- Jan 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Feb 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–28
- Mar 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Apr 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- May 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Jun 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
- Jul 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Aug 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Sep 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Oct 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Nov 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- Dec 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
Saturday, January 5, 2008
GOP Reviews
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 11:29PM
Wrap
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 10:56PM
Obama has come a long way- showing more maturity and polish. I don't imagine Hillary, especially with the screech, made much headway. Edwards was about as good as he ever is but will it be enough to get to second in NH? Not likely. Finally, I miss Biden.
Closing Thoughts
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 10:48PM
Richardson's irrelevant except insofar as he funnels people to Obama. But the big story here is the Obama-Edwards tag team. I think I saw something much deeper than mere politicking going on in the buddy-buddy operation. Of course, politics is politics, and it might not last, but -- especially if Edwards really can't win -- the mutual support, which seemed genuine, may spell the end of Clinton's prospects in a way that weathering New Hampshire can't change.
The big story of the whole night is that Mitt and Hillary have each been painted with very large, very lurid targets. Story number two is that McCain and Huckabee went into NH both surging and both leaving each other alone, and will probably leave NH exactly the same.
Winners: Obama & McCain
Runners-up: Edwards & Huckabee
Big Q: Matches made in political heaven?
By Default, Again
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 10:44PM
Obama, like McCain, is the de facto winner. Hillary looked small and defensive. Obama was unscathed, and has the fabled big mo.
Clinton Death Watch
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 10:44PM
Obama came off thoughtful and mature in this debate, Hillary didn't lay a glove on him. The news shows will be dominated by the exchange in which she arrogantly screamed that she's been an agent of change for 35 years--the exact image she had been trying to avoid all year.
Hillary Predicting A "Recession"
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 10:40PM
This 1992 script is getting kind of old.
Obama
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 10:27PM
Words do matter, Hillary. He praises Bill Clinton, as he must, because Bill's the greatest proof among Democrats that they do. I've said before that Obama's Bill's true heir, and this debate's driving that home.
Obama-Edwards
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 10:18PM
How long will it last? Edwards actually defends Obama's lobbying reform efforts against Charlie Gibson. Hillary's getting smaller and smaller.
Hillary on Likability
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 10:06PM
She seems to be obliquely comparing Obama to Bush. Cute. Also: She cackled. I'm pouring my third glass of bourbon.
Hurt My Feelings
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 10:05PM
OK, she has a sense of humor. Obama showing pity was a little sad. She then warns that people wanted to have a beer with George Bush and look what we got. She is right on the substance of this(not the Bush part, the don't give the presidency to an unqualified person part) but the reality is that people really don't like her that much.
Re: Obama on Anbar
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:57PM
That's the implication of his remark, yeah. But surely the Sunnis had/have the most to lose from an American pullout, and it only makes sense that an election-year result in favor of the pullout party at a time of heavy violence would have an impact, among other factors, on the strategic calculus of the tribes.
PS Hillary's back in technobot mode. Nobody grills her on her willingness to leave us in Iraq until 2012. But I get the feeling that nobody has to. She's been eclipsed.
Obama on the Anbar Awakening
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:52PM
He seems to think it was caused by Democrats' '06 victory. That's a novel theory...
Re: Tone
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:45PM
The dilemma is that Hillary can't allow Obama to come out unscathed, but at the same time when she goes on the attack it reinforces why people like Obama's call for "a new kind of politics."
Hand-Raising Exercise
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:44PM
Who here thinks Hillary's American dream has slipped away? Raise your hand if you think she's done.
<raising hand>
Change, Change, Change, Change, Change, Change...
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:43PM
Public Service Announcement: If you're playing my drinking game, please stop before you die of alcohol poisoning.
Re: WOW
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:42PM
Hillary went into her nasty ex-wife voice. "What's the matter with you people-- I've been doing this 35 years!" ( Not quite, but ouch.)
Angry Hillary Comes Out
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:42PM
Screaming about how she has been making change for 35 years. That is not a good image to be projecting. I think she's unraveling.
Edwards Comes To Obama's Defense
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:41PM
Says that he and Obama are both agents of change and Hillary is attacking because she represents the "status quo."
WOW
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:38PM
Edwards goes to bat for Obama. His logline for Clinton:
When Forces of Status Quo Attack!
UPDATE: an Obama-Edwards ticket?
UPDATE 2: She's getting strident.
"We Are All Advocating For Change"
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:38PM
When Hillary makes that statement, she's fighting on Obama's turf. Plus, who is going to believe she is really the candidate who is about "bringing people together"? And now she's trying to attack him as a flip-flopper. Is that really a credible argument for her to be making?
Obama comes accross very thoughtful in his response.
Hillary Is Getting Warmed Up
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:37PM
She is going after him on healthcare mandates, Iraq, soical security, etc. and rushes to John Edwards' defense(she needs him desperately to divide the anti-Hillary vote). Obama has gotten smoother and more polished in deflecting her. He comes back to broader themes of hope, bringing people together, etc.
Hillary Attacks
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:36PM
She's trying to paint Obama as a flip-flopper. Interesting strategy.
ABC
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:35PM
Agreed: this has all been a great breath of fresh air, mature and worthwhile. Too bad about the weeds cutoff, but, otherwise, what a difference.
Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:33PM
Hillary in desperately polished attempt to remain the establishment choice for change. Not answering the question: "I think there is, uh, a lot of room to ask a lot of us questions." She pulls out Obama's moves on health care. And, substantively, that's it.
ABC
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:31PM
I don't care for the prefilmed packages which are a bit intrusive and presumptuous but the GOP debate was, from the point of view of the moderating/hosting network, the best yet- fair questions and allowing room for conversation. And yes, John, some of it is the choice of questions but it is also a real attempt to make the candidates not the moderator the focus. Nice change!
Richardson
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:29PM
"Will seek immediate negotiations with the Soviet Union." I hear he's also going to send envoys to East Germany and Transjordan.
Back in the USSR
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:28PM
Sorry, did Richardson just promise to immediately reopen proliferation negotiations with the Soviet Union?
Tone
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:28PM
Everyone seems subdued and a little tired. Hillary is sounding reasonable and mature but not going after Obama so he isn't pressed. Hill: You're behind. You gotta go after him.
Pakistan & Nuclear Terrorism
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:24PM
Kate O'Beirne, among others, has been saying for a while that it would be edifying to ask Republicans "Democrat questions" and to ask Democrats "Republican questions." By focusing on health care in the GOP debate, and foreign policy in this one, Charlie Gibson seems to be doing that, and good for him.
Richardson
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:16PM
Wants regime change on the cheap: ordering foreign heads of state to resign. That won't "inflame the Muslim world in a horrendous way," will it? Oh. He proceeds to endorse Obama's position. Ratchet up that Clinton fury. He also endorses Obama's pronunciation of Pockystan.
When's someone going to ask Hillary to endorse or repudiate Operation Desert Fox? Her position on Obamaesque preemption: attack, but let 'em know when the missiles are still between here and there.
Obama on Pakistan
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:12PM
All he needs to say is: I don't do regime change. But he didn't say it.
I Like Mandates
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:03PM
Thompson has a chance to say: this guy is not the one to hold the GOP Reagan coalition together. (The irony of a Romney-Obama match up would be that Romney likes mandates and Obama doesn't.)
The Other -Poulos
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:55PM
George Stephanopoulos basically recounting our play-by-play -- McCain above the fray without being irrelevant, Fred with a "terrific night," but "too late to matter?", Mitt vs. a table of guys who "don't like" him.
Re: Body Count
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:51PM
Not entirely fairly, Romney and Paul lost, everyone else won, McCain's on top, when Fred shines it's mainly a reminder of how awful it is when he doesn't, Rudy was okay but I don't think excellent, and Huck was quite understated but mostly good and more Presidential.
Republican Wrap-Up
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:50PM
I think McCain's still the de facto winner -- there wasn't a big moment to stop his big mo', even during the immigration fight.
They brought the Dems on stage, and they and the Republican candidates chatted with each other. I wish I could read lips.
Now on to the Dems debate. I'm gonna pour my second glass of bourbon.
Romney Hatefest
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:48PM
It's pretty clear that all of the candidates want to take down Romney and fight amongst themselves later. Will Romney come out of this battered, or will he get a sympathy bounce?
The Body Count
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:47PM
Rudy was excellent. McCain more than defended himself and stayed just on the right side of aggression. For Romney, this has to be a disappointment and created some new problems with fiscal conservatives. For Thompson, you wish he was better but he just isn't quite. Huckabee was fine and didn't need to be any better than he was.
I'm Lovin' Fred
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:43PM
Would you do anything about oil company profits? "Such as what?" Awesome. "We are not a nation that regulates the profits or the losses of our economy." Tell 'em, Fred! If only he had charisma...
Huck's Best Moment
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:36PM
Distinguishing himself from Obama, and reminding us that if the GOP doesn't give people something...profound...to be for, it's toast.
Boiling
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:35PM
Mitt Romney has to be absolutely boiling right now. I've seen him on the campaign trail very quickly lose his patience with voters who ask him tough or confusing questions. To get ganged up on like this has to be infuriating for him. It looks like he lost his patience a while ago and is really struggling -- successfully -- to control himself right now. I wonder if he curses on the inside?
Huckalie
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:33PM
The Romney campaign helpfully passes along video of Mike Huckabee saying "I'm not sure I support the troop surge" -- the Huckster claimed tonight that he supported it from the beginning.
McCain: I Agree That Mitt Is Candidate of Change
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:33PM
All of the animosity that McCain has toward Mitt Romney is coming out tonight. Is he going too far?
McCain
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:32PM
Says to Romney "You are the candidate of change." Ouch. Then goes on to explain his difference with Obama is on national security. UPDATE: Romney makes an odd point that Hillary couldn't beat Obama on national security experience. What??? (McCain laughs and reminds him it was a Democratic primary.)Rudy says Obama lacks any executive leadership experience. "Change" he explains can be bad if it is change to higher taxes and retreat.
The H Word
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:32PM
Nobody's said it tonight. Will anyone?
PS Fred one-ups Reason magazine: "free people doing free things."
RE: Immigration
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:31PM
From a conservative primary voter perspective, Fred Thompson came off the best out of this exchange. Rudy and McCain both defended their positions well, but their support of legalization with penalties will be viewed as tantamount to amnesty by imigration hawks. Romney just isn't credible on this issue. He says his description of McCain-Kennedy as "reasonable" was made while he was still evaluating competing plans. Fine. But how would that affect his definitional judgement that the bill was "quite different" from amnesty.
Taking A step back
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:26PM
Rudy hasn't made an error tonight and his jibe about Romney's attack ad was a good one. He's got an A so far. McCain held his won on substance but more importantly held his temper so he's sitting pretty. Romney is going to take it from the base on "I like mandates" and hasn't scored a point on McCain. Thompson is just never quite aggressive enough to make an impression. Huckabee is fine but strangely silent given his big win and new standing.
Re: Rudy Steps In It
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:26PM
John, what a critical love fest we're having. Is it all just obvious, or have our stars aligned?
PS Paul is right: No national ID!!
Amnesty
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:26PM
Mitt Romney just admitted that John McCain's plan is "not amnesty."
McCain retorted that Romney's ad calls McCain's plan amnesty. Romney denied that.
Romney's ad features a New Hampshire resident accusing McCain of "supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants."
Once again, Romney is caught with a deliberately misleading ad in New Hampshire.
Rudy Steps In It
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:24PM
Bringing in the Reagan amnesty is a major tactical error. It's a gift to McCain, and, for the reasons Phil noted earlier today, Rudy shouldn't be propping up McCain in NH.
Immigration
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:19PM
McCain says secure the borders first and deport the criminals. he defends "temporary worker problem" but says it's a national security issue. Romney says 12 million should not be allowed to stay permanently but then says they need to get in line with other. (So they can stay but after waiting in the line? I'm not sure.) Rudy talks border control, change behavior for several years and use tamper proof idea. Says you can't throw out 12 million but throw out 2 million who are criminals. The ones left pay fines and won't get ahead of anyone in line. McCain said he "never supported amnesty" and quotes Joe Lieberman, cites Romney's praise for his prior plan. Romney says it "is technically true." McCain and Romney goes back and forth. McCain says "You could spend your whole fortune on attack ads and it wouldn't be true." Romney and McCain go back and forthsome more. McCain offers that "if you change your position it will happen[ get misquoted] form time to time." If this is Romney's best issue he's not made much progress.
Rudy Reagan
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:17PM
He's replaced 9/11 with Ronald Reagan. I can't believe he actually attempted to jump in on McCain/Romney on immigration with something sounding strikingly like "As Ronald Reagan..."
McCain right now is searing Romney. When you get in the weeds on the accuracy of your own negative ads, you're in the jungle, baby. ALSO: so far Romney hasn't tripped McCain's temper. I think that's fairly significant in a variety of ways.
UPDATE: AGAIN with Reagan. "I think he'd be in one of Mitt's negative commercials." And now Rudy finishes the job of exonerating McCain.
McCain on Immigration
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:13PM
This all sounds acceptable to me. One of the most important functions of the primaries is to permit the party and the grassroots to apply pressure to candidates, and vice versa, to create new agreements and new policy positions. My ideal grand bargain is zero new illegal immigration, citizenship for those here who want it, repatriation for the remainder (starting with criminals). Seems to me McCain's closest to this.
PS Right again, Tabin. That McCain can be winning this clearly and be this solemn says something, doesn't it?
"In The Weeds"
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:08PM
A very sad moment for the MSM. A serious debate about health care gets interupted by the moderator because it's to substantive for television.
At The First Commercial Break...
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:08PM
McCain is winning by default. He's stayed above the fray, and nothing has happened to derail his lead in New Hampshire.
A Break
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:08PM
Rudy has done the best job so far. McCain hasn't been touched. Romney "likes mandates." He's not going to make any progress at this point. You know-- if the base wants a principled guy Thompson never says anything that sounds unconservative or like he doesn't believe it. Needs more zip but another solid outing.
Huckcare
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:04PM
I like the idea that we're wasting all our money on catastrophic care, but what exactly should the federal government be doing to wage preventive war on illness? I'd be in favor of a new public service announcement campaign telling people that eating to obesity is bad and they shouldn't rely on pills to get through everyday life. But beyond that? I like Huck's instincts here, but want details.
UPDATE: Mitt vs. McCain on the pharmies. I gotta side with McCain here.
'I Like Mandates'
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 8:02PM
Romney won't win any friends in New Hampshire by defending his policy of having the government force individuals to purchase health care, or else face a fine. Fred Thompson does a great job of making the free market case for health care, in contrast to Romney's statism.
UPDATE: Is Romney making a play for independents?
The Sitting-Down Format...
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:59PM
...is sucking the life out of the debate. I bet the transcript will look more lively than the broadcast. Are normal people still watching?
Re: Health Care Question
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:58PM
John -- I'm flabbergasted too. Letting individuals buy their own insurance is a risky, radical, wrongheaded scheme because administrative overhead and sales costs go up? So because bureaucracy is inefficient and pharmaceutical companies rip us off we have to turn to the federal government? What do you think will happen to bureaucratic inefficiency and pharmaceutical cabalism if the Dems nationalize health care? Hopeless.
On another note, Mitt's taking a bit of a mockery beating. Fred's now grilled him into a corner. Astounding.
PS Mitt's motto slipped out: "The weeds are important." He's right, in part, but is that enough?
Ron Paul on Health Care
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:57PM
He says that because we're fighting a $1 trillion war, we can't pay for health care at home. Is he saying that it is a proper function of government to provide health coverage for its citizens? That doesn't sound like a very libertarian position to me.
Health Care
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:50PM
Rudy is giving an excellent answer on healthcare talking about free market principles. He is having his best outing in awhile. UPDATE: McCain also defends free market principles. Romney says his plan didn't require new taxes and says we can get everyone insured. Ron Paul pipes up so none of the opponents get a chance --will they go there?-- to point out the new $900 penalty for those who don't self-insure in Mass. Without prompting Romney says "I like mandates." Thompson finally makes the point: the state requires you to buy and asks Romney the penalty. Romney refuses to answer. [Hint: The answer is $900.] Thompson makes the point that Mittcare doesn't just force high income earners to self-insure. Romney defends on the "pay their own way" argument. Romney said he wouldn't mandate at federal level. I guess the small government people need to find a standard bearer.
Health Care Question
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:49PM
Wow, what a tendentious question. They cut to a video that basically said the Democrats' position is obviously right.
This Is All Well and Good
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:45PM
But if you are Mitt Romney you are making zero progress in taking the lead back from McCain.
Re: Rudy Slaps Down Ron Paul
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:40PM
Why would anyone want to keep Paul out of the debates? Without him, Republicans would be reduced to agreeing with each other.
I thought Giuliani did a great jub expressing the reality of the enemy we were facing, and rejecting Paul's absurd suggesting that criticizing Islamic terrorism was somehow anti-Muslim.
Principles
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:40PM
Mccain touts his experience and reminds people he stck with the surge and sticks Romney obliquely(see post below) saying he didn't call for a secret plan for withdrawal. Romney talks about keeping America but talks in very broad generalities. Eh. Rudy almost goes down the road of not not being a "position changer" but then gets back to his 12 Commitments. Charlie is clearly not pleased with all this nice speechifying and accuses everyone of doing a lot fo flip flopping. Rudy doesn't rise to the bait.
"Which One?"
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:37PM
Huckabee says in response to Romney mentioning "his position." Romney was startled, and that will be a major moment in news coverage.
(Wifi is down here at the press center, so I had to find an alternate connection, which is why I've been AWOL.)
Fred Kagan: Brilliant Theorist?
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:35PM
So saith Mitt. Says to Huck don't attack me for my policy. Huck stops him dead with "which one?" Mitt makes a pained face. Paul makes a horrible version of his argument. McCain is the brilliant theorist onstage here, staying above this fray. It's a great exchange, but it reveals McCain as particularly able to transcend the petty bickering factor.
Note To File
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:35PM
If you are going to invite Ron Paul, you do need time limits.
Rudy Slaps Down Ron Paul
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:31PM
He's Baaaack. Reminding folks of the returned check to the Saudi prince. Romney jumps into the fray to argue to. Huckabee jumps into turn the conversation to Romney. He sounds the best he has on foreign policy and spits his own research points. He's been studying up. UPDATE: Huckabee and Romney get into it with Romney saying he never called for a timed withdrawal. [Me: He did at one point, but suggested the date be secret].
Transformation = Arrogance?
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:28PM
Huckabee starts off with a dud: even if you think Bush has run the most arrogant bunker foreign policy in the world, you'd be hard pressed to come up with a reason why deploying fewer occupying soldiers counts as more arrogance. Fred pounces -- yes, pounces.
Rudy on Bush: "mistakes were made." Answer: "increase the size of our military." Rudy on winning the Cold War: "devastating." We need a three hundred ship navy? Huh?
McCain gives Bush the "little bit" of credit that's due, supports preemption, burnishes his for-pol bona fides as a proto-Petraeus.
Paul endorses the policy Bush ran on. [Editorial note: preemption must not mean 'attack when we feel threatened.' There's nothing necessarily contradictory in agreeing with McCain and Paul. But certainly on the merits I see no countries meriting preemptive attack, much less invasion.]
And Romney falls into the President's arms. "People now realize you attack America and there is a response." Romney's right that fighting jihadism isn't primarily a military job. But he's wrong that the Muslim world isn't already in modernity. Religious literalism, for example, is modernist. And certainly oil capitalism is modern. Also modern is recognizing the problems inherent in trying for security by demonstrating naked aggression. But only Paul's playing this tune.
Foreign Policy
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:19PM
Huckabee takes a relatively tough question and sounds more polished and calm on foreign policy. Thompson neatly points out that Huckabee is now saying something a bit different than his original criticism of President Bush. Thompson sounds sober if not electrifying. Rudy gives the strongest answer so far-- saying he's running on his own ideas but saying Bush got the big things right. By the way, with this format it'll be hard to be confrontational but Romney and McCain have yet to take a crack--at the question or each other. UPDATE: McCain was also effective-- reminding us of course his role in reversing Iraq policy and giving a nod to Rudy. Ron Paul does what Ron Paul does. Romney talks about moving Islamic countries toward modernity. (But with the military?) Thompson flexes his credentials and goes back to the rationale for pre-emption.
How Clever(Not)
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:14PM
They all look like news anchors. Now they are running a news package. I don't know who should be president but maybe the runner up can be Katie Couric's replacement.
George & Diane Yammering
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:12PM
Well, this explains why two 90 minute debates are going to take 4 hours.
UPDATE: Now they're going to a taped piece by Jonathan Karl after introducing the candidates? Does ABC think that these debates are about the reporters?
Stay Out of The Way
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:07PM
I would agree Charlie shouldn't get in the way of Romney and McCain -- he may get whacked, accidentally of course.
Worth Mulling
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:02PM
Rudy played off Hillary and for awhile held the role as the candidate most adept at taunting her. Her slide has deprived him of a helpful foil. Maybe something else is at work also. I wonder if the same factors aiding Obama's rise are also aiding McCain. McCain is making one argument explicitly-- that only he is competitive with Obama for key Independent voters. But perhaps GOP voters are more willing to have a nominee who has worked with Democrats, sometimes to the annoyance of the base, and someone who offers less strife and gridlock. Maybe bipartisanship is in.
What Huckabee Means by "Vertical"
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:01PM
Daniel Radosh, who has a book on the way about evangelical culture, explains. Add this one to the drinking game.
Should Rudy Be Rooting For Romney?
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 6:59PM
The conventional wisdom has always been that Giuliani needs Romney to be taken out early, and thus benefits from a McCain win in New Hampshire. But could the reverse actually be true? Should McCain win in New Hampshire, he could emerge as the choice of moderate, primarily national security, Republicans--the exact space that Giuliani is vying for. However, if Romney wins, it'll be hard for McCain to recover, and Giuliani would be in a position to consolidate the anti-Romney national security vote.
That CNN Poll
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 6:52PM
CNN/WMUR NH Poll McCain Up 6, Obama-Clinton Tied
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 6:31PM
MANCHESTER--I'm here at the media center at Saint Anselm
College, where all the buzz is about the new CNN/WMUR
poll showing McCain opening a 6 point lead over Romney, and
Barack Obama moved into a 33 to 33 tie with Hillary
Clinton.
UPDATE--This is key:
The biggest shift appears to be electability. 36 percent of likely Democratic New Hampshire primary voters now think Clinton has the best chance of beating the Republican presidential nominee. That’s down nine points from our last Granite State survey, which was conducted December 27-30.
Obama is just behind Clinton when it comes electability, at 35 percent, a virtual tie. Obama gained 13 points up since our pre-caucus poll.
“Obama got something else out of winning Iowa: a big boost in his perceived electability. A week ago, Clinton led Obama by better than two to one when New Hampshire Democrats were asked which candidate has the best chance of beating the Republican in November. Obama’s victory in an overwhelmingly white state may have resolved some doubts about an African-American candidate’s electability,†says Schneider.
Debate Drinking Game
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 6:06PM
The Republican and Democratic debates are back to back tonight, and if you're planning on watching both I don't recommend being entirely sober. So take a sip of your favorite adult beverage if:
Anyone says "change"
Anyone refers to Romney's flip-flops
Anyone mentions Wyoming (two sips if it's someone other than
Romney; Charlie Gibson counts)
Romney mentions the Olympics
Huckabee uses alliteration (i.e. calling for a "flatter, fairer,
finite, and family friendly" tax code)
McCain mentions the surge (two sips if a Democrat mentions the
surge)
Giuliani mentions 9/11
Ron Paul mentions monetary policy
Obama says "hope" (two sips if he says "hopemonger")
Edwards says "corporate greed"
Edwards says "fight" (two sips if he mentions blood or kicking
butt)
Hillary says "experience"
Bill Richardson is asked a question where his non-viability is
assumed (i.e. why haven't you dropped out, who's your second
choice, etc.)
Finish the glass if Hillary cackles. Finish the bottle if Hillary drops the n-bomb.
Re: Romney Wins Wyoming
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 5:38PM
It appears that Mitt Romney has won seven Wyoming delegates, Fred Thompson two, and Duncan Hunter one.
Romney Wins Wyoming
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 5:34PM
Jim Geraghty is watching the results as they come in.
A Telling Sign
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 4:51PM
At his townhall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire this morning, in the context of spinning the Iowa results as an overall call for change in Washington, Mitt Romney explained that's why Barack Obama "trounced" Hillary Clinton.
Then he declared, "We cannot afford Barack Obama as the next president."
Virtually nobody applauded--and this was a Republican audience. It doesn't quite have the same sting as, "we cannot afford Hillary Clinton."
McCain Outdraws Romney
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 4:39PM
DERRY/PETERBOROUGH, NH -- Earlier today I attended townhall meetings held by Mitt Romney and John McCain, and McCain by far had the larger and more enthusiastic crowd.
In Derry this morning, Romney spoke at a school to a crowd of maybe 200, some people were standing along the walls, but there were also empty chairs. As he went through a "To Do List" once elected, the crowd applauded, but it was rather subdued--and some people walked out during the question and answer session.
By contrast, in Peterborough a few hours later, McCain addressed a crowd of about 600--there were more people who wanted to get in, but the fire marshall had to shut people out. The audience was much more energized, and confetti shot out of air cannons at the conclusion of the event gave it a celebratory feel.
The Romney event was at 8:45 in the morning and the McCain event was at noon, so take it for what it's worth.
Meanwhile, a just released Concord Monitor poll has McCain up 6 points--with Obama holding a slim one point advantage over Clinton.
Looking Ahead To Michigan
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 2:19PM
Peaking ahead to next week, Michigan will play a large role, as some of us suspected it would. On one hand, Romney would seem to have the advantage with a strong family connection, name recognition and ad spending( his TV spots have been up for weeks). On the other hand, McCain won there in 2000 and this time will have the Independents all to himself since the Democrats have in essence cancelled their primary. I asked John Yob, who is heading McCain's effort there, what is the same and what is different from 2000. He answered: "The dynamics are almost exactly the same as 2000: McCain momentum at crucial time, strong potential for success in New Hampshire, no competitive Democratic primary so therefore Independents will vote Republican. This time we have a MUCH stronger team on the ground with the support of GOP District Chairs, County Chairs, Elected Officials, both National Committee members, etc as well as most of the Bush Michigan establishment from 2000.Thus the environment is the same, but the support of the ground is much stronger." What about the Detroit News endorsement? "The Detroit News endorsement matters because they did not endorse McCain in 2000 and were thought to have been leaning towards Mitt Romney given he is the hometown guy. It is the conservative paper in the state that GOP primary voters hold in high regard." How important is NH to the outcome in Michigan? " New Hampshire will of course have a great deal of influence on Michigan result as it did in 2000. Not just because of momentum but also because the electorates are very similar." Finally he acknowledges Huckabee has a following among social conservative activists but that he lacks "paid organization on the ground." My take: If Romney loses NH he shouldn't count on Michigan to bring him back from the dead.
Saturday in NH
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 2:00PM
Andrew Olmstead, RIP
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 1:49PM
I met the inimitable Andrew Olmstead at a blogger gathering in Denver in the summer of 2002. I'm glad I did, because I won't get the opportunity again, at least not in this life; he's been killed in Iraq. He left behind a farewell post:
I do ask (not that I'm in a position to enforce this) that no one try to use my death to further their political purposes. I went to Iraq and did what I did for my reasons, not yours. My life isn't a chit to be used to bludgeon people to silence on either side. If you think the U.S. should stay in Iraq, don't drag me into it by claiming that somehow my death demands us staying in Iraq. If you think the U.S. ought to get out tomorrow, don't cite my name as an example of someone's life who was wasted by our mission in Iraq. I have my own opinions about what we should do about Iraq, but since I'm not around to expound on them I'd prefer others not try and use me as some kind of moral capital to support a position I probably didn't support. Further, this is tough enough on my family without their having to see my picture being used in some rally or my name being cited for some political purpose. You can fight political battles without hurting my family, and I'd prefer that you did so.Read the whole thing.On a similar note, while you're free to think whatever you like about my life and death, if you think I wasted my life, I'll tell you you're wrong. We're all going to die of something. I died doing a job I loved. When your time comes, I hope you are as fortunate as I was.
NH GOP Withdraws As Debate Sponsor
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 1:18PM
The Union Leader reports that the New Hampshire Republican Party has pulled out as a co-sponsor of the Fox News candidates' forum, the last debate before Tuesday's primary. This is the debate from which Ron Paul is excluded, while Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson -- two candidates he frequently outpolls in N.H. surveys -- will be participating. The latest Rasmussen poll has Paul in third place, others have in him in fourth or fifth.
The First Wyoming Winner
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 1:11PM
Mitt Romney won the delegate from Albany County.
About Those Keyes Votes
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 1:00PM
I mentioned the morning after the Iowa caucuses that I couldn't find any votes for Alan Keyes included in the official tallies, wondering if this was the latest manifestation of his view that running for president is just a state of mind. But Keyes supporters are now protesting that the Iowa Republican Party has neither counted nor reported votes for their candidate, even though we know Tom Tancredo received 5 votes despite having dropped out. Keyes ran third in Iowa in 2000, receiving 14 percent of the vote, and ran sixth there in 1996 with 7 percent.
Apparently Keyes's name wasn't included in various official candidates' lists or reporting instructions. That means we won't know the vote totals for Keyes or other lovable eccentrics like John Cox until the folks at the Iowa GOP have combed through the paper ballots. Stay tuned.
As Goes Wyoming...
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 9:05AM
Don't forget there is a caucus there. Romney and Thompson have actually put forth some effort in Wyoming today. Romney has made multiple trips, Thompson has the state Right to Life organization and both have purchased voter lists. This is hardly a momentous event but Romney certainly would love to have a headline showing he won something and would dread another headline showing a loss in a state where he made some effort to win. Thompson --who by his own accounts won't have an opportunity to get on the scorebaord until SC on January 19 -- would be deligthed with a win. Duncan Hunter has also visited by the way. Results later today...
Iowa, We Hardly Knew Ya
Posted by on 1.5.08 @ 7:43AM
While traveling from Iowa to New Hampshire yesterday, I found it amusing to read that Hillary Clinton has taken to trashing the Hawkeye State by saying that voters are "disenfranchised" by the caucus system. Also: "Iowa does not have the best track record in determining who the party's nominee is," she said. "Everybody knows that."
This is the same woman who I heard say in Ames on Tuesday:
I guess she must have had flat tires.
Meanwhile, the Clintons continue to beat on like boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past. We're told that like Bill before her, New Hampshire will make her the Comeback Kid. Plus: "I predict to you we are just at the beginning of a very tough economic year," [Hillary] Clinton said. "There are some similarities between 1992 and today."
Friday, January 4, 2008
Thompson Not Dead By Any Means
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 6:35PM
At the risk of sounding like I am in the tank for Thompson (anybody who has seen my praise for Hunter, Giuiliani and Romney as well would not think such a thing), I am firmly convinced that Fred Thompson still has a real shot at the nomination. (I actually have an ego enough that I think I could personally do a lot to turn around his whole campaign in two weeks if I were running it, but that's another subject.) I watched him with Wolf Blitzer just an hour or so ago and he came across very very well indeed. He really is hitting on ALMOST all cylinders now, more so every day since beginning to really engage about December 1. He also benefits from Romney's poor showing. There is a real chance that conservatives could again coalesce behind Thompson as an alternative to McCain (for his many heresies), Giuliani (for his social-issue liberalism), and of course Huckabee (as an unethical liberal on everything BUT a few social issues). They could figure that if Romney, with all his money, couldn't buy Iowa, he is not viable no matter what. It would help Thompson, of course, if his campaign showed a bit of imagination.... Now, it is also worth noting that the utterly scurrilous Politico story yesterday almost certainly depressed Thompson's vote in Iowa. As I said on Fox News yesterday, for a news outlet to publish a story with UNNAMED sources that is clearly damaging to a particular campaign, on the very day of (or eve of) an election, is just unethical journalism. This is the same organization that many many months ago reported that John Edwards was dropping out of the race. Yeah, right. Anyway, DESPITE the Politico story, Thompson still finished third in Iowa. There's no telling how much stronger a third-place finish he would have achieved without the story. The Politico story said that Thompson would almost certainly drop out by THIS WEEKEND if a) he finished third only by a small margin; b) ESPECIALLY if he received less than 15 percent of the vote. Well, he finished third by a tiny margin, with just 13 percent of the vote, but the man is firing away with guns ablazing right now. And parts of the conservative blogosphere are again on fire for him. Some withdrawal. Why hasn't the Politico retracted its story? All that said, I wish all four conservatives good luck from here on out. It's just that Thompson is the only one who seems to have no real vociferous enemies in any conservative camp, or for that matter any GOP camp. He might be the only remaining declared candidate who can unite the whole party for a fall campaign. That is reason enough to hope that he does well enough to stick around a good while longer.
NH Tea Leaves
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 4:51PM
No-No's
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 4:03PM
Things to say "NO" to in 2008:
• An offer from your trainer to inject a tiny bit of 'vitamin B-12' into your thigh.
• A gift of an SUV with a sun roof from Pervez Musharraf
• An unsolicited telephone offer to refinance your house.
Thinning the Debate Herds
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 3:22PM
ABC News has announced that Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel won't be included in their upcoming Democratic debate. The Republican field is only down by one debater, Duncan Hunter. Their criteria? Finish first through fourth in Iowa, poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major national surveys, or poll at least 5 percent in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys.
Is 'Change' A Good Romney Word?
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 2:18PM
"Good afternoon folks. After last night's debacle in Iowa, Mitt Romney is desperate and has now brought his angry, negative attacks to New Hampshire. In typical Mitt Romney fashion, his latest attack stands in direct opposition to his previous statements.Mitt Romney should be mocked for this ridiculous claim: 'There's no way that Senator McCain is going to be able to come to New Hampshire and say that he's the candidate that represents change -- that he'll change Washington. He is Washington.' Ready for a laugh? Running for governor in 2002, Romney praised John McCain as an agent of change, stating that McCain 'has always stood for reform and change.'
Romney: McCain 'has always stood for reform and change. And he's always fought the good battle, no matter what the odds.'
Here's an on-the-record quote from McCain Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker on Mitt Romney's latest attacks:
'It is laughable that Mitt Romney would think anyone buys his latest act as an agent of change, when the only thing he's ever changed are his positions on every issue of importance in this election. Mitt Romney should have learned last night that his negative attacks don't work. John McCain's record as a reformer and an agent for change in Washington stands second to none.'"
The RNC Isn't Scared
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 1:44PM
Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan wasn't bothered by the results of last night's Iowa caucuses. He says no matter which of the Big Three the Democrats nominate, the message will be the same: They are the party of higher taxes and increased government spending. "We'll be ready for whoever they nominate," he told me in an interview.
I asked him if that distinction will be blurred if the Republicans nominate either Iowa winner Mike Huckabee or New Hampshire (co-?) frontrunner John McCain, neither of whom have stellar small-government records. Duncan said that people have been inaccurately predicting the breakup of the conservative coalition since his first national convention in 1972, and he thinks the coalition will hold this time as well. He argues that the Democrats are the ones proposing the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, not the Republicans, and it is the Democrats who are running on a platform of large net spending increases and bureaucratic control of health care.
Duncan touted the RNC's recent fundraising successes and said that indictators like direct mail, donations, attendance at rallies, and special elections indicated that numbers and enthusiasm were up last year compared with 2006. He said the larger Democratic turnout at the caucuses reflected the differences in the way the delegates are allocated -- the Republican delegates have yet to be chosen -- and that GOP turnout was actually strong. Duncan declined to elaborate on the RNC's 2008 electoral strategy, other than to say they have developed multiple scenarios based on who the parties' respective nominees are. Against Hillary Clinton there is the change narrative, Barack Obama is vulnerable on experience and his liberal voting record nationally an in Illinois, and John Edwards is vulnerable on his economic message. The RNC will also dovetail its strategy to the strengths of the eventual GOP nominee.
Romney 2.0 --- er 3.0?
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 12:21PM
Here is a fairly revealing piece on the Romney effort to regroup. I wonder if coming up with yet another message and another attack line ("McCain is a Washington insider") merely plays into the chameleon/negativity problem Romney has. He only has a few days and now rolling out a new line against McCain which so obviously tries to play into the "change" message that consultants extracted from the Iowa results seems risky. One thing is clear however: Romney's immigration attacks didn't carry the day against Huckabee who narrowly won over voters on that issue so this, which was one of his top issues against McCain, may just not be viable. He could run a positive, I'm a fighter and you've never seen me like this kind of message instead. You know, try to convince voters why they should like him. Others are a bit bemsued too.
OK, Now He's Growing On Me
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 11:36AM
Barak Obama: "This feels good. It's just like I imagined it when I was talking to my kindergarten teacher."
Interview with Fegus Cullen
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 11:12AM
I asked NH GOP Chairman Cullen Fergus a few questions about the state of the race. He began by noting that both McCain and Romney are drawing crowds of several hundred people.What is fueling the McCain boom? "McCain has a deep reservoir of support and respect among Republicans to draw upon - but Rudy's decline and McCain's appeal to Independents have driven his rise." He notes that he will now however have to fight Obama for Independents, a task which would have been easier had Hillary cruised to a win in Iowa. Will the debate Saturday be key? Fergus notes that the debates have been "remarkably news-free all year as candidates avoid making mistakes more than they try to score points." He suspects it won't measurably change the race. What about the local media endorsements for McCain- do they matter? " Yes, the endorsements do add up. The Union Leader has been pounding away (in 1976, in three months they ran 59 pro-Reagan or anti-Ford editorials, and they are doing their darndest to catch up) not just for McCain but against Romney. They are particularly influential with Republican primary voters and I think the Union Leader made a conscious decision to have a greater impact this cycle than they've had in recent primaries."
McCain Blogger Call
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 11:01AM
The Romney That Could Have Been
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 10:59AM
Let me repeat the phrase again: a one-term pro-choice former governor of Massachusetts. Add on top of that his Massachusetts health plan and the fee increases you keep pointing out. If that was Mitt Romney's 2008 platform, then his campaign would have ended after New Hampshire rather than (maybe) Iowa. Not a huge difference in the final analysis.
Even if Romney's strategy of moving to the right ends up failing -- he almost certainly erred by making the issues on which he flip-flopped central to his campaign -- some variation of it was still his best bet. The constituency within the national GOP for an Arlen Specter-style fiscal and social moderate with no other big story to tell is not large enough to give anyone the nomination. And while authenticity matters, let's not make a fetish of it. Iowans were plenty willing to overlook their concerns about how genuine Romney was until they felt they got a better offer from Mike Huckabee. Enough of them were still willing to overlook those concerns to put Romney more than ten points ahead of the third, fourth, and fifth place finishers.
Ten Answers To These That Would Tell Us A Lot
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 9:50AM
Re: Sentiment over substance
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 8:47AM
Amen, Quin, Amen. One bright spot: Huckabee's win plays right into Giuliani's apparent strategy of layiing back in the tall grass and letting the rest of the party implode. Here in Massachusetts, Rudy has been running every bit as many radio spots as any other candidate, but they are distinctively different. He's talking about what America really is, and about the challenge of the global situation. He's paying no attention to the day-to-day static popping off the other campaigns. A number of commentators have poo-pooed Giuliani's hanging back till Feb. 5, but I think it could work a treat. The GOP could have three different winners in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Oh, one more bright spot: This is Huck's last hurrah.
Is Huck Even Capable of Truth?
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 8:17AM
I promised myself that I would take a day off from being angered by Huckabee, but then I woke up and saw him on yet another puffball interview on Fox News (NO hard questions) this morning and within three minutes he was exaggerating (lying) for no good reason except to make himself look braver and better than he is. Talking about whether or not he is a real conservative, Huck said (quotes are approximate) he was "with Ronald Reagan back in late 1979 and eearly 1980 when he was in last place in the polls and the front runners were John COnnally and Howard Baker and Bob Dole and George Bush." That's nonsense. Reagan NEVER was anywhere NEAR last place in the polls for the 1980 race. In fact, he led almost every national poll of Republicans taken in 1979 and 1980, although sometimes he fell slightly into second place behind either Gerald Ford (in a hypothetical matchup; he never announced as a candidate) or George Bush. It took no particular courage to be for Reagan in 1980 -- and certainly not in Arkansas, where Reagan ran well all along. (From memory of something I recently read, I think Reagan got six of the 12 earliest awarded Arkie delegates in a multi-person field.)
It's a small thing, but it is part of a disturbing trend where Huck just can't stop himself from self-promotional untruths. If he had merely said, "look, I was with Reagan as early as late 1979," it would have been a point well taken. But instead he had to puff up his support into something braver, more noble than it was.
The steady drip-drip-drip of small untruths and ethical shenanigans and the like during my time covering Huck in Arkansas turned me from a Huck admirer to (obviously) a critic. THe man lies the way Bill CLinton does, with great facility and no conscience about it. That's why I say the man is NOT authentic, that he fakes sincerity and authenticity quite well. It's all an act. As is his"nice guy" schtick. Why do you think he hired Ed Rollins? So he can play good cop to Rollins' bad cop, and blame Rollins for all the shivs his campaign sticks into his opponents. And as Mitt Romney found out when Huck did the Mormons/Jesus/Satan routine for the New York Times, Huck knows how to use a shiv. As badly as the big media (rightly) criticized Huck for those comments, they worked remarkably well to drive up Evangelical fears about Mormonism -- just as Huck intended.
Anyway, back to the main point: I now await the day when Huck claims to have provided moral grounding for the Reagan Doctrine against the Soviets.....
Rudy Survives
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 7:16AM
Others share my view that Rudy got a lift yesterday. Romney will not sweep the early states and may be seriously if not fatally damaged. Thompson limped along and will be there to continue to divide the social conservative vote. The conservative establishment more than ever is now gunning for Huckabee. (A nano-second passed after the election results were in before I got my first Club for Growth email denouncing Huckabee.) He does have tasks ahead: do well in the debate, make a strong showing in NH and try to stay above the fray but still in the mix( a tricky balance) until Florida. In short, it could have worse. A lot worse.
Post Mortem
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 6:32AM
An extremely smart take is here. I and others were critical of many pollsters but Charlie Cook points out how very accurate the Des Moines Register turned out to be. He notes: "Their headline on Tuesday was 'Poll: Obama, Huckabee lead into final stretch' with Mike Huckabee up over Mitt Romney by six (it was 9) and Obama up by 7 and 8 over Clinton and Edwards. It was on touch wider with 2nd and 3rd reversed, but that was pretty good polling and many doubted them. It doesn't get much better than that." I think there is a larger message here as well. The national media and all of us would be well advised to pay more attention to how the race is portrayed locally. Iowa press for example didn't excoriate Huckabee for thee odd presser. Yepsen and others picked up on the huge Democratic turnout possibility which sealed Obama's win. The national media may not always be in touch with the heartland, but hometown papers often are.
Re: Closing Thoughts
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 6:04AM
James, you raise a very, very interesting point. Had Romney indeed done that --skipped Iowa-- Iowa would have been a whole lot less meaningful and the real race could have started in NH with a reform minded governor from a nearby state vs. the rest. It might have worked. Or not. But he never overcame the authenticity problem and has now imperiled his chances in NH.
Clinton's Stubborn Supporters Cost Her Delegates
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 4:45AM
DES MOINES -- Anecdotal evidence suggests that Hillary Clinton's take no prisoners mentality and sense of entitlement may have trickled down to her supporters and cost her crucial delegates in the complex world of caucusing. It may have even meant the difference between a second and third place finish, given the closeness of the race for silver with John Edwards.
Unlike regular voting in booths, at a Democratic caucus, voters gather in preference groups for the various candidates and then debate one another in an attempt to change minds. At the caucus I observed at the First Presbyterian Church of Des Moines, an older woman who served as a precinct captain for Clinton got aggressive with Obama supporters. "I'm not saying he doesn't have experience, but he doesn't have enough of it," she shouted at them. Then she reflected a certain Clintonian smugness by telling them that Obama would make a great vice-president. She downright got in the face of a two young female Obama supporters, pointing at them, and commanding, "You know why you have to vote for Hillary? Because she's a woman!" She then lectured about how she had marched for women's rights in 1972.
Under the arcane rules of a Democratic caucus, a candidate must attain 15 percent of the vote in a room to be considered viable, or else his or her supporters will have the option of defecting to another candidate, which could determine the outcome. At the caucus site I observed, for instance, Clinton started out with a 56 to 39 advantage over Obama, but once the Joe Biden and Bill Richardson supporters recommitted, her final margin of victory was narrowed to 58 to 56.
Delegates are then awarded to candidates based on a complicated mathematical formula related to the number of votes received, so even if a candidate doesn't win at a caucus site, picking up supporters of other candidates can bolster his or her delegate count. This is where the arrogance of Clinton supporters may have cost the campaign dearly.
Gilbert Gallegos, a spokesman for Richardson's governor's office, told me that at the caucus he observed, his boss wasn't viable. Clinton was well ahead at that particular site, so the savvy strategy would have been for her supporters to surrender some votes to Richardson, so he could become viable, and thus deprive the other campaigns of his voters. Instead, the Clinton supporters were stubborn. "They wouldn't budge," Gallegos told me. As a result, Richardson voters went to Edwards and Obama, and that improved their vote totals enough so that by the time the delegates were tallied, Clinton ended up in a three way tie.
By contrast, at Obama's victory party, I met up with Cliff Muhammad, an Obama supporter who had come from Chicago. Muhammad said at the caucus site he observed, the Obama supporters faced the same choice regarding Richardson, but they surrendered a voter to make Richardson viable, and thus ended up with more delegates.
The difference in approaches is a small indication of the difference between the stubborn, polarizing, tendency of the Clintons, and the willingness of Obama and his supporters to work with others for pragmatic reasons.
Turnout Gap
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 2:35AM
DES MOINES -- While the turnout in the caucuses was larger than expected on both sides, Democratic turnout overwhelmed Republican participartion by a two to one margin. As I noted on Thursday, this is a really bad sign for Republicans come November. Standing among the crowd of several thousand as Obama spoke at his victory celebration, I just could not imagine any Republican candidate emerging from this unsettled field and generating the same enthusiasm.
Silver Linings and Approaching Clouds
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 2:22AM
Let me wrap up my early morning post-Iowa ramblings by analyzing the upsides and downsides for each Republican candidate in light of the results. All observations may be superseded by the next primary or caucus.
Mike Huckabee Upside: Despite having everything but the kitchen sink thrown at you by members of your own party, you won the caucuses by a convincing margin. Downside: This campaign has chewed up every frontrunner and spit them out. It's your turn now, chuckles.
Mitt Romney Upside: You've still got lots of money, and tradition is on your side in New Hampshire even if the polls increasingly aren't. It's not too late to right the ship. Downside: Money didn't buy you love in Iowa. The other thing it can't buy is time, which you are running out of.
Fred Thompson Upside: You appear to have come in third when everyone said you couldn't. The quick brown fox didn't jump over the lazy dog, who is still in the hunt. Downside: Your margin over John McCain is so thin that I hesitate to proclaim you the third-place finisher even with 95 percent of precincts reporting. This result keeps you in the running, but it is hard to see it providing much of a boost.
John McCain Upside: That was an awfully strong showing, given that you barely campaigned in Iowa. And you still oppose ethanol subsidies. Downside: Your showing probably wasn't strong enough to convince all those conservatives you have irritated for the last eight years to forgive and forget. See you in New Hampshire.
Ron Paul Upside: Just six months ago, if you had told us you would break into the double digits in Iowa, finish six points ahead of Rudy Giuliani, and probably scoop up a couple delegates in the process, no one would have believed you. Downside: You only needed three more points to become a big part of the Iowa story. Those unconventional Paul supporters who the polls are supposedly not picking up didn't materialize to provide those extra three points.
Rudy Giuliani Upside: You more or less bypassed Iowa, so your pitiful performance might not hurt you in the big states where you still lead. And given the state of the race, your path to the nomination isn't much less plausible than anybody else's. Downside: You are supposed to be the national frontrunner and you can't even get a solid 5 percent of the vote. McCain did that well in Iowa in 2000, and he had even less of a presence there in that race than you had this time around.
Duncan Hunter Upside: You are still a respected conservative congressman. The only thing small about you is your vote totals. Downside: It is really getting difficult to keep pretending that this is a serious presidential effort.
Alan Keyes Upside: At least we'll always have the Des Moines Register debate. Downside: I can't find any evidence that you got any votes. Were you even on the ballot?
Re: Closing Thoughts
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 2:03AM
I don't disagree at all that authenticity is important and was always a problem for Mitt Romney. I say as much in my quick reaction for the Guardian. But let's not idealize the authentic Iowa voters too much. Romney led there for months because he presented himself as a social conservative. If he had run as the pro-choice one-term former governor of Massachusetts, he would have been forced to bypass the caucuses just like the more authentic America's Mayor.
Closing Thoughts
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 12:58AM
This is a rather brillant and a little sad take on Romney. James has argued that had Romney not transformed himself no one would have given him the time of day. But I think this is the year of uncoventional, authentic people. It might have worked.
James, we're all going to think long and hard about who is viable and who is electable. But McCain may in fact be the consensus that economic conservatives(ok he's keeping the Bush tax cuts, is a free trader and has a terrific healthcare plan) and foreign policy conservatives can live with as the anybody but Huckabee. There aren't a lot of options.
Finally, Joe Biden is leaving the race and it makes me sad. He is genuine, honest and smart and I hope to goodness that if we have to live with an Obama presidency Biden is there to keep us from getting in too much trouble.
When's the Next Backlash?
Posted by on 1.4.08 @ 12:10AM
Mike Huckabee's rise is in no small part the result of a backlash by values voters against a Republican establishment and conservative movement they felt didn't take their concerns seriously enough. But there are other conservative groups who will be heard from. Will economic conservatives, to name just one of them, be happy with the prospect of a Huckabee-McCain race? Rudy Giuliani -- and perhaps Mitt Romney -- would like to think not.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Fun Facts
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 11:51PM
Mike Huckabee spent $47.44 per vote for a projected 42,160 votes.
Sentiment Over Substance
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 11:34PM
Tonight is a sad one for America. It marks the triumph of sentiment over substance. Mike Huckabee's speech was nothing but empty platitudes. Obama's is not much better. Again, this is a comment on their substance, or lack thereof. On an emotional level, they connect with people. Their tone is right. That's why all year long I have warned people to watch Huckabee -- because I knew he was a threat to win the nomination. But if he does, Susan Estrich is right: The Democrats will be dancing on inauguration night, because they will make mincemeat of this unethical, insubstantial, unconservative rube from Hope, Arkansas. Of course, it also shows that the people of Iowa aren't serious about electing a president; they are serious only about "sending a message" about the tone of politics. That message is a correct one -- the tone does need to improve -- but the inexperienced and unaccomplished Obama (what, pray tell, has he actually ever achieved as a legislator?) and the money-grubbing, parochial governor full of more demagoguery than of knowledge are NOT, repeat NOT, men who have any business sniffing the Oval Office. Men of substance such as Joe Biden on the left and Thompson and Giuliani and Hunter and Romney on the right have, for this night at least, been overwhelmed by empty rhetoric. (And not JUST empty rhetoric: In Huck's case, there has been a nasty undercurrent of anti-Mormon bigotry, of sneaky and snarky negative attacks while disavowing the same, and of too-clever use of religious symbolism that together all amount to demagoguery.)
One other thing: It also shows that the American people have no idea how good their lives are. The strong response to economic grievance-mongering shows that people who are incredibly wealthy by every historical standard are somehow convinced they are barely making ends meet -- barely making ends meet while their families have two cars, three TVs, four cell phones, and untold numbers of other gadgets in homes they themselves own. There is a word for this: spoiled. Huckabee and Obama are smart enough to appeal to the spoiled Americans who have no idea what real hardship is.
A word of warning, though: If people think that with Mike Huckabee they are getting good "values" and "authenticity," they are wrong. Huck fakes good values really well. Leading conservatives from Rush Limbaugh to George Will to Peggy Noonan have figured this out already. When the mainstream media begins proving it after Huck wins the nomination (if he wins), the man will be one flattened huckster.
Re: Be Careful
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 11:30PM
It may not be a winnable election for the GOP but there are better and there are worse candidates.
Re: Be Careful What You Wish For
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 11:16PM
Better get someone really good to run against him.
Uh, it's a little late for that.
Be Careful What You Wish For
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 11:12PM
Obama's acceptance speech is simply fantastic. Better get someone really good to run against him.
Admiring Words for Huckabee
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 11:11PM
AmSpec has had a lot of hard words about Mike Huckabee. It's easy for me to understand why and how he inspires that reaction. Quin's reaction to Huckabee after covering him for several years would give anyone pause, as well.
However, I think it's time to stop and give this guy some credit. When has the GOP last seen a candidate like Mike Huckabee? This man is talented, driven, and hungry. The same personality that decided to defeat diabetes has locked onto winning the nomination and he has achieved far more with far less than anyone thought possible.
We need more candidates with that kind of desire. If Huckabee should fall short, I hope he still has time to get in for the Arkansas U.S. Senate seat. Give that guy four years or so on the national stage and he'd be unstoppable.
Re: Thoughts
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 11:04PM
And always trust Phil Klein's first hand observations more than pollsters.
Re: Mitt Romney
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 11:01PM
John: I meant "continues as a viable candidate." Though we're now left with a field of candidates who technically can't win the nomination, yet one of them has to.
Thoughts
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 10:46PM
1. The national media doesn't know squat. They didn't get Huckabee's appeal and mocked him incessently for his admittedly weird presser. In places in which they have no idea and couldn't care less who Joe Klein is or whether the NY Times thinks Huckabee made a horrible gaffe they really don't do a very good job of predicting results or interpreting events. And with due modesty, the voters don't always pay that much more attention to conservative media.
2. People vote for people for president not a list of policy positions or resume points. Obama and Huckabee connect on a very emotional level. We forget that at our peril. (See #1)
3. A few months ago I was harping on "authenticity." We may not like their policy positions but the winners tonight are not classic politicians (who seem to be very much out of favor).
4. It's a long race and no one (other than Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, unfortunately) is out of it.
Re: Mitt Romney
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 10:42PM
Jim: Keep in mind that Romney has an effectively infinite amount of money, so he can keep running pretty much as long as he wants to. Given how much he's spent on this so far, I wouldn't be shocked to see him stick around through Feb. 5 even if he loses everything in January, however pathetic that might begin to look.
Another thing to keep in mind: Obama is the big story coming out of Iowa, and there's going to be a bandwagon effect that attracts New Hampshire independents to the Democratic race -- independents who would otherwise be voting for McCain. That's got to mitigate the pro-McCain momentum out of Iowa somewhat.
AFTERTHOUGHT: The Obama-siphoning-indies effect is probably bad for Ron Paul, too.
Mitt Romney
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 10:31PM
If John McCain beats him in New Hampshire, I don't see how he continues. He had better have a Wyoming and Michigan plan in place, but I'm not sure it will be enough.
Re: The Race for Third
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 10:26PM
Fred: the candidate that was. I think this is fatal. If it holds up. Or widens:
| McCain |
The Race for Third
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 10:24PM
Is much closer than the Huckabee-Romney race. With 78 percent in, it looks like Fred Thompson is going to clinch it with 14 percent but John McCain is putting up a fight at 13 percent. And Ron Paul is right behind with 10 percent.
Hillary Third(Possibly)
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 10:19PM
Everything I said about Iowa not mattering? Never mind.
As if McCain Needed Any More Good News
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 9:22PM
He's making a run for third: With 41% reporting, Huckabee: 31% Romney: 23% Thompson: 13% McCain: 12%
Re: What's It Mean
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 9:18PM
I think McCain wins going away in NH, not a death match but a walk over. Huckabee and Fred will challenge McCain in SC and then on to Florida. Even Romney's supporters realize the magnitude of the loss.
What's It Mean? Freakout?
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 9:13PM
Jennifer, yeah, this is bad for Mitt, but where else will the anti-Huck crowd turn? Is NH a deathmatch between McCain and Romney now?
PS as of now Huckabee has failed to meet the all-important "beat guys 2 and 3 combined" criterion, also known as a simple majority. In a field this divided that might matter less, but it matters.
What's it Mean?
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 9:10PM
Pollsters who thought Huckabee only had a 5 pt. lead are the biggest loser. No, not really. Romney can't credibly maintain that he spent $10M, got blown out by Huckabee and remains viable. McCain whether he comes in third or fourth will have a huge boost going into NH. Yes, I thought Huckabee would win and the national media had sort of missed the story but never did I think it would be this big. Wow. And Thompson likely does live to fight another day as well.
Fred
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 9:10PM
Holding steady in third with 25% in. If he can hang, McCain's numbers in NH won't sink him. But SC may. I see nothing for Fred in Michigan.
Bamismo II
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 9:05PM
On CSPAN, Obama shellacks Clinton live, at least in one instance. In numbers he's just topped the list with 33%. I expected this margin to swell too.
Huckabee Wins
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 9:05PM
Entrance poller for networks calls it for Huckabee. It wasn't close.
Hillary Squeaks It Out At My Caucus Site
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 9:00PM
Hillary started out at 56 votes, with Edwards at 45, Obama at 39, Richardson at 17, and Biden at 3. Then Richardson and Biden folks recommitted and it ended out Clinton at 58, Obama at 56, and Edwards at 49. So a close win by Hillary here, but if this second preference is a pattern statewide, it bodes well for Obama. When Richardson didn't reach viability, his supporters jumped up and went over to Obama almost en masse, as if they were taking marching orders.
Bamismo
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 8:58PM
Ambinder and ABC's Rick Klein report Obama's got the buzz, the turnout, the momentum.
Still early
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 8:54PM
With 20% reporting, Edwards 33.0 / Clinton 32.4 / Obama 31.6
With 2% reporting, Huckabee: 33% Romney: 24% Thompson: 18% McCain:
11%
UPDATE:With 15% reporting, Huckabee: 36% Romney: 23% Thompson: 15% McCain: 12%
So Far
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 8:43PM
With 176 of 1874 precincts, Edwards 33.66 / Clinton 32.4 / Obama 30.76
Caucus Update
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 8:43PM
DES MOINES--Here at my caucus site, Hillary Clinton was ahead, but then most of Richardson's supporter went to Obama and it's close to tied. If this is happening elsewhere, it could be huge for Obama.
UPDATE: Three Biden supporters could determine outcome.
Demtrack
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 8:38PM
FYI the best numbers updates I'm getting from donkeyland come in thru Marc Ambinder, ABC, and the Iowa Democratic Party.
A Bizarre Process
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 8:30PM
DES MOINES -- I'm here at a Democratic caucus site at the First Presbyterian Church of Des Moines where they are doing an initial candidate viability test because if a candidate doesn't get 15 percent, his or her supporters have to go with another candidate. <p><p>What a bizarre process. They went through the church pews row by row and each person had to count out loud what number they were. After several minutes of this, the woman running the caucus said there was a miscount, so they had to do it all over again. There are 161 voters at this caucus site, so the viability threshold is 25 people. They now have 30 minutes to divide into preference groups. Clinton and Edwards look strongest at first glance.
Showtime
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 8:16PM
The hints and winks and nods are on. Abc.com sees an edge for Huckabee in entrance polling and a huge Democratic turnout with Hillary and Obama battling it out. Others see the same on the Democratic side but no advantage on the GOP entrance surveys.
Shooting Craps
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 7:14PM
Okay, so somewhere between the morning coffee and the evening
wine I found some time to chase down and kill the chicken, read the
entrails, poke around the tea leaves, and smoke the peace pipe. My
predictions:
DEMOCRATS: 1. Barack Obama; 2. Hillary Clinton; 3. John Edwards; 4. Joe Biden
REPUBLICANS: 1. Mike Huckabee; 2. Mitt Romney; 3. John McCain; 4. Ron Paul; 5. Fred Thompson
After the madness is over I'll venture some endorsements.Where Does Thompson Go To Get His Last Day Back?
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 6:15PM
My predictions
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 5:33PM
I fear that my picks below may be thrown off, in one way or another, by the crazy, unfounded rumor that Fred Thompson may be dropping out. Still, these are the numbers I jotted down last night before I went to bed, and I publish them here so everybody can laugh at me tomorrow. I do NOT pretend to have special insight into these crazy caucuses. But here goes: GOP: Huck, 27; Romney, 23; Thompson, 20; McCain, 13; Paul, 10; Hunter, 2. Dems: Obama, 33; Edwards, 25; Clinton, 24; Biden, 10 (would be higher except for the 15% threshhold requirement in each precinct); Richardson, 7; Dodd, 1. There you have it. You read it hear first -- and laughed out loud, probably with good reason!
Re: NH Push Poll Investigation
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 5:29PM
Despite the long client list and the general knowledge that Moore Infomation is a well respected GOP polling firm there are no obvious or even not so obvious connections to any campaign. However, spokesmen for the Thompson and Rudy campaigns responded promptly to my inquiry with confirmations that they have not engaged Moore Information for any purpose. UPDATE: McCain and Romney camps are both trading denials and accusations. Neither has come out to flatly say we didn't do business with Moore Information but they're both really mad at each other.
NH Push Poll Update
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 3:27PM
New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte is about to give a press conference requesting the public's help in identifying who employed the Oregon-based company Moore-Information to conduct an alleged anti-Romney push poll. The investigation began after complaints were filed by Mitt Romney and John McCain's presidential campaigns.
According to a statement by the N.H. attorney general, "Based on the information gathered to date, it has been determined that Western Wats, of Orem, Utah, conducted the telephone poll at issue. It was also determined that Moore-Information, Inc. ... hired Western Wats to conduct the poll, was involved in developing the content of the transcript for the poll, and set the dates for the poll to be conducted in New Hampshire." The attorney general's office has been working to issue out-of-state subpoenas to for Moore-Information to disclose who hired them and why, in order to determine if New Hampshire's law against push polling was actually violated.
NH Push Poll Investigation
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 3:25PM
The preliminary report is here. The Oregon state entity which in turn contracted with Western Wats to make the calls is fighting a subpoena so the individual or campaign behind the calls is as yet unknown. But lots of people are Googling.
Re: Caucus Predictions
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 2:30PM
I cannot disagree with James or Phil nor with French religious aristocracy. Actually, I'm not going to tell you what my predictions are. Or maybe they will evolve later on. Or they don't matter because all that matters is Islamic terrorism. Or they don't matter because "Law and Order" will be down for the WGA strike anyway. Or I'm not telling because nowhere in the Constitution does it say I have to tell my predictions. Apologies to anyone I didn't rib.
Re: Caucus Predictions
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 2:24PM
I'm predicting Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama win the Iowa caucuses. A man of hope and a man from Hope. And I'm not taking it back even if the voters prove me wrong.
Re: It Matters
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 2:12PM
Yes, compared to what the Gallup poll showed last April the Iowa result is more important and it's all we got to yammer about until Saturday's debate and the NH primary which becomes the next biggest event in the history of western civilization. It's big, it's just not BIG.. unless.. Hillary gets knocked on her kester in which case it is the single most credible political result ever. And if you are counting, here is a third Iowa poll today saying Phil is right about Huckabee.
Re: It Matters
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 1:53PM
Sure, Iowa has to be kept in perspective. It hasn't always picked the nominee. All primaries and caucuses should be kept in proper perspective. But political pundits are strange people to be downplaying Iowa's significance, since the vote tallies there matter more just about anything else campaign-related we spent the last year yammering about.
Already Fighting in NH
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 1:35PM
It Matters... but...
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 1:18PM
Watch me on Fox News at 1:30 EST
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 12:26PM
Just a heads-up that I will be on Fox News Channel in just a little while, from 1:30 to 1:5 pm EST, talking about the Iowa Caucuses. --Quin
So Much For A Fred Surge
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 12:15PM
Following up on Jennifer's post on late Iowa numbers, it's worth noting that the same Zogby poll that Fredheads were touting yesterday as a sign of a major surge because he had ticked up by four points over a few days, has him losing a point since yesterday's poll--he's at 11 percent, just ahead of Ron Paul and John McCain, who are tied at 10 percent. It's also worth noting that Paul's 3-point gain over the last few days equals Thompson's gain. Are Fredheads going to raise a fuss about the late Ron Paul surge in Iowa?
Re: Caucus Predictions
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 11:58AM
At the risk of being made a fool of, I'll predict that Mike Huckabee wins by a comfortable but not overwhelming margin.
On the Democratic side, I keep going back and forth between John Edwards and Barack Obama, but my gut tells me Obama, so I'll go with that. Either way, I think Hillary Clinton comes in third.
If Obama wins Iowa, having proven that he can convert his movement into actual votes, having crippled Edwards, he'll be off to the races and win the nomination. If Clinton or Edwards wins, Clinton will be the nominee.
Where and When To Expect Caucus Results
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 11:47AM
Here is some information I've been able to obtain on when we can expect to have caucus results, and where you can look for them.
NOTE: All times are central.
REPUBLICANS:
The party tells me that the results will start to trickle in as early as 7:30 pm and that they should be close to all in (if not entirely in) by 9 pm. You can check for up to the minute updates here.
DEMOCRATS:
Party communications director Carrie Giddins tells me that they should have the results by 10 pm. Live updates here.
A Mini-Surge At The End?
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 11:38AM
And The Winner Is... Missile Defense?
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 11:14AM
The conventional wisdom has it that no substantive foreign
policy or national security work gets done in Washington during the
"silly season," especially not by a lame-duck administration. The
Bush White House may be poised to prove the sages wrong, however.
The Agence France Presse reports this news from "new Europe," where the Czech
Republic is hurrying to finalize its participation in the
Administration's planned "third site" for its missile defense
system in Europe.
The reasons for the new momentum are political. Officials in Prague
are apparently worried -- with more than a little justification --
that a Democratic take-over of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would sound
the death knell for cooperation with Washington on missile defense
(and other international security issues), and are trying to create
permanent, lasting defense links that will be difficult for the
next president to dissolve.
Re: Thompson Reason To Be Mad
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 10:49AM
One reporter, I know this is unusual, rather extraordinary, but he actually checked with the Thomspon campaign. And you know what? He got a very, very strong denial complete with a campaign schedule. It's not that it isn't possible Thompson might leave the race but there is no hard evidence he will and running a story like that the day of the caucus, well, some think is like calling the election while voters are still at the polls. Now it would have be different if there was a source other than an unnamed Republican "close" to Thompson. Funny how these last minute stories always involve Republicans, isn't it? UPDATE: Thompson debunks it directly.
A Most Palpable Hit
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 10:28AM
Acerbic political wit doesn't go out of style. Check out My Manufactured Mitt by Ben Domenech (my co-worker) at Redstate:
Read it all, even if you like the Mittster. This is some very fine political humor.
Caucus Predictions
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 9:20AM
This might be wishful thinking, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say Romney wins tonight.
On the Dem side: Obama comes in first, Edwards comes in second, Hillary's surrogates spin it as a three-way tie.
Thompson Has Reason To Be Mad
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 8:56AM
Michigan Becomes Key
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 6:30AM
The importance of Michigan grows. It may be the last opportunity for Romney to recover after a loss in Iowa and/or NH or it may be the place where he seals the nomination. For McCain it could continue momentum from a possible NH win or prove he was a "one state wonder" only in the Granite State. Will the Detroit News do for McCain there what the Union Leader did in NH? The state's largest paper did endorse him today but in respectful tones with a limited amout of Romney bashing. I don't think the Detroit News has the same ummph with conservatives as the Union Leader but it may indicate a repeat of the pattern in other states where McCain gets a lot of local editorial support which is then easily converted into ad material. Romney, by the way, has been up in Michigan for awhile with TV ads.
Our Loss is the RNC's Gain
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 4:32AM
Via Marc Ambinder, I see that Liz Mair is the Republican National Committee's new online communications director. I fear that this means no more AmSpec contributions from Liz (her blog has disappeared), but congratulations anyway.
A Funny Thing Happened On My Way To See Hillary
Posted by on 1.3.08 @ 3:55AM
DES MOINES -- On the eve of the Iowa Caucuses I had the crazy idea to swing by five rallies on a single night. I was more interested in getting a sense of the crowds and the enthusiasm, because I know what the candidates are going to say. (Ron Paul is for the Freedom Agenda, Hillary Clinton wants to return to the 1990s, Mitt Romney wants to turnaround Washington, Barack Obama wants to change politics, and John Edwards wants to publicly behead all corporate executives.)
I saw Ron Paul speak to a veterans group to a crowd of 650 or s