia fans amongst you: Crash Davis was the character played by Kevin Costner in Bull Durham who became the home run king of minor league baseball in virtual anonymity.

Of Course Hilary Clinton Is Staying in the Race

Senator Hilary Clinton made it clear she’s in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination until the end … which is all of three more weeks. What a non-shocking bit of news. Of course she is. If she can raise the money (and at one point her victory speech in West Virginia tonight was beginning to sound like a telethon — I half expected Jerry Lewis to come on stage).

The fact that she won’t win the nomination is not the issue. She makes history every day she remains in the race. Every primary she enters is further in the nominating process than any woman has gone before. Add to that her pride in being a person who never quits and there’s no way she can withdraw. Unless she has to.

And the only reason she would have to is if she runs out of money. Some talking head said her campaign costs about $1 million a day. Another said the campaign owes staff, vendors and lenders about $20 million (Senator Clinton has lent the campaign roughly $10 million so far). I’m sure she can cut her expenses some, but still, that’s a lot of cash.

Fortunately, she’ll get some from her supporters. They’re ardent and the Alamo mentality is kicking in. They’ll want to fight to the end so expect a few million to show up in her coffers this week. Plus, she can lend her campaign a few more wheelbarrows of cash. Senator Barack Obama, once he’s the nominee, will help her retire her debt. And, worse comes to worse, she can write another book or husband Bill can give a few more speeches in Japan or the Middle East.

What will be interesting to watch over the next three weeks is how Senator Clinton behaves and what she says. Ideally she’ll focus her attacks on the presumptive GOP nominee, Senator John McCain. She’ll of course emphasize her own strengths, but she should refrain from giving Republicans any more ammunition than she already has.

And then there’s Michigan and Florida. Senator Clinton wants to forgive those states for breaking the Democratic National Committee’s rules. She wants their delegates seated as the vote stands. This is, of course, ridiculous. Why would the DNC forgive state parties that willfully and knowingly break the rules? What message does that give to the other states? What would happen in 2012 or 2016 if the Democratic Party says “never mind” in 2008?

Besides, holding out for all their delegates makes Senator Clinton look silly — or worse. She acquiesced to the party decision before the vote. It’s insulting to voters to think that she now finds the situation a violation of civil rights. Politicians tend to be self-serving, but Senator Clinton is in danger of taking the concept to new heights. Her credibility is at stake. She needs to spend the days leading up to the DNC rules committee meeting on Michigan and Florida focusing on her legacy, not reminding people that her principles are so fluid.

Senator Clinton has moved beyond being a candidate. She’s a cause now, both in her own mind and those of her strongest supporters. You don’t end a cause three weeks before the end. Hopefully, you don’t do damage to your legacy with just three weeks to go either.

Clinton’s Earned the Right to Continue

It’s not easy running for office, especially for president. It’s not just the hours that are grueling and the food that is, well, grueling.  It’s not just the ceaseless travel, time away from family and having to give to the same speech over and over and over and over again. It’s also putting yourself totally on the line. It’s voluntarily making yourself a fair target for late night television jokes, for water cooler gossip, for talking head nonsense, for your opponents’ attack teams and for bloggers everywhere.

If you’re running just for ambition or ego it’s not worth it. If, however, there’s more to your campaign than self-aggrandizement, if you care about issues and politics and public policy, then it’s a price wroth paying.

I believe Senator Hillary Clinton does mix public concern with personal ambition. I’ve never been a fan of hers. Her health care reform efforts in the early 90’s were the epitome  of the elitism she now attacks: only she and her team had the answer – opinions from others were treated as attacks, not helpful advice. It was an attitude that marked her tenure as First Lady.

That arrogance, now coupled with a sense of entitlement, marked her presidential campaign from the start. The combination was more than off-putting, it was insulting. The tactics she turned to when the going got tough were demeaning, ham fisted and boneheaded. I got my start in politics over 35 years ago working for women candidates when they were few and far between. I’d like to see a woman as president in my life time. I just never wanted to see Senator Clinton as president.

Yet I also recognize that her current health care reform proposal, while seriously flawed, is better fashioned than Senator Barack Obama’s. And I do believe buried beneath the calculation and spin that marks her campaign, there’s a sincere commitment to improving the wellbeing of average Americans. It’s this sincerity and passion for public service that makes her campaign meaningful and, for her, worth the cost.

You know she’s lost the nomination. I know she’s lost the nomination. Even while praying for an unexpected, earthshaking revelation about Senator Obama, she knows it, too. Still, if she wants to play on through to the last primary she should. She’s earned that right. She’s paid the price of admission – in time, pain, money, occasional humiliations and frequently indigestible food. Those calling for her to withdraw should quiet down for at least a few weeks.

Dreams die hard. Senator Clinton dreamed long and fervently of the Democratic nomination in 2008. Less than five months ago it seemed achieving that dream was a certainty. Now it’s certain not to be. If Senator Clinton needs time to come to grips with that, let’s give her the time.

Obama-Bayh in 2008?

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh was highly touted as a potential running mate for Senator Hillary Clinton. But after last night’s primaries, it’s increasingly unlikely that position will be available. To anyone. However, by helping Senator Clinton win Indiana’s Democratic primary, Senator Bayh has created a new opportunity: running for Vice President on an Obama-Bayh ticket.

Senator Bayh was a two term governor of Indiana who lowered taxes, balanced budgets, demonstrated a commitment to improving education and creative approaches to welfare. As a Senator he sits on the Armed Services committee (along with Senators Barack Obama, John McCain and Hillary Clinton), the Intelligence Committee and Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

Most significantly, he’s a proven vote getter in a red state who appeals to the working class voters Senator Obama has been losing to Senator Clinton. His selection as a running mate by Senator Obama would be a clear signal to these voters that they would neither be ignored nor forgotten in an Obama administration.

As an added bonus, turning to Senator Bayh to complete the Democratic ticket would be a magnanimous and potent gesture to the Clinton campaign. Senator Bayh was an early endorser of Senator Clinton. They are long time friends and close allies. He campaigned tirelessly on her behalf in Indiana. An Obama-Bayh ticket would not be as unifying as an Obama-Clinton teaming, but it would still go far in binding the party together again after the long and sometimes vicious primary fight.

Some will argue that Senator Bayh, being from Senator Obama’s neighboring state, fails to offer geographic diversity.  True. Who cares? Governor Bill Clinton and Senator Al Gore were both from the South, yet they won. Besides, the Midwest is hardly a region Democrats can ignore.

The pluses far outweigh any minuses. Senator Bayh is a moderate (he’s a former chair of the Democratic Leadership Council). He has deep experience as an executive dealing with domestic issues and as a Senator on matters both foreign and domestic. He helps bring the party together and bolsters Senator Obama’s appeal to Reagan Democrats. As a visible and strong supporter of his primary opponent,  his selection would underscore Senator Obama’s commitment to reaching across political divisions.

All of this means that the biggest winner Tuesday night may have been Senator Evan Bayh.

The Four Months and Three Days Difference

It was just four months and three days ago that Iowans held their presidential caucuses. Up to that date, January 3, 2008, Senator Hilary Clinton held herself out as the inevitable nominee. She had the experience, the money, the connection, the establishment support to establish herself as the ultimate winner by Super Tuesday, February 5, 2008 — just three months and one day ago. It didn’t work out.

Instead she’s found herself challenged to stay in the race. She’s managed to survive more cliff hangers than Indiana Jones with the help of voters in New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. Of course, she’s also had the help of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and some missteps by the frontrunner, Senator Barack Obama.

That the word “frontrunner” and “Barack Obama” can be uttered in the same sentence without anyone gasping is gasp worthy. In only his third year in the Senate he’s taken on the establishment and held his own. He’s faced horrendous negative press — some self-inflicted — and still holds the lead in delegates and the popular vote among Democrats.

That last point, of course, would be contested by Senator Clinton. The Queen of Spin, she’s claiming that the vote tallies of Michigan and Florida count, even though Senator Obama’s name wasn’t on the Michigan ballot and little campaigning occurred in Florida as both states primaries were ruled invalid by the Democratic National Committee. For Senator Clinton to claim she’s received more votes than Senator Obama an asterisk that would dwarf any required by slugger Barry Bonds would be required. Frankly, I don’t think they make asterisks big enough for Senator Clinton’s claim.

And that’s the irony. The inevitable nominee just four months and three days ago is forced into spinning some semblance of a story that might appeal to Democratic super delegates. Only she can win the big states in November (does anyone really believe New York, California, Massachusetts and many of the others will go for Senator John McCain in the general election?) Only she, the wealthy Senator from New York can connect with low-income voters in the Midwest. Only she has the experience, experience her husband lacked, to be president.

If Americans trusted Senator Clinton she wouldn’t be in this predicament. Her spin skills are both her strongest asset and her greatest weakness. It makes the charge that her gas tax holiday is politically motivated stick, most likely because it is politically motivated.

Ironically, if she wins in both Indiana and North Carolina today none of this will matter. She won’t need spin to claim the momentum has swung her way. But it’s more likely to be a split decision. Which means the inevitable nominee will face more cliffhangers in more states. It’s amazing what four months and three days can do.

Will Reverend Wright Destroy the Obama Campaign?

Senator Barack Obama repudiated his pastor today. In a press conference that veered from the political to personal and back again, he expressed his disappointment, anger and outrage at Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s continued statements concerning the United States, race and other issues. Reverend Wright had spent the past few days at various events and holding press conferences of his own. While it initially appeared he might be toning down his rhetoric, that ended yesterday when he restated some of his more poisonous assertions.

The timing couldn’t have been worse. The Reverend Wright controversy arose weeks before the Pennsylvania primary. It would have been nice for the Obama campaign if it had peaked then allowing him to focus on other matters in the build-up to critical contests in Indiana and North Carolina next Tuesday. Instead, Reverend Wright brought the issue raging back to dominate the last few news cycles. Just in time to distract Senator Obama from applying the political focus he needs to on the nuts-and-bolts issues of importance in Indiana.

So instead of talking about trade and health care and jobs and fuel prices, Senator Obama is talking about race. Race is the last issue his candidacy — which is built in no small part on his transcending the issue — wants to put front-and-center.

The obvious irony here is that Reverend Wright may haved torpedoed the chances of America’s first black president more effectively than the combined might of the Republican Party and the supporters Senator Hillary Clinton. Both have played the so-called race card, but ineffectively. Senator Clinton’s campaign used the issue so ineptly it hurt her campaign and aided Senator Obama. But that’s yesterday. Now all Senator Clinton needs to do is sit back and let Reverend Wright do her dirty work.

Whether Reverend Wright swiftboats his parishiner will be determined by voters in Indiana. If Senator Obama won there he’d be all but certain of the Democratic nomination. Should he lose it Senator Clinton will be able to plausably claim only she can win in November. Prior to the latest Reverend Wright flare-up polls showed the race in Indiana a dead-heat. Those polls don’t mean much now. And more recent ones show Senator Clinton taking the lead.

Thanks to Reverend Wright it’s a new ballgame in Indiana — one that favors Senator Clinton.

Super Delegates are Going to Have to Actually Work!

When the dust settles in a few weeks both Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama will have won a few more primaries, questioned each other’s integrity and capabilities, and failed to wrap up the nomination. Which means the Democratic Party’s super delegates will need to come forward and make a decision.

This is not what they had in mind. Being a super delegate was supposed to be a sure ticket to a big party in Denver come August, not a requirement to anger a powerful leader of the party. Yet that’s what they’re in for. Go with Senator Clinton and the insurgents backing Senator Obama will long remember. Go with Senator Obama and Senator Clinton’s clan will never forget. Denver’s a nice place, but the ticket just got a lot more expensive.

In making their fateful decision, super delegates will likely consider: 1) what’s in it for them; 2) which candidate has the best chance to win in November; and 3) which candidate will have the strongest coattails for the party in November.

The first question is unique to each individual. I addressed the third question in an earlier post. So let’s chat about the second issue for a moment. The headline on Yahoo! Politics today is “Poll: Clinton has better chance than Obama of beating McCain.” Too bad the headline doesn’t really match the content of the story. The story describes an Associated Press poll testing how the two Democrats fair in heads-up competition against the presumptive GOP nominee,  Senator John McCain. Senator Clinton leads Senator McCain 50 percent to 41 percent. Senator Obama and Senator McCain are in a statistical tie at 46 percent-to-44 percent.

But come on. It’s April. And this is 2008, the year of the hit-and-miss polls. There’s a long way to go until November. And Senator McCain has gotten pretty much a free ride of late while the Democrats have been perfecting their circular firing squad techniques. The good news for Democrats is that there’s plenty of ammunition available for the general election. Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlen recently pointed out a number of flip-flops by Senator McCain that greatly undermines his appeal to indpendent voters and many Democrats. As she notes: “The Bush tax cuts: McCain voted against them as a senator, but now says he would make them permanent as president. Immigration: he cosponsored a bill in 2005 to make it easier for those in the country illegally to become citizens, but now says that if his own bill—his own bill!—came to a vote on the Senate floor, he would vote against it. After Columbine, he called for more gun control; after Virginia Tech, he said more gun control was unnecessary.”

I point this out not to pick on Senator McCain, but to underscore that polls on the November election don’t mean much now. The public perception of the candidates will change considerably and often in the next six months. Both Senators Clinton and Obama have strengths and weaknesses the GOP will exploit. Senator McCain has weaknesses that make easy targets for any Democratic nominee. In other words, there’s no way of knowing whether Senator Obama or Senator Clinton will fare better against Senator McCain in the general election. But both are likely to do well.

Which leaves the super delegates to ponder the issue of coattails. And, of course, their own self-interest.

,

Hillary Clinton’s Big State Fantasy

With Pennsylvania finally behind us, the Democratic presidential primary circus now moves on to North Carolina and Indiana. Two more weeks of Senator Hillary Clinton claiming that Senator Barack Obama can’t win the big states. Two more weeks of her chiding him for failing to close the deal.

The gist of Senator Clinton’s argument is that only she can win the big states needed by Democrats to win in November against Senator John McCain. The argument is not entirely spin. Senator Clinton has proven her ability to win over the conservative Democrats needed for victory in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.

These are important states. Pennsylvania, for example, went Democratic in every presidential election between 1992 and 2004, albeit, not by much. In 1988, however, then Vice President George Bush defeated former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis in the Keystone state. The reason, according to many, is that Governor Dukakis couldn’t appeal to the Reagan Democrats — the same Democrats Senator Clinton is winning over.

But that was then and this is now. Soon-to-be-president George Bush had the benefit of the President Ronald Reagan’s help in appealing to conservative Democrats. Although the Reagan Administration limped through its final years, its coattails were much stronger than that of President George W. Bush. Nor was the economy as troubled as it is today. Nor was there a divisive and unpopular war being waged. Democrats have a lot of advantages in 2008 they lacked in 1982.

Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other big states will be hard fought. And many Reagan Democrats will find Senator McCain an attractive candidate. But it is also interesting to note that polls show Senator McCain barely ahead of Senators Clinton and Obama even though he’s been cruising above the bruising Democratic civil war. Eventually the Democrats will unite and concentrate their fire on Senator McCain instead of one another. It is unlikely Senator McCain will go up in the polls as a result.

Democrats are evenly split between two strong candidates. This does not mean that a vote for one is a vote against the other. While that’s certainly the case for some, this year Democrats seem to be for their candidate more than against the other. Senator Clinton won California, New York and Massachusetts — all big states.

But no one realistically thinks they’ll go for Senator McCain in November. Even in Ohio and Pennsylvania, the vast majority of Senator Clinton’s supporters will rally behind Senator Obama. Her argument implies her supporters will stay home in November or, worse, vote Republican. That’s simply not true. Nor would most of Senator Obama’svoters desert her in the general election. Once the nomination is settled, the vast majority of Democrats will realize the need for change. Senator McCain isn’t a break with the past. Either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama would be.

Then there’s the fact that Senator Obama has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to win over independents and moderate Republicans while Senator Clinton tends to polarize these voters. This means Senator Obama can go after the voters Senator McCain needs to win better than Senator Clinton. It also puts into play states like New Mexico and Colorado if Senator Obama is the nominee, electoral votes that would be solidly GOP if Senator Clinton gains the nomination.

Over the next two weeks Senator Clinton will repeat her claim that Senator Obama cannot “close the deal” in spite of his financial edge. This, she points out, shows voters are having second thoughts about him.

Excuse me, but wasn’t she the inevitable nominee? The wife of a former president with higher name recognition, a larger mailing list and fund raising base than any non-incumbent Democrat presidential candidate in recent history?

Senator Obama has been on the national stage for four years, beginning with his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. Senator Clinton has been part of the national consciousness since 1992. Who was it that failed to close the deal? Senator Obama is running against a political institution. That he remains ahead in the popular vote and among pledged delegates is a remarkable feat. That Senator Clinton failed to wrap up the nomination months ago is a remarkable failure.

So we’ve got two more weeks of the Clinton campaign spin. It will be interesting to see if the talking heads challenge or amplify her case. They need something to talk about for at least another two weeks. And so does she. 

Dangerous Silliness in Democratic Primary

There’s a lot of debate over whether the endless primary between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is helping or hurting the Democrat’s chances in November. I’m one of those who believe it can be a good thing. The primaries are toughening up the eventual nominee. It’s keeping the focus on the Democratic candidates and their issues. And it’s building important grassroots capabilities throughout the country.

In other words, it’s better to have the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s deplorable rhetoric raised in April than first appear in October. It’s better to have a nationally televised debate on April 16th than to have the Democratic nominee desperately seeking coverage. And it’s better to have Pennsylvania’s on-the-street political operatives well rehearsed.

What’s dangerous, however, is the kind of sniping the candidates and their camps are engaged in. As I’ve written about before, the Democrats are spending too much time doing the GOP’s work. Now the debate is over who is more elitist than the other. Senator Clinton attacks Senator Obama for saying small town Pennsylvania voters are bitter and Senator Obama faults Senator Clinton for being a hunting enthusiast.

Are these really the issues they want to be focused on? What happened to health care and the economy? Peace in the Middle East and maintaining a strong defence? Improving our schools and caring for our aged?

The upcoming debate (Philadelphia on April 16th) is an opportunity for the candidates to get the Democratic story back on track. One of these two Senators is going to be the Democratic nominee. If the debate is substantive and policy oriented, the neverending primary season will be helpful to that eventual winner. If not, the race in November is going to be much closer than it might otherwise have been.