Barack Obama is now cutting Rev. Wright off...

"Reverend Wright does not speak for me, he does not speak for my campaign... but what I do want him to be very clear about... when I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it. It contradicts everything I believe and that I'm about."

Obama describes him as "commanding the stage" for several days, and doing more that just "defending himself." Obama says he was instead presenting a "world view that contradicts me."

Can we expect Wright and Obama to get into a pissing match in the coming days?

It appears that Wright may be the bitter one here...

By William Rabbe | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (2)

Tags: Barack Obama, Controversy, Reverend Wright

Barack Obama played basketball last night in Kokomo, Indiana, with some lucky campaign supporters -- and after taking a lot of heat for his lousy bowling in Pennsylvania, he was on his game this time.

His secret weapon? He practices regularly with Marvin Nicholson -- his 6'7 trip-director.

Marvin was also indispensable to another Presidential candidate in 2004.

Obama's sweatpants were an inch too short for him (look closely).

By William Rabbe | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (3)

Tags: Barack Obama, Basketball, Indiana, Marvin Nicholson

Many are wondering whether a prolonged nomination fight might actually help the Democrats -- from the Boston Globe in regard to Indiana, a traditionally "red" state:

"The interest in the Clinton-Obama fight, they say, is helping to shift political identities. Thousands of people are signing up as new voters - 383,954 Hoosiers have registered since the 2006 election - while some people who have always voted Republican are deciding that they might just be comfortable casting a ballot for a Democrat.

"While national Democratic leaders worry that the protracted campaign could damage their eventual nominee, local Democrats say that the primary race may be the best thing to happen to the party in years."

TIME has an analysis of the swing states of 2008.

By William Rabbe | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (4)

Tags: Blue State, Democrat, General Election, Indiana, Obama, Red State

By William Rabbe

Senator Obama left Chicago this morning for campaign events in the increasingly important Primary state of Indiana -- and IFC had the opportunity to join up with him and the traveling press. The big happening for the corps is that after 12 days without a single press conference, the Senator has held 2 in the 3 days since the Pennsylvania Primary.

As the Democratic Primary race approaches its 5th month, it is more apparent than ever that Obama is in a two front war -- both his opponents, McCain and Clinton, have targeted him exclusively. But to combat this sniper fire, it seems that Obama is renewing his message as a Washington outsider -- a smart contrast to make since the term "insider" could be applied to either opponent. In portraying this difference he consistently referred to "the remaining candidates" rather than to mention either Clinton or McCain by name, effectively streamlining his approach...

And when asked about being "elitist," he joked: "I don't want go out of my way to sort of prove my 'street cred'," but he does have a basketball event later tonight, so he might just do that...

By William Rabbe | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (5)

Tags: Obama, Obama Strategy, Press Conference

Hillary Clinton on Iran: "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." [Emphasis added]

Last time I checked, the Republican candidate hasn't even used language this strong -- and certainly McCain facetiously chirping "bomb bomb Iran" is nothing like using the term "obliterate". "Obliterate" has nuclear implications, whereas "bomb" does not.

Expect to see an escalation of rhetoric against Iran....

Maybe this is John McCain's opportunity to seek retribution for what the Democrats did to Barry Goldwater in 1964.

By William Rabbe | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (8)

Tags: Bomb, Clinton, Iran

By Sarah Scully
Party members, pundits and political junkies alike are watching today's primary with rapt attention but will the results change anything? How much does Hillary Clinton need to win by to make the case for her nomination? Each person has a different (arbitrary) number- some say double digits, others say five to seven and still others say with certitude that 10 points is the demarcation line. What is Clinton's number for herself? She says that she doesn't have one. It is likely that she will win by enough to justify staying in the race, with her campaign reminding everyone that they've won in spite of Obama spending three times as much money in the state. So, presuming Clinton wins, nothing is going to really change... this week. With two weeks until the next big primary battles (North Carolina and Indiana), Clinton's momentum could get stuck in reverse. While the Obama campaign has accused Clinton's team of moving the goal posts, the opposite could be said as well. Only two small primaries have occurred since Clinton's "decisive" and "triumphant" victories in Ohio and Texas yet thinking has shifted with every passing week to the point that her stunning comeback is now viewed by many as a faltering insurgency, despite little change in numbers. Also, the longer this goes on the itchier the trigger fingers of party insiders. They see McCain charming the press and voters alike with his unorthodox campaigning. MSNBC is reporting a rumor that "superdelegates could be about to support Barack Obama en masse," but this seems unlikely if she wins today's contest by any margin. How do you quantify decisive?

By Sarah Scully | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (9)

Tags: Clinton, delegates, goal posts, Indiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, points, superdelegates

By William Rabbe

Everybody has now heard about Barack Obama's recent statements about lower-income voters of Pennsylvania "clinging" to religion or guns because they are "bitter." And it's likely that everyone has heard the legnthy criticisms of the statements, coming from Clinton or perhaps more radically, from Bill Kristol.

"He's an elitist!"
"He's out of touch!"
"His claims are Marxist!"

The idea behind the critique is that behind closed doors, Obama has disdain for the very people who he needs to vote for him on Tuesday.

Ouch!

As Monica Crowley aptly pointed out this morning on the McLaughlin Group, "he's running as the transcendental post-racial hope-guy" -- so how could the hope guy mean this? And how can he get back on message?

Yes, it has been easy for many to cry foul and to claim that Obama has deeply offended voters -- but those saying this are mostly partisans stirring the pot of controversy, hoping the electorate will become equally indignant by power of osmosis. So far it hasn't, or at least the polls haven't shown a significant impact.

The Obama camp, perhaps better aware of the data, doesn't seem to put that much emphasis on damage control -- at least not of the scale of the effort after the Rev. Wright controversy. But while no speech similar to the "More Perfect Union" address has been forthcoming, the Senator has clarified himself in careful steps that could predicate his broader campaign strategy on the topic: he used the opportunity to decry "wedge issues" as a campaign tactic.

As he explained in the recent ABC debate: "Wedge issues, hot-button issues, end up taking prominence in our politics... and part of the problem is that when those issues are exploited, we never get to solve the issues that people really have to get some relief on, whether it's health care or education or jobs."

Obama's best explanation of his recent controversial statements is that he is cautious about voters falling victim to wedge issue politics... a nice defense. But what exactly is a wedge issue?

A wedge issue is considered a hot-button issue thrust into the political dialogue by a campaign in an effort to divide it's opponent's coalition. Used properly, it can be a brilliant way to effectively keep an opponent on the defensive, while also maintaining higher ground on the issue at hand. For example, remember Gay Marriage?

John Kerry suffered immeasurably from the tactic when the topic of gay marriage was debated in 2004. Both candidates were opposed to it, but George Bush was more fervent in his opposition -- he wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage only as that between a man and a woman. John Kerry didn't want to go as far as to amend the founding documents. Yet at the persistence of Bush's effective campaigning on the issue, gay marriage haunted John Kerry and gave voters the impression he wasn't against gay marriage as strongly as he should have been.

It was a red herring. Gay marriage vanished from the political dialogue following the election. But it helped do the job: it took John Kerry off-message and forced him to disavow positions that he had never considered advocating in the first place.

Now, no such issues have been used in 2008 so far, but It appears that Barack Obama is parleying this controversy and his bad choice of words into an opportunity to bring the tactic to the forefront of the dialogue -- in effect he's explaining that he meant: the issue isn't guns or religion, it's the economy and don't let discussion about the former distract from the latter.

Now, if he was really trying to put the issues of god and guns to rest he could have used more politic words originally, but in the meantime the strategy of shifting the debate to a discussion of wedge issues is the best he has. If the controversy continues, expect his message to couple his clarification with a warning: "Be careful of wedge issues that will arise -- they will distort my positions and distract the conversation."

By William Rabbe | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (8)

Tags: Bitter, Bittergate, Obama, Wedge, Wedge Issue

By Sarah Scully
Speaking with a former Democratic fundraiser today, my eyes were opened to a whole new way of looking at the nomination battle: Follow the money. No, not in the Watergate way but in the practical way of realizing that the rich and powerful who give money to candidates do not usually do so out of the goodness of their hearts- they expect something in return- be it an ambassadorship, cabinet post or even a night in the Lincoln bedroom. While few see any chance for Hillary Clinton to win, the big money donors who have showered the Clintons with cash for over a decade, do not intend for their money to be wasted. True, many give to both candidates to hedge their bets but the Clinton's have a very loyal base of check writers with major pull in the Democratic party. No matter how rich and powerful, they certainly cannot buy the nomination for her but they could persuade Obama's camp to offer her Vice President. Whereas the idea of the two running together may seem unlikely (even absurd) from a strategy standpoint, from the money standpoint, it makes sense. Money is the gasoline of politics and there are a whole lot of gas pumps out there with the Clinton logo.

By Sarah Scully | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (7)

Tags: Clinton, donors, Lincoln bedroom, money, Obama, Vice President

By William Rabbe

Maybe Ed Rollins should be consulted now that John McCain's age has again been questioned (this time by John Murtha). Rollins managed Ronald Reagan's 1984 reelection campaign and Reagan, at 73 was entering his second term older than John McCain would be in his first term if he gets elected in November, (something that many have failed to mention).

Rollins, as he wrote in his 1996 memoir, recognized the need early on to counterpunch on this issue and the result was the PUMPING IRON of the Reagan presidency -- an article in Parade magazine entitled "How to Stay Fit" by the President himself. See more about this here and here.

I don't know if John McCain has a workout routine, but he certainly has the time between now and November to take the same approach as health will most certainly be a central concern come November. That and a few witty one-liners will probably do the trick.

By William Rabbe | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (8)

Tags: 72, Age, Crazy Old, Grandpa, McCain, SNL

The debate has concluded and there is blood on the mat. Hillary Clinton opened up some cuts and made her case for the nomination with the tough determination she knew she would have to display in what many are calling her last chance. Clinton has always performed better under pressure than as the front-runner. One spin is that this has now served to vet Senator Obama, in other words, if he can take Clinton's blows then he can certainly handle the GOP. She lost on one major point, being forced to state that she did think Obama could beat McCain (though not as easily as she could). Obama has shown an uncanny ability to survive attacks so these wounds may heal by North Carolina and Indiana but his labored answers tonight are not going to help him in Pennsylvania. Clinton is in her element here. The hometown crowd was cheering her on. She had the premonition that she would be like Philly's famed Rocky some weeks ago. The amazing feat Clinton will have to pull to stay in this race now and not upset the party loyals is to get in enough blows to debilitate but not gravely injure Obama.

By Sarah Scully | Link | 2 Comments | Recommended (9)

Iraq- The issue that allows them to turn from each other and show some semblance of party unity in attacking Bush. This nomination battle stands on a razor's edge and each candidate must balance attacking each other just enough to win the Dem prize but attacking the GOP in unison to show that they are loyal to the party. The substantive differences between these two are few, as I said in my earlier post.

Guns are at issue again, giving Hillary the chance to reiterate her support (and camraderie) with the pro-gun voters... upstate New York has them too so she knows them well.

Will is right, Hillary is noticeably shorter in the two-shot- but perhaps this is to her advantage. She tends to do better in primaries when she is positioned as an underdog, needing a boost up literally and figuratively.

By Sarah Scully | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (6)

After Clinton was accused of "moving the goalposts" several times when she refused to drop her bid for the nomination, she used the phrase herself this evening -- but instead applied the phrase to President Bush's goals in Iraq.

She's looking good this evening, calm and confident, but there's usually a logistical rule of fairness in these debates -- the shorter candidate gets to stand on a platform (or on an "apple box" -- crew jargon). Where's Clinton's apple box?

By William Rabbe | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (7)

Both having answered for their missteps along the campaign trail, it seems the ABC team is going to hit them with every conceivable gaff, questionable association and lack of flag pin.
Clinton is hitting hard, blunt punches, elaborating on the potential fallout from Obama's missteps. He is on the defense- swatting at the punches and dancing around the ring, making the argument that all of these issues are insignificant, overblown.

By Sarah Scully | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (7)

Bittergate, Rev. Wright, and he doesn't even wear a flag pin? Gibson and Stephanopoulos are hitting hard and Obama's clarification skills are being tested. The question is: does he sound too defensive?

First, frustration seems to be Obama's new buzz-word. Is "frustration" code for bitterness?

Second, after brief misunderstanding between the moderators and Sen. Obama, Stephanopoulos (off camera) interjected "did you disown him?" referring to Reverend Wright ... without getting flustered, Sen. Obama clarified that he disowned Wright's comments, not Wright.

Third, he doesn't wear a flag pin? Well, he's answered this one before.

But wait, something [somewhat] new: he has associations with individuals from the notorious the weather underground

Defensive? Big time.

By William Rabbe | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (4)

Hillary has opened a cut: Reverend Wright. She's presents a calm yet robust case that you can't pick your family, you can pick your reverend. She lands a swift upper hook. This cut is going to bleed through the fall (if he's the nominee). Even after the rousing speech on race, it remains to be seen whether this will be a fatal wound.

By Sarah Scully | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (4)

How old fashioned -- Gibson's first question suggested a joint ticket where the second place candidate take the Vice Presidency a la section 1 of Article II of the constitution... The answer? Silence for about 10 seconds. And laughter amongst the press.

By William Rabbe | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (5)

And so it begins...
Openers: Obama starts off reiterating his point about disappointed voters in Pennsylvania, emphasizing the word "frustrated" in place of "bitter."
Both restate what we've heard so many times in the last few weeks, pitching their understanding leadership.
They look tired.
Right off the bat, getting at the Big Question: Why don't you just run together?
This is not a likely scenario.
The task is laid out before them, these two are going to have to distinguish their remarkably similar policies and positions throughout this debate.

That was the warm up. Gibson asks about "bittergate."
Obama defends himself by again, not taking back the sentiment but restating it in a non-offensive way. He's presenting it as a "wedge" issue- which is useful down the road if the GOP uses it against him. Should he be the nominee, it will get used against him, it was a foolish and impolitic thing to say and it, along with Rev. Wright, will be brought up by the 527s.

Hillary's rebuttal: Harkens back to her grandfather and brings the hammer down on Obama, saying these much discussed "disappointed" Pennsylvanians do not cling to guns and religion. He's offended and insulted them, she wants to make sure you know that.

By Sarah Scully | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (6)

Tags: Debate Pennsylvania

By Sarah Scully
Having run out of substantive matters to disagree over, the Democrats have engaged in a battle over minutiae worthy of Dr. Suess. Much like The Butter Battle Book in which two very similar groups start a cold-war-style arms race (that includes a weapon called a "Blue-Gooer") over whether to butter one's bread side-up or side-down, the vitriol within the Democratic party seems to increase in proportion to the triviality of the argument. Obama called Pennsylvanians bitter! Hillary can't remember when she last held a gun! The one person who seems to be benefitting from this war of words is John McCain, who is shrewdly using the opportunity to build on his popularity with independents. One Pennsylvanian I spoke to was left scratching her head and is now questioning the rationality of all of the Democrats. Will the battle escalate tonight? We'll let you know. Stay tuned for our live blogging from the debate in Philadelphia.

By Sarah Scully | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (4)

Tags: Battle, bitter, Democrats, gun, John McCain, Pennsylvania

By Sarah Scully
With one-time Republican Bob Barr considering a run as a Libertarian (along with former Democratic candidate Mike Gravel) and the phenomena of McCain Democrats and "Obamicans," we are seeing a revolution in party identity. It's increasingly difficult to pigeon-hole voters into one of the two antiquated camps. Whereas the words "liberal" and "conservative" now carry malignant connotations, "independent" is one with which more people are identifying. Candidates can no longer fall back on partisan rhetoric but must instead reach the unaffiliated and dissatisfied voters who could make all the difference in this election. Case in point: I have heard through an anonymous source connected to the Obama campaign that a Republican may be on the short list for his running mate.
My guess is Chuck Hagel. What's your guess?

By Sarah Scully | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (5)

Tags: conservative, Hagel, Independents, liberal, Obama, partisan rhetoric, Vice President, VP

By Sarah Scully
The Left may be split right now but the Right could end up fractured down the road if Georgia's former Republican Rep. Bob Barr turns his exploratory committee into a full-blown Libertarian candidacy. With the Democratic bare-knuckle fight in its ninth round, it's been easy to forget about the disgruntled Republicans who were tearing John McCain apart even as he was claiming the nomination. Well before divided Dems threatened to vote for McCain, Republican stalwarts raged against their own frontrunner, citing a dearth of conservative bona fides. Once the dust settled however, in true elephant form, the GOP establishment seemed to line up behind their candidate in pragmatic lock step.
Enter the Libertarian Party, formerly the provenance of Ron Paul and currently a depository for the dissatisfied of any ilk- Mike Gravel has transferred his Democratic candidacy over to the LP. Traditionally in American politics, a third party vote is one that isn't expected to put someone in the White House but can cripple another candidate's chances, serving to protest their failure to adhere to a certain set of values. These values vary widely within the LP, intersecting at such issues as opposition to the war in Iraq. Barr may very well be popular enough with disapproving Republicans and right wing Libertarians to act as a Nader to McCain's Gore.

By Sarah Scully | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (8)

Tags: Bob Barr, Democrats, GOP, John McCain, Libertarians, Republicans, third parties

By Will Rabbe

Clinton strategist Mark Penn, is no longer with the Clinton campaign as of today but will still provide polling services.

This comes after a debacle with the government of Columbia and after Ed Rendell alluded to his firing this morning on Meet the Press.

Early in her campaign, his role had been debated as CNN reports -- there were "senior staffers that didn't want him there."

He is also reported to be responsible for running Hillary as a virtual incumbent, something that Obama's strategist pointed out early on. During the week of the NH Primary she shifted to a message closer to Obama's -- that of change.

By William Rabbe | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (8)

As if her Bosnia gaffe wasn't enough (see video here and here), Hillary Clinton seems to have made another. This time it's a story that appears often in her stump speech -- about a woman in labor who lacks health insurance and cannot afford her hospital bill. As a result, she and the baby both die.

Even aside from the lack of healthcare, it is a horrifying tale -- but Clinton's point is that the healthcare system is flawed and the New York Times now reports that the woman DID have healthcare and DID receive treatment.

Yikes. Maybe she had bad information?

By William Rabbe | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (6)

By Sarah Scully
The Democratic nomination will likely be won by the smallest of margins with the final votes coming from superdelegates. Some Democrats argue that there are a few "super-superdelegates," such as Al Gore, whose endorsements could sway enough opinions to end the contest immediately. Whether this is a valid conviction or not, these party superstars have so far refused to intervene. In the absence of their support, the candidates have decided to simulate an association. Earlier this week, Obama and Clinton both indicated their intentions to bring Gore in to their respective administrations (should he be interested). This afternoon, Clinton announced plans to create a "poverty czar" post for John Edwards.
While it doesn't seem likely that we will hear from The Goracle anytime soon and it's unclear whether Edwards will use his questionable North Carolina clout to aid Clinton, another "super-super delegate," Jimmy Carter, has made overt hints pointing to a preference for Obama. I'm sure the lower-ranking superdelegates would be happy to have someone else decide the nomination before Howard Dean's July 1 deadline.
Would any endorsement pack enough punch to make a difference?

By Sarah Scully | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (8)

Tags: Clinton, Democrats, endorsements, Gore, Jimmy Carter, Obama, superdelegates

By William Rabbe

Many people have asked me whether or not a prolonged battle for the Democratic nomination will benefit the eventual nominee. Strategically, the idea is that a "battle-tested" candidate will emerge from the fray -- one with established campaign credentials, ready to engage in hand to hand combat with the Republican nominee . It makes sense, right? If a candidate can take down one strong opponent, he or she should be able to take down another...

Well, not exactly -- devising strategy takes time. The more time that is taken to settle the nomination the less time the Democratic nominee have to focus on the general election to tailor their message to their next opponent. Winning a general election is a careful game of chess, you can't rely solely on the electorate's desire for a sea-change in the wake of an unpopular president.

Historically the incumbent, or the candidate who has wrapped up the nomination first, has had an advantage, for instance George Bush had already devised his ad campaign by the end of 2003 (though he planned it against Howard Dean, assuming he would win the nomination). Similarly, John McCain has the luxury of time.

Yes, Barack Obama is sharpening his teeth. As Maureen Dowd wrote yesterday, Hillary is teaching Barack Obama that the "whole point of a Presidential Race is to win." But Barack Obama knew that Hillary Clinton would be his chief rival for years and thus was able to develop and run a consistent campaign that trumped hers: he positioned himself as an outsider ready to bring about change and defined her as a part of the Washington establishment, someone who embodies the idea of "old politics".

While he can still effectively paint McCain with the same brush, Senator Obama has not yet revealed a more focused long term strategy. At this point, his efforts have been centered exclusively on linking the senator to the current president -- having coined the phrase "Bush McCain Republican" and always referring to the two together. The object of this approach is obviously to hold McCain responsible for the failures of the Bush administration and to bound an unpopular president to the current nominee. You already hear people on the left buzzing about a potential McCain administration as "Bush's third term."

But we learned in 2004 that you can't win an election solely by demonizing Bush -- doing so not only comes across as an over-simplification of the stakes, but in 2008 the tactic contains an inherent contradiction: the Republican nominee appears to be his own man, not Bush 2.0 -- and there's plenty of evidence he can use to back that up.

After all, isn't John McCain known as a maverick senator who is unafraid of challenging his own party? Didn't he run against Bush and butt heads for some time thereafter? Didn't he consider leaving the Republican party when he felt it had strayed? Somehow this does not sound like another Bush.

So, will the "same as Bush" approach hold water? Can Obama afford to rely on latent dissatisfaction with the current administration? His strategists will have to pull a few all-nighters to cram for the general election.

By William Rabbe | Link | 1 Comments | Recommended (7)

Tags: Campaign Strategy, McCain, Obama

By William Rabbe

These two ads came out the same day.

Clinton's:

And John McCain's:

And guess what? They're almost the same ad! But who should get the rapid response award?
The answer is here and this is probably the reason he looks so happy.

Thanks to The Page for breaking the McCain reply.

By William Rabbe | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (6)

Tags: Ad Wars, Hillary Clinton, It's 3AM -- again, John McCain

By Sarah Scully
April Fools' Day was well established before we ever became a country but Americans have gladly adopted this pseudo holiday and made it their own. For candidates, April Fools' offers the chance to work on their likeability factor:
Hillary Clinton took the opportunity to demonstrate her facility for gaiety by informing the press that she would be challenging Obama to a bowl-off for the nomination. This served two purposes, as she was able to also reference her opponent's ineptitude at the past time of so many working class Pennsylvania voters.

John McCain showed-off a boyish silliness in trading insults such as "You look like a guy caught smuggling reptiles in his pants," with David Letterman.

So, where did April Fools' come from? Many believe that the day was named for those who rebelled against Pope Gregory XIII's replacement of the Julian Calendar with the Gregorian and continued to celebrate New Year's Day on April 1st. Sound familiar? Much like the Democratic parties in Michigan and Florida, these "fools" refused to accept the dates put forth by their leader and as a result, they were ostracized.

By Sarah Scully | Link | 0 Comments | Recommended (6)

Tags: April Fools, Clinton, Florida, Letterman, McCain, Michigan, Obama