For the fourth time today I've checked the weather for Des Moines, Iowa tomorrow through Friday (a balmy 10 to 15 degrees high awaits me), and I'm in an Iowa frame of mind as I prepare to leave behind first-in-the-galaxy primary land and head to first-in the-universe caucus territory. In my daily link, Christopher Hitches takes apart the Iowa caucuses and skewers the bizarre process that gives us not only Iowa but our own circus. In particular, Hitchens takes the mainstream media machine to task for enabling the insanity.

One of my favorite nuggets was from an Australian commentator who wrote this explanation for the folks down under and warned it was important to take notice of what will happen in Iowa (has to do with choosing the leader of the free world with looks positively strange to 99.5 percent of the rest of the world.)

“The Iowa caucuses are a process so bizarre and byzantine it is either, depending on your outlook, the essence of grass-roots democracy, a quaint anachronism, or perhaps just plain crazy. For a start, only a small fraction of Iowans will vote. In the Democrats’ case, it is not a secret ballot - people gather in groups in corners of a room to indicate their support for a candidate, and then try to convince those in the other corners to join them. They pick delegates to county conventions, which then lead to district and eventually state conventions. And long after the media has lost interest, these delegates can change their allegiances. If the United Nations sent observers to monitor the poll they would shake their heads," said Mark Coultan of the Sydney Morning Herald.

I get to add to the circus. One Iowan told me "the state is overrun with candidates, their handlers, campaigns and roadside gawkers." I'll start posting from Iowa tomorrow.

Posted by Michael McCord at 03:25 PM| Permalink | Comments (2)

The Mitt Romney brigade obviously does. It's bad enough for Mr. Conservative come lately to get passed by Mike Huckabee in Iowa but to have John McCain too close for comfort here in first-in-the-solar system primary land? That's a hard punch to take.
You could see this coming from miles away. Romney, the Concord Monitor's favorite Ken Doll candidate, has a less-than-sweet Happy New Year greeting for John McCain: please go away. To no surprise of anyone who has read the Karl Rove playbook of warfare campaigning, the Mittster has gone after McCain for being less than honorable and pure-bred conservative when it comes to taxes and immigration. His latest ad released today on the NH battleground of confusing ideas, gives faux praise by announcing that “John McCain, an honorable man. But is he the right Republican for the future?"
Not according to the Mittster.The ad continues: "McCain opposes repeal of the death tax. And voted against the Bush tax cuts — twice. McCain pushed to let every illegal immigrant stay here permanently. Even voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security.”
I'm surprised Mitt didn't add "lions and tigers and bears and mmigrants and taxes, oh my" when saying he was approving the hardly subtle message. In my daily link, The Politico offers a reminder that the Mittster's career path to born-again conservatism and the various stances he has taken in the past is a gift that keeps on gving for his opponents.

Before I head out for the holiday weekend and a trip to Iowa to see what all the fuss is about, here's my Friday shameless promotion plug for Sunday's Out in a LImb column. It's the First Annual Primies, a nod to some of my favorite moments and observations on the campaign trail during 2007.

Posted by Michael McCord at 01:29 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

If it's Thursday (or Wednesday or Friday or Saturday) it must be time for the latest Hillary Clinton campaign theme of the day (or hour). The most recent mouthful in Iowa is “Big Challenges, Real Solutions: Time To Pick A President" which was theme distinct from last week's "Working for Change, Working for You Tour" in New Hampshire (which included "Moms and Daughters Making History" events) and really distinct from a recent themed excursion in Iowa called "Every County Counts Tour" and even more distinct from the recent "Ready for Change, Ready to Lead" tour in Iowa and NH. I could name scores of others (and I do mean scores) that reflect the past year's efforts but I think you get the point -- when it comes to peppy themes, the Clinton campaign can't be beat.

It took long enough but the Clinton campaign finally did figure out an effective ad theme with the latest effort titled "Stakes." It's smart, succinct and thankfully not weighed down with thematic baggage. It's also the most effective ad of the campaign (and will hopefully allow people to forget last week's holiday ad theme debacle.See it here.

I doubt Dem hopeful Joe Biden has gone through too many themes during his valiant primary season quest to break through the celebrity and media horse race chatter dominated by the Clinton/Edwards/Obama grudge match. He's spent too much of the campaign like an eccentric uncle people enjoy but wouldn't necessarily trust with their vote. Well, Joe told Walter Shapriro of Salon there might be a Iowa caucus surprise out there for his campaign -- which would help his prospects immensely in New Hampshire. Read about Joe Biden's self-assessment here in my daily link.

Posted by Michael McCord at 10:17 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

On this special Boxing Day, just 13 days away from the first-in-the-galaxy primary day of reckoning, I visited the Blue Hampshire bloggers site to check out the latest endorsement chatter and in particular, talk about the eye-opening sucker punch delivered by the Concord Monior on Mitt Romeny earlier this week. The anti-endorsement body slam on candidates was one used to see regularly (and with enjoyable hysteria value) by the Union Leader when William J. Loeb was running the show. But I guess we have entered a new era of anti-advocacy. You can read more here.

Earlier this year I met retired Army Gen. John Johns who talked to the Portsmouth Herald editorial board during a tour of retired generals critical of the Iraq war and how it was dangerously undermining our long-term military capabilities. I've talked and corresponded with Gen. Johns a few times since then and he has come out in support of Democratic hopeful and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and campaigned with him recently. Johns sent me this letter recently to make the foreign policy case for Richardson especially in regards to the aftermath of the Bush debacle in Iraq.

Dear Mike,
It was good talking to you on the teleconference a few weeks ago. I have fond memories of our meeting earlier this year with your editorial Board and have thought of how events have unfolded since then, especially the debate over the results of the “surge.” The purpose of this note is to update you on my thoughts on the Iraq situation and secondly, to comment on my recent appearance with Governor Bill Richardson in New Hampshire, in case you were aware of that
Personally, I believe it is premature to take comfort in the fact that violence has been reduced in Iraq. As I have said all along about General Petraeus and his team of advisors, they are first class and their COIN doctrine is on target. Nevertheless, I still believe it is far too little and too late to change the course of events that we have unleashed in Iraq.
There is little doubt that the increase in troops in Baghdad has provided increased security; however, a great deal of the reduction, it seems to me, is the result of factors other than the increase of troops. First and perhaps foremost, is the brutal sectarian cleansing that had divided Baghdad into enclaves that separates the warring religious parties. The half million or so Christians, of course, are largely gone out of country and the Sunnis and Shiites walled off from each other. While this has reduced the friction between the groups, I’m not sure it is advantageous for the goal of developing national unity.
The change in strategy in Anbar Province, where we are now working with tribal chiefs to arm and train their militias, preceded the surge and is rather independent of that action. While this provides a temporary benefit to us, and I am in favor of this change, it will make national unity more difficult. It may be that some are correct in saying that the partition of Iraq into semi-autonomous sections is a reality and we should junk the idea of a unified Iraq. Again, that may provide short-term benefits in reducing violence and U.S. casualties, but what does it do in promoting national unity. As I read it, we have decided to arm and train the Sunni militia to rid the insurgency of Al Qaeda elements and at least buy the cooperation of the Sunni tribal chiefs. As you can read in the daily news commentary, the Iraqi central government is not happy about that and sees the Sunni militia as future enemies.
I am not convinced that the partition idea is wise in the long run. Look at the situation in the north involving the Turks and Kurds. We trumpet the Kurdish region as a beacon of stability, etc. it seems to me that we have created a monster by whetting the appetite of Kurds in Turkey, Syria, and Iran to join with their Iraqi brethren in creating a greater Kurdistan. If we think we saw brutal repression of Iraqi Kurdish insurgents by Saddam, wait until the Turks, Iranians and Syrians deal with Kurdish insurgents who want to join that greater Kurdistan. Add to that dynamic our presence in the Kurdish area, trying to balance our relations with Turkey and the Kurds, and you have a recipe for chaos in the region.
I have just read in the 19 December 2007 Washington Post the latest Battle Update Assessment provided General Petraeus. The report clearly says all segments of the Iraqi people blame us for their problems and want us out. If you have not read that report, I recommend you do so. The post article is by Karen DeYoung.

Frankly, I don’t know how we can extricate ourselves from this quandary with anything resembling success. I haven’t changed my overall view that we need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, and yet do it in a responsible way. I believe the Bush strategy is merely kicking the can down the road so as to hand the problem over to the next administration. That is the reason that I have been working with Governor Bill Richardson in refining his position and appeared with him in Iowa and briefly in New Hampshire at one event. As I told you and your staff, I am an Independent and offer my views to any candidate who wants to listen. I have offered to appear with Jo Ann Emerson, (R) Missouri and will do so with any candidate that lets me give my candid views without following “talking points’ provided by staff. I will not tailor my talk to fit a specific candidate. Bill Richardson has honored that position.
I appeared with Bill Richardson because his plan is the closest to offering a way out of any of the candidates. As I understand him, he pledges to have all U.S. forces out of Iraq within a year of his presidency. The notion that he is being irresponsible is nonsense.
The first point is that Richardson has stated his desire to remove all troops from Iraq, but not necessarily from the region. That would leave troops along the Kurdish/Turkey border if Turkey agreed and would have them available if needed in Iraq, but also would have their presence act as a deterrent in any Kurdish/Turkey problem. Other troops in say Kuwait would act as a strike force if necessary into Iraq. This of course would be done having a multi-national force in Iraq.
The second point about Richardson’s plan is that he would engage in vigorous diplomacy to get regional powers and the major powers involved in bringing stability to the region. This is described by some, especially the neocon hawks who got us in this quagmire and who insist on unilateralism, as being naïve. I would point out that Richardson’s plan closely follows the two major steps recommended by the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group; withdraw all combat forces and use diplomacy to internationalize the solution to the problem.
For those who say it is idealistic to think we can form an international coalition and create a multi-national peace-keeping force to fill the void as we remove our troops, I say we have no other choice. Every country in the world has a vital national interest in stabilizing the region and the notion that we can keep an occupation force there for the indefinite future is a path to greater disaster than we now face.
I agree with the Richardson approach in principle and that is why I have volunteered to be part of his military team. The only slight difference I have with him is that I would not rule out leaving some U.S. forces in Iraq to provide logistical support to a multi-national force if such a force cannot provide its own support. I believe he is flexible enough to make that adjustment if needed. It would be best if we could pull out all U.S. forces and the sooner the better.
I liked what Bill Clinton said about having him and G.H.W. Bush go on a trip throughout the world to convince the world that there is a new era of America working with the international community. I would include Brent Scowcroft, Chuck Hagel, Tony Zinni, and Colin Powell, as well as others who are respected for their belief in working through international institutions. I believe Bill Richardson should be involved in such an effort; I would certainly give him that portfolio if he is chosen as a running mate.
Again, I appreciate the courtesy that you accorded me earlier this year by affording me the opportunity to meet with your editorial Board. I wanted you to know that I still consider my efforts on foreign policy to be non-partisan and that my appearances with Governor Richardson offered me the opportunity to express my views candidly. I do find him refreshingly candid and adaptable to changing circumstances. He listens to diverse views from senior military advisors and has changed his mind when it makes sense.

Warm regards.
Brigadier John H. Johns, USA Ret.
22 December 2007

Posted by Michael McCord at 11:08 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

In the regular shameless promotion spot for my Sunday Out on a Limb column, I'm writing about the last push for John Edwards who has campaigned hard on a consistent theme of economic populism and is calling on the country to rise up and take back the power. Is Edwards capturing a big undercurrent of economic anxiety? In the end do voters have enough empathy to care about the economic misfortune of others. I have a long distance talk with a big supporter and volunteer of Edwards who's spending some of his time helping out the campaign -- from Sudan.

Mitt's travails
On the good news side, Rep. Tom Tancredo gave up his presidential bid and endorsed Mitt Romney which gives the Mittster the zenophobic voting block. On the bad news side, both the Boston Globe and Boston Herald, papers who know Mitt the best (or at least think they do), endorsed John McCain. And then there is the issue of Mitt's memory and his video game use of history -- as in he remembers seeing his father George (former Michigan governor and 1968 presidential candidate) marching with Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 1960s. In my daily link, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo deciphers the Mittster's tortured "see/saw" explanation about what really didn't happen was a metaphor for good intentions about his Civil Rights bonafides.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061649.php

Posted by Michael McCord at 08:12 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

While Dem Bill Richardson was bowling in Portsmouth last night -- and making it out in time to dodge the latest winter mini-storm -- voters discovered he wasn't very good with the candlepins but he is determined to raise an issue that's been a genie put back in a bottle -- Iraq. His campaign has released what might be called the first 'attack ad' of the Dem primary as Richardson has gone after the big three of Clinton, Edwards, and Obama for their Iraq policies. I say attack ad lightly because it's more of a gentle prod than a hammer but he does make the point because you can't simply eliminate Iraq from the political equation because of the relative calm perhaps before the next storm. The serious questions aren't growing smaller as I heard GOP anti-war critic Ron Paul say yesterday. You can see the ad here.

In my daily link, Richardson reminds folks that Iraq is more than an inconvenient truth lurking the closet -- it's the key to almost everything domestically and internationally. Whether voters are ready to believe that is another matter.

Posted by Michael McCord at 07:12 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

It wasn't so long ago -- perhaps two or three dog years -- that GOPer John McCain was feeling annoyed because he wasn't being annoying enough (in the polls or in fund raising) for other candidates to notice him and attack him (most candidates lack in the self esteem department when they aren't being attacked). Nothing like a few endorsements (including one by my Portsmouth Herald), a political smooch from part-time Democrat Joe Lieberman and a serious bump in the polls to get noticed -- and attacked.
The Democratic National Committee hounds didn't waste much time and have been sending out non too flattering press releases. The DNC roasted McCain for missing a Senate vote on the alternative minimum tax why he was campaigning to eliminate it. Then today, the DNC sent this friendly historical reminder out:"In his new campaign ad today and out on the campaign trail, Arizona Senator John McCain likes to pretend he opposed Don Rumsfeld's strategy on Iraq from the beginning. Back in Washington, however, John McCain has consistently been one of President Bush's most loyal defenders--a fact made clear by his event today in Boston with Henry Kissinger and former CIA Director James Woolsey. In sharing a stage with Woolsey, McCain is joining one of the leading members of the Defense Policy Board that helped shape Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy."
And then a pro-Huckabee independent group ran a telephone push poll in our first-in-the-solar-system primary state dissing McCain while kissing Huckabee (the Huck man has disavowed the group but surely can't be all that worked up about their dirty work that benefits him). McCain is riding the good press express again and his opponents are taking notice. I can't wait until the Mittster takes notice because if he goes after McCain, it could get really nasty (John and 'Mr. Torture Know it All' Mitt aren't exactly on speaking terms.)
Anyway, must be nice for McCain to start feeling the love of being attacked again. In my daily link, Slate's John Dickinson nicely captures the latest reincarnation of John McCain.

Constitutional reprisals
During a stop in Portsmouth with the Herald editorial board, GOPer Ron Paul, who has become the financial rainmaker in this primary among the Republicans, brought up a unique solution to tracking down and eliminating terrorists like Osama bin Laden: he brought the constitutional reply of "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" to essentially deputize certain Americans to become mercenaries in service of the Congress and country. Well, that was a rare moment when you really do hear something so far out new that you almost fall out of the chair. I confess in almost three decades of political reporting I'd never heard that one before. Curious I looked it up and for those keeping Constitutional score at home that's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 in your playbook. It's arcane like the Third Amendment (peacetime wuartering of soldiers in private homes) but strangely not that far out of the loop. Leave it to Ron Paul to give you a Constitutional lesson a day.

Scheduling, Edwards style
I ran into a disgruntled Edwards supporter who left an event in Portsmouth Wednesday, the one headlined by Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne, after waiting almost two hours for it to start. "I love the guy but I've seen him five ttimes this year and they are always an hour late. It's starting to piss me off."

Posted by Michael McCord at 06:37 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Ken Burns, the award-winning New Hampshire documentary filmmaker ("The Civil War" and recently "The War" to name just a few) has endorsed Dem Barack Obama -- and spoke out despite a desire to remain mum about his choice because he's become "disappointed" with the tone of the overall campaign thrust of the past two weeks by a candidate and former First Lady by the name of Hillary Clinton. "I think she's getting bad advice," said Burns in a conference call with reporters. He spent most of his talking about he was attracted to Obama and his "positive, unironic" vision for the country. Burns said that Obama was the most "authentic" of candidates and one necessary to face the many challenges the country faces -- and one who can inspire the country to tap into "the better angels of our nature." In the synchronicity department, the Clinton folks held a conference call a few mintues earlier talking about an alleged "negative" mailer put out by the Obama campaign. The irony of the two events was unmistakable.

Dem Joe Biden has an opinion on everything -- even when you don't ask him for one. Well, never bashful Joe sent out a gem of a release today blasting an endorsement -- that of right wing legal grinch Robert Bork giving his seal of approval to GOPer Mitt Romney. It connected the historical dots, especially the personal ones between Biden and Bork who likely don't share Christmas cards -- after all Biden played no small part in derailing Bork's Supreme Court nomination in 1987. Here's the release in all its rhetorical glory:
“The hallmark of Robert Bork’s judicial philosophy has been his consistent refusal to acknowledge a constitutional right to privacy. That’s why I led the fight in 1987 to keep Judge Bork off the Supreme Court. In my view, his endorsement of Gov. Romney is not something to tout; it’s a damning portent of the judicial philosophy Romney would promote as President. The last thing we need after 8 years of the Bush Administration’s policies of eavesdropping on Americans, extra-legal renditions, and refusal to define waterboarding as torture, is another 8 years of recklessness with our constitutional rights. If Gov. Romney is serious about leading the United States, I urge him to repudiate Judge Bork’s narrow view of the Constitution and acknowledge our privacy rights as individuals.
“The truth is, our next president will have the responsibility of picking at least one, but probably two, Supreme Court justices. We cannot afford to cede an inch to the radical right when it comes to appointing justices who could put the Supreme Court on a more conservative trajectory for the next decade or more. Back in ‘87 when I led the fight to keep Robert Bork off the Supreme Court, I did so because he made it clear that he did not support the constitutional right to privacy recognized in Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut, which have long served as the legal underpinnings of a woman’s right to reproductive choice.
“And let’s not forget that Robert Bork paved the way for Richard Nixon to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox after he requested tapes of Oval Office conversations. We find ourselves in a similar situation today, having learned that an administration official in the CIA had destroyed videotapes of the CIA's use of severe interrogation techniques on detainees held in secret, extra-legal prisons. Now, the Department of Justice is actually standing in the way of a congressional investigation into this corruption. The continuing saga of cover-up and delay by this administration must be stopped.
“We don’t need another President who will further erode the balance of power so vital to our nation’s well-being. Judge Bork’s endorsement of Gov. Romney makes me wonder if he shares Bork’s view of excessive Presidential authority.”

Congrats to Dem Chris Dodd for stopping the FISA reauthorization bill with an eight-hour filibuster that stopped the legislation in its tracks. Nice to see a Dem with some procedural guts for once. Wouldn't it have been interesting if fellow Dem presidential candidates Clinton, Obama and Biden had stopped campaigning and joined Dodd on the floor instead of merely supporting him with words? In my daily link, blogger Scott Thill offers an ode of appreciation to Dodd for showing a spark of leadership.

Posted by Michael McCord at 03:40 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

First off, we in the newspaper business -- and especially those of us on editorial boards such as yours truly -- should thank Hillary Clinton for acknowledging the awesome power of an endorsement as she did repeatedly today when mentioning the Des Moines Register nod to her. Her enthusiasm for the endorsement -- the political equal to Sally Field getting an Oscar and claiming "You like me!" -- was shown in how she used it as a blanket answer to everything during her morning talk show blitz.
Such as:
Q: Sen. Clinton, what about that NIE?
A: Read the editorial about how much I'm ready to lead on day one.
Q: Sen. Clinton, are you afraid to "roll the dice" because your husband certainly is?
A: I'm tested, vetted and the editorial board has confidence in me.
Q: Is former President Clinton becoming a sly attack dog on your behalf?
A: It's all in the editorial. I inspire confidence because what I lack in inspiration I more than make up for with confidence that I'm ready to go.
Q: What about that general election strategy?
A: The editorial captures the essence of me.
Who know editorial boards or editorial writers could spread so much joy?
Thank goodness Hillary Clinton got that endorsement...otherwise she really would be in the dumps only left with a rebooted "change" (as in "change agent" and expert in change who bathes in change) message that would have all the sincerity, as I've mentioned before, of a chastened George W. Bush -- who woke up one morning and became a "Reformer with Results" after getting his butt smacked by John McCain in the New Hampshire primary in 2000 (McCain ran as a establishment-slaying reformer). It's quite amusing to watch Clintonites rally around the change banner and attempt to trademark the political definition of change: you know, there are the annoying demanders of change (Edwards) and the wussy hopers for change (Obama) and then there are the hard workers for change (you know who) who can tell the difference between the change phonies and the real experienced change deal.

Funny how when I asked Richard Holbrooke the former Ambassador to the United Nations who was in New Hampshire stumping for Hillary -- iearlier today f he thought Obama was a risky, "roll the dice" kind of candidate who might put U.S. foreign policy in peril if he was, gulp, elected. Holbrooke, ever the gracious diplomat, wouldn't go near that question with a ten-foot pole and instead told me the Dems had put togeher a very solid slate of candidates. Then he really stumbled from the party line when he talked about what it would take to restore some sense of credibility to the country international's image. When he started talking about experience, he said he didn't want to go there (the defining part of experience) because there were many types of experience. Not exactly what the two campaign minders accompanying Clinton wanted to hear but it was honest. Holbrooke talked about Clinton's considerable talents to be president -- especially her service on the Armed Services Committee which Holbrooke believes give a candidate commander in chief gravitas if they are smart enough to embrace it -- and that Clinton has an esteemed international reputation. He told me the foreign policy differences between the Dem candidates have been "overdramatizied" and are rather minute. He wondered sort of out load why they (the campaign) didn't talk more about the relevant stuff like her Armed sErvices Committee work or that she knows how to "fight the bureaucracy" to get things done.

Why indeed? Perhaps just perhaps, when you're no longer the inevitable queen at the top of the polls, it's better to talk change and "roll the dice" than about what you might actually be good at.

Speaking of Obama , in my daily link, there's an interesting perspective about his candidacy and what it means by Gary Younge of The Nation. It helps explain why clinton and Obama are talking two very different versions of change -- and experience has everything to do with it.

Posted by Michael McCord at 08:32 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Who knows if this means anything but the latest results are in from a Seacoast NH region hotbed of political activism-- the annual member's holiday party at Wentworth-By-the-Sea Country Club. According to an informal straw poll last week among 300 members (63 percent Republican and 37 percent Democrat), Rudy Giuliani and Barack Obama won close victories over Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton respectively.
Here are the top 3 results:
Republicans: Giuliani 34 percent, Romney 32 percent, and John McCain, 27 percent.
Democrats: Obama 44 percent, Clinton 40 percent and John Edwards, 14 percent.

This straw poll came before the onslaught of recent state polls that showed Romney with double-digit margin over McCain and Giuliani and Obama-Clinton in a virtual dead heat with Edwards behind by a double-digit margin with a little more than three weeks to go.

Billymouth
It was no surprise that Bill Shaheen fell on his sword for Clinton after his baffling open-mouth exercise slamming Obama for his self-confessed drug use as a young man and suggesting that the Republicans would slice and dice him in a general election (as if they needed an excuse or anything resembling facts to do it anyway). Shaheen is an old political pro who knows New Hampshire upside down and rightside up but his poor judgment (I hope it was poor and not a planned exercise in self-immolation) stemmed from a frustration that has dogged the Clinton campaign for months -- they didn't expect the Obama tornado and mostly they didn't know how to deal with it when it showed staying power beyond the celebrity circus at the beginning of the campaign. Bill Shaheen knows New hampshire and has a great sense of what's happening on the ground -- what he and the Clintonites have yet to figure out is that Obama and his campaign may have a better grasp of what's happening today than they do.

Oh yea, they had a debate in the Iowa yesterday. In case you missed it this afternoon battle, in my daily link here's a boring recap.

Posted by Michael McCord at 09:04 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm heading to Iowa folks for 72 hours of fun in caucus and corn field land beginning New Year's day...more on that below as I ask for your assistance but for now it's back to the serious business of a certain primary we've been keeping an eye on...
After a few days in the political insane asylum of Washington, D.C. and I return smack in the middle of it here. With 27 days to go the circus mania is starting to break out. Just in the past nine hours, two dependable polls (Rasmussen and CNN/WMUR) shows the Dem race in New Hampshire a statistical dead heat between Hillary Clinton (leading by 31 to 30 in the CNN/WMUR poll) and Barack Obama (who leads by a 31 to 28 margin in the Rasmussen)...the polls aren't so encouraging for John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Christopher Dodd, Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich. For the GOPers, the CNN/WMUR poll shows Mitt Romney leading John McCain and Rudy Giuliani by a 32 to 19 margin -- Iowa surger Mike Huckabee's isn't surging so much here with a fourth place showing at 9 percent.

Holiday tour news
The Clinton folks will have her back in first-in-the-galaxy land for campaign stops this Saturday -- call it one-part holiday tour and other part to stop the poll bleeding. Not sure if she'll have time for Christmas shopping. Speaking of coincidences (or not) when it comes to volatile poll numbers as primary day approaches, here's how you know the race is getting tight: According to the Washington Post, Clinton's New Hampshire man about town and advisor Bill Shaheen talks about Obama's admitted drug use as a young man in the context of electability and how the GOPers will tar and feather him in a general election with this issue. Hmmm, I seem to remember a certain candidate named Clinton (Bill) who handled the so-called drug issue in a, well, highly creative manner (smoked but didn't inhale pot) and that didn't seem to hurt him in 1992 -- though it did hurt his credibility and helped lead to allegations of "Slick Willie" with the truth. Obama at least has been out front and honest and this hurts him how? Because the GOP will accuse him of covering up more? The GOP attack hounds are gonna make stuff up no matter what (see Boat, Swift 2004). Possibly the oddest part of the Post piece with Shaheen was a seeming back-handed appreciative nod to George Bush for being evasive about his good times as a "young and irresponsbile" cad. Not sure if the Clintonites want to go there on this issue but hey, it makes my job more interesting. Read more here. I will have an update response later from the Obama NH folks who aren't happy at all about this turn of the attack screw. (UPDATE) A statement from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe "in response to the Clinton campaign’s latest attack":
“Hillary Clinton said attacking other Democrats is the ‘fun part’ of this campaign, and now she’s moved from Barack Obama’s kindergarten years to his teenage years in an increasingly desperate effort to slow her slide in the polls. Senator Clinton’s campaign is recycling old news that Barack Obama has been candid about in a book he wrote years ago, and he’s talked about the lessons he’s learned from these mistakes with young people all across the country. He plans on winning this campaign by focusing on the issues that actually matter to the American people,” said Plouffe.

On the more benign front...
Bill Richardson has released a new ad titled "Guts" that includes an endorsement from former auto industry maven Lee Iococca. McCain may have Curt Schilling supporting him but Richardson is tapping old Red Sox glory and will have former Red Sox great Luis Tiant stumping for him on Saturday in Manchester. Obama has Oprah but John Edwards will have musicians Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne on the trail with him next Tuesday & Wednesday -- including a stop at town hall in Portsmouth.

On the Republican side, John McCain released a new ad here called "Courage" which parlays his recent Union Leader endorsement into evidence that he's (1) conservative, (2) really conservative and (3) really really a fiscally conservative who will keep the Bush tax cuts permanent (the same ones he railed against 6 years ago as fiscally irresponsible). But hey, we digress and spend too much paying attention to past statements. You can see the ad here.
McCain had former acting Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift campaigning in the Seacoast region (talk about payback: Romney swept her aside like so much political road kill in the lead up to the 2002 GOP primary) in conjunction with the announcement of a NH Women for McCain group. In the interesting string of history department, Swift replaced Paul Celucci who left his post early to become an Ambassador to Canada (he now supports Giuliani and attacks Romney) while Celucci replaced Bill Weld who now supports Romney (who himself was a part-time Governor for the most part) and doesn't care much for his fellow New Yorker Giuliani. Really, you can't make this stuff up. And speaking of Rudy, he had surrogates Susan Molinari and Nancy Johnson (former Congressmwomen) also Seacoast out and about stumping for him.

More on Iowa
I'm heading to Iowa on Jan. 1 and will be there through caucus night of Jan. 3. I'm asking for help from readers: such as good places to eat and where the political conversation might be lively in the Des Moines area; what questions should I ask when I'm out there; and what would you like to know about the mystifying Iowa causcus process -- or for those three readers in Iowa, what do I need to know before landing near the finish line of your caucus contest. You can contact me at mmccord@seacoastonline.com with suggestions, questions or comments.

Posted by Michael McCord at 02:29 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Sorry I won't be around to see the Obama/Oprah revue in Manchester Sunday but your humble blogger will be down in Washington, D.C. until Wednesday at a journalism conference focusing on -- there's no getting away from it -- the 2008 election.

In my usual Friday shameless promotion plug for myself, I enocurage fans and non-fans alike to read my Sunday Out on a Limb column in the print Seacoast Sunday or on seacoastonline.com. I consider a Tale of Two Candidates, in this case GOPers Sen. John McCain and former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney who spent Thursday in very different places.

Regarding Romney and his famous speech in Texas, here are two contrasting views:
Peter S. Canellos of the Boston Globe called it a "political tour de force" in an analysis focusing on the leadership exerted by Romney and its 'presidential moment' greatness.
In my daily link, provocative blogger Chris Kelly offered a distinctly non-mainstream media perspective.

Where do I stand? Somewhere between farce and distinguished as Romney was impressive in an absurd context. I would have been more impressed had he told the holier than thou crowd that faith is a private matter and let them figure his out for themselves. He didn't and what resulted mostly was a lame recitation of the obvious and full of historical bull and religious cliches worthy of a Christmas card. I still don't understand why he felt the need to make the speech in the first place.

Posted by Michael McCord at 02:51 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

While Democrat Hillary Clinton was in New Hampshire talking about the economy and Republican John McCain was in Portsmouth at our Seacoast Media Group home for a forum on energy security and global climate change, Mitt Romney was in Texas trying to accomplish the impossible — convince religious conservatives he was a man of faith and their values and not part of a wacko religious cult while avoiding the real elephant in the room of whether Mormons are Christians or not.
According to the Associated Press: “Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions,” Romney said at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum. “Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.”
To what extent he managed to stop the bleeding his campaign perceives from Republican rival Mike Huckabee (who just happens to be an ordained Baptist minister) remains to be seen. In my daily link, Andrew O’Heir writes fluently about why Romney’s speech has little to do with that of John F. Kennedy’s separation of church and state speech in Houston in 1960. Namely, Romney was dealing the modern religious and political dynamics of the Republican party.
But the speeches do have one thing in common on a cultural level -- dealing with intolerance, ignorance and bigotry. Frankly, the ignorance of the American people about Mormonism and who the Mormons are is an unfair burden for Romney to have to bear. I speak somewhat personally because I grew up in Southern Nevada amidst a large Mormon population and heard plenty of tales about the exotic nature of Mormonism. There were, as they say, good and bad Mormons, friends and neighbors. They were in their own way no different from Pentecostals, Latin mass adoring Catholics or dour Lutherans. They were with all their flaws and eccentricities, quintessentially American — and for the many I met, their religion wasn’t their defining feature.
There are good reasons for Republicans to disown Romney — his policy evolutions, his amazing lack of sophistication in foreign affairs and the fact that he was essentially a part-time governor most of his tenure in Massachusetts. But for so-called ‘values voters’ establishment to treat Romney as a religious (and political) heretic is a level of hypocrisy that would no doubt make Jesus blush.

Posted by Michael McCord at 12:45 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Not unlike the old Bee Gees song, the Hillary Clinton folks say the kindergarten reference to Barack Obama (he of outsized ambitions at a very young age or so we are told) was just a big joke that well, obviously fell flat. We know there's an ongoing entertainment industry writer's strike but geesh, you would think the campaign could find someone, anyone who could offer a suggestion or two about comedic timing, presentation and most importantly, material. Read the New York Times take on this here. My favorite part was the eye-opening reaction of Clinton pollster Mark Penn who blamed the media for being "spinned" by the Obama folks and for having the bad taste of missing the joke. With all due respect Mark, this story spun itself without any help and your routine came across as, well, spin. Nice try. But hey, I digress. The best comeback so far belongs to John Edwards who had his campaign audience really laughing Tuesday when he said he wanted to be a "cowboy and superman" as a kid.

Speaking of Edwards, he is launching his fifth TV ad of the primary prize fight. It has the nice, catchy title of "Rigged" and he doesn't pull any punches. "...And we can say as long as we get Democrats in, everything's gonna be ok. It's a lie. It is not the truth," the script reads. "Do you really believe if we replace a crowd of corporate Republicans with a crowd of corporate Democrats that anything meaningful's gonna change?" For those keeping score at home and for maximum punch-line impact you can substitute "corporate Democrats" with Hillary Clinton. See the ad here.

Saint Rudy of 9/11 has another ad out and in this one he claims to love Ronald Reagan and really really hate terrorists. As if we really really didn't know. Courtesy of Talking Points Memo, see Rudy Giuliani's latest adventure in high-stakes political advertising here For extra bonus points, read the comment section.

Want to find out more about why GOPer Mike Huckabee now finds himself in rarified polling and stature air? In my daily link, I found this piece at Townhall.com by Michael Medved for a distinctly conservative perspective of the turmoil in the GOP ranks -- as they are waiting for Godot in the form of stand-out -- or perhaps, stand-up -- candidate.

Posted by Michael McCord at 01:10 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

GOPer John McCain deserves my political honesty response of the month so far award. While interviewing him yesterday about his energy and climate change policies (McCain will take part in a forum Thursday sponsored by employer), I asked the only Republican candidate who takes the issue seriously how 'green' his campaign was. He didn't hesitate: "Not very," he said with a laugh while riding on a diesel bus. He's looking for a biodiesel fill up somewhere in New Hampshire, I presume.

Mr. Rogers' neighborhood ain't so kind
Either in kindergarten or the second grade I wrote an essay about why I wanted to be president which wasn't such an odd thing to do in my day -- or during most eras I imagine. Anyway, my ambitions didn't go very far (too much playground time and not enough political plotting) and look where I ended up. The Clinton folks seem to have gone a tad overboard on the Obama character front accusing Obama of having sinister ambitions at an early age because he once penned the same essay I did. In my daily link, you have read this to believe just how strange this is. It's only a matter of time before this gainswidespread blogger ridicule and becomes late-night comic fodder.

Oh Hillary, about that vote on Iran...
Hillary is getting no love today. Fellow Dem rival Chris Dodd launched this broadside on Clinton's September vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment -- you know the one designating a military organization a terrorist band -- in light of the latest National Intelligence Estimate report regarding Iran. And Iran is an issue on the mind of many voters I've encountered in person or by letter
"As was the case with Iraq, the latest NIE makes it clear that this President is offering another false bill of goods to Congress and the American people in an attempt to build the case for war with Iran. The only difference this time is that we didn't start a disastrous war before we found out that the intelligence didn't hold up," Dodd said. "Our experience should have shown us the danger in trusting this Administration as it marched to war. That is why I and many of my colleagues - at least many of those who bothered to vote - opposed the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Unfortunately, Senator Clinton instead chose to lend credence to
the Administration's position. It's easy to say 'fool me once, shame on George Bush,' but when she's been fooled twice, shame on her."

She said recently she enjoyed the heat of the kitchen and she was ready for the fun part of the primary's final push. It's a good thing because it's likely to become a big and hot laughfest from here on out.

Posted by Michael McCord at 08:24 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

In my daily link, Timothy Noah of Slate has a good take on the recent slew of almost hysterical broadsides the Dem candidate firm of Clinton, Edwards and Obama are firing at each other over how to define "universal" health care coverage. It's a thoughtful distinction that is more than talking point material especially in a state like this one where health care is a top issue. Noah points out that while Clinton and Edwards propose mandates forcing all to buy health insurance supplied by the government or private insurance. Obama says such a mandate isn't worth the politcal hot air expended because enforcing it -- by forcing, for example, someone to buy private health insurance they may not want so the larger goal of universality is reached -- is downright impossible and politically toxic in a country (and a state) where choice does matter. It's a good argument worth having because it is a policy and philosophical difference about accomplishing the same goal. the Clintonites scream Obama is being rather slippery by saying his plan will cover everyone as his latest ad suggests -- I say they are both right. Obama happens to win the finer point because he's being more realistic in saying it will cover everyone who wants to be covered. Clinton is right because he fails her definition of universality. The voters will decide who has the better defintion and the route to make it happen.

SCHILLING TO STUMP FOR MCCAIN
Will Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling throw high heat or more finesses stuff when he stumps for Sen. John McCain in Manchester Wednesday?

ATTACKING HILLARY'S ATTACKS?
The Obamaites have launched a web site to keep tracks of all things Hillary when's she in attack Obama mode -- which we suspect will become more frequent over the next month or so. See the site here and read the campaign release below.

Post on the Obama campaign blog from campaign manager David Plouffe.
Hillary Attacks By David Plouffe - Dec 3rd, 2007 at 7:39 am EST
Saturday night, the Des Moines Register came out with a poll that shows Barack Obama has pulled ahead of the Democratic frontrunner and is now leading in Iowa.
The poll also showed that by a wide margin, Iowans believe that Senator Clinton is running the most negative campaign in this race.
Yesterday we found out why.
Less than twelve hours after that poll came out, the Clinton campaign launched a series of baseless attacks against Senator Obama. Panicked by the poll numbers, they even attacked Barack for telling his kindergarten teacher what he wanted to be when he grew up.
I wish I were joking.
The American people find these kinds of attacks tiring and unproductive, but today Senator Clinton promised that this was just the beginning, saying that attacking other Democrats is "the fun part" of campaigning for the presidency.
We disagree. Barack Obama believes that this presidential campaign isn't about attacking people for fun, it's about solving people's problems, like ending this war and creating a universal health care system. Washington insiders might think throwing mud is fun, but the America people are looking for a President who can unite this country around a common purpose, and that's the kind of leadership Barack will continue to offer in this campaign.
But we need your help.
Today we're launching a website that will keep track of all the attacks Senator Clinton has launched since she said she wasn't interested in attacking other Democrats at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner on November 10th. We're asking all of you to be vigilant and notify us immediately of any attacks from Senator Clinton or her supporters as soon as you see them so that we can respond with the truth swiftly and forcefully.
This attacks could be phone calls, literature drops, blog posts mail pieces as well as radio and TV ads. Some could even be anonymous or designed to be. Please email us at hillaryattacks@barackobama.com the moment you see something that concerns you.
Senator Clinton has said her idea of fun is to attack Barack each day from here on out, and that's why we need you to help us stop those attacks and make sure that Barack can continue to talk with voters and caucus-goers about the struggles they face and their hope for America.

Posted by Michael McCord at 08:02 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)