A Fly on the Hillary Clinton Campaign Wall

Earlier this week, I had a unique opportunity. A friend of mine was very involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign, and indeed, raised a significant amount of money on her behalf. So significant, in fact, that he still has a voicemail message saved from Hillary Clinton herself thanking him for everything he did. As a result of his esteemed status in "Hillaryland", my friend (as well as others who had raised extraordinary amounts of money for Hillary) were invited to participate in something of a post mortem conference call this week with some of the very top members of Clinton's campaign staff . Knowing that I'm a political junkie, he invited me to listen in on the call. I swore that I would keep my phone muted, and I did, even though I was tempted at several times to speak up! Here are a few of my observations and reactions from this conference call -- the closest I will ever come to being a fly on the Hillary Clinton Campaign wall...

1) Because of Hillary's perceived inevitability early on in the election, she and her campaign raised enormous amounts of money. So much so, in fact, that many contributors "maxed out" for the primary election period, giving their limit of $2300 per person. As a result, the Clinton Campaign began (quite presumptuously) accepting contributions for the General Election, a period in which another $2300 per person can be given, and ultimately she received a reported $24 million in contributions for the General Election. Since Clinton lost the nomination to Barack Obama, she obviously will not be participating in the General Election now, and so there is a significant amount of money in the Clinton Campaign coffers with no precise purpose or destination. Most campaigns would, I believe, return this money to the donor given that the reason for which it was initially contributed has been rendered moot. And though it shouldn't have surprised me, it still did when I heard what the Clinton Campaign would like to do with that money. Understanding that my friend and the others on the call who had raised this General Election money would likely be receiving calls from people who had contributed to Hillary at their urging, a top Clinton official explained that there were two options. The first would simply be a refund, and if that is what a contributor wanted, the campaign would be cutting checks within the next couple of months in order to refund that money. The second and clearly preferred option for Clinton and her campaign was for the donor to indicate his or her approval for their $2300 General Election contribution to be allocated to Hillary's Senate Reelection Campaign in 2012! 2012? Four years away? And from donors who -- in many cases -- are not even residents of New York, the state in which Hillary would be running for reelection? I thought this was a remarkably audacious suggestion -- even by Clinton standards -- particularly when I and everyone on that call know full well that the money will not be used for her reelection campaign in four years -- an eternity in politics. No, that money would, through some undoubtedly obscure campaign finance law loophole, be used to pay down the enormous amount of debt her campaign incurred -- allegedly over $20 million. If I were a Clinton contributor, I would not be too eager to have my $2300 go toward retiring the campaign's debt, particularly when much of the debt epitomizes the mistakes Hillary and her team made, the same mistakes that find her now watching from the political sidelines as Obama assumes leadership of the Democratic Party. The Clintons simply never cease to amaze me. (In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, an article by Christopher Cooper explains all of this extremely well. Take a look here).

2) The Clinton supporters on this call -- while obviously among the most devoted -- are likely representative of at least a portion of Clinton supporters across the nation. And they are really, really mad. They are mad at Obama, they are mad at the media, and they are just plain mad that Hillary lost. Big deal, right? Of course they're mad -- but they'll get over it, won't they? After hearing them on this phone call, I'm not so sure. They made it very clear to the Clinton Campaign bigwigs on the call that they had absolutely no intention of raising money for Obama, in any way helping Obama, or, most ominously, perhaps of even voting for Obama, UNLESS he picks Hillary to be his running mate. Now that is newsworthy, because guess what? Obama is not going to pick Hillary as his running mate. He'd be crazy to do so. They not only dislike each other, but she actively undermined and openly disrespected Obama and his candidacy -- particularly in the last couple of months. Not only that, does Obama really want to have to deal with Bill Clinton hanging around the White House? I think not. Bringing the Clintons back to the White House is not "change we can believe in". So that presents a potentially prickly issue, then. If the people on this call are sincere, (and presuming Obama does not, in fact, select Hillary as his vice president), Obama is going to go to battle against McCain without the support of some key fundraisers in the Democratic Party. Further, if one presumes that the people on this call are even partially representative of the "rank-and-file" Hillary supporters out there, Obama may have to face McCain without the support, help and, most importantly, the votes, of a significant number of people. The conference call participants genuinely believe that Hillary was wronged, that Obama mistreated her, that the media were conspiring against her, and that in general, she was the victim of sexism in falling short of winning the nomination. Setting aside for a moment the validity or accuracy of those beliefs, their anger was very apparent, it was intense, and it was real. Obama needs the people on this call as well as the many others like them to be behind him between now and November. He faces quite a challenge now, as the only way that he can seemingly appease these Clintonites is by adding Hillary to his ticket. If he does that though, he risks turning off an even larger number of voters in the process.

Like everything else in this absolutely extraordinary election year, this will be interesting to watch, and I'll do my best to help guide you through it all here at Bragging Writes!

A Snitch Is A Snitch

Last week, the mainstream media breathlessly reported that President Bush’s former Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, had “slammed”, “walloped”, “stunned” or “blindsided” – pick your cliché – the Bush Administration with the claims he makes in his forthcoming book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.

I have to hand it to him, for someone enjoying his “fifteen minutes of fame,” McClellan has made the most of them. I personally saw him on NBC’s “Today Show”, CNN’s “The Situation Room”, CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360”, MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann”, CBS’ “CBS Evening News”, ABC’s “World News” and NBC’s “Meet the Press”, and I’m sure there were other appearances I missed and perhaps more yet to come. In watching his various interviews, I came away decidedly unimpressed with him – though in the interest of full disclosure, I always felt he was a horrendous press secretary, so I don’t know why I thought my opinion would change now. I don’t think, though, that my distaste for him and for what he’s done in writing his book can entirely be chalked up to my support for his former boss. In fact, I don’t think McClellan is a particularly popular person anywhere right now – regardless of one’s view of President Bush or general political leanings.

For those few like me who support President Bush, McClellan is a disloyal loser clearly capitalizing (literally) on his powerful former position and on the media’s appetite for blood when it comes to criticism of Bush. McClellan’s no fool, and he knew very well the frenzy his “revelations” would ignite, and surely hoped it would translate into boffo book sales. Given my negative feelings about his work as press secretary, I was never a fan of his, particularly when his incompetence in pushing the White House “message” forward so often occurred during critical times and with regard to critical issues of the Bush Presidency. In today’s non-stop news cycle of the internet and 24 hour cable news networks, a failed messenger was a crippling weakness for the White House. More to the point, though, I have my doubts about the sincerity of his current claims, particularly when he admits that he never once voiced any concerns about what was going on around him to President Bush or anyone else in the White House while they were happening. Further, while he officially resigned, most of Washington and most of the political punditry felt that his resignation was hardly voluntary, particularly when his successor was the far more talented and far more respected Tony Snow. It’s hard to imagine, then, that he wasn’t at least a tad bitter and potentially vengeful too. In my view, his motives are beyond questionable.

On the opposite end are those who despise President Bush or who are vehemently opposed to the U.S. presence in Iraq (or both). Here too lies one of the most ironic aspects of this whole episode, as it was the same liberal crowd now fighting to interview him who once mercilessly hounded him at the White House podium and very openly derided his lame attempts at “spin”. But things have changed, and McClellan has received an entirely different and more positive reaction – at least initially – from the same formerly tough crowd. I think his former boss and predecessor as White House Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, said it best last week:

“Poor Scott. Scott is about to borrow some friends for 24 hours on the political left, who will throw him out as soon as they are done with him, and he’s burnt an awful lot of bridges to people who really always thought fondly and highly of him.”

Fleischer was right on the money. The knee jerk reaction of this camp was to celebrate and praise this brave bastion of truth, epitomized by the hater of all Bush haters, Keith Olbermann, dedicating the entire hour of his show to an interview with McClellan. Already, though, the tone has begun to change, and some on the left have become critical of McClellan for not speaking out sooner – preferably at the very time he had his alleged misgivings and disillusionments. And, they ask, wasn’t he being dishonest himself in his daily promotions of the Bush Administration’s view and policies – view and policies about which we now learn he apparently had very serious concerns? Perhaps Bush could have been impeached, they no doubt imagine, if only he could have blown the whistle earlier. Those primarily focused on Iraq, meanwhile, have taken to wondering how many lives in Iraq could have been saved if McClellan had been able to find his voice sooner, potentially precipitating an end to the war. Regardless of how unlikely either happening as a result of an explosive McClellan resignation several years ago was, it’s obvious that his usefulness to them is already waning, and by the time he appeared on “Meet the Press” Sunday, the distinct feeling that this was old news was hard to deny.

Even though I do remain a Bush supporter, I certainly have my share of disappointments with him and others in his administration. By no means do I feel that the war has been handled as well as it could have or should have been, the Hurricane Katrina episode was deplorable, and the president’s ability to communicate with the American people is fatally flawed. I absolutely have my own questions about those and other decisions made over the last seven years, but I’m not going to write a book about them, and I particularly would not write a book about them if I had spent nearly 10 years working for Bush, first for his election, and then very prominently as a member of his senior staff – particularly not while he is still in office. Perhaps there is an unwritten rule of decorum violated here that upsets me most, even if I do sympathize to some extent with some of the issues that apparently troubled McClellan. Actually, it seems to me that most anyone witnessing this who is able to remove his or her political lens momentarily and observe it from a personal or human perspective can’t help but view McClellan as somewhat sleazy. Everything seems all too convenient, the issues on which he allegedly differed all too fashionable, and his interviews over the last week – much like his erstwhile White House press briefings – all too unconvincing and meek. No one likes a “snitch”, after all, and it’s hard to view McClellan’s book as much more than snitching on a grand scale – and a lucrative one at that. When Bob Dole of all people emerges from retirement to publicly label him a “miserable creature” and “a total ingrate”, I think it’s clear McClellan made an error in judgment, and one from which his reputation and future career prospects are unlikely to ever recover.

(This post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/)

Some Rare GOOD News from Iraq...But Will You See/Hear It Elsewhere ???

I came across this article today on Reuters indicating that American troop deaths in Iraq have reached a wartime low. I should note that Reuters is not a news organization that has ever been accused of a pro-American bias, particularly when it comes to the U.S. presence in Iraq. Here, for example, was the lead sentence of Reuters' take on the almost universally hailed capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003 by American soldiers:

TIKRIT, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops captured Saddam Hussein near his home town of Tikrit in a major coup for Washington's beleaguered occupation force in Iraq.

Given the source then, this news is perhaps even more notable. The bottom line, though, is that there were clearly some positive developments in Iraq during the month of May. Take a look at a few of the highlights from this article:

• "U.S. troop deaths in Iraq fell to their lowest level last month since the 2003 invasion and officials said on Sunday improved security also helped the country boost oil production in May to a post-war high."
  
• "Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani told Reuters in an interview that the improved security had helped Iraq, which has the world's third-largest oil reserves, raise oil production to a post-war high of 2.5 million barrels per day in May."
  
• "The military says violence in Iraq is now at a four-year low following crackdowns by U.S. and Iraqi forces on Shi'ite militias in southern Basra and Baghdad and on al Qaeda in the northern city of Mosul, its last major urban stronghold."
• "U.S. officials credit the turnaround in security to President George W. Bush's decision to send 30,000 extra troops to Iraq, a rebellion by Sunni tribal leaders against al Qaeda, and a ceasefire by anti-American Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr."

All of this is good news. What will be interesting for me now is to see if any other "mainstream media" outlets highlight a rare piece of positive news from Iraq. After all, The New York Times, NBC News and other mainstream media stalwarts are always quick (if not eager) to report on the negative, so here's hoping they are nearly as quick and eager with the positive...

Reflecting on Memorial Day

Memorial Day is technically a day on which we honor those men and women who have died in service to our country. As I enjoyed my day off on Monday, I began thinking that we ought to use it – and every other day for that matter – to honor all of those who have served our country, living and dead, as well as those who are serving our country today.

Last week I flew south for business. I flew into Atlanta, as I have many times in the last several years, and I was again blown away by what I see every single time the escalator arrives at the baggage claim area: dozens of people with signs, flags and banners, there to welcome and celebrate any and every member of our armed services arriving home for what the banners call “Operation R & R”. Think about this for a minute. These are men and women who have taken time out of their own lives to help those soldiers, sailors and marines who are arriving for leave feel welcome and, perhaps more importantly, appreciated.

Several days later, I was set to return home, and I was on a flight out of Pensacola, Florida. On my flight were six active duty sailors, all dressed impeccably in their white uniforms. I should have spoken to the young men, asked them where they were headed or where they were coming from -- or at the very least, thanked them for their service. I didn’t, however, instead focusing on what I then deemed to be a crucial email on my Blackberry. When we landed, the flight attendant set us all straight when, while making her arrival comments over the PA system, she pointed out the sailors on our flight, and on behalf of herself and the crew, thanked them for their service. This prompted a round of applause from the passengers, an appropriate gesture, and one that should not have required the flight attendant's prompting.

This past weekend in New York City was Fleet Week, the annual event in several cities around the country when one or more military ships docks for the weekend. The sailors are then allowed to disembark and enjoy a few days of fun around the town, and residents of the city are in turn encouraged to tour the ships visiting. Naturally I saw several sailors around the city throughout the weekend, again, all sharply dressed in their whites. I seemingly should have learned my lesson from the airplane last week and made a point of at the very least thanking these men and women for serving our country, but for some reason, I didn’t, and I imagine in not speaking to them, I was among the vast majority of New Yorkers, and that’s wrong.

For the record, I happen to be a supporter of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I certainly don’t believe the conflicts have been perfectly waged or that the administration is without fault, I remain, in this case, in the minority in terms of my belief that we are doing the right thing and should continue to do so. I recognize, though, that the majority of Americans do not want the wars to continue, and many are angry with the administration and others for the way we entered these wars, and for how the conflicts have been handled since. But regardless of one’s view of why and how these wars began, they are the reality now – they are happening, and we are in them. And because they are happening, hundreds of thousands of men and women like you and me are spending months and in some cases years halfway around the world fighting on behalf of The United States of America. These sailors, soldier and Marines are husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters. Many have careers in the private sector that they have had to leave when called up for service. These brave members of the armed forces did not have anything to do with why and how we got into the wars. They are simply following orders, and putting their lives in jeopardy on a daily basis.

So again, regardless of one’s view of the wars, or on the leaders who brought us into the wars, the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are happening, and we are in them. So on this Memorial Day, I committed myself to make sure I take those extra 30 seconds to thank a young sailor or soldier for his or her service, whether I see them on an airplane, on the streets of Manhattan, or elsewhere – this week, and for as long as our presence there continues. I would respectfully ask anyone who reads this to do the same. If you’re opposed to the wars or opposed to the administration that got us in them, set aside those political differences and that anger in the presence of a member of the armed services. Remember, after all, they did not choose to fight these wars and they bare no responsibility for our being there. Without question, they deserve our appreciation and respect, and the time and effort it takes us to show them that appreciation and respect is far less time and effort than they are spending in service to our country.

(This post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/)

The Obama Strategy: Can It Work In November?

In casting himself from the beginning as a fresh-faced candidate who has not spent a great deal of time in Washington, D.C., Barack Obama clearly sought the “outsider” mantle in the 2008 election. Running as the outsider promising “change” and “hope” was a politically pitch-perfect strategy for an electorate who are largely dissatisfied with the current administration and its policies. This was also a deft tool for countering claims that Obama lacked the experience or qualifications required for the presidency. By contrast, Hillary Clinton’s inability to read the collective mood of the voters resulted in a campaign with the wrong tone and message, and is a primary reason why she lost the race for the nomination. By the time Hillary realized that “change” was the buzzword of this election year, Obama had already opened up a considerable lead in delegates that he has never relinquished.

Left largely unaddressed as Obama campaigned was the issue of his race, and that was exactly the way he and his strategists wanted it. Obama did not want to be known simply as “the black candidate”, a label previously applied to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and one that does not paint a portrait of electability. It was an effective gambit as indeed, part of Obama’s wide-ranging appeal initially was his ability to seemingly transcend the issue of race, fashioning himself as a “post-racial candidate” and attracting the support of African-American and white voters alike. This carefully crafted strategy was executed to near perfection until March, when the controversy over his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, threatened to derail it. In response to the media firestorm over Wright, Obama gave a speech in Philadelphia designed ostensibly to serve as damage control. He also shrewdly used the opportunity and attention to address the much broader and more complex issue of race relations in America. In some sense, his efforts paid off and, with the help of the majority of the media, he not only managed to (at least temporarily) put the Wright fiasco behind him, he also managed to deliver a speech that was almost universally lauded. It may have been a Pyrrhic victory of sorts, however, because in taking the issue of race head-on, he lost much of the transcendent, “post-racial” magic he had previously enjoyed.

As Obama’s strategy for his General Election battle with John McCain begins to take shape, watch for Obama and his campaign to attempt to use his inexperience and his race as veritable shields against any and all criticism. If this act of political jujitsu is successful, it very likely will lead to an Obama victory in November.

The strategy was first evident when Obama gained “front runner” status and began to attract the scrutiny and political barbs that accompany it. If Hillary Clinton attempted to contrast herself with Obama or questioned his readiness for the highest office in the land, the Obama Campaign immediately accused her of employing “old-style Washington politics”. For someone with negatives as high as hers, Hillary could not risk being viewed any more unfavorably than she already was, and so she was forced to curtail asking questions about Obama that are absolutely relevant in a presidential election. Is a first-term senator who has been running for the Oval Office since essentially day one in the senate really qualified for the presidency? This is a legitimate question. But if Hillary asked the question, she was tagged as just another cynical, mud-slinging Washington politician. The media, largely “in the tank” for Obama, allowed the questions to go unanswered and perpetuated the impression that Clinton was out of bounds in asking them.

When Obama’s association with Reverend Wright threatened to torpedo his campaign, the same strategy was employed, with race now injected into the mix. In his Philadelphia speech, Obama himself arguably played “the race card” when he seemed to imply that the anger expressed by Wright was something that white Americans should not find surprising, and something that could not be understood or appreciated by those who were not black themselves:

“That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table…And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Rev. Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.”

By saying this, Obama appeared to justify Wright’s anger (if not his incendiary words) while simultaneously attempting to now use his race to fend off critical questions about his association with the man. But as millions of Americans saw the clips of Wright shown on the news and all over the Internet, questions lingered. How could Obama not have known about this side of his pastor of twenty years – the man he referred to as his “spiritual adviser” and “sounding board”? Here again, this is a legitimate question, but when it and others like it were asked, the Obama Campaign quickly labeled such inquiries as below the belt, and merely “distractions” from “the real issues” affecting Americans. Michelle Obama herself employed the tactic after being asked by Meredith Viera on The Today Show whether she felt Wright had “betrayed” her husband. Mrs. Obama was almost scolding in her response:

"You know what I think, Meredith? We’ve got to move forward. You know, this conversation [about Wright] doesn’t help my kids. You know, it doesn’t help kids out there who are looking for us to make decisions and choices about how we’re going to better fund education."

America is in a perilous time. We are engaged in a war on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the true number of unconventional fronts on which the country battles in the larger campaign to prevent domestic terror attacks is likely astronomical. The economy has unquestionably slowed, and plenty of Americans are hurting financially as a result. The problems that will face the next president are many, and they are very complex. Voters have a right to know if a person who may be the next president has the knowledge and experience necessary to handle the job. Similarly, Obama’s association with Wright raises important questions about his character and judgment. Many of the anti-white beliefs that Wright espouses and promotes are, quite frankly, the same beliefs that scare many white voters about “the black candidate”. While there is no reason to think that Obama subscribes to any of Wright’s absurd views, the nature and length of his relationship with Wright are significant enough to make the questions fair game.

If John McCain wants to defeat Barack Obama in November, he would be foolish not to contrast his decades of experience with Obama’s lack thereof. And while it is unlikely that McCain himself will raise the Reverend Wright issue, it will certainly be raised by independent “527 groups”, and perhaps even by the Republican National Committee or other groups not directly affiliated with the McCain Campaign. When pressed on either, however, watch for Team Obama to attempt to turn these potential vulnerabilities into strengths, and to cast Obama as being above the fray by branding the contrasts and questions as more of the same Washington politics, as simply distractions from the issues that matter, or even as racist in nature. Should the majority of the mainstream media continue to be complicit in this effort, it is a near certainty that Obama will never have to fully address many questions for which the American people deserve answers.

(This post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/)