My name is Bragg Van Antwerp.
I live in New York and have a fairly typical Wall Street job...by day.
By night...I am a (very) amateur journalist and political commentator.
This blog will be the outlet for my political and journalistic energy.
In my last post -- written while watching the GOP Debate in Florida -- I made the prediction that Mitt Romney would win Florida and go on to win the Republican Nomination. It was a gut feeling, supported by a definite surge of Romney's poll numbers in Florida and a strong performance in the debate.
Today, however, two very significant things have happened in Florida that could end up tipping the scales enough to allow John McCain to win the state. (And really, whoever wins Florida will likely go on to win the GOP Nomination). So what happened today?
First and most important, Florida Governor Charlie Crist endorsed McCain. This was an endorsement that any GOP candidate in Florida would have loved to receive (and an endorsement that all of the candidates undoubtedly sought). As recently as three hours ago, the speculation was that Crist would not make an endorsement because, with the race so close, there was little political upside for the Florida Governor to endorse a candidate who might not ultimately win. Regardless, he now has, and as an enormously popular governor, Crist's endorsement is important, and it could potentially swing Florida into the McCain column. The only way that Romney could trump this would be to secure the endorsement of the only politician in Florida more popular than Governor Crist: Former Governor Jeb Bush. As recently as last week, however, Bush reiterated that he would not do so, telling the popular website Politico.com, "I am neutral". Absent a Jeb Bush endorsement of Romney, the Crist endorsement could prove to be the catalyst for a McCain victory in Florida.
Second, John McCain accused Mitt Romney of having been in favor of a "timetable" for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. This is definitely significant, although it remains to be seen how it will play out. On the campaign trail in Fort Myers, Florida today, Senator McCain said the following:
“If we surrender and wave a white flag like Senator Clinton wants to do and withdraw as Governor Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos.”
He later reiterated the claim, telling voters in Sun City:
“My friends, I was there — he said he wanted a timetable for withdrawal.”
The problem? It doesn't appear that Romney actually did call for a timetable. Romney certainly doesn't believe he did, and he was furious when told of McCain's comments:
''That's dishonest, to say that I have a specific date. That's simply wrong. To say something that's not accurate is simply wrong, and he knows better."
Romney went on to demand an apology from McCain. The Arizona Senator refused, telling reporters:
"I think the apology is owed to the young men and women serving this nation in uniform."
So what did Romney in fact say that led the McCain Campaign to make this charge. I invite you to watch and listen for yourself: I think, however, that it's important to actually see the quote (in writing), and also to see the question that followed that one, and more importantly, Romney's answer to it:
QUESTION: Iraq. John McCain is there in Baghdad right now. You have also been very vocal in supporting the president and the troop surge. Yet, the American public has lost faith in this war. Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, there's no question but that -- the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.
QUESTION: So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the opposition.
So while the first answer could potentially be interpreted as Romney indicating support for a timetable, in his answer to the follow-up question, he clearly indicates that he would veto anything Congress passed that demanded a timetable for withdrawal. It is my feeling that Romney did not, in fact, support a timetable for withdrawal, or at least not a "timetable" in the of the type he is now accused by McCain of advocating. It seems to me that Romney believed that it was important for President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki to communicate, and to have benchmarks and goals by which progress could be measured. It did not -- in any way, shape or form -- appear to me that Romney was looking for the sort of defeatist, "cut and run" timetable and withdrawal implied by McCain's comments today. I believe that McCain saw that he was slipping in the Florida polls, that he realized that as long as the economy was dominating the political "conversation" (as it has in Florida all week), he would not be able to recover. The economy is unquestionably Romney's strong suit whereas the Iraq War and issues of national security tend to play better for McCain. I think this was a political cheap shot, and it's particularly ironic given that this below-the-belt punch is coming from the self-styled "Man of Honor", the man who loves to tout his "Straight Talk", and the candidate who has been the quickest heretofore to cry foul over negative, attacking politics. This could either help McCain if somewhat disinterested Floridians hear the charge but don't listen long enough to hear the entire quote in its proper context, or it could potentially hurt McCain if the people of Florida see the charge for what it is: a hypocritical low blow from a candidate desperate to win. As always, it is the voters who will decide.
I'm trying something new tonight. I'm going to keep a running diary of the debate...typing as I watch and as soon as the thoughts pop into my head. Far more informal than my usual style, but could be interesting...Enjoy!
Here we go...
9:10pm: Russert practically begs Huckabee to go after Romney about raising "fees" when he was Governor of Massachusetts, and Huckabee doesn't take the bait.
9:14pm: Romney takes a mild shot at McCain regarding his newfound support for the Bush Tax Cuts he voted against.
9:15pm: McCain's attempt at humor regarding the "fees" fails. Then makes very salient points about too much spending in Washington.
9:17pm: Ron Paul...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
9:19pm: Rudy mentions the check he returned to the Saudi Prince AGAIN. Stumbles about whether or not the Japanese own Rockefeller Center. Awkward moment.
9:21pm: Does anyone have any doubt how Russert votes? Geez...he just read a veritable indictment of the Bush Administration, the deficit, higher oil prices, higher gas prices, etc.
9:22pm: Good answer from McCain about listening to the Democratic Debates and what they'll do with regard to taxing and spending. Unable to resist using the line "I'll give you some 'straight talk'"...yuck...
9:24pm: Almost 25 minutes in and this debate is a snoozefest so far. All of the candidates seem somewhat flat, or perhaps it's the questions/format ???
9:26pm: Russert again expresses his displeasure with (what he clearly feels is) the hell that Bush hath wrought...tries to get Romney to go after Bush or go against Bush, but Romney wisely doesn't do so...Russert's a jerk.
9:28pm: Ron Paul is "not part of that crowd" (of spending in DC)...I wish he weren't part of this crowd!
____________________________________________________________________ 9:30pm: McCain uses his first "my friends" of the night...(but does so in an otherwise excellent answer about the importance of continuing and succeeding in Iraq).
9:32pm: Brian Williams quotes General Barry McCaffrey regarding our army being too small...asks Romney how we can have an army as large as we need without a draft. Romney dodges it and EXCELLENTLY references the fact that all three candidates in the Democratic Debate chose "getting out" of Iraq versus succeeding in Iraq. "We cannot turn Iraq over to Al Qaeda" and then EXCELLENTLY scolds "General Hillary Clinton" for claiming that political progress in Iraq is because the Iraqi leaders are paying attention to her and her candidacy.
9:34pm: Russert Bush-bashes again, this time on the War. Crowd attempts to applaud him and he rudely hushes them. Again, Russert is a jerk. McCain criticizes Rumsfeld but not Bush. "Was the war a good idea? Worth the price in blood and treasure"? He's going to ask each of these candidates this (and expects the answer in 30 seconds). Rudy nails Hillary on her flip-flop on the war...favoring it when "6 out of 10 were in favor of the war" but being against it when 6 out of 10 are against it. Strong answer from Rudy that he was for it when 6 out of 10 were for it he's for it when 6 out of 10 are against it." Russert will finally get an answer he likes now as he turns to Ron Paul. Paul typically/characteristically rants about our war-mongering nature. Go away, Ron. Huckabee answers well. Says Bush deserves our thanks not our scorn. Romney says he supported it when we began and he supports it now. Like McCain, criticizes the "mishandling" of the war -- doesn't explicitly mention Rumsfeld.
9:40pm: Commercial break...when we come back, the candidates question each other...could be good...thus far, Romney, McCain and, to a lesser extent Giuliani, are all quite sharp, frankly.
9:43pm: Romney first...asks about emergence of Asia and the demand for oil, Chinese supplying toys, etc....to Rudy..."as we compete with China, how do we make sure that trade is done in a way that levels the playing field...doesn't cause departure of jobs from this country...what kind of relationship do we need to have with China economically?" Rudy makes a lame joke -- second attempt at humor to fall flat. Rudy says China is a great opportunity for America, he thinks we should be working with them, should be able to sue in China so that you're protected there if doing business...refers to the Chinese as "customers"...turns to military...criticizes Clinton's (Bill's, to be clear) reduction of our military.
9:46pm: McCain asks Huckabee a question about his "Fair Tax"...asks how he answer the criticism that a "flat out just sales tax" wouldn't cause lower-income Americans to shoulder more of the burdens, etc.? How do you account for the resonance that the proposal has received? Quite a role-reversal -- usually it's Huck kissing up to McCain, and not the opposite. (Clearly no candidate is looking for a fight tonight). Huck says our current tax system is "irreparably broken"...everyone will like that.
9:50pm: Ron Paul to McCain...waste of time...I have NO CLUE what he's talking about. (Not sure McCain does either). McCain unfortunately name-drops AGAIN with same names (Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, Warren Rudman, blah blah blah)...what a stupid question...still not sure what it was. PLEASE NO MORE RON PAUL IN FUTURE DEBATES!!!
9:52pm: Huckabee to Mitt...kisses up to Russert by referencing his "Meet The Press" interview...regarding 2nd Amendment, tries to get Mitt in a trap by pointing out that Romney says he supports the 2nd Amendment and also supports the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Bill. Romney stands his ground and says he does support the 2nd Amendment but that he'd have signed the Assault Weapons Ban. Does not believe we need "new legislation" and instead says we should rely on the laws in place to be implemented and enforced, reiterates his support of the 2nd Amendment.
9:54pm: Rudy to Romney...Floridians losing homes...McCain hasn't supported Rudy's "national catastrophic fund"...(a mistake in Florida)...asks Romney his position...McCain makes good joke about who the question's being addressed to...Romney does support it (I think)...says he supports EVERYONE having homeowners' insurance...not in favor of the "people in Iowa" paying for insurance in Florida, etc..."supports an effort for everyone to get some form of catastrophic coverage"...could be public-private partnership...McCain has opportunity to "rebut" since Rudy invoked his name several times...McCain is trying to dig out of hole he got himself in by previously saying he opposed the catastrophic insurance fund. Floridians are obviously very much in favor of this idea. ____________________________________________________________________ 10:00pm: Token environmental question...what happened to Brian Williams? This is the Russert Show. Jerk. McCain is name-dropping like it's his job tonight...just threw in Joe Lieberman...
10:01pm: Commercial Break again...no real news here tonight...no stumbles...no triumphs either...
10:06pm: Brian Williams asks why Rudy's campaign is in bad shape. Rudy is very likeable and humorous in response...likens self to New York Giants...says he'll come from behind...that he's "lulled [the other candidates] into a false sense of security".
10:07pm: Brian on a roll. Quotes McCain's mom as saying the GOP will have to "hold their nose and vote for McCain". Williams rattles off some of McCain's biggest "transgressions" (in the view of conservative Republicans)...McCain refuses to answer each charge specifically, gives a fairly good (if general) answer about his leadership abilities, etc.
10:10pm: Mitt gets good line in about "the idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do is something [he] can't imagine"...good line...Russert tries to get Romney to go after Hillary...he does (Good!)...says she is "so out of step"...mentions health care, Iraq..."she is exactly what's wrong with Washington...she is Washington to the core...the last thing America needs is to send the Clintons back to Washington"...Mitt says he is going to strengthen this country the "old-fashioned Republican way...the Ronald Reagan way..." a great answer.
10:12pm: Russert asks Romney to tell how much of his own money he's spent in Florida...JERK, JERK, JERK!!! Out of line question. Romney rightfully says "I have RAISED more money than any other Republican in this race". Also says that "he owes no one anything" because he is not beholden to big donors. Russert asks if Romney wants to address criticism that he is trying to "buy the state of Florida or buy the election". Russert is doing more attacking of these candidates than the candidates are to each other.
10:14pm: Brian brings up the Mormon issue. Quotes poll that 44% of Americans say a Mormon would have trouble uniting the country. Romney is good on his answer. Says he doesn't think Americans will vote against someone because of what church they go to. Doesn't believe "Republicans or Americans for that matter are going to impose a religious test". Returns to his strengths versus Hillary -- a nice pivot -- reminds that he is a Reagan Republican.
10:16pm: Russert to Paul. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
10:18pm: There went two minutes of my life I won't get back.
10:19pm: Huckabee questioned on Social Security...evades question, returns to Mitt's money in the campaign...makes horrendous attempt at joke about Mitt's five sons inheriting his money if he'll not run anymore...I see that coming back to haunt him. Reminded me -- though MUCH milder -- of when Kerry referenced Dick Cheney's "lesbian daughter" in a debate against President Bush in 2004.
10:20pm: Russert..."Governor, you're a big fan of Reagan...will you do what Reagan did for Social Security", and someone whispers "raise taxes", and Romney staunchly and confidently says he will just not raise taxes. "Raising taxes is something you just don't want to do". THAT is an answer I like. Now, addressing Social Security, Romney is able to illustrate his intelligence as he adroitly rattles off statistics and figures...excellent command of details, etc.
10:22pm: Bragging Writes now predicts that Mitt Romney will win the Republican Nomination for President of the United States of America.
10:23pm: Question to Rudy about English Language..."why is your campaign running a commercial in Spanish"? You know what? I don't think it matters right now. I think Romney may have wrapped this thing up tonight.
10:26pm: Brian reads absolutely acidic criticism of Rudy by New York Times (in their endorsement of McCain)...Rudy responds well by criticizing the Times (always a GOP favorite), and invoking Reagan (another sure-fire winner with Republicans).
10:29pm: Brian again references the Times...this time in an article today about Romney being the "most disliked" candidate (by his fellow candidates). Romney strongly answer that he's not running for president to go to Washington to "make friends"...he's going to "change Washington". Nicely done. Again, I think he's won the nomination tonight.
10:31pm: Brian -- again on a roll -- references McCain's legendary/infamous temper...asks if he thinks it will be an issue in running for president. McCain nicely rejects with humor...abruptly stops answer to go OUT OF HIS WAY to praise Rudy as "an American hero" and for his leadership after September 11th..."proud of the way he led this country and united it following 9/11"...says "all of these are good people who are running here. And I respect them, and I intend to respect them both during and after this campaign is over." That was possibly McCain's finest moment of the 2008 Campaign. Just a tremendously gracious gesture.
10:33pm: Brian hits Huckabee on his faith. (He's a former Baptist Minister). Huckabee echoes Romney, in a sense, by indicating that faith isn't going to dictate who voters choose.
10:35pm: Brian to Ron Paul...will you "launch a third-party movement and hurt the Republicans"...this is actually an answer I want to hear. Paul says he has no intention of hurting Republicans...and actually makes a good joke that he wishes his opponents "would worry about it...just to keep them on their toes". Voices his "strict support of the Constitution. "That's a nice way for Paul to end his 2008 debate appearances. (Wishful thinking on my part, perhaps)...
10:37pm: And apparently Paul will get the last word of the night too. That's a wrap.
Not sure a lot of news was made tonight. No one made any tremendous mistakes. I think Romney probably will be viewed as the winner of the debate, and I reiterate that I believe he is now going to be the GOP Nominee because I think he will now win Florida and go on to win enough future contests to take the nomination.
There's an important Republican Debate tonight being held in Florida, the site of the next GOP Primary on Tuesday (January 29th). The three men for whom this debate most matters are John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Fred Thompson, as I mentioned last time, has dropped out of the race, and Mike Huckabee has essentially conceded Florida in order to focus his limited resources on Super Tuesday states that he and his campaign believe he can win. So let's take a look at where things stand for McCain, Romney and Giuliani, and why tonight's debate could be a good one...
McCain: The Arizona Senator has a narrow lead in Florida according to the latest RealClearPolitics Polling Average at 24.5% to Romney's 23.5%, and Giuliani's 18.8%. With important wins in the New Hampshire and South Carolina Primaries, McCain would likely cement his status as "The Frontrunner" with a win in Florida, and he would have the GOP Nomination all but locked up. In the debate tonight, McCain's challenges are two-fold. First, and put bluntly, he can't screw up. By that I mean he has to avoid any major verbal gaffes, erroneous statements or unseemly flashes of temper. Because he has the lead (albeit slight), if he can essentially play a Prevent Defense (pardon the football metaphor) tonight, he should be fine. His second challenge is more complicated, however. Florida is a closed primary, meaning that only registered Republican voters can vote in the state's Republican Primary. That means no independents -- typically a big source of support for McCain -- and no "crossover" Democratic voters. McCain needs to strengthen his support among the "base" of the Republican Party -- a group that is largely suspicious of his conservative bona fides (and rightfully so). There are several positions on which McCain finds himself at odds with much of the base. On immigration, McCain's policy isn't viewed as tough enough for most of those voters, and on the question of tax cuts, McCain's votes against the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001 and 2003 are unpleasant memories for many conservatives. In the previous debates, he really hasn't faced tough questioning on either issue, and so it will be interesting to see if tonight's moderator (Brian Williams of NBC News) chooses to bring them up.
Romney: Mitt Romney faces probably the toughest challenge tonight. The former Massachusetts Governor, coming off of wins in the Michigan Primary and Nevada Caucus, now trails McCain in Florida by a very thin margin. A Romney win in Florida would force the media (who are not apparently fond of Romney) to consider whether he, in fact, might be the new frontrunner, and the momentum from such a victory would be a great tailwind heading into Super Tuesday. Because of his considerable personal wealth, Romney can afford to buy advertising and pay staff in many (if not all) of the Super Tuesday states. The other GOP candidates, by contrast, are relying strictly on outside contributions, and at this point, are all in somewhat tenuous financial situations of varying degrees. With Fred Thompson out of the race and Mike Huckabee essentially not competing in Florida, Romney has an enormous opportunity to try to capture the conservative Republican vote that might otherwise have gone to Thompson or Huckabee. McCain and Giuliani will likely divide the majority of the moderate Republican vote, and so from a strategic standpoint, events are unfolding rather nicely for Romney. As evidenced by the fact that he is still trailing McCain in the polls, however, it's clear that Romney has yet to convince some voters that he is the best candidate for the GOP Nomination. Tonight's debate presents a big chance for Romney to try to sway some of those voters. To do so, he needs to make clear the differences he and John McCain have -- something that is far easier said (or written) than done. In past debates when Romney has attempted to make a contrast between his views and those of McCain, the Arizona Senator has cried foul, claiming that Romney is "attacking" him or "going negative". The media, fans of McCain's, have perpetuated that message, and so in the last debate, Romney seemed very hesitant to do or say anything that might be perceived as attack/negative politics. Others in the media and some Republican voters, however, have criticized Romney's past debate performances as being "too scripted", suggested he wasn't "tough enough", and opined that he didn't do enough to separate himself from McCain. So in a sense, Romney is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. It will be very interesting tonight to watch how Mitt Romney attempts to handle this Catch-22. If he can effectively contrast himself with McCain without being accused of attacking McCain, it could be a very big night for Romney, and an important step in setting up what would be an immensely important victory for him in Florida next week.
Giuliani: Quite simply, Rudy is on the ropes. The good folks at RealClearPolitics have a graphical representation of the Florida polls -- starting in May of last year and ending with the most recent results. Take a look at it here (scroll down a bit and note that Rudy's numbers are represented by the purple line), and it's quite evident that the former NYC Mayor is in trouble. Independent of any other external factors, this graph would be bad news for a candidate. When, however, the external factors of Giuliani's decline are considered, the already poor outlook becomes downright dismal. Several weeks ago, Rudy and his campaign made the tactical choice to essentially remove all resources and staff from all of the earlier primary states in which his fellow GOP Candidates have been competing. Giuliani has since spent all of his time and money in Florida, and for awhile, this was reflected in polls that showed him with a considerable lead. The thinking behind the strategy arguably made sense: if different candidates were winning the different primaries, they would all come to Florida and there would be no clear frontrunner. Rudy, having devoted everything to Florida, would have what he and his strategists expected to be a solid lead. He would then win in Florida, and take that momentum into the Super Tuesday states where he could vault to the front of the Republican pack. It was a gamble, but as the primaries indeed did produce three different winners, many began to think that Rudy's risky strategy might just work. What actually occurred, however, is that as the other primaries began to unfold and as Huckabee, McCain and Romney each had victories, the resulting media attention and momentum clearly helped their Florida polling numbers. Even though Rudy was campaigning all over the state, the national media were now focused on the other primaries and their winners, and since Giuliani was essentially not competing in any of these contests, he was not a part of that media discussion. As McCain and Romney have joined Rudy in Florida over the last week, their presence has further helped their numbers and continued to erode Giuliani's. Rudy himself has essentially admitted that he must win Florida in order for his campaign to continue, and so if his recent slide in the polls accurately reflects how he will finish next week, Giuliani's quest for the White House will come to an end. Rudy will probably be forced to go on the attack in tonight's debate, and it will be fascinating to see whether he chooses to train his sights on McCain, Romney or both.
One last thing to watch for tonight is whether or not Mike Huckabee continues to serve as a veritable stalking horse for John McCain. As mentioned last time, I believe "Huck" is angling for the #2 spot on a ticket with McCain. Since he has nothing to lose in Florida, I suspect Huckabee will aggressively go after both Romney and Rudy Giuliani. In that sense, he does McCain's "dirty work" for him, and as an added bonus, McCain owes him. I could be wrong, but it's something to keep an eye on this evening.
I would encourage anyone who can to tune in tonight. The debate will air on MSNBC at 9:00pm Eastern Time. The stakes are huge, the sub-plots fascinating, and I suspect a lively debate will ensue. Enjoy!
In Nevada, Mitt Romney won the Republican Caucus in decisive fashion, taking 51% of the vote to Ron Paul's 14%, John McCain's 13%, Mike Huckabee's 8%, Fred Thompson's 8%, and Rudy Giuliani's 4%. Romney benefited from being the only GOP candidate to devote significant time (and resources) to the state, and also was helped by a relatively large number of Mormon voters who overwhelmingly supported him. (Romney is also a member of the LDS Church).
Also on Saturday, John McCain won the South Carolina Republican Primary. McCain received 33% of the vote to Mike Huckabee's 30%, Fred Thompson's 16%, and Mitt Romney's 15%. This was an important win for McCain as he was able to overcome both Mike Huckabee, who had hoped that his evangelical background and southern roots would give him a win, and also to a lesser extent Fred Thompson, who bet it all on a strong finish in South Carolina. (Thompson dropped out of the race today, as I had predicted he would if he finished a distant third to McCain and Huckabee). Romney finished fourth, but had essentially abandoned his efforts there last week to focus on Nevada, thereby shrewdly lowering expectations for his South Carolina showing.
Now it's on to Florida for the Republican candidates, where the state will hold its primary on January 29th. McCain enters the Sunshine State in the strongest position after his wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and his growing status as the "establishment" candidate and/or the "inevitable" nominee. Romney's Nevada victory (and to some extent, his Michigan victory too) were largely ignored by the media in favor of the more contested South Carolina vote. As a result, it will be difficult for Romney to leverage his two victories for momentum in Florida. Huckabee's candidacy is weakened considerably. Should he have another weak showing in Florida next week, his campaign will be in dire straits. He seems to be aware of this, announcing today that he will have to take steps to save money and would even consider abandoning Florida before next week's primary if the outlook is bleak. In my opinion, the outlook is already bleak for "Huck", and I suspect he will fade out of view in the near future. (I do not, however, think he will drop out before Super Tuesday, where he undoubtedly thinks he can do well in states such as Alabama, Georgia, and his home state of Arkansas. It's my belief that he views those states as a chance to show some electoral strength for what appers to me to be his obvious desire to be vice president. After all, the longer he remains in the race, the more he hurts Mitt Romney, and therefore helps John McCain, and I think the former Arkansas Governor already has visions of McCain-Huckabee 2008 bumper stickers. I wouldn't be so sure, Governor, but that's a matter for another post). A weakened or absent Huckabee in Florida should help Romney there. Last but not least, we can't forget Rudy. Yes, Rudy Giuliani is also in Florida, and in fact has been in Florida for the last few weeks. He absolutely needs to win next week in order for his campaign to continue. (It is possible that a very close second-place would allow him to continue on to Super Tuesday, but in all likelihood, Florida is "must win" for Rudy). As of now, McCain holds a slight lead in Florida, but the race is close, and it's also crucial in determining who the GOP Nominee will be. I'll have more on Florida as it approaches next week.
In the Nevada Democratic Caucus, Hillary Clinton emerged with an important win, capturing 51% of the vote. Barack Obama finished second with 45%, and John Edwards a very distant third with 4%. This was a key victory for Hillary, as an Obama win would have again given him a great deal of momentum, and also renewed concerns about the strength of Clinton's candidacy. (In full disclosure, I predicted an Obama upset in my last post, and that is why I am not paid to prognosticate)!
The South Carolina Democratic Primary is this Saturday, and with polls showing Obama with a large lead, Hillary is largely spending her time elsewhere this week, and while she does have her husband campaigning there on her behalf, she still is effectively conceding the Palmetto State to Obama. The Illinois Senator will almost certainly go on to win South Carolina Saturday, essentially preventing either Clinton or Obama from staking a solid claim to the "front-runner" label, and setting up a Super Tuesday showdown between the two.
With the weekend recap out of the way, let's move on to "the main event"...
If you caught last week's Nevada Democratic Debate, you'll recall that both Clinton and Obama seemed to try very hard to avoid conflict and negativity. With Clinton's win in Nevada, perhaps Obama thinks the nomination is slipping away. Or maybe with the realization that Obama will win South Carolina, Hillary is frustrated that she can't seem to clinch what she and her campaign have long viewed as her "inevitable" Democratic Nomination. Either way, in a debate last night in South Carolina, both candidates seemed irritable, and to the delight of Republicans and political junkies alike, the gloves came off. For your enjoyment, here is a "highlight reel" of some of the more contentious exchanges from last night -- capped off with John Edwards asking one of the more ironic and unintentionally self-parodying questions of Campaign 2008 thus far:
Wow! Just imagine if Hillary had lost Nevada. Last night could have gotten really ugly!
Well, it's been an interesting week, and this weekend promises to make things in the presidential campaign even more interesting.
On Tuesday, Mitt Romney won the Michigan Primary in convincing fashion, taking 39% of the vote to John McCain's 30% and Mike Huckabee's 16%. As you might recall from Tuesday's blog, this was widely viewed as a "must win" contest for Romney. He had trailed in the polls in his home state following McCain's win in New Hampshire, but managed to close the gap and then some.
This gave a much needed boost to Romney, and while he spent time on the ground and on the airwaves in South Carolina this week, he turned the majority of his attention to the Nevada Caucus which, like the South Carolina Republican Primary, will be held tomorrow. In South Carolina, McCain has a solid lead in the latest RealClearPolitics Polling Average with 27.9% to Huckabee's 23.7%, Romney's 16.1% and Fred Thompson's 13.7%. McCain looks almost certain to win here, as Huckabee and Thompson seem to be splitting the evangelical and "very conservative" Republican voters in this Southern state. Romney really only needs to finish in (a respectable) fourth place (provided he has a strong showing in Nevada) to not lose ground in the overall momentum game. Huckabee needs a win, or at least a very strong second-place finish to maintain the mojo he has enjoyed since his Iowa win. Should Thompson finish a distant third-place to McCain and Huckabee, or even worse, in fourth-place behind Romney too, his campaign will likely be over.
In Nevada, a state where the GOP contest was receiving little attention, Romney holds the lead in the latest RCP Polling Average. Nevada has a relatively large number of Mormon residents, and this should be a natural source of support for Romney who is also a Mormon. If Romney wins Nevada, he will be well-positioned as the alternative to John McCain as the candidates head toward the January 29th Florida Primary, where Rudy Giuliani is waiting and must win. Should Romney somehow slip up and lose in Nevada, his candidacy will again be wounded.
The most likely outcome, however, is a McCain win in South Carolina, and a Romney win in Nevada. If this is indeed what happens, Thompson will likely drop out of the race, and Huckabee will be fading fast with his Iowa win now a distant memory. This will set up what will essentially be a three-man showdown in Florida between McCain, Romney and Giuliani, and most likely, the ultimate showdown between the three on February 5th -- "Super Tuesday". Obviously much can (and likely will) change between now and the January 29th Florida contest, so do stay tuned!
The Democrats are squarely focused on Nevada tomorrow. (The South Carolina Democratic Primary will be next Saturday, January 26th). Hillary Clinton "won" the Democratic Primary in Michigan on Tuesday, but as you may recall, because of a mess between the DNC and the Michigan Democratic Party, it was essentially meaningless and no other Democratic candidates were even on the ballot. In fact, the only alternative to Hillary on the ballot in Michigan was "Uncommitted", a selection a voter would make to indicate that he or she was not yet committing to any of the Democratic Candidates, but what effectively served as a vote against Hillary. For the Clinton Campaign, the results were less than encouraging. Senator Clinton took 55% of the vote, however "Uncommitted" garnered 40% of the vote, meaning that 40% of those voting in a largely meaningless Democratic Primary went through the time and effort to do so solely to express their dissatisfaction with Hillary and her candidacy. (Even more worrisome for the Clinton Campaign, perhaps, is that a substantial percentage of the "Uncommitted" vote were black voters, a potential sign that the racially-charged previous week had done damage to the African-American Community's view of Hillary Clinton. This could portend real trouble for her chances ahead -- particularly in South Carolina next weekend where it's likely that at least half of the Democratic voters will be black).
Back in Nevada, Tuesday night's Democratic Debate was a veritable love-in as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama went to great (and noticeable) effort to avoid conflict. (John Edwards, quite frankly, is largely irrelevant at this point). Both Clinton and Obama seemed aware that the tone of the campaign in the days preceding the debate had been negative and often racial in nature, and that it was doing no good for either candidate. The lawsuit I told you about in the last blog that sought to close the at-large caucus locations for shift-workers was thrown out yesterday. As a result, many of those working on the Las Vegas Strip will now be able to vote without leaving work, a group that is comprised largely of Culinary Workers Union members -- mostly Obama supporters. In the latest RCP Polling Average, Hillary maintains a lead in Nevada, and a win for her there is probably less significant than a loss would be. Should she lose, watch for the media to flow back toward Obama as they did following Iowa, and look for further Democratic Party "bigwigs" to jump aboard the Obama Train -- much like Vermont Senator Pat Leahy did yesterday. This will particularly be true if Obama's current lead in the South Carolina polls holds up, and he is able to win there next weekend. A win in both Nevada and South Carolina would be huge for Obama.
I will predict that Obama upsets Clinton in Nevada tomorrow. If he wins in Nevada, look for the kinder tone between the candidates to quickly revert to negative and, unfortunately, look for the Clintons to covertly play "the race card" again. Should this happen, I suspect the racial questions would mostly be raised through implications and innuendo, and likely not by either Hillary or Bill Clinton themselves, but by various campaign spokespeople and surrogates. If Obama wins in South Carolina on top of a win in Nevada, the Clintons will only be more desperate to recover, and more likely to resort to whatever it takes to win. Just like the GOP contest though, this is all very fluid and unpredictable, so be sure to keep an eye on the news (and hopefully, on "Bragging Writes" every now and then, too)!
On the evening of January 17th, 1998, Matt Drudge of Drudge Report fame posted the headline that ultimately made he and his website famous:
"NEWSWEEK KILLS STORY ON WHITE HOUSE INTERN X X X X X BLOCKBUSTER REPORT: 23-YEAR OLD, FORMER WHITE HOUSE INTERN, SEX RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT"
The headline also marked the start of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which would dominate the media for the next year and ultimately lead to the impeachment of President Clinton. Regardless of your views on the Lewinsky matter, Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton, I think you'll have to admit that this is a pretty clever bumper sticker, and it's how "Bragging Writes" will commemorate the ten-year "anniversary" of perhaps the biggest media feeding frenzy ever...
Sorry for the radio silence for the last week or so, but from time to time, I have to deal with my "real" job! If you've seen the stock market lately, I am sure you can imagine that things have been just a tad busy around here. Speaking of busy, the presidential candidates have also been very active, and there will be no rest for the weary anytime soon. So where do things stand now?
On the Democratic side, we are down to three candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. (Bill Richardson withdrew from the race last week after poor showings in both Iowa and New Hampshire). To say that Hillary's win in New Hampshire was unexpected would be a massive understatement. Not only did every poll taken in New Hampshire indicate that Obama would win there (and decisively), every political operative on the ground and on the television predicted the same. Perhaps more interesting is that even the Clinton Campaign expected a loss, and it wasn't until they saw exit polls late in the day last Tuesday that they thought she might have a chance to just keep it close. She did more than that, obviously, taking 39% of the vote to Obama's 36% and Edwards' 17%. The media were baffled, having swooned over Obama in the days between Iowa and New Hampshire, and in their haste to explain their erroneous predictions, many theories for her "comeback" were put forth. Here are two of the more (in my opinion) plausible theories:
1) Hillary Humanization: Hillary's "emotional" moment highlighted here last week -- whether genuine or calculated -- seems to have been effective in making her seem more like "you and me", and potentially more likeable as well. She also had a moment in a debate prior to the Primary (not this one!) in which she was asked to address the "likeability issue" (a reference to the fact that in many polls, respondents expressed that they "liked" Obama more than Clinton). She responded deftly, jokingly saying "Well, that hurts my feelings," followed by assuming a mock puppy dog face, and then adding with a smile, "But I'll try to go on". The crowd laughed, and it was effective political theater for her. Have a look:
The "humanization" theory would also assert that through the tears and the self-deprecating humor, she became a sympathetic figure to many, but to women voters in particular. Women turned out in greater numbers than men in New Hampshire, and as it turned out, Clinton took 47% of the female vote to Obama's 34% -- a striking reversal from Iowa where, as you may recall, Obama won the women's vote by a 35% to 30% margin over Hillary.
2) The "Bradley Effect": The "Bradley Effect" (a.k.a. "The Wilder Effect") is the name given to a political phenomenon that allegedly occurs with the presence of an African-American candidate (or presumably any minority candidate) in an election, rendering pre-election polls inaccurate and producing final results far different from what the political experts predicted. (The theory is so named because of two elections in the 1980's with black candidates in which the polls and prognostications prior to the election proved to be seriously flawed: in the 1982 Los Angeles Mayoral Race between Tom Bradley, an African-American, and George Deukmejian, who was white, Bradley narrowly lost a race he had been universally expected to win; and in the 1989 Virginia Gubernatorial Election between Douglas Wilder, who was black, and Marshall Coleman, a white candidate, Wilder was shown with an average lead of nine points going into Election Day, but ended up barely winning with a margin of victory of less than 0.5%). The theory holds that when a black candidate is on the ballot, white voters feel compelled to tell pollsters or anyone who might ask that they are supporting the black candidate over the white candidate for fear of being judged as racist or closed-minded. When these same voters are in the privacy of the voting booth, however, there is no such fear of the consequences for not casting a vote for the minority candidate. As a result, many of these voters who may have told a pollster or journalist or friend one thing, in actuality end up doing another. New Hampshire, it should be noted, is an overwhelmingly white state, and this theory could help explain how Obama lost a race in which he had commanding leads in the polls. In many ways, it's possible the phenomenon was compounded by the overwhelming media attention Obama received between Iowa and New Hampshire, perhaps making the respondent to a poll even more self-conscious about not voicing an intention to support the "hot" candidate.
For the Republicans, John McCain appears to be the "front-runner" after his victory in New Hampshire last week in which he garnered 37% of the vote to Mitt Romney's 31% and Mike Huckabee's 11%. (Rudy Giuliani finished with 9%, Ron Paul with 8%, and Fred Thompson with only 1%). As predicted here, the win was huge for McCain and his chances for the GOP Nomination, and Romney's loss was a big blow to his already-bruised campaign. Huckabee's distant third-place finish was undoubtedly disappointing for him, as he and his campaign likely felt that the momentum of his Iowa win would translate to a better showing in New Hampshire. The results were essentially right in line with what the polls and experts expected and, with no shocking outcome here like that of the Democrats, there frankly isn't much postmortem analysis necessary.
That's where things stand now. So what do we watch this week? In short, the schedule is busy, and with the relatively volatile and unpredictable results of the first two major contests, the race could look entirely different by this time next week. Here's how the calendar looks:
Today (Tuesday, January 15th): The Michigan Primary (Essentially a Republican-only Contest)
Saturday, January 19th: The Nevada Caucuses
Saturday, January 19th: The South Carolina Republican Primary
For the Democrats, the Michigan Primary is really a non-event. The reasons are complicated and not worth elaborating on here, but in short, there was a disagreement between the Democratic National Committee and the Michigan Democratic Party that resulted in every candidate other than Hillary Clinton officially withdrawing from the Michigan Primary. (If you'd like more details on this, have a look at this story which explains the situation well). The Nevada Caucuses, on the other hand, will be important, and in fact, MSNBC will broadcast a debate tonight between the Democratic candidates from Las Vegas. One story that is not receiving much attention could have a big impact on what happens in Nevada on Saturday. After the New Hampshire Primary, the largest and most politically active union in Nevada -- the Culinary Workers Union (largely comprised of Las Vegas Strip casino and hotel workers) -- endorsed Obama, a significant feather in his cap there. In what can only be described as ironic timing, the Nevada State Education Association filed a lawsuit to shut down the nine so-called "at-large" caucus locations that had been established on or near the Vegas Strip to allow shift workers to participate in the caucus at or near their place of work. Many of the people who would use these locations just happen to be members of the same Culinary Workers Union that is now supporting Obama, and are people who would otherwise be unable to leave work to vote. In another "coincidence", while the Nevada State Education Association has not officially endorsed a candidate, the NSEA's leadership is comprised largely of Clinton supporters, including the Deputy Executive Director of the NSEA, Debbie Cahill, who was a founding member of Clinton's "Nevada Women's Leadership Council". The Clinton Campaign has denied any involvement in the lawsuit, but also has refused to call for the NSEA to drop their case which, if successful, would result in essentially disenfranchising thousands of shift workers who would likely be supporting Obama. This is something to keep an eye on as Saturday's Nevada Caucus approaches.
One could argue, however, that the Nevada lawsuit isn't the biggest storyline in the Democratic contest right now, because since New Hampshire, there has been a far larger issue brewing for the Democrats: Race. The issue has not been explicitly raised by either candidate, but as Clinton and Obama each dig in for what now appears likely to be a more prolonged battle for the nomination than originally thought, the negative campaigning has begun. With the negative rhetoric comes the chance for observers to search for implicit meanings and innuendo within the statements and comments emerging from the campaigns. The trouble began last Monday with none other than Bill Clinton, who made controversial remarks while he campaigned for his wife in New Hampshire. While addressing what he alleged was Obama's inconsistent stance on the Iraq War, Former President Clinton angrily declared "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen": With that, the rhetorical dissection began. Obama supporters and even some Clinton supporters were offended by the former president's comments, interpreting them as derogatory about the overall Obama candidacy and, perhaps more significantly, some believed Clinton was dismissing Obama's chances of becoming the first black president as merely a "fairy tale". Hillary found controversy last week as well. While acknowledging that Barack Obama is an inspiring person, a terrific and moving speaker and a hero to many, she implied that this wasn't enough, and she did so by invoking Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "I would point to the fact that Dr. King's dreams were realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964," Clinton said. She continued, "...it took a president to get it done". Here again, many felt there was an implied message in Clinton's comments, and were now doubly furious that she would tear Obama down by essentially downplaying (as they saw it) the importance of Martin Luther King's role in the civil rights movement. The Clinton Campaign went into full damage-control mode, but the issue of race seemed to have officially been put into play in the campaign -- highly-charged and dangerous territory for either candidate to navigate. The battle raged on throughout last week, over the weekend, and until yesterday. Monday afternoon, the Clinton campaign issued a statement that can only be described as a white flag. The statement read:
“Over this past week, there has been a lot of discussion and back and forth - much of which I know does not reflect what is in our hearts."
“And at this moment, I believe we must seek common ground."
“Our party and our nation is bigger than this. Our party has been on the front line of every civil rights movement, women's rights movement, workers' rights movement, and other movements for justice in America."
“We differ on a lot of things. And it is critical to have the right kind of discussion on where we stand. But when it comes to civil rights and our commitment to diversity, when it comes to our heroes - President John F. Kennedy and Dr. King – Senator Obama and I are on the same side."
“And in that spirit, let's come together, because I want more than anything else to ensure that our family stays together on the front lines of the struggle to expand rights for all Americans.”
Obama responded last night, telling reporters that "Bill and Hillary Clinton have historically and consistently been on the right side of the civil rights movement," and that he did not want the campaign "to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back and forth that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this". In my opinion, the Clinton's only sought this "ceasefire" because they realized they were on the losing end of the battle. So while it might seem to be a truce by all outward appearances, it's a fragile and uneasy one at best. The dysfunction within the Democratic Party -- the rifts and infighting and conflicts that the Democrats and the media try so hard to hide -- was on full display over the past week. Should Obama win in Nevada on Saturday, I would expect the tone of the rhetoric between the Clinton and Obama Campaigns to deteriorate even further as the Clintons become increasingly desperate in their attempt to salvage victory.
So what of the Republicans? Well, the GOP race looks downright dull in comparison to the Democrats. Since New Hampshire, the focus has turned to two states: Michigan, which holds its Primary today; and South Carolina, which holds its Primary on Saturday. In Michigan, it's really a two-man race between McCain and Romney. McCain is riding the wave of momentum from his New Hampshire win, and he won the Michigan Primary in 2000. He began campaigning there last week with a lead in the polls. Romney, a Michigan native and son of a popular Governor of Michigan in the 1960's, George Romney, now is in "must-win" mode, and he is banking on his home state to breathe new life into his campaign. In the last several days, the polls have tightened, with some even giving Romney a slight edge going into today's voting. Polls have proven very fallible after New Hampshire though, and further complicating matters is the fact that the Michigan Primary is "open", meaning anyone can vote in the Republican Primary regardless of party affiliation. In other words, Michigan voters who have not registered with a party, registered Independents, and even Democrats can vote in the GOP Primary. This allows for Independents -- longtime fans of McCain -- to play a big role in determining his fate in the quest for the nomination. It even allows for Democrats to infuse the Republican primary with their own votes, likely cast in a way they think most benefits the Democratic Party's overall chances against the Republicans in November. (In other words, one could argue that the Democrats' General Election prospects would benefit from a Romney victory in Michigan, as his political reinvigoration would lengthen the contest for the GOP Nomination and cause the candidates to spend more money and attack each other. The aforementioned Obama-Clinton battle is a perfect example). Regardless of how he wins, should Romney indeed emerge victorious in Michigan tonight, the race for the GOP Nomination will again be significantly altered. The media have seemed awfully eager to write the former Massachusetts Governor's political obituary, and have tried to do so following his second place finish in Iowa and particularly after his loss to McCain in New Hampshire. (The press virtually ignored Romney's win in the Wyoming Caucus on the Saturday between Iowa and New Hampshire's contests). While Romney's personal fortune will allow him to continue beyond Michigan should he fail to win tonight, the media will likely cross their t's and dot their i's on the story of his political demise -- and this time they will likely succeed.
McCain is also keeping a close eye on South Carolina, and is hoping for a victory there too. Were Romney to win Michigan and have his own "Comeback Kid" moment, he could probably legitimately compete in South Carolina as well, making the task of winning there harder for both McCain, and for Mike Huckabee who feels that his Southern roots and evangelical background give him a good shot at winning. Already muddying the waters for them, however, is the surprising resurgence of former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, a candidate who entered the race late to great enthusiasm, but who has never seemed to truly engage in the process and has essentially fizzled thus far. In a GOP Debate last Thursday night in South Carolina, however, Thompson seemed to "wake up" from his political slumber, putting on a terrific performance, and he was almost unanimously declared the debate's winner. As long as debates have been televised, humor and the ability to deliver a memorable one-liner often play a larger role in who "wins" the debate than who is truly the best candidate or who has the best grasp of policy. To Thompson's credit, while he's no slouch when it comes to details or grasp of policies, the power of the one-liner was on full display last Thursday. Take a look at one of Fred's best "lines" from last week's debate. In this clip, he is responding to a question about last week's incident in which American Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz were provoked by speedboats allegedly manned by members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The incident was viewed as a threat, and the American ships apparently came very close to firing on (and destroying) the speed boats and their occupants: The debate performance has apparently given new life to a campaign long ago left for dead, and Thompson's resurgence could make winning South Carolina particularly difficult for Huckabee, as he and Thompson would likely be competing for the same group of very conservative voters.
So first and foremost, tonight is important. If McCain wins Michigan, he would probably follow that up with a win in South Carolina, and then likely be unstoppable on his way to taking the nomination. But, if Romney wins Michigan, it's a whole new ballgame. We would then have three different GOP winners in the first four primaries/caucuses, and potentially a fourth winner to come on Saturday in South Carolina if Thompson is able to pull off the upset win. (The Nevada Caucuses are, for some reason, largely being ignored by the Republican candidates, thereby lessening the significance of who ultimately wins or loses there). Next on the schedule is the Florida Primary on January 29th, where Rudy Giuliani has now bet the house on his chances there. Were Romney to win tonight, Thompson on Saturday, and Giuliani on January 29th, this would be one of the most competitive (and likely entertaining) nominating contests in GOP history. Sit back and enjoy the show!
I think maybe the stress is starting to get to Senator Hillary Clinton. Or is it?
First we saw an angry Hillary in the debate on Saturday night, and now we have an "emotional" Hillary tearing up yesterday. At a campaign stop in a coffee shop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Hillary was asked what sounded like a "softball" question: "As a woman, I know it's hard to get out of the house and get ready," said a woman attending the event. "Who does your hair?" Clinton's response, during which she seems to fight back tears, was shown ad nauseam on cable and network news last night. Have a look for yourself:
Most of the media portrayed it as a "genuine" moment in which the stress and fatigue of the campaign trail finally got the better of the former First Lady. Others in the press were more skeptical of the authenticity of the emotion, instead believing it was calculated and contrived as a means of humanizing and/or garnering sympathy for Clinton. (As you may recall from a previous blog entry here, this certainly wouldn't be the first time that Hillary has been questioned about her genuineness). As for yesterday's display, I'll let you be the judge.
I mentioned here Friday that Hillary Clinton had to expect Barack Obama to have a post-Iowa "bump", and according to a poll released today, he's got the bump, and it's very significant. In the latest Rasmussen Poll conducted after the Iowa Caucus, Obama has surged to a 12-point lead over Clinton -- 39% to 27% among likely Democratic Primary voters. In Rasmussen's last poll before Iowa, Clinton had a 3% lead over Obama, evidence of a 15-point swing in the Illinois Senator's favor. That's quite a bump, and it's quite worrisome for Hillary and her campaign.
Indeed, it would seem that Senator Clinton's own internal polling yesterday must have reflected a similar trend, because she showed an uncharacteristic flash of anger and frustration in last night's ABC debate. In a discussion about the candidates' differing health care plans, John Edwards, after first referring to Hillary as "the forces of status quo", then went on to question what he saw as Clinton's newfound claim to be the person who can best bring about "change", and her related "attacks" on her opponents as being less capable at doing so than she. As Senator Edwards rather bluntly put it, obviously aware of Obama's post-Iowa surge in the polls: "...I didn't hear these kind of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead. Now that she's not, we hear them." Clinton didn't seem to take too kindly to this. Have a look for yourself:
Indeed, even in just the few days since Iowa, Clinton has been talking more about her ability to be an agent of change, a marked departure from her previous tendency to tout her experience and qualifications as making her the most "ready" to be president. This would seem to be an effort to tap into what evidently attracted so many Iowa voters to Obama -- the fact that he has not spent much time in Washington relative to others running for the White House, and therefore, that he potentially brings a fresh perspective. In the process of changing her message though, she has begun to "go negative" against Obama, and it was this new tactic to which Edwards was referring when he apparently got under Hillary's skin. It was a telling moment for a candidate who, heretofore, has been remarkably disciplined, perpetually "on message", and who has never seemed to allow herself to be rattled. Her reaction, I think, not only reflected the stress she is feeling, it also was indicative of the fact that Edwards had managed to effectively "zing" her. Unfortunately for Hillary, this is likely the clip that most will see from the debate rather than any of her "better" moments from last night.
So yes, I would say that the former First Lady is feeling the heat. Should she lose New Hampshire by anything close to the margins suggested by these polls, though, Hillary will have her feet held to the fire more than ever before in her political career. It will be interesting to watch how she and her campaign will respond if faced with the very real possibility of losing the nomination to Obama. Stay tuned!
Last night in the Iowa Caucuses, the 2008 Presidential Race was altered significantly for both Republicans and Democrats. In case you didn't already know, on the Republican side, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee won with 34% of the vote. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney finished second with 25%, followed by former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and Senator John McCain with 13% each. As for the Democrats, Illinois Senator Barack Obama won with 38% of the vote, followed by former North Carolina Senator John Edwards at 30%, and New York Senator Hillary Clinton with 29%. For both parties now, the road to the nomination has become far more interesting than anticipated.
Looking first at the Republicans, Mike Huckabee not only won the Caucus, he gave himself and his campaign some much needed legitimacy, and in all likelihood effectively ended Mitt Romney's quest for the White House. Romney had put many of his "eggs" in the Iowa basket. He had spent more money and more time there than any other GOP candidate, and until about a month ago, was the odds-on favorite to win there. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, started his campaign as a little-known, poorly-funded "fringe" candidate -- someone who sought to appeal to the evangelical, "Religious Right" of the Republican Party. Until late November, Huckabee was simply the folksy, witty, former Baptist Minister who had managed to have the best laugh lines in the circus-like debates of the last six months. (I underestimated him, myself. In the first of my "series" -- though it never really became a series! -- of blog entries about the candidates for the party nominations, I examined Hillary Clinton. I also specifically mentioned those candidates on whom I would not be wasting your time or mine, and Huckabee was one of them). After Thanksgiving, however, (and in my own defense, after my aforementioned blog entry!), Huckabee instead became the folksy, witty, former minister who was now leading many of the polls in Iowa. (Have a look at this graphical representation of the Iowa polling over the last year, courtesy of the fantastic Real Clear Politics website. Seeing it illustrated in that way only further underscores how remarkable a feat it was for Governor Huckabee). As often happens in politics, momentum begets media attention and media attention begets more momentum. By mid-December, Huckabee was reveling in national media interviews and newfound strength, and he posed a serious threat to Romney's chances to win in Iowa. The threat proved very real, and Huckabee defeated Romney soundly -- probably far beyond even the worst-case scenarios envisioned by Romney and his advisers. The race for the Republican nomination is now completely turned on its head.
As for the Democrats, last night was -- regardless of how her campaign tried to spin it both before and after the Caucus -- a terrible night for Hillary Clinton. Hillary was viewed by many to be the inevitable Democratic Nominee, and Iowa was thought to be just the first step in her victorious path to the nomination. (Again, if you look back at my blog entry on Hillary from a few months ago, you'll see the many, many advantages she had, and the resulting unlikelihood of her losing Iowa). Like Romney, however, she not only lost, but she lost badly. In fact, she didn't even finish in second place, but in third. The Clinton Campaign seemed to at least partially see this coming given their strenuous efforts in the last week to downplay both the importance of the Iowa Caucus and the expectations for her performance in it. Despite these efforts, though, there is simply no denying that last night's results have created a significant chink in Senator Clinton's political armor. Unlike Romney, however, Senator Clinton has good reason for optimism. She has led in the polls in New Hampshire (the site of the next key contest on Tuesday) from the very beginning, and should she manage to emerge victorious there, she and her campaign would be back on very solid ground. For Barack Obama, the significance of his victory (and the size of his margin of victory) are invaluably important and beneficial. He has lingered for months as the biggest threat to Hillary Clinton's winning the nomination, but with a decisive win in Iowa, he has proved that there is more to him and to his campaign than many realized. The odd machinations that make up the Iowa Caucus process were tailor-made for Clinton's campaign. She had the money, she had the field organization, and she had the experienced advisors. Obama wasn't hurting for campaign money, but he was relying on advisors with less experience, an untested field workers, and on the voter turnout of young and politically inexperienced Iowans. According to a closer look at last night's numbers, however, they came through for him, as Obama not only won the youth vote, he also won the majority of votes among women. (57% of voters under the age of 30 chose Obama, as did 40% of first-time caucus voters. Additionally, 35% of the women who voted last night chose Obama, compared to 30% for Hillary). This victory in the female vote is particularly worrisome for the Clinton Campaign, as support from women has long been viewed as a core source of strength for Senator Clinton. So while Clinton is not politically "dead", she is certainly bloodied, and in politics, it doesn't take long for the sharks to appear.
So what now? Well, for both parties, all eyes turn to New Hampshire where next Tuesday, that state holds its very important primary. In the Republican race, Romney's campaign will be truly over if he fails to win there. Unfortunately for Romney -- and with kudos to the McCain Campaign -- Senator McCain now leads in the polls. Looking at McCain's strategy over the last month in light of last night's results and with hindsight being 20/20, it's clear that he and his advisers made a bold and shrewd calculation. They saw Huckabee's rise in Iowa, felt it had legs and credibility (when many others didn't), and realized that if he were to defeat Romney in the caucus, the former Massachusetts Governor would be badly limping into New Hampshire. Banking on this outcome, McCain has spent nearly all of his time, money and energy in New Hampshire in the last month, while Romney tried to shore up his weakening support in Iowa. The strategy worked, McCain now leads in the polls, and Romney now comes into New Hampshire not merely limping, but in a wheelchair and on life-support. It was only a few months ago that the McCain Campaign was in disarray, desperately low in campaign funds, and polling very poorly. Should Senator McCain win New Hampshire, he can justifiably label himself "the Comeback Kid" (as Bill Clinton famously did in 1992). A McCain victory would likely catapult the Arizona Senator to front-runner status in the race for the GOP Nomination, setting up a showdown with Huckabee in the South Carolina Primary in late January, and with Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in the Florida Primary three days later. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee will undoubtedly enjoy a nice "bump" in the polls (and presumably in media attention and campaign contributions) following his Iowa triumph. It's unlikely, though, that his momentum will be sufficient for a victory in New Hampshire -- a state in which he has spent almost no time or money and whose relatively liberal electorate would not tend to be enamored with his conservative social positions. On the other hand, the "bump" will definitely bode well for "Huck" in the important South Carolina contest in which he can again count on a solid number of evangelical, socially conservative Republicans to turn out and vote for him. Perhaps most importantly, Huckabee and his efforts now have instant legitimacy and credibility after such a substantial win in Iowa. No longer a "fringe" candidate, Huckabee now will (deservedly) receive a great deal more media coverage and as mentioned previously, the momentum that accompanies it. If McCain wins in New Hampshire, Huckabee in South Carolina and Rudy in Florida, the race for the Republican Nomination will be wide open, and it will be a very exciting contest heading into "Super Tuesday" on February 5th when more than twenty states will hold their nominating contests.
On the Democratic side, New Hampshire has become an extremely high-stakes contest for Senators Clinton and Obama. Having never trailed in the Granite State's polls, Hillary may find herself in that unfamiliar position soon as she now has to expect and prepare for Obama to have his own "bump" from Iowa. Unlike the relatively crowded GOP field however, it's really a two-person race for the Democrats as John Edwards' distant second-place finish in Iowa likely spells the end of his campaign. Had Hillary bested Obama last night (or even finished a very close second), it's likely that Obama's campaign would be in serious trouble today, and that Hillary would be on a cakewalk to the nomination. That certainly isn't the case, however. Obama, who has not spent nearly the time or money in New Hampshire as Clinton has, will now gain in the same New Hampshire polls he has never led, and make it a real competition on Tuesday. The Iowa victory will also help Senator Obama with an issue that people are often reluctant to face head-on: his race. His race, however, (like Clinton's gender), is an unavoidable issue, and an issue that likely caused many New Hampshire voters (and voters nationwide, for that matter) to question his ultimate electability. In many ways, though, it's now as if the voters in the overwhelmingly White state of Iowa have given the people in subsequent primary and caucus states a reason to believe that an African-American could possibly win the presidency, and the "permission" to go ahead and vote for Obama. This could easily translate into new support for the Illinois Senator from undecided voters, independent voters, and supporters of other Democratic candidates who will not be continuing in the race for the nomination. If Obama manages to upset Clinton in New Hampshire, Hillary will be in serious trouble, as Obama's momentum would be almost insurmountable, and the resulting electoral snowball effect would likely propel him to the Democratic Nomination. Conversely, should Hillary hang on in New Hampshire, while it wouldn't guarantee her the nomination, she'd be very hard to beat given the amount of money and experience her campaign possesses. All the money and experience in the world, however, cannot ultimately trump the will of the people, and if New Hampshire spurns her as Iowa did, Hillary may be done.
Either way, we are looking at an extremely intense weekend of campaigning, as Mitt Romney and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Hillary Clinton, fight for their political lives in New Hampshire. Both the Republicans and the Democrats will hold debates there this weekend, and each promises to be the political equivalent of "must-see-TV", with the stakes as high as they've been at any point in the campaign thus far. Beyond that, we are most likely looking at an intense month or two of campaigning, and perhaps the first truly contested races for the nomination in the Republican and Democratic Parties since 1980 and 1992 respectively. For a political junkie like me, it doesn't get much better than this!
EDITORIAL NOTE: I again must apologize for the delay between blog entries. I am still working on a fairly lengthy and intensive entry that I hope to complete soon, but in the meantime, I couldn't resist weighing in on the Iowa Caucus. Thanks for reading!
