Uh-oh, here we go, those darn candidates are debating again. That means a barrage of emails in my inbox from their spin docs as soon as the pontificating and question-dodging is done. But why wait? These days, the campaigns inundate the ink-stained wretches of the working press around the clock, whether anything significant has happened or not. The latest trend is to send us "confidential campaign memos" and "strategy sheets," that make their case while seeming to include us in their most private thinking. These talking points eventually turn up in wire stories and newspaper columns, which is exactly what the campaigns want. And now some of them will turn up here...except I'm going to bust them for driving me spin-sane. (I've even thought about setting up some sort of junk filter that I would call my "spinbox" to keep these things from cluttering up my email).
The smoothest operator is Mark Penn, chief strategist for Hillary Clinton's campaign. This comes as no surprise, since Penn is the CEO of Burson Marsteller, maybe the leading PR company in the world. If anyone is the master of message massage, it's Penn. We've been getting his "memos" all year, with headings like "Strength and Experience" and "Strengths of Hillary Emerging." Guess what they say? If they actually revealed Hillary's strategy, they would be fascinating. But they typically just tell us about her surge in the polls...her presidential bearing...how comfortable the voters are getting with her...and how the dynamics of the race favor Senator Clinton. But they sure look like secret internal campaign documents, with the inside deep dish.
The other leading campaigns have similar strategists sending similar memos, if not as well-written. Some are thinly disguised appeals for campaign contributions. Some are laughable bits of stunning puffery. Joe Trippi, who is managing John Edwards' campaign, sent one out called "Karl Rove's Worst Nightmare," about how all the Republican attacks on Hillary Clinton are designed to engineer her nomination, because Rove and the GOP have identified Clinton as the easiest Democrat to beat. By attacking Hillary, they figure, they will rally Democratic primary voters around the one candidate they'd most like to face next November. In fact, writes Trippi, his man Edwards has the best shot at beating the eventual Republican nominee. There's some truth to this; the Bush re-election team did go after John Kerry in 2004 because they feared Edwards more. And there's no doubt that Hillary Clinton has higher negative ratings than Edwards. But is Edwards really the "only Democratic candidate who can beat any of the Republican candidates hands down" - as Trippi writes in his memo? Uh, no. They all can. The Hillary-haters and the racists who won't ever vote for Barack Obama might make it tougher for either Clinton or Obama to get elected, but many polls consistently show the top three Democrats well ahead of the top four Republicans in hypothetical head-to-head matchups.
Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, uses any excuse to send out a memo than ends with an appeal - complete with a link - for campaign contributions. I'll probably get one tonight reminding me how much it costs to buy makeup for these debates, and don't I want to join Powder Puffers for Obama?
Then there's Brett Seaborn, campaign strategist for Rudy Giuliani. He seems to simply make things up. Like the map he sent out that "guarantees" at least 210 electoral votes for the former New York Mayor, if Giuliani faces Hillary Clinton in the general election. Seaborn maintains that Rudy would force Hillary to waste her vast campaign fortune competing in places like New York and California, that she'd be able to take for granted if she were running against John McCain, Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney. Really? Yes, Rudy is more moderate than the other three, but he would have little to no chance of beating Clinton in California. And if memory serves, Rudy bowed out of a Senate race against Hillary in New York that she won handily. Now he's going to beat her there for the presidency? Nice try, Brett, but in reality, wouldn't Thompson, McCain and Romney all run better than your guy in the Deep South? Are conservative evangelicals in Texas and the Carolinas really going to turn out for Rudy?
And now that Obama and Edwards have decided to take off the gloves and start tearing into Hillary, Mark Penn has sent me a new memo, a pre-emptive strike against their anticipated attacks. "One candidate is defining the 'politics of hope' ," he writes, "while the others are abandoning them...Does the 'politics of hope' mean launching attacks on one candidate? Does it means questioning a rival's integrity?" Which is exactly what Edwards and Obama are starting to do. Edwards suggests that Hillary's presidency would be a "Democratic version of the Republican corruption machine," and given past allegations, that's not that outrageous a claim. But with only about two months now before Americans start voting, the candidates who are falling behind are bound to start getting nasty, and does Penn really expect us to believe that Hillary wouldn't lash out too, if she were 25 points behind, instead of 25 points ahead?
Sigh. I guess I'd better go empty my spinbox. It could be a long night.
NOTES AND VOTES:
I (Heart) Huckabee
Mike Huckabee is my Republican dark horse. Is he going to be president? I really doubt it. But I always look for a likeable governor (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush - you get the idea), and Huckabee sure fills the bill. He comes across as honest, sincere and genuinely nice, and how many politicians can you say that about? He's also unwaveringly conservative, which makes him appealing to Republicans who are wary of Giuliani's social positions and Romney's flip-flops. He's got a terrific personal story (lost lots of weight, runs marathons, plays the bass in a band, is even from Hope, Arkansas - the same town as Bill Clinton) and is consolidating the right wing voters that are lukewarm about the frontrunners. Prediction: Huckabee surges into the top tier with a surprisingly strong showing in Iowa, parlays that into a Top Three finish in New Hampshire, and hangs around long enough to maybe get the number two spot on the GOP ticket. You heard it here first, folks.
Obama Opens Up
Barack Obama slammed the Bush administration the other day for being secretive and opaque. He promised an "open government" attitude when he's president, saying "I'm not just going to have one of these press conferences every six months where I call on my three favorite reporters. We're going to have regular press conferences to explain to the American people, here's what we're trying to do, and to be held accountable." Sure, let the sun shine in, Barack - except maybe you should prove you mean it by starting now. I've covered five Obama appearances in the Bay Area so far this year - and only once did he have a news conference. He routinely avoids reporters and their pesky questions. At the California Democratic Convention in San Diego last spring, he was the only one of the eight candidates who did not meet with the media. He's coming back to San Francisco November 14th - let's see if he talks to KCBS (or any other media!) this time around.
Mr. Mitt Builds His Dream House
Maybe the long slog of the campaign trail is taking its toll on Mitt Romney. He's said some pretty strange things lately. First he confused Barack Obama with Osama bin Laden, repeatedly referring to Al Qaeda's leader by the Illinois Senator's name, and then actually attributing bin Laden's latest anti-West rant to Obama. And then, did you catch that odd moment in last week's Republican debate in Florida? Here's what Romney said: "Look, we're all Republicans on this stage. The question is, who's going to build the house, who's going to strengthen the house that Ronald Reagan built, because that's the house that's going to build the house that Clinton Hillary wants to build." Huh??? (And yes, he said Clinton Hillary). I know Bill Clinton was big on building bridges to the 21st century. Now that we're there, Romney wants to build us a house. Apparently, it's a big Republican house. One that can build other houses. That's a heck of a house. Luckily for us all, Mitt Romney has enough money to build it without needing a subprime mortgage.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Hillary vs. Obama, Etc.
HILLARY VS. OBAMA
This past Sunday was Democratic Smackdown Day in downtown Oakland. Hillary Clinton came back to the Bay Area for a huge campaign rally at 14th and Clay. The Clinton team pushed hard to get a big turnout, making robo-calls to random cell phones, to generate a crowd. Unfortunately, five of those random calls went to the phone of Barack Obama's California campaign director, Mitchell Schwartz. By sheer coincidence, he was planning to open Obama's Northern California headquarters a block away (at 14th and Broadway) the next afternoon. But upon learning about Hillary's event, he moved the shindig up a day, to try to steal some of Hillary's thunder.
The Obama camp put on a hiphop rally, starring local rappers Blackalicious. They gave out stickers and sold buttons. They brought in local elected officials who have endorsed Obama. They cut the ribbon on their first campaign office outside of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada (Oakland even got one before Obama's adopted hometown of Chicago). The sparsely furnished office smelled of brand new industrial carpet, and eager young volunteers sparred over which folding table should go where. But they were missing one key ingredient: Obama. The Illinois Senator was campaigning elsewhere, vacuuming up campaign contributions on the last day of the third quarter fundraising period.
That kept the crowd down to about 500 people or so. As the Obama party was in as full a swing as it was going to get, thousands started lining up across the street for the Hillary rally, attended by Hillary herself. That crowd probably topped ten thousand eventually; Clinton organizers claimed 14,000, but that seemed generous to me. But it was laid out in an awkward fashion. Instead of using the crowd-friendly plaza in front of City Hall, as Obama did earlier this year, Clinton's people set up their stage in the middle of an intersection, and packed her fans down the side streets. This left thousands craning their necks from about a block away, trying to catch a glimpse of the Senator. I didn't hear much grumbling about it though; the crowd was enthusiastic, and thrilled to get even that close to the woman they hope will be president.
Both rallies aimed for Oaktown street cred, with R&B artists, African American religious leaders, and black local officeholders. But there was also a distinctly San Francisco flavor to this Oakland showdown. The biggest name on hand for Obama was San Francisco's DA, Kamala Harris. The mayor of Oakland, Ron Dellums, avoided both events...but San Francisco's Mayor, Gavin Newsom, was on stage with Hillary and spoke on her behalf. Clinton paraded a who's who of Bay Area black preachers, but they were all from San Francisco, led by the venerable Rev. Cecil Williams. It's pretty clear Hillary and Barack are waging an all-out war for the black vote, which polls show is split right down the middle between them. It's not good news for Obama that Clinton is doing so well among his presumed natural constituency, especially when women are breaking heavily for Hillary, and accounting for much of her huge lead in the national polls.
Mayor Dellums endorsed Hillary the next day, at a separate event, which took the Obama campaign by surprise. His handlers had no idea they had lost the fight for the mayor's nod, until they were notified by reporters, minutes before the announcement. Dellums' clout has faded nationally, but he still has tremendous moral authority among the black community, and his face and name will mean on a lot on those Election Eve mailers, when undecided voters are wavering between Clinton and Obama.
ODDS AND ENDS
My favorite typo this election season was on the Associated Press wire the other day. It was in a story about how Rudy Giuliani is trash-talking about Hillary on the campaign trail, boasting about his own electability, and dismissing the chances of his Republican rivals. Except the story said Rudy is touting his "delectability," instead of electability. Does anyone other than Judy Nathan really find Rudy delectable? And even then, only when he's wearing one of his dresses. Which is probably why the AP later moved a correction, saying it meant electable, not delectable.
COME ON BIG MONEY!
The number-crunching isn't done yet, but Hillary had an astounding third quarter of fundraising, raking in more than $22 million, surpassing not just Obama but even her own campaign's expectations. We'll talk more about this in the next week or two, after all the campaigns turn in their paperwork and we can see where all this money came from. It will also be useful to see how much has been spent, because cash on hand will determine which candidates can afford big media buys in the weeks before the first primaries.
A NAGGING WORRY
Something always seems slightly amiss when I attend a Hillary Clinton campaign function. The aforementioned logistics at the Oakland rally, for example. The unseemly "upgrade" line at that block party, where attendees had to cough up a 20-dollar bill to get a spot closer to the stage. Then there was the strange scene at the Dellums endorsement announcement, which was held at Laney College in Oakland. Students were barred from the event, which was attended by 75 invited guests, handpicked by Mayor Dellums. Angry college kids jammed the quad below, demanding access, which they were finally granted when the campaign realized it had a PR nightmare waiting to happen. A hundred or so were allowed to stand in the back of the room while Dellums and Clinton spoke, but the editor of the school paper, Reginald James, who's also a student trustee on the college board, said he felt insulted, and wondered why Clinton would hold such an event on a college campus but then exclude students. None of this bodes well for how a Clinton administration would run the country.
You can hear Hillary's speech at the Oakland rally, Mayor Dellums' fiery endorsement of her, and her remarks about Iran, Iraq and Dellums at that event, in the Featured Audio section on the home page, or on iTunes as a podcast.
NEXT TIME: The "secret" internal memos the campaigns send us, to tell us how well they're doing and lay out their strategy.
This past Sunday was Democratic Smackdown Day in downtown Oakland. Hillary Clinton came back to the Bay Area for a huge campaign rally at 14th and Clay. The Clinton team pushed hard to get a big turnout, making robo-calls to random cell phones, to generate a crowd. Unfortunately, five of those random calls went to the phone of Barack Obama's California campaign director, Mitchell Schwartz. By sheer coincidence, he was planning to open Obama's Northern California headquarters a block away (at 14th and Broadway) the next afternoon. But upon learning about Hillary's event, he moved the shindig up a day, to try to steal some of Hillary's thunder.
The Obama camp put on a hiphop rally, starring local rappers Blackalicious. They gave out stickers and sold buttons. They brought in local elected officials who have endorsed Obama. They cut the ribbon on their first campaign office outside of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada (Oakland even got one before Obama's adopted hometown of Chicago). The sparsely furnished office smelled of brand new industrial carpet, and eager young volunteers sparred over which folding table should go where. But they were missing one key ingredient: Obama. The Illinois Senator was campaigning elsewhere, vacuuming up campaign contributions on the last day of the third quarter fundraising period.
That kept the crowd down to about 500 people or so. As the Obama party was in as full a swing as it was going to get, thousands started lining up across the street for the Hillary rally, attended by Hillary herself. That crowd probably topped ten thousand eventually; Clinton organizers claimed 14,000, but that seemed generous to me. But it was laid out in an awkward fashion. Instead of using the crowd-friendly plaza in front of City Hall, as Obama did earlier this year, Clinton's people set up their stage in the middle of an intersection, and packed her fans down the side streets. This left thousands craning their necks from about a block away, trying to catch a glimpse of the Senator. I didn't hear much grumbling about it though; the crowd was enthusiastic, and thrilled to get even that close to the woman they hope will be president.
Both rallies aimed for Oaktown street cred, with R&B artists, African American religious leaders, and black local officeholders. But there was also a distinctly San Francisco flavor to this Oakland showdown. The biggest name on hand for Obama was San Francisco's DA, Kamala Harris. The mayor of Oakland, Ron Dellums, avoided both events...but San Francisco's Mayor, Gavin Newsom, was on stage with Hillary and spoke on her behalf. Clinton paraded a who's who of Bay Area black preachers, but they were all from San Francisco, led by the venerable Rev. Cecil Williams. It's pretty clear Hillary and Barack are waging an all-out war for the black vote, which polls show is split right down the middle between them. It's not good news for Obama that Clinton is doing so well among his presumed natural constituency, especially when women are breaking heavily for Hillary, and accounting for much of her huge lead in the national polls.
Mayor Dellums endorsed Hillary the next day, at a separate event, which took the Obama campaign by surprise. His handlers had no idea they had lost the fight for the mayor's nod, until they were notified by reporters, minutes before the announcement. Dellums' clout has faded nationally, but he still has tremendous moral authority among the black community, and his face and name will mean on a lot on those Election Eve mailers, when undecided voters are wavering between Clinton and Obama.
ODDS AND ENDS
My favorite typo this election season was on the Associated Press wire the other day. It was in a story about how Rudy Giuliani is trash-talking about Hillary on the campaign trail, boasting about his own electability, and dismissing the chances of his Republican rivals. Except the story said Rudy is touting his "delectability," instead of electability. Does anyone other than Judy Nathan really find Rudy delectable? And even then, only when he's wearing one of his dresses. Which is probably why the AP later moved a correction, saying it meant electable, not delectable.
COME ON BIG MONEY!
The number-crunching isn't done yet, but Hillary had an astounding third quarter of fundraising, raking in more than $22 million, surpassing not just Obama but even her own campaign's expectations. We'll talk more about this in the next week or two, after all the campaigns turn in their paperwork and we can see where all this money came from. It will also be useful to see how much has been spent, because cash on hand will determine which candidates can afford big media buys in the weeks before the first primaries.
A NAGGING WORRY
Something always seems slightly amiss when I attend a Hillary Clinton campaign function. The aforementioned logistics at the Oakland rally, for example. The unseemly "upgrade" line at that block party, where attendees had to cough up a 20-dollar bill to get a spot closer to the stage. Then there was the strange scene at the Dellums endorsement announcement, which was held at Laney College in Oakland. Students were barred from the event, which was attended by 75 invited guests, handpicked by Mayor Dellums. Angry college kids jammed the quad below, demanding access, which they were finally granted when the campaign realized it had a PR nightmare waiting to happen. A hundred or so were allowed to stand in the back of the room while Dellums and Clinton spoke, but the editor of the school paper, Reginald James, who's also a student trustee on the college board, said he felt insulted, and wondered why Clinton would hold such an event on a college campus but then exclude students. None of this bodes well for how a Clinton administration would run the country.
You can hear Hillary's speech at the Oakland rally, Mayor Dellums' fiery endorsement of her, and her remarks about Iran, Iraq and Dellums at that event, in the Featured Audio section on the home page, or on iTunes as a podcast.
NEXT TIME: The "secret" internal memos the campaigns send us, to tell us how well they're doing and lay out their strategy.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Catching Mitt
Once upon a time...maybe a dozen years ago...I was waiting for the elevator at One Embarcadero Center in San Francisco, the 40-story skyscraper where our radio station used to be, before we moved into Gray Rock, the local CBS complex. The elevator doors opened, and out swept a tall, handsome man of impeccable bearing, flanked by a coterie of solicitous sycophants.
"Who's that?" I asked the lobby guard, as the man and his entourage bustled by.
"Why, that's Mr. Bain," he beamed.
"No," corrected a second guard, "that's Mr. ROMNEY."
It was, in fact, Willard Mitt Romney, the CEO of Bain Capital, the private equity firm that occupied two or three floors of offices below our studios. He was the son of former Michigan Governor George Romney (who'd been president of American Motors), and a very rich man.
The other day, I saw Mitt Romney in person for the first time since then. He came to Silicon Valley for the first public Bay Area appearance of his presidential campaign. He's been here quite a few times to raise campaign funds - something he's quite good at - but this was his initial contact with Northern California voters.
Romney spoke at a Santa Clara restaurant, holding one of his "Ask Mitt Anything" town hall meetings. It was free, and anyone could come, and a capacity crowd did. They were mostly, but not all, Republicans, and many were undecided, curious, eager to learn more about the former Massachusetts governor.
Romney has aged well. He is 60 years old, still tall and handsome, upright and trim. He's grayed at the temples, but hey, haven't we all? (Okay, I guess I haven't, but if more of my hair hadn't abandoned my head, it might be gray by now). He's still impeccably tailored and carries himself with the assurance of a man of privilege, someone who knows who he is and feels good about it. He's comfortable with people, smooth-talking, a pleasant chatter. He looks you in the eye, finds a way to relate, smiles easily, remembers your name. It's no wonder he's made a quarter of a billion dollars, and become a successful politician -- which is why I think he's being underestimated by many of the pundits, who can't look beyond his religion, and why I think he'll do a lot better in the Republican primaries than many people expect.
I've had Mitt Romney in the top spot in my GOP Power Rankings since I started posting them in June. Some are incredulous at that, pointing to his low showing in the national polls, and dismissing Romney's chances because he's a Mormon. But the man is a fundraising machine, can (and will) supplement those donations with his own fortune, has done extraordinarily well in the early debates, and has built an impressive ground operation in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. He's been on television and radio for months now in the Midwest, where his name recognition is much higher than it is nationally, and the voters who have met him at bakeries, restaurants and these "town hall" meetings, like him.
Let's face it, Mitt has "it." "It" is, for better or worse, the main determinant of success in an American presidential election. Got it? You've got a chance. Don't? Forget it, you're Al Gore. Or John Kerry. Or Bob Dole. Or Michael Dukakis, Fritz Mondale or the first George Bush or Jimmy Carter when they were running for re-election (psst: "it" can wear off).
Unfortunately, most American voters base their Election Day decision on likability, not self-interest. Polls in 2000 showed a majority disagreed with George W. Bush's positions and beliefs, yet enough voted for him anyway to put him in position to "win" that election, simply because they felt more comfortable with him than with Al Gore. Americans want a leader who projects confidence and quiet strength, not intellectual arrogance, and certainly not tentativeness. For many, many years, the taller candidate has always won...although Bush broke that streak, by defeating the taller Kerry (Gore is taller than Bush too, but he got more popular votes, remember?). Most voters will never meet their president, let alone have a beer with him or her, so it's certainly silly to vote for someone you like in the abstract but whose policies will tangibly worsen your life -- but most don't ever bother to study those policies, so the beer buddy test has to suffice.
There's no doubt that getting the measure of a man, or woman, can tell you a lot about his or her character, and my votes in the past have certainly been influenced by my interactions with the candidates. John Edwards has a very firm handshake; Barack Obama is extremely bright and exudes charisma; Fred Thompson seems twitchy. Rudy Giuliani seems almost mean sometimes; John McCain is funny and has a quick, self-deprecating wit; Hillary Clinton comes across as incredibly smart, well-studied and self-assured. But I would still never vote for someone with whom I disagreed consistently on the issues, no matter how much I liked them. I am in a very fortunate position of uncommon access to these people, so it is my job to communicate what I can to those who aren't, to help them make a more educated decision. That's why you can hear every word Mitt Romney uttered in Santa Clara, under the Featured Audio section of his SovNat page (click on Mitt's button under Meet the Candidates) and also on the home page Featured Audio. He talked a lot about education, immigration, technology, the economy - mostly bread-and-butter, pocketbook issues that hit home with the Silicon Valley crowd. He uses words like "mosey on down" and "folks" and talks a lot about America, the future, greatness - always upbeat, optimistic, and folksy. I think he's going to wear very well on the voters, and I would not be that surprised to see him pop out of the early primaries and surge past Giuliani, Thompson and McCain.
We did catch him off guard a couple of times, though. Romney changes his positions the way other candidates change suits. How many of you have completely altered your thinking on fundamental social issues such as abortion, gay rights and gun control over the last five or ten years? Romney has. The woman who introduced him in Santa Clara enthused about how great it would be to finally have a real businessman in the White House, someone from the private sector with an MBA, sentiments Romney echoed, apparently forgetting that that also describes George W. Bush. When I asked Romney about that, he said he wasn't talking about Bush, or any of his rivals - and then proceeded to say that none of his rivals could match his Wall Street cred. We also asked him about the Blackwater scandal in Iraq, since the company's vice chairman, Cofer Black, is Romney's top campaign advisor on national security. It was the only time I saw uncertainty in his eyes. He seemed unprepared for the question, and stammered through a non-answer, about awaiting the results of the investigation into the "troubling" allegations.
Romney's nomination would be good news for Hillary Clinton, because evangelical Christians don't trust him, and conservative Republicans wouldn't be motivated to turn out for him in November. Clinton, or whomever the Democrats nominate, should prefer Romney to Fred Thompson, who might prove a more formidable general election opponent. But stand Thompson next to Romney on a stage at an Iowa county fair or a New Hampshire candidates' forum, and see who makes more voters smile and nod.
"Mit" means "with" in German. I think more and more Republicans are going to be mit Mitt, as we get closer to those first primaries. If not...with that square jaw and smooth baritone, he'd make an outstanding TV anchor. Maybe he'll swing by CBS for another visit.
"Who's that?" I asked the lobby guard, as the man and his entourage bustled by.
"Why, that's Mr. Bain," he beamed.
"No," corrected a second guard, "that's Mr. ROMNEY."
It was, in fact, Willard Mitt Romney, the CEO of Bain Capital, the private equity firm that occupied two or three floors of offices below our studios. He was the son of former Michigan Governor George Romney (who'd been president of American Motors), and a very rich man.
The other day, I saw Mitt Romney in person for the first time since then. He came to Silicon Valley for the first public Bay Area appearance of his presidential campaign. He's been here quite a few times to raise campaign funds - something he's quite good at - but this was his initial contact with Northern California voters.
Romney spoke at a Santa Clara restaurant, holding one of his "Ask Mitt Anything" town hall meetings. It was free, and anyone could come, and a capacity crowd did. They were mostly, but not all, Republicans, and many were undecided, curious, eager to learn more about the former Massachusetts governor.
Romney has aged well. He is 60 years old, still tall and handsome, upright and trim. He's grayed at the temples, but hey, haven't we all? (Okay, I guess I haven't, but if more of my hair hadn't abandoned my head, it might be gray by now). He's still impeccably tailored and carries himself with the assurance of a man of privilege, someone who knows who he is and feels good about it. He's comfortable with people, smooth-talking, a pleasant chatter. He looks you in the eye, finds a way to relate, smiles easily, remembers your name. It's no wonder he's made a quarter of a billion dollars, and become a successful politician -- which is why I think he's being underestimated by many of the pundits, who can't look beyond his religion, and why I think he'll do a lot better in the Republican primaries than many people expect.
I've had Mitt Romney in the top spot in my GOP Power Rankings since I started posting them in June. Some are incredulous at that, pointing to his low showing in the national polls, and dismissing Romney's chances because he's a Mormon. But the man is a fundraising machine, can (and will) supplement those donations with his own fortune, has done extraordinarily well in the early debates, and has built an impressive ground operation in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. He's been on television and radio for months now in the Midwest, where his name recognition is much higher than it is nationally, and the voters who have met him at bakeries, restaurants and these "town hall" meetings, like him.
Let's face it, Mitt has "it." "It" is, for better or worse, the main determinant of success in an American presidential election. Got it? You've got a chance. Don't? Forget it, you're Al Gore. Or John Kerry. Or Bob Dole. Or Michael Dukakis, Fritz Mondale or the first George Bush or Jimmy Carter when they were running for re-election (psst: "it" can wear off).
Unfortunately, most American voters base their Election Day decision on likability, not self-interest. Polls in 2000 showed a majority disagreed with George W. Bush's positions and beliefs, yet enough voted for him anyway to put him in position to "win" that election, simply because they felt more comfortable with him than with Al Gore. Americans want a leader who projects confidence and quiet strength, not intellectual arrogance, and certainly not tentativeness. For many, many years, the taller candidate has always won...although Bush broke that streak, by defeating the taller Kerry (Gore is taller than Bush too, but he got more popular votes, remember?). Most voters will never meet their president, let alone have a beer with him or her, so it's certainly silly to vote for someone you like in the abstract but whose policies will tangibly worsen your life -- but most don't ever bother to study those policies, so the beer buddy test has to suffice.
There's no doubt that getting the measure of a man, or woman, can tell you a lot about his or her character, and my votes in the past have certainly been influenced by my interactions with the candidates. John Edwards has a very firm handshake; Barack Obama is extremely bright and exudes charisma; Fred Thompson seems twitchy. Rudy Giuliani seems almost mean sometimes; John McCain is funny and has a quick, self-deprecating wit; Hillary Clinton comes across as incredibly smart, well-studied and self-assured. But I would still never vote for someone with whom I disagreed consistently on the issues, no matter how much I liked them. I am in a very fortunate position of uncommon access to these people, so it is my job to communicate what I can to those who aren't, to help them make a more educated decision. That's why you can hear every word Mitt Romney uttered in Santa Clara, under the Featured Audio section of his SovNat page (click on Mitt's button under Meet the Candidates) and also on the home page Featured Audio. He talked a lot about education, immigration, technology, the economy - mostly bread-and-butter, pocketbook issues that hit home with the Silicon Valley crowd. He uses words like "mosey on down" and "folks" and talks a lot about America, the future, greatness - always upbeat, optimistic, and folksy. I think he's going to wear very well on the voters, and I would not be that surprised to see him pop out of the early primaries and surge past Giuliani, Thompson and McCain.
We did catch him off guard a couple of times, though. Romney changes his positions the way other candidates change suits. How many of you have completely altered your thinking on fundamental social issues such as abortion, gay rights and gun control over the last five or ten years? Romney has. The woman who introduced him in Santa Clara enthused about how great it would be to finally have a real businessman in the White House, someone from the private sector with an MBA, sentiments Romney echoed, apparently forgetting that that also describes George W. Bush. When I asked Romney about that, he said he wasn't talking about Bush, or any of his rivals - and then proceeded to say that none of his rivals could match his Wall Street cred. We also asked him about the Blackwater scandal in Iraq, since the company's vice chairman, Cofer Black, is Romney's top campaign advisor on national security. It was the only time I saw uncertainty in his eyes. He seemed unprepared for the question, and stammered through a non-answer, about awaiting the results of the investigation into the "troubling" allegations.
Romney's nomination would be good news for Hillary Clinton, because evangelical Christians don't trust him, and conservative Republicans wouldn't be motivated to turn out for him in November. Clinton, or whomever the Democrats nominate, should prefer Romney to Fred Thompson, who might prove a more formidable general election opponent. But stand Thompson next to Romney on a stage at an Iowa county fair or a New Hampshire candidates' forum, and see who makes more voters smile and nod.
"Mit" means "with" in German. I think more and more Republicans are going to be mit Mitt, as we get closer to those first primaries. If not...with that square jaw and smooth baritone, he'd make an outstanding TV anchor. Maybe he'll swing by CBS for another visit.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Fat Man and Little Boy
No, that's not the bipartisan Dream Ticket of Mike Huckabee and Dennis Kucinich (besides, Huckabee's not fat anymore; he lost, like, a hundred pounds). It's one of the many movies in which former Senator Fred Dalton Thompson has starred. Now, like so many actors-turned-statesmen before him - well, two anyway, who made a real impact (that would be Ronnie and Arnold) - Thompson wants to move from the soundstage to the world stage. To commemorate his entry into the presidential race, we present the following updated synopses of some of Thompson's, um, best-known films:
IN THE LINE OF FIRE: What Thompson found himself in, barely a week into the race. First he said Osama bin Laden no longer matters; then he wanted him caught and killed, but "under the rule of law." Then he demurred on the Terri Schiavo case, saying he didn't remember the details, before saying later that Congress shouldn't have gotten involved; then, he was surprised to learn while visiting Florida that there's oil in the Everglades and controversy over drilling there (never mind that this was an issue while Thompson was in the Senate). A rough start for Fred. He may need to study his lines a little more. Cue the music - it's time for "Law and Order: Trial By Fire."
THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER: What the Republican nominee will be engaged in a year from now: trying to turn some of those blue states into red ones. You can be sure the cable networks will use this one in a logo if Thompson wins the GOP nomination.
NECESSARY ROUGHNESS: What Rudy Giuliani claims as he lays into Hillary Clinton in his new attack ads. Rudy's sinking his fangs into his fellow New Yawker for dissing General Petraeus during last week's Senate hearing, trying to somehow link her to the Move On ad that bashed the general in the New York Times. Hillary's trying to stay above the fray, deflecting questions about the ad and her snarkiness with platitudes about how much she respects the general's service, if not his conclusions. They're just getting started, folks: it will be bump and run all the way to next November.
DAYS OF THUNDER: What we're guaranteed a year from now, when the Democrats and Republicans hold their conventions within a few days of each other, and as close to 9/11 as they can get. Expect a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
CLASS ACTION: What John Edwards will file against Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and friends if they don't stop calling him the "Breck Girl." He will sue on behalf of pretty boys with long hair everywhere. God, I wish I were still part of that class...
CURLY SUE: What Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and friends will call John Edwards next.
CAPE FEAR: Where the Democrats will hold their 2008 convention, unless they clone some stem cells and grow a spine for the party before next summer.
BED OF LIES: I don't remember this movie, but Fred was in it, so I couldn't resist. But this one is too easy, so we'll move on to...
BARBARIANS AT THE GATE: The immigration plank in the Republican platform.
BABY'S DAY OUT: A freshman Senator finds himself in over his head as he runs for president with a big bag of charisma and a teeny little one of actual policies. Starring Barack Obama as himself.
SEX AND THE CITY: Hmm, are the Republicans really still going to hold their convention in Minneapolis? Can they all fit into that stall at the airport? Even while Katie Couric and Larry King anchor from there? Fifty cents says Larry Craig won't get to deliver the keynote (and yes, Fred Thompson did a guest shot on Sex and the City once).
BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE: What each candidate instructs his handlers to do before he or she takes a deep breath and enters the presidential free-for-all.
LAST BEST CHANCE: What each candidate tells us he or she is, for Democracy and the Future of our Homeland. This one goes with...
BORN YESTERDAY: ...which is what they must think we all were, since everyone is running as the candidate of change, which is what every candidate has been promising since John Adams.
And finally...
NO WAY OUT: What the American people have, as we endure the longest, earliest and most expensive primary season ever... followed by the longest and most expensive general election campaign ever...followed by another disappointing president who is roundly criticized by carping pundits who all do stories about how there's no such thing as a presidential honeymoon anymore...followed by intensifying speculation about who will run in 2012...at which point we will start all over again.
Boy, this blog is way too cynical. Have I been on the campaign trail too long? Okay, then, we'll give it a happy ending, with:
KEEP THE CHANGE: What we all hope we will finally get to do, when Our Next President fixes the economy, cuts taxes, balances the budget, solves the mortgage crisis, brings Peace In Our Time, Joy to the World, the arts back to our schools and flowers to the streets of Baghdad.
See you next week...
IN THE LINE OF FIRE: What Thompson found himself in, barely a week into the race. First he said Osama bin Laden no longer matters; then he wanted him caught and killed, but "under the rule of law." Then he demurred on the Terri Schiavo case, saying he didn't remember the details, before saying later that Congress shouldn't have gotten involved; then, he was surprised to learn while visiting Florida that there's oil in the Everglades and controversy over drilling there (never mind that this was an issue while Thompson was in the Senate). A rough start for Fred. He may need to study his lines a little more. Cue the music - it's time for "Law and Order: Trial By Fire."
THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER: What the Republican nominee will be engaged in a year from now: trying to turn some of those blue states into red ones. You can be sure the cable networks will use this one in a logo if Thompson wins the GOP nomination.
NECESSARY ROUGHNESS: What Rudy Giuliani claims as he lays into Hillary Clinton in his new attack ads. Rudy's sinking his fangs into his fellow New Yawker for dissing General Petraeus during last week's Senate hearing, trying to somehow link her to the Move On ad that bashed the general in the New York Times. Hillary's trying to stay above the fray, deflecting questions about the ad and her snarkiness with platitudes about how much she respects the general's service, if not his conclusions. They're just getting started, folks: it will be bump and run all the way to next November.
DAYS OF THUNDER: What we're guaranteed a year from now, when the Democrats and Republicans hold their conventions within a few days of each other, and as close to 9/11 as they can get. Expect a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
CLASS ACTION: What John Edwards will file against Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and friends if they don't stop calling him the "Breck Girl." He will sue on behalf of pretty boys with long hair everywhere. God, I wish I were still part of that class...
CURLY SUE: What Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and friends will call John Edwards next.
CAPE FEAR: Where the Democrats will hold their 2008 convention, unless they clone some stem cells and grow a spine for the party before next summer.
BED OF LIES: I don't remember this movie, but Fred was in it, so I couldn't resist. But this one is too easy, so we'll move on to...
BARBARIANS AT THE GATE: The immigration plank in the Republican platform.
BABY'S DAY OUT: A freshman Senator finds himself in over his head as he runs for president with a big bag of charisma and a teeny little one of actual policies. Starring Barack Obama as himself.
SEX AND THE CITY: Hmm, are the Republicans really still going to hold their convention in Minneapolis? Can they all fit into that stall at the airport? Even while Katie Couric and Larry King anchor from there? Fifty cents says Larry Craig won't get to deliver the keynote (and yes, Fred Thompson did a guest shot on Sex and the City once).
BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE: What each candidate instructs his handlers to do before he or she takes a deep breath and enters the presidential free-for-all.
LAST BEST CHANCE: What each candidate tells us he or she is, for Democracy and the Future of our Homeland. This one goes with...
BORN YESTERDAY: ...which is what they must think we all were, since everyone is running as the candidate of change, which is what every candidate has been promising since John Adams.
And finally...
NO WAY OUT: What the American people have, as we endure the longest, earliest and most expensive primary season ever... followed by the longest and most expensive general election campaign ever...followed by another disappointing president who is roundly criticized by carping pundits who all do stories about how there's no such thing as a presidential honeymoon anymore...followed by intensifying speculation about who will run in 2012...at which point we will start all over again.
Boy, this blog is way too cynical. Have I been on the campaign trail too long? Okay, then, we'll give it a happy ending, with:
KEEP THE CHANGE: What we all hope we will finally get to do, when Our Next President fixes the economy, cuts taxes, balances the budget, solves the mortgage crisis, brings Peace In Our Time, Joy to the World, the arts back to our schools and flowers to the streets of Baghdad.
See you next week...
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Obamarama
Barack Obama came back to San Francisco last Friday. You can hear my report on his visit, and the whole 33-minute speech he gave at Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, on Obama's page under Meet The Candidates (just click the Obama button, then click on what you want to hear under Featured Audio, in the righthand column). But here are some random observations:
He may be slipping in the polls, but Obama is still a rock star. A crush of Obamamaniacs, mostly women, crammed against the barricades in front of the stage after his speech, screaming as if they were at a Beatles concert, circa 1964. Grown men and women stood on tiptoe, reaching out their hands, hoping he would touch or shake them. Cell phone cameras clicked and flashed. Autograph pads were thrust across the barrier. If I'd had the foresight to set up a Sharpie stand, I'd be a rich man now. Senator Obama chatted and signed cheerfully, smiling, making small talk, moving quickly down the line, his Secret Service brigade nervous and watchful. I was in this same hall five months ago with Bill Clinton, when my band played before his speech on health care. Clinton drew a bigger crowd, and he relished the flesh-pressing more than Obama. Clinton seems to draw his very life force from contact with other human beings, especially adoring ones he can lecture. Obama was relaxed and comfortable, but he didn't linger and suck every last second out of each encounter the way Clinton does.
Obama also drew an eclectic mix of admirers, including literati and even a hoop star. I ran into a veritable Algonquin circle of Bay Area writers, each wearing a "Women for Obama" button, though most were men. I dubbed them the "Authors for Obama," which seemed acceptable to them. Berkeley's Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Michael Chabon ("The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay," "The Yiddish Policemen's Union" and "Wonder Boys," among others) was there, with his wife, writer Ayelet Waldman (Waldman went to Harvard Law School with Obama). So was Daniel Handler, who writes for kids under the name Lemony Snicket ("An Unfortunate Series of Events"). They were palling around with Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, and a couple other members of the local intelligentsia. And holding up a wall nearby was Golden State Warriors point guard Baron Davis. Obama joked that he would be rooting for the Warriors this fall - as long as they lose to the Chicago Bulls in the NBA Finals (long-suffering Warrior fans would certainly settle for that!).
There were Catholic high school kids in plaid skirts, aging Oakland activists in dreadlocks, eager college students in Obama t-shirts and jeans. There was also a dynamo from Stanford, Julie Lythcott-Hains, who's the Dean of Freshmen, who led the crowd in Obama chants and was the firiest speaker of the day. The campaign should hire this woman as a crowd-warmer, because she whipped them into a frenzy, with humor and passion, before Barack took the stage.
Lemony Snicket is not politically active, and told me he was essentially dragged there by Waldman and Chabon. He was noncommittal about Obama, but was intrigued enough to come, and impressed by what he heard. Chabon, on the other hand, is a True Believer. He said no candidate has ever inspired this kind of passion in him; finally, after 44 years, he is moved the way young people in the 60s were by Robert F. Kennedy. Chabon spoke eloquently about Obama, and told me that the Senator's books were the clincher for him. He's extremely impressed by Obama's writing, which is high praise coming from someone as creative and imaginative as Chabon. (I will post the audio of my interviews with Chabon and Handler/Snicket, so you can hear those later this week in the Featured Audio section on Obama's page).
As for the Senator himself, he's got a new stump speech, and he delivers it as well as the previous one. The last one focused on change, a fresh perspective, new ideas. The new one talks more about his experience, responding directly to what the campaign recognizes is Obama's biggest weakness - some voters just aren't comfortable with someone so young, and with such a short government resume. The Hillary Clinton campaign has been hitting Obama hard on his lack of experience in Washington, using words like "naivete" as often as possible. The Edwards camp focuses on "change." Bill Richardson is now describing himself as the perfect combination of experience AND change. So Obama's shoring up his experience plank, by emphasizing his social justice work in Chicago before he went into elective politics.
Of course, none of this is new. Bill Clinton was a "change agent" (I always pictured him with one of those little metal changemaking machines on his belt when he said that). Gary Hart had "New Ideas," FDR the "New Deal." I can't even count how many candidates have promised "Peace and Prosperity." Every four years, we are promised new and different, hope and change, often from an outsider who, once he gets inside, will return American democracy to its Jeffersonian ideal. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer who'd never even BEEN to Washington. George W. Bush was the "compassionate conservative" who would unite Washington the way he did Austin. Hmmm...why is it that the qualities that get someone elected are not always the same ones that make someone good at actually running the country?
Obama's new message actually IS "Hope and Change," with a dollop of "experience that matters" thrown in there. (But of course Mike Huckabee is actually FROM Hope...the same tiny Arkansas town that gave us Bill Clinton, so he's one-up on everybody. Is there a town called Change somewhere?) Obama is smooth on the stump, easy on the eyes, and is starting to develop a nice little tinge of Martin Luther King Jr. in his cadence and timbre. So he definitely still has hope...and judging from the San Francisco crowd, he's got a lot of passionate fans...but he's still got a long way to climb to knock Hillary off the top of the mountain.
He may be slipping in the polls, but Obama is still a rock star. A crush of Obamamaniacs, mostly women, crammed against the barricades in front of the stage after his speech, screaming as if they were at a Beatles concert, circa 1964. Grown men and women stood on tiptoe, reaching out their hands, hoping he would touch or shake them. Cell phone cameras clicked and flashed. Autograph pads were thrust across the barrier. If I'd had the foresight to set up a Sharpie stand, I'd be a rich man now. Senator Obama chatted and signed cheerfully, smiling, making small talk, moving quickly down the line, his Secret Service brigade nervous and watchful. I was in this same hall five months ago with Bill Clinton, when my band played before his speech on health care. Clinton drew a bigger crowd, and he relished the flesh-pressing more than Obama. Clinton seems to draw his very life force from contact with other human beings, especially adoring ones he can lecture. Obama was relaxed and comfortable, but he didn't linger and suck every last second out of each encounter the way Clinton does.
Obama also drew an eclectic mix of admirers, including literati and even a hoop star. I ran into a veritable Algonquin circle of Bay Area writers, each wearing a "Women for Obama" button, though most were men. I dubbed them the "Authors for Obama," which seemed acceptable to them. Berkeley's Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Michael Chabon ("The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay," "The Yiddish Policemen's Union" and "Wonder Boys," among others) was there, with his wife, writer Ayelet Waldman (Waldman went to Harvard Law School with Obama). So was Daniel Handler, who writes for kids under the name Lemony Snicket ("An Unfortunate Series of Events"). They were palling around with Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, and a couple other members of the local intelligentsia. And holding up a wall nearby was Golden State Warriors point guard Baron Davis. Obama joked that he would be rooting for the Warriors this fall - as long as they lose to the Chicago Bulls in the NBA Finals (long-suffering Warrior fans would certainly settle for that!).
There were Catholic high school kids in plaid skirts, aging Oakland activists in dreadlocks, eager college students in Obama t-shirts and jeans. There was also a dynamo from Stanford, Julie Lythcott-Hains, who's the Dean of Freshmen, who led the crowd in Obama chants and was the firiest speaker of the day. The campaign should hire this woman as a crowd-warmer, because she whipped them into a frenzy, with humor and passion, before Barack took the stage.
Lemony Snicket is not politically active, and told me he was essentially dragged there by Waldman and Chabon. He was noncommittal about Obama, but was intrigued enough to come, and impressed by what he heard. Chabon, on the other hand, is a True Believer. He said no candidate has ever inspired this kind of passion in him; finally, after 44 years, he is moved the way young people in the 60s were by Robert F. Kennedy. Chabon spoke eloquently about Obama, and told me that the Senator's books were the clincher for him. He's extremely impressed by Obama's writing, which is high praise coming from someone as creative and imaginative as Chabon. (I will post the audio of my interviews with Chabon and Handler/Snicket, so you can hear those later this week in the Featured Audio section on Obama's page).
As for the Senator himself, he's got a new stump speech, and he delivers it as well as the previous one. The last one focused on change, a fresh perspective, new ideas. The new one talks more about his experience, responding directly to what the campaign recognizes is Obama's biggest weakness - some voters just aren't comfortable with someone so young, and with such a short government resume. The Hillary Clinton campaign has been hitting Obama hard on his lack of experience in Washington, using words like "naivete" as often as possible. The Edwards camp focuses on "change." Bill Richardson is now describing himself as the perfect combination of experience AND change. So Obama's shoring up his experience plank, by emphasizing his social justice work in Chicago before he went into elective politics.
Of course, none of this is new. Bill Clinton was a "change agent" (I always pictured him with one of those little metal changemaking machines on his belt when he said that). Gary Hart had "New Ideas," FDR the "New Deal." I can't even count how many candidates have promised "Peace and Prosperity." Every four years, we are promised new and different, hope and change, often from an outsider who, once he gets inside, will return American democracy to its Jeffersonian ideal. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer who'd never even BEEN to Washington. George W. Bush was the "compassionate conservative" who would unite Washington the way he did Austin. Hmmm...why is it that the qualities that get someone elected are not always the same ones that make someone good at actually running the country?
Obama's new message actually IS "Hope and Change," with a dollop of "experience that matters" thrown in there. (But of course Mike Huckabee is actually FROM Hope...the same tiny Arkansas town that gave us Bill Clinton, so he's one-up on everybody. Is there a town called Change somewhere?) Obama is smooth on the stump, easy on the eyes, and is starting to develop a nice little tinge of Martin Luther King Jr. in his cadence and timbre. So he definitely still has hope...and judging from the San Francisco crowd, he's got a lot of passionate fans...but he's still got a long way to climb to knock Hillary off the top of the mountain.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Super-Cali-Tex-Illistic Tuesday
Florida announced today that its 2012 Democratic Primary will be held next Thursday, just to make absolutely SURE no other state beats it to the punch.
Okay, maybe not, but you get the idea. In an effort to boost their clout with the candidates, various states are playing an embarrassing, confusing game of primary leapfrog, that is alienating voters, angering the national party leadership, and creating awkward situations for those presidential contenders. Four states - Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina - are supposed to kick things off in January, but Wyoming just jumped its Republican caucus ahead of the pack, Florida is moving up and scofflaw Michigan plans to vote January 15. The national parties are responding by threatening to punish the renegade states and withhold delegates, and now most of the Democratic candidates have agreed to boycott the unauthorized early voting states, by not campaigning in them...which defeats the purpose of moving up in the first place.
Meanwhile, so many states (23, the last time I counted), have crammed their primaries or caucuses onto the first Tuesday in February that the quaint moniker "Super Tuesday" will no longer do. Some news agencies are adopting "SuperDuper Tuesday" instead, but even that doesn't do it justice. So I've decided to go with SuperCaliTexIllistic Tuesday, which at least gets three of the bigger states (California, Texas, Illinois) into the name. I wish Florida would join the Feb. 5 party, because SuperCaliFlorIllistic sounds better, but what's a wordsmith to do? I'm writing a song about it too, which includes the full phrase: SuperCaliTexIllistic YorkiZonadocious...but you'll have to wait to hear that on KCBS (and, subsequently, on this site).
I've never been a fan of these early primaries. I understand the intention, and it's true that the candidates have been campaigning in California far more than usual, which makes my professional life more interesting. But in the long run, is it better for the voters, and for the process? In the old days, when we Californians voted in June (and occasionally in March), the candidates only came here to raise money, and by the time the nation's largest primary rolled along, it was essentially a meaningless afterthought in an already-decided race.
But look at the unintended consequences of this ridiculous exercise. Instead of beginning their campaigns in mid or late 2007, most of the contenders started running a year ago. Instead of holding their first debates in October or November 2007, when voters are starting to pay attention, they've been "debating" since last spring ("Let's see a show of hands: who believes in torture?"). The pressure to raise obscene amounts of money, to pay for all those extra months of staff, office space, polling, etc., is enormous. This will be, by far, the most expensive presidential campaign in American history, as well as the longest.
And what will we get for our money? The nominees will likely be determined by my birthday (which happens to also be the birthday of our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln), which means we will have a TEN-MONTH general election campaign. Yes, instead of a fall race that lasts from the summer conventions until November - typically three or four months - the general will drag on for almost a full year. That's guaranteed to produce voter burnout, not turnout. We will see ten months of overpoliticized, superficial, image-conscious rhetoric...not ten months of thoughtful discussion of the issues. Call me cynical, but even a spoonful of sugary sweet biographical campaign ads won't make this medicine go down. I will love being out on the campaign trail, and look forward to bringing you all the deep insight I can muster, but the Perpetual Campaign is not in the best interests of the voters. It's another symptom of the sickness that has made campaigning more important than governing...placed party politics above doing the people's business...and turned off so many voters from even caring what their representatives do in their name.
Okay, this has turned into a rant. Sorry. Cue Julie Andrews....
Super-Cali-Tex-Illistic YorkiZonadocious, moving up these primaries is getting quite atrocious....
Okay, maybe not, but you get the idea. In an effort to boost their clout with the candidates, various states are playing an embarrassing, confusing game of primary leapfrog, that is alienating voters, angering the national party leadership, and creating awkward situations for those presidential contenders. Four states - Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina - are supposed to kick things off in January, but Wyoming just jumped its Republican caucus ahead of the pack, Florida is moving up and scofflaw Michigan plans to vote January 15. The national parties are responding by threatening to punish the renegade states and withhold delegates, and now most of the Democratic candidates have agreed to boycott the unauthorized early voting states, by not campaigning in them...which defeats the purpose of moving up in the first place.
Meanwhile, so many states (23, the last time I counted), have crammed their primaries or caucuses onto the first Tuesday in February that the quaint moniker "Super Tuesday" will no longer do. Some news agencies are adopting "SuperDuper Tuesday" instead, but even that doesn't do it justice. So I've decided to go with SuperCaliTexIllistic Tuesday, which at least gets three of the bigger states (California, Texas, Illinois) into the name. I wish Florida would join the Feb. 5 party, because SuperCaliFlorIllistic sounds better, but what's a wordsmith to do? I'm writing a song about it too, which includes the full phrase: SuperCaliTexIllistic YorkiZonadocious...but you'll have to wait to hear that on KCBS (and, subsequently, on this site).
I've never been a fan of these early primaries. I understand the intention, and it's true that the candidates have been campaigning in California far more than usual, which makes my professional life more interesting. But in the long run, is it better for the voters, and for the process? In the old days, when we Californians voted in June (and occasionally in March), the candidates only came here to raise money, and by the time the nation's largest primary rolled along, it was essentially a meaningless afterthought in an already-decided race.
But look at the unintended consequences of this ridiculous exercise. Instead of beginning their campaigns in mid or late 2007, most of the contenders started running a year ago. Instead of holding their first debates in October or November 2007, when voters are starting to pay attention, they've been "debating" since last spring ("Let's see a show of hands: who believes in torture?"). The pressure to raise obscene amounts of money, to pay for all those extra months of staff, office space, polling, etc., is enormous. This will be, by far, the most expensive presidential campaign in American history, as well as the longest.
And what will we get for our money? The nominees will likely be determined by my birthday (which happens to also be the birthday of our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln), which means we will have a TEN-MONTH general election campaign. Yes, instead of a fall race that lasts from the summer conventions until November - typically three or four months - the general will drag on for almost a full year. That's guaranteed to produce voter burnout, not turnout. We will see ten months of overpoliticized, superficial, image-conscious rhetoric...not ten months of thoughtful discussion of the issues. Call me cynical, but even a spoonful of sugary sweet biographical campaign ads won't make this medicine go down. I will love being out on the campaign trail, and look forward to bringing you all the deep insight I can muster, but the Perpetual Campaign is not in the best interests of the voters. It's another symptom of the sickness that has made campaigning more important than governing...placed party politics above doing the people's business...and turned off so many voters from even caring what their representatives do in their name.
Okay, this has turned into a rant. Sorry. Cue Julie Andrews....
Super-Cali-Tex-Illistic YorkiZonadocious, moving up these primaries is getting quite atrocious....
Friday, August 17, 2007
Leveling the Field
It's been five months since the Field Poll surveyed California voters about the 2008 presidential race. That's an eternity for political junkies like me; we've been jonesing for fresh data. What's a wonk to do? Gorge himself on lesser polls with unsound methodology? Yes, it's been the demographic equivalent of bad fast food fries since March, but now pollsters Mervin Field and Mark DiCamillo have laid some filet mignon on us.
By the way, DiCamillo promises us new poll numbers on a more regular basis from here on in. Can't really blame him for a little bit of summer down time before the campaign intensifies. "We'll be very busy from now on," he told me, spitting out fresh numbers between now and California's February 5th primary.
The leaderboard in the new Field Poll is no big surprise: Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are dominating their respective primary fields. But there are a couple of interesting wrinkles behind the numbers (to see the poll results, click on our Poll of the Week on the Sovern Nation home page. You can also compare Field's findings to the poll done by Survey USA in California earlier this month. And to hear pollster DiCamillo talk about the survey results, go to Featured Audio on the SovNat home page. Our podcast with him should be at the top of the column).
For one thing, Hillary Clinton seems to be right. She told me last month, when I asked her how she could possibly win when half the country hates her, that she wins people over one at a time. She said New Yorkers were skeptical about her too, but now they love her. That when people meet her, and hear her speak, they are impressed, and become Clinton converts. Well, at least in California, it does seem to be happening. She's pulling away from Barack Obama here. In March, when Golden State liberals were buzzing about Obama, he trailed Hillary 41% to 28%. Now the bloom seems to be off the Barack rose, and he's fallen to just 19%, while she's risen to 49%. And since everyone else in the poll has stayed at roughly where he was five months ago, Clinton's new support seems to be coming directly out of Obama's camp, which means she's pulling liberals away from him. Hillary is also winning across the board; Obama does best among younger voters, better-educated voters, and African Americans, but Clinton still beats him soundly in all those groups. Yes, Hillary is winning the black vote in California: she's got 52%, and he's got 28.
On the Republican side, Rudy still leads, but his numbers are static, and he'd better keep an eye on those bubbling under. Giuliani had 34% in March; he's got 35% now. His biggest rival in the spring has had a summer of discontent, and is barely a factor now. Yes, those who were sure last winter that John McCain would be the next president of the United States were probably also investing in subprime mortgage bundlers. McCain has fallen faster than California home sales. He's plummeted from 24% in the previous survey to just nine percent now. He's been displaced as the anti-Rudy by Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, essentially tied for second. On the one hand, there's a lot here for Romney to crow about. Those who aren't paying close attention still don't know who he is, and a measly one percent of them say they'd vote for him. But of those who ARE following the race closely, 21% like Romney, which means he's scoring in the debates and impressing voters on the stump. That bodes well for the Massachusetts Mormon, and suggest he could close the gap with Giuliani as we get closer to the primaries.
On the other hand, though, the Christian conservatives who often determine the Republican nominee want nothing to do with Romney. Of those who consider themselves born-again Christians, 37% prefer Giuliani, 16% like Fred Thompson, 12% pick McCain, 15% split among the second-tier Republicans, and only seven percent back Romney. Those who identify as strongly conservative also lean towards Rudy, with 38% in his corner, and Romney and Thompson tied at 16%. That means there's an opening for Tennessee's Thompson (if he ever declares and gets in the race already!), to outflank Romney on the right and emerge as the most viable challenger to Giuliani.
We're just over five months from the primary. There will be many more polls, a ridiculous number of debates, and God only knows how many gaffes and controversies. Nothing in these numbers dissuades me from my current belief (held for several months now) that the nominees will be Clinton and Romney. But there's still some good stuff to chew on.
By the way, DiCamillo promises us new poll numbers on a more regular basis from here on in. Can't really blame him for a little bit of summer down time before the campaign intensifies. "We'll be very busy from now on," he told me, spitting out fresh numbers between now and California's February 5th primary.
The leaderboard in the new Field Poll is no big surprise: Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are dominating their respective primary fields. But there are a couple of interesting wrinkles behind the numbers (to see the poll results, click on our Poll of the Week on the Sovern Nation home page. You can also compare Field's findings to the poll done by Survey USA in California earlier this month. And to hear pollster DiCamillo talk about the survey results, go to Featured Audio on the SovNat home page. Our podcast with him should be at the top of the column).
For one thing, Hillary Clinton seems to be right. She told me last month, when I asked her how she could possibly win when half the country hates her, that she wins people over one at a time. She said New Yorkers were skeptical about her too, but now they love her. That when people meet her, and hear her speak, they are impressed, and become Clinton converts. Well, at least in California, it does seem to be happening. She's pulling away from Barack Obama here. In March, when Golden State liberals were buzzing about Obama, he trailed Hillary 41% to 28%. Now the bloom seems to be off the Barack rose, and he's fallen to just 19%, while she's risen to 49%. And since everyone else in the poll has stayed at roughly where he was five months ago, Clinton's new support seems to be coming directly out of Obama's camp, which means she's pulling liberals away from him. Hillary is also winning across the board; Obama does best among younger voters, better-educated voters, and African Americans, but Clinton still beats him soundly in all those groups. Yes, Hillary is winning the black vote in California: she's got 52%, and he's got 28.
On the Republican side, Rudy still leads, but his numbers are static, and he'd better keep an eye on those bubbling under. Giuliani had 34% in March; he's got 35% now. His biggest rival in the spring has had a summer of discontent, and is barely a factor now. Yes, those who were sure last winter that John McCain would be the next president of the United States were probably also investing in subprime mortgage bundlers. McCain has fallen faster than California home sales. He's plummeted from 24% in the previous survey to just nine percent now. He's been displaced as the anti-Rudy by Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, essentially tied for second. On the one hand, there's a lot here for Romney to crow about. Those who aren't paying close attention still don't know who he is, and a measly one percent of them say they'd vote for him. But of those who ARE following the race closely, 21% like Romney, which means he's scoring in the debates and impressing voters on the stump. That bodes well for the Massachusetts Mormon, and suggest he could close the gap with Giuliani as we get closer to the primaries.
On the other hand, though, the Christian conservatives who often determine the Republican nominee want nothing to do with Romney. Of those who consider themselves born-again Christians, 37% prefer Giuliani, 16% like Fred Thompson, 12% pick McCain, 15% split among the second-tier Republicans, and only seven percent back Romney. Those who identify as strongly conservative also lean towards Rudy, with 38% in his corner, and Romney and Thompson tied at 16%. That means there's an opening for Tennessee's Thompson (if he ever declares and gets in the race already!), to outflank Romney on the right and emerge as the most viable challenger to Giuliani.
We're just over five months from the primary. There will be many more polls, a ridiculous number of debates, and God only knows how many gaffes and controversies. Nothing in these numbers dissuades me from my current belief (held for several months now) that the nominees will be Clinton and Romney. But there's still some good stuff to chew on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)