The Gaggle : The Pitch

Candidate McDreamy

Steve Tuttle — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 17:13:05 GMT

Imagine you're sitting around one night watching TV and a pollster calls. The nice man wants you to participate in a "blind bio" poll, which means he will describe several potential presidential candidates to you and then ask you which person you'd hypothetically support. He won't give you any names, only a brief description of the candidates' biographies. You think, well, "Scrubs" is over, I might as well hear him out.

The pollster starts talking about this one guy, call him "Candidate A," who seems pretty cool: He's "an experienced candidate from the South who has been Vice President...and a U.S. Senator." Wow! Sounds great. Who could it be, though? This person has won "several awards, including an Oscar, a Grammy, and an Emmy for his documentary about global climate change." Man, you're thinking, this guy is amazing! If only someone like that would run in real life. How could I not vote for such a person?

But wait! It gets better. This mysterious hypothetical dream candidate also just won the Nobel Peace Prize! Woah! Think that's good? "This candidate has been against the Iraq war from the beginning." OMG! You are sold, especially when you learn that two of the other "blind bio" candidates "voted to authorize" the war but now say it was "wrong" or have been critical of how it's been handled. Flip-floppers. The only other candidate mentioned is a "first-term" Senator who "draws huge crowds to campaign rallies." Big whup.

You think it over for half a second and tell the pollster you're choosing "Candidate A" over those war supporters B and D and the inexperienced C. You and 35 percent of the 527 "likely Democratic voters" interviewed nationwide October 24-27 agree that this mysterious fellow is a dream candidate. (Which begs the question: who are the 65 percent of Dems who voted for the flip-floppers and non-Nobel winners?) The poll was done by Zogby International market research and was commissioned by something called "algore.org." Stay tuned to this space as our investigation into who this mysterious candidate might be continues.

Notes from the Dept. of Counting Chickens, Hillary Clinton Edition

Richard Wolffe — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:08:04 GMT

It's one thing to believe you have the presidential nomination in the bag several months before the first votes are cast. But what does it say about a campaign when you're ready to celebrate several weeks before a debate?

That's what happened today on the Clinton campaign's Website. For a communications team that has a reputation for perfection, the Clinton group made the rookie mistake of posting what looked like a template for local groups to influence their hometown newspapers.

Perhaps the best line: "Insert quote from party host here--You can use the talking points on the Club44 web site to help you develop your quote about why you support Hillary Clinton. Ann Lewis will also provide you some guidance on the post-debate conference call."

There's nothing like a spontaneous outpouring of support for a candidate, after another successful debate. Complete with talking points, conference calls and developed quotes. Even if the debate in question is to be held in Las Vegas almost a month from today.

Club44, in case you were wondering, is "an effort to identify and mobilize young women voters who support Hillary Clinton for president," according to the campaign's website. It also sounds like an effort to channel their minds--ahead of time.

For her part, Hillary seems confident. "I'm overwhelmed by the support from the women of Club44," she said about the events that had yet to take place.

(When asked about the episode, a Clinton spokesperson called Newsweek's interest in it "a tad absurd.")

Full memo below:

10/23/2007

Women Of [Insert Your City’s Name] Organize Club44 House Party for Hillary

House Party Coincides With November 15th Debate in Las Vegas, NV

For immediate release
November15, 2007
Contact: [Insert Name]
[Insert phone number]
[Insert e-mail]

On Thursday, [Insert city name]-area supporters of Hillary Clinton for President gathered at the home of [Insert name of host] to watch the latest Democratic presidential primary debate, held at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Approximately [Insert number] attended the event.

“[Insert quote from party host here - You can use the talking points on the Club44 Web site to help you develop your quote about why you support Hillary Clinton. Ann Lewis will also provide you some guidance on the post-debate conference call]”

Similar house parties were held at homes across the country. The house parties are part of the campaign’s Club44 women’s outreach program to make history by making Hillary our 44th president. Club44 has the dual goals of reaching women through their networks and raising money at low dollar amounts. The debate watch house parties are expected to take place in almost all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

“I’m overwhelmed by the support from the women of Club44,” said Hillary Clinton. “These house parties are an excellent way to ensure that the debate taking place in Nevada continues as a conversation in homes and communities all over the country.”

Hillary joined the house parties via conference call just after the debate. House party hosts are rewarded with a Club44 “signature series” t-shirt for raising low-dollar contributions and signing up new supporters.

The Clinton campaign launched Club44 in June with a huge rally of 8,000 people in Washington, D.C. To find out more about Club44 and Women for Hillary, go to www.hillaryclinton.com/women <http://www.hillaryclinton.com/women> for more information.

Fineman: Live Blogging the Democratic Debate

Howard Fineman — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:47:55 GMT

HANOVER, N.H. -- I am here in the student union at Dartmouth waiting to see if Hillary Clinton has chance to smother this Democratic presidential race before it begins. I just came from a dinner with a top strategist from a major campaign (not Hillary's) who put her chances if of winning the nomination at 8-out-of-10. And yet, having been through this drill more times than I can count, I find it hard to believe that this race will end before it really has begun. Somebody is going to challenge Clinton for real. The physics of politics and media make it inevitable. The question is whether the main challenger is Sen. Barack Obama or, as seems increasingly possible, somebody else.

Right now the Democratic and Republican parties have changed personas. The Democrats usually tear each other limb from limb; the GOP generally has an orderly coronation. Right now, Hillary is approaching the throne all but unscathed; the Republicans have only begun to go after each other in earnest. The GOP has no ideological unity; the Democrats have a lot.

If Obama wants to win this nomination, he had better get after it. Let's see if he does so, and if the Democrats return to form. That is what I will be looking for as the debate begins. Let's go!

9:01 -- Obama is first out of the box on Iraq. If he was going to confront Clinton directly on the war in Iraq, this was his chance. He didn't really do it. If he thinks that she should not vote for more money for the war without a timetable for withdrawal, he should have said so directly—to her. Instead, it is John Edwards who is taking the fight to Clinton, forcing her to try to clarify her position on the continuing presence of combat troops in Iraq after a substantial withdrawal. All three of them are trumped on the war by Bill Richardson—who is more popular on the Dartmouth campus (among others) that people realize. He is the absolutist among the leading candidates.

9:19 -- It is left to former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska to go after Hillary frontally on war policy, attacking her for voting for an anti-Iran resolution in the Senate. He congratulated senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd for voting against the measure, criticized Hillary—and then dismissed Obama for having missed the vote altogether. It ain't about Obama so far.

Now we are getting to the REALLY serious stuff. Would Israel be justified in attacking Iran if Israel knew that Iran had nuclear weapons? Would you guarantee that Iran would not get nuclear weapons? Those are the tough questions that Tim Russert asks. HIllary dodges, Obama dodges. Obama passes up another chance to confront her directly. Edwards goes on the attack against Hillary again—criticizing Hillary for her Iran vote in the Senate, and ignoring Obama altogether.

9:45 -- It's Hillary time—she is the center of the debate at this moment. Russert, true to form, aims directly at her in a way her colleagues won't. Why should we think she has the judgment to be president, given her botched health care plan in 1993 and her vote on Iraq? Dodd demurs; Biden says her political problems are not her fault—it's the "Clinton-Bush" thing. "A lot of the old stuff comes back," says Biden, meaning that she carries too much political baggage. Then Russert turns to Obama: why run with so little experience in office? This should be a big Obama moment. He answers calmly, but without much detectable urgency or passion. He can bring people together. He can take on the special interests. He will tell the truth to the American people, as he did when he came out against the war.

10:00 -- I was told before the debate by one of Obama's top advisers that the candidate had a cold, that he wasn't feeling well, that he had gone to ground for a couple of hours. That wasn't just spinning to lower expectations. You can hear it in his slightly husky voice. On the topic of gay rights and gay marriage, he speaks out against those who are "fanning the flames of division." That is what they do in Washington, he says, where folks have the "kind of experience" we don't need. Did he mean any of the Democrats on the stage? Almost certainly not. It was one of those half-hearted punches that didn't seem to be aimed at anyone.

10:15 -- Could Hillary Clinton be any better prepared? Russert asks about Social Security financing; she knows that this is a topic Russert knows in his bones, and has talked about often. The debate briefly turns into Russert-Clinton, which is sort of a win for Clinton. She refuses to agree in advance to raise the payroll tax cap, currently at $97,500. That sounds statesmanlike but a little dodgy; Edwards then hits it out of the park, talking about a "protective zone" of income between $97,500 and $200,000. His proposals sounded carefully thought through—whether you agree with it or not—and was much more specific than what Obama had to say on the topic. Hillary is talking too much about what her "husband" did; she isn't being specific enough—Edwards wins the round.

10:30 -- With a half hour left I haven't seen Hillary lose this, even though her defense of Israel's attack on Syria didn't sit well with the crowd. From where I sit, Edwards has emerged so far the most forceful challenger to her (other than Tim Russert).

10:35 -- asked to say in 30 seconds whether "turning the page" means the Bushes or Clintons or both, Obama circles the airport and never quite lands. Why not say that we have had enough of BOTH? Hillary moves in to take advantage once again, saying that "I thought Bill was a pretty good president." I am beginning to wonder how much Obama wants this. Yes I know Bill Clinton remains popular with Democrats, but why can't you honor him and also say that it is time to move on to a new generation and a new style and synthesis? I just don't get the murky, tentative language and hesitancy. Maybe there is a strategy here—patience, patience. But, although it is only September, it is awfully late in the process given how fast the primaries and caucuses will follow each other.

There WILL be a chief challenger to Hillary. There has to be. Obama will have the most money of the challengers. He is a winsome character. Now he is suffering the indignity of having to defend the fact that he didn't go to Jena, Louisiana.

10:40 -- I guess if there is a news headline, a substantive one, it is the refusal of the three "top" candidates to declare that all American troops will be out of Iraq by the end of their first terms. That probably is the reality with which President Bush is leaving the country.

10:45 -- Does Hillary have a three-point answer to every question? Apparently yes, because it allows her to dodge specific answers while still sounding leaderly and judicious.

10:46 -- Good answer from Obama on torture. Classy—and the reason people still find him attractive.

10:47 -- I gotta go back out to the Dartmouth Green for Hardball. I go with the tentative conclusion (unless something spectacular happens in the last 10 minutes) that Obama didn't do much for himself, that Hillary didn't hurt herself and that Edwards showed that if Obama isn't going to be the main challenger, he is ready to be.

Of Chalupas and Change

Andrew Romano — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:53:18 GMT

Welcome to the Taco Bell primary.

A few years ago, the storied purveyor of such authentic Mexican delicacies as Cheesy Beefy Melt and Nachos BellGrande launched an ad campaign based on three simple words: "Change is Good." At the time the slogan struck me as both sub-literate, like something from a self-help book for cavemen, and unreasonably optimistic--the changes in Michael Jackson's face, for example, have not been so good. But now four of the leading 2008 presidential contenders are making essentially the same argument to convince us to vote for them. What's good enough for chalupas, it seems, is good enough for Mitt Romney.

The Change Wars began on Sept. 5, when both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton launched ads called, conveniently enough, "Change." Obama's was business as usual--as the new kid in town, he'd built his entire campaign around hope and the audacity thereof. But Clinton's was widely seen as strategic shift meant to neutralize Obama's appeal to "change" voters. Her new slogan: "Ready for Change, Ready to Lead." Obama, Clinton was arguing, may talk about change, but he isn't "ready" to make it happen. And in case you missed the point, Clinton has spent the three weeks since then repeating a single catchphrase -- "'Change' is just a word without the strength and experience to make it happen"--over and over again. And then over again.

Now Obama is fighting back. Today, his campaign premiered its first ad in New Hampshire, called "Believe." The title is key. The spot features Obama staring into the camera and chastising "the cynics in Washington ... [who] don't believe we can actually change politics and bring an end to decades of division and deadlock," before closing with a revamped tagline: "Change we can believe in." Zing! On the pressing issue of change, says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, author of a dozen books on political messaging and director of the Annenberg School for Communications at the University of Pennsylvania, the ad "implies that Obama is more believable than other Dems"--namely Hillary, whom many voters see as cold and calculating. Your move, Sen. Clinton. May we suggest "Change is Great"?

Need more change? Luckily, John Edwards is also a fan. At last weekend's Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa, he asked "Iowans to send [him] a video message about change through a 'ChangeCam'" and distributed "Big Change, Real Ideas" coins. So much change--literally! But what does it all mean? If Obama uses the concept of change to convey credibility and Clinton to convey experience, says Jamieson, Edwards is about boldness and authenticity. "Others promise change, but don't plan to or can't deliver it," she says. "His change, however, is "real" and "big" --not the incremental change of the DLC and the Clinton era." No word yet on whether his change is "tall" or "sharp."

It's easy, of course, for Democrats to chatter about change. Republicans have been running Washington for much of the past seven years--and Democrats are allegedly different from Republicans. But now even GOPers are getting in on the act. Last week, Mitt Romney released a new ad called "Change Begins With Us." "If we're going to change Washington," he says in the spot, "Republicans have to put our own house in order." Bravo, said the pundits. How brave. Of course, Romney's critique of his fellow GOPers had nothing to do with their failure to be as centrist and competent as he was in Massachusetts. That would be gauche (and inconsistent with his new ultraconservative image). Instead, Romney says that Republicans "can't be like Democrats--a party of big spending" that "pretends our borders are secure" and has "ethical standards that are a punch line for Jay Leno." When in doubt, in other words, just blame the Dems.

Some things never change.

Annals of Fundraising: As it Turns Out, You Can't, in Fact, Take the Wonk out of a Clinton

Andrew Romano — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:48:50 GMT

What a tease. Last night, Hillary Clinton spent the first hour of her New York fundraiser running through her usual talking points before revealing that she had a surprise for the 1,200 assembled supporters, who surely paid at least $50 a head for more than the usual litany. "I have a great privilege," she said, smiling and slipping into the mode of girlish flirtation that she deploys occasionally on the trail, most famously in March when she thanked a firefighters' convention for their warm welcome and then—raising an eyebrow—said, "and thanks for last night, too." Her surprise guest, Clinton continued, is "someone whom I'm incredibly fond of, who I admire enormously, who is a man of great distinction and honor who has served our country well for so many years..." Here, people nudged their neighbors and, mouthing the word "Bill," began to applaud. "...Whom I'm very proud has endorsed me for president..."—big laughs, because, you know, what else are husbands for?—"who is here, and I want to invite him out join us for this conversation." A collective gasp. "General Wesley Clark." Well, at least it was a silver-haired Arkansan.

The night's most entertaining moment came when Clinton compared Dick Cheney to the Dark Lord of the Sith. "Vice President Cheney came up to see the Republicans yesterday. You can always tell when the Republicans are getting restless, because the Vice President’s motorcade pulls into the Capitol, and Darth Vader emerges," she said. Oh snap.

But a later moment was more characteristic. "This is question from a New York City schoolteacher," said former Iowa Governor and current Clinton national campaign chair Tom Vilsack, who served as Clinton's interviewer. "What can you do about the growing and aging school systems, not just in New York, the city, but across the country?"

"You mean like, the buildings and the facilities and everything?" Clinton replied, excitement in her voice.

"I would broaden it a bit to talk about what you think needs to be done in education in general," said Vilsack, who is, by all accounts, a better natural campaigner than Clinton.

Sorry, Tom--she wasn't having it. "You know, I'll start directly with her question about school facilities," she said, launching into a long disquisition on schools with "coal-fired boilers," "mold" and "ceiling tiles falling" and proposing a "fund that can be used to help local districts...get long-term loans to build and renovate and modernize facilities." Give Clinton a choice between barnstorming and wonking, and she'll wonk every time.

Where's Bill when you need him?