Trailhead: A campaign blog.

Chris Dodd’s Loan Problem

On the surface, Chris Dodd is the perfect vice presidential candidate for Barack Obama. He’s Catholic, while Obama has struggled to win over Catholics. He speaks fluent Spanish, which could help among Latinos. He’s a veteran, just like you-know-who. Jews love him—his father was on the prosecution team at Nuremberg. He sits on the Senate foreign relations committee, which could quiet critics who see Obama as green on foreign policy. His biggest legislative accomplishment, the Family and Medical Leave Act, dovetails nicely with Obama’s health care plans. The man is experience incarnate.

It’s too bad he probably won’t be picked.

Remember Jim Johnson, the guy in charge of Obama’s VP search committee? Johnson resigned last month under fire for receiving reduced-rate loans from Countrywide, a company criticized for its role in the mortgage crisis. It turns out Dodd was also part of the same “V.I.P.” program, which cuts rates and eliminates fees for special customers. In 2003, Dodd received two loans through Countrywide, saving a little under $3,000 thanks to the program, according to Portfolio. Countrywide has contributed $21,000 to Dodd’s campaigns since 1997.

Obama set a precedent by scrapping Johnson. (Johnson says he resigned of his own free will.) How can he possibly pick Dodd? If sweetheart loans are enough to disqualify the person appointed to pick the VP, what does it mean for the VP himself?

To be sure, Dodd is not Johnson. The size of Johnson’s Countrywide deal—he received $7 million in real-estate loans—dwarfs Dodd’s. Johnson was also criticized for perks he received while working for mortgage giant Fannie Mae (which now has its own crisis) and for his association with an executive compensation controversy and United HealthCare, where he served on the board.

But in a campaign that has made common practice of subvehicularization, also known as “throwing under the bus,” even the smallest impropriety is cause for concern. After his Countrywide loans were first reported, Dodd denied any wrongdoing. But it’s just sketchy enough that the McCain campaign could create headaches for Obama.

Plus, vice presidential selection is all about judgment—proving to voters that you know how to make tough decisions. And sound judgment is just as much about avoiding appearances of impropriety as avoiding impropriety itself. (Something McCain learned the hard way.) Chris Dodd could make a terrific vice president. But that’s different from making a terrific vice-presidential candidate.

Chris Dodd Impersonator

There is a Chris Dodd lookalike roaming Des Moines. He was first spotted at a rally for John Edwards at the Steelworkers Local 164 on
Jan. 1. Then yesterday, at the see-and-be-seen bar Centro, someone said that Chris Dodd was in the dining room and he'd been there for several hours. When the finally walked out, we saw it was not Chris Dodd, but possibly the closest anyone could be to Chris Dodd without actually being Chris Dodd.

The real Chris Dodd, meanwhile, was nowhere to be found.

Chris Dodd’s Last Stand

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.

The Fame Game

Chris Dodd kicks off his new ad with this line: “As you might have guessed, I’m not a former first lady, or a celebrity. …” In a conference call with reporters last week, South Carolina state Rep. Leon Howard, who has endorsed John Edwards, referred derisively to other unnamed candidates’ “celebrity status.” As if, in a race where name recognition is half the battle, being famous is suddenly a bad thing.

The attack capitalizes on the notion that Barack Obama is an empty vessel, all glitz and no substance. That just because he has David Geffen and Oprah Winfrey, it means he doesn’t understand the everyday problems of voters. It’s a bizarre angle for someone who has been in Congress for 30 years, but even more so for Edwards. He appeared on the cover of Men’s Vogue. He shared a stage with John Mellencamp. And then there was that whole vice-presidential nominee thing. Plus, keep in mind that Edwards is boarding the celebrity endorsement bandwagon with glee. This week both Tim Robbins and Kevin Bacon will campaign for Edwards. Dodd, meanwhile, has West Wing star Bradley Whitford shilling for him on YouTube. For either candidate to imply that Oprah's support somehow makes Obama a sellout is silliness.

True, all that glitters may not be gold. But that doesn’t mean all that’s dull—or crabby and self-righteous—is. Attacking the very fact of your opponent’s popularity seems to be the last refuge of a loser.

Friendly Fire

After listening to a two-hour Democratic debate on NPR, I'm left wondering why they all can't be this good. You probably won't hear much news come out of this debate—there were few accusations, no gotcha questions, and hardly any petty attacks. But that doesn't mean the debate wasn't worthwhile. It was probably the most insightful one yet. 

The debate felt like a flashback to more innocent times—an age free of counterattack Websites, split-screen Web videos, and kindergarten essays. That's because NPR decided to talk about three nuanced issues rather than a broad hodgepodge: Iran, China, and immigration. I had nearly forgotten, but the Democrats actually have similar positions on these and most other issues. The candidates' cooperative tone was in stark contrast with the accusations that have dominated the campaign trail in the last few weeks.

NPR's debate was structured to delve deeper into the issues than any other debate. The three moderators—Robert Siegel, Michele Norris, and Steve Inskeep—pressured the Democrats to reveal the nuances of their philosophy on the three issues. There were no lightning rounds, no grandiose introductions, and no questionable questioners. Instead, the candidates sounded like politicians who were truly grappling with the issues at hand. Would they extend a diplomatic hand to Iran at the risk of being used for propaganda? Limit trade with China even if it meant higher prices? Should the average citizen report illegal-immigrant neighbors to authorities, or is that the role of the immigrants' employers? 

This three-issue approach can be applied to the other debates, seeing as there are so many of them. The Democrats have already staged five televised debates, all of which were partly organized by the DNC. So, why doesn't the DNC (and the RNC across the aisle) help organize the debates to emphasize policy discussions rather than snipe fests? The general election debates already work this way: Each debate covers a broad topic (e.g., foreign policy and domestic policy) assigned by a bipartisan commission. It seems this would help voters better understand who to vote for and help the candidates better understand their opponents' messages.

I could tell you who I thought performed best out of the seven candidates at the NPR debate, but it just doesn't seem appropriate. This was about the issues, not about who made the strongest sound bites. Don't worry, though, there are more debates to come. Let's talk about theatrics then.

Streisand Supports Obama, Edwards, Dodd

Barbra Streisand threw her vocal chords behind Hillary Clinton today, a not-so-surprising endorsement for the long-time Democratic activist. Streisand sang at Bill Clinton's inaugural gala and dedicated a song to 42 and Hill. Most interesting, though, is that Streisand donated $2,300 to not only Clinton, but also Barack Obama and John Edwards. (She also tossed a grand into Chris Dodd's coffer.)

Can you imagine if Oprah had donated to Hillary's campaign? Chuck Norris to Mitt Romney's? That Desperate Housewives guy to Bill Richardson's?

Meanwhile, does this mean Hillary Clinton's theme song might change from Celine Dion's "You and I" to Babs' "The Way We Were"? Probably not. Lyrics like "static pictures of the smiles we left behind; smiles we gave to one another of the way we were" would make her sound like she's running to reinstate the Clinton era--and the campaign is careful to "Stay Away" from that message. Zing!

Schooled

Barack Obama announced a new piece of his education plan yesterday that essentially makes community college free for most Americans. But he’s not the only presidential candidate proposing on-the-house schooling. Both Chris Dodd and John Edwards unveiled their own plans months ago. So, just in case you don’t feel like wading through post-Spellings education policy, here’s a quick primer on what each plan offers: 

Obama (PDF): The centerpiece of his plan is a tax credit that pumps $4,000 into community college students’ wallets. The campaign claims that the credit, combined with financial aid, will make two-year colleges free for lower- and middle-class Americans. The policy would apply to all U.S. citizens in all states. The benefits do not extend to four-year students.

Dodd: He’s asking the states to meet him halfway to provide community college students a free ride. If he’s president, he’ll match any funding that a state assigns to helping students pay, which means if a state pays half of the tuition, so will he. But that raises some fairness issues. For example, if you’re living in Dodd’s native Connecticut and Gov. Jodi Rell doesn’t offer any funding—but Eliot Spitzer does next door in New York—you’re out of luck unless you move. Dodd’s plan doesn’t have similar benefits for four-year students, either. 

Edwards: Borrowing from an initiative that he says worked well in North Carolina while he was one of the state’s senators, John Edwards wants to offer a free year of tuition, fees, and books for students enrolled in public colleges and universities, as long as they’re working 10 hours a week. Not too shabby for out-of-state students at a place like University of Michigan, where the price tag is north of 30 grand. Edwards’ plan wouldn’t offer that same $30,000 to students enrolled at a community college. They’ll receive funding for their tuition amounts, which averages $2,300. Private-university students are left out of Edwards’ plan.

Obama's plan is the surest thing for high-school grads thinking of going to a community college. While Dodd’s quasifederalist solution helps alleviate the costs on the federal government, it could create a nasty disparity as community colleges try to fix the socioeconomic divide. Edwards’ plan, meanwhile, is flawed by the difference in subsidy amounts. Obama’s is the fairest of them all.

Free education sounds great. But shouldn’t we be worried about the capacity of community colleges to handle added stress on their enrollments? Nearly 50 percent of America’s college students are enrolled in community colleges, and the schools continue to receive more and more students, thanks to higher costs at 4-year universities.

If everybody can go to school for free, there is a chance that such a large influx of students will decrease the quality of the education at these schools. That means the colleges will need more professors, more facilities, and more funding. Obama’s plan makes overtures to that effect, as may the other candidates’ once further details are released. Reformers, consider yourselves on notice.

Talking the Talk

Using data from the indispensable New York Times’ debate analyzer , I crunched some word-per-second numbers from last night’s debate. Dodd talks faster than Biden and Richardson speaks the slowest of all. Clinton and Obama’s cadences, meanwhile, are in sync.

Attack of the Fake Personal E-mails

In a campaign full of cheesy new Internet memes—Facebook groups, “candid” campaign videos—the most annoying has to be the faux off-the-cuff e-mail chain. Exhibit A, just sent out today: 

From: Chris Dodd
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 12:29 PM
To: Christopher Beam
Subject: Fw: Re: Update?

Dear Friend—

I only have a few moments on my way back up to New Hampshire.

I asked my Campaign Manager for an update on what we accomplished online during the month of October, and I was so pleased with her response I wanted to make sure you saw the email chain.

[etc., etc.]

Scroll down and you find what you’re supposed to believe is an organic e-mail exchange between Sheryl Cohen, Dodd’s campaign manager, and Tim Tagaris, his Internet communications director. It’s meant to be a glimpse behind the scenes, a secret discussion Dodd decided to let us in on. Here’s the secret: The senator raised a lot of money in October, but he just needs a teensy bit more.

It’s not a bad way to reach supporters. It’s also utterly artless. For starters, it totally abuses the “Fw: Re:” prefix, usually reserved for funny e-mail threads your friends send you. The moment I clicked on it, I knew I’d been had. Plus, who would ever write this sentence in a personal e-mail: “We're gonna do everything we can to keep growing—something that is made easy as [Dodd] continues to lead on the issues important in this race.” Or maybe that's the way campaign people actually talk.

Dodd isn’t the first offender, or the worst. Back in September, Barack Obama sent out a mass e-mail with the subject, “Hey,” no doubt sending a million hearts aflutter. Of course, it was just another solicitation. Michelle Obama followed up with a “Re: Hey.” I was hoping she’d accidentally hit “reply all” on some missive meant only for Barack. Wrong again.

These kind of faux-personal notes will probably become standard for online fundraising. But what happens when it expands to texting—which is already happening—and IMs? Someday they'll pare their solicitation down to a single set of characters: "$?"

Hey Obama, Why Not Filibuster Mukasey?

There was a point during last night’s debate, as Chris Dodd railed against Hillary, when a friend turned to me and said, “Imagine if it was Obama saying that.” It’s a sentiment a lot of Democrats have been thinking over the past few weeks. What if Obama started talking like Dodd?

A few weeks ago, Dodd put a hold on the FISA bill that would give immunity to telephone companies that cooperated with government wiretapping. More recently, he became the first Democratic candidate to publicly oppose the confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general. Since then, Sen. Biden and the three front-runners have all jumped on board. (Mukasey’s refusal to classify waterboarding as torture and his views on executive powers have irked other Democrats, too.) Both moves have won Dodd admiration among activists and, while his prospects for election may still be dim, but there’s no doubt he has shaped the debate.

Why hasn’t Obama done the same? As Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum noted the other day, Obama needs a new issue. He may have struck gold last night when Hillary went knock-kneed over the secrecy surrounding her National Archive papers. But in the meantime, there’s no reason he shouldn’t take the lead in opposing Mukasey. He missed his first chance. But if Mukasey’s nomination comes to a vote, most likely next week, he will have a second shot: the filibuster.

The last person to call for a major judicial filibuster was John Kerry during Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearings. That plan didn’t go particularly well and even drew him some scorn, since many senators considered it futile. But with more and more Dems turning against Mukasey’s nomination, Obama would likely have more backing.

No word yet from Obama’s campaign on whether they’d consider using the filibuster. Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for Dodd, said the senator would be “considering what options are available.” The filibuster is clearly one of them. The question is, who will push for it first?

The Trendsetter

But Dodd was the first candidate to speak out against Mukasey’s nomination on Sunday after he finished his Meet the Press interview. On Monday, sensing an anti-Mukasey vacuum, he held a conference call with journalists to reassert his opposition. For two days he had all of the anti-Mukasey headlines to himself.

But now the frontrunners have entered the fray. The three candidates all voiced opposition to both Mukasey’s waterboarding position and his support of an expanded executive branch. Dodd is not nearly as upset about Mukasey’s wishy-washy stance on waterboarding as he is about the AG nominee’s support of expanded executive power. But his decision to speak out will likely force the frontrunners to add this issue to the already packed agenda for this evening’s debate.