SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Asymmetric who wrote (75265)1/23/2008 3:44:41 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Clinton Taps Reiner, Obama Touts Roots as California Ads Begin

By Hans Nichols

Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Rob Reiner, a Hollywood mogul more comfortable avoiding solicitous phone calls than making them, is dialing for new donors for Democrat Hillary Clinton. She'll need them for the California presidential primary on Feb. 5.

``All the easy money is gone,'' said Chad Griffin, a Los Angeles-based strategist who advises Reiner. The candidates, faced with more than 20 contests on ``Tsunami Tuesday,'' now need ``raisers who are willing to go deeper into the Rolodex.''

The California vote will mark an important shift in the campaign as the race evolves from the intimacy of Iowa's living rooms and New Hampshire's town halls to the airwaves of some of the most-populous U.S. states. It will resemble a general election, where Senators Clinton, Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards will rely on news coverage, punctuated by expensive television advertising, to communicate with voters.

``This will be the first state where retail politics is not the driving force,'' said Bill Carrick, a longtime California political operative. ``This will be wholesale, and it's going to be expensive.''

A statewide advertising blitz may cost as much as $4 million a week, said Carrick.

The California election, which follows South Carolina's Jan. 26 Democratic vote, will be the biggest prize in what will amount to a national primary on Feb. 5. More than 20 states with 1,688 delegates, including 441 in California, will be at stake for Democrats, with 2,025 needed for the nomination.

`In the Hunt'

Having their state ``in the hunt'' is a new feeling for Californians, said Willie Brown, the former mayor of San Francisco. ``It's the first time since 1968'' that California will matter, he said. Robert Kennedy, then a senator from New York, won the California primary that year and was shot by an assassin on the night of his victory.

The more than 3 million Democratic primary voters are scattered in four of the country's most-expensive advertising markets, meaning the outcome may hinge on who can afford the most airtime.

``It will take a ton of money to win California, primarily in paid media,'' said Brown.

Obama, 46, hit the airwaves first, spending $570,000 in the Bay Area market from Jan. 13 to 20, according to Evan Tracey of Arlington, Virginia-based TNS Media Intelligence. Northern California's heavily Democratic corridor can affect election outcomes more than more-populous Southern California can, said Brown.

Benefiting From Bill

Clinton, 60, who has a double-digit lead in the polls, goes into the state with some advantages. She's better known and benefits from her husband's success in turning the home state of Ronald Reagan into a Democratic stronghold.

She also has the backing of the state's party establishment, including the senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Clinton enjoys strong support among Hispanic voters, who make up an estimated 18 percent of Democratic primary voters.

She and her husband are ``proven commodities in the Latino community,'' said Gloria Molina, the Los Angeles County supervisor who is currently neutral. That connection is even stronger among female voters. ``There's an automatic relationship for Latina women with Clinton,'' she said. ``As heads of households and working mothers, Latinas can identify with Hillary.''

`Black-Brown' Divide

While Obama ``has had an amazing impact with young Latinos,'' Molina said, many of them aren't registered to vote. He may also fall victim to the ``black-brown'' divide that has plagued Southern California politics, said Molina.

Obama has his own edge. With his charismatic style, he may play better on television. And with a slight money advantage to pay for his air war, he has the kind of fresh face that Californians have embraced in the past.

Obama might also benefit from independents, who are barred from voting in the Republican contest. Their numbers may exceed 300,000 in the Democratic primary, making up more than 10 percent of participants, said Carrick.

Obama, born to a Kenyan father, plans to highlight his own status as the son of a non-American to appeal to Hispanics and first-generation Americans, said Eric Garcetti, co-chairman of Obama's California campaign.

``He matches this state like a glove,'' said Garcetti, who acknowledged that Clinton has an advantage with the Hispanic community.

Psychological Boost

For one candidate to take the lead, he or she needs to win California for both mathematical and ``psychological reasons,'' said Chris Lehane, a San Francisco-based Democratic strategist. Because neither Clinton nor Obama ``can lay a direct geographical claim to California,'' said Lehane, ``this is where they will fight it out.''

Most of California's Democratic delegates are awarded proportionally, depending on statewide totals as well as the candidates' performance in each of the state's 53 congressional districts. Thus, as in Nevada, it's possible one candidate can win the popular vote, while the other walks away with more delegates.

Other states that will vote on Feb. 5 include Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Tennessee. California's importance to the race is underlined by the fact that the states with the second- and third-most delegates at stake that day are New York and Illinois, where Clinton and Obama have home-state advantages.

To contact the reporter on this story: Hans Nichols in Los Angeles, California at hnichols2@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: January 23, 2008 00:12 EST



To: Asymmetric who wrote (75265)1/23/2008 3:47:51 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Is Obama Winning?

slate.com



To: Asymmetric who wrote (75265)1/24/2008 6:47:57 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
A Clinton twofer's high price

latimes.com

Hillary Clinton's campaign reminds us that her husband's presidency looks good only when it's compared to the Bush years.

Rosa Brooks
Columnist
The Los Angeles Times
January 24, 2008

Whether you loved them or hated them, Bill and Hillary Clinton were always a twofer. On the campaign trail in 1992, Bill used to joke about it. Vote for me and get "two for the price of one," he chuckled. Plenty of Americans thought this wasn't such a bad idea. A bumper sticker popular at the time proclaimed: "I'm voting for Hillary's husband."

The Clintons seem to want that bumper sticker resuscitated. Bill's back on the campaign trail, waxing eloquent about his White House days, pummeling Hillary's rivals and promising more good times if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee: You liked Clinton I? You're gonna love Clinton II!

In contrast to 1992, though, the Clintons now officially pretend that they're not a twofer. When critics -- Barack Obama among them -- complain that it's hard to figure out which Clinton is actually running for president this year, Hillary responds with wide-eyed incomprehension: Goodness, what's this fuss about Bill? "This campaign is not about our spouses, it's about us," she explained demurely to a South Carolina debate audience. "Michelle [Obama] and Elizabeth [Edwards] are strong and staunch advocates for their husbands, and I respect that." Isn't Hillary allowed to have a supportive spouse too?

Butter wouldn't melt in her mouth.

The problem for Hillary Clinton is that, as usual, she wants it both ways. She wants to be judged on her own merits and not be treated as Bill's Mini-Me. But she also wants to reap the benefits of Bill's popularity, and offers voters the reassuring suggestion that if there's a crisis while she's in the White House, there will be someone around who really does have executive branch experience -- namely, Bill -- to lend a hand.

But the Clintons are playing a dangerous game. The more they remind us of what we liked about Act I of the Bill and Hillary Show, the more they also remind us of what we hated.

It's true that the Bush administration is enough to make anyone nostalgic for the Clinton era. Compared with the catastrophes that President Bush unleashed, Bill Clinton's misdeeds seem like minor peccadilloes. Under Clinton, the United States didn't fall into a potentially devastating economic crisis, didn't rack up record-breaking debts and budget deficits, didn't adopt a policy of torturing people, didn't seek to gut international human rights standards, didn't get bogged down in any major, pointless and unwinnable wars and didn't actively alienate huge swathes of the global population.

On the other hand -- and where the Clintons are concerned, it's always wise to wonder what the hand you can't see is up to -- once you stop comparing the Clinton presidency with the Bush presidency, it no longer looks so great. On the whole, the Clinton era was a time of culture war and scandal, "triangulation" and botched reforms (healthcare anyone?), vacillation and paralysis.

On foreign policy in particular, Clinton's presidency was an era of missed opportunities. In Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Rwanda and Kosovo, U.S. policy was marred by hesitation and lack of commitment. Despite impressive rhetoric on the emerging challenges posed by globalization, nuclear proliferation, WMD and the rise of transnational terrorism and nonstate actors, Clinton developed few innovative ways to address these challenges; his approach to conflict and crisis was piecemeal. His early defeat on gays in the military left him so scarred that he steered clear of the military for most of his presidency, passively letting uniformed personnel dictate the terms of too many foreign policy decisions and ignoring hard questions about how to reshape the military to face post-Cold War threats.

Today, if Obama's mere existence at times seems to make Bill Clinton apoplectic, it's not just because Obama (whose foreign policy judgment has so far been significantly better than Hillary's on Iraq, Iran and Pakistan) is the main Democratic barrier to a third Clinton term. It's also that Obama's promise of a politics that's not just bipartisan but beyond partisan is an implicit rejection of the Clintons' all-politics-all-the-time ethos, of their willingness to let crucial national decisions be driven by petty political considerations, of their lack of interest in dealing with big questions when they could coast along with a compromise here, a favor there and some tinkering over here.

Before 9/11, tinkering kept us afloat. But it's no longer enough.

Obama offers something transformative and new, and this frightens some voters, who wonder if he can live up to his undeniable potential. The Clintons, meanwhile, offer something old and familiar. But will a trip down memory lane with Billary reassure voters or end up frightening them even more?



To: Asymmetric who wrote (75265)1/28/2008 7:27:56 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Hillary's biggest asset? Now Bill is looking like a liability
_____________________________________________________________

The interventions of former president Clinton are turning Democrats off his wife and raising constitutional questions

Michael Tomasky in Washington
Monday January 28, 2008
The Guardian

Just three weeks ago, it was an article of faith that was beyond questioning: Bill Clinton was his wife's greatest asset in her presidential campaign. The former president was loved by all Democrats. Practically all he had to do was walk into any roomful of Democratic voters, remind them of the prosperity of the 1990s, and the deal would be closed. All but the most truculent would leave the room committed Hillaryites.

Today? Consider this exit-poll data point from Saturday's voting in South Carolina, where Barack Obama romped to a two-to-one victory over Hillary Clinton. Voters were asked to rate the importance of Bill Clinton's campaigning as a factor in determining how they voted. A majority, 58%, said that the former president's campaigning - he spent last week in the state lobbing volley after boorish volley at Obama (and at the media), while his wife was mostly elsewhere - was important. And guess what? Those 58% voted for Obama, 48% to 37%.

Granted, Obama won by far more among the 39% who said that Bill Clinton's role wasn't an important factor. But the fact that Obama carried the day among the 58% is staggering. As we move to the 22-state primary-palooza of February 5, the key question for the Clinton campaign - in a way for Obama's team as well - is what to do about this.

Early signs from camp Clinton suggest that the former president has not been given his sedative. Saturday evening, after it was known that Obama was cruising to victory, Bill Clinton made the less than gracious observation that "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in 84 and 88". The comment struck a lot of people as one more inappropriate and dismissive attempt to pigeonhole Obama as "just the black guy".

That could be written off as one more instance of Bill Clinton's off-the-cuff freelancing. But on Saturday night, his wife's campaign made the bewildering decision to send Mr Clinton out to deliver what was in essence her concession speech. Hillary Clinton spoke only much later - after Obama, which broke with custom. By that time the cable channels had lost interest, and they cut away from her after a few minutes.

This kind of decision will only keep the spotlight on Bill - and not just on the nature of his campaigning style. In recent days, a far more important question has been bubbling to the surface, concerning what sort of role he would play in his wife's presidency.

Think about it. A former president, who knows the inner workings of government intimately, would be back in the White House. He may have no official title or role. Yet he would, it's fair to assume, be deeply enmeshed in both politics and policy.

To what extent would this constitute a co-presidency? Writing in the New York Times on Saturday, Garry Wills noted that America's founders had wrestled with just this question and decided executive power had to be invested in one person for the sake of holding that person accountable. Wills - who has written glowingly about Hillary in the past - directly compared Bill's possible role to the one being played now by Dick Cheney and concluded that "it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House".

It has long been assumed - more conventional wisdom - that Bill as co-president was another huge plus, especially for Democratic voters. But suddenly even sympathetic observers like Wills are exploring the darker penumbras of that question. And with Bill having raised millions of dollars for his library from undisclosed donors - some of whom would surely have business with the federal government, as Frank Rich noted in his Sunday New York Times column - these explorations are likely to mount over the next 10 days.

It leaves me very curious not only as to how Hillary Clinton will address her husband's role in the coming days, but how Obama will as well.

The Clintons have argued, not without justification, that the Republicans are going to throw everything at Obama if he's the nominee, so voters need to see now if he can take the heat. By contrast, Senator Clinton has said that everything there is to know about her is already known.

Well - not quite, it turns out. We don't know her husband's recent donors and we don't know exactly what the Clintons have in mind for his role in her presidency. This campaign is still going to be rough and tumble. And Obama is behind in current polling in most of the key February 5 states.

If Obama decides to put these questions on the table, it will constitute a very aggressive move - going nose to nose with the party's 800lb gorilla. He may not need to - the media may do it for him. Either way, the Bill Clinton of today is being called lots of things. But asset to his wife isn't one of them.

· Michael Tomasky is editor of Guardian America



To: Asymmetric who wrote (75265)2/3/2008 10:48:55 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Obama Likely to Beat the Polls on Super Tuesday

mceades.com