-
sponsorship
Sorry to keep returning to John McCain (have those words been uttered this year? Ever?), but I wanted to mention his family.
In a race largely defined by families—Romney’s sprawling brood, Giuliani’s mutinous children and torrid affairs, Obama’s diverse heritage, Edwards’ wife and her battle with cancer—McCain has kept his out of the limelight. Aside from his daughter Meghan, who assiduously documents the campaign (and, among other things, the fashion habits of Henry Kissinger) on her blog, McCain’s seven children have avoided the public eye. Nor does their father mention them, even in moments when it would serve his political interest. (His son, Jimmy, is currently serving in Iraq.) Here’s what McCain recently told the New York Times:
“It’s intentional,” he said. “I just feel it’s inappropriate for us to mention our children. I don’t want people to feel that, it’s just, I’d like them to have their own lives. I wouldn’t want to seem like I’m trying to gain some kind of advantage. I just feel that it’s a private thing.”
Compare that to Mitt Romney, McCain’s most recent antagonist. (It's mutual.) Romney’s five sons have trailed him for the entire campaign, sometimes even holding their own events on his behalf. He constantly mentions “strong families” as one leg of the American “stool.” His emphasis on family serves two purposes: It woos the so-called “values voters” who might be squeamish about his Mormonism, and it gently tweaks Giuliani, whose children won’t come within 10 feet of him in public.
I’m not suggesting that McCain rejects the family man shtick as a slight against Romney. But the contrast is important. To drag your family onstage for a big happy photo is to play the game. (Even if, as this video suggests, they all agreed to it.) To decline to mention that your son is fighting in Iraq, even when mentioning it would be perfectly appropriate, is to reject the game and, presumably, those who play it.
McCain’s “authenticity” cred took a hit when he backpedaled on his comment in 2000 that Jerry Falwell was an “agent of intolerance.” But his refusal to drag his family into his campaign should count as one step, however small, toward restoring it. For all of Romney’s talk about respecting family, the ultimate sign of respect would be to leave them out of it.
-
sponsorship
Even if Barack Obama loses Iowa, he could still win the nomination. Seriously.
The conventional wisdom is that if Clinton wins Iowa, Obama's shot at the presidency is shot. While that's certainly possible—and probably probable—pundits seem to be forgetting that momentum isn't everything.
There's a very real chance Obama could win New Hampshire even if he loses Iowa by a reasonable amount (e.g., less than five percentage points). Obama is essentially tied with Clinton in New Hampshire in polling averages, and John Edwards is less of a factor in the competition for the change vote. More telling, perhaps, is that only 6 percent of New Hampshire Democrats say their own vote will be swayed by the Iowa outcome. (Of course, who would cop to that?) Plus, New Hampshire has picked a different winner than Iowa in the Democratic primary three of the past five contested cycles (although not in the past two).
So, what if New Hampshire asserts itself and plays contrarian to Iowa's conventional wisdom? In a year when it was en vogue to hate on New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary, it's reasonable to think that residents will give the finger to the media, Iowa, and the rest of the country. Live-free-or-die pride is on the line.
One question has percolated in the background all cycle: Are voters waiting for somebody else to tell them it's OK to vote for the black guy with little experience but a big idea? An Obama win in the Granite State would start revealing the answer.
If Obama defeated Clinton in her former firewall state, all of the Clinton inevitability stories will be washed away by pro-Obama headlines. Clinton would probably win Nevada regardless (unless the culinary union backs Obama), which brings us to Jan. 26 in South Carolina. There, Obama's campaign thinks the black population will come out to vote as long as one of the first two states confirms Obama as a viable candidate.
Now, it's still more likely for Clinton to emerge the victor from most of the four meaningful early primaries. But if she and Obama split them, momentum won't be as large a factor. Momentum, after all, is only useful for convincing voters that votes won't be wasted. Anyone who wins two out of the first four states has proven viability, if not electability.
-
sponsorship
John Edwards' campaign unveiled its latest gimmick today: The chance to have Edwards, his wife, or even Joe Trippi (swoon!) call you on the phone. It's part of "Ask John," a new campaign meant to inform inquisitive Iowans about Edwards' policies.
Any question that an Iowan asks Edwards' camp between now and the caucus is guaranteed an answer by Jan. 3. Topics can range from Iraq policy to the name of Edwards' $400 barber. It doesn't matter how frivolous; if you're an Iowan, you'll get an answer. If you're lucky, you'll hear from one of the bigwigs or the candidate himself.
An Edwards spokeswoman told me the campaign already gets hundreds of questions a day at their Iowa offices. This stunt is just a way to make voters aware that the campaign is actively answering questions statewide. It also dovetails nicely with reports that Hillary Clinton is refusing to answer questions from the audience on the stump, although the spokeswoman said "Ask John" had nothing to do with that.
But here's the strange part: Edwards has a Web site where "Iowans" can ask him questions about his platform. Last time we checked, Web sites were accessible outside of Iowa, too. The spokeswoman told me she wasn't worried about rival supporters deluging the Web site with fake queries. They clearly weren't paying attention to what Bruce Reed did to Mitt Romney earlier this year.
It may be a transparent maneuver, but it's still a cool gimmick. Who wouldn't want to talk to a presidential candidate by phone? That's even better than Carl Kasell recording the greeting on your home answering machine.
-
sponsorship
Two new ads for Fred Thompson and John McCain prove that while voters' energy might be waning, theirs isn't.
In Thompson's spot, we see the candidate swaying back and forth and waving his arms, proving that he has more than enough energy to be president—maybe even too much. The film editor is clearly excited about split screens, but that's OK, because more screens means more Fred.
In McCain's ad, the candidate is bouncing around in fast motion, then slow motion, then fast again. Positive descriptors zoom across the screen, like the title sequence in Spider-Man. The upbeat music tells us that McCain is a man on the go. (Compare to his ghastly spot from last spring.) More than anything, though, the ad looks high-budget. What it should really say at the end is, I'm John McCain, and I could afford this message.
It's obvious why both candidates are trying to look energetic. Thompson still hasn't shed his rocking-chair rep, while McCain is trying to avoid more questions about dying in office. In McCain's case, the adrenaline injection is slightly more believable. He's riding a slew of newspaper endorsements to become once again competitive in New Hampshire; a strong showing there and he's back on the national map. Thompson, on the other hand, is still sagging, and in more ways than one. He's not a shoo-in anywhere—even in his best state, South Carolina, he's polling third.
Apparently that old saw about writing—"Everyone needs a good editor"—also applies to politics. But sometimes even that's not enough.
-
sponsorship
John McCain might not keep pace with Mike Huckabee for quantity of one-liners, but it’s a tight race for quality. McCain practically revived his candidacy with his quip during the October debate that he couldn’t attend Woodstock since he was “tied up.”
Now he’s back with another witticism, this time targeting Mitt Romney. Responding to Romney’s new “contrast” ad on McCain’s tax record, McCain said: "If there's any doubt that we're doing well, it's when Mitt Romney starts attacking. He's attacking Huckabee out here in Iowa. I'm familiar with tailspins and I think he's in one.”
This could be referring to one of two things. Either McCain is saying that he himself has helmed a stagnant campaign (first in 2000, then again earlier this year), and it takes one to know one. Or—or—he’s referring to having his plane shot down over North Vietnam.
Either way, the line is genius. If he’s talking about his own campaign problems, he gets points for self-deprecation. At the same time, he reminds voters that he’s now back in the saddle. (You only joke about your failing candidacy once it’s stopped failing.)
If he’s actually talking about his plane going into a tailspin, after which he was captured and held in Hanoi for five years, then, well, that’s just awesome. McCain has never hidden his disdain for Romney—remember him scowling while Romney talked during the October debate? The subtext here is, I was fighting for my country while you were gallivanting around Paris in a suit and tie. So, to recap: Remind voters of his POW experience: check. Tweak Romney for starting so many fights: check. Be funny: check plus.
Which one was it? McCain response pending ...
-
sponsorship
The latest from the Joe Biden press shop:
"Over the next week, Mo-Joe ’08 will sweep across Iowa, with Sen. Biden set to
attend over 30 rallies in 28 counties statewide."
Bad puns: the last refuge of a candidate with nothing left to lose.