New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has withdrawn from the race…but chances of B-Rich still showing up in the next White House remain high.
A Re-Airing of Grievances
January 7, 2008Thanks to CNN for re-airing Saturday’s debates - these are fun, but not 4 hours of my Saturday night fun. Good times too, with Charlie Gibson doing a great job, some actual contrast emerging, and some really interesting strategic and perhaps not so strategic fencing. The latter refers to the Republicans ganging up on Mitt Romney. I suppose everything is strategic, but this felt personal. It wasn’t the typical ‘going after a high-profile candidate’ (remember, he’s no longer leading in New Hampshire) and the body language (by all) and laughs (by McCain) bordered on fiendish, particularly at the end when Romney wondered around behind the tables while the other candidates shook hands and embraced. Also, I recall a few commentators saying things like “the other candidates simply don’t like Romney.”
On the Democrats’ side, I thought things were more restrained and there was some nice back-and-forth on issues and some of the candidates even managed to differentiate themselves: Richardson on his experience (finally), Richardson on Iraq, Obama/Edwards on Health Care, and Hillary on the rhetoric of the other candidates. That last move by Clinton was bold and seemed emotional and unscripted - I know, probably impossible in these debates, but check it out again (for the third time) from the transcript:
Clinton: Now we’re all out on the campaign trail talking about taking the tax subsidies away from the oil companies, some of which were in that 2005 energy bill.
So, you know, words are not actions. And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action.
You know, what we’ve got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that, of taking on the very interests that you have just rightly excoriated because of the over-due influence that they have in our government.
That was directed at Edwards and there was another on “change” directed at Obama.
For his part, Obama did a good job of not getting into it too much with the other candidates and I thought he did a great job of speaking to New Hampshire independents, here’s the culmination:
Obama: But the larger point is that we have to get back to a notion that opportunity and bottom-up economic growth is what the president should be fighting for.
And what we’ve had is a top-down agenda that is skewed toward the wealthiest Americans. It is making worse some of the trends of globalization that are already out there.
And one of the benefits of this campaign has been to listen and talk to the folks all throughout New Hampshire who are tired of it and want to see something change.
Now it probably had a lot more to do with Iowa than how he was received by independents on Saturday, but lo and behold Obama just got a big bump in the polls - now with a double-digit lead.
1 Comment | 
Clinton, Debates, Democrats, Edwards, New Iowashire, Obama, Polls, Richardson, Romney | 
Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
Finding Their Inner-Geek
August 22, 2007The class of ‘08 isn’t exactly ready to establish a policy platform on Java vs. C++ (nor am I…I have no idea what that means), but we are definitely seeing some major progress this campaign in candidate awareness of tech policy issues. The National Journal presents an excellent overview of candidate positions on everything from Net Neutrality, to spectrum auctions, to how well the campaigns themselves are utilizing web 2.0. That’s fun and important to many of us, but what I find fascinating is how much a candidate’s position on tech issues - or sometimes simply what tech issues they choose to focus on - can tell you about the candidate. I’ll use some excerpts from the National Journal piece to explain:
Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has incorporated technology into almost every aspect of her policy platform — from using information technology to overhaul health care to likening her plan to build a national, high-speed Internet system to the wiring of America after the development of the telephone and electricity.
This is hardly even a policy stance, this is about infrastructure investment, but it says a lot about the Clinton campaign: think big, stick with the can’t-lose issues, don’t get mired in a technical debate. Just ask the other candidates, right now, you don’t want to argue with this woman.
Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has come out in strong support of network neutrality, a term that describes efforts to ensure equal treatment of broadband content. He is also the only candidate to write the FCC and ask commissioners to use the upcoming spectrum auction to make the Internet more affordable and accessible.
Ever the populist. Sticks with name-brand issues that seem simpler than they really are: make a good name for yourself among the activist left and ignore the dirty work of actually accomplishing the policy objectives.
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois wants to focus on expanding Internet access in rural areas and inner cities, and he has a plan for granting vouchers to low-income households for converter boxes to help them transition from analog to digital television broadcasts.
High-impact, low-commitment (from a policy standpoint). Obama is constituent-focused and wants to be seen as a candidate for progress, giving himself measurable and achievable objectives.
Meanwhile, read on in the NJ piece to see how the second-tier Democrats utilize technology issues as a conduit to get the voter to their real strengths: Kucinich focuses on technology and outsourcing, Biden is concerned w/ technology when it harms national security, and Mike Gravel has refocused his campaign and has an excellent shot at being elected President of SecondLife.
From Left to Right:
Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas has been active in pushing legislation related to “decency” and regulatory controls on various forms of media. Sen. John McCain this year has sponsored a bill aimed at making the moratorium on certain Internet-related taxes permanent.
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas…has been a vocal opponent of Internet regulation of any type…
Mitt Romney of Massachusetts has been vocal about his opposition to Internet pornography and the need for better protections for children surfing the Internet. And Mike Huckabee of Arkansas received praise while in office for brining e-government to his largely rural state.
Pretty straight forward: only need a policy when it comes to pornography and terrorism, which is about all the Internet is good for anyway. And Giuliani’s my favorite:
”Mayor Giuliani believes that the free flow of information on the Internet and the development of new technologies are essential to America’s global leadership in the 21st century,” a spokesman said. “Open competition should be encouraged, and federal government intervention in these areas should be limited to reasonable regulation and vigilant security against those who want to exploit it for illegal or unethical acts.”
Mr. Mayor, whatever you do, don’t forget the three Rs: Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. Giuliani’s tendency to equivocate and rely on tough-guy tropes has been covered on this blog and elsewhere and we see above that he can pull this off for any issue.
To be fair, conventional campaign wisdom says the Democrats are the only earthly-party with a geek constituency, hence their more nuanced and focused approach. However, conventional wisdom also allows the Dems to stick to their own little cottage-industries within the wider landscape of technology policy issues, and the absence of engagement from the Republicans leaves voters with a dearth of substantive debate. However, I wouldn’t say the Right writ-large is not engaged in the debate. Full disclosure, I work and study in the field of technologies policy and see plenty of voices and powerful forces balancing what Bill O’Reilly likes to call the Netroots Ku Klux Klan. Makes me wonder if the Republicans couldn’t gain some ground in the netroots community by actually engaging them and getting the backs of their consituents already in the debate. There’s a loose parallel here to the battle over the Latino vote that Bush, Rove, and others think the Republicans are ceding to the Left. When I see the Republicans unsure of whether the YouTube debates are even a good idea, I wonder if they’re not doing the same with the geeks.
1 Comment | 
Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, Kucinich, McCain, Obama, Richardson, Ron Paul, The Others | 
Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
AFL-CIO Forum: Gut Reactions
August 8, 2007Um, Hillary: “I do not believe that people running for President should engage in hypotheticals.”
Ok, let’s take our time here Hill. Considering your husband introduces you as “the next president of the United States” at every rally, I think everyone is guilty of engaging in hypotheticals here. More to the point: you can’t be a good policy maker without making hypothetical statements. After all, policy is, in essence, anticipation.
Obama: Yup, it’s working. Despite a risky strategy of advancing concrete foreign policy this early in the race - and a risky policy at that - the people are only hearing: “I’ll end the wrong war and bolster the right war.” I’ll say it again, that’s easy to vote for. Unfortunately, I don’t think Obama is turning out to be the glistening public speaker that many had hoped for.
Clinton: Not much to lose, so she’s constantly sharpening her image in the eyes of the liberal blogosphere by scrubbing her campaign trail with the dish-rag that is the Bush administration. This is smart and she does it well.
Edwards: Held strong as the populist candidate despite another Joe Biden surge.
Kucinich and Richardson: A good performance that will garner some funding and press, but no more votes.
Dodd: His message is getting through to no one.
George W. Bush: Remember when people criticized Al Gore for not utilizing the popularity of President Clinton (which of course wasn’t even that high in 2000)? Contrast that with this race where Republicans are avoiding him and the Democrats tonight, every time they stumbled or encountered a tough question, could simply mention Bush and insert some vitriol to make whatever they said sound like music to America’s ears. That’s the kind of unpopularity that opinion polls simply cannot convey.
Keith Olberman: Should moderate all of these. Not that he’s ‘asking the tough questions’ or anything, but realistically, the best a moderator can do in this overly-scripted age is to move things along, lighten it up every once in a while, and not be annoying throughout. Olberman gets dangerously close to violating the last rule, but on the whole, he seems completely natural in this most unnatural of roles as the contemporary moderator. Oh, and he does it all while sitting down. Has Anderson Cooper ever sat down?
2 Comments | 
Biden, Clinton, Debates, Edwards, Foreign Policy, Kucinich, Obama, Richardson | 
Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
WhoseTube? Debates I
July 24, 2007Some thoughts on this ‘historic, unique, and first of its kind debate:’
*CNN did an amazing job playing the middle man who fucks up a perfectly good deal.
*I bet Joe Biden will get some nice play for his performance tonight. He deserves it. I respect that he has a plan. Tonight’s viewers will respect that too, but they’ll get bored by his ‘I have a plan’ speech, which is the extent of his schtick. Meanwhile, I would like to hear him describe how his plan on Iraq is going to play out and how a no-fly zone in Darfur will impact the Sudanese government.
*If I’m a speech writer, campaign manager, or debate junkie, Hillary makes me horny. She seemingly executes every response just as her team drew it up and somehow doesn’t make you want to strangle her for it.
*Obama vs. Edwards: Who will win the fight for the populists? Being that Hillary has at least 35% of the primary votes locked-up, this is a worthwhile fight because it will determine who will still be around late in the primary to have a shot at overtaking Hill. That doesn’t make it any less awkward watching them battle it out.
*Richardson: Had a good night. If Obama/Edwards is the fight for the ‘working man’ and second place among the Dems, then Richardson/Biden is the dual for the policy wonk and third. Biden may have made up some ground in this dual tonight, particularly with Richardson advocating for ‘everybody out of Iraq in 6 months.’ As ridiculous as this is, I was still impressed w/ Biden’s ability to debunk it in the space of this revolutionary forum (insert smiley faces and acronyms that imply laughing out loud at ‘revolutionary forum’).
*Huh, turns out the revolution will be televised…and filled with cynical asides about equal time.
*[Question to Hillary Clinton] “The Arab states believe women are second-class citizens, what makes you think they’ll take you seriously?” Another bonus of the format: gives a sense of what Americans are really thinking. As ridiculous as this question and its premise are, it should be just as valuable to the candidates as the audience. Meanwhile, let’s keep in mind CNN and the geniuses who brought you ‘Crossfire’ and ‘The Situation Room’ are choosing these questions.
*Mike Gravel: Would be much more productive to have him making the YouTube videos.
*Biden wins for best outro answers, meaning they fit perfectly into one of CNN’s outros in the post-debate analysis. I’m thinking specifically of his answer to the ‘in God we trust’ question (”the coin has it right”) and the gun question (”if that’s his baby he needs help” - something like that).
*Democrats need to shut the fuck up about the Iraqi parliament going on vacation. My personal opinion is that the charges of Iraqi politicians not being incentivized are baseless, and beyond that, I think pot-shots at those in charge in Iraq are a bad move politically.
*I’m wondering how Hillary Clinton can NOT take a private jet to California.
*Um, was John Edwards serious w/ that coat comment. By the end of this revolutionary debate I lost track of what was ironic.
*If anyone can use footage from this debate in mash-ups or for other purposes, then Mike Gravel needs to use Anderson Cooper in his next campaign ad and convince his base that it is CNN he’s running against.
*Final analysis: Joe Biden may not be in the eight, but he did earn his category tonight; Bill Richardson didn’t lose any of the ground he gained in the last few weeks, which is a real accomplishment for him; the other candidates should now be convinced that Hillary Clinton is not going to fuck this up, they will actually have to defeat her; hopefully this whole YouTube thing has CNN thinking they could save money and just outsource the Cafferty File.
*You asked, they answered - how could this have ever happened without CNN…I mean YouTube.
No Comments » | Biden, Clinton, Debates, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, The Others | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
Richardsonian Romance?
July 19, 2007Delighted to hear that Edwards is falling. I’ve never understood the infatuation with him. He was to be an inspiring speaker in the Clintonian mode, but now we’ve got Obama, who’s inspiring in the JFK/RFK mode.
Edwards did bupkis for Kerry as far as anyone can see, and also performed badly in those debates. Plus I’ve always been afraid of his populist anti-trade rhetoric. And I don’t think he’s cute.
Now perhaps elite media conversation will break away from the iron triangle of Obama-Clinton-Edwards talk. Though Richardson hasn’t sparkled so far himself, he’s still got a lot of resume cred. Let’s see how he does with this press opportunity.
Postscript:
Looking at some other polls it may be a choice the campaign is making to focus on Iowa rather than New Hampshire- back in Grand Old Iowa he is leading or in second in the polls, with Obama (much less Richardson) nowhere to be seen.
1 Comment | Edwards, Richardson | Permalink
Posted by cdog
Falling Fast
July 18, 2007John Edwards falls behind Bill Richardson in the polls. Despite being the candidate of the day in the blogosphere, I would posit that this flip is not due to any surge on Richardson’s part. John Edwards has been awful in the debates, he’s a complete turn-off. Also, he’s a mess when it comes to war policy, which is all anyone cares about right now. If our focus returns to domestic issues and Edwards can get some alone time through an emotional speech or two (though I suspect there’s some Edwards-Katrina fatigue going on among voters so he might want to avoid New Orleans for this) he might stand a chance. Absent of that, he’s falling fast.
No Comments » | Edwards, Polls, Richardson | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
Dollars vs. Debates
July 5, 2007Some nice insights these last couple days re: new fundraising numbers. Here’s another one from Clive Crook’s Financial Times Op-Ed (again, no link, subscription only…they’ll get that right someday):
Obama is outperforming Clinton in what was suppose to be her strongest event (fundraising); she is outperforming him in what was supposed to be his (rhetoric).
As in the good kind of rhetoric: inspirational and influencial speech. In case you missed the Democratic Forum on PBS last week, performances there were definitely in line with Cook’s observations. My reactions to that pseudo-debate were something like this:
Richardson = Awful on all things not foreign policy
Mike Gravel = Oh my God, are they paying these people to nod and clap when he speaks?
John Edwards = So polished he’s blinding…not a good thing.
Joe Biden = If he’s talking over people’s heads on the PBS debate, how’s he gonna play on Fox News?
Barak Obama = Seems to be fumbling opportunities. Timing’s off. His staff needs to grill him on this stuff more often.
Hillary = Wow.
1 Comment | Clinton, Debates, Edwards, Money, Obama, Richardson, The Others | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
Name that Candidate!
June 18, 2007Since it’s Monday, and Mondays always stink, I thought I’d write a lighthearted post to lift the spirits of all the other cubeconvicts out there. The WaPo published an article it its Sunday edition discussing Secret Service names for former presidents and other elected officials. Some of the names are pretty funny, but I think we here at the 8oh8 can do much better. So, why don’t you all start throwing out some names for our eight-plus candidates? Feel free to rename Clinton and Obama. I’ll start by giving Rudy Guiliani the code name “Scarlett,” a Nathaniel Hawthorne reference. After all, he’s had three wives.
Keep in mind, this game is funniest when picturing big burly men dressed in black whispering these code names into their wrist mics…
3 Comments | Clinton, Edwards, Fred Thompson, Giuliani, McCain, Obama, Richardson, Romney, Ron Paul, Tancredo | Permalink
Posted by hilljunkie
Richardson’s Screwball Pitch
June 12, 2007Okay, so describing Bill Richardson’s campaign ads as “screwball” may be a slight exaggeration. But they’re far from what we’ve come to expect from candidates - presidential or not. While most campaigns use swelling music, patriotic and pro-family images, Richardson bypasses all of that for… well, I won’t spoil it - watch for yourself.
Personally, I find the ads a nice breath of fresh air, and admire Richardson’s apparent sense of humor and wry style. I think they’d play well with a young, well-educated crowd that is already favorably inclined toward him. But let’s be honest here: if I’d never heard of Richardson before and if I cared about electing someone who came across as presidential, the ads would most likely turn me against him. His campaign message may be that his qualifications speak for themselves… but look at the man: he looks like he is auditioning for the sequel to Office Space. Puffy, tired-looking, a blueish tint to his skin — it’s simply not an image that inspires.
You tell me: am I being too hard on him? Will these unusual ads give Richardson an opening and set him apart from the pack, or is there a good reason why candidates almost always stick to the traditional script?
1 Comment | Richardson | Permalink
Posted by megkibbee
