For all of the bad news that Barack Obama faces these days, the worst could be a potential settlement of the delegate disputes in Florida and Michigan. Any resolution that seats even a portion of the delegations from the renegade states could boost Hillary Rodham Clinton’s case to count their popular vote in evaluating electability.

As the May 31 date approaches for a hearing before the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws committee, party leaders in Florida and Michigan are conjuring up compromises aimed at seating at least some of their contested delegations to the party’s nominating convention. Today, Michigan Democrats floated a new plan to split their delegates between Clinton and Obama.

Even if Florida and Michigan work a deal with the DNC for legitimacy, Obama can still argue that the lack of personal campaigning in those states renders them useless as a guide for superdelegates. His case just won’t be as strong as it would be if the DNC continued to act as though Florida and Michigan don’t exist.

• Four Michigan Dems Propose Compromise
• Delegate Challenges Concerning Florida, Michigan to be Heard

The mandatory penalties set forth by the Democratic National Committee’s delegate selection rules call for outlaw states like Florida and Michigan to only lose half of their delegates to the national convention. And yet the DNC went beyond its own rules to add further penalties, stripping those states of all delegates.

The DNC rules also prohibited public appearances and electronic advertising before the polls closed by candidates in states that had jumped the approved primary calendar. Barack Obama made a public appearance in Florida in September 2007, talking to reporters after a fundraiser. His campaign also bought television ads on cable news outlets that ran throughout Florida before its renegade primary.

Strictly speaking, if the DNC rules were tightly construed in this case, Hillary Rodham Clinton would receive half of the Florida delegates she won and Obama would receive none -- the penalty for violating the campaign ban.

This sort of goes without saying, but it isn’t said this way much: Democrats must decide who best stops John McCain. When evaluating electability, that is the obvious and more specific question facing Democratic superdelegates.

McCain is making it quite clear that he will not shy away from Barack Obama’s problems with his former preacher or with the Illinois senator’s ties to a 1960’s radical. Neither Jeremiah Wright nor William Ayers, the former Weather Underground activist, will be off the table.

It is less clear how McCain himself intends to campaign against Hillary Rodham Clinton. But Republicans are well schooled in attacking the Clintons (usually without success).

Democratic superdelegates planning to choose according to electability at least have the luxury of knowing exactly who the Democrats are running against. Republicans chose too early to enjoy such advantage.

Edited by Andrew Satter

CQ Politics has compiled a video and a list of those times when, in our media age, a single sound bite or picture helped propel a candidacy to victory or sank it to defeat. More Videos

Coming Monday: Craig’s webcam report from this weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

Once again, a racial dispute over Bill Clinton’s words erupts in advance of a Deep South primary where African-American voters are crucial. And once again, Rep. James E. Clyburn, D-S.C., is at the forefront of attacks against his party’s former president.

Seizing upon Clinton’s assertion last week that Barack Obama’s camp “played the race card on me” in January before the South Carolina primary, Clyburn is leveraging his status as the highest-ranking black leader in Congress to stir the pot in advance of North Carolina’s May 6 primary.

“Black people are incensed,” Clyburn told the New York Times in an article published today. Although Clyburn claims to be neutral, the timing and substance of his comments ever since the South Carolina campaign consistently favor Obama.

After losing the New Hampshire primary and the Nevada caucuses, Obama’s team correctly surmised that Bill Clinton was a huge help to his wife in those campaigns. They set out to marginalize him -- and it worked magnificently in South Carolina, rebooting Obama's campaign.

The danger for Obama is that another racial meltdown in the Democratic Party could add to his already complicated efforts in appealing to some white voters.

Incensed black voters are just what the Obama campaign needs again in North Carolina to run up the score in what is being called his firewall state. And Clyburn is eager to help.

Coming Monday: Craig’s webcam report from this weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

Hillary Rodham Clinton ought to challenge John McCain to a debate. The Republican nominee-in-waiting is starved for news media attention. He might even agree to it.

Clinton says she will debate Barack Obama “anytime, anywhere,” but her Democratic presidential rival is not taking the bait. A planned faceoff in North Carolina on Sunday was scrapped because Obama would not sign on.

While we’re out on the limb of wild speculation, why not a debate among all three? It would suit the nature of this contest, the longest and strangest presidential campaign ever.

Broadly speaking, it is politically astute for Obama to shun the idea of more debates, emphasizing his frontrunner, above-it-all status. Still, North Carolina’s Democratic leaders are not pleased. Regular voters might not care, however.
 
McCain debating Clinton or Obama, or both, at this point in time might be pure fantasy, but since the Democrats are so alike on the issues it is about the only way to make more debates interesting.

Craig on MSNBC Today: 
“Morning Joe” 6:30 AM EST
"Decision '08" 2-5 PM EST (various times)

 

Republican John McCain’s idea to temporarily shave 18 cents in federal taxes from the cost of a gallon of gas has opened up a rare and telling policy split between the Democratic presidential rivals.

Barack Obama immediately rejected the idea. Hillary Rodham Clinton kept her options open.

The issue is not as much about gas as it is about taxes. Clinton has long sought to protect herself against the predictable Republican attack line that Democrats are more friendly to taxes.

Obama, who has never personally faced a truly competitive GOP opponent, comes across as more cavalier about risking the tax charge.

Craig on MSNBC Friday (4/25) 
“Morning Joe” 6:30 AM EST
"Decision '08" 2-5 PM EST (various times)

 

Why shouldn’t the North Carolina Republican Party run a television advertisement spotlighting Barack Obama’s controversial former preacher, Jeremiah Wright? All this ad does is recite the facts and replay the video that the news media promoted for weeks.

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain asked the North Carolina party to pull the ad, but state Republicans are not running it to affect the White House race. The point of the ad is to influence the state’s race for governor.

It is surely a stretch to expect voters to think that any Democrat running for office in North Carolina is now somehow tied to Wright because a member of his former congregation is now leading in polls for the state's May 6 presidential primary. But that’s for the voters to decide if the state GOP wants to give this a try.

Far from scaring North Carolina Democrats away from Obama, there could be a backlash that favors him. Either way, state Republicans are more interested in the ad’s impact on their own race for governor, which is not really any of McCain’s business.

Barack Obama’s latest tactical shift seems to be loosely based upon the notion that everyone should assume he is the Democratic nominee and that waiting another six weeks for the end of primary season would boost Republican John McCain’s prospects for the general election five months later.

So now the Obama plan is to ignore party rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and focus on McCain. A planned debate for Sunday in North Carolina was scrapped because Obama won’t do it. In remarks on Tuesday night after his crushing defeat in the Pennsylvania primary, Obama only mentioned Clinton by name once, while referring to McCain seven times.

Obama strategist David Axelrod underscored his candidate’s new approach, telling reporters “there is a sense of urgency about the time we’re losing and a sense of urgency that we not savage each other to the benefit of Senator McCain.”

Republicans do not require help in savaging Democrats. Another six weeks of competitive campaigning will not give the GOP any ideas they haven’t already conjured up -- and then some. Such fear-mongering about Republicans is just what Obama has accused Clinton of doing in arguing that he is un-vetted and implying that he is unelectable.

There are at least two more reasons to discount the Obama camp’s self-serving sense of urgency to end the Democratic race before June 3. First, the voters apparently don’t agree or they would not keep reviving Clinton's candidacy as happened yesterday in Pennsylvania.

Also, what is to be gained by drawing McCain into the spotlight? The presumptive GOP nominee has shown great zeal at counterpunching whenever Obama or Clinton goes after him. And those are about the only times that McCain garners significant news media attention.

It seems just as valid to conclude that focus on the Democratic rivalry keeps McCain from getting his message out. Obama’s “sense of urgency” is more about worrying that Clinton will figure out a way to beat him than about giving McCain some imagined advantage by keeping the attention-starved Republican in the dark.

Produced by CQ's Andrew Satter

Craig Crawford was at Hillary Rodham Clinton's Pennsylvania primary victory party in Philadelphia, where he says she did just what she needed to do to keep the race going

.

PHILADELPHIA -- This will be a night to carefully evaluate the popular vote totals. The Pennsylvania primary offers Hillary Rodham Clinton a critical opportunity to cut Barack Obama’s national overall lead by some 200,000 votes. But that would still leave him half a million votes ahead (not counting Florida or Michigan) -- a lead of about 1.6 percentage points.

The nationwide popular vote race is significant because it represents Clinton’s only chance for a winning argument to Democratic superdelegates who will ultimately decide the outcome. Given the way Democrats proportionally (or is it DISproportionally?) award elected delegates (no winner take all), it appears all but impossible for Clinton to catch up in the pledged delegate category. Likewise, Obama cannot get to victory in this category, which is why the superdelegates rule.

With at least a 200,000-vote margin of victory in Pennsylvania, Clinton can edge ahead of Obama in popular vote by the end of the primary season in early June. But to do so, she must hold his leads in North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana to no more than 10 percentage points, beat him by at least two percentage points in Indiana and post big double-digit wins in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico.

That is a tall order, but that’s what it takes for Clinton to impress the remaining 250 undecided superdelegates.

Clinton-Obama WWE Smackdown

 

Craig on “Imus in the Morning”
Wednesday (4/23) 6:30 AM EST
RFD-TV / WABC-AM / WJZW-FM

Only registered Democrats get to play in today's closed Pennsylvania primary, and once again Barack Obama is put to the test in a big swing state where his proven appeal to non-Democrats cannot help him. Even a poor showing today in the Keystone State might not shake Obama's hold on the party nod. And an Obama win would likely end the race.

Hillary Rodham Clinton appears on WWE "Monday Night Raw" (USA Network, 4/21/08)

Barack Obama appears on WWE "Monday Night Raw" (USA Network, 4/21/08)

John McCain appears on WWE "Monday Night Raw" (USA Network, 4/21/08)

 

Craig on “Imus in the Morning”
Wednesday (4/23) 6:30 AM EST
RFD-TV / WABC-AM / WJZW-FM

Craig talks with C-SPAN's Steve Scully about the PA primary, the Democratic debate and Karl Rove's Marxist plans -- plus a special appearance by Ted Kennedy's dogs (CSPAN, 4/20)

Craig talks about the Democratic debate and shows pictures of his tulips on "Imus in the Morning" (RFD-TV, 4/17/08)

 

Craig on C-SPAN
Today (Sunday, 4/20)
1:00-2:00 PM EST

 

Craig talks about his parents' generator and his former dog Rebel (a Weimaraner) on "Imus in the Morning" (RFD-TV, 4/17/08)

Produced by CQ's Andrew Satter

Barack Obama's less-than-stellar debate performance this week means that the Democratic presidential frontrunner will probably need to abandon his hopes for ducking the next debate -- especially if party rival Hillary Rodham Clinton handily beats him in Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary.

So far, Obama has refused to join Clinton in agreeing to the North Carolina Democratic Party’s April 27 debate to be aired on CBS in advance of the state's May 6 primary. State officials say they have already received 20,000 requests for tickets.

Had Obama performed a bit better in the Pennsylvania faceoff on Wednesday, the Illinois senator might be able to maintain his stiff-arm of the next debate. But his measured and defensive answers under fire left some undecided superdelegates needing to see another round where he shows more spunk.

North Carolina leaders are grumpy about Obama’s reluctance. In an open letter to Obama on Thursday, the Greensboro News-Record editorial board bluntly asked, “Do we matter to you?”

Obama could wait until Tuesday’s Pennsylvania balloting to decide. But if Clinton does well enough to keep going, he’ll probably have to debate her again anyway. And if she loses, that will probably be the end of her campaign.

So it would seem to be smart politics for Obama to get it over with and agree now to the North Carolina debate.

• NC Governor Urges Obama to Debate (Charlotte Observer)
• Obama says debate focused on 'gotcha,' not policy issues (AP)
• Obama Hints that ABC debate will be his last (Bloomberg)
• Edwards mum on presidential pick as NC primary nears (AP)

Now that Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright are behind him, Barack Obama had to know that William Ayers would come up sooner or later. And sure enough, in last night's presidential debate on ABC the Democratic contender was asked about past associations with Ayers, a former member of the violent Weather Underground group.

Less is known about Obama's relations with Ayers than about Wright, the Illinois senator's trash-talking former preacher, or about Rezko, a political patron now facing federal bribery charges. On Wednesday night, Obama suggested that he and Ayers merely had a "flimsy relationship."

So long as that explanation holds true, Obama might also "weather" the coming focus on Ayers.  No matter what, a story that many in the media have been reluctant to pursue will now get a ride on the news cycle.

Obama fans ought not fret about this. If Obama is to become the nominee, he might as well get this story behind him so that, along with Rezko and Wright, it will be old news by the time the Republicans hit him with it in the general election.

Now on CQ Politics: Debate Bests and Mosts

 

Craig on “Imus in the Morning”
Thursday (4/17) 6:30 AM EST
RFD-TV / WABC-AM / WJZW-FM

Will tonight’s Democratic presidential debate (8pm EST on ABC) be a touchstone in the Keystone State, setting in stone what’s to come next in the most hotly contested party nomination race since Ronald Reagan challenged then-President Gerald Ford all the way to the 1976 Republican convention? We’re live blogging it to find out . . . Go to Comments and join the discussion.

Clinton Rates Slim Edge in PA Delegate Race

Pennsylvania's Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday will be closely watched for the popular vote and the perception it creates among all-important superdelegates. Hillary Rodham Clinton could use a double-digit blowout to cast doubt on Barack Obama's perceived chances.

In the Pennsylvania delegate count, there is less of a chance that Clinton can do much to close the gap in elected delegates. A CQ Politics analysis of the political circumstances in Pennsylvania's congressional districts projects 53 district-level delegates for Clinton to 50 for Obama.

• Clinton sketches first 100 days, Obama vows to help workers
• Obama says Clinton criticism not racially motivated
• Today on the Campaign Trail
• Dems Debate Tonight in Pennsylvania

 

Craig on “Imus in the Morning”
Thursday (4/16) 6:30 AM EST
RFD-TV / WABC-AM / WJZW-FM

Ignoring critics and friends alike who warn of a backlash, Hillary Rodham Clinton launched a new television advertisement on Monday night that uses voter testimonials to attack Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama.

“It just shows how out of touch Barack Obama is,” says one unidentified man in the ad, referring to Obama’s recent remarks that some voters “cling to guns or religion” out of frustration with tough economic times.

Whether or not it is a politically smart play, the Clinton ad cleverly isolates the most damaging portion of Obama’s April 6 comments at a California fundraising. Although much of the ensuing debate has focused on Obama labeling working-class voters as “bitter,” it was his assertion that they “cling” to “guns or religion” that could prove to be more harmful.

Clinton seems determined to do whatever she can to keep "Bittergate” alive, despite the risks. Regardless of its impact on voters, the ad is sure to get a lot of news media play today – which might be its intended purpose.

With just a week to go before the Pennsylvania primary, the Clinton camp is clearly calculating that there is more to gain than lose by fueling continued media focus on Obama’s controversial words.

Still, this Clinton ad is perhaps her toughest and most personally direct television spot so far against Obama. It is likely to upset some Democratic leaders who had hoped for a more civil tone.

It will be tempting to read too much into polls taken in the moment that a candidate is taking hits. The test of a story’s “legs” usually comes days or weeks later.

All three remaining presidential contenders, from both parties, have repeatedly proved to be resilient, roughly returning to their poll position before getting slammed.

What we cannot see for sure is what residual ill-effects might be lurking beyond the reach of pollsters, even after an apparent recovery.

Barack Obama is still in the throes of this “bittergate” mess, but he could survive it as he did in the attacks on his former preacher. Obama's disadvantage is that he is less well known than John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton, which invites more risk of getting defined by current events if they don’t go your way.

CQ Politics Poll Track

• Clinton Regains Big Lead in Pennsylvania, Says One Poll 
• More Than Half of Voters Disagree with "Bitter" Remark

It’s not just words anymore. It’s fighting words between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

With eight days to go before their next ballot showdown, the Democratic presidential rivals are getting personal, hurling insults back and forth like schoolyard kids.

Clinton portrays her foe as elite, out of touch and unelectable on the order of the party’s past failures, such as 2004 nominee John Kerry (who has endorsed Obama). In a fierce counter-offensive on Sunday, Obama sought to belittle Clinton for embracing gun rights in response to his recent remarks that such beliefs are the refuge of economically hard pressed voters

"She is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment,” Obama said. “She's talking like she's Annie Oakley."

Obama could not resist more firearm references. “Hillary Clinton is out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday. She's packing a six-shooter.”

Their duel of words has finally turned to gunpowder.

• Obama turns table on Clinton
• Clinton knocks on doors in Scranton, Pa

After a full day of backpedaling, Barack Obama on Saturday tells a North Carolina newspaper that he regrets the wording (but not the content) of his recent remarks about “bitter” working class voters clinging to guns and religion out of frustration over losing their jobs. The incident is taking on a life of its own, even calling into question what has long been one of Obama’s most persuasive arguments to Democratic superdelegates -- that he is better able than Hillary Rodham Clinton to help down-ballot candidates for Congress in a general election.

• GOP Turns Up Heat on Democrats Over Obama “Bitter” Remark (CQ Politics)
• NRCC Continues to Hammer Democratic Congressmen with Obama Remarks (ABC News)
• Obama says he regrets remarks about "bitter" small-town Americans (Winston-Salem Journal)
• Southern Democrat: Obama's 'got a bunch of explaining to do' (CNN)
• Pittsburghers React To Controversial Obama Remarks (KDKA-TV)
• Obama Opens WV Headquarters; Overshadowed By Controversy (WSAZ-TV)
• PA Mayors Take Offense (Scranton Times-Tribune)
• Obama's 'bitter' speech draws criticism (Harrisburg Patriot-News)

It is not so much what Barack Obama said about “bitter” working-class voters that is so revealing, but that he originally said it at a big-city private fundraiser where he apparently felt comfortable analyzing small-town America in a way that is coming across as rather condescending.

Would the Democratic contender have stood up in front of the voters, with the news cameras rolling, and told them to their faces that “they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment” because they are bitter and frustrated over losing their jobs?

Now that would have been real courage -- and, to his credit, Obama went on to repeat a less offensive-sounding version of his views on Friday to an audience of regular voters in Indiana (but only after the original remarks became public).

Perhaps Obama has a point in his analysis of hard-pressed voters, but by first offering it privately to wealthy campaign contributors, instead of saying it out in the open, makes him look like the one who is frustrated and rationalizing to like-minded elites why working-class voters are not warming to him.

Obama might be able to talk his way out of this mess among Democratic primary voters. Just the idea that voters "cling to religion" because they lost their jobs and hate Washington would be enough to doom a less-talented candidate. Lucky for him, though, this is not happening during the general election.

This episode does suggest that Obama might not be so different from the liberal elites in the Democratic Party whose disdain for middle-class, socially-conservative voters have led to defeat in so many presidential elections.

• Obama Concedes Remarks Were Ill Chosen: MUNCIE, Ind. (AP) -- "Democrat Barack Obama on Saturday conceded that comments he made about bitter working class voters who 'cling to guns or religion' were ill chosen, as he tried to stem a burst of complaints that he is condescending." 
• Obama: No Surprise That Hard-Pressed Pennsylvanians Turn Bitter (Huffington Post)
• Obama Says Some Voters are Angry, Bitter (AP)

Produced by CQ's Andrew Satter

Darn that John McCain. He has a tendency to answer questions honestly, no matter how impolitic it might be.

The presumptive Republican nominee’s town hall meetings have become a bit of a landmine for aides trying to smooth out his wrinkles when it comes to ill-advised comments. The latest is McCain’s refusal to rule out a pre-emptive war against another country.

Asked on Wednesday if he would reject “the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war,” McCain said, “I don't think you could make a blanket statement about pre-emptive war, because obviously, it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces.”

For those keeping score, George W. Bush introduced the notion of unprovoked U.S. attacks against perceived enemies. If this policy gains legs among future presidents it will surely take hold and become known as the Bush Doctrine.

McCain appears ready to make it so.

Produced by CQ's Andrew Satter

Two presidential candidates have taken the floor so far in today’s Iraq Senate hearings -- and, not surprisingly, each framed the issues on their terms, previewing how they would handle a war debate in the general election campaign.

Republican nominee-to-be John McCain of Arizona forcefully defended the “success” of the military surge, avoiding talk of victory or winning the war, as President George W. Bush often does: “We’re no longer staring into the abyss of defeat and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success. ... The promise of withdrawal of our forces regardless of the consequences would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership."

Democratic contender Hillary Rodham Clinton was surprisingly subdued as though conscious of avoiding any criticism that she was using the opportunity for political gain. Still, the New York senator pressed some salient points in her first opportunity to question General David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Clinton put Crocker -- and the Bush administration -- squarely on the record as favoring no need for Congressional approval for the planned long term security deal with Iraq, pointedly noting that the Iraqi Parliament will get a chance to review the arrangement, but not “the American people.”

Turning to Petraeus with a bit more firmness, Clinton harshly criticized the vague conditions set for measuring success in Iraq. “It seems apparent that you have a conditions-based analysis … but the conditions are unclear. They certainly lack specificity, and the decision points with respect to these conditions are vague.”

Democratic hopeful Barack Obama speaks later today at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's questioning of Bush’s Iraq team, but the Illinois senator is 13th in seniority on that panel and likely won’t speak until early evening. He is expected to focus on the economic drain of the war.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has a chance on Capitol Hill today to prove her persistent claim that she’s more ready to lead than Barack Obama.

Both Democratic presidential contenders, along with presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, will be in the spotlight as General David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker testify before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees.

Nothing short of clearly outperforming Obama in some way can help Clinton. Frontrunner Obama can win the day by coming across as equally up to the challenge of confronting George W. Bush’s Iraq team. But for Clinton, who implicitly attacks Obama’s preparedness to govern, a tie would be a loss.

There is some history of Clinton rising to such a challenge. She effectively used a Senate hearing in 2006 to deliver a tongue lashing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And last September she made headlines by admonishing Petraeus, saying that to believe his Iraq reports required a "willing suspension of disbelief."

Clinton has staked her campaign on the argument that only she is ready “on day one” to be commander in chief.

Now she must prove it.

• POLL TRACKER: Democrats, Republicans Polarized
• Surrogates to Set Tone on War Debate
• McCain, GOP Leaders Defend Iraq War Progress
• Obama to Wield Gavel in Rare Senate Visit
• David Nather: View From the Hill
• Eric Pfeiffer: Graham Previews GOP Approach to Petraeus Testimony

PHILADELPHIA -- Watching the tube in Pennsylvania these days might as well be called watching OBAMA TV. I’ve seen my share of saturation advertising buys during campaigns, but this is unprecedented. In a five-hour session of watching one network I counted 14 ads sponsored by Barack Obama, compared to a total of three ads for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And guess what I woke up to on my hotel clock radio? Yep, that’s right, the audio version of Obama’s ad.

That’s all well and good except for the fact that every one of the Obama ads I saw or heard present him personally telling what can only be charitably described as a half-truth -- that he takes no money from Washington lobbyists. "I'm the only candidate who doesn't take their money," he says in the ad entitled "For Decades" (see screen below).

Obama is careful to claim in the ad that he does not take money from "Washington" lobbyists. That's because he does take money from state-based lobbyists.

Long ago the media watchdogs, such as Politifact.com, determined that at best it is only half true for Obama to claim that he takes no money from federal lobbyists. He takes plenty of money and advice from those who work for lobbyists, such as former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle.

Lucky for Obama, most of the news media seem not to care about such contradictions.

• Politifact.com: If it quacks like a lobbyist, it's a lobbyist
• Columbia Journalism Review: Obama’s Lobbyist Line
• ABC News:  Despite Rhetoric, Obama Pushed Lobbyists’ Interests

Hillary Rodham Clinton is in danger of falling victim to a campaign narrative that, fairly or not, contributed to Al Gore’s political demise -- the serial exaggerator routine.

Once again, a story in Clinton’s stump speech fails to pass scrutiny. This time it is the tale of a pregnant woman denied hospital care. It wasn’t true, and once again the Clinton campaign backpedals. [4/7/08, See Update Below*]

This comes on the heels of Clinton over-selling her trip as First Lady to the Bosnian war zone, falsely claiming that she faced sniper fire.

In isolation, these incidents might be written off as a politician’s allowable sales puffery. But in Clinton’s case, they are adding up to a potentially major hit against her trustworthiness -- a growing concern for some voters and a favorite target for hostile media personalities.

It is tough to shake a damaging narrative once it takes hold, no matter how unfair the storyline might be. Anything that tends to support what the media and the public have come to expect is blown out of proportion well beyond what other candidates might experience. And a reputation for shading the truth, or worse, is about as bad as it gets.

For many voters, Bill Clinton could get away with this stuff. To some, he was a lovable rogue whose tall tales and misdeeds were tolerable. But like Gore in the 2000 campaign, Hillary lacks her husband's offsetting charm.

• Hillary Drops Health Care Tale -- After Press Challenges
• Voter Doubts About Her Honesty Costing Clinton

*An Update (4/7/08): A family member of the pregnant woman in Clinton's story comes forward to say that the senator's version was accurate (Washington Post). Just like Gore's maligned-but-true claims of involvement in developing the internet, the facts might ultimately vindicate Clinton -- but perhaps not soon enough to lessen the impact for those who will continue to insist that she was exaggerating.

Randi Rhodes, Jeremiah Wright, Geraldine Ferraro, James Carville, Don Imus and on and on. Why are we so afraid of words?

If Americanism means anything it ought to mean that radio jock Randi Rhodes can talk like an idiot if she wants to. Or anyone else, for that matter.

Word control is just one stop short of thought control. And it does not have to be a case of government control for it to be a threat to our freedom. When the mob rules against free speech, with or without government action, it is still a threat to liberty.

I dislike plenty of the comments on my own blog, but as anyone who has been here for long knows, I cherish free speech. Let it all be said. We can handle it.

OUTAGE ALERT: The CQ Politics blog server will be upgraded on Sunday, April 6th at 4am.  The  maintenance will last no longer than two hours.  During this time, Craig Crawford's Trail Mix and other CQ Politics blogs will not be available. After the upgrade, the server will be faster and include expanded memory.

Produced by CQ's Andrew Satter

It’s official, sort of. If Barack Obama becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, it’ll John Wayne vs. Jane Fonda.

Yeah, that’s a throwback to the cultural split of the 1960’s and we’re all supposed to be getting over those nasty days. But Fonda’s recent video-taped utterance announcing that she’ll vote for Obama unavoidably sets up the old Viet Nam divide.

We don’t know for sure that Wayne, who died in 1979, would be backing John McCain, but it’s a good bet. One thing is for sure – if the tough-guy actor could endorse the presumptive Republican nominee, McCain would be at Wayne's side for a formal announcement.

Not so for Obama and Fonda. The Democratic frontrunner is likely to keep his distance, as he has done with many Hollywood types who are clamoring to be at his side.

 Campaign Timeline

Is Pennsylvania already old news? Indiana’s May 6 primary could be the really REALLY big showdown, as political buzz makers ponder the probabilities that Hillary Rodham Clinton wins Pennsylvania on April 22 and Barack Obama bags North Carolina.

After that, we start to run out of states. Unless Puerto Rico settles the Democratic feud, maybe Europe should vote. Clinton and Obama could travel the globe looking for a nation state of interested citizens who are willing to provide final resolution. How about the Lichtenstein Primary?

Ah, but wait -- if Democrats are not counting Florida and Michigan, foreigners are definitely out. Indiana will have to do.  

• Obama to Play Ball in Indiana
• Indiana Marks the Next Test for Clinton

 

Craig in studio on “Imus in the Morning”
Thursday (4/3) 7:30 AM EST
RFD-TV / WABC-AM / WJZW-FM

Once again, Hillary Rodham Clinton is up at 3 a.m., fully dressed (necklace in place) and on the phone. In a just-released remake of the television theme credited with earlier successes, the Clinton camp is on the airwaves in Pennsylvania with a spot that focuses on the economy instead of national security – and on Republican John McCain instead of her Democratic rival Barack Obama.

Craig in studio on “Imus in the Morning”
Thursday (4/3) 7:30 AM EST
RFD-TV / WABC-AM / WJZW-FM

Barack Obama is playing the old-style politics that he supposedly disdains in continuing to distort John McCain's predictions about a longtime U.S. presence in Iraq.

“He's the one who wants to keep tens of thousands of United States troops in Iraq for as long as 100 years," Obama told a rally of cheering supporters on Wednesday in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. That is less sweeping than Obama’s earlier claims that McCain favored keeping the U.S. “bogged down in a war” that could last 100 years, but it still is not a fair reading of the record.

Politifact.com and the Columbia Journalism Review have determined the 100-years charge to be false, noting that McCain was in no way suggesting that war should be waged for a century in Iraq. Obama moved closer to the truth on Wednesday by altering his claim from saying McCain advocated a 100-year war to saying that the Republican nominee-in-waiting envisions troops in the country for that long.

Still, Obama is not engaging in a genuine debate about whether the U.S. should maintain a long-term peaceful presence as it does in South Korea or Germany (which is what McCain was actually suggesting). Obama himself has said he would leave a "strike force" in Iraq, without offering much detail about how many troops that would involve or for how long.

In spicing up his speeches with the phony 100-years rhetoric, the Democratic frontrunner is falsely perpetuating the notion that McCain advocates nearly endless war in Iraq. If that’s Obama’s idea of new politics, it sure looks a lot like the old variety.

Craig on MSNBC “Morning Joe”
Wednesday (4/2) 6:30 AM EST
. . . and on MSNBC "Decision '08"
2:00-5:00 PM