-
sponsorship
Chris Dodd made news for perhaps the last time in his campaign yesterday by filibustering the FISA bill that would have granted immunity to telecom companies that cooperated with government wiretapping programs.
It was a triumphant moment for Dodd. For the past few months, he’s been demanding that Senate Democrats not capitulate to the administration on wiretapping. Now Harry Reid has withdrawn the bill, with plans to revisit it in January.
But it’s hard to see this translating to campaign success in any meaningful way. Back in October, Dodd won praise by shouting his opposition to the FISA bill. He also made headlines by becoming the first candidate to oppose Michael Mukasey for attorney general. Following his lead, the three Democratic front-runners all jumped on board.
But since then, Dodd has all but vanished. Sure, he moved his family to Iowa and continues to campaign diligently, launching his current “12 Days of Results” tour across Iowa. But what was once an uphill climb is starting to look like a wall. National polls barely acknowledge his existence: As Time's Joel Stein put it, Dodd "pulls in 1 more percentage point in national polling numbers than you do." Campaign political futures, usually more accurate than polls, put him at rock bottom with back-runner Dennis Kucinich, dropout Evan Bayh, and some guy named Brian Schweitzer.
The main reason Dodd hasn't been able to convert his FISA crusade into campaign momentum -- aside from the likelihood that voters don't care -- is the discord between the campaign frenzy and the plodding legislative process. Had he been able to filibuster the FISA bill back in October, it might have done him some good. But now, people have moved on. Whereas campaign narratives are measured in weeks, congressional stories last months, years, and decades. Chris Dodd's picked a lawmaker's battle, not a candidate's. That's why his victory, while significant, isn't likely to bring him any closer to the nomination.
Read/watch his floor speech here.
-
sponsorship
Hillary Clinton released a new Web video today that is full of testimonials from voters about making the switch from Barack Obama and John Edwards to Clinton. The video is a response to an Obama clip showing a neighbor of Tom Vilsack, former Iowa governor and co-chair of Clinton's campaign, switching allegiances from Hillary to Barack.
In Clinton's video, a former Obama supporter named Todd Eaton looks uncomfortable as he explains why he once supported the Illinois senator:
I guess my initial attraction to Barack Obama was, um, his differences as far as who's run for president in the past. Uh, and, uh, he's a very dynamic speaker if you've ever heard him speak.
While he's saying this, his eyebrow goes crazy, his speech gets more halted, and he assumes a coy grin. I may be reading into this too closely, but it looks like he's afraid of saying something terribly un-PC—that he initially supported Barack Obama because he's black. That's the implication, at least. (Mind you, Hillary Clinton also has "differences as far as who's run for president in the past.")
Eaton then seems to catch himself by saying he was wooed by Obama because he is a "dynamic speaker." Is dynamic the new articulate?
Obviously, the racial subtext is nothing new. There have been numerous stories questioning whether Obama appeals more to white or black voters since he began his presidential campaign. (People have speculated about this as far back as his Senate run). Some thought Obama's biracial background would help court both demographics, while others said Obama wasn't black enough. But this debate usually stayed in the chattering class and off the campaign trail.
Clinton's press office could not be reached for comment. But I think I already know what they'll say—that it's a straightforward ad without a hint of racial subtext. In the past week, though, Clinton's camp has taken a troubling turn towards racially motivated politics. First, a former campaign chair stepped down because he questioned whether Obama sold drugs in his youth. Then yesterday former Sen. Bob Kerrey questioned whether Obama went to a "secular madrasa." After those incidents, they should have expected this video to be interpreted through a racial lens.
-
sponsorship
Barack Obama has a new donations page that breaks down what various contributions can buy. It provides a glimpse of how the costs of caucus organization really start to add up:
The campaign adds this in an e-mail to supporters: "For about $24, you can buy 50 clipboards for canvassers. About $26 will pay for
pizza for phonebank volunteers."
What are they topping the pizza with, caviar?
Screenshot from BarackObama.com
-
sponsorship
Apparently, Hillary Clinton isn't the only one trying to persuade America she's human. Jonathan Martin points out that just yesterday Mitt Romney "teared up for the third time in recent weeks." First during his Mormonism speech, then Sunday on Meet the Press as he discussed his church's history with race (clip here; he actually looks pretty in control), and then Monday as he described seeing the casket of a soldier killed in Iraq and imagining that it was one of his sons.
Whether or not the sudden emotion is a conscious shift for Romney, it's hard not to see these moments as deliberate. The man labeled "robot," "automaton," and, slightly more charitably, "cyborg" (at least that's half human) is slipping in the Iowa polls against a flesh-and-blood opponent, Mike Huckabee. Strong social conservatism and his religious background partly explain Huckabee's rise—his friendly manner and emotional appeal explain the rest of it. If there was ever a time for Romney to emote, it's now.
Time was, crying on the campaign trail amounted to suicide. Democratic candidate Ed Muskie famously wept outside the offices of the New Hampshire Union Leader in 1972—although he said he was just wiping the melted snowflakes from his cheeks. But Bill Clinton made the presidency safe for softies with his perpetually moistened eyes. You might say that showing emotion is now a prerequisite for any candidate. (Maybe that's why John Edwards is always blinking.) And the phenomenon extends across the aisle—"Bush men always cry," Jeb Bush once said, explaining his family's regular public weeping.
It's just amusing to read reports that Hillary Clinton became "visibly emotional" at a campaign event, only to learn that the event was "designed to showcase a softer side of the New York senator." Go go gadget, tears!
-
sponsorship
Because the Democratic Iowa caucuses are as outdated as Alan Keyes, they're governed by rules that don't jive with the rest of American democracy. Most offensive is the stipulation that voters can support a second choice candidate if their first choice doesn't get 15 percent at their local caucus. It's like an elementary-school recess nightmare, where you're forced to hang out with the popular kids you hate.
This means that in many caucuses, supporters of Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich are going to throw their weight behind one of the Big Three. It's these votes that may make the difference in the final tally.
With that in mind, here's a closer look at who Richardson supporters should pick as their second choice, based on Richardson's major policies.
Iraq: Richardson supports an immediate withdrawal, even if it means no residual forces. Ron Paul fits this description better than any of the Big Three, but John Edwards wants to pull the most troops out the quickest, so he gets the nod.
Immigration: The candidates largely share the same vision on immigration, but a flashback to Hillary Clinton's driver's license flap is instructive. Richardson and Barack Obama both supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to offer driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Clinton infamously couldn't decide (and then did), and Edwards hedged his answer. Obama, despite a confusing response during a debate, is closest to Richardson here.
Health care: Nobody really seems all that impressed with Bill Richardson's health-care plan, including himself. So, this one's a wash.
Résumé: There isn't a candidate in the Big Three who can match Richardson's devotion to public service. Clinton narrowly edges Obama because Richardson's experience lies in hard power diplomacy, not the soft power Obama markets.
Tone: Richardson has rushed to Clinton's aid throughout the campaign, fueling rumors of a vice presidential nod.
Richardson is running a more national campaign than any of his second-tier colleagues, so he tends to be a forgotten cog in the caucus wheel. But he's polling at an average of eight percent in the Hawkeye State. Those votes have to go towards somebody on caucus night, and they probably won't be allowed to go towards Richardson. Clinton-Richardson '08?
-
sponsorship
A few weeks ago, we pointed out how one Obama ad looked more like a theatrical trailer than a political spot. Well, John Edwards has upped the ante. Today, he released an actual trailer, complete with soaring strings, cymbal crashes, and a narrator who voices movie trailers for a living. You'll recognize him instantly:
"In a world where corn grows tall and hope grows taller ... where people have a special power to decided the fate of a nation ... one man can clean up George Bush's mess."
That man is George DelHoyo, who you may know from Fox ads, car commercials, and the trailers for Shark Tale, The Polar Express, and Happy Feet. He also does commercials in Spanish (listen here)—something Edwards might consider using in Florida (if that were allowed) or California. Apparently, DelHoyo is himself an Edwards supporter and has been doing campaign events in Iowa. Between him and Kevin Bacon, the Edwards campaign might as well shoot a biopic.
The trailer gimmick is smart, in that it gets to be cheesy and overdramatic—everything a political ad needs—while still making fun of itself: "On Jan. 3 ... a candidate will rise ... a party will unite ... and a nation will be redeemed." It's like, they're joking—but also not. By the end of the trailer, once DelHoyo and the orchestra have worked the Edwards worship into a lather, a dinky voice comes out of the void: "I'm John Edwards and I approve this message."
The question now is, which campaign will snap up Don LaFontaine?