January 16, 2008
1/16: Another Day, Another Winner
The netroots were happy to see Mitt Romney win Michigan's GOP primary, which they contend prevents John McCain from consolidating frontrunner status. They also thought that all three Dem candidates did well during the MSNBC debate in Las Vegas. MyDD's Todd Beeton summarizes the general post-debate reaction in the liberal blogosphere: "No clear winner here and I suspect we won't be talking about this debate being pivotal once the [NV caucus] results come in on Saturday."
Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are trying to get a handle on what has become the most topsy-turvy presidential primary in recent memory. Now that the first three states (sorry, Wyoming) have produced three different winners, many conservative bloggers are openly speculating about the possibility of a brokered convention. One thing that conservative bloggers seem to agree on: at this point in the race, everyone is still in it. That may change after this Saturday, when SC voters go to the polls.
GOP FIELD: Chaos Descends
CBN's David Brody: "Folks, if you know who's going to win this nomination you are dreamin'. Three states. Three separate winners."
AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "What does [Romney's win] mean? 1) There is no such thing as momentum. Three states, three winners. (Sorry Wyoming). 2) [Mike] Huckabee has yet to show he can be successful beyond his core base of religious right voters. 3) No one is out. 4) Voters may want to hear more about the economy and less about what 90% of the GOP primary debate has been about up until now. 5) SC might finally eliminate someone ([Fred] Thompson or Huckabee) but is unlikely to 'decide' it. and 6) It goes to show -- if you wait long enough, all your friends (and opponents) show up in Florida."
Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Two truths came out of Mitt Romney's big win in Michigan last night. First, Romney can win a hotly-contested state, proving his organizational strength when New Hampshire and Iowa had suggested otherwise. And second, Rudy Giuliani's view that the early states would not matter has largely been vindicated...no one -- no one -- is dead in this race."
Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Who is the Republican front-runner now? There is none...Giuliani and Thompson haven't won anywhere, and neither is doing all that well in national polling any more. But Giuliani, though not the front-runner, is in better shape tonight as a result of McCain's loss. In the only two primaries to date, Huckabee has failed to clear 10 percent among non-evangelical voters. In the only two primaries to date, McCain has failed to obtain a plurality among Republican voters. In three contests that figure, collectively, to be more favorable for Mitt Romney than any other set, Romney was only able to win one. The next two big races -- South Carolina and Florida -- are in less hospitable territory than New Hampshire and Michigan. Nor does Romney seem especially well-positioned for super Tuesday, Feburary 5."
Several conservative bloggers think a brokered GOP convention is a distinct possibility:
AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "A brokered convention keeps looking more likely. Let's say Thompson or Huckabee takes South Carolina and Rudy takes Florida. Suddenly you have a situation on Feb. 5 where Rudy can win the winner-take-all states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut; Thompson or Huckabee takes the South; Romney wins Massachusetts and Utah; McCain wins Arizona and the rest of the states get divided up. Perhaps, at this point, Romney is hoping for a brokered convention. The more cerebral, Beltway logic that prompted the National Review to endorse him -- that he is the best one to preserve the Reagan coalition -- may resonate more among delegates to the convention than among actual voters."
Rubin: "I agree...a brokered convention is a real possibility. These theories usually never work out because SOMEONE has to gain momentum and then everyone else drops out. Not this time."
NRO's Mark Levin: "I never thought a president would be impeached in my lifetime, but [Bill] Clinton was (and should have been). I never thought a president would be elected again without winning the popular vote, but Bush was (and legitimately so). I never thought the continental United States could be struck as it was on September 11, 2001. I have to say -- at least at this point -- that I don't believe it is impossible for the Republican nomination to be settled at the convention. I'm not saying it will, but it can't be completely ruled out."
Townhall's Hugh Hewitt, unsurprisingly, thinks Romney is now the frontrunner: "Mitt Romney has now re-established himself as the candidate to beat over the very long campaign."
Michelle Malkin, meanwhile, hasn't found her candidate yet: "I need a man. A man who can say 'No.' A man who rejects Big Nanny government. A man who thinks being president doesn't mean playing Santa Claus. A man who won't panic in the face of economic pain. A man who won't succumb to media-driven sob stories. A man who can look voters, the media, and the Chicken Littles in Congress in the eye and say the three words no one wants to hear in Washington: Suck. It. Up."
GOP FIELD II: No Love For Johnny Mac And Huck
As we've noted before, McCain and Huckabee appear to be the odd men out in both conservative talk radio and the conservative blogosphere:
On his radio show yesterday, Rush Limbaugh issued a warning about McCain and Huckabee: "If either of these two guys get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party, it's going to change it forever, be the end of it. A lot of people aren't going to vote. You watch."
Hugh Hewitt agrees: "As Rush said this morning: A McCain or Huckabee nomination would be a disaster for the GOP because they are not Reagan conservatives. Republicans are now voting in large numbers, and they are voting for the Reagan conservative. There is no reason to believe that John McCain will be able to recapture his New Hampshire moment or Huck his Iowa surprise."
Right Wing News' John Hawkins also thinks a McCain candidacy would be a disaster: "Win or lose, the GOP would pay an enormous price for running a man like John McCain. In fact, having him as nominee would make this into a lose/lose election for conservatives and arguing that we would lose less with John McCain than a Democrat isn't exactly an attractive argument to make to Republicans and Independents in 2008."
ROMNEY: I'm Not A Businessman; I'm A Business, Man!
Most conservative bloggers think Romney won because his economic message resonated with MI voters:
Campaign Standard's Fred Barnes: "Romney defeated John McCain because the economy is emerging as the overriding issue in the 2008 presidential race, and Romney's message on the subject is stronger than McCain's. And Romney is far more comfortable and persuasive in talking about the economy."
NRO's David Frum: "As has been pointed out often today, Michigan faces some of the worst economic troubles in the nation. Romney addressed those problems in a more sustained and detailed way than his main Republican challengers in the state (Huckabee, McCain)."
Ed Morrissey: "Beyond the de rigeur anti-Washington, anti-Establishment nonsense, Romney won by operating from a more optimistic mode than John McCain -- and not just on jobs. McCain came into Michigan thinking that the state would listen to 'straight talk' about how some jobs would not return, about how global warming threatened everyone, and he turned out to be wrong. Romney talked about creating economic conditions that could bring back the jobs and managed not to talk about how the auto industry would have to absorb more government mandates to keep the sky from falling. That made the difference for Michigan."
Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Mitt Romney is a much better candidate when he talks about business and the economy, and doesn't try to out-conservative everybody. I never bought his conservative schtick, because I don't think he bought it. But when it comes to turning things around, such as an economy, Mitt Romney -- the CEO -- is a strong candidate, indeed."
NRO's Rich Lowry: "This has proved that Mitt doesn't have a 'glass jaw,' and the political adversity has provided the opportunity for him to find a theme -- fighting for the American economy and for jobs. He now has to broaden out the pitch that worked with Michiganders and make it more genuinely national. But the good news is that his campaign is revitalized, with an advantage on the issue of the economy that is probably going to be even more important in weeks ahead."
The Power Line bloggers think Romney needs to emphasize both his business expertise and his social conservatism:
Paul Mirengoff: "For months, there have been rumors of a split within the Romney camp: should he campaign as the savvy businessman/technocrat who can fix the mess in Washington or as a social conservative and the biggest enemy of illegal immigration. Tonight can be viewed as vindication of the former view. However, I've always thought that, as an outsider in the race running against better known candidates, Romney needs to campaign in both ways, with the emphasis shifting from state to state. As the race moves to the South, it will be interesting to see whether Romney continues to ride the fix-it man horse or tilts back towards the other mount."
Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Romney needs to show passion, and the topic where passion works best for him is the economy...I don't think Romney needs to do an about-face on the social issues. If he emphasizes his expertise in applying free-market solutions to economic problems, with strong national defense in a close second place, and if he couches whatever comments he makes on the social issues in terms of the only sphere where the President actually impacts them -- the appointment of judges -- he should be able to achieve a subtle shift in the way he presents himself to voters."
Meanwhile, The Atlantic's Ross Douthat gives Romney his due: "Yes, he's a native son, for whatever that's worth. But winning Michigan after two consecutive tough defeats, in the teeth of a press corps that adores John McCain and despises him, and in a state that gave McCain an easy win over George W. Bush in 2000, suggests an impressive resilience -- both in the man and in his campaign -- that will serve him well in what looks like a long hard slog to the convention."
MCAIN: Apparently They Didn't Want Straight Talk
Matt Lewis diagnoses McCain's second-place finish: "I think John McCain's 'straight talk' about jobs not coming back to Michigan has proven to be unwise. Exit polls showed voters cared a lot more about the economy than they did about the terror, the war, etc. Mitt Romney gave Michigan voters optimism and hope; McCain didn't. That was probably the fundamental difference between the two candidates."
NRO's Jim Manzi takes a similar view: "It doesn't seem so shocking that Mitt Romney has apparently won the Michigan Republican primary. Michigan has the one of highest unemployment rates in the U.S., and he put forward a plan to help the state's leading industry. Whatever you think of its merits, it has to more appealing to voters than McCain's approach of 'kinda sucks to be you, but hopefully you'll feel better knowing that you're being sacrificed for the greater good of helping me to feel like I've made a statement about global warming.'"
Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "We begin to see what mainline conservative opposition to McCain can look like in later primaries...In two states in a row, John McCain underperformed 2000 -- when he was eventually drubbed by 20 points nationally...as in New Hampshire, McCain did not attain blowout margins among independents and Democrats and their share of the vote plummeted. McCain is no longer the insurgent, but the putative frontrunner and mischief makers from the other side have little incentive to cross over to support him. This cushion that kept him alive in 2000 is no longer there for him in 2008. Though there are some indications he's making up for it in Republican support, that trend was more apparent in New Hampshire than Michigan."
Lewis also makes an interesting observation: "As a candidate, John McCain makes a lousy front-runner, but a very good under-dog. Isn't that sort of a Catch-22???"
HUCKABEE: Loved By Evangelicals, Hated By Cornerites
Huckabee is taking heat from conservative bloggers for his closing statement to MI voters, in which he argued for the need of a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman:
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
NRO's Lisa Schiffren: "Does Huckabee's God believe in borders? What is God's monetary policy? Is Jesus a capitalist? How much economic disparity will he tolerate? Wouldn't God want us all to have health care? Nice shoes? What about rendering unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, and unto God that which is God's? Mike Huckabee is going to force those of us who have wanted more religion in the town square to reexamine the merits of strict separation of church and state. He is the best advertisement ever for the ACLU. Even if you share his ultimate views on the definition of marriage, or the desirability of abortion on demand."
NRO's Andy McCarthy: "Huckabee is made to order for the Left: his rhetoric embodies their heretofore lunatic indictment that we're no better that what we're fighting against. Let's 'amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards'? Who needs to spin when the script speaks for itself? Where has Huck been for the last seven years? Does he not get that our enemies -- the people who want to end our way of life -- believe they are simply imposing God's standards?"
Meanwhile, NRO's Mark Steyn thinks Huckabee's campaign is in trouble: "Huck seems very two weeks ago now. It's obvious he has a base, but he can't build on it."
GIULIANI: Smiling In The Sunshine State?
Ed Morrissey thinks Giuliani's big-state strategy might pay off after all: "Giuliani had gambled that the crowded field and the convoluted schedule made the first, proportional states mostly irrelevant. He figured that no one could build momentum before Super Tuesday, and that it made more sense to focus on the first major winner-take-all state and the 22 Super Tuesday contests instead. And what has happened? No one has won more than a single contested primary or caucus, and the delegates have been spread out across several candidates. If Rudy wins Florida, he gets 57 delegates and vaults into the lead, just as over 20 states head to the primaries and caucuses of Super Tuesday. California and New York have 274 delegates between them, and Rudy is the favorite to win both winner-take-all states, and will win others as well."
Jennifer Rubin agrees: "[SC] could potentially eliminate figuratively or literally either Huckabee or Thompson (or both if McCain wins) but it won't decide the winner. Rudy seems to be in the right place after all."
AmSpec Blog's James G. Poulos disagrees: "Yes, except does anyone really give a damn about Rudy Giuliani anymore? The great weakness in his wait-for-it strategy was that if all the other guys, by choice or necessity, wound up waiting for it too, his essential superfluity would come roaring back into glaring focus. This is exactly what's happening. Outside of Rudy's campaign, whose needs and desires are disappointed by the other guys yet satisfied by Rudy?"
DEBATE CLINTON: Solid, As Usual
Todd Beeton: "[Hillary] Clinton was projecting tough, knowledgeable competence rather than trying to charm us and got some nice digs in at the Republicans along the way. She also made some, I think, effective appeals to hispanic voters. She also benefitted from being aggressive with the poorly enforced time constraints, which [John] Edwards and [Barack] Obama probably should have done more of."
Arianna Huffington: "By focusing on Bush, Clinton was acting like she was already moving on to the type of argument she would be making in the general election. And she reinforced this when she pivoted away from her Democratic opponents and pointed out how all the Republican presidential contenders had aligned themselves with the president on Iraq...Clinton remained on her game for most of the night."
TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Obama was likeable and well-intentioned. He just isn't ready in my opinion. He may be one day, but we need someone who is ready now. Hillary impressed tonight as being that person."
Josh Marshall has a slightly different take: "Even Keith Olbermann seemed to agree that Hillary had somehow dominated the debate and treated the other candidates as they were already defeated opponents. I thought she did fine. Don't get me wrong. But that's completely not the debate I saw."
The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias agrees with Marshall: "Like Josh Marshall, I was a bit confused by MSNBC's rush to proclaim Hillary Clinton the winner. What I think she did was turn in a front-runner's performance. But that's only a win if she's really the front-runner and I don't think that's clear at all."
DEBATE OBAMA: Getting Better All The Time
Todd Beeton: "Obama I thought shined during the second half of the debate, showing the charm he exudes on the stump that is often missing from his debate performances. He spoke particularly eloquently about how he would help minority communities as president and Clinton knew it, which is why she jumped in after he answered."
TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "While I think Clinton won in the traditional debating criteria, Barack Obama did something bigger tonight -- he really reached out on behalf of the Democratic Party and went the extra yard to put the race brouhaha to bed."
DEBATE EDWARDS: It Takes A Real Man To Admit He Was Wrong
Todd Beeton: "Edwards's strongest moment was when he was drawing distinctions on Iraq. Overall I think he did a good job of projecting himself as the candidate with the clearest views on issues, which can be refreshing when both Clinton and Obama start getting nuanced. Edwards was hurt, however, by twice having to say he regretted votes as Senator."
Chris Bowers thinks differently: "One thing I noticed is that Edwards said, at least three times, that he had changed his mind since many of his earlier Senate votes from 1999-2002. Will that work for voters? Personally, I found it refreshing for a candidate to admit he was wrong in the past, and that the more progressive ideas were right. I guess that is because it is what I have been waiting for many Democrats to say for a long time now."
Ezra Klein: "Edwards seemed unusually subdued. He didn't really have 'a moment.' I think he's better at the standing format, where there's more room for fiery speeches, than the discussion format, where calmer disquisitions on policy do a bit more to elevate your performance."
DEM FIELD: The Laws Of Physics Reassert Themselves
Although HRC suffered a setback in Iowa, there appears to be a growing consensus among liberal bloggers that it's her nomination to lose:
Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas links to a string of SurveyUSA polls showing HRC leading in FL, CA, OK, and NY and writes: "It's hard to see a path to the nomination for Obama without California on February 5. Hillary has some pretty comfortable leads in many of the other states that day. He better close that gap or he'll be in a world of hurt that Tuesday night. Obama has got to hope that a strong showing in South Carolina gives him some momentum, while hoping everyone ignores Florida since it has been stripped of its delegates like Michigan for moving up in front of February 5."
Todd Beeton: "Because Obama and Clinton each won the first two contests, momentum has been neutralized as a factor in subsequent states, making on the ground campaigning all the more important. Obama does far better in places where he's able to spend a good amount of time and go up on the air. Where he's not able to campaign, such as in Michigan, Clinton has a built-in advantage. This is what makes Obama's prospects in Florida (where he is prohibited from campaigning) and on February 5th (where he will have to split his time and resources) such an uphill climb. His best (only?) hope is to re-inject momentum into the calculus with wins in Nevada and South Carolina moving into Florida and the February 5th states...it's unclear, even with these two wins, whether Obama can overcome Clinton for what's starting to look like Clinton's nomination to lose, but it's beginning to look like it's the only shot he has."
Open Left's Chris Bowers: "While [NV] isn't a must-win for Obama, it is pretty close to one given that Clinton has re-established a double-digit lead nationally and that Clinton may be creeping up on him in South Carolina. For Edwards, it probably is a must win if he hopes to be more than kingmaker. If Edwards did win, it would be a huge shock, bigger than Clinton in New Hampshire, and change the campaign. Clinton, of course, moves to the brink of victory if she takes Nevada."
In a separate post, Bowers writes: "Basically, barring a surprise Obama win in California, there doesn't seem to be a way to knock Clinton out before the convention at this point. Obama, by contrast, need to rally in Nevada and South Carolina, secure the strong Super Tuesday scenario outlined above, nearly run the table from February 9th through February 19th, and then secure either Ohio or Texas to have a real shot. It is by no means impossible, in fact I think the first three parts of the scenario all have more than a 50% shot (for maybe a 15-20% chance overall, not including March 4th), but the odds still favor Clinton."
CLINTON: Losing The Black Vote?
Liberal bloggers are debating whether the MI exit polls, which indicate that a majority of African-Americans cast their votes for "uncommitted", spell trouble for HRC:
TPM's Josh Marshall: "According to the Fox exit polls, in the Democratic primary tonight, Clinton took 25% of the African-American vote and 'uncommitted' is getting 69% of the African-American vote. Now remember, Hillary is [the] only major candidate on the ballot...There's too much screwy about the Democratic primary in Michigan tonight to draw too much from this; but it is suggestive."
Chris Bowers: "If [Obama] can trounce Clinton among African-Americans without even being on the ballot, it seems that Obama has solidified African-Americans behind him nationwide. If, as Matt suggested yesterday, he can secure the white liberal vote, that would be a winning coalition in the Democratic primary nationwide...Liberals and Latinos are now the swing voters that will determine the Democratic nominee."
MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Chris Bowers frames these results as a win for Barack Obama, and I can't say that I think he's too far off. If African-Americans in Michigan are overwhelmingly willing to vote for a non-candidate over Clinton -- particularly at a significantly higher rate than White voters -- it's not beyond the realm of imagination that they will have trouble voting at a much higher rate for Obama than for Clinton. While a lot of folks within the Beltway establishment may have chalked up the kerfuffle over past week and a half between the two leading candidates over issues of race as a win for Clinton, at least in the short term it looks like the fracas is having a seriously deleterious effect of Clinton's support among African-Americans."
Digby doesn't think the exit polls mean anything: "Michigan means nothing, good or bad, for Democrats. The people who came out to vote uncommitted were very likely people with very strong feelings about Clinton. The people who came out to vote for Clinton were also very likely people who had very strong feelings about her. SHE WAS THE ONLY ONE OF THE TOP THREE ON THE FRIGGING BALLOT! For all we know, if there had been a real campaign, Edwards would have won. (I suspect he would have...) Some of the uncommitteds even said they'd have voted for Clinton!"
On a somewhat related note, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s former advisor Clarence B. Jones writes a diary on the Huffington Post in which he criticizes the Clinton campaign's attacks on Obama: "Good faith questions about qualifications and experience are always appropriate about a candidate who seeks the nomination of his party to be president. However, gratuitous attacks against Obama or sarcastic paternalism dismissing his 'qualifications' to be President of the United States are offensive and carry a tinge of 'we know what's best for you' racism...The Clinton presidential campaign's apparent blind ambition for power runs the risk of destroying Clinton's reservoir of earned political integrity and affection among black people."
OBAMA: Bloggers Get His Back
The Washington Post's Richard Cohen is taking heat from liberal bloggers for yesterday's column, "Obama's Farrakhan Test." In the column, Cohen notes that the minister of Obama's church, Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., has two daughters who serve as publisher and editor of Trumpet Newsmagazine, which last year hailed Louis Farrakhan as a great man. Cohen writes that Farrakhan "epitomizes racism" and wants to know "Where is [Obama's] sense of outrage?"
TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "Clinton may have laid off Obama, but Richard Cohen picks up the slack with this nasty, racist, and thoroughly contemptible column linking Obama to Louis Farrakhan via Obama's pastor's daughter."
Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "There is no doubt that Louis Farrahkan has a history of making hateful, anti-Semitic remarks. But Barack Obama is not an associate of Mr. Farrakhan, nor has he ever advocated his views, so for Richard Cohen to attempt to connect the two men in the voter's minds is nothing short of equating Obama with every vicious, racial stereotype out there that is used to generate fear and hatred."
The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins: "Displaying the same sort of reasoning that made 'Six Degrees Of Kevin Bacon' such a popular concept for six, even seven, minutes back in the late 1990s, here's how Cohen arrives at the standpoint that Obama has a 'Farrakhan test' to take. Obama worships at the Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. That church's minister, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., also publishes a magazine. That magazine gave Louis Farrakhan an award once. So, ergo, Barack Obama totally hates the Jews."
Author Michael Chabon, also writing in the Huffington Post: "Writing in his regular column for the Washington Post today, Richard Cohen sought to frighten me and every other Jew in America into believing that Barack Obama at worst supports, and at best tacitly approves of, the vile ideology and racialist libels that Louis Farrakhan has variously promulgated over the course of a long and serpentine career....[Cohen] resorts to employing the time-honored strategies (smear and guilt-by-association) and tactics (a false appearance of reasonableness, assumption of unproven conclusions, selective reference to facts not in evidence) employed by the very demagogues and masters of hate whom he is presumably trying to combat."
TPM's Greg Sargent: "It's surprising that Cohen dragged his paper down to this level, particularly in light of the big controversy over WaPo's piece front-paging the Obama Muslim smears without declaring them false. On second thought, maybe it isn't surprising at all."
Matthew Yglesias thinks these bloggers are overreacting: "Cohen's just being a mildly cynical columnist who doesn't want Obama to win the election...it's not as if if Cohen had kept his mouth shut this whole thing was going to go unnoticed and unaddressed for the next ten months. It's political common sense to have your surrogates attack Obama on these grounds and it's common sense for Obama's campaign to have had a perfectly good response up his sleeve."
EDWARDS: The Man And His Message
Open Left's Mike Lux critiques Edwards' message: "I have been thinking a lot about the failure of Edwards' message in this campaign...Edwards' message was one of pure, undistilled anger at the big corporations who are dominating our country's politics: he was angry at those corporations, and he was going to 'fight them,' 'beat them and beat them and beat them some more,' and 'stand up to them.' That message certainly resonates with me, and probably does with most of the OpenLeft.com community. And there is no doubt that Democratic primary voters, and voters in general, are angry at the special interest elites. But it didn't lift Edwards past 19% among first choices [in Iowa]. I think the problem has been that the anger is the only thing that voters were hearing. The lesson of the Edwards failure to me is that anger alone is not enough: that we have to combine the righteous anger we feel with telling people about the new ideas we have."
MyDD's David Mizner, a passionate Edwards supporter, disagrees: "Why did Edwards 'only' finish second in Iowa? Mike Lux -- a Hillary admirer who predicted that Edwards would fade and maybe finish below [Bill] Richardson -- has an answer: he was too angry!...Please read Lux's entire post and tell me if there's any way to conclude that he's not an establishment hack. And think about this post next time the MSM depicts a populist as angry."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Two For The Price Of One?
Campaign Standard's Jonathan V. Last:
"One of the most interesting post-Iowa developments in the Clinton campaign has been watching Bill Clinton take on the traditional role of running mate/hatchet man...
Bill Clinton began taking after Obama in New Hampshire, claiming that the senator had gotten a free ride from the press and that his opposition to Iraq was a fairy tale. After Clinton surrogate Robert Johnson made reference to Obama's drug use this past Sunday, Bill Clinton was rolled out again, this time onto an African-American talk-radio program to defend Johnson's remarks. In the course of his defense, he then attacked the Obama campaign for doing 'overtly racist' opposition research on his wife.
Last night, the former president was on the offensive again in Sparks, Nevada, where he said that Obama was somehow the 'establishment' candidate who could only deliver the 'feeling of change.'
Whatever Hillary Clinton's merits, that doesn't fit with any rational assessment of the election. But having a spouse do much of the heavy-lifting when it comes time to thumping an opponent really is a genuine change in our politics."
LEST WE FORGET: Poor Dennis
The Onion describes a typical day on the campaign trail with Dennis Kucinich:
- 6:45-7:00 a.m.: Unbuckle self from underside of the Straight Talk Express bus
- 7:45-7:50 a.m.: Gaze sympathetically at fly being shooed away from stack of syrup-slathered waffles
- Noon-12:15 p.m.: Break down in tears in truck-stop bathroom, pull self together
- 3:00-3:30 p.m.: Stand in cornfield whispering policy to scarecrow
- 5:15-8:30 p.m.: Drive around South Carolina looking for vegan-friendly restaurant
- 8:45-9:15 p.m.: Pick John Edwards' brain
- 10:30-10:45 p.m.: Drop everything and call campaign headquarters to see if Leno, Letterman, O'Brien, Stewart, or Colbert called
Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 16, 2008 12:50 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
